Support NeoGAF

[22•22]

Car accident deaths are miniscule in comparison.

Is was trying to make the point that inventions are inherently neutral and/or multi faceted.

Some argue that anno 2023 nuclear power (invention) can be pretty save when used as a power source. The same invention can also wipe out this planet.

It's how said invention is used and with what intention. Hence my car analogy.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Democracy

 

[Coconutt]

We must return to monke!

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

For the people saying religion...how do we know it wasn't a net positive?

Feels like there's not a control group considering how widespread religion has been throughout history. Are we sure an atheistic culture, over time, doesn't lead to more travesty?

 

[Nico_D]

Like few others have said, without a doubt social media. Twitter being the worst offender. Everything that let's people be "who they are" and "express themselves anonymously and without restrictions" is and will always be a inherently bad idea. Before there were actual wars for that, for religion or for land, for select few dictators but now anyone can start their own personal crusade in social media.

 

[FunkMiller]

People voting social media over nuclear weapons are being shortsighted and dumb. Yeah social media sucks, but it can be regulated and policed far easier than NUCLEAR FUCKING WEAPONS that can destroy the human race.


Get some perspective people.

Arguably, nuclear weapons have prevented far more deaths than they have caused... but yeah, your point about them being objectively a worse thing than social media is obviously true.

 

[FunkMiller]

For the people saying religion...how do we know it wasn't a net positive?

Feels like there's not a control group considering how widespread religion has been throughout history. Are we sure an atheistic culture, over time, doesn't lead to more travesty?

It's not a net positive, because it forces a society to found itself on something that is non existent. This is not a particularly good way of creating a strong society, needless to say.

A non religious society would base all of its decisions, morals, activities, opinions and actions on stuff that is real, tangible and existent.

Anyone would be a fool to suggest that religion has not had some benefit, but its intrinsic lack of solidity makes it a deeply flawed structure on which to base human society.

Not to mention it breeds strife and bigotry across the world. The bad outweighs the good.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

It's not a net positive, because it forces a society to found itself on something that is non existent. This is not a particularly good way of creating a strong society, needless to say.

A non religious society would base all of its decisions, morals, activities, opinions and actions on stuff that is real, tangible and existent.

Anyone would be a fool to suggest that religion has not had some benefit, but its intrinsic lack of solidity makes it a deeply flawed structure on which to base human society.

Not to mention it breeds strife and bigotry across the world. The bad outweighs the good.

If it wasn't a good way of creating a strong society, why did basically every culture on earth since the dawn of civilization have a religion?

It's easy to spot religions warts, but we don't have a lot of data to show faithless people thriving. Religion does something we're not seeing.

 

[March Climber]

Sometimes I like to imagine an alternate version of the present where everyone is carrying around swords, spears, maces, pikes, axes, and hammers as weapons of self defense and guns were never created.

Would be interesting with added science and tech into the mix.

 

[FunkMiller]

If it wasn't a good way of creating a strong society, why did basically every culture on earth since the dawn of civilization have a religion?

It's easy to spot religions warts, but we don't have a lot of data to show faithless people thriving. Religion does something we're not seeing.

The fear of death. Lack of knowledge about the world and universe around them. That kind of stuff.

There are plenty of very secular nations on this earth, and they are some of the happiest, so... you know.

 

[Rest]

It's actually quite hard to think of any human invention that has been 100% bad, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever - which should probably be the main criteria for deciding on what the worst invention ever was.

Of the list above, only cigarettes are 100% bad. Even leaded petrol served a purpose once upon a time. But even with cigarettes, I used to smoke, and very much enjoyed the dopamine hit caused by the nicotine. So, 100% bad?

Much harder question to answer than it appears, as almost everything invented has had a purpose at one point or another.

Also, cigarettes have art associated with them

How do you get your enemy to stop fighting? Give him smack.

Japanese pacification of the Chinese during WWII was accomplished with opium laced cigarettes:

www.neogaf.com

 

[March Climber]

Religion does something we're not seeing.

Religion, like many other shared experiences, helps form a sense of community and togetherness within those who believed in it. The problem, like everything, is that there ends up bad actors that take things to the extreme and use religion for selfish means.

Right now, there are too many bad actors and they also use religion as a weapon and shield, so many people feel it’s better to just let go or get rid of the concept of religion. The problem you’re seeing is that nothing is replacing the concept so that the sense of community is kept, so people end up holding on to religion because the alternative looks like a void of nothingness and separation.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

The fear of death. Lack of knowledge about the world and universe around them. That kind of stuff.

There are plenty of very secular nations on this earth, and they are some of the happiest, so... you know.

Hard to compare 10,000 years of human history with pockets of secular societies popping up over the last 75 years or so.

Btw, how did Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Pol Pot, and Moa Zedong grade out for you?

Let secularism stew a bit. Atheists might be capable of some pretty monstrous stuff too.

 

[20cent]

Religion should be on the poll, it is the number one cause of death and misery.

Which religion is behind capitalism causing mass consumption of crappy food leading to heart disease, famine in the 3rd World and children working in cobalt mines?

 

[mxbison]

Religion easily.

Kinda torn on Social Media. It's obviously full of bullshit but I don't think traditional media having full control over all the bullshit is any better.

Nukes until this point have saved a lot more lives than they have cost by preventing major countries from going to war against each other. Of course that only goes until someone finally decides to push the button and wipe out a large part of humanity.

 

[FunkMiller]

Hard to compare 10,000 years of human history with pockets of secular societies popping up over the last 75 years or so.

Btw, how did Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Pol Pot, and Moa Zedong grade out for you?

Let secularism stew a bit. Atheists might be capable of some pretty monstrous stuff too.

You can do better than that. I can name just as many (if not many more) religious leaders who have presided over the death of millions. No black and whites here, only shades of grey.

Also secular does not equal atheist. Secularism is a political doctrine, where religion plays no part in the running of the state. It doesn't mean religion cannot or does not exist within societies built on it.

And given how secularism (and atheism for that matter) is permanently on the rise, I'd suggest we're are going to find out how successful it can be in the long run. In my view, it'll be a better world, based on rationality, science, and humanism. It'll still have its flaws though, because everything has.

 

[winjer]

If it wasn't a good way of creating a strong society, why did basically every culture on earth since the dawn of civilization have a religion?

It's easy to spot religions warts, but we don't have a lot of data to show faithless people thriving. Religion does something we're not seeing.

Because it's a way to explain a very complex world, at a time when science was barely a thought.
Societies didn't create religion to make a strong society. Quite the opposite, it's to control the masses with superstition.

Modern society was only able to able to develop as much as it did in the last couple of centuries, because we have been replacing religion, dogma and superstition with logic, reason and science.
If it wasn't for science, we would still be in the middle ages, with most people not knowing to read, people trying to cure diseases with all sort of non-sense, several famines, and death as a constant.
And religion has always been the main opposition to scientific advancement. The main obstacle to human advancement.
Polls have showed that around 97% of scientists in the USA are non-believers in religion. Meaning, atheists and agnostics.

And science is not just about creating chips and spaceships. There are many fields that encompass most of human experiences, like philosophy, psychology, biology, physics, chemistry, climatology, astrophysics, and so many more.

We live in the best time, that humankind has ever lived. Never had we so many amenities, long life expectations, knowledge, etc.
And we owe it all to science, logic and reason. Not to religion, superstition and dogma.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

You can do better than that. I can name just as many (if not many more) religious leaders who have presided over the death of millions.

That would be illogical though. The vast portion of human history has been religious. The secular/atheist cultural movement is relatively recent and still relatively small on a global scale. You'd have to show rates relative to population, not merely list off examples.

And given how secularism (and atheism for that matter) is permanently on the rise

Nothing in nature is permanent.

, I'd suggest we're are going to find out how successful it can be in the long run.

You and I will be dead in 50 years. We won't have nearly enough data to compare atheism to 10,000 years of religious history.

In my view, it'll be a better world, based on rationality, science, and humanism. It'll still have its flaws though, because everything has.

Yes, everything has its flaws. What I'm asking is why are we so sure atheism will have preferable flaws to religious cultures?

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

And we owe it all to science, logic and reason. Not to religion, superstition and dogma.

Maybe we owe the last 200 years to science, logic, and reason, but the prior 9,800 years we might owe to religion.

 

[Lasha]

It's not a net positive, because it forces a society to found itself on something that is non existent. This is not a particularly good way of creating a strong society, needless to say.

A non religious society would base all of its decisions, morals, activities, opinions and actions on stuff that is real, tangible and existent.

Anyone would be a fool to suggest that religion has not had some benefit, but its intrinsic lack of solidity makes it a deeply flawed structure on which to base human society.

Not to mention it breeds strife and bigotry across the world. The bad outweighs the good.

You kinda gloss over the role that religious thought had in forming the idea of natural rights. Objectively, a human life only has value based on how much it can produce or reproduce. Why pay welfare or UBI in a fully secular society since there is no moral reason to sustain those who can't produce. The USSR is a good example of the atrocities we can inflict on one another once one starts taking a rational look at the human problem.

 

[FunkMiller]

You kinda gloss over the role that religious thought had in forming the idea of natural rights. Objectively, a human life only has value based on how much it can produce or reproduce. Why pay welfare or UBI in a fully secular society since there is no moral reason to sustain those who can't produce. The USSR is a good example of the atrocities we can inflict on one another once one starts taking a rational look at the human problem.

Yeah, not sure bringing religion up when it comes to people’s rights is the hill you want to die on with this… but we’ll stray into politics to go much further, so I’ll leave it there, and wish u a good day

 

[winjer]

Hard to compare 10,000 years of human history with pockets of secular societies popping up over the last 75 years or so.

Btw, how did Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Pol Pot, and Moa Zedong grade out for you?

Let secularism stew a bit. Atheists might be capable of some pretty monstrous stuff too.

One thing to consider, Mussolini was not an atheist. In fact it was him that create the state of the Vatican with an agreement with the Catholic church.

Another thing to consider is that atheism is not a set of rules or dogmas. It's just a position of knowledge that only states that god does not exist. It doesn't go any further than that.
Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao didn't kill billions because there is a rule in atheism that says to kill people, they did because they wanted to kill all those people.
But I can do the exact same thing you did, and point to people in history that have committed genocides, not because of religion, but because they wanted to.
Here is a list of people that believed in a god or gods, but still committed genocides. Hitler, Mussolini, Genghis and Kubla Khan, Caesar, Young Turks, Théoneste Bagosora, Qing Eight Banners, and many more.
Plenty of wars and crimes against humanity committed without religion sayin to do so, despite being committed by people who believed in a god. Just like Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao, committed all those crimes not because atheism says so, but because they chose to do so.
And remember one thing, if you are to blame the crimes of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot on atheism, just because they were atheists, then you have to blame all other human crimes and wars, on theism, because almost everyone in history was a theist. Are you sure you want to go that route?

But the thing is, there are many wars that were actually committed in the name of some god or gods. Estimates place the number of wars in human history, that were directly cause by religion at 25%.

Maybe we owe the last 200 years to science, logic, and reason, but the prior 9,800 years we might owe to religion.

LOL. Humankind exist for a much longer time than that. Civilization exists for at least 12.000 years, although there are suspicions that it could have started even earlier.
But all those millennia were dominated by superstition, fear and dogma. And religion was at the center of it all.
Had humankind started to free itself from religion, we would now be a much more advanced society, in all fields of human endeavor.

 

[FunkMiller]

Yes, everything has its flaws. What I'm asking is why are we so sure atheism will have preferable flaws to religious cultures?

Because it’s based on reality.

 

[GymWolf]

Religion, and it's not even fucking close.

Literal fairytales for childrens responsible for the death\separation of countless of people over the course of many centuries.

 

[Lasha]

Yeah, not sure bringing religion up when it comes to people’s rights is the hill you want to die on with this… but we’ll stray into politics to go much further, so I’ll leave it there, and wish u a good day

Somebody calls out your Seth McFarlane take on religion and you take your ball and go home? Why should society let any child with a birth defect be born if the parent can't fully take care of them? Why should we provide welfare and shelter to those who can't support themselves? Why should societies provide medical care to retired people who have no particular skill or usefulness instead of euthanizing them? Why should the group of society with the majority of power give any consideration to the poor? The scientific view is that humans are simply evolved primates. An individual becomes worthless in the face of society once you shed the fiction of a soul.

 

[winjer]

You kinda gloss over the role that religious thought had in forming the idea of natural rights. Objectively, a human life only has value based on how much it can produce or reproduce. Why pay welfare or UBI in a fully secular society since there is no moral reason to sustain those who can't produce. The USSR is a good example of the atrocities we can inflict on one another once one starts taking a rational look at the human problem.

Religion has been the greatest obstacle to human rights.
Religions supported human sacrifices, slavery, serfdom and feudalism, antisemitism, discrimination against other races and other religions. Religion was against women's rights. Against democracy. Against gay rights. Against minorities rights.
All the rights we have now came from the political scientist from the 19th century. Not from religion.
If we depended on religion, we would all still be serfs or slaves, while kings, emperors, bishops and popes ruled over our lives and thoughts.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Had humankind started to free itself from religion, we would now be a much more advanced society, in all fields of human endeavor.

We don't know this.

Fear, dogma, superstition etc were all valued components of SUCCESSFUL societies. People that did not have religion throughout history got wiped out by cultures that did have religion.

Religion was fertile. Atheism rarely sprouted.

 

[winjer]

We don't know this.

Fear, dogma, superstition etc were all valued components of SUCCESSFUL societies. People that did not have religion throughout history got wiped out by cultures that did have religion.

Religion was fertile. Atheism rarely sprouted.

Our current societies, that have the biggest dose of atheists ever, is by far the most successful society ever.
Never did a society before us have so much freedom, so much scientific advancements, so many amenities, so long life expectancy, so much art being made.
ALL of the greatest human advancements were made by logic, reason and science. Not by religion, superstition and dogma. So we can be sure, that without the restrains of religion on humankind, we would be much more advanced on all fields.

And the reason why atheism was so rare throughout most of ancient human societies, was because all religions persecuted people that did not believe in their god or gods. Not because religion was doing good things, quite the opposite, it was because religion was killing anyone who disagreed.

 

[Fools idol]

Social media has been far more damaging and reaching than anything else.

It has given platforms of millions to absolute sociopaths, cultivated a petri dish of misinformation and bad science, amplified mental health problems on a huge scale, given massive political manipulation power to groups who shouldnt be left unsupervised by an adult around sharp objects.. the list goes on.

It has also encouraged the younger generation to perform stupid and riskier 'pranks' and 'challenges' in exchange for viral fame and distorted the reality of having a real job, earning money (the everyone can be a rich influencer fallacy). I know this is a real problem because my 16 year old neice and a large group of her friends dropped school and are now unemployed, sponging from parents while they 'grow their page' (amongst the millions of others) to absolutely zero return. Not a single one of them has any intention of ever working, starting a real business or anything else. They are obsessed with posting pictures of themselves with things they dont own, or with less and less clothes on. It's really quite disturbing.

ahh, this choice was easy. This shit has rotted society to the core.

 

[Lasha]

Religion has been the greatest obstacle to human rights.
Religions supported human sacrifices, slavery, serfdom and feudalism, antisemitism, discrimination against other races and other religions. Religion was against women's rights. Against democracy. Against gay rights. Against minorities rights.
All the rights we have now came from the political scientist from the 19th century. Not from religion.
If we depended on religion, we would all still be serfs or slaves, while kings, emperors, bishops and popes ruled over our lives and thoughts.

"The political scientist in the 19th century"? The concept of Natural rights go back to Zoroastrianism. The idea of natural rights which are universal is an inherently religious concept. One has to believe in some form of higher power or order in the universe in order to come up with the concept of natural law. There is no observable reason to believe that a human has an intrinsic right to anything. Religion set the foundation for later philosophers to derive our modern concept of human rights from.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Because it’s based on reality.

Are you sure the reality that nothing matters and we're all less than dust in the greater universe is going to lead to humans being better to one another?

 

[winjer]

"The political scientist in the 19th century"? The concept of Natural rights go back to Zoroastrianism. The idea of natural rights which are universal is an inherently religious concept. One has to believe in some form of higher power or order in the universe in order to come up with the concept of natural law. There is no observable reason to believe that a human has an intrinsic right to anything. Religion set the foundation for later philosophers to derive our modern concept of human rights from.

Almost none of that translates into the many human rights we have today.
Pretty much every right we have now in moderns societies came from the 19th century political scientists.
Human rights, children rights, women's rights, worker's rights, welfare's rights, all stated in the 19th century political revolutions.

 

[Lasha]

Almost none of that translates into the many human rights we have today.
Pretty much every right we have now in moderns societies came from the 419th century political scientists.

Which parts don't translate? I'm sad that you don't follow what I am trying to say. 19th century political science doesn't exist as you know it without the thousands of years of order afforded by religious societies. The development of religion was of massive importance to the overall development of society. Its not a coincidence that the most successful empires in history had strong religious traditions.

 

[winjer]

Which parts don't translate? I'm sad that you don't follow what I am trying to say. 19th century political science doesn't exist as you know it without the thousands of years of order afforded by religious societies. The development of religion was of massive importance to the overall development of society. Its not a coincidence that the most successful empires in history had strong religious traditions.

The most successful empires in history, were successful because they attacked and conquered other kingdoms and empires. Millions of people were killed while these empires were being "successful".
No empire was built on asking nicely to other people if they wanted to join in.
And many times, religion was right there to force the conversion of conquered people, with the threat of violence.

The 19th century political science, in several ways was a rebellion against religion and the previous political systems.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Our current societies, that have the biggest dose of atheists ever, is by far the most successful society ever.

The score is 1,273 to 1. Congratulations on scoring your first point atheistic society.

Never did a society before us have so much freedom, so much scientific advancements, so many amenities, so long life expectancy, so much art being made.

So much depression, so much suicide, so much addiction...

ALL of the greatest human advancements were made by logic, reason and science. Not by religion, superstition and dogma.

Let me know what scientific advancement is greater than the concept of love, duty, sacrifice, loyalty etc which I'll argue falls in the religious basket. All irrational, superstitious concepts that are superior to your beloved IPhone22 and nuclear bomb.

And the reason why atheism was so rare throughout most of ancient human societies, was because all religions persecuted people that did not believe in their god or gods. Not because religion was doing good things, quite the opposite, it was because religion was killing anyone who disagreed.

If atheism is so great why didn't those people use logic, rational thought, and science to defend themselves from the smooth brained religious cultures?

You can't say "Atheism would have thrived if it weren't for those superior (religious) cultures." Either you can compete and survive or you can't.

 

[Lasha]

The most successful empires in history, were successful because they attacked and conquered other kingdoms and empires. Millions of people were killed while these empires were being "successful".
No empire was built on asking nicely to other people if they wanted to join in.
And many times, religion was right there to force the conversion of conquered people, with the threat of violence.

The 19th century political science, in several ways was a rebellion against religion and the previous political systems.

So you agree with me that religion gave the order that allowed empires to expand and society to develop? You're all over the place.

 

[winjer]

The score is 1,273 to 1. Congratulations on scoring your first point atheistic society.

You are benefiting a lot from having the most advanced society ever built. Both in scientific and political terms. You are welcome.

So much depression, so much suicide, so much addiction...

Suicide, depression and addiction all existed before. The diference is that today we know what they are and we try to fight it.

Let me know what scientific advancement is greater than the concept of love, duty, sacrifice, loyalty etc which I'll argue falls in the religious basket. All irrational, superstitious concepts that are superior to your beloved IPhone22 and nuclear bomb.

You pretend that religion is some source of love, duty, sacrifice, loyalty. But they are not. They never were.
Just look at how many times religion was the source of hatred, discrimination, war, oppression.

The reality, is that with the many scientific fields in human sciences, we managed to create the most free, democratic, tolerant and inclusive society ever created in human history.
You can be sure it was not because of religion, because religion was always opposing these advancements.
Again, I remind you that science is not just abut making ships and spaceships. There are many fields in social sciences. Like politica sciences, psychology, geography, anthropology, archeology, history, economics, linguistics, etc.
All of them contributing to make the world a much better place, than anything that religion ever did. And you are benefiting from it, wheter you understand it or not.

If atheism is so great why didn't those people use logic, rational thought, and science to defend themselves from the smooth brained religious cultures?

You really need an explanation on how a large group of people can easily kill a small group of people?

You can't say "Atheism would have thrived if it weren't for those superior (religious) cultures." Either you can compete and survive or you can't.

You still can't understand that religion was created much sooner than science, and that it actively and violently persecuted atheism, through most of human history.
Only recently were we able to start unshackling humankind from religion. And the result is a much greater advancement in a couple of centuries, than all of humanity in dozens of millennia.
You live in the best time of all of human existence, and you owe it all to science, logic and reason.

 

[bitbydeath]

Which religion is behind capitalism causing mass consumption of crappy food leading to heart disease, famine in the 3rd World and children working in cobalt mines?

 

[FunkMiller]

Are you sure the reality that nothing matters and we're all less than dust in the greater universe is going to lead to humans being better to one another?

Where on earth are you getting that from? Someone’s been spinning you horseshit about what atheism is, my friend.

 

[winjer]

Where on earth are you getting that from? Someone’s been spinning you horseshit about what atheism is, my friend.

He can't eve understand the diference between nihilism and atheism. He can't understand that there are some theists and atheists that are nihilists. And that there are atheists and theists that are not nihilistic.
And he can't even understand that atheism is just a position of knowledge about one particular issue, but that nihilism is a complete philosophical line.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Social media has done more damage to the human race than nukes have.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

You are benefiting a lot from having the most advanced society ever built. Both in scientific and political terms. You are welcome.

And you are benefitting a lot from thousands of years of human religious history. Praise be to Allah.

Suicide, depression and addiction all existed before. The diference is that today we know what they are and we try to fight it.

At what rates did they exist before? The atheistic movement has developed quite a lot over the last 50 years and clinical depression is at an all time high. That doesn't feel like a healthy culture fit to dominate the next 5,000 years does it?

You pretend that religion is some source of love, duty, sacrifice, loyalty. But they are not. They never were.
Just look at how many times religion was the source of hatred, discrimination, war, oppression.

Two things can be true at once. Atheism allows for the belief that such things are irrational and shouldn't be valued. Will be interesting to see how that manifests as an atheistic society matures.

The reality, is that with the many scientific fields in human sciences, we managed to create the most free, democratic, tolerant and inclusive society ever created in human history.
You can be sure it was not because of religion, because religion was always opposing these advancements.

Yes, western society is thriving in 2023. Just ignore our depression rates, our social circles shrinking, our testosterone plummeting, and our vapid pop culture espousing toxic values.

Again, I remind you that science is not just abut making ships and spaceships. There are many fields in social sciences. Like politica sciences, psychology, geography, anthropology, archeology, history, economics, linguistics, etc.

Again, I remind you that religion is not just holy wars and corrupt churches. There are many aspects of religion that benefit people such as a stable moral framework that leads to strong communities.

All of them contributing to make the world a much better place, than anything that religion ever did.

Religion got us here.

And you are benefiting from it, wheter you understand it or not.

Ditto. Just replace the word science w/ religion.

You really need an explanation on how a large group of people can easily kill a small group of people?

Why didn't the atheistic cultures grow? Earth is 200 million square miles large. Team Godless couldn't thrive anywhere?

You still can't understand that religion was created much sooner than science, and that it actively and violently persecuted atheism, through most of human history.

Atheism is quite old. It failed to compete until only recently...and even then we're still at the starting blocks.

Only recently were we able to start unshackling humankind from religion. And the result is a much greater advancement in a couple of centuries, than all of humanity in dozens of millennia.
You live in the best time of all of human existence, and you owe it all to science, logic and reason.

If only there were notable Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hundus throughout history that laid the groundwork for todays non believing scientists to build upon.

He can't eve understand the diference between nihilism and atheism. He can't understand that there are some theists and atheists that are nihilists. And that there are atheists and theists that are not nihilistic.
And he can't even understand that atheism is just a position of knowledge about one particular issue, but that nihilism is a complete philosophical line.

Nihilism thrives under atheism.
Nihilism wilts under theism.

But I don't know, maybe building a successful long term culture where nihilism can thrive is going to lead to exceptional results?

Or can't you even understand that?

 

[IDKFA]

This is why religion wasn't added as an option.

Anyway, I'm surprised gunpowder has so few votes. I'm struggling how to think it's benefited humans, beside making it easier to kill eachother.

 

[GymWolf]

Fucking lol at people thinking that religion is what childs need to grow up good instead of just having non-shitty capable parents.

How about all the billions of shitty but still religious people around?

 

[winjer]

And you are benefitting a lot from thousands of years of human religious history. Praise be to Allah.

No I'm not. If it wasn't for religion humankind would be much more advanced. Not just in mathematical sciences, but also in politics.

At what rates did they exist before? The atheistic movement has developed quite a lot over the last 50 years and clinical depression is at an all time high. That doesn't feel like a healthy culture fit to dominate the next 5,000 years does it?

We don't have concrete data for those things before, because science is the only collecting and analyzing them.
But we do know that these issues existed in all civilizations.
You just like to pretend it's some modern problem, without any evidence to what existed before.

Two things can be true at once. Atheism allows for the belief that such things are irrational and shouldn't be valued. Will be interesting to see how that manifests as an atheistic society matures.

Atheism doesn't prescript to any of what you said. That is just nonsense.

But we already started seeing the benefits of a secular society. More freedom, more equality, more respect for minorities, more rights, better understanding of the world, better understanding of diseases, physical and psicological.

Yes, western society is thriving in 2023. Just ignore our depression rates, our social circles shrinking, our testosterone plummeting, and our vapid pop culture espousing toxic values.

Your lack of knowledge about previous societies is staggering. You keep pretending that there was an ideal world, with no depression, isolation and change of values.
Sorry to disappoint you but there was plenty of issues in previous societies, many were much worse than any problems we have now.
And changes in the values in society are common throughout history, with the older generations constantly decrying the younger generations for having different values.

Yes, western society has it's problems, but we are in a much better place than any other society n human history.

Again, I remind you that religion is not just holy wars and corrupt churches. There are many aspects of religion that benefit people such as a stable moral framework that leads to strong communities.

True, there are positive aspects to religion, mostly for people within the same group.
But then there are many negatives, to it. Too many.

Religion got us here.

Religion got us in almost stagnation for millennia, until the point we started to free ourselves from it.

Ditto. Just replace the word science w/ religion.

Mankind has benefited a lot more from science than from religion.
These last couple of centuries with science, have brought us greater development, than many millennia with religion.

Why didn't the atheistic cultures grow? Earth is 200 million square miles large. Team Godless couldn't thrive anywhere?

You really can't understand that religion was created much sooner than atheism and science? And that religion would kill anyone who wasn't a believer.

Atheism is quite old. It failed to compete until only recently...and even then we're still at the starting blocks.

Atheism had very small displays throughout history, and was mostly dealt by religion with extreme violence.
There were never an equal starting point.

If only there were notable Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hundus throughout history that laid the groundwork for todays non believing scientists to build upon.

Care to show examples?

Nihilism thrives under atheism.
Nihilism wilts under theism.

But I don't know, maybe building a successful long term culture where nihilism can thrive is going to lead to exceptional results?

Or can't you even understand that?

So very wrong. You are just spouting religious propaganda.

 

[DaleinCalgary]

Social media has done more damage to the human race than nukes have.

While true social media shows us which people are more crazy than others. People just can't stop making a fool out of themselves for others to watch.

 

[OZ9000]

While true social media shows us which people are more crazy than others. People just can't stop making a fool out of themselves for others to watch.

Social media has given the impression we live in world of free thought however this is not the case. Unless you align with the (flawed) values and groupthink of the far left, you will be ostracized. But it certainly has highlighted how a large swathe of the younger generation is suffering from mental illness. Cancel culture is the absolute worst. Dave Chappelle was vilified for his previous stand up comedies, and his latest special on Netflix 'Closure' was a sad, pathetic excuse of an apology to fit in with an idiotic minority.

 

[JimmyRustler]

Smart Phones

On contrary to what everyone says I do not think social media is the problem. It being accessible everywhere is the big problem. It being accessible only at home would never have the damaging effects it now has.

People saying religion are dumb imo. While I am not religious myself there is a valid argument to be made that religion is huge factor or why we have the social structures we have now. We can debate if it is still needed but in my opinion there is absolutely no doubt that it was IMPERATIVE to bind human societies. Without religion we‘d prolly still live it small tribes and try to kill each other.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

For you guys talking religion, I'm not religious. Most people in my family aren't. And the ones that are do some Sunday church stuff where half the fam doesn't even care enough to go most of the time.

So my view on it comes from someone who doesn't do it.

I think religion can be good in that stereotypical way..... a person is down and out and needs some scripture or a priest to shine a guiding light. I don't get how reading about Moses, Jesus or whatever religious book out there makes someone feel better about themselves, but if it works then do it.

It also can be good if it just gets someone off their ass to meet people. And this includes weddings. Without religion, weddings would be boring as hell!

However, there's two super serious issues with religion.

1. Wasnt the initial intent of it to keep down peons so kings, queen and bishops could rule with an iron fist? Convince the uneducated masses gods and demons will strike them down if they disobey is a pretty stupid way to control people. It has also lead to wars, people bickering over superficial made up things, and similar to console warring I'm sure some people view it as "well, my religion has more people doing it, so we win"

2. Even worse than that is governments accepting it. If people want to do this on their own time, go ahead. Do it at home when you get home from work. But why the hell should businesses be forced to accept imaginary things? If a company says to a Sikh dude or Muslim woman, take off your turban or head scarf (especially if it's a potential disaster waiting to happen like it's a manufacturing facility where clothes can get caught), why the hell should businesses go with it and be forced to accept it?

Religion using the traditional way of historical books and spokesmen in a church or mosque is really zero difference to someone let's say being a super fan of the New York Yankees. But if someone came to work living breathing Yankees and wore a jersey and a baseball cap somehow that can be stricken down as go home and change. But someone dressing religiously or praying for 10 minutes in a cubicle is tolerated? Seems like the same shit to me. Only difference is one has to do with ancient scripture and the other is modern day sports.

I think government pushed it through because they literally just gave up or dont want to be hassled. For sake of voters, just force businesses to accept it.

Also, not all religions are even created equal. Depending where you live, the city will give recognized status to some religions. But if lets say you believe in something niche, most will probably say forget it, it doesn't count even if it's true to your belief. Makes no sense. It should be 100% acceptable or 100% able to shut down. Its like you only get recognized if you are shown on a global religion list.

 

[IDKFA]

1. Wasnt the initial intent of it to keep down peons so kings, queen and bishops could rule with an iron fist? Convince the uneducated masses gods and demons will strike them down if they disobey is a pretty stupid way to control people. It has also lead to wars, people bickering over superficial made up things, and similar to console warring I'm sure some people view it as "well, my religion has more people doing it, so we win"

No. That was not the original intent of any religion.

Religion has been the basis of wars, but it's actually not the main cause of war in human history.

2. Even worse than that is governments accepting it. If people want to do this on their own time, go ahead. Do it at home when you get home from work. But why the hell should businesses be forced to accept imaginary things? If a company says to a Sikh dude or Muslim woman, take off your turban or head scarf (especially if it's a potential disaster waiting to happen like it's a manufacturing facility where clothes can get caught), why the hell should businesses go with it?

I think government pushed it through because they literally just gave up or dont want to be hassled. For sake of voters, just force businesses to accept it.

No offense, but that could be the worst takes I've seen in a long time, and I say that as an atheist.

Governments shouldn't be tolerant of religion........*smh*