Discussions on Pagans and Islam :split from Multiculturalism thread

Then your premise has been justified, whichever way you look at it:

Arab paganism was exemplified by female infanticide, which incidentally was also a hallmark of Hellenic paganism and is a continuing problem in societies where monotheism is not the major religion e.g. India. Incidentally, the strongest proponents of reform and women's rights in India were/are members of the Arya Samaj and Brahmo Samaj - both monotheistic schools of thought, the latter with strong influences from Islam. Islam, in fact, is the only religion where the daughter is not "given away" in a marriage ceremony by some male relative - and if we were to look at modern times, the spectacular failure of countries like the USSR and China to embrace a humanistic culture in the absence of religion and in fact a failure of the state to survive as such without reverting to religion is evidence that atheism is very much a failed philosophy with no practical advantage. The rise of atheism in India came long before Muslims travelled to India as traders, Indians developed the atheist school of thought in the Mauryan times:

And yeah, it failed. In a country where we still recite ancient Mantras of the first people to step into India out of Africa and have 60 million people attend the Kumbh mela going on since mythical times, we retain only fragments of the atheist school of the Carvakas. I remember reading somewhere that any school of thought anywhere in the world will find an analogy in India and this is true. We are not a replacement culture. We don't force people to dress like this or talk like that or shake hands if they don't want to - in general, we are a culture that tolerates a lot more diversity of thought than I have seen anywhere else in the world. We are a culture where everything can survive and if it doesn't survive in India, its not going to work out anywhere else either.

I've actually been in touch with mulhids but for some reason after some time they lose interest in their own beliefs [see here:http://towelianism.wordpress.com/]. So I think there may be many Arab athiests but so what? It doesn't provide them a framework for life - all they have is the belief that they reject God. And then what? What next? Maybe like the Russians they can do drugs or alcohol and decide that nothing is worth it anyway. Or draw a few obscene cartoons which do no one any good and create more division and stress. Then what? Beyond the denigration of religion and religious people, what does atheism provide? Materialism can only satisfy people so far and a soulless existence is not a fulfilled one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Paganism"?

"Beyond the denigration of religion and religious people, what does atheism provide?"

Well, let's see. A rationale construction for the universe? A framework from which to dissect the mysteries of existence? The only metaphysical system which can claim to any evidence? Beyond that, nothing, I guess. Wot 'ave the Romans ever done fer us? I mean, that's the humorous take on this. The reality is that it's a scratch of half-truths from another Quran-thumper. Brilliant.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Happy…and not religious

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Which rationale[?] construction[?] for the universe is derived by an atheist independent of any religious background? Which "mysteries" of existence? What metaphysical claim to what evidence?

Just name one.

 

Garn, Chalkie...wot AVE the Romans ever done fer us?

Big Bang.
Organic evolution.
The origin of life.
Gravitation.

Oh, sorry. That was four. There are others. Also, what's with the changing goalposts: "independent of any religious background"? Will you now assert that someone had been a theist at some point? Will it relate to my topic at all? Will you produce evidence for the hand of some being-in-the-sky in the creation of life? (NB: "The only metaphysical system which can claim to any evidence?", above.)

PS: I did spell "rational" wrong...but then you seemed to think I had "construction" wrong. That makes the score 1-1.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I haven't seen a single atheist named here - goalposts? If atheism can only be educated and develop science in societies established by religious peoples then on what basis do they maintain that atheism is a better system rather than a piggyback on an established infrastructure? Without religion, atheists wouldn't even know what education means

Because rational construction means???

con·struc·tionNoun/kənˈstrəkSHən/
1. The building of something, typically a large structure.
2. Such activity considered as an industry.

Or do you mean construct?

con·struct/kənˈstrəkt/
Verb: Build or erect (something, typically a building, road, or machine).
Noun: An idea or theory containing various conceptual elements, typically one considered to be subjective and not based on empirical evidence

When aiming to establish intellectual superiority it helps to know what you are talking about.

Btw, you still haven't answered the question
Which rationale[?] construction[?] for the universe is derived by an atheist independent of any religious background? Which "mysteries" of existence? What metaphysical claim to what evidence?

Just point me to someone with no background in religion achieving any of the same. They'd have to be brought up atheist, educated by atheists and living and working with only non-religious texts or on stuff discovered by atheists in an atheist society with no religious "contamination"

6 billion people after 50,000 years, you can surely find one example. With all your rigid evidence based blah blah, surely you wouldn't base your notions on an invalid construct?

 

Me either. Refresh:

Souviens-tu?

I favor ones that maintain position, as opposed to those that keep moving.

Can only be what now? Do you mean "learned", rather than "educated"?

On what is this assertion based? And: "religious peoples"? Is there some cutoff here, or is one person within this hypothetical people sufficient to describe them as religious? How many generations must separate them from their religious history, if they are not now religious at whatever demographic threshold you wish to apply? Or are you just throwing a wide net?

And who said this? Where are you running off to with this point, now?

What infrastructure? Are you implying that religious or theistic societies impose their constructions

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

D) on secular elements of the same or succeeding societies? Atheists only larn stuff n'such'un if'n they goes ter a church skoool? What infrastructure are you talking about?

?? And how is this so? Sort of insulting.

This is the best you can do? :rofl: Ahem.

The act or result of construing the meaning of

American conservatives tend to favor strict construction of the Constitution.​

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/construction​

Indeed. But, to the one, I don't need to establish intellectual superiority over you yet again. To the other, you were wrong yet again - besides being trite, it looks more that you're the one who needs this to become a personal contest of intellect. Be that as it may. Do you have a different user on your account today? Doesn't seem like your usual writing.

BTW (all caps, BTW, not caps and small characters, since its an initialism), I already answered above. I regret that the answer seems so opaque. None so blind as will not see, Sandy?

Changing goalposts. See below.

This was laughable. Your initial premise was "Beyond the denigration of religion and religious people, what does atheism provide?" I provided several examples, several of which are anathema to several religions. What theistic premise, for example, is naturalistic evolution or biogenesis Your response is to repost the question and move the goalposts.

I like the artificial expansion to a period of nearly unknowable history. Why not make it ten billion, to account for the dead that went before us? or did you forget them? Invective, is this what you wish to offer? Instead of randomly throwing bombs, why not contribute to the discussion?

 

Okay lets try again

i.e. what does atheism provide that is independent of religious society and infrastructure.

So far, your response is akin to asnwsering the question

And you answering

Look at the marvelous advances in Kerala! Doh!

We all know that atheists do well in all religious societies, ever since the shamans, the brahmins, the gurus, the monks, the friars and the madrassas allowed them to benefit from the established educational infrastructure that was an off shoot of attempting to .make sense of the universe through religion.

Can you name a similar effort that came independently from atheists? In fact, can you name a single social institution that has risen due to atheism?

Atheism is a limited philosophy, its only in reaction to theism so it does not provide any meaningful philosophical construct that is independent of theism. That is why it can only work at the individual level in a society where all institutions are reflective of the major religious ideology of the people. It fails as a social institution

 

The culture in Russia did not change substantially with the rise of communism. It's always been somewhat rough and brutal. In fact Stalin received a religious education, maybe that's what went wrong, God is the ultimate bully.

 

God Bless the Spanish Inquisition.

 

Indeed.

That makes no sense. You asked what atheism provides, beyond subjecting questionable assumptions to question. I answered that atheism provides a useful basis for the interpretation of natural phenomena. You demanded to know what those were. I gave a few examples. We have arrived here on your train, Sam. Next stop: De Nile.

We do? (*cough* Pakistan *cough* Saudi Arabia *cough*)

I might remind you that some nations have a storied (although unavoidably short) history of secular learning. I was subjected to no religious training of any kind throughout the entirety of my educational experience. If you wish to say that the university system is an offshoot of those of the religious orders, this would be generally correct. The public school system would not be, and here the argument fails. If I, as an atheist, do good, you will attempt to take credit via this tenuous connection to theism? And if I do evil? What then?

Well, your claim would be difficult to discuss, if it were a serious claim. Theism has had its fingers in many pies. It appears you wanted to test the hypothesis that atheism has provided no benefit, apart from its horrible stalking of theists. If no atheist has been distinct from any influences of theism at all - hard to do, since some societies go so far as to actually make observance compulsory - then how can one test their contributions independently? Are you familiar with the assumptions inherent in linear analysis? The factors must be independent. But in any event, this new take is another deviation: so far from being a force for good, now you want to know if they are a separate force at all. Let us say for the moment - since I have no interest in considering your specification in detail at this time - that all atheists have been influenced to some degree by theists. And? Or, so what? Not all theists or theisms are good. Not all their influence has been fair-minded or just. And so, so what?

Then, since the two are so entangled, theism is similarly a limited philosophy, providing only supposition without solution. The inception of theism was as a philosophy to explain away the dark and the unknown, material and metaphysical. As such, it was never independent of the original question: is this all? Are we nothing more? Hence its limitation. It can never be independent of the rejection of the nothingness that goes before it. (Nothingness to your mind, I add.)

Or maybe it would just be better if this absurd series of theist-vs-atheist threads ended once and for all.

Und so, es ist doch ja gut to enforce a religious commonality, since we protect our society and our assumptions by suppressing dissent and discussion. Incidentally, what is the evidence for your conclusion that the Soviet Union failed because of its transcendence of organized religion? China, too? Really? How have they failed, again?

Lock him up and throw away the key, boys
Mr. Jones is not like you or me!
Lock him up tight
'Cause if he had the chance he might
Show us that we're wrong -
And that's the one thing we can't be

Putting up with the Joneses
Spirit of the West​

I reiterate: who is this? This isn't your writing style. Never so blatant.

 

Indeed! It showed those heretics who the boss was while reminding them of the societal debt they owed the society that was killing them for having dissenting opinions.

 

That is Big Sky Bucko . Like Great Sky

 

You think it might be cause you can't root out the past Spidey . Ideologies excepted as truth perhaps . Carried from past generations , could be . Like maybe you can change the face , but you can't change the emotional aspect of the collective . The innards of the individual that motivates and manifests in daily activity even when the face is putting on a mansard. So dragged violence ( manifested revenge) from past deeds . Not to say that is what happened in Russia , but more as a general rule of human behavior . You think about the American and I would guess the average is a 10 fold punishment while the face says " We don't punish anyone "
The Mob collective

 

you got know idea bro what kind of insidious seepage is going on there . There are some girls mad as hell and they ain't going to take it anymore . Fucking world better lock there doors big time . I love em cause they fight to set Me free from the chains that hold Me back . UnCage the Monster so to speak. Like Lady Gaga. Find your inner Monster and all that

 

Like Japan? Yeah, huge levels of female infanticide there. Native Americans? They have a high levels of female infanticide? Ancient Briton?


That aside, I would like to see some contemporary non-Islamic propaganda that "Arabs" routinely murdered their female children any more than any other nomadic people murder their children.

Interestingly, the early "Christians" who laid the Mohammad foundation myth set him up with a powerful independent woman. The later Mohammadians seemed to have reverted to a very anti-woman stance found in all fundamental Orthodox monotheisms.

AAMOF I'd argue monotheistic memes probably can't arise on their own and instead need a stable prosperous polytheistic society to infect. Much like a strangler fig needs to kill a healthy strong tree in order to survive.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As you can see in the way Europe and the Middle East entered the Dark Ages with the arrival of Christianity (Orthodox and Islamic forms).

 

I missed that part.

 

He goes by so many names.

 

SAM...it's a bit too much of a stretch to say that the failures of Russia and China are due to atheism. Just a bit, there...

Edited to add... I do think there's been some sort of evolutionary advantage to religiosity, so the majority of us are hardwired to it, to some degree.
But we're generally going to disagree about what kind of religion, if we need it.

So forcing either religion or lack of religion isn't good?