Attention all Atheist forum members

[ammo]

"To do good and not evil"
hmmm ,,, u, me George Bush Gandhi, Pope, Obama, Hitler, Nelson Mandella, Stallin, a street beggar, a philosopher, a convicted criminal, Tendulkar? I mean who is going to decide what's good and what's evil, who is going to draw this line? Cuz if we ourselves are to decide what's good n what's evil then a thief may find it good to rob cuz it benefits him while the person got robbed may see robbery as an evil act. Same goes with the rape, murder etc. Lets dilute it a little. In South Asian countries strangers (men and women) when introduced may not shake hands in respect of the female, in other countries they may shake hands or even hug each other as a good gesture. Now an asian female may not like to be hugged by a stranger at introduction. So which act is good?

And what's the story on Quran? U skipped that ....

Good and evil?- you use logic you use reasoning you abide by the laws, if you use the perspective that you took above everything is evil and good, no matter what rules you abide the perspectives of other can flip that.
I don't know much about the quran i am not culturally Muslim and i do not mean to offend anyone

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Make the most of life guys. You only live once, why bother signing daft petitions or joining militant organisations when there's a whole life out there to be lived?

 

[James]

Make the most of life guys. You only live once, why bother signing daft petitions or joining militant organisations when there's a whole life out there to be lived?

I agree, and I haven't signed any petitions or joined any organisations. However your statement which does not specify atheism could also be applied to followers of organised religions and members of various sects - not sure if you were getting at that or not, but that's what I took from it.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Looks like a roll call for future fire dwellers

 

[James]

You can see why people don't care about apparently going into the fire though. Most rational and logical argument does support an agnostic or atheist approach.

Religion can never be argued via such means so it ultimately requires a leap of faith, and in this ugly world of conflict, suffering and natural selection if people aren't prepared to make the leap then you can't really blame them.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I agree, and I haven't signed any petitions or joined any organisations. However your statement which does not specify atheism could also be applied to followers of organised religions and members of various sects - not sure if you were getting at that or not, but that's what I took from it.

I meant it for atheists tbh, since religions depending on which ones tend to have afterlife consequences. For example, Christianity, Islam (not sure about Judaism) believe in consequences in the after life. So does Hinduism with the reincarnation theory.

So from their POV you can at least understand why they might sway towards organised religions. If you were an atheist though, why go to such lengths? To make the world a better place? Cool, but just don't let life pass you by. The world will still be here when you are long gone.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Incidentally, quite a large number of "religious" people are the biggest atheists of the lot. Plenty of them will lie, steal or go behind someone's back while making a big show of their religious dress or affiliation. That's atheism in it's own way but far worse. At least the atheist doesn't pretend to be anything other than what he is and is honest about it.

 

[James]

Incidentally, quite a large number of "religious" people are the biggest atheists of the lot. Plenty of them will lie, steal or go behind someone's back while making a big show of their religious dress or affiliation. That's atheism in it's own way but far worse. At least the atheist doesn't pretend to be anything other than what he is and is honest about it.

Nor do many of the atheists do bad deeds. Many of them do good deeds and are moral people.

Anyway, what I've come to suspect is that the religion v atheism stuff is a lot of hot air. The Jews have been the most prosperous religious people relative to their size because they were resolute enough in their beliefs and status to develop a keen interest in academia, politics, business, finance, industry, science and technology. If only the Christians and the Muslims had also been less insecure throughout history, the world may have developed in a more coherent fashion.

While atheists have often compiled statistics such as those in the OP to try and prove why they represent the intellectual minority, I don't think intelligence or success are dependent on faith. The West has been the world's most successful ever culture by far - but not because of atheism, Judaism or any other Abrahamic religion. It comes down to strength of character, combined with the desire to improve oneself and an openness to enquiry.

I say to everyone and myself, whatever your faith or lack thereof, look to display these traits just as often as you look to the sky, kneel on the floor or read Richard Dawkins.

 

[Kwremb]

Nor do many of the atheists do bad deeds. Many of them do good deeds and are moral people.

Anyway, what I've come to suspect is that the religion v atheism stuff is a lot of hot air. The Jews have been the most prosperous religious people relative to their size because they were resolute enough in their beliefs and status to develop a keen interest in academia, politics, business, finance, industry, science and technology. If only the Christians and the Muslims had also been less insecure throughout history, the world may have developed in a more coherent fashion.

While atheists have often compiled statistics such as those in the OP to try and prove why they represent the intellectual minority, I don't think intelligence or success are dependent on faith. The West has been the world's most successful ever culture by far - but not because of atheism, Judaism or any other Abrahamic religion. It comes down to strength of character, combined with the desire to improve oneself and an openness to enquiry.

I say to everyone and myself, whatever your faith or lack thereof, look to display these traits just as often as you look to the sky, kneel on the floor or read Richard Dawkins.

In the last 200 years yes, but history doesn't stop there.

 

[James]

In the last 200 years yes, but history doesn't stop there.

Epistemologically the West goes back to the ancient cultures of Greek and Roman times. Its empires, technology and ideas have no doubt been ahead of the game at many points in history.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Nor do many of the atheists do bad deeds. Many of them do good deeds and are moral people.

Anyway, what I've come to suspect is that the religion v atheism stuff is a lot of hot air.

That was sort of my point as well, all these labels don't mean that much when you look at the underlying behaviours beyond them. Ethics good or bad aren't the preserve of any one people, and attempts to polarise one against the other are political rather than moral.

 

[prtikul]

Looks like a roll call for future fire dwellers

We are not afraid of the hell fire :

Dr. Schambaugh, of the University of Oklahoma School of Chemical Engineering, Final Exam question for May of 1997. Dr. Schambaugh is known for asking questions such as, "why do airplanes fly?" on his final exams. His one and only final exam question in May 1997 for his Momentum, Heat andMass Transfer II class was: "Is hell exothermic or endothermic? Support your answer with proof."
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:
"First, We postulate that if souls exist, then they must have some mass. If they do, then a mole of souls can also have a mass. So, at what rate are souls moving into hell and at what rate are souls leaving? I think we can safely assume that once a soul gets to hell, it will not leave.
Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for souls entering hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not amember of their religion, then you will go to hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and souls go to hell.With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in hell to increase exponentially.
Now, we look at the rate of change in volume in hell. Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in hell to stay the same, the ratio of the mass of souls and volume needs to stay constant. Two options exist:
1. If hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter hell, then the temperature and pressure in hell will increase until all hell breaks loose.
2. If hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until hell freezes over.
So which is it? If we accept the quote given to me by Theresa Manyan during Freshman year,"that it will be a cold night in hell before I sleep with you" and take into account the fact that I still have NOT succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then Option 2 cannot be true...Thus, hell is exothermic."
The student, Tim Graham, got the only A.

 

[the Great Khan]

Epistemologically the West goes back to the ancient cultures of Greek and Roman times. Its empires, technology and ideas have no doubt been ahead of the game at many points in history.

which points, define them and highlight where. For example you may or may not be aware but between the fall of the roman empire right up until the time of the crusades the europeans didnt have cusions on thier chairs.

i suggest you start reading a bit of history before making arrogant presumptions.

The "west" just cannot compete with the "east" when it comes to " cultural progressions, technology and philosophy, art, religion, war, food, intellectual discourse, etc etc . its just not in the same league.

with all due respect if it wasnt for "us" the west would still think the world was flat, bathing was forbidden and a headache was the work of the devil.

 

[Bhaijaan]

West should thank Genghis Khan for making it the prominent force. They were far behind Islam, Indian Hindu/Budhists and Chinese culturally as well as in science tech. Get your facts right. lol

 

[MattyB]

which points, define them and highlight where. For example you may or may not be aware but between the fall of the roman empire right up until the time of the crusades the europeans didnt have cusions on thier chairs.

i suggest you start reading a bit of history before making arrogant presumptions.

The "west" just cannot compete with the "east" when it comes to " cultural progressions, technology and philosophy, art, religion, war, food, intellectual discourse, etc etc . its just not in the same league.

with all due respect if it wasnt for "us" the west would still think the world was flat, bathing was forbidden and a headache was the work of the devil.

Firstly, the original idea of a spherical Earth came from the Greeks. Secondly, you can't argue that the East brought about more technological advancements than the West considering the Industrial Revolution started in the West.

Democracy was also invented in the West as was modern Economics and the Earth's population would be far lower without the scientific breakthrough's in the West. And considering how easily the Western nations were able to conquer vast swathes of the world including parts of the East, I would also question the validity of your statement about the West not being able to compete with the East in the field of war..

 

[the Great Khan]

Firstly, the original idea of a spherical Earth came from the Greeks. Secondly, you can't argue that the East brought about more technological advancements than the West considering the Industrial Revolution started in the West.

Democracy was also invented in the West as was modern Economics and the Earth's population would be far lower without the scientific breakthrough's in the West. And considering how easily the Western nations were able to conquer vast swathes of the world including parts of the East, I would also question the validity of your statement about the West not being able to compete with the East in the field of war..

we are looking at the totality of western and eastern civlisation from the beginning of history. If you add it all up, the west doesnt hold a candle. The industrial revolution would not have been possible if it wasnt for the east. The greeks indeed made many rgeat discoveries and the world owes alot to them but they were not the only civilisation who made technological advances or philosphical discoveries. This notion that the greeks started it all is slightly erroneous, considering "civilisation actually started in the "east"..

so if you were to weigh things up, the west would unfortunatley come up short.

also your statement about the spherical earth, well for 800 years you forgot about that. The east reminded you.

however my response was merely to James arrogant statement.

as for conquest, the west still has not produced an empire the size of the mongols. many of the technological advancements in warfare would not have been possible had it not been for the east e.g. gunpowder, missiles, cannons, siege warfare and so forth. Hell most people in the west are from the east anyway. e.g. anyone with blue or green eyes is descended from an individual born in the caucasus many centuries ago.

we could go on and on.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Industrial revolution is what shifted the game in west's favour, that bloody microscopic lense changed it all while of course we have Genghis Khan and Persian warlords to blame for our fall.

But then again, wars have also helped pushing humanity forward although by delaying intellectual growth by a few centuries. Now at least we have the resources to blow up an alien warship (if at all it arrives here).

 

[DeadlyVenom]

We are not afraid of the hell fire :

Dr. Schambaugh, of the University of Oklahoma School of Chemical Engineering, Final Exam question for May of 1997. Dr. Schambaugh is known for asking questions such as, "why do airplanes fly?" on his final exams. His one and only final exam question in May 1997 for his Momentum, Heat andMass Transfer II class was: "Is hell exothermic or endothermic? Support your answer with proof."
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:
"First, We postulate that if souls exist, then they must have some mass. If they do, then a mole of souls can also have a mass. So, at what rate are souls moving into hell and at what rate are souls leaving? I think we can safely assume that once a soul gets to hell, it will not leave.
Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for souls entering hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not amember of their religion, then you will go to hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and souls go to hell.With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in hell to increase exponentially.
Now, we look at the rate of change in volume in hell. Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in hell to stay the same, the ratio of the mass of souls and volume needs to stay constant. Two options exist:
1. If hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter hell, then the temperature and pressure in hell will increase until all hell breaks loose.
2. If hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until hell freezes over.
So which is it? If we accept the quote given to me by Theresa Manyan during Freshman year,"that it will be a cold night in hell before I sleep with you" and take into account the fact that I still have NOT succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then Option 2 cannot be true...Thus, hell is exothermic."
The student, Tim Graham, got the only A.

Haha was only kidding bro.

That jokes been doing the rounds though. One of the lecturers in my thermodynamics class had it written and framed on his desk.

 

[Robert]

The "west" just cannot compete with the "east" when it comes to " cultural progressions, technology and philosophy, art, religion, war, food, intellectual discourse, etc etc . its just not in the same league.

Depends what you mean by the East and West.

Successful cultures build on those they come into contact with. For example, the Golden Age of Islam was informed by the Greeks and Chinese. Then the southern and eastern Europeans were informed by the Moors. Currently, Europe / USA are in the ascendancy but I think their time is coming to an end. Probably, the Chinese will take over in the latter 21st and 22nd centuries.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Also, we are all Africans by origin.

 

[vandokkum]

Not sure why this has turned into a West vs East debate. Even in the East the most successful countries are those that are secular in nature, even India which is known as a religious country has maintained the separation of religion and state while ultra religious countries still lag behind.

 

[kamz]

I agree, and I haven't signed any petitions or joined any organisations. However your statement which does not specify atheism could also be applied to followers of organised religions and members of various sects - not sure if you were getting at that or not, but that's what I took from it.

you live everyday, but you die once would be more suited to religions I believe

 

[Khaleefa]

you live everyday, but you die once would be more suited to religions I believe

wah khajoor bawa.
Dil khush kar diya !!

 

[the Great Khan]

Depends what you mean by the East and West.

Successful cultures build on those they come into contact with. For example, the Golden Age of Islam was informed by the Greeks and Chinese. Then the southern and eastern Europeans were informed by the Moors. Currently, Europe / USA are in the ascendancy but I think their time is coming to an end. Probably, the Chinese will take over in the latter 21st and 22nd centuries.

I believe you just made my point. There is no such thing as western culture or eastern culture. There is Human culture and then an adjective to describe the type of human culture or civilisation.

I have to clarify your above statement though. Northern, and Southern Europe were revived by the Muslim Civilisation of Spain. There is a direct correlation between modern "Western" civilisation and Muslim Spain. Nothing you see today would be possible without Muslim Spain. Europe and the US are actually in their descent, more so Europe rather than the US as I consider the US a more vibrant, adaptable and progressive culture than europe. China has never really been out of the game except for a few occurences..

so your original statement above is quite wrong.

 

[akheR]

The Jews have been the most prosperous religious people relative to their size because they were resolute enough in their beliefs and status to develop a keen interest in academia, politics, business, finance, industry, science and technology.

There's a Belgian Marxist of Polish Jewish origins, Abraham Leon who in his book "The Jewish Question" tried to destroy every myth concerning his people. It goes from trivial issues as "Jews have big noses" to "the Jews are too rich" which fuels so many conspiracy theories ; and that's the key. What you say about Jews being heavily represented in academia, politics, ... is not because they're Jews, but because they were already from the Western élite for historical reasons (usury was forbidden to the Christians during the Medieval era, and the Jews became de facto bankers... that little discrimination gave the Rothschild's and all to the world.)

To give you an example, just imagine the Muslim communities in the USA - they're all successful, and over represented in terms of educational achievements, salary income, ... and their children will obviously to turn out to be doctors, engineers, ... because they're Muslims ? No, because they'd be children of parents who sustain an intellectual ambiance at home and they'll achieve too in academics.

It's only the Ashkenazi Jews (Western-Eastern Europe) who gave to the world all my favourites, the Karl Marxs, the Kafkas, ... the Sepharadic Jews (Southern Europe), apart from Spinoza (who was born and bred in the Netherlands anyway), I can't think of many who achieved a lot... oh, perhaps Jacques Derrida too, but he's a hack.

The Ashkenazi Jews simply took advantage of the Enlightenment, and being already in the upper class, they simply too advantage of it more than the others.

The West has been the world's most successful ever culture by far - but not because of atheism, Judaism or any other Abrahamic religion. It comes down to strength of character, combined with the desire to improve oneself and an openness to enquiry.

huuuuuuuh.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The West has been the world's most successful ever culture by far - but not because of atheism, Judaism or any other Abrahamic religion. It comes down to strength of character, combined with the desire to improve oneself and an openness to enquiry.

If you are going to cite strength of character as a western trait, then perhaps we should include ruthlessness as well. From using chemical weapons to wiping out entire cities with atomic bombs, the West has shown an unparalleled readiness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations.

 

[Robert]

I believe you just made my point. There is no such thing as western culture or eastern culture. There is Human culture and then an adjective to describe the type of human culture or civilisation.

I have to clarify your above statement though. Northern, and Southern Europe were revived by the Muslim Civilisation of Spain. There is a direct correlation between modern "Western" civilisation and Muslim Spain. Nothing you see today would be possible without Muslim Spain. Europe and the US are actually in their descent, more so Europe rather than the US as I consider the US a more vibrant, adaptable and progressive culture than europe. China has never really been out of the game except for a few occurences..

Well, I would argue that your statement is simplistic.

Firstly, consider how much Muslim Spain was accellerated by the learning of the Ancient Greeks in astronomy, geometry, medicine and logic. This was lost to the Europeans when the Roman Empire fell.

Secondly, Europe was 'revived' as a political unit by the Holy Roman Empire, starting on Christmas Day 900 AD with the coronation of Charlemagne.

What mainly fired Europe into the ascendancy was a fusion of Platonic discourse with Roman Christianity, kickstarting the Enlightenment. A couple of Muslim philosophers made a contribution here, and of course the Enlightenment absorbed the Moors' learning in calculus, medicine, metallurgy, optics, textiles and so on.

As for the US being more vibrant and adaptable - there's jazz and rock music I suppose, though the British are better at the latter.

 

[kamz]

wah khajoor bawa.
Dil khush kar diya !!

sahih baat hai bhai, hamari saari mehnat to maut ke baad ki hi hai.

chalo khajoor bawa kumuzkum BBCD se to behter hi hai hahaha, confused na bhi ho bas you come from blighty at the end of day tussan BBCD lol

 

[Robert]

the West has shown an unparalleled readiness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations.

Well, since the MAD doctrine was established, no county has dared use WMD.

Except Iraq.

Some non-Western states have carried out exterminations - the Ottomans, Imperial Japanese, and Tutsis and Hutus spring to immediate mind.

 

[Mughal]

greetings dear friends, may I ask if any of you have ever studied the quran to under stand it?

What we know about scriptures is what we have been taught by forces to whom it suited. is that really true? have we examined carefully what has been going on in the world wherein we live?

Is anyone here capable of telling me the context in which the quran ought be studied? What part of the quran have you studied and tried your best to make sense of it?

If you are just taking words of others and not reading the quran yourself then I do not blame you for your opinions about the quran other than that you owe it to yourselves to study the quran.

My findings about the quran are that unless we follow its advice we are doomed by our deeds. The reason is, we are going about our world the wrong way round. We ourselves are putting huge obstacle in the path of our own progress and prosperity.

The quran is a manifesto for peace=islam and a constitution for building a peaceful, progressive and prosperous human community. The ruling elites, the priestly classes and the money lenders have worked together to try and cover up the true message of the quran.

What is the true message of the quran? It is, establish islam=peace. We all have heard that God sent his messengers with messages. what was the message? establish islam=shaanti, aman, peace. shelom.

We humans were told, let each other be free people, treat each other justly and fairly with compassion. create brotherhood for making progress and prosper so much so that one day you take over the whole wide universe like a tiny seed grows in to huge tree.

what have we done in response to that message? well that is right in front of all of us to see with our own eyes.

We were told by God, don't oppress and suppress each other. Don't do unto each other any injustice and don't treat each other unfairly and not be cruel to each other. We were told don't be enemies to each other and don't be lazy and crazy or fall into stagnation and regression. All because all such bad things could lead to terrible consequences in form of huge losses and lacks of things which make life worth living.

Did any of us listen to the message or acted upon it. We were so stupid that we ended up worshipping fellow humans in forms of kings, priests and money lenders. Now look at the state of the world and tell me what do you see my brethren?

So please don't blame God or scriptures if anything it is we ourselves who are to be blamed for our own stupidity. Don't you see kings had to twist scriptures and priests had to twist scriptures and money lenders had to do the same, why? because they had some harmful and destructive ambitions they wanted to fulfil at the expense of rest of mankind. So as and when they saw an opportunity they jumped at it and rest of us followed them in hot pursuit into hell of our own making.

They brain damaged us through their false teachings in the name of God and scriptures thereby they damaged our human community. Nonetheless it is not beyond repair if we started to use our brains from now on.

regards and all the best.

 

[Namak_Halaal]

Democracy was also invented in the West as was modern Economics and the Earth's population would be far lower without the scientific breakthrough's in the West. And considering how easily the Western nations were able to conquer vast swathes of the world including parts of the East, I would also question the validity of your statement about the West not being able to compete with the East in the field of war..

Well since the West is responsible for modern economics, let's look at what modern economics has achieved in the past 100 years. 2 World Wars, Great Depression (Crash 1929), Grand Depression (Crash 2008), devaluation of currency. The result? Western nations are in debt, Eastern nations are swimming in cash.

As for democracy, not really worth entertaining, but you only have to read about the role of the Chief (Whips) in British Parliament to realise democracy is a myth.

PS: One thing is for certain, the British Empire wouldn't have been anywhere near as successful as it was had it not been for the Subcontinent – Jewel in the Crown.

 

[Namak_Halaal]

Secondly, Europe was 'revived' as a political unit by the Holy Roman Empire, starting on Christmas Day 900 AD with the coronation of Charlemagne.

In other words, Theism pulled Europe out of the dark ages, and not Atheism.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Well, since the MAD doctrine was established, no county has dared use WMD.

Except Iraq.

Some non-Western states have carried out exterminations - the Ottomans, Imperial Japanese, and Tutsis and Hutus spring to immediate mind.

I wasn't really making a case for west vs east, I was pointing out that if you were going to use strength of character as a western trait as James did, then we should be prepared to look at other traits as well. You missed that part of my quote out.

 

[mani1]

Well, since the MAD doctrine was established, no county has dared use WMD.

Except Iraq.

Some non-Western states have carried out exterminations - the Ottomans, Imperial Japanese, and Tutsis and Hutus spring to immediate mind.

Doesn't Napalm come under the term WMD?

 

[dzor]

I'm going to be honest and surprised to say we have a few Pakistani atheists on this forum I never knew, interesting topic though

 

[Robert]

Doesn't Napalm come under the term WMD?

I think WMDs are either nuclear, radiological, chemical or biological gaseous, designed to destroy large towns. I don't think a single napalm device could have that effect unless it starts a major fire.

In other words, Theism pulled Europe out of the dark ages, and not Atheism.

At times, the HRE could be described as a theocracy and at other times an elective monarchy.

I wasn't really making a case for west vs east, I was pointing out that if you were going to use strength of character as a western trait as James did, then we should be prepared to look at other traits as well. You missed that part of my quote out.

I don't think James meant morality when he mentioned strength of character . I think he meant force of character.

 

[MattyB]

Doesn't Napalm come under the term WMD?

No. It's use against civilian targets is banned by the UN but it isn't a WMD as far as I know.

Well since the West is responsible for modern economics, let's look at what modern economics has achieved in the past 100 years. 2 World Wars, Great Depression (Crash 1929), Grand Depression (Crash 2008), devaluation of currency. The result? Western nations are in debt, Eastern nations are swimming in cash.

As for democracy, not really worth entertaining, but you only have to read about the role of the Chief (Whips) in British Parliament to realise democracy is a myth.

PS: One thing is for certain, the British Empire wouldn't have been anywhere near as successful as it was had it not been for the Subcontinent – Jewel in the Crown.

Firstly, economics was not the main factor in causing either of the World wars. Secondly, although there may have been several depressions, the standards of living in the West have improved a huge amount in the past 100 years. Yes the Western governments have a huge amount of debt but I wouldn't say that ALL of the Eastern nations are swimming in cash. Some Eastern nations are very rich such as China and India but many are still fairly poor and the standards of living even in these richer nations is still fairly low for the majority.

Democracy is not a myth, when you vote for an MP you are voting for the party they represent and the ideas that the party holds. The Chief Whip ensures that all of the MP's vote for the ideas that the party holds(which is why you voted for them) so actually it can be argued that it makes it more democratic.

 

[Namak_Halaal]

Firstly, economics was not the main factor in causing either of the World wars. Secondly, although there may have been several depressions, the standards of living in the West have improved a huge amount in the past 100 years. Yes the Western governments have a huge amount of debt but I wouldn't say that ALL of the Eastern nations are swimming in cash. Some Eastern nations are very rich such as China and India but many are still fairly poor and the standards of living even in these richer nations is still fairly low for the majority.

The two nations you just mentioned have a population of 1 Billion a piece. More than the West in its entirety.

I would also like to add; the West pretty much raped and pillaged the East of its riches.

Democracy is not a myth, when you vote for an MP you are voting for the party they represent and the ideas that the party holds. The Chief Whip ensures that all of the MP's vote for the ideas that the party holds(which is why you voted for them) so actually it can be argued that it makes it more democratic.

There you go, ensures, i.e whip MPs into shape. What happened to the free vote even within parliament?

Yes we vote for a party, but not a leader.

Anyway, would love to counter in detail but sadly this isn’t the thread.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I don't think James meant morality when he mentioned strength of character . I think he meant force of character.

That's interesting in it's own right. What drives force of character if morality isn't in the equation? Why would the west have more drive than other parts of the world if it's in fact true?

It might be worth a separate thread on it's own as I can see this one is going off on a different tangent to what it was intended.

 

[RexRex]

There you go, ensures, i.e whip MPs into shape. What happened to the free vote even within parliament?

A party should vote as one , an alliance maybe not.I don't see anything undemocratic in that.It will be chaos otherwise imo.

 

[Namak_Halaal]

A party should vote as one , an alliance maybe not.I don't see anything undemocratic in that.It will be chaos otherwise imo.

Democracy is a free choice in a free world, whipping is slavery.

 

[MattyB]

Democracy is a free choice in a free world, whipping is slavery.

The whole point of MP's is that they are representing the people that voted for them. The people who voted for them voted for the party as they believe in the views of the party so in order for democracy to work the MP has to follow the line and vote how the party wants them to vote.

You know what would be undemocratic? If MP's did whatever they decided was best and completely ignored the views of the people who voted for them. Which is almost always what happens when an MP votes against their party.

 

[Cracket]

Agnostic master race reporting in. I guess I'm an atheist if the definition includes non-believers of all Abrahamic and Indian theologies spawned God.

 

[ammo]

another thing i don't like about religion it scares people into believing it
AND @ MUGHAL how do you know did you write it?

 

[Mughal]

another thing i don't like about religion it scares people into believing it
AND @ MUGHAL how do you know did you write it?

No I did not write the quran dear ammo but humans always devised methods to find out the truth and you use the same in this case and see the outcome for yourself.

1400+ years ago a man of arab origin claimed he is messenger of God for nnakind and when he was asked for evidence for his claim he put forth the book called the quran as testimony of God. So it is all a matter of examining the allegedly divine testimony to see if it really is a book beyond human production.

If it contains information that humans of that time could not have written it ten that proves the point. If we put the quran against available books of the time we find that the quran is a book that serves it claimed purpose very nicely proving its divine origin. Of course it is easier said than done because to really see how amazing the quran is we need to examine it word for word from start to finish.

Although I did not write this book but I have been pondering over it for quite some time. I found it a unique book and I have no problem sharing my thoughts about it.

The very idea that the quran is not a religious holy book is surprising in itself because the quran is a manifesto, a constitution and a law book for a way of life that ought to lead to peaceful and prosperous life.

May I ask if you can speak urdu by any chance? if you can see my other threads in which I have explained things in a bit of detail. However if you do not speak urdu then it will take a bit of time for me to explain things in english. However I have given some idea in the post already in this thread. So you can see how I look at the quran. I do not accept mullah version of islam because they explain it only as a religious holy book which leaves out a lot to desire.

It is not their fault like ruling elite priestly classes also have an agenda to serve. They do not want to see the quran understood properly by masses for obvious reasons.

regards and all the best.

 

[MenInG]

I am an atheist living in pakistan.

Except that you arent.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Smackdown from MIG )

 

[pakistanalltheway]

MIG shot that one down hard

 

[DeadlyVenom]

This forum has been invaded by uncouth anti-Islam trolls who don't post anything but the usual stereotypical arguments and litter their posts with smileys.

 

[Khaleefa]

There is no athiest on a sinking ship.

 

[GentleMan]

i am an atheist mostly except during a flight, when i feel so helpless that i develop some faith.

 

[James]

I've developed into someone who is for all intents and purposes an atheist, but I'm interested in religion as a subject.

 

[Kwremb]

I've only seen so much interest in talking about religion in Internet forums, it's almost like cool to brand yourself atheists in Internet forums.

 

[A Clockwork Orange]

Originally Posted by MenInG

Actually still living here.

 

[James]

I've only seen so much interest in talking about religion in Internet forums, it's almost like cool to brand yourself atheists in Internet forums.

Being indifferent/an atheist is fair enough really. It's not an irrational position to perceive a lack of evidence for something (anything) and doubt it as a result. That's an arguable principle.

Why I think atheists are more open on the Internet is because there's a fair bit of hatred and discrimination against them in real life. Not in the UK but I've heard some worrying stories from elsewhere.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I've only seen so much interest in talking about religion in Internet forums, it's almost like cool to brand yourself atheists in Internet forums.

Theres no google in real life. If there was then they would be just as annoying.

 

[endymion248]

Well, I would argue that your statement is simplistic.

Firstly, consider how much Muslim Spain was accellerated by the learning of the Ancient Greeks in astronomy, geometry, medicine and logic. This was lost to the Europeans when the Roman Empire fell.

Secondly, Europe was 'revived' as a political unit by the Holy Roman Empire, starting on Christmas Day 900 AD with the coronation of Charlemagne.

What mainly fired Europe into the ascendancy was a fusion of Platonic discourse with Roman Christianity, kickstarting the Enlightenment. A couple of Muslim philosophers made a contribution here, and of course the Enlightenment absorbed the Moors' learning in calculus, medicine, metallurgy, optics, textiles and so on.

As for the US being more vibrant and adaptable - there's jazz and rock music I suppose, though the British are better at the latter.

Both parts of that sentence are not true. Kind of make you lose legitimacy on the topic

 

[Kwremb]

Being indifferent/an atheist is fair enough really. It's not an irrational position to perceive a lack of evidence for something (anything) and doubt it as a result. That's an arguable principle.

Why I think atheists are more open on the Internet is because there's a fair bit of hatred and discrimination against them in real life. Not in the UK but I've heard some worrying stories from elsewhere.

I'm not really religious because I'm just lazy but sometimes I just pray for stuff when I'm really under the pump because I can't stop being human, it would only make me a hypocrite if I said I'm an atheist, if you don't believe in something I don't understand why you have to name yourself for it.

 

[GentleMan]

i was very religious while growing up..but after the untimely death of someone i abused God..called him all sorts of names and broke up with him..after that i was an irritating atheist, always hurting others religious sentiments. then bad things happened to me..and i lost my inner peace..since then i am trying to seek some peace..but either ways i dont care if God exists or not..all i want is peace in my life..dont care about afterlife.

 

[James]

if you don't believe in something I don't understand why you have to name yourself for it.

Most atheists don't to be fair. They don't talk about it, and if you ask them about their religious views/force them to tick a box they will just refer to themselves as nonreligious. They might go to a few guest lectures to see what atheists have to say, they might even talk to some religious people to better understand their position. I work with a young Muslim guy and today he was telling me about his praying, it was interesting.

Dawkins is a hardcore look-at-me-I'm-an-atheist type, and is very famous, so people naturally assume that's what atheists are like, but the reality is not so.

 

[Kwremb]

i was very religious while growing up..but after the untimely death of someone i abused God..called him all sorts of names and broke up with him..after that i was an irritating atheist, always hurting others religious sentiments. then bad things happened to me..and i lost my inner peace..since then i am trying to seek some peace..but either ways i dont care if God exists or not..all i want is peace in my life..dont care about afterlife.

Agreed, YOLO can't be bothered if there is a god or not, need to have a fun and peaceful life while you're alive

 

[Khaleefa]

i was very religious while growing up..but after the untimely death of someone i abused God..called him all sorts of names and broke up with him..after that i was an irritating atheist, always hurting others religious sentiments. then bad things happened to me..and i lost my inner peace..since then i am trying to seek some peace..but either ways i dont care if God exists or not..all i want is peace in my life..dont care about afterlife.

Verily, in the remembrance of Allah do hearts find rest (Quran 13:28)

 

[leatherface58]

You will not find peace of mind because if you do, you won't pray to God for peace will you? It's like the doctor telling you that he wishes you do not fall ill. But if he told that to everyone and that came true, he will go out of business.

 

[FusedBulb]

There is no athiest on a sinking ship.

lol. QOTW

 

[GentleMan]

lol. QOTW

in a way that also implies that when people are helpless they turn to some powerful entity..so instead of taking a dig at atheists, it is taking a dig at believers.

 

[James]

in a way that also implies that when people are helpless they turn to some powerful entity..so instead of taking a dig at atheists, it is taking a dig at believers.

Brilliant!

 

[chaiwala]

Even if the "no atheists in foxholes" proverb were true, it does not actually discredit atheism. In near death situations, humans will try anything to survive. This is simply a result of fear, and our survival instinct. It does not mean atheism is a weak stance.

 

[A Clockwork Orange]

Originally Posted by Khaleefa
There is no athiest on a sinking ship.

Whenever i'm in trouble i simply pray to Darwin or Batman!

 

[Robert]

Both parts of that sentence are not true. Kind of make you lose legitimacy on the topic

OK, I was out by one typo. It was 800 AD not 900 AD. Otherwise, how about countering my post with reasoned argument instead of just negation?

 

[endymion248]

OK, I was out by one typo. It was 800 AD not 900 AD. Otherwise my post is correct.

Except Charlemagne had nothing to do with the Holy Roman Empire (whose existence is attributed to Verdun and beyond) and that it's the Franc Kingdom which created the first unity of Europe after Rome through religious unification of catholics and fighting Lombard claims against the pope. It also marks the end of the byzantine submission race.

 

[Robert]

Except Charlemagne had nothing to do with the Holy Roman Empire

How can the Holy Roman Emperor have nothing to do with the Holy Roman Empire?

 

[endymion248]

How can the Holy Roman Emperor have nothing to do with the Holy Roman Empire?

So, he was the Holy Roman Emperor 200 years before the birth of the HRE, and more according to some historians?

 

[Ranjha]

OP

will they ever organize a meeting for dinner invitation ? if so i m ready even if i am not atheist.

 

[Robert]

So, he was the Holy Roman Emperor 200 years before the birth of the HRE, and more according to some historians?

He was crowned Emperor by Pope Leo III in 800 CE. My understanding is that there is debate among historians about what this title meant precisely, because there was still an Emperor in Constantinople. In any event, Charlemagne's empire united most of Europe and therefore his coronation can be seen as the end of the European Dark Age and the start of the Middle Ages, which was my original point.

Now, in 962 CE Otto married an Italian princess and therefore fused the Carolingian tradition with the "Roman" and got his Papal coronation, but my understanding is that his empire was not as large as Charlemagne's and not named Holy Roman Empire until much later.

So I guess the historians can scrap about when it started! Can we at least agree that Charlemagne united central and Western Europe into a political unit?

 

[Badsha]

Athiest contradict themselves a lot. They call other peoples beliefs stupid, when they themselves are believing in something.

 

[endymion248]

He was crowned Emperor by Pope Leo III in 800 CE. My understanding is that there is debate among historians about what this title meant precisely, because there was still an Emperor in Constantinople. In any event, Charlemagne's empire united most of Europe and therefore his coronation can be seen as the end of the European Dark Age and the start of the Middle Ages, which was my original point.

Now, in 962 CE Otto married an Italian princess and therefore fused the Carolingian tradition with the "Roman" and got his Papal coronation, but my understanding is that his empire was not as large as Charlemagne's and not named Holy Roman Empire until much later.

So I guess the historians can scrap about when it started! Can we at least agree that Charlemagne united central and Western Europe into a political unit?

Otto was not a Carolingian king/emperor. He had been chosen among the people of oriental francia after the end of the carolingian dynasty in that region (which could have gone to occidental francia if the claim had been made by a reigning carolingian king) but it is mainly agree that he was considered as the new charlemagne and the new defender of the pope. Rumors have it that he was baptized Charlemagne too.

On the Charlemagne fact, I have agreed to you earlier. Most German invaders earlier tried sent missive to Constantinople in order to be mandated as ''representatives of Rome'' and then use that auhority against their rivals, and that process was used by Charlemagne's ancestors too. Anyways, the crowning of Charlemagne mainly established him as the weaponed wing of the pope and that reputation persisted with France (and the Holy Roman Empire, alternatively) until the Renaissance and further. I can't find it but
there is are verious missive by popes about France being the daughter of the church or something, mainly because of that. And most historians agree that the crowning established him as an emperor.

But the fact remains he had nothing to do with the holy roman empire as we know it in history, which can't be traced back before Otto and didn't have much of the common Franc and Gallo-Roman of 200 hundreds year ealier with Charlemagne, which is a very specific and tracable cultural exception (iirc, germanic laws like loi du talion and heritage fusionned with ethnic gallo-romans and linguistic inclusions).

 

[RexRex]

Athiest contradict themselves a lot. They call other peoples beliefs stupid, when they themselves are believing in something.

True , atheists use God derived concepts to debunk God.I wonder why this is isn't so obvious to them as it is to many people.

 

[speed]

Imam Abu Hanifah and the Atheist

Long ago in the city of Baghdad, there was a Muslim empire. On one side of the River Tigris were the royal palaces and on the other side was the city. The Muslims were gathered in the Royal Palace when an athiest approached them. He said to them, ‘I don’t believe in God, there cannot be a God, you cannot hear Him or see Him, you’re wasting your time! Bring me your best debator and I will debate this issue with him.’

The best debator at the time was Imam Abu Hanifah Rahimullah. A messenger from amongst the Muslims was sent over the River Tigris to the city, where Abu Hanifah Rahimullah was, in order to tell him about the athiest who was awaiting him. On crossing the River Tigris, the messenger conveyed the message to Abu Hanifah Rahimullah saying, ‘Oh Abu Hanifah, an athiest is waiting for you, to debate you, please come!’ Abu Hanifah Rahimullah told the messeneger that he would be on his way.

The messenger went over the River Tigris once again and to the Royal Palaces, where everyone including the athiest awaited the arrival of Abu Hanifah Rahimullah. It was sunset at the time and one hour had passed, but Abu Hanifah Rahimullah still hadn’t arrived. Another hour had passed, but still there was no sign of him. The Muslims started to become tense and worried about his late arrival. They did not want the athiest to think that they were too scared to debate him, yet they did not want to take up the challenge themselves as Abu Hanifah Rahimullah was the best of Debators from amongst the Muslims. Another hour passed, and suddenly the athiest started laughing and said, ‘ Your best debator is too scared! He knows he’s wrong, he is too frightened to come and debate with me. I gurantee he will not turn up today.’

The Muslims increased in apprehension and eventually it had passed midnight, and the athiest had a smile on his face. The clock ticked on, and finally Abu Hanifah Rahimullah had arrived. The Muslims inquired about his lateness and remarked, ‘Oh Abu Hanifah, a messenger sent for you hours ago, and you arrive now, explain your lateness to us.’

Abu Hanifah Rahimullah apologises for his lateness and begins to explain, while the atheist listens to his story.

‘Once the messenger delivered the message to me, I began to make my way to the River Tigris, and on reaching the river bank I realised there was no boat, in order to cross the river. It was getting dark, and I looked around, there was no boat anywhere nor was there a navigator or a sailor in order for me to cross the river to get to the Royal Palaces. I continued to look around for a boat, as I did not want the athiest to think I was running away and did not want to debate with him.

I was standing on the river bank looking for a navigator or a boat when something caught my attention in the middle of the river. I looked forward, and to my amazement I saw planks of wood rising to the surface from the sea bed. I was shocked, amazed, I couldn’t believe what I saw seeing. Ready made planks of wood were rising up to the surface and joining together. They were all the same width and length, I was astounded at what I saw.

I continued to look into the middle of the river, and then I saw nails coming up from the sea floor. They positioned themselves onto the boat and held the planks together, without them being banged. I stood in amazement and thought to myself, ‘Oh Allah, how can this happen, planks of wood rising to the surface by itself, and then nails positioning themselves onto the boat without being banged?’ I could not undertsand what was happening before my eyes.’

The athiest meanwhile was listening with a smile on his face. Abu Hanifah Rahimullah continued, ‘I was still standing on the river bank watching these planks of wood join together with nails. I could see water seeping through the gaps in the wood, and suddenly I saw a sealant appear from the river and it began sealing the gaps without someone having poured it, again I thought, ‘Ya Allah, how is this possible, how can sealant appear and seal the gaps without someone having poured it, and nails appear without someone having banged them.’ I looked closer and I could see a boat forming before my eyes, I stood in amazement and was filled with shock. All of a sudden a sail appeared and I thought to myself, ‘How is this happening, a boat has appeared before my eyes by itself, planks of wood, nails, sealant and now a sail, but how can I use this boat in order to cross the river to the Royal Palaces?’ I stood staring in wonderment and suddenly the boat began to move. It came towards me against the current. It stood floating beside me while I was on the river bank, as if telling me to embark onto it. I went on the boat and yet again it began to move. There was no navigator or sailor on the boat, and the boat began to travel towards the direction of the royal palaces, without anyone having programmed it as to where to go. I could not understand what was happening, and how this boat had formed and was taking me to my destination against the flow of water. The boat eventually reached the other side of the River Tigris and I disembarked. I turned around and the boat had disappeared, and that is why I am late.’

At this moment, the athiest brust out laughing and remarked, ‘Oh Abu Hanifah, I heard that you were the best debator from amongst the Muslims, I heard that you were the wisest, the most knowledgable from amongst your people. From seeing you today, I can say that you show none of these qualities. You speak of a boat appearing from nowhere, without someone having built it. Nails positioning themselves without someone having banged them, sealant being poured without someone having poured it, and the boat taking you to your destination without a navigator against the tide, your taking childish, your talking rediculous, I swear I do not belive a word of it!’

Abu Hanifah Rahimullah turned to the athiest and replied, ‘You don’t believe a word of it? You dont believe that nails can appear by themselves? You dont believe sealant can be poured by itself? You dont believe that a boat can move without a navigator, hence you don’t believe that a boat can appear without a boat maker?’

The athiest remarked defiantly, ‘Yes I dont believe a word of it!’

Abu Hanifah Rahimullah replied, ‘If you cannot believe that a boat came into being without a boat maker, than this is only a boat, how can you believe that the whole world, the universe, the stars, the oceans, and the planets came into being without a creator?

The athiest astonished at his reply got up and fled.

http://www.haqislam.org/imam-abu-hanifah-and-the-atheist/

 

[Robert]

Otto was not a Carolingian king/emperor. He had been chosen among the people of oriental francia after the end of the carolingian dynasty in that region (which could have gone to occidental francia if the claim had been made by a reigning carolingian king) but it is mainly agree that he was considered as the new charlemagne and the new defender of the pope. Rumors have it that he was baptized Charlemagne too.

On the Charlemagne fact, I have agreed to you earlier. Most German invaders earlier tried sent missive to Constantinople in order to be mandated as ''representatives of Rome'' and then use that auhority against their rivals, and that process was used by Charlemagne's ancestors too. Anyways, the crowning of Charlemagne mainly established him as the weaponed wing of the pope and that reputation persisted with France (and the Holy Roman Empire, alternatively) until the Renaissance and further. I can't find it but
there is are verious missive by popes about France being the daughter of the church or something, mainly because of that. And most historians agree that the crowning established him as an emperor.

But the fact remains he had nothing to do with the holy roman empire as we know it in history, which can't be traced back before Otto and didn't have much of the common Franc and Gallo-Roman of 200 hundreds year ealier with Charlemagne, which is a very specific and tracable cultural exception (iirc, germanic laws like loi du talion and heritage fusionned with ethnic gallo-romans and linguistic inclusions).

Impressive knowledge there endymion, and thank you for the polite and enlightening discussion.

 

[endymion248]

Impressive knowledge there endymion, and thank you for the polite and enlightening discussion.

Your initial points was right about Charlemagne being the first reunited emperor of Europe, only wrong dynasty so I thought I had to correct

It's a fascinating period in Europe's history and a lot has to be said about it, much that I don't know or remember

As an example, fortunately (or unfortunately), the first because of their lack of establishment and the hard times with Maggyar and Viking invasions which don't really favour a big state, the German succession costums which lead to France and Germany being a sum of various micro-states. Germany stayed divided because of it until very recently (other factors too), exception like Otto, Charles V or austro-hungarians and France being a nominative kingdom only in the start (Capetians were the weakest of french lords) and it still had a massive influence on their society centuries afterwards. Also, even at Renaissance, the ''loi sallique'' was used many times in succession matters and had an influence with the Regent Queens from Medicis.

(sorry for the derailment)