Gesu- said: Tsundereppoi said: It's completely true though. Atheism is primarily a phenomenon of the 1st and 2nd worlds. Both of these worlds had a very heavy, extremely heavy christian influence, to the point that global economy, state constitutions, human rights, diplomacy, international law, domestic laws, grew out of the views and ideas propagated by Christians and ancient Greek philosophers. (Christianity has a lot of Greek philosophical influence, it's not really a religion straight out of Jesus's ass) And atheists today are basically the "lazy kids" of their Christian forefathers, who live by a slackish version of the Christian way of life, and pretend like they have absolutely no relation to any religion whatsoever, and that all of their values and ideas came straight out of their own intelligent mind (trololol) Still doesn't prove shit. "way of life" (aka culture) != religion. Remove the belief of a higher power and all kinds of worship from christianity and all that it's reduced to is a culture. Add also the fact that 95% of the time atheism isn't even propagated, yet most atheist around the world regardless of culture come up with the same conclusions or ideologies. I shouldn't really have to be telling you this. Yep, it seems like you have zero clue about humanity and human history. Not surprised though. A belief in a higher being/power is also a matter of culture and a way of life, since it fundamentally affects the way you interact with reality. With the presence of a divine entity in the common consciousness of any society, the human being no longer represents the highest authority, hence with a divinity every human (peasants and rulers alike) has a higher entity to use as reference in his daily life. This is an extremely important factor, because the moment you reject divinity that stands above humanity, and grant the highest stance to humans, you flatten the social hierarchy, because unlike the singular nature of divinity, there's millions of humans. This is why nearly all political and philosophical ideas based on anarchic principles (i.e. like communism) reject divinity, as divinity makes it virtually impossible to create an anarchic/socialist society. In its absolute logical extreme, such things as property, ranks, titles, and structure of command cannot exist in a world where humans are treated as the species of the highest authority. This is why many western constitutions which defended the right to property originally appealed to god to justify it, or why nearly all monarchs were historically regarded as nearly saintly individuals and were deeply connected to the church (i.e. coronations happened within religious contexts) To summarize: divinity and atheism represent psychological vectors, which society prioritizes based on whether it is or isn't religious. Divinity represents the vertical vector, whereas atheism represents the horizontal vector. And it's actually quite interesting that prior to the mass spillover of Christianity into Europe, many pagans had a cyclic perception of life. (for them past and future did not exist, but rather the endless repetition of the harvest season. When you do not prioritize continuous vertical progression, you won't put emphasis on betterment or personal/social growth) Culture and religion cannot be independent things. They are one and the same, and making separations between them only signifies ignorance. A culture that has been entirely separated from its religious roots will not survive for long, but will rather prove to be a dying image of itself. |
TsundereppoiSep 26, 2016 11:31 PM
| ... |
| @Goofs something along the lines of "if someone insults my mother I'm going to punch him too" http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/charlie-hebdo-pope-francis-says-those-who-ridicule-others-religions-should-expect-a-punch-9980192.html "treat my religion with respect, dead scum!" |
 |
Tsundereppoi said: A belief in a higher being/power is also a matter of culture and a way of life, since it fundamentally affects the way you interact with reality. With the presence of a divine entity in the common consciousness of any society, the human being no longer represents the highest authority, hence with a divinity every human (peasants and rulers alike) has a higher entity to use as reference in his daily life. 'as reference'? As in someone to look up to in order to be a better person? Or someone to take orders from in order to lead an okay life? This is an extremely important factor, because the moment you reject divinity that stands above humanity, and grant the highest stance to humans, you flatten the social hierarchy, because unlike the singular nature of divinity, there's millions of humans. This is why nearly all political and philosophical ideas based on anarchic principles (i.e. like communism) reject divinity, as divinity makes it virtually impossible to create an anarchic/socialist society. You see the thing is having a social hierarchy only creates divide, resentment and eventually hatred among people. We don't really need it. And no, rejecting divinity doesn't put all humans on the same plane. That's an over-simplification of things. If trying to grow to be a better person is your main concern, there's always a better person you can look up to. A person who thinks that they are the absolute highest in the so called 'social hierarchy' can be labelled a narcissist. Narcissists exist among god believers as well. It isn't necessary for a person to have a higher power to look up to in order to respect or appreciate the world he was born into or humanity as a whole. To summarize: divinity and atheism represent psychological vectors, which society prioritizes based on whether it is or isn't religious. Divinity represents the vertical vector, whereas atheism represents the horizontal vector. And it's actually quite interesting that prior to the mass spillover of Christianity into Europe, many pagans had a cyclic perception of life. (for them past and future did not exist, but rather the endless repetition of the harvest season. When you do not prioritize continuous vertical progression, you won't put emphasis on betterment or personal/social growth) As explained above. Culture and religion cannot be independent things. They are one and the same, and making separations between them only signifies ignorance. A culture that has been entirely separated from its religious roots will not survive for long, but will rather prove to be a dying image of itself. I beg to differ. Culture and religion may have influenced each other at the start but both can stand on their own as well, like we have in the 21st century. The major difference between culture in religion is that culture changes. It adapts itself according to external stimuli. Culture is a bunch of unwritten law which, in a liberal society, can be defied without any major repercussions. Religion doesn't change, it is extremely unflexible and remains written in a book or a scripture. Religion revolves around a bunch of hard and fast rules based on lies that are in turn, based on the perception of the writer. It is pretty much trapped in time. You can say that culture used to be a manifestation of religion, but again, this is changing. Take for example, the black culture. Black culture is very much independent of religion but identifies as a culture nonetheless. A culture is simply bunch of customs, forms of art and unwritten laws that were created in order to create an identity among native residents. |
Gesu-Sep 27, 2016 7:46 AM
AllenVonStein said: An Italian television news anchor has ignited a firestorm of criticism by wearing a crucifix around her neck while reporting the news, drawing the ire of “Muslims, atheists and many viewers,” according to reports. Marina Nalesso, a well-known news anchor on the State-owned Tg1 television news show, wore a crucifix around her neck several times last week while on the air, a choice that Silvio Viale, a leftist politician and vocal atheist, has described as “arrogance.”  This is not the 44-year-old TV anchor’s first offense. She has also been criticized for wearing small medals around her neck bearing the face of Jesus or the Virgin Mary. Despite the storm of criticisms, however, Nalesso has also received support from several public figures such as Giorgia Meloni, an Italian politician and leader of the Fratelli d’Italia party. “We have now reached the point of absurdity,” Meloni wrote on the party’s Facebook page. “Christianity is part of our culture and our history as Italians and Europeans, even if you are an atheist or believe in another religion.” Src -------------------------------------- lol just lol , meanwhile pope is ... Not sure where you get info from but as an italian myself I assure you this is pointless we-are-on-people-side rightwing propaganda shit. Why am I reading this on mal? |
And no, rejecting divinity doesn't put all humans on the same plane. That's an over-simplification of things. It's a logical conclusion, same as 2 + 2 = 4. Unless you're going to reject the significance of logical chains. Yes the rejection of divinity puts all humans on the same level. Simply because there is no longer any entity/personality regarded as standing above humans. It does not happen instantaneously, because the social/cultural baggage that was generated during religious history turns into a limited resource that allows people to exist within a hierarchical system without actually asking dangerous and inconvenient questions, simply because they were taught by their parents that it's ok to live in a hierarchical world. But several generations down the lane, you will eventually end up with people who will start asking for material evidence of why hierarchy is good and anarchy is bad. Need examples? The Roman Empire. After its collapse, the entire European continent was thrown into the dark ages, with no hierarchies and no forms of control, until the hierarchy of the Christian church stepped in, with bishops possessing important political ties and wealth, as well as a seat within a bureaucratic hierarchical system that was the Catholic Church. The chaos created by the collapse of the Roman hierarchy led to a social and economic disaster deep enough, that even money went out of use. The absence of hierarchy in post-Roman Europe, and the entrance of religious institutions as a stabilizing mechanism for society centuries after, was essentially what invested the Catholic Church with political power, and turned religious heresy into political treason. (since due to the only reliable hierarchy at that time being strictly a product of Christianity, such things as economy, security, military affairs, diplomacy, bureaucracy, and other political and social matters ended up deeply intertwined with religion. And engaging in religious heresy then was equivalent to today betraying your own country by i.e. allying yourself as a soldier with a rival military alliance that is hostile to your home nation. If trying to grow to be a better person is your main concern, there's always a better person you can look up to. A person who thinks that they are the absolute highest in the so called 'social hierarchy' can be labelled a narcissist. Narcissists exist among god believers as well. It isn't necessary for a person to have a higher power to look up to in order to respect or appreciate the world he was born into or humanity as a whole. You're spouting pure idealism, which has absolutely no relation to how the human psyche works. If humans won't have a god to worship, they will find something else to worship. And in the absence of divinity, they will have no other choice but to either 1) worship themselves (in which case it's narcissism and egocentrism) or 2) worship another person (which is idol worship). Both of these alternative options are not only disgusting from a moral standpoint, but also biologically and psychologically destructive, as then humans invest their greatest faith into creatures that are by no means perfect, are easily led on by instincts and emotions, and are very likely to commit horrid mistakes in their judgement. Putting faith into divinity outsources trust in oneself, and causes you at least think twice before committing to a decision or action. I beg to differ. Culture and religion may have influenced each other at the start but both can stand on their own as well, like we have in the 21st century. The 21st century is absolutely nothing compared to the vast history of humankind. And even if we take just the 21st century as an example, can you tell me with a straight face that western culture is standing strong today, without any signs of waning? Of course, you cannot. And if we take Europe in particular, a vast majority of western practices and traditions have been removed in order to satisfy the requirements of "multiculturalism". The idea of nuclear families as opposed to "fuck-arounds" and harem, has been destroyed as well. Wearing a cross, which for many centuries was the symbol of western civilization, leads to abusive attacks even from your own peers. What kind of strong culture are you talking about? Walking around naked and having anal sex? Religion doesn't change, it is extremely unflexible and remains written in a book or a scripture. Yes, because the fundamental purpose of religion is to be a social, philosophical and psychological pillar, that is untouched by change. So that society would have a rigid footing to fall back on in case things go wrong in their continuous pursuit of so called "progress". (although for as far as modern society is concerned, it's regress) Stability and permanence is the primary function of religion. You didn't know? Religion revolves around a bunch of hard and fast rules based on lies that are in turn, based on the perception of the writer. It is pretty much trapped in time. Every religion, quite on the contrary, is based on the humankind's as a whole instinctual understanding of nature and reality. Different religions have different prophets, different religious texts, different stories and myths to tell, different divinities to worship, but all religions nevertheless propagate relatively the exact same thing: the fundamental values and forms of behavior necessary for a society to have a stable generation of offspring, a stable social hierarchy, security from internal and external threats. These values, which are shared by all religions but in different languages, have thousands of years of persevering history, and have for the most part been successful in doing what they were designed to do. Your 21st century mindset on the other hand, has the history of roughly 50 years. And if you'd studied Fredric Nietzsche, you'd understand why exactly you today honestly believe and defend these anti-hierarchical, anti-patriarchal, anti-family ideals. And no, it's sadly not because you're "more advanced now". Every generation considers itself "better" than the previous, but that's just a psychological fallacy. Humans are creatures of nature, and just as absolutely everything in nature, we are given life, we prosper, we decay, and we die. Humans undergo this process individually, and so do human inventions such as society, civilization, values, and ideology. (but I digress) |
TyrelSep 28, 2016 3:55 PM
| ... |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |