Theism is Primitive Thinking

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by PsychoticEpisode, Oct 16, 2009.

  1. PsychoticEpisode It is very dry in here today Valued Senior Member

    I'm not going to ask if it is, because it is. But it is progress in that it is heading in the right direction, out. How do I, an atheist, give theism credit for anything? I'm not really patting them on the back, it's just that the theistic stage of human development was probably necessary and inevitable. To get to a complete understanding of the universe & its origins it is unreasonable to think we would, in our infancy, hit the nail on the head in our first few forays.

    Although I personally cannot dispel the belief in a god, I can by scientific means or with its help, keep pushing it towards the brink of extinction (obscurity if you like). In a predominantly theistic world it stands to reason that science would be looked at as a villain. Diehards still do, however the benefits of scientific discovery are beginning to outweigh the benefit of having a belief in god.

    There must be something wrong with them thar' atheists. Yes I know theist sentiment would have atheists mumbling the same thing about them but I'm confident we are the new kid on the block with more to come. Using the evolutionary argument, something better is on the way. Something more conducive to our survival.

    Atheists are here to stay. We are going to shape the future of theism in ways no theist living today can conceive(ok, maybe they can). I thank science for the invention of the internet. It provides us with a venue to question theism's grip worldwide. It's good for theists also but there is no escaping that globally, atheists now have equal opportunity to defend their ground. This is what I mean by science outweighing theism. If theists wanted to stop it then they would have to get rid of the internet, won't happen.

    The last vestiges of theism will not be seen in my lifetime. However I think we are witnessing the last holdout(theism) from a primitive time finally getting its moving papers. It's about time (pun intended)
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Then why aren't animals theists? There will be no "last vestiges" of theism as long as there are human beings/
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. PsychoticEpisode It is very dry in here today Valued Senior Member

    SAM, you might as well join up. We're a little wave in the middle of a big ocean right now so my advice would be to move inland before you get wet.

    Do you talk to the animals? Do they talk back?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. ejderha Exhausted Registered Senior Member

    Sam this makes no sense at all. And I am not saying this from the atheist's angle.
  8. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Thats because you have no "imagination" lol

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  9. ejderha Exhausted Registered Senior Member

    PsychoticEpisode, I coincided an article in Scientific American a couple of year ago. It told about an anthropologist, that prepared some experiments explaining the people believing life after death. I looked for it, but sadly couldn't find. Shortly it's like this.
    There are of course two groups of people. They are mostly college educated or students. They think they volunteered to help finishing some computer programming project; correcting some mistakes, by adding some information to that program and also warned that there is a password coming up randomly but that shouldn't be used. Because in that case, the program jumps to end and correcting cannot happen.

    One of the groups also casually given the rumour that the person who started this project -the main architect- was a boy who died in a tragic accident.

    They are being monitored while working on the project. And the first group without the rumour 'cheats' half the time and inserts the password when they are bored in the long process.

    In second group with the tragic death rumour, almost everyone does what they are told to do properly.

    Researcher claims that what happened in second group is a result of what those people feel subconsciously, a sort of respect to the dead person, which is very close the idea of the spirit cult in ancient tribes.

    He thinks the idea of after life and this primitive cults are caused by our evolution to save our 'sanity' in the process. And you could go to the invention of god from that, I think.

    Any opinions or problems with my expression?
  10. ejderha Exhausted Registered Senior Member

    Oh, that. I am boring, eh?
  11. PsychoticEpisode It is very dry in here today Valued Senior Member

    I think I got what you were saying. The invention of religion was necessary at some point in our past. I think you are suggesting a reason why,To save our sanity. So religion was needed to adapt and this is why.

    I'm not really concerned with religion. Its the belief in God aspect. People believed in other things either before or coinciding with theism. God was added as pressure was applied, also known as an increase in knowledge about the world we live in. Call it science, the eventual author of theism's demise.

    Yesterday SAM got all over somebody claiming human's are animals. I believe she wanted me to respond likewise. I may be wrong about that but no matter, my guard went up instantly. I can handle SAM but I didn't wish to read the circular reasoning post again
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2009
  12. CutsieMarie89 Zen Registered Senior Member

    They might be for all we know...:shrug: Thinking too much is both a gift and a curse for us humans.
  13. ejderha Exhausted Registered Senior Member

    Yes, I get you are not talking about religion. Actually he made some other experiments and overall the idea is that we had a very strong support, -more may be solely conditioned- by our evolution to preserve our sanity and managed to create 'god'. So the process and the belief is belonged to 'the primitive human'.

    About the science issue, with all respect I sense a hypocrite approach from the theist side. Theist do not accept evolution right? But they also use all the benefits of science and technology. Science is a brick wall made by sacrifices based on the previous; on the other brick. And it requires a certain enlightment. I feel like they can't see that all scientific approach are linked together. Funny to put it that way, but how can you accept what we call high technology today, but don't accept 'human evolution' because there is no god in the scenerio? :shrug:
  14. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    You're confusing PE's use of the term 'primitive'. Not that I'll speak for him, but I suspect then his usage of the phrase "primitive thinking" refers to thiking of the conceptual sort... which cannot apply to (most?) other anmals.

    No, it's because he's correct.
  15. CheskiChips Banned Banned

    Since PsychoticEpisode first posted this thread, I've considered his points and recanted on my foolish ways. I too don't want to be subject to pejoratives that were transformed from phrases historically looked upon with adulation.
  16. ejderha Exhausted Registered Senior Member

    I think she is refering to some sort of weird imagination we were talking about earlier.

    Besides, weren't you supposed to be reporting me? Lol. :bugeye:
  17. flameofanor5 Not a cosmic killjoy Registered Senior Member

    Weren't all of the most powerful empires of the world, ie the Roman Empire theists? Believe it or not, the Romans considered Christians to be "athiests" although they were wrong about that. The fact is, God has kept the world going. The only thing that atheism has given to us is another thing to argue, and lies.
  18. ejderha Exhausted Registered Senior Member

    Polytheism is more primitive than monotheism. And they thought Christians were heretics, not atheists. But, I guess it's all the same for you.
  19. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    I also might add, that it is completely unreasonable to think that empiricism offers (or is capable of offering) a complete understanding of anything since its language is solely tacit.

    Science only becomes villainous when persons falsely represent it to lodge claims that stand outside or beyond its jurisdiction. Ironically, theism becomes villainous by the same definition. If you want to push theism to the brink of extinction via science, you will probably have to invest a bit more nefarious political and ideological baggage. (You can find more clues how to do this by joining the neo-atheist club or studying the social policies of political groups famous for their brutality).
    which could even involve relegating science to those tasks actually within its jurisdiction


    defend the ground of atheism?
    In case you haven't noticed, the internet isn't championed by one singular social voice. The variety that has sprung up is simply astounding. Talking of the internet being inherently atheist is simply a reflection of your web hits or the social dysfunctionalism of atheism as it stands amongst other misanthropic or angsty political issues (IOW the net provides a social outlet for those who don't have one IRL)

    Whatever soothsaying you're laying claims to in regard to a/theism, the actual catalyst for social change via science in the immediate future will happen in response to energy, land, food and water crises.
    There's actual scientific evidence for this.
    Pontificating about the theistic state of affairs on the back of science is simply crippling whatever potency science has to deal with these issues.
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2009
  20. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Well noted; you beat me to it.
  21. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member


    first..IMO i think there needs to be a clarity of the difference between religion and theist..

    i believe there would be ALOT more ppl in this world who believed in god if it wasn't for the corruption that is inherant in religion..religion is man made and hence susceptible to mans own humanity...(the ability to corrupt anything good..)

    as far as which came first religion or the belief in god..:shrug: there would be no way to determine that for a fact,so it becomes opinion..

    i am a theist ( i believe in god) i do not believe in religion (do as your told)..

    btw i have read several articals about how catholisism shares alot of traditions with certain pagan rituals that were around way before any
    religions were established..(makes me think, ppl still wanted to control other ppl and religion sounded like a good idea to do that with)

    i also do not oppose evolution as a theory (sure i will argue a bit about it but again it boils down to opinion) to me the proof of evolution does not preclude the existence of god..(the first five books of the bible where written by the same person) how fragile was the process of life from a pool of chemicals?it could be that there was a guiding hand to protect and encourage life..again not proveable and boils down to opinion...

    i dont need any proof that god exists to CHOOSE to believe he does..
    that choice was made in light of my own experiances and not because someone told me to..

    actually my faith comes from a certain passage (proverbs somewhere)
    ...test ALL things hold onto what is good..
    if more christians/theist where to take this verse to heart, maybe religion would not be causeing as much damage to god as it is doing..

    atheist do not need to do anything to hurt religion as they are hanging themselves by their own rope...

    and also i have read articles that says that science was created by religion to confirm the existence of god..(get a rope..)

    as far as the primitive aspect of it..if by that you mean mindlessly without thought following others and 'doing as you are told'..i would have to agree with you..

    atheist be may be able to make religion illegal,but you will not stop the belief in god..also be aware of those entities that want you to destroy religion in america for them..(911,taliban,muslems, etc)
    the alternative can be 100 times worse..
  22. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Belief without evidence causes the perversion of religion.
  23. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Not that I agree with the person you are responding to, but I think the Roman did not view the Christians as heretics, but rather as a convenient minority groups to scapegoat. It was in the very low classes and slaves that Christianity was first popular and so they could be attacked without much problem. Leaders like to create enemies, it diverts attentions from their own failures and real issues and problems - somethign that has not changed a millimeter since then.

    Polytheisms are less likely to view other theists as heretics, which generally means someone of the same faith how differs on church doctrine. Heresy is a much more Abrahamic idea.

    It is also a bit of a cliche that polytheism is more primitive that monotheism, but I can't see how one would go about proving this. The reason that the monotheisms have spread so fast and well is often the warlike, converting and systematized hatred of the other practiced by these religions. We shouldn't reward things like the way Christianity interacting with Native Americans and their religions - forced conversion, separating children from parents, genocide. Their 'success', the supercession of monotheism, was hardly an indication of non-primitiveness, however artful the apologists.
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2009

Share This Page