Thoughts on Atheism Stripping Society of a Willingness to Survive

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by "

religion gets too much credit

Depending on your view point maybe it doesn't get enough credit"

[108]

it was the Roman's who fully realized that controlling the masses was much easier done when you could control their minds

an 'opiate of the people'

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by 108

it was the Roman's who fully realized that controlling the masses was much easier done when you could control their minds

an 'opiate of the people'

The Roman's found it easier to control a conquered people by leaving their belief systems alone. In some cases they adopted parts of those systems. This method worked very well until the met the Hebrews and later on the Christians.

[northgagator]

Two people are on a street corner.
One is a person if religious faith.
The other person is an atheist.

Which one is the better person?


I can't tell because I don't judge on such matters.

[reformedgator]

Originally Posted by 108

it was the Roman's who fully realized that controlling the masses was much easier done when you could control their minds

an 'opiate of the people'

And we all know what happened to the Roman Empire. Same thing that happened to the Russian empire. It attempted to bury God. Instead it was the pallbearers who got buried.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

The Roman Empire attempted to bury God? Uh ...

[108]

Originally Posted by reformedgator

And we all know what happened to the Roman Empire. It attempted to bury God. Instead it was the pallbearers who got buried.

im miffed here, as I was stating that it was used to control the masses

how is that burying?

[108]

and can someone at least attempt to prove causation here, and not just correlation?

[reformedgator]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

The Roman Empire attempted to bury God? Uh ...

I was referring to the Russian empire.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by reformedgator

And we all know what happened to the Roman Empire. Same thing that happened to the Russian empire. It attempted to bury God.

Uh ...

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

There is no question that religion, unlike atheism, is a unifying force in societies.

It certainly can be a unifying force. It can also be a divisive force like no other.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by GatorAbe7

So, in short, it is best for mankind organize themselves around religion because mankind is in it's pubescent state, so to speak? In other words you believe mankind will grow out of needing religion?

A number of beliefs, such as Classical Mythologies, have permanently phased out, so what makes especially Christianity and Islam built to last?

Nothing. Actually, I think it's the "conquest component" that lies in both through their spread-the-word doctrines. Christianity assumed this role, IMO, due in large part to Constantine and the Romans. Muhammed saw this power in Christianity and added it into his doctrine - perhaps even more aggressively- when he created Islam for his personal gain.

That said, the one thing I find a bit alarming about this thread is that for many it seems that Religion = Christianity (or in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic family). What about Hinduism? Or Confucianism, which is more philosophy than religion (at least by Judeo/Christian/Islamic standards)? Buddhism is also more philosophy than religion in that sense. Ditto for Shintoism and Taoism.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by 108

religion can be a unifying force, but so can the Gators

tell me, anyone else experience some sort of spiritual experience being surrounded by 90,000 fans going nuts after the Gators score a TD versus a huge rival?

religion gets too much credit

So does emotion.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by reformedgator

And we all know what happened to the Roman Empire. Same thing that happened to the Russian empire. It attempted to bury God. Instead it was the pallbearers who got buried.

Actually, that would have been the Communists (mostly Stalin, who probably did it based more in personal paranoia and power greed than anything else). You know, AFTER they buried the Russian Empire.

[wgbgator]

Even the communists used religion when it was convenient. During the war especially, they didnt press too hard on eradicating religion and superstition from the rank and file doing the fighting and dying. There was a bit of live and let live going on.

[108]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

Nothing. Actually, I think it's the "conquest component" that lies in both through their spread-the-word doctrines. Christianity assumed this role, IMO, due in large part to Constantine and the Romans. Muhammed saw this power in Christianity and added it into his doctrine - perhaps even more aggressively- when he created Islam for his personal gain.

That said, the one thing I find a bit alarming about this thread is that for many it seems that Religion = Christianity (or in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic family). What about Hinduism? Or Confucianism, which is more philosophy than religion (at least by Judeo/Christian/Islamic standards)? Buddhism is also more philosophy than religion in that sense. Ditto for Shintoism and Taoism.

its the majority religion in America, hence the many threads on it

Hinduism is generally in the same sect of religious dogma as Christianity and Islam (promise of eternal life, fear of eternal damnation), but I really don't consider Buddhism to be a religion

Buddhism is the path of alleviating human suffering in the present, as taught by the Buddha. Much of it's methods now being backed by scientific studies

[108]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

So does emotion.

i agree, though i wasn't speaking specific to the emotion of it

[GatorRade]

There is a great joke from an old Polanski movie that has a Jewish vampire. One of the humans tries to scare off the vampire with a cross, to which he replies, "Oy vey, have you got the wrong vampire!"

The joke is great because it really calls into question the origin of spiritual meaning.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by 108

its the majority religion in America, hence the many threads on it

Hinduism is generally in the same sect of religious dogma as Christianity and Islam (promise of eternal life, fear of eternal damnation), but I really don't consider Buddhism to be a religion

Buddhism is the path of alleviating human suffering in the present, as taught by the Buddha. Much of it's methods now being backed by scientific studies

I agree on Hinduism with respect to its acceptance of dieties. Yet the kharma aspect, caste, reincarnation, etc. seem to differ greatly. Also, doesn't appear to be a "convert the infidels" aspect. Like Judiasm, they appear willing to teach if asked (and interest is proven to be genuine), but feel no need to spread the theory to non-believers. Thus, while everyone from Persia and Alexander to the Mongols crossed the Indus to the south, the Hindu civilizations never seemed to come north for conquest purposes (the Mughals were Islamic and related to the Mongols). To me, it says that this religion (like the Jews) is comfortable in its own skin, so to speak. Meanwhile, Christianity and Islam, IMO, are the two most insecure religions on earth as evidenced by their "uncomfortability" with those who believe differently.

And I agree with you about Buddhism. IMO, much more philosophy than religion. And I think you could say the same thing about most of the eastern religions, from Confusionism and Taoism to Shintoism. These, IMO, seem more introspective and focused on a kharmic, natural balance principal.

[108]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

I agree on Hinduism with respect to its acceptance of dieties. Yet the kharma aspect, caste, reincarnation, etc. seem to differ greatly. Also, doesn't appear to be a "convert the infidels" aspect. Like Judiasm, they appear willing to teach if asked (and interest is proven to be genuine), but feel no need to spread the theory to non-believers. Thus, while everyone from Persia and Alexander to the Mongols crossed the Indus to the south, the Hindu civilizations never seemed to come north for conquest purposes (the Mughals were Islamic and related to the Mongols). To me, it says that this religion (like the Jews) is comfortable in its own skin, so to speak. Meanwhile, Christianity and Islam, IMO, are the two most insecure religions on earth as evidenced by their "uncomfortability" with those who believe differently.

And I agree with you about Buddhism. IMO, much more philosophy than religion. And I think you could say the same thing about most of the eastern religions, from Confusionism and Taoism to Shintoism. These, IMO, seem more introspective and focused on a kharmic, natural balance principal.

completely agree with you here

though the reason for the "insecurity" as you used it, is because it is part of its dogma

it's sewn right into the fabric of it

Hinduism, is more evolved in that manner when it comes to a belief system