Man Without Religion

[AVG-JOE]

Finally, if you are going to approach this from a rational point of view, then you have to ask yourself why we have religion. Try to get past your personal belief system, which I can see is quite rigid, and look at our species as you would any other. Religion is an intregal part of every human society in recorded history.

Indeed.

And religion has had plenty of positive influences on humanity. Beyond the politics and power behind religion, the stories themselves codify a certain definition of love amongst individuals in spite of religious leadership bent on power.

When humans began their ascent toward Sentience, which starts with an understanding of death, religion successfully answered the question of afterlife, which was necessary to keep those clever animals from falling into despair under the weight of this new found understanding if their own frailty.

Religion is THE reason that mankind learned to organize and work together toward common goals. A concept without which our modern World would not be possible.

Religion is a necessary tool used by evolution to sculpt a Sentient World from a living planet and Evolution hurts.


The bad news: In our quest for the Stars from which we came, religion was necessary.

The good news: It's just about run it's course.

The Stars await, Monkeys. Please don't fuck it up.​

In essence, yes.

But whatever benefits religion might have afforded man, those benefits were lost by the advent of civilization, when men began to use the religion and god they created to subjugate and oppress.

For the last 10,000 years or more, therefore, religion has been the bane of all humankind.

Not lost... Used.

Looking at the big picture perspective, with religion being just one more tool that evolution is using to drag our collective ass out of the jungle, Monkeys appear right on schedule to this average Monkey.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Find fault with Jesus Christ. Was He oppressive? Who did He threaten to kill? How did He use His power? How did He treat people?
If you have seen Him, you have seen the Father.

Get your eyes off of man's treatment of man and set your eyes on the one that represents God Almighty. If you are using man's ambition and greed as a reason not to draw near to your Father, then man has succeeded in oppressing you, not God.

 

[GrosMinet]

Finally, if you are going to approach this from a rational point of view, then you have to ask yourself why we have religion. Try to get past your personal belief system, which I can see is quite rigid, and look at our species as you would any other. Religion is an intregal part of every human society in recorded history. That is a universal statement. There are no exceptions short of small, isolated tribal groups and that is debatable. So please name me any other species which has a universal behavior that has evolved with them and point out how that behavior is negative to that species. That is not how evolution works and unless you are of the opinion that homo sapien is somehow special and not subject to the same evolutionary process as every other species on the planet, then perhaps you need to rethink your assumptions.

I'll give you two examples.

First, mountain gorillas. Males are competing with each other to control harems. When a new male happens to displace a former one, he sets out to kill all the infant gorillas who don't have his genes, but those of the former owner. It's not a pathology, it's a biological adaptation. The problem is that mountain gorillas as a species are critically endangered, so that adaptation now turns to be counterproductive at the level of the species. It works to hasten their extinction.

Second, chimpanzees. It has been known for about 40 years that chimpanzees are xenophobic : they sometimes indulge in intertribal warfare (which actually looks more like raids on isolated chimpanzees from the other groups, but the attacks are still lethal). That xenophobia is adaptive for the group, but not for the species. Intertribal warfare has also been reported for rhesus monkeys from Cayo Santiago.

Natural selection is not for the good of the species. It's for the good of each individual's selfish genes, and at most some theorists think that group selection is possible, though it isn't quite like species selection.

And even if religion turns out to be adaptive (it probably is in some circumstances), it would not mean it's true. Natural selection doesn't care about truth, but only about fitness.

Which by the way has given rise to Plantinga's transcendental argument against naturalism, but that's another story.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

Get your eyes off of man's treatment of man and set your eyes on the one that represents God Almighty. If you are using man's ambition and greed as a reason not to draw near to your Father, then man has succeeded in oppressing you, not God.

There is no God there is only a delusion and the mistreatment of human beings by other human beings who embrace that delusion. It is by far not the only cause of mistreatment but it is a large one and if we get rid of it then there will be that much less suffering.

 

[alang1216]

Finally, if you are going to approach this from a rational point of view, then you have to ask yourself why we have religion.

An excellent question. I have neither religion nor faith but I feel there must be positives about religion that outweigh the negatives. Here’s my $0.02.
Religion started as a way to control nature. Man wanted to cure an illness but he had no idea of the cause. Through trial and error some plants or techniques were found to be effective. Their use was passed down through generations as rituals. As the rituals increased in number and complexity it became an important but challenging job, going to the best and brightest, or at least the best connected. I think that tradition continued right thru the Middle Ages where it was the priests who were literate. In ancient cultures where opportunities for learning were limited, these educated men performed a valuable service and religions developed. The early polytheistic religions were inclusive, you could worship many gods, so they served to unite people and foster cultural interactions. It was not until Christianity and later Islam that religions became exclusive. They now show signs of being discarded so maybe the days of religion have passed.

I disagree.

Religion started as an answer to the most terrifying question to face a growing level of Sentience: "What is Death?"

The best argument against religion in general is that, 50,000 years later, not one of the unprovable questions facing each and every Monkey has been answered, sans 'have faith'.

Not one.​

I don't think all human societies were all that concerned with what came after death. Pagans were mostly concerned with this life, having babies and getting it to rain. Even Judiasm didn't focus much on the next life, it was a guide to living this life properly. It was Christianity that invented heaven and hell.

 

[sealybobo]

Have you ever wondered what the world would be like if Mankind abandoned religion? Then I simply point you to one of the most shining chapters in our history as a species. Ancient Greece. It is difficult if not impossible to say exactly when the Greeks abandoned their gods because they did not simply wake up one day and declare their disbelief. Rather it happened gradually, turning their formalized religion into a vaguely observed superstition like how most of us today think of karma or ghosts. Little by little they began to stop believing in their religion and the result was the birth of democracy and the ideals of individual liberty and equality. The birth of Psychics and the pursuit of a greater understanding of our universe and how things behave in it. Science and Democracy. That is what atheism has given Mankind. I need not enumerate the many benefits we have enjoyed from both. One has doubled our lifespan in the past 50 or so years alone and the other has given us the right to enjoy that longevity however we see fit. Now to those that would have our nation embrace religion even more than it has already I point you to several examples of theocracy. The Crusades were made possible by the many theocracies of Europe obeying the Pope and the greatest theocracy of all, the Catholic Church, without question. Theocracy gave us the numerous inquisitions across European history in which people were tortured for practicing their faith in ways not in line with Catholic norms. As for the medical benefits we reaped from faith and religion I give you Trepanning. A treatment for many illnesses which were misdiagnosed as demonic possession in which a primitive drill was used to bore a hole into the skull to let the demons out. Need I say more. Objectively the good science and secularism has done us far outweighs that done by religion and the horrible negatives suffered as a result of religion far outweighs any good it does.

I was listening to this woman last night and I loved everything she said except for when she talked about god. She could have took the god out of it and instead of being a religious person talking about god she could be a motivational speaker talking about karma. I would have agreed 100% with everything she said if she didn't say god wants or god says. Why add the fairy tale lie to the message? She said be nice to people, tip more, be nicer to your spouse, etc. and you will be rewarded. I agree, but it isn't a god picking and choosing who he rewards here on earth and who he doesn't. But I do believe in karma and I'm a good person so no need for religion or god.

I would even let this women go talk to kids in school if she would leave her imaginary friend out of the story https://www.joycemeyer.org/

 

[alang1216]

Find fault with Jesus Christ. Was He oppressive? Who did He threaten to kill? How did He use His power? How did He treat people?
If you have seen Him, you have seen the Father.

Jesus' followers changed Judiasm from a religion of action into Christianity, a religion of belief. Jews had only to behave correctly to be right with God. It doesn't matter what Christians do, it only matters what they believe. A high bar since, according to the Gospels, Jesus went around preaching and performing miracles and his disciples still didn't know who he really was. Are we expected to believe what even people who knew him didn't believe or we go to hell?

 

[PratchettFan]

Finally, if you are going to approach this from a rational point of view, then you have to ask yourself why we have religion. Try to get past your personal belief system, which I can see is quite rigid, and look at our species as you would any other. Religion is an intregal part of every human society in recorded history. That is a universal statement. There are no exceptions short of small, isolated tribal groups and that is debatable. So please name me any other species which has a universal behavior that has evolved with them and point out how that behavior is negative to that species. That is not how evolution works and unless you are of the opinion that homo sapien is somehow special and not subject to the same evolutionary process as every other species on the planet, then perhaps you need to rethink your assumptions.

I'll give you two examples.

First, mountain gorillas. Males are competing with each other to control harems. When a new male happens to displace a former one, he sets out to kill all the infant gorillas who don't have his genes, but those of the former owner. It's not a pathology, it's a biological adaptation. The problem is that mountain gorillas as a species are critically endangered, so that adaptation now turns to be counterproductive at the level of the species. It works to hasten their extinction.

Second, chimpanzees. It has been known for about 40 years that chimpanzees are xenophobic : they sometimes indulge in intertribal warfare (which actually looks more like raids on isolated chimpanzees from the other groups, but the attacks are still lethal). That xenophobia is adaptive for the group, but not for the species. Intertribal warfare has also been reported for rhesus monkeys from Cayo Santiago.

Natural selection is not for the good of the species. It's for the good of each individual's selfish genes, and at most some theorists think that group selection is possible, though it isn't quite like species selection.

And even if religion turns out to be adaptive (it probably is in some circumstances), it would not mean it's true. Natural selection doesn't care about truth, but only about fitness.

Which by the way has given rise to Plantinga's transcendental argument against naturalism, but that's another story.

Natural selection is all about the species. The only purpose of the individual is to create and raise the next generation, so they can create and raise the next generation.

Now, in order for your points to be valid you have to demonstrate that the traits you mentioned were the cause of the problem. For example, you mention gorillas are endangered. Are they endangered because of the trait or because of hunting? I can point to an identical trait in house cats, yet we don't seem to be seeing a problem there.

As to chimpanzees, how is it destructive?

I totally agree about natural selection not caring about "truth". That is my point.

 

[GrosMinet]

Natural selection is all about the species.

You have an outdated view of natural selection. Since the sixties, biologists have realized that natural selection is not for the good of the species, but for the individuals' selfish genes. If the good of the species gets in the way of one's short-term genetic interest, then so much the worse for the species. That's my point about gorillas.

The only purpose of the individual is to create and raise the next generation, so they can create and raise the next generation.

True.

Now, in order for your points to be valid you have to demonstrate that the traits you mentioned were the cause of the problem. For example, you mention gorillas are endangered. Are they endangered because of the trait or because of hunting?

They are endangered mainly because of hunting and deforestation, but their genetic drive for infanticide compounds the problem. We cannot expect the few remaining gorillas to unite and set aside their quarrels to better survive as a species.

As to chimpanzees, how is it destructive?

I don't know enough about chimpanzees to tell, but it's a proven fact that whole "tribes" may be wiped out in such chimp wars. But then, a standard group of chimpanzees is very small by human standards. Probably smaller than 40 or even 30.

 

[PratchettFan]

Natural selection is all about the species.

You have an outdated view of natural selection. Since the sixties, biologists have realized that natural selection is not for the good of the species, but for the individuals' selfish genes. If the good of the species gets in the way of one's short-term genetic interest, then so much the worse for the species. That's my point about gorillas.

The only purpose of the individual is to create and raise the next generation, so they can create and raise the next generation.

True.

Now, in order for your points to be valid you have to demonstrate that the traits you mentioned were the cause of the problem. For example, you mention gorillas are endangered. Are they endangered because of the trait or because of hunting?

They are endangered mainly because of hunting and deforestation, but their genetic drive for infanticide compounds the problem. We cannot expect the few remaining gorillas to unite and set aside their quarrels to better survive as a species.

As to chimpanzees, how is it destructive?

I don't know enough about chimpanzees to tell, but it's a proven fact that whole "tribes" may be wiped out in such chimp wars. But then, a standard group of chimpanzees is very small by human standards. Probably smaller than 40 or even 30.

The individual's selfish genes?

 

[GrosMinet]

An excellent question. I have neither religion nor faith but I feel there must be positives about religion that outweigh the negatives. Here’s my $0.02.
Religion started as a way to control nature. Man wanted to cure an illness but he had no idea of the cause. Through trial and error some plants or techniques were found to be effective. Their use was passed down through generations as rituals. As the rituals increased in number and complexity it became an important but challenging job, going to the best and brightest, or at least the best connected. I think that tradition continued right thru the Middle Ages where it was the priests who were literate. In ancient cultures where opportunities for learning were limited, these educated men performed a valuable service and religions developed. The early polytheistic religions were inclusive, you could worship many gods, so they served to unite people and foster cultural interactions. It was not until Christianity and later Islam that religions became exclusive. They now show signs of being discarded so maybe the days of religion have passed.

I disagree.

Religion started as an answer to the most terrifying question to face a growing level of Sentience: "What is Death?"

The best argument against religion in general is that, 50,000 years later, not one of the unprovable questions facing each and every Monkey has been answered, sans 'have faith'.

Not one.​

I don't think all human societies were all that concerned with what came after death. Pagans were mostly concerned with this life, having babies and getting it to rain. Even Judiasm didn't focus much on the next life, it was a guide to living this life properly. It was Christianity that invented heaven and hell.

Very true. But gradually, people came to realize that weal and woe had little to do with actual deserts, which seemed to cast doubt on God's providence. So religious leader shifted to the irrefutable claim that justice will be done in the life to come, that God is still in charge after all, even if in this transient world, goods and evils appear to be shuffled ramdomly.

 

[GrosMinet]

Natural selection is all about the species.

You have an outdated view of natural selection. Since the sixties, biologists have realized that natural selection is not for the good of the species, but for the individuals' selfish genes. If the good of the species gets in the way of one's short-term genetic interest, then so much the worse for the species. That's my point about gorillas.



True.



They are endangered mainly because of hunting and deforestation, but their genetic drive for infanticide compounds the problem. We cannot expect the few remaining gorillas to unite and set aside their quarrels to better survive as a species.

As to chimpanzees, how is it destructive?

I don't know enough about chimpanzees to tell, but it's a proven fact that whole "tribes" may be wiped out in such chimp wars. But then, a standard group of chimpanzees is very small by human standards. Probably smaller than 40 or even 30.

The individual's selfish genes?

A gene often comes in many forms, which are called alleles. For instance, let's say there is a gene for eye color. The alleles will be : blue eyes, Brown eyes or green eyes. It's actually more complicated than that, but it's only an example.

Now, alleles are competing among themselves in the species' gene pool. We may view natural selection as the change of the frequencies of various alleles in the gene pool.

For instance, if for some reason blue-eyed individuals had some selective advantage, the allele for blue eyes would be more and more common as time goes by. That's the level of natural selection.

Now let's imagine there is a group of wolves where everything is going well. Everything is going well because of group solidarity, which, let's say, is due to every wolf having the allele "altruism". For a biologist, altruism means to decrease one's fitness to increase someone else's. In a group where everyone is an altruist, things can work out quite well.

However, let's suppose that at some point a mutant is born with the allele "selfishness". The selfish individual will only care for itself and its relatives, especially its offspring. Now, since everyone else in the group is an altruist, they will increase the fitness of the selfish individual, making sacrifices for it, but the selfish individual won't reciprocate and will take advantage of the generosity of the others. What will happen? The selfish individual will outreproduce the altruistic individuals, so that in the next generation, there will be more individuals with the allele "selfishness". And each of those individuals will take advantage of the remaining altruists, thus outreproducing them again. And it will go on until the selfish individuals are so many that the group breaks down as a cohesive unit. Unless a new allele appears by mutation, which prescribes "reciprocal altruism" or "tit for that". But reciprocal altruism is merely enlightened self-interest...

Now, you can apply it to sex : the altruistic husband is one who doesn't care about being cuckolded because all he wants is the species to survive. And the selfish husband is one who is jealous because he wants his offspring to be like him (genetically). It's obvious that the selfish husband and his offspring will win in the long run, even if the altruistic husband was more dedicated to the good of the species.

 

[sealybobo]

Have you ever wondered what the world would be like if Mankind abandoned religion?

When I became convinced that the universe was natural, that all the ghosts and gods were myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell. The dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles turned to dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world, not even in infinite space.

I was free to think. Free to express my thoughts, free to live in my own ideal. Free to live for myself and those I loved. Free to use all my faculties, all my senses. Free to spread imagination’s wings, free to investigate, to guess, and dream and hope. Free to judge and determine for myself. Free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the inspired books that savages have produced, and the barbarous legends of the past. Free from sanctified mistakes and “holy” lies. Free from the fear of eternal pain, free from the winged monsters of the night. Free from devils, ghosts and gods. For the first time I was free.

There were no prohibited places in all of the realm of thought. No error, no space where fancy could not spread her painted wings. No chains for my limbs. No lashes for my back. No flames for my flesh. No Master’s frown or threat, no following in another’s steps. No need to bow or cringe or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free; I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously faced all worlds.

My heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heros, the thinkers who gave their lives for liberty of hand and brain, for the freedom of labor and thought to those who fell on the fierce fields of war. To those who died in dungeons, bound in chains, to those by fire consumed, to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then, I vowed to grasp the torch that they held, and hold it high, That light might conquer darkness still.

-Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899)

 

[PratchettFan]

You have an outdated view of natural selection. Since the sixties, biologists have realized that natural selection is not for the good of the species, but for the individuals' selfish genes. If the good of the species gets in the way of one's short-term genetic interest, then so much the worse for the species. That's my point about gorillas.



True.



They are endangered mainly because of hunting and deforestation, but their genetic drive for infanticide compounds the problem. We cannot expect the few remaining gorillas to unite and set aside their quarrels to better survive as a species.



I don't know enough about chimpanzees to tell, but it's a proven fact that whole "tribes" may be wiped out in such chimp wars. But then, a standard group of chimpanzees is very small by human standards. Probably smaller than 40 or even 30.

The individual's selfish genes?

A gene often comes in many forms, which are called alleles. For instance, let's say there is a gene for eye color. The alleles will be : blue eyes, Brown eyes or green eyes. It's actually more complicated than that, but it's only an example.

Now, alleles are competing among themselves in the species' gene pool. We may view natural selection as the change of the frequencies of various alleles in the gene pool.

For instance, if for some reason blue-eyed individuals had some selective advantage, the allele for blue eyes would be more and more common as time goes by. That's the level of natural selection.

Now let's imagine there is a group of wolves where everything is going well. Everything is going well because of group solidarity, which, let's say, is due to every wolf having the allele "altruism". For a biologist, altruism means to decrease one's fitness to increase someone else's. In a group where everyone is an altruist, things can work out quite well.

However, let's suppose that at some point a mutant is born with the allele "selfishness". The selfish individual will only care for itself and its relatives, especially its offspring. Now, since everyone else in the group is an altruist, they will increase the fitness of the selfish individual, making sacrifices for it, but the selfish individual won't reciprocate and will take advantage of the generosity of the others. What will happen? The selfish individual will outreproduce the altruistic individuals, so that in the next generation, there will be more individuals with the allele "selfishness". And each of those individuals will take advantage of the remaining altruists, thus outreproducing them again. And it will go on until the selfish individuals are so many that the group breaks down as a cohesive unit. Unless a new allele appears by mutation, which prescribes "reciprocal altruism" or "tit for that". But reciprocal altruism is merely enlightened self-interest...

Now, you can apply it to sex : the altruistic husband is one who doesn't care about being cuckolded because all he wants is the species to survive. And the selfish husband is one who is jealous because he wants his offspring to be like him (genetically). It's obvious that the selfish husband and his offspring will win in the long run, even if the altruistic husband was more dedicated to the good of the species.

You have taken anthropomorphism to a new level.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

Have you ever wondered what the world would be like if Mankind abandoned religion? Then I simply point you to one of the most shining chapters in our history as a species. Ancient Greece. It is difficult if not impossible to say exactly when the Greeks abandoned their gods because they did not simply wake up one day and declare their disbelief. Rather it happened gradually, turning their formalized religion into a vaguely observed superstition like how most of us today think of karma or ghosts. Little by little they began to stop believing in their religion and the result was the birth of democracy and the ideals of individual liberty and equality. The birth of Psychics and the pursuit of a greater understanding of our universe and how things behave in it. Science and Democracy. That is what atheism has given Mankind. I need not enumerate the many benefits we have enjoyed from both. One has doubled our lifespan in the past 50 or so years alone and the other has given us the right to enjoy that longevity however we see fit. Now to those that would have our nation embrace religion even more than it has already I point you to several examples of theocracy. The Crusades were made possible by the many theocracies of Europe obeying the Pope and the greatest theocracy of all, the Catholic Church, without question. Theocracy gave us the numerous inquisitions across European history in which people were tortured for practicing their faith in ways not in line with Catholic norms. As for the medical benefits we reaped from faith and religion I give you Trepanning. A treatment for many illnesses which were misdiagnosed as demonic possession in which a primitive drill was used to bore a hole into the skull to let the demons out. Need I say more. Objectively the good science and secularism has done us far outweighs that done by religion and the horrible negatives suffered as a result of religion far outweighs any good it does.

I was listening to this woman last night and I loved everything she said except for when she talked about god. She could have took the god out of it and instead of being a religious person talking about god she could be a motivational speaker talking about karma. I would have agreed 100% with everything she said if she didn't say god wants or god says. Why add the fairy tale lie to the message? She said be nice to people, tip more, be nicer to your spouse, etc. and you will be rewarded. I agree, but it isn't a god picking and choosing who he rewards here on earth and who he doesn't. But I do believe in karma and I'm a good person so no need for religion or god.

I would even let this women go talk to kids in school if she would leave her imaginary friend out of the story https://www.joycemeyer.org/

I agree we should do nice things and pay it forward. I truly believe in the power of making a stranger's day for no reason. But I think it's more meaningful when an atheist does this because the atheist doesn't think that some overseer is going to reward them. They don't think that they'll accumulate good karma because of it. The still think that the universe will be just as indifferent and at times inhospitable to them as it was before. They do the good deed simply because good deeds are their own reward. That's why I do them at least. I truly just like making people's day. It makes me feel good it makes them feel good.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

Have you ever wondered what the world would be like if Mankind abandoned religion?

When I became convinced that the universe was natural, that all the ghosts and gods were myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell. The dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles turned to dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world, not even in infinite space.

I was free to think. Free to express my thoughts, free to live in my own ideal. Free to live for myself and those I loved. Free to use all my faculties, all my senses. Free to spread imagination’s wings, free to investigate, to guess, and dream and hope. Free to judge and determine for myself. Free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the inspired books that savages have produced, and the barbarous legends of the past. Free from sanctified mistakes and “holy” lies. Free from the fear of eternal pain, free from the winged monsters of the night. Free from devils, ghosts and gods. For the first time I was free.

There were no prohibited places in all of the realm of thought. No error, no space where fancy could not spread her painted wings. No chains for my limbs. No lashes for my back. No flames for my flesh. No Master’s frown or threat, no following in another’s steps. No need to bow or cringe or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free; I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously faced all worlds.

My heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heros, the thinkers who gave their lives for liberty of hand and brain, for the freedom of labor and thought to those who fell on the fierce fields of war. To those who died in dungeons, bound in chains, to those by fire consumed, to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then, I vowed to grasp the torch that they held, and hold it high, That light might conquer darkness still.

-Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899)

 

[AVG-JOE]

An excellent question. I have neither religion nor faith but I feel there must be positives about religion that outweigh the negatives. Here’s my $0.02.
Religion started as a way to control nature. Man wanted to cure an illness but he had no idea of the cause. Through trial and error some plants or techniques were found to be effective. Their use was passed down through generations as rituals. As the rituals increased in number and complexity it became an important but challenging job, going to the best and brightest, or at least the best connected. I think that tradition continued right thru the Middle Ages where it was the priests who were literate. In ancient cultures where opportunities for learning were limited, these educated men performed a valuable service and religions developed. The early polytheistic religions were inclusive, you could worship many gods, so they served to unite people and foster cultural interactions. It was not until Christianity and later Islam that religions became exclusive. They now show signs of being discarded so maybe the days of religion have passed.

I disagree.

Religion started as an answer to the most terrifying question to face a growing level of Sentience: "What is Death?"

The best argument against religion in general is that, 50,000 years later, not one of the unprovable questions facing each and every Monkey has been answered, sans 'have faith'.

Not one.​

I don't think all human societies were all that concerned with what came after death. Pagans were mostly concerned with this life, having babies and getting it to rain. Even Judiasm didn't focus much on the next life, it was a guide to living this life properly. It was Christianity that invented heaven and hell.

I think that they were VERY concerned with death and what that meant.

Google Search: Human+Funeral+Rituals​

 

[AVG-JOE]

I think we still are.

 

[sealybobo]

Have you ever wondered what the world would be like if Mankind abandoned religion? Then I simply point you to one of the most shining chapters in our history as a species. Ancient Greece. It is difficult if not impossible to say exactly when the Greeks abandoned their gods because they did not simply wake up one day and declare their disbelief. Rather it happened gradually, turning their formalized religion into a vaguely observed superstition like how most of us today think of karma or ghosts. Little by little they began to stop believing in their religion and the result was the birth of democracy and the ideals of individual liberty and equality. The birth of Psychics and the pursuit of a greater understanding of our universe and how things behave in it. Science and Democracy. That is what atheism has given Mankind. I need not enumerate the many benefits we have enjoyed from both. One has doubled our lifespan in the past 50 or so years alone and the other has given us the right to enjoy that longevity however we see fit. Now to those that would have our nation embrace religion even more than it has already I point you to several examples of theocracy. The Crusades were made possible by the many theocracies of Europe obeying the Pope and the greatest theocracy of all, the Catholic Church, without question. Theocracy gave us the numerous inquisitions across European history in which people were tortured for practicing their faith in ways not in line with Catholic norms. As for the medical benefits we reaped from faith and religion I give you Trepanning. A treatment for many illnesses which were misdiagnosed as demonic possession in which a primitive drill was used to bore a hole into the skull to let the demons out. Need I say more. Objectively the good science and secularism has done us far outweighs that done by religion and the horrible negatives suffered as a result of religion far outweighs any good it does.

I was listening to this woman last night and I loved everything she said except for when she talked about god. She could have took the god out of it and instead of being a religious person talking about god she could be a motivational speaker talking about karma. I would have agreed 100% with everything she said if she didn't say god wants or god says. Why add the fairy tale lie to the message? She said be nice to people, tip more, be nicer to your spouse, etc. and you will be rewarded. I agree, but it isn't a god picking and choosing who he rewards here on earth and who he doesn't. But I do believe in karma and I'm a good person so no need for religion or god.

I would even let this women go talk to kids in school if she would leave her imaginary friend out of the story https://www.joycemeyer.org/

I agree we should do nice things and pay it forward. I truly believe in the power of making a stranger's day for no reason. But I think it's more meaningful when an atheist does this because the atheist doesn't think that some overseer is going to reward them. They don't think that they'll accumulate good karma because of it. The still think that the universe will be just as indifferent and at times inhospitable to them as it was before. They do the good deed simply because good deeds are their own reward. That's why I do them at least. I truly just like making people's day. It makes me feel good it makes them feel good.

I certainly haven't become meaner since I became an atheist. To me I believe it is in my greek blood to philisopicize debate and argue. Half spartan half athenian. I can imagine this debate has gone on with the greeks for thousands of years. My grandmother on one side was just brainwashed. Her and my aunt believe it literally. I never heard my other grandmother talk about it too much. We considered ourselves christians but I wonder how much. On one side yes they believe the bible is fact but not so much on the other side. So I had the benefit of seeing both sides and I have to admit the jesus stories never felt right to me. Never felt right when born agains or jehova's approached me ever. For awhile I believed in my chuches god and thought every other christian was wrong of course but then I started hearing mormons and jehovas and jews and muslims and all the other christians and then it dawned on me its all made up. And I do believe it is bad for human's to believe a lie no matter how good it makes them feel. They'll get over it. They can then turn to spirituality over a lie. I'll be fine with that.

 

[sealybobo]

I think we still are.

“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.” - Mark Twain