Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Atheists are the minority.. so what are you suggesting ?
Why atheism makes you mean
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Atheists are the minority.. so what are you suggesting ?
charles brough
Registered Senior Member
it seems to me that the research shown to start the thread with is evidence that religions serve a function which has little or nothing to do with the "truth" of their beliefs.
I do not find that surprising at all. After all, religions go back many tens of thousands of years. This is surely because they serve a function, an evolutionary function.
"The historical origins of religion are to be distinguished from their psychological or social origins.[1] The first religious behavior appearing in the course of human evolution is probably relatively recent (Middle Paleolithic) and constitutes an aspect of behavioral modernity most likely coupled with the appearance of language."
---"Origin of religion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
seems to me that this is why we have always had religion of some sort or another as long as we have had speech. With speech, radically different belief systems pull people apart and cause tension, stress. People are less willing to work together to accomplish something when they have, for example, different goals. If they have a different moral systems, they have even more difficulty dealing with each other.
And, it seems to me that we have that problem in abundance in the modern world because we are broken up into so many OLD religions. The one "NEW" one (about a century old) is one which has nothing to do with any deities---that is, East Asian Marxism.
seems that we need a new and modern, scientific, religion that will sweep the world and unite us into a single world society. That would stop us from being at each others throats over our world's declining resources. Too bad that Marxism is too defective to fill that need. Being atheistic is one of the few valid doctrines it has. We need one that is better in all ways!
charles
http://atheistic-science.com
I do not find that surprising at all. After all, religions go back many tens of thousands of years. This is surely because they serve a function, an evolutionary function.
"The historical origins of religion are to be distinguished from their psychological or social origins.[1] The first religious behavior appearing in the course of human evolution is probably relatively recent (Middle Paleolithic) and constitutes an aspect of behavioral modernity most likely coupled with the appearance of language."
---"Origin of religion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
seems to me that this is why we have always had religion of some sort or another as long as we have had speech. With speech, radically different belief systems pull people apart and cause tension, stress. People are less willing to work together to accomplish something when they have, for example, different goals. If they have a different moral systems, they have even more difficulty dealing with each other.
And, it seems to me that we have that problem in abundance in the modern world because we are broken up into so many OLD religions. The one "NEW" one (about a century old) is one which has nothing to do with any deities---that is, East Asian Marxism.
seems that we need a new and modern, scientific, religion that will sweep the world and unite us into a single world society. That would stop us from being at each others throats over our world's declining resources. Too bad that Marxism is too defective to fill that need. Being atheistic is one of the few valid doctrines it has. We need one that is better in all ways!
charles
http://atheistic-science.com
Yeah, I think the survival of a religious ideology is what counts as success, even perhaps its ability to appeal to a diverse range of people.
Is there any other way to gauge success?
The whole world cannot unite together in 1 religion. Humans have a need for a them for the us to be against.
They also cannot agree on all or enough beliefs to stay together. That's why there are not only so many religions but so many sects. If I could magicly make it all 1 religion overnight, within a few years there would be different religions yet again with different sects.
I don't believe most of the peace people claim to have. Someone truly at peace condemns no 1 & can not accept preventable suffering. No 1 who believes people should suffer for eternity can be at peace tho if they could, that's a peace I certainly can't attain & wouldn't want.
1111
They also cannot agree on all or enough beliefs to stay together. That's why there are not only so many religions but so many sects. If I could magicly make it all 1 religion overnight, within a few years there would be different religions yet again with different sects.
I don't believe most of the peace people claim to have. Someone truly at peace condemns no 1 & can not accept preventable suffering. No 1 who believes people should suffer for eternity can be at peace tho if they could, that's a peace I certainly can't attain & wouldn't want.
1111
?? First, which ones "needed" to become religious again? And how did religion prevent them from whatever fate it is you think they were headed towards?
OK, which places are more athiest and "on a downward spiral"?
This thread isn't making any sense. Can we go back to my question about whether or not large-scale cooperation might not (Ockham's Razor) simply be the progression of small-scale cooperation? How do you know it isn't?
Well, you're supposing it's religion. How do you know this? Can you differentiate it from some wider sense of reciprocal altruism? Or even dominance, for that matter: societies have historically been built as much on exploitation and punishment as co-operation.
Have they? Do they succeed? Religion = communal living. Atehism = individualistic living.
Since its more prosocial, what do you think? Who is more humanitarian? The one with prosocial rules of living or the one who makes it up as he goes along?
Rules of theists have nothing to do with humanitarianism and everything to do with the continued worship of their gods, humans are expendable in that regard.
The confusion of theism with religion, and religion with recognition of spirituality, is remarkably crippling.SAM said:
Confucianism has got to be one of the least individualistic ways of living possible, and its use of theistic belief is Machiavellian, for example.
Straight from the Little Red Book.SAM said:
Pol Pot, too, was a big proponent of prosocial behavior.
Lets just say atheism is not conducive to religion, not in itself. Confucianism has nothing to do with atheism, one might as well say that the aphorism and rhetoric of Confucianism is no different from the intricate verses of scriptures. :shrug:
Unlike religions, which demand a monopoly on the victim's thought process, athiests are seldom merely atheists and nothing more. One cannot compare them, since one pretends to be a comprehensive guide to living, and the other is a term for the rejection of the supernatural.
Whatever else athiests are, has nothing to do with athiesm. If they adopt some alternate ideology to replace theism it is because athiesm is incomplete in itself and offers nothing
That has nothing to do with atheism either. Plenty of atheists into aliens and UFOs
Neither aliens or UFOs are supernatural.