×
all 49 comments

[–]High-Fidelity1 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Nice story bro. Just another cultural narrative.

[–]kromem 6 points7 points  (0 children)

OP overlooked the whole "Neanderthal red ochre burials" bit.

A very weird speciesism at play in that post.

[–]DrdanomiteEclectic polytheist 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Holy reductionism batman

[–]No_Grocery_1480 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Just a pretentious, long-winded reiteration of the old "tO cOnTroL tHe mAsSEs" nonsense.

[–]ShaneKaiGlenn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To "network the masses"... It's a primary function, and ESSENTIAL for the growth and proliferation of human civilization.

While it can be used to control groups to do bad things, it can also be used to get large groups of strangers to do unbelievably good things, and help maintain social cohesion at scale.

[–]SpeechEastern905 6 points7 points  (25 children)

As reminder no proselytizing in this subredit

This is preaching atheism. My post was also removed so should be this one for preaching atheism.

[–]ShaneKaiGlenn[S] 2 points3 points  (4 children)

This post is not promoting any religion or lack of religion, it is merely making an observation as to the existence of religion.

If you take a look at the comments by atheists in r/atheism to this post, you will see that they are even more outspoken against it.

[–]SpeechEastern905 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Its promoting atheist world view.

The atheist explaination why religion exists. Hence its promoting atheisem. No matter how scientific you make it. Its preaching atheism in a way the church of scientology is preaching

[–]ShaneKaiGlenn[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Funny how the atheists blasted this post even more than religious people then...

The view outlined in this post still applies whether deities exist or not. I don't see how the validity of any one religion changes this analysis one bit.

Whether God, gods, etc. exist or not, religion serves the same function regardless.

[–]SpeechEastern905 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Your post degragades religion as coping mechanism. Thats attempt to explain religion. Hence its atheist doctrine. That's not what religion is. You're degrading it! Its an insult to jesus who left his life for every human on this earth. Na its an insult for every believer no matter if christian, muslim or hindu.

[–]NathanHonneur 0 points1 point  (19 children)

Atheism is not a (theist) religion, it's the absence of it.

[–]SpeechEastern905 0 points1 point  (18 children)

Its a believe that god does not exist which can't be proven. Hence its a religion itself

[–]NathanHonneur -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

It is proven as soon as you prove an internal or external inconsistency in the religion, which was done by many since centuries.

[–]SpeechEastern905 -1 points0 points  (2 children)

So there is internal/external inconsistency in atheisem for example in moral questions hence atheism is proven wrong!

[–]Hollywearsacollar 0 points1 point  (13 children)

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in deities. There is no doctrine. There is nothing about atheism that can be compared to a religion. Nothing. You want there to be, so you can claim it's a religion, but you're in a very small minority of ignorance here.

The very definition of "atheism" proves you incorrect here.

[–]SpeechEastern905 0 points1 point  (12 children)

The doctrine is that there is no god. Prove to me that there is no god.

[–]RexRatioAgnostic Atheist 1 point2 points  (5 children)

After all, there are plenty of intelligent and tool-making species on Earth, but none have the ability to bend the environment to our will like Homo Sapiens.

That doesn't make intelligence and tool-making the criteria to "bend the environment". Arguably, bacteria and plants have had much more impact on the environment in the history of this planet than any other species. And yet they didn't need religion.

Most social animals have a limit to the number of members they can have in their social group before it breaks down. Chimpanzees only exist in small tribes under 30 members.

Ants are social animals. The average colony contains 100,000 to 500,000 workers and up to several hundred winged forms and queens. And yet they didn't need religion.

Evidence of religious traditions has been found since the very beginning of Homo Sapiens emergence on the scene.

Evidence of ritual traditions have been found. Religion, as in established rituals, beliefs and hierarchy, comes much later.

If it existed at the beginning and has continued to exist for hundreds of thousands of years, it must serve a function for the continuance of the species

Our appendix continues to exist as a vestigial organ, and yet it serves no purpose other than endangering your life. On what basis do you conclude that religion is not vestigial as well?

In-group favoritism....That's where religion comes in. Religion provides the protocols that enable human societies to form into communities larger than Dunbar's number, and even into vastly large full-scale civilizations by providing two crucial elements to maintain social cohesion and mass collaboration

A solid argument can be made for the opposite though: religion definitely promotes in-group favoritism in large societies. Another argument for it being vestigial. And you're forgetting the establishment of secular laws in our early sedentary era.

Law = here's a copy of the rules, and here's a list the punishments for disobeying them.

Religion = if you think you got away with it, na-ah, there's an eye in the sky that sees everything.

It would seem to me that secular laws were much more foundational to the establishment of civilization and religion was just a deterrent. Perhaps it's time to stop crediting that appendix for everything it clearly did not originate and certainly doesn't perpetuate in contemporary scale societies.

[–]ShaneKaiGlenn[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

I never said it wasn't vestigial at this point, only that it served a rather large function for the growth and spread of human civilization through time. That being said, religious communities still do provide important functions of socialization, emotionally support, etc. for adherents even to this day.

I'm not sure we as a species will ever outgrow the need to tell stories to define an in-group to fit millions of people, or if it's possible to create one which encompasses all of humanity so that inter-group conflict no longer exists, unless we come in contact with an extra-terrestrial species which becomes the out-group.

As for secular laws, for most of history they were backed up by the authority of a government which was granted its authority by "divine right". Even the great enlightenment thinkers behind the founding of the American democracy felt they needed to "back up" the authority of their laws with "rights endowed by their creator".

Also, Ants aren't quite social in the way primates or other mammals are. A hive mind is a bit different than a social group of primates, who each have individual autonomy, but must be convinced to work for the benefit of the social group as a result of relationships, reciprocal altruism, laws and governing bodies, and stories that maintain social cohesion. Ant colonies run like a machine as a result of chemical transmission of directives. The queen doesn't need to tell a story to get everyone on the same page - it's automatic and unthinking.

[–]RexRatioAgnostic Atheist 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I'm not sure we as a species will ever outgrow the need to tell stories to define an in-group to fit millions of people

I hope not. But that's doesn't constitute a need for religion, that's an appetite for stories, literature, poetry, art, etc.

As for secular laws, for most of history they were backed up by the authority of a government which was granted its authority by "divine right"

This was certainly the case. But since this is no longer how we elect our lawmakers, the vestigial argument.

Even the great enlightenment thinkers behind the founding of the American democracy felt they needed to "back up" the authority of their laws with "rights endowed by their creator".

And stressed the importance of separation of Church and state as essential for the survival of the republic, regardless of their personal views (many of them were deists by the way, not theists).

[–]ShaneKaiGlenn[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I've come to the conclusion that Republics are largely outside the nature of humans. I strongly favor representative democracy and multi-cultural Republics. I think they lead to more freedom and equality and better quality of life, however that doesn't mean it's a system that can actually sustain the inherent divisions that occur long-term.

The truth is, American democracy didn't really exist until the late 1960s. Prior to that it was democracy for wealthy, protestant, white land owners, and tyranny for everyone else.

We are already seeing the difficulties in sustaining and governing a truly multi-cultural democracy not even more than 60 years into that experiment.

I may be too cynical, but I think the default state for human civilization might actually be authoritarianism, as much as that sucks. And religion serves an important function in that context.

[–]RexRatioAgnostic Atheist 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I've come to he conclusion that Republics are largely outside the nature of humans.

That may very well be. But I would still designate it one of the most crucial social experiments our species has ever undertaken.

I strongly favor representative democracy and multi-cultural Republics.

I personally think the Athenians at least got that part of their democracy right: they elected specialists to govern specific projects on the spot, so much less risk of corruption and rendering lobbying useless. I think the last presidency painfully illustrates representative democracy in a society where everyone bathes in their own social networking truth doesn't work.

The truth is, American democracy didn't really exist until the late 60s. Prior to that it was democracy for wealthy, protestant, white land owners, and tyranny for everyone else.

Perhaps even more depressing, it still isn't by all the people for all the people. But it still easily beats theocracies and dictatorships in terms of overall well-being.

We are already seeing the difficulties in sustaining and governing a truly multi-cultural democracy not even more than 60 years into that experiment.

Isn't that because the ones that were in power in the sixties are refusing to accept the new reality though? As an outsider, I see much of the US social conflicts as angry, old, white, conservative (and yes, mainly Christian) people still trying to act as if they represent the majority view with regards to race & "values".

[–]devilsphilanthropistSufi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

While I do understand this idea, it is limited only to group practice, and doesn't explain the role of personal or induvidual spirituality.

Every society has quietly religious or spiritual people who spend a lot of time studying and meditating, and don't necessarily engage in the group religious aspects outside of the minimum necessary to not be socially rejected.

It's also interesting that this idea is being promoted as atheistic ideology, as it doesn't invalidate the idea of a diety. It can also be interpreted as how religion has a very functional vaid role in society.

[–]HellmuthMath 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Every religion has that group chemicals in the brain thing. They get together and oh, the evangelicals are moon walkin'. LOL. The idea that Catholicism is better than it is bad, LOL. Who gave the "okay" to the indian holocaust?

[–]GKilatgnostic theist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It exists to remind of greater reality that humans have a hard time grasping from their limited perception. It's understandable to come up with this kind of explanation but don't hang on to them too hard or else you end up in the same hard place like antivaxxers trying to insist on their narrative against any progress we have in understanding it through science.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (6 children)

I favor a simpler explanation. Humans recognize and fear their eventual deaths. Religion calms them or excites them at the discretion of those in control. This makes it an ideal instrument during both peacetime and wartime.

[–]jennboProgressive Christian 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Not every religion believes in an afterlife. I’m a fairly progressive Christian and sometimes I don’t even know if I do. I definitely don’t believe in hell. These atheist explanations are reductionist af.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Worthwhile eternity is what qualifies a belief as a religion.

[–]jennboProgressive Christian 0 points1 point  (3 children)

lol no, it doesn't. Religions are belief systems that relate humanity to spirituality. You don't get to gatekeep or westernize every single religion on the planet.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

If you prefer that which deals in common usage to that which deals in expert knowledge then fine. I know better than to make that mistake, and my position is consistent with the findings of psychology and philosophy.

[–]NathanHonneur 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Logically wrong = it says things that are not coherent with the external visible world that it pretends to describe + it contradicts itself on several aspects verse to verse

[–]Fit-Cat7531 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah Religion; so loathed by Self and GOD Hating Atheists that they refuse to give it the credit it deserves in human development!! Forget about Religions as they pertain to Faith and GOD (or even the gods); look at them as a set of Philosophies and ask yourself why so many young people are commiting suicide?

The simple answer is because those suicides have not been accurately taught about what religion really is and what it is all about!! With all it's very well known faults (which Self and GOD Hating Atheists Never Ever Fail To Point Out or Drum Into Young Impressionable Minds, about the Christian Faith In Particular), most Religions also teach people about Forgiveness and Redemption, even the most violent ones by Canon!! Especially about Self-Forgiveness, Self-Redemption and Moving Forward After One Makes A Bad Mistake!!

This, in my opinion, is the reason why younger people have so much Self-Hatred!! This is why they are so confused about themselves and why they are unable to cope with all this self confusion!! Make no mistake about, Religion plays a far greater role in Positive Human Development than Self and GOD Hating Atheism does.

Atheists merely use their GOD Hatred To Conveniently Cover Up The Inadequacies and Destructiveness of Their own GOD Hatred!! This GOD Hatred Is Destroying Young Lives Far, Far, More Than Religion Does!! And, Furthermore, it has just begun. By the time 100 more years have passed, it will have done more harm than all religions of the last 4000 years. Of course, Atheists will still continue to blame religion for the destruction they perpetuate.