the most successful societies are religous

[Michael]

I was thinking about this. As SAM likes to suggest there are no non-religious societies. They don't seem to stand the test of time....

Religiosity is a by product of insecurity. People in secure societies are less religious. For most of history people have lived with little long term security and have mostly been religious. Zeus, Athena, Amaterasu, Shiva. Allah, John Frum etc... all have been worshiped by insecure people looking to secure their future.

Very secure societies are not as competitive as insecure societies. Probably because people are lazy. They need a bit of fear to motive them. Or so it seems.


I postulate then that the most competitive societies probably will remain religious as byproduct of insecurity.


So, it's not being religious that makes societies competitive. It's being insecure. Religiosity is just the way people deal with being insecure. Could also explain why academics (with tenure) tended to be atheist and therefor has little to do with intelligence?


Just some ideas,
Michael

 

[Bishadi]

I postulate then that the most competitive societies probably will remain religious as byproduct of insecurity.

then ignorance remains the basis of suffering

teach each equally; the basics that can be combined and perform with experience and knowledge

enables purpose, comprehension and personal responsibility

then no need of religion (ie... to me a religion is a belief system requiring homage, ritual and often even a willful ignorance of truth, just to maintain that belief)

but for each to comprehend life at the absolute of understanding (the core priniciples) that is equal to all mankind and existence itself. That defines life inherantly which offers the comprehension of what to expect (understand), then there is no need or desire for a religion

If each UNDERSTAND.............what life is.............. then each can live, and know it.

ie... if you knew yourself, what "good and bad" are and "heaven and hell" or all them pretty images of things to come, would you need a belief in anything?


.

 

[Gustav]

ideas?
then frikkin flesh it out
insecure about what?
death?
keeping up with the joneses?

 

[Lori_7]

what about native americans? some of the most spiritual people on the face of the earth. their spirituality resulted in a respect for the environment and the earth and it's resources, and an overriding concern for the greater good and community. you call that insecure. i call that intelligent.

 

[spidergoat]

I think that is a common misconception about Native Americans.

 

[Lori_7]

I think that is a common misconception about Native Americans.

what misconception?

 

[spidergoat]

1. Native Americans respected the environment.
2. Native Americans cared about people outside of their tribe.

They burned huge tracks of forest to create better hunting grounds. They were probably responsible for the extinction of North America's larger mammals. Many tribes were constantly at war with one another.

 

[Lori_7]

1. Native Americans respected the environment.
2. Native Americans cared about people outside of their tribe.

They burned huge tracks of forest to create better hunting grounds. They were probably responsible for the extinction of North America's larger mammals. Many tribes were constantly at war with one another.

hm...:scratchin:

 

[spidergoat]

They simply didn't have the technology to do any worse, but they exploited the environment in their own ways. Some tribes did create stable governing bodies and were a model for our own government, but the stereotype of the perfectly "green" Native is far from reality.

 

[lightgigantic]

I was thinking about this. As SAM likes to suggest there are no non-religious societies. They don't seem to stand the test of time....

Religiosity is a by product of insecurity.

Given that nature can undo us in any one of a million ways , ranging from turning us into a bloody red mess on the floor to losing our wrist watch, it's not clear why you postulate the notion of insecurity as a fabrication in this world

People in secure societies are less religious. For most of history people have lived with little long term security and have mostly been religious. Zeus, Athena, Amaterasu, Shiva. Allah, John Frum etc... all have been worshiped by insecure people looking to secure their future.

a brief over view of events over the past 100 years tend to indicate anything but security.

Certainly there is a move towards more centralizing, but, as history and even recent events indicate, that simply makes for a harder fall.

For instance I don't think any recent retiree who has just lost 60% of their savings in the GFC would be of the opinion that things are certainly more secure... what to speak of if you start introducing any of the hundreds of millions of people living in the shadows of first world economics

Very secure societies are not as competitive as insecure societies. Probably because people are lazy. They need a bit of fear to motive them. Or so it seems.

meh ...... compare sydney to birdsville

I postulate then that the most competitive societies probably will remain religious as byproduct of insecurity.


So, it's not being religious that makes societies competitive. It's being insecure. Religiosity is just the way people deal with being insecure. Could also explain why academics (with tenure) tended to be atheist and therefor has little to do with intelligence?


Just some ideas,
Michael

The only people who don't make arrangements for insecurity tend to be clinically insane or children.

:shrug:

 

[swarm]

what about native americans?

Who do you mean? The various native peoples had their own distinct cultures that spanned the gauntlet from the quite civilized (Cherokee Constitution of 1827 http://www.cornsilks.com/1827Constitution.html), to very war like such as the Apache, to the cannibal Atakapa. Likewise their religious practices and ecological sensibilities were also diverse.