Why are atheists so autistic on average?

[Enfant terrible]

If these are the arguments you’re gonna make then tbh there’s no point in continuing this just lol @ this the moral code somebody has fully depends on the society they are raised in. Next to 0 of the morals somebody has are inherently biological

I pointed out that religion has no good backing to there morals.
You didnt react to that at all. You were criticizing philosophy. Claimed the claims lack backing.
They have more backing than religion. It's based on observing and reflecting about reality.
Thinking buddy.
What is this incentive in religion ? It is the reward in the afterlife ? Gods punishment ?
If we educate people about religion this will not work anymore.
Atheist live already with there own incentives btw. So its obviously that for millions of people religion has no good incentive to offer.
So other incentives exist that could work for a society.
Without the reward religion offers there is nothing left that cant be easily replaced.
You really thinking saying its gods will would be convincing. No it wont. So its nothing left then.

That is such shit tier reasoning in terms of deciding something considering that decisions that make people unhappy but are necessary for the preservation of a society and order have happened throughout history and still happen today. Not to mention people are inherently selfish and work in their own self interest, often to the detriment of the happiness of others as that is how humans evolved to be.

This is bullshit. People are not inherently selfish. How do you explain social workers. People who sacrifice themselves for others/ dying for others.
Iam not denying humans have self interest in mind but not in this extreme way.
This seems alot like Homo economicus bullshit to me or Thomas Hobbes thinking in regards to human nature.
In utilitarianism there different branches.
Its much more complex. Its not all whats good for the person in the moment its also long term. The first one is about short term happiness. Direct results for the persons involed. Quantity over quality, thats Bentham. But Mill values quality over quantity. In this version its more about rules that you follow that will bring a maximum of happiness to society. Long term effects.

Now to this
Forgot to mention the philosophy part. While philosophy is more advanced in its arguments, its actual applications are unfeasible / not successful because it almost never accounts for the fact that people need an incentive to believe in something. Something along the lines of “it’s good for society” or “it’s rational” isn’t enough to get the ball rolling.

WTF they all do exactly that tbh. They offer an incentive to follow there moral philosophy. They offer a reason why you should do that.
Alot of people read and try to apply philosophical teachings. So it seems to be convincing enough for humans to do. There is a incentive.
You should read them.

 

[Deleted]

Base your morals off mission impossible

Im watching mi 4 rn

 

[Deleted member 6723]

good thread like seeing religious and ppl and athiests/antitheists argue

 

[Deleted member 6723]

I GREW AN EXTRA PENIS!!!

wtf bro jfl

 

[Lux]

wtf bro jfl

I was proving that the absence of evidence can be evidence of absence but I can tell people didn't get it

 

[Deleted member 6723]

I was proving that the absence of evidence can be evidence of absence but I can tell people didn't get it

idk whats wrong with u jfl not the same concept.

Gave me a good laugh though

 

[Blackout.xl]

I pointed out that religion has no good backing to there morals.
You didnt react to that at all. You were criticizing philosophy. Claimed the claims lack backing.
They have more backing than religion. It's based on observing and reflecting about reality.
Thinking buddy.
What is this incentive in religion ? It is the reward in the afterlife ? Gods punishment ?
If we educate people about religion this will not work anymore.
Atheist live already with there own incentives btw. So its obviously that for millions of people religion has no good incentive to offer.
So other incentives exist that could work for a society.
Without the reward religion offers there is nothing left that cant be easily replaced.
You really thinking saying its gods will would be convincing. No it wont. So its nothing left then.

That is such shit tier reasoning in terms of deciding something considering that decisions that make people unhappy but are necessary for the preservation of a society and order have happened throughout history and still happen today. Not to mention people are inherently selfish and work in their own self interest, often to the detriment of the happiness of others as that is how humans evolved to be.

This is bullshit. People are not inherently selfish. How do you explain social workers. People who sacrifice themselves for others/ dying for others.
Iam not denying humans have self interest in mind but not in this extreme way.
This seems alot like Homo economicus bullshit to me or Thomas Hobbes thinking in regards to human nature.
In utilitarianism there different branches.
Its much more complex. Its not all whats good for the person in the moment its also long term. The first one is about short term happiness. Direct results for the persons involed. Quantity over quality, thats Bentham. But Mill values quality over quantity. In this version its more about rules that you follow that will bring a maximum of happiness to society. Long term effects.

Now to this
Forgot to mention the philosophy part. While philosophy is more advanced in its arguments, its actual applications are unfeasible / not successful because it almost never accounts for the fact that people need an incentive to believe in something. Something along the lines of “it’s good for society” or “it’s rational” isn’t enough to get the ball rolling.

WTF they all do exactly that tbh. They offer an incentive to follow there moral philosophy. They offer a reason why you should do that.
Alot of people read and try to apply philosophical teachings. So it seems to be convincing enough for humans to do. There is a incentive.
You should read them.

The backing of religion is eternal reward, something beyond life, something bigger than the individual, community, etc. The backing of religious ideals are borne out both through ideas and material things.

and by backing I mean incentive, a reason to believe or subscribe to the idea, etc. As I said before, you can’t build a society through the view of reality that some philosophers have, as philosophers are human and there’s no reason to maintain their ideals and actively carry them out. They can be easily replaced, can easily crumble under the weight of criticism and therefore have little longevity.

Theres atheist INDIVIDUALS. I’m talking about SOCIETY. That has been the context of this conversation from the very beginning. Pretty much every atheistic society throughout history has still extracted influence from the religions that came before them and were built Ontop of the blue print of religion.

The incentives of religion and its ability to get the ball rolling in terms of societal structure goes far beyond just god.

At this point you’re just bluepilled. People do work in their own self interest. This plays out through tribalism, the family unit, people making sure they have enough before they help others, etc. You could see a homeless beggar on the street and there’s not gonna be a crowd of people dropping them change most of the time. 99% of people will walk by them without even acknowledging their existence. Capitalism as an economic system and its success is mostly based on its ability to tap the self interested part of human nature.

The blackpill is based on this concept. If you can’t agree that humans are naturally selfish, then there’s no reason for you to even be on this site.

Social workers get paid and have benefits. Are you honestly saying that there is no self interest involved in the choice of someone becoming a social worker? Jfl. If you had the same amount of social workers as we have now with people in that field making 0$ per hour and having no benefits then maybe I’d agree with you.

This still doesn’t work because now you have issues with decisions that ensure short term happiness with long term frustration and long term happiness with short term frustration. Focusing on how happy people is a bad way to make decisions on the behalf of an entire society.

You just repeated what i said and are still mixing up the individual level and societal level of structure. Smh

 

[Blackout.xl]

Religion IS a dictatorship though. This isn't an exaggeration at all. It controls billions of people around the globe and gives way to echo chamber thinking. It compels people to blindly believe, hate others who aren't like them, and support war because of it. It forces them to use emotions over logic and reason. It leads to a bunch of awful decisions and outcomes for society.

People who are religious are either dumb, gullible, or too terrified of death to be objective.

A dictatorship would imply your actions are completely controlled, your free will is limited and you have no say in anything.

Meanwhile religion is mostly about a personal relationship between a deity and following a set of rules for the betterment for yourself and your community due to a specifically outlined reason (human nature).

You have to also realize that the criteria you’re using on determining if religion is a dictatorship or now can also apply to pretty much any ideology. Which by extension means every ideology is a dictatorship. Jfl @ this.

It doesn’t compel anyone to blindly believe. Pretty much every holy book for every religion provides evidence for its claims. The evidence being valid or not is up to you but forcing people to blindly believe is just not true.

The Abrahamic religions at least encourage you to do THE OPPOSITE in the form of loving people, not hating them. Most modern religions aren’t in favour of war either. Where’s your proof for this claim?

Just call everyone who disagrees with you dumb and Gullible Ontop of misrepresenting their position theory

 

[Blackout.xl]

what are you ethnically?

West African

 

[Enfant terrible]

The backing of religion is eternal reward, something beyond life, something bigger than the individual, community, etc. The backing of religious ideals are borne out both through ideas and material things.

and by backing I mean incentive, a reason to believe or subscribe to the idea, etc. As I said before, you can’t build a society through the view of reality that some philosophers have, as philosophers are human and there’s no reason to maintain their ideals and actively carry them out. They can be easily replaced, can easily crumble under the weight of criticism and therefore have little longevity.

Theres atheist INDIVIDUALS. I’m talking about SOCIETY. That has been the context of this conversation from the very beginning. Pretty much every atheistic society throughout history has still extracted influence from the religions that came before them and were built Ontop of the blue print of religion.

The incentives of religion and its ability to get the ball rolling in terms of societal structure goes far beyond just god.

At this point you’re just bluepilled. People do work in their own self interest. This plays out through tribalism, the family unit, people making sure they have enough before they help others, etc. You could see a homeless beggar on the street and there’s not gonna be a crowd of people dropping them change most of the time. 99% of people will walk by them without even acknowledging their existence. Capitalism as an economic system and its success is mostly based on its ability to tap the self interested part of human nature.

The blackpill is based on this concept. If you can’t agree that humans are naturally selfish, then there’s no reason for you to even be on this site.

Social workers get paid and have benefits. Are you honestly saying that there is no self interest involved in the choice of someone becoming a social worker? Jfl. If you had the same amount of social workers as we have now with people in that field making 0$ per hour and having no benefits then maybe I’d agree with you.

This still doesn’t work because now you have issues with decisions that ensure short term happiness with long term frustration and long term happiness with short term frustration. Focusing on how happy people is a bad way to make decisions on the behalf of an entire society.

You just repeated what i said and are still mixing up the individual level and societal level of structure. Smh

The backing of religion is eternal reward, something beyond life, something bigger than the individual, community, etc. The backing of religious ideals are borne out both through ideas and material things.
and by backing I mean incentive, a reason to believe or subscribe to the idea, etc. As I said before, you can’t build a society through the view of reality that some philosophers have, as philosophers are human and there’s no reason to maintain their ideals and actively carry them out. They can be easily replaced, can easily crumble under the weight of criticism and therefore have little longevity.

I adressed this its all replaceable with non religious stuff. And yes its uses religion as a blueprint. You are right about that. Do you really think religion isnt easily replaced. Look at history. Not all people buy into this bullshit religious narative. Religion gets criticised all the time. Just because you claim a divine source doesnt mean people buy into that. Its not the perfect concept you make it out to be.

Theres atheist INDIVIDUALS. I’m talking about SOCIETY. That has been the context of this conversation from the very beginning. Pretty much every atheistic society throughout history has still extracted influence from the religions that came before them and were built Ontop of the blue print of religion.

I understand that. You could build something from these individual incentives.
I dont see this as a bad thing. We should replace believe in god with something else. In an atheistic society this would be something like this for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason

Part two coming later

 

[Enfant terrible]

Also buddhism is build one a philosopher not a god
still works
look at platon aswell
platonic academy etc.
i will adress the other stuff later

 

[Blackout.xl]

The backing of religion is eternal reward, something beyond life, something bigger than the individual, community, etc. The backing of religious ideals are borne out both through ideas and material things.
and by backing I mean incentive, a reason to believe or subscribe to the idea, etc. As I said before, you can’t build a society through the view of reality that some philosophers have, as philosophers are human and there’s no reason to maintain their ideals and actively carry them out. They can be easily replaced, can easily crumble under the weight of criticism and therefore have little longevity.

I adressed this its all replaceable with non religious stuff. And yes its uses religion as a blueprint. You are right about that. Do you really think religion isnt easily replaced. Look at history. Not all people buy into this bullshit religious narative. Religion gets criticised all the time. Just because you claim a divine source doesnt mean people buy into that. Its not the perfect concept you make it out to be.

Theres atheist INDIVIDUALS. I’m talking about SOCIETY. That has been the context of this conversation from the very beginning. Pretty much every atheistic society throughout history has still extracted influence from the religions that came before them and were built Ontop of the blue print of religion.

I understand that. You could build something from these individual incentives.
I dont see this as a bad thing. We should replace believe in god with something else. In an atheistic society this would be something like this for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason

Part two coming later

Religion has existed since the dawn of time and is yet to be replaced. You’re coping.

Not all people buying into something doesn’t negate the fact that the vast majority of people buy into it one way or another even when not religious but still carry the moral system from the dominant religion in their area. You’re strawmanning me at this point ngl

Individual incentives are individual for a reason. They are constructed by a singular person and are ideas that other people likely don’t agree with.

The cult of reason lasted for 1 year and was immediately replaced with a deistic alternative. Reading 2 minutes of the article you sent trashes your entire argument. just fucking lol

 

[hairyballscel]

West African

whats ur opinion on the epicurus trilemma?

as an african im sure you've given it thought

 

[Blackout.xl]

whats ur opinion on the epicurus trilemma?

as an african im sure you've given it thought

I think it can be answered with the logical impossibility of free will without evil and god allowing evil for external reasons which we can’t fully understand

 

[ConspiracyTheory]

I don't believe in God but I always admired the Knights Templar. They protected Christians during religious pilgrimage from the tyrannical muslims.

 

[Enfant terrible]

Religion has existed since the dawn of time and is yet to be replaced. You’re coping.

Not all people buying into something doesn’t negate the fact that the vast majority of people buy into it one way or another even when not religious but still carry the moral system from the dominant religion in their area. You’re strawmanning me at this point ngl

Individual incentives are individual for a reason. They are constructed by a singular person and are ideas that other people likely don’t agree with.

The cult of reason lasted for 1 year and was immediately replaced with a deistic alternative. Reading 2 minutes of the article you sent trashes your entire argument. just fucking lol

Religion has existed since the dawn of time and is yet to be replaced. You’re coping
Iam talking about individual religions. They disappear, get replaced.
Not secure at all.

Not all people buying into something doesn’t negate the fact that the vast majority of people buy into it one way or another even when not religious but still carry the moral system from the dominant religion in their area. You’re strawmanning me at this point ngl
Most people only believe because there not educated. If you want it or not atheism is on the rise in educated societys.
The dont carry the exact same moral system but they are clearly influenced by that i agree. I dont say the morals are per se wrong. But the fundament is flawed.

Individual incentives are individual for a reason. They are constructed by a singular person and are ideas that other people likely don’t agree with.
Nah the incentives of individuals overlap. Most people want to live, something to eat, drink, security etc.


Cult of Reason was just an example to illustrate what i want. I dont want that exactly.
It got only replaced because Robespierre hated atheism. He had the power so he replaced it.
Btw way i have nothing against deism.

 

[Enfant terrible]

Religion has existed since the dawn of time and is yet to be replaced. You’re coping.

Not all people buying into something doesn’t negate the fact that the vast majority of people buy into it one way or another even when not religious but still carry the moral system from the dominant religion in their area. You’re strawmanning me at this point ngl

Individual incentives are individual for a reason. They are constructed by a singular person and are ideas that other people likely don’t agree with.

The cult of reason lasted for 1 year and was immediately replaced with a deistic alternative. Reading 2 minutes of the article you sent trashes your entire argument. just fucking lol

Are you a believer ?

 

[Blackout.xl]

Religion has existed since the dawn of time and is yet to be replaced. You’re coping
Iam talking about individual religions. They disappear, get replaced.

Not all people buying into something doesn’t negate the fact that the vast majority of people buy into it one way or another even when not religious but still carry the moral system from the dominant religion in their area. You’re strawmanning me at this point ngl
Most people only believe because there not educated. If you want it or not atheism is on the rise in educated societys.
The dont carry the exact same moral system but they are clearly influncend by that i agree. I dont say the morals are per se wrong. But the fundament is flawed.

Individual incentives are individual for a reason. They are constructed by a singular person and are ideas that other people likely don’t agree with.
Nah the incentives of individuals overlap. Most people want to live, something to eat, drink, security etc.


Cult of Reason was just an example to illustrate what i want. I dont want that exactly.
It got only replaced because Robespierre hated atheism. He had the power so he replaced it.
Btw way i have nothing against deism.

They get replaced by other religions. Not atheistic ideology.

Educated people in nearly every country are religious / spiritual on average. Not atheist. Atheism is on the rise but to claim education = atheism is unsubstantiated. Atheism isn’t even the only non religious ideology out there.

A will to eat, drink, etc is fulfilling biological needs which happens outside of philosophy and has 0 relation to it. These are not incentives

The cult of reason was replaced because it was incompatible with French society and Robespierre saw that, which is why it had to literally be forced on French society with opposition banned / persecuted.

 

[Rabbi]

Top question religous peple can't answer

If God existed why don't I have hair?

 

[Blackout.xl]

Are you a believer ?

Somewhat

 

[Blackout.xl]

Top question religous peple can't answer

If God existed why don't I have hair?

You got unlucky sorry bro

 

[Enfant terrible]

They get replaced by other religions. Not atheistic ideology.
Soviet union


Educated people in nearly every country are religious / spiritual on average. Not atheist. Atheism is on the rise but to claim education = atheism is unsubstantiated. Atheism isn’t even the only non religious ideology out there.

I want a statistic for that claim. People who still believe are not really educated at all.
Atheism is not a ideology. It means only that you dont believe in god.


A will to eat, drink, etc is fulfilling biological needs which happens outside of philosophy and has 0 relation to it. There are not incentives

Of course the are. You kill the animal to get something to eat. You earn money to fulfil these needs.
People are driven by them. It leads you to do stuff. Same with the wish for purpose etc. You will join a religion or some other stuff.


The cult of reason was replaced because it was incompatible with French society and Robespierre saw that, which is why it had to literally be forced on French society with opposition banned / persecuted.

We will never knew if it would have worked out tbh.

 

[Enfant terrible]

They get replaced by other religions. Not atheistic ideology.

Educated people in nearly every country are religious / spiritual on average. Not atheist. Atheism is on the rise but to claim education = atheism is unsubstantiated. Atheism isn’t even the only non religious ideology out there.

A will to eat, drink, etc is fulfilling biological needs which happens outside of philosophy and has 0 relation to it. These are not incentives

The cult of reason was replaced because it was incompatible with French society and Robespierre saw that, which is why it had to literally be forced on French society with opposition banned / persecuted.

They get replaced by other religions. Not atheistic ideology.
Soviet union


Educated people in nearly every country are religious / spiritual on average. Not atheist. Atheism is on the rise but to claim education = atheism is unsubstantiated. Atheism isn’t even the only non religious ideology out there.

I want a statistic for that claim. People who still believe in a specific religion are not really educated at all.
Atheism is not a ideology. It means only that you dont believe in god.


A will to eat, drink, etc is fulfilling biological needs which happens outside of philosophy and has 0 relation to it. There are not incentives

Of course the are. You kill the animal to get something to eat. You earn money to fulfil these needs.
People are driven by them. It leads you to do stuff. Same with the wish for purpose etc. You will join a religion or some other stuff.
You can fufill human needs with an ideology that isnt based of believe and a god.


The cult of reason was replaced because it was incompatible with French society and Robespierre saw that, which is why it had to literally be forced on French society with opposition banned / persecuted.

We will never knew if it would have worked out tbh.

 

[Blackout.xl]

They get replaced by other religions. Not atheistic ideology.
Soviet union


Educated people in nearly every country are religious / spiritual on average. Not atheist. Atheism is on the rise but to claim education = atheism is unsubstantiated. Atheism isn’t even the only non religious ideology out there.

I want a statistic for that claim. People who still believe in a specific religion are not really educated at all.
Atheism is not a ideology. It means only that you dont believe in god.


A will to eat, drink, etc is fulfilling biological needs which happens outside of philosophy and has 0 relation to it. There are not incentives

Of course the are. You kill the animal to get something to eat. You earn money to fulfil these needs.
People are driven by them. It leads you to do stuff. Same with the wish for purpose etc. You will join a religion or some other stuff.


The cult of reason was replaced because it was incompatible with French society and Robespierre saw that, which is why it had to literally be forced on French society with opposition banned / persecuted.

We will never knew if it would have worked out tbh.

The Soviet Union literally had to suppress religion and still extracted influence from traditionalist orthodox Christianity as a blueprint for its society

Education and Religion

Founded in 1920, the NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, and business professionals.

www.nber.org

Atheism is definitely an ideology. It goes far beyond not believing in god. It naturally includes secularism, which includes even more ideologies.

That doesn’t answer the lack of ability of run of the mill Philosophy to provide incentives to the point where everyone agrees with it even when it’s challenged.

it would of NOT worked. Especially in 18th century Europe where the Catholic Church still held power with Protestant churches having newly found power.

 

[Enfant terrible]

The Soviet Union literally had to suppress religion and still extracted influence from traditionalist orthodox Christianity as a blueprint for its society

Education and Religion

Founded in 1920, the NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, and business professionals.

www.nber.org

Atheism is definitely an ideology. It goes far beyond not believing in god. It naturally includes secularism, which includes even more ideologies.

Iam not against borrowing stuff from religion at all.

The pdf is about the united states.
In germany most people dont really believe.

from wikipedia definition of atheism
Atheism is in the broadest sense an absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist.[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[1][2][7][8] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[9][10] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[10][11][12]


That doesn’t answer the lack of ability of run of the mill Philosophy to provide incentives to the point where everyone agrees with it even when it’s challenged.
Self interest.
Realising that everyone desires happiness. And doesnt desire harm. What harm and happiness is can be different for everybody.
Religion gets challenged as well all the time. Not everybody agrees with religious morality.
Its impossible that everybody will follow your teachings.

 

[Enfant terrible]

i made a mistake

 

[Blackout.xl]

Iam not against borrowing stuff from religion at all.

The pdf is about the united states.
In germany most people dont really believe.

from wikipedia definition of atheism
Atheism is in the broadest sense an absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist.[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[1][2][7][8] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[9][10] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[10][11][12]


That doesn’t answer the lack of ability of run of the mill Philosophy to provide incentives to the point where everyone agrees with it even when it’s challenged.
Self interest.
Realising that everyone desires happiness. And doesnt desire harm. What harm and happiness is can be different for everybody.
Religion gets challenged as well all the time. Not everybody agrees with religious morality.
Its impossible that everybody will follow your teachings.

Around 60% to 2/3rds of German society is Christian and the majority profess belief in god/a higher power to some degree. Is 60% of germany at minimum uneducated?

You can’t make everyone happy through basic philosophy.

Religion gets challenged but is often not replaced. That’s the point, it’s a resistant ideology.

 

[Enfant terrible]

Somewhat

Some questions
please answer
So we need religion because it give people a purpose/ higher meaning ?
An incentive to live right and do stuff with their live?
But other things can give humans that aswell.
Why do we need some objective incentive ?
Everbody could follow his own incentive in regards to his purpose.

 

[Blackout.xl]

Some questions
please answer
So we need religion because it give people a purpose/ higher meaning ?
An incentive to live right and do stuff with their live?
But other things can give humans that aswell.
Why do we need some objective incentive ?
Everbody could follow his own incentive in regards to his purpose.

Considering religion is an evolutionary trait, yeah. Society one way or another will always have religion.

if everyone follows their own incentive there will be natural conflicts with others and that leads to tribalism / conflict. See sub-Saharan African countries as an example of places where there’s little overlapping personal interests, which leads to a low trust society.

 

[Enfant terrible]

Considering religion is an evolutionary trait, yeah. Society one way or another will always have religion.

if everyone follows their own incentive there will be natural conflicts with others and that leads to tribalism / conflict. See sub-Saharan African countries as an example of places where there’s little overlapping personal interests, which leads to a low trust society.

Considering religion is an evolutionary trait, yeah. Society one way or another will always have religion.
How can it be present in some people but not in others ?
Is it still a evolutionary trait then.


if everyone follows their own incentive there will be natural conflicts with others and that leads to tribalism / conflict. See sub-Saharan African countries as an example of places where there’s little overlapping personal interests, which leads to a low trust society.
But this will always happen.
You cannot brainwash people like that.

 

[Enfant terrible]

Around 60% to 2/3rds of German society is Christian and the majority profess belief in god/a higher power to some degree. Is 60% of germany at minimum uneducated?

You can’t make everyone happy through basic philosophy.

Religion gets challenged but is often not replaced. That’s the point, it’s a resistant ideology.

Yes there uneducated .
They would be agnostic if they were educated tbh.

You can’t make everyone happy through basic philosophy.
Why not ?
With religion neither

Yes its very resistant. Because of ignorant and dumb individuals it survives.

 

[Enfant terrible]

Considering religion is an evolutionary trait, yeah. Society one way or another will always have religion.

if everyone follows their own incentive there will be natural conflicts with others and that leads to tribalism / conflict. See sub-Saharan African countries as an example of places where there’s little overlapping personal interests, which leads to a low trust society.

Also we should adress religious sects in a religion
it leads to conflict
Religion will not lead to stability.
Atleast not islam and christianity

 

[Blackout.xl]

Yes there uneducated .
They would be agnostic if they were educated tbh.

You can’t make everyone happy through basic philosophy.
Why not ?

Yes its very resistant. Because of ignorant and dumb individuals it survives.

Just ignore stats theory. Your claim about religious people all being uneducated was unsubstantiated. The end.

Because philosophy has nothing backing it + no reason to believe in it or structure your society around it unless you enforce it harshly (seen throughout history, don’t need to look far, look at the USSR or China even now).

We had this conversation already, this again is unsubstantiated.

 

[Blackout.xl]

Also we should adress religious sects in a religion
it leads to conflict
Religion will not lead to stability.
Atleast not islam and christianity

It already has

 

[Enfant terrible]

It already has

lead to stability ?
what you mean

 

[Blackout.xl]

lead to stability ?
what you mean

Islam stabilized the entire Middle East + Central Asia for hundreds of years. Christianity stabilized Europe under one belief. I could go on

 

[Enfant terrible]

Islam stabilized the entire Middle East + Central Asia for hundreds of years. Christianity stabilized Europe under one belief. I could go on

What do you mean wars every where in the middle ages and today.

 

[Blackout.xl]

What do you mean wars every where in the middle ages and today.

Meanwhile it didn’t eliminate war it stabilized the continent after the end of the Roman Empire, this is undeniable. The Catholic Church took role of the central political authority, which allowed for co-operation between kingdoms and common culture, which furthermore allowed for Europe to fight back against the Ottoman Empire / islam.

 

[Enfant terrible]

Meanwhile it didn’t eliminate war it stabilized the continent after the end of the Roman Empire, this is undeniable. The Catholic Church took role of the central political authority, which allowed for co-operation between kingdoms and common culture, which furthermore allowed for Europe to fight back against the Ottoman Empire / islam.

Popes where in constant conflict with other feudal lords btw. They were replaced by emperors etc.
The pope had almost no real power in the middle ages.
also conficts in the church see anti popes, heresys.
If we go further into the future 30 years war etc.
And after that no unity at all

 

[Enfant terrible]

Just ignore stats theory. Your claim about religious people all being uneducated was unsubstantiated. The end.

Because philosophy has nothing backing it + no reason to believe in it or structure your society around it unless you enforce it harshly (seen throughout history, don’t need to look far, look at the USSR or China even now).

We had this conversation already, this again is unsubstantiated.

This was mostly shitposting besides the middle
They are uneducated in the sense of not being able to see their flawed believe.
I know that you can be educated and still believe.
Its the same reason why you should believe in a religion it makes sense to people to follow it
to see meaning in it

 

[Enfant terrible]

iam going to sleep now
its 5am

 

[Morpheus]

A dictatorship would imply your actions are completely controlled, your free will is limited and you have no say in anything.

It’s not meant to be a 1-to-1 comparison but the way religion dictates people’s lives is certainly reminiscent of a dictatorship. People look to “God” as an infallible unquestionable perfect deity and so everything that’s “God’s word” is what we as a society ought to do. While dictatorships tend to use blatant force and a bit of brainwashing to get shit done, religion is all brainwashing in its form. It’s utterly insane how people use a piece of fiction thousands of years old to make ANY decisions about what’s best for our current world, which people back then knew nothing about.

Meanwhile religion is mostly about a personal relationship between a deity and following a set of rules for the betterment for yourself and your community due to a specifically outlined reason (human nature).

It really isn’t though. Religion isn’t some harmless personal relationship at all actually, and I would have no issue if people were just spiritual in private. The problem is organized religion and how people come together and use it to make decisions that affect us all.

You have to also realize that the criteria you’re using on determining if religion is a dictatorship or now can also apply to pretty much any ideology. Which by extension means every ideology is a dictatorship. Jfl @ this.

Nope it is NOT the same thing at all. Once again, religious people subscribe to the idea that their god is unquestionable and must be obeyed. If someone dreams that they have an actual conversation with their god and he tells them they must kill someone, then they believe that it’s their duty to do it because god is supposed to supersede literally everything else in one’s life. You’re supposed to love him more than your friends, more than you kids, more than your wife, which is terrifying. As someone who was raised in the Catholic school system and someone who went to church the first 18 years of my life I’m also familiar enough with the Old Testament to know all the disturbing stories of God commanding people to do awful shit, all in the name of “learning lessons.”

Even in the absence of direct conversations with God, religious people value the word of the fucking bible over any piece of text or any research that could be presented today, and so it’s absolutely anti intellectual. What percent of anti-evolutionists are religious? Or what percent of people who want us to endlessly bomb the Middle East are religious? Or what percent of people who oppose legalization of weed are? Or what percent of anti-vaxxers and anti-cancer treatment? All very and concerningly high majorities.

It doesn’t compel anyone to blindly believe. Pretty much every holy book for every religion provides evidence for its claims. The evidence being valid or not is up to you but forcing people to blindly believe is just not true.

The thing is it’s not evidence at all though. None of it is. It’s all just fiction, none of which can be verified at all today which is so convenient. It’s always laughable the stretches and lengths Christians will go to in order to say things like “this is where Noah’s Ark was!” because they have literally nothing in the vein of evidence whatsoever.

Evidence is something that should be able to sway the minds of non believers, not just confirm things for people who already believe in the religion and give them sources of circular reasoning. Religious texts have no actual evidence of anything. Just first hand accounts of what could be entirely made up people from thousands of years ago saying “trust me bro, God said to do X, Y, and Z.”

The Abrahamic religions at least encourage you to do THE OPPOSITE in the form of loving people, not hating them. Most modern religions aren’t in favour of war either. Where’s your proof for this claim?

Just call everyone who disagrees with you dumb and Gullible Ontop of misrepresenting their position theory

If it’s all about love, then why do religious people tend to be some of the most hateful people on the planet who despise anyone and anything that’s different from them? Yeah we love everyone!...except gay people, non-Christians/non-Muslims (variable depending on the religion obviously), women to various degrees depending on the religion, anyone who commits what they believe are sins (because the hate the sin, love the sinner idea doesn’t play out in life AT ALL), etc. And we also hate any science and new age ideas that contradict our preconceived notions and beliefs.

 

[NaturalDisaster]

another autistic debate on some imaginary superhero

 

[Blackout.xl]

It’s not meant to be a 1-to-1 comparison but the way religion dictates people’s lives is certainly reminiscent of a dictatorship. People look to “God” as an infallible unquestionable perfect deity and so everything that’s “God’s word” is what we as a society ought to do. While dictatorships tend to use blatant force and a bit of brainwashing to get shit done, religion is all brainwashing in its form. It’s utterly insane how people use a piece of fiction thousands of years old to make ANY decisions about what’s best for our current world, which people back then knew nothing about.


It really isn’t though. Religion isn’t some harmless personal relationship at all actually, and I would have no issue if people were just spiritual in private. The problem is organized religion and how people come together and use it to make decisions that affect us all.


Nope it is NOT the same thing at all. Once again, religious people subscribe to the idea that their god is unquestionable and must be obeyed. If someone dreams that they have an actual conversation with their god and he tells them they must kill someone, then they believe that it’s their duty to do it because god is supposed to supersede literally everything else in one’s life. You’re supposed to love him more than your friends, more than you kids, more than your wife, which is terrifying. As someone who was raised in the Catholic school system and someone who went to church the first 18 years of my life I’m also familiar enough with the Old Testament to know all the disturbing stories of God commanding people to do awful shit, all in the name of “learning lessons.”

Even in the absence of direct conversations with God, religious people value the word of the fucking bible over any piece of text or any research that could be presented today, and so it’s absolutely anti intellectual. What percent of anti-evolutionists are religious? Or what percent of people who want us to endlessly bomb the Middle East are religious? Or what percent of people who oppose legalization of weed are? Or what percent of anti-vaxxers and anti-cancer treatment? All very and concerningly high majorities.


The thing is it’s not evidence at all though. None of it is. It’s all just fiction, none of which can be verified at all today which is so convenient. It’s always laughable the stretches and lengths Christians will go to in order to say things like “this is where Noah’s Ark was!” because they have literally nothing in the vein of evidence whatsoever.

Evidence is something that should be able to sway the minds of non believers, not just confirm things for people who already believe in the religion and give them sources of circular reasoning. Religious texts have no actual evidence of anything. Just first hand accounts of what could be entirely made up people from thousands of years ago saying “trust me bro, God said to do X, Y, and Z.”


If it’s all about love, then why do religious people tend to be some of the most hateful people on the planet who despise anyone and anything that’s different from them? Yeah we love everyone!...except gay people, non-Christians/non-Muslims (variable depending on the religion obviously), women to various degrees depending on the religion, anyone who commits what they believe are sins (because the hate the sin, love the sinner idea doesn’t play out in life AT ALL), etc. And we also hate any science and new age ideas that contradict our preconceived notions and beliefs.

Looking to a higher power for guidance isn’t comparable to a dictatorship. You can opt out of developing a personal relationship with a religion / higher power if you no longer support it. You can’t opt out of a dictatorship.

People make decisions with inspiration from religion often because religion quite literally is the basis for the morals and societal structure of most countries on this planet. Us being in a modern age doesn’t change that.

Religion is based around a personal relationship with god. It’s effects on community and society are downstream effects from that personal relationship. Every ideology is going to exert influence on the society it dominates however, for obvious reasons.

The person in your example is literally mentally ill. Most religions command you to not kill anyway so this example falls flat.

Old Testament stories have to be reviewed within the context of the time period. You’re obviously applying modern morals / misrepresenting the text.

Valuing the bible as the most important document in your life doesn’t inherently equal anti-intellectualism. You can value the bible and scientific research. They’re not mutually exclusive. This is why there’s religious scientists, religious philosophers, religious doctors, etc.

Now you’re being disingenuous. What percentage of religious people are anti-evolutionists? What percentage of religious people are in favour of bombing the Middle East endlessly? What percentage of religious people are anti-vax? Looking for the numbers of religious people within negatively viewed ideological groups is just ignoring the bigger picture.

It being fiction is just an assertion. You can’t expect me to just accept “Muh it’s fairytales” and agree with you.

The evidence does sway the mind of non-believers though. There are people who are atheists who converted to religion and people who were religious, converted to atheism and then back to religion. It’s not like everyone who’s atheist stays like that forever. So this point again falls flat. As for convincing all non-believers, this isn’t a requirement for validity.

What proof do you have to back this claim that religious people tend to be hateful individuals? Jfl @ this. In most countries on this planet the average person you’ll see will be religious to some degree. Where’s the proof that on average they’re full of hate?

As for Christianity, official doctrine doesn’t command you to hate gay people. It commands that you be against homosexual behaviour. They aren’t the same.

Most religions aren’t hateful of women, unless you consider acknowledging the biological role of females to be hate.

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with new age ideas.

 

[Deleted member 7399]

atheists are retarded

there's little hard evidence God does exist, but also very little evidence God does not exist. it's just very difficult to prove or disprove so any logical conclusion can't really be made easily.

agnosticism mogs imo, it's just stating you don't know if God does or does not exist. I classify myself as an agnostic, I just don't know, but if God does exist, I would be religious.

You can’t prove something doesn’t exist, that’s a logical fallacy. The person making the claim is the one responsible for providing evidence, it’s called the burden of proof.

And everyone is technically agnostic, meaning NOBODY knows what created life, or the universe. Atheism leans to the side of there being no evidence for God, therefor no reason to believe in one.

Other people saying atheists are edge lords and retarded, are making broad generalizations, which is the epitome of ignorance.

 

[Deleted member 7399]

Majority of athiests use arguments [for any against religion] isntead of reading the book [whatever it may be].

Atheists are the only ones that actually read the bible lmao. It’s the people following the religion that choose to ignore the parts condoning rape, pedophilia, slavery, racism etc.

 

[spirochlorphine]

Our ancestors obviously came into contact with something. And they were probably smarter than us.
View attachment 853532View attachment 853533View attachment 853535

did you see videos about earlier civilisations?
they tryna hide it and dont teach at school
but they did shit that we cant even do right now

 

[Enfant terrible]

Looking to a higher power for guidance isn’t comparable to a dictatorship. You can opt out of developing a personal relationship with a religion / higher power if you no longer support it. You can’t opt out of a dictatorship.

People make decisions with inspiration from religion often because religion quite literally is the basis for the morals and societal structure of most countries on this planet. Us being in a modern age doesn’t change that.

Religion is based around a personal relationship with god. It’s effects on community and society are downstream effects from that personal relationship. Every ideology is going to exert influence on the society it dominates however, for obvious reasons.

The person in your example is literally mentally ill. Most religions command you to not kill anyway so this example falls flat.

Old Testament stories have to be reviewed within the context of the time period. You’re obviously applying modern morals / misrepresenting the text.

Valuing the bible as the most important document in your life doesn’t inherently equal anti-intellectualism. You can value the bible and scientific research. They’re not mutually exclusive. This is why there’s religious scientists, religious philosophers, religious doctors, etc.

Now you’re being disingenuous. What percentage of religious people are anti-evolutionists? What percentage of religious people are in favour of bombing the Middle East endlessly? What percentage of religious people are anti-vax? Looking for the numbers of religious people within negatively viewed ideological groups is just ignoring the bigger picture.

It being fiction is just an assertion. You can’t expect me to just accept “Muh it’s fairytales” and agree with you.

The evidence does sway the mind of non-believers though. There are people who are atheists who converted to religion and people who were religious, converted to atheism and then back to religion. It’s not like everyone who’s atheist stays like that forever. So this point again falls flat. As for convincing all non-believers, this isn’t a requirement for validity.

What proof do you have to back this claim that religious people tend to be hateful individuals? Jfl @ this. In most countries on this planet the average person you’ll see will be religious to some degree. Where’s the proof that on average they’re full of hate?

As for Christianity, official doctrine doesn’t command you to hate gay people. It commands that you be against homosexual behaviour. They aren’t the same.

Most religions aren’t hateful of women, unless you consider acknowledging the biological role of females to be hate.

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with new age ideas.

 

[goat2x]

@Blackout.xl keep fighting pagan cucks bro

 

[Enfant terrible]

Religion and morality are not synonymous. Morality does not necessarily depend upon religion, though for some, this is "an almost automatic assumption."[2] According to The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics, religion and morality "are to be defined differently and have no definitional connections with each other. Conceptually and in principle, morality and a religious value system are two distinct kinds of value systems or action guides."[3] In the views of others, the two can overlap. According to one definition, morality is an active process which is, "at the very least, the effort to guide one's conduct by reason, that is, doing what there are the best reasons for doing, while giving equal consideration to the interests of all those affected by what one does."[2]
from christian source
@Blackout.xl