When you observe atheists and anti-religious people in general, they seem really impressive. They're are spot on in their assertion that religious texts or scriptures are factually erroneous, that the Problem of Evil is real, and that at the end of the day God's existence can't be objectively proven to the fullest - hence the terms "faith" or "belief" have come to be favored by theists.

So the problem with atheism or non-religion isn't that is is wrong. It is that it misses the point and purpose of God and religion. Religion is often slagged as irrational and fruitless endeavor. This seem true on the surface, but it is deeply flawed.

As bad or futile religion may seem, it served as the bedrock for all ancient and contemporary civilizations - the Sumerians, Egyptians, Greco-Romans, Persians, Byzantines, Abbasids, Ottomans, British and Americans. Atheism and irreligion created no similar civilization, at least that we know of. And it is easy to see why.

Civilizations are built from communities - a collection of people or tribes with near similar view on how to live and deal with others. These similar views are defined as 'religion or cultural traditions'. The more similar or common the views among a group of people, the more united and cohesive they stand as a community.

Unity and Cohesion is the minimum foundation upon which a community evolve into a successful civilization. And here the limitation of atheism comes to view. Unlike religion, atheism lack a default set of beliefs, doctrines and laws upon which people in agreement may unite and organize into
cohesive communities.

So when atheists say that humanity will be better off in future without religion, they're speaking out of context. For as long as there has been theists, there have been atheists. But unlike theists, atheist never built any civilization, and have remained just a negligible minority in civilizations built by theists.

Peace.

!slam didn't build anything they stole, plundered and jihaded their way through history and claimed cultures they met as theirs

Example is Constantinople or modern day turkey, the Christians had already built it up it was one of the valuable cites of Christianity especially Coptic Christians the !s/amists killed them and took it over

Till today we see them taking over churches like the Hagia Sophia, a Coptic Christian church that is actually older than Moha. And !$lam today it has been converted to mosque I can list many

The oldest university in Africa has a Muslim name today and people claim Islam brought it but that's not true the university was built before Islam reached Africa

Even words like shalom that is Hebrew/Jewish, !$lam turned it to Salam and claimed it whereas Christians still use it as shalom and acknowledge its Jewish origin.

In Mali the !$lamists are changing ancient history to make it look like !slam is the cause of everything good that happened in ancient Mali when it's not true and infact it is the cause of the insurgency all over the sahel region


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dacIWFvhKbA

DuBLINGreenb:
!slam didn't build anything they stole, plundered and jihaded their way through history and claimed cultures they met as theirs

Example is Constantinople or modern day turkey, the Christians had already built it up it was one of the valuable cites of Christianity especially Coptic Christians the !s/amists killed them and took it over

Till today we see them taking over churches like the Hagia Sophia, a Coptic Christian church that is actually older than Moha. And !$lam today it has been converted to mosque I can list many

The oldest university in Africa has a Muslim name today and people claim Islam brought it but that's not true the university was built before Islam reached Africa

Even words like shalom that is Hebrew/Jewish, !$lam turned it to Salam and claimed it whereas Christians still use it as shalom and acknowledge its Jewish origin.

In Mali the !$lamists are changing ancient history to make it look like !slam is the cause of everything good that happened in ancient Mali when it's not true and infact it is the cause of the insurgency all over the sahel region


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dacIWFvhKbA

But it wasn't atheists and irreligious folks that built those things Islam stole. So your point is off topic. Just name one civilization or empire in history built by an atheist community.

DuBLINGreenb:

Even words like shalom that is Hebrew/Jewish, !$lam turned it to Salam and claimed it whereas Christians still use it as shalom and acknowledge its Jewish origin.

This is false
The semitic languages all have the same root word for peace from the consonants s,l,m.

Salam has been a word in existence in the Arabic language long before Islam.

Amharic - selami
Aramaic - šlām-āʼ
Hebrew - šālôm
Maltese - sliem
For some examples from other semitic languages.

It was never a word exclusive to Hebrew or Judaism, all these languages had the same origin and so did the word.

Let's not deviate from the topic at hand.

As I've come to understand the evolutionary origins of religion.

It's like you've pointed out, we are communal creatures and religion is something of an extension of our communal nature, and working together under a disembodied unifying concept or idea is what builds a civilization. Religion had been the concept that has worked for past civilizations. In modern times ideas such as utopianism, liberalism, fascism, communism have contended for that spot with varying success.
Here is how I look at it. If religion didn't serve some evolutionary purpose it wouldn't exist or had survived to this day. Something like a meme(in the Richard Dawkins meaning) or a Jungian archetype.

Just like not everyone has the same temperament, some being high in openness, creativity and some being highly conservative and that's just part of our nature. The two work to moderate each other.
I see Atheism and theism in something of the same light. The two have to exist because they serve a purpose, it's like the atheists exist to moderate to the theists and the society from being swallowed up by their own doctrine and being enslaved by it, and theism is something that keeps nihilism at bay and passes down past wisdom.

I could keep on writing my thoughts surrounding atheism and theism, but let me get to the point and address the topic.
Atheist and areligious people are more often individualistic in nature and not tribal/group minded (which isn't a bad thing), it's a state of a lack of belief or faith in something and you wouldn't really unify individualistic people to work together under a lack of a belief would you?

There isn't much of a unifying ideal in atheism.
Although modern Atheism seeks to remedy this, by integration of philosophy such as secular humanism.

So my own thought is this just like how highly open and creative people come up with innovative ideas and start new industries, but need highly conscientious and conservative people to run them in a lasting manner.
This is the relationship between theism and atheism. Atheism doesn't build a civilization, because it's not its place to, while Theism has the ability to, but for the that civilization to make any sort of progress and not stagnate a reasonable amount of skepticism(not necessarily atheism, but similar enough) is needed. Just like the Greeks and their philosophers, Middle age Muslims, and the Post-renaissance West.
Same goes for the reason the Muslim world is lagging behind in the modern age. Islam and it's all encompassing nature has prevented a right balance from forming.

And I'm not a believer in the "If everyone leaves religion, humanity would be better off" in Fredrik Neitzsche's infamous line of "God is dead.. We have killed him" which implied that the search for truth through science had resulted in elimination of the possibility God (you could argue against this if you wish), also came with a warning of sorts "... How shall we comfort ourselves, ...Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?" To put simply, we will have to create something to fill the void which religion leaves and we can't be sure that what feels that void will not be worse than previous religions. E.g. 20th century fascism and communism. With about 100million deaths in the span of 31 years in Europe, not counting Mao's China.

Even till this present day, atheists are a minority.

How do you expect a minority to build a civilisation? A minority in almost every nation in history.

The only countries that even presently have a majority of atheists are Japan, China, South Korea, Germany Sweden. All highly developed countries.

Usermane, there's fault in your post.

First of all in history Atheists and non-religous people are minority in the past, infact I would say non-religous people were 1%. Almost every field were dominated by Religious people, so who else will develop civilization?

Secondly Religion didn't develop civilization, it's skepticism which led to science that developed civilization, yes many of them were religious and theists but they didn't brought about civilization because of their Religious status or beliefs. The ancient Greek scholars even tho some believed in the Gods but they were skeptics and heretics.

Religion as a whole is not even the problem, it's the ridiculous doctrines that's the problem. Imagine believing the gods cause diseases or earthquake, how will science develop from this belief?

tintingz:
Religion has a whole is not even the problem, it's the ridiculous doctrines that's the problem. Imagine believing the gods cause diseases or earthquake, how will science develop from this belief?

By simple testing the hypothesis put forward to ascertain if it were true or ridiculous, which no one might have bothered to do without the hypothesis in the first place. You yourself are evidence of this fact. You would not be here applying science if the ridiculous did not exist.

Religion is early school where doctrines are taught as beliefs, and testing, a product of advanced school as a result of human progress, simply replaces one doctrine (belief, sort of) for another, while sceptism helps weed out the ridiculous, and science (sense use) itself is the weeding tool. All have a role to play in the process of human evolution.

Funny enough, it is taught in the Garden of Eden where a doctrine was presented and found to be ridiculous once tested. Unfortunately, most who read that lesson are in religious school and dare not eat of the Fruits of Knowledge for fear they will die despite it being very clearly written that it is [url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+36%3A12%2CProverbs+5%3A23%2CProverbs+10%3A21%2CHosea+4%3A6&version=ESV]ignorance that kills[/url]!

Refs
https://www.nairaland.com/5898932/daddy-freeze-explains-why-lucifer/1#90252361

https://www.nairaland.com/5210433/prefer-world-where-religion-dont/1#78830199

https://www.nairaland.com/5210433/prefer-world-where-religion-dont/4#78905562

budaatum:

By simple testing the hypothesis put forward to ascertain if it were true or ridiculous, which no one might have bothered to do without the hypothesis in the first place. You yourself are evidence of this fact. You would not be here applying science if the ridiculous did not exist.

Religion is early school where doctrines are taught as beliefs, and testing, a product of advanced school as a result of human progress simply replaces one doctrine (belief, sort of) for another, while sceptism helps weed out the ridiculous, and science (sense use) itself is the weeding tool. All have a role to play in the process of human evolution.

Funny enough, it is taught in the Garden of Eden where a doctrine was presented and found to be ridiculous once tested. Unfortunately, most who read that lesson are in religious school and dare not eat of the Fruits of Knowledge for fear they will die despite it being very clearly written that it is [url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+36%3A12%2CProverbs+5%3A23%2CProverbs+10%3A21%2CHosea+4%3A6&version=ESV]ignorance that kills[/url]!

Refs
https://www.nairaland.com/5898932/daddy-freeze-explains-why-lucifer/1#90252361

https://www.nairaland.com/5210433/prefer-world-where-religion-dont/1#78830199

https://www.nairaland.com/5210433/prefer-world-where-religion-dont/4#78905562

Science turn an unknown phenomena to an hypothesis rather than some belief(in absolutism form).

Yes these ridiculous beliefs triggered doubts and questioning among early scholars that beget science but that doesn't mean science can't develop without it as it has it method.

1------ My view is that religion is actually a 'science', albeit classical.
Classical in the sense that it started in antiquity and it's fundamentally subjective.
Religion started the moment man start wondering how the universe came to be, why thunder strike, where we come from e.t.c


2----- Since this classical form of science is subjective, different explanation is expected for how the world works.
And like "customs", humans are patriotic or persuaded with force to believe any idea emanating from themselve or from close circle(community) that seem to work or give a satisfactory explanation for what we are ignorant of.
All thanks to the reptilian brain.


3----- Since alot of people desperately seek explanation to some of this mysteries, they will end up believing and becoming patriotic to any idea closest to them and sometimes with idea that seem harmonious with how they expect the world to be.
If you don't believe in any,then you are definitely not curious about how the world works.

4----- With increase in numbers of people with a subjective unifying idea and the epoch the belief is covering, the more differing views from the fundamental framework should be expected and also different dogmas should start springing up due to the emanating views.

5---- The dogmas start springing up because the fundamental belief give no explanation or is inconsistent with the new mysteries that must have been found due to incessant skepticim of some people in the circle.
Thereby Begging for a new explanation


5---- Like i've said in (no3), the burning fire of scepticism of the new set of emerging heretics will be quench either by force or by dogma so they can be patriotic to the belief all over again.

6----- And that is how a classical science community transform into a cult-like group.

In conclusion, been religious as at then isn't bad since that is where knowledge about how the world works are given topmost priority.

So alot of truth seeker will definitely subscribe to it, also irreligious/atheist are minute and sometimes heretics, how can we expect them to build civilisation when they are seen as outcast,tortored or held incommunicado.

Modern science is where the truth lies. When you become irreligious, you become a seeker of truth by trashing those rigid explanation that is now obsolete but people still want to make you believe is relevant.

tintingz:


Science turn an unknown phenomena to an hypothesis rather than some belief(in absolutism form).

Yes these ridiculous beliefs triggered doubts and questioning among early scholars that beget science but that doesn't mean science can't develop without it as it has it method.

I'm afraid science has developed by debunking beliefs.

Science, as in the use of the senses to test hypotheses, was not a thing early humans were conscious of. They were so ignorant that they believed in far more ridiculous gods than those believed in today. A reading of the early god books like Odysseus would show you how ignorant people actually were, and even the Bible we have today had to be revised so it's less ridiculous than its early versions were. Sceptism is why it was abandoned for the more 'scientific' explanation we have in Genesis. (Though I'm aware you would not agree that it was the science those who wrote it were capable of in their time).

A belief is the non-testing of a hypothesis. It was the lack of testing that made those hypothesis, things to be believed. The believing person takes a hypothesis as gospel. A scientist goes and checks with there own senses. You'd note this in child development, where sceptism develops as they grow, and even in the specific development of tintingz.

Here is [url=https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+13%3A9-12&version=KJV]Paul talking describing you[/url].

When tingz was a child, tingz spake as a child, tingz understood as a child, tingz thought as a child and tingz believed as a child: but when tingz became an adult and developed the ability to use tingz's senses, tingz began doubting what tingz believed and therefore began testing those beliefs with tingz's senses, as in tingz began doing science. And as a time went by, the result is the sceptical tingz we have today who is trying to make others stop seeing partly through murky glass; but understand and know in full.

Unfortunately, tingz is so anti-religion - as in, so anti the ignorance that people have told tingz the books really mean - and tingz is not sufficiently sceptical about his religious understanding (as in the interpretation the religious give to the text), that tingz throws the baby out with the dirty water, instead of deciphering the text tingz self.

Do know that I bother with tingz so much because I believe, as in I have a hypothesis, that states, "tingz is sceptical enough to eventually understand". And I am scientifically testing if my hypothesis is true or false.

IMAliyu:
As I've come to understand the evolutionary origins of religion.

It's like you've pointed out, we are communal creatures and religion is something of an extension of our communal nature, and working together under a disembodied unifying concept or idea is what builds a civilization. Religion had been the concept that has worked for past civilizations. In modern times ideas such as utopianism, liberalism, fascism, communism have contended for that spot with varying success.
Here is how I look at it. If religion didn't serve some evolutionary purpose it wouldn't exist or had survived to this day. Something like a meme(in the Richard Dawkins meaning) or a Jungian archetype.

Just like not everyone has the same temperament, some being high in openness, creativity and some being highly conservative and that's just part of our nature. The two work to moderate each other.
I see Atheism and theism in something of the same light. The two have to exist because they serve a purpose, it's like the atheists exist to moderate to the theists and the society from being swallowed up by their own doctrine and being enslaved by it, and theism is something that keeps nihilism at bay and passes down past wisdom.

I could keep on writing my thoughts surrounding atheism and theism, but let me get to the point and address the topic.
Atheist and areligious people are more often individualistic in nature and not tribal/group minded (which isn't a bad thing), it's a state of a lack of belief or faith in something and you wouldn't really unify individualistic people to work together under a lack of a belief would you?

There isn't much of a unifying ideal in atheism.
Although modern Atheism seeks to remedy this, by integration of philosophy such as secular humanism.

So my own thought is this just like how highly open and creative people come up with innovative ideas and start new industries, but need highly conscientious and conservative people to run them in a lasting manner.
This is the relationship between theism and atheism. Atheism doesn't build a civilization, because it's not its place to, while Theism has the ability to, but for the that civilization to make any sort of progress and not stagnate a reasonable amount of skepticism(not necessarily atheism, but similar enough) is needed. Just like the Greeks and their philosophers, Middle age Muslims, and the Post-renaissance West.
Same goes for the reason the Muslim world is lagging behind in the modern age. Islam and it's all encompassing nature has prevented a right balance from forming.

And I'm not a believer in the "If everyone leaves religion, humanity would be better off" in Fredrik Neitzsche's infamous line of "God is dead.. We have killed him" which implied that the search for truth through science had resulted in elimination of the possibility God (you could argue against this if you wish), also came with a warning of sorts "... How shall we comfort ourselves, ...Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?" To put simply, we will have to create something to fill the void which religion leaves and we can't be sure that what feels that void will not be worse than previous religions. E.g. 20th century fascism and communism. With about 100million deaths in the span of 31 years in Europe, not counting Mao's China.

I absolutely agree. Well said.

AbdulSleeky:
Even till this present day, atheists are a minority.

How do you expect a minority to build a civilisation? A minority in almost every nation in history.

The only countries that even presently have a majority of atheists are Japan, China, South Korea, Germany Sweden. All highly developed countries.

tintingz:
Usermane, there's fault in your post.

First of all in history Atheists and non-religous people are minority in the past, infact I would say non-religous people were 1%. Almost every field were dominated by Religious people, so who else will develop civilization?

OK. So why are atheists minority? You two ever considered this? It is because atheism as a mindset doesn't favor community growth.

Theism proactively build and sustain communities through daily or weekly congregational worship, annual festivals and rites like pilgrimage, special protection and privileges for members only. These things not only strengthen the bonds among the believers, but it attracts non-believers to join them.

Another thing, theists promote early marriage and raising as much children as possible as a means to expand their population. Atheists are less likelier to marry or have children than theists. So, that atheists are relatively so few is even more of a symptom of the inherent drawback of atheism, not an explanation for why they don't build civilization.

Secondly Religion didn't develop civilization, it's skepticism which led to science that developed civilization, yes many of them were religious and theists but they didn't brought about civilization because of their Religious status or beliefs. The ancient Greek scholars even tho some believed in the Gods but they were skeptics and heretics.

Religion as a whole is not even the problem, it's the ridiculous doctrines that's the problem. Imagine believing the gods cause diseases or earthquake, how will science develop from this belief?

I didn't say that religion built civilization, I said religion organizes communities which later develop to form civilization. Civilization are built upon intelligence and hard work, not mere skepticism. Skepticism is a product of intelligence and intelligence is a product of genetics.

For intelligent minds to thrive and bring about any development, there is need for an organized society with order and decorum maintained through a legal system, which for much of history is religion.

usermane:




OK. So why are atheists minority? You two ever considered this? It is because atheism as a mindset doesn't favor community building.

Theism proactively build and sustain communities through daily or weekly congregational worship, annual festivals and rites like pilgrimage, special protection and privileges for members only. These things not only strengthen the bonds among the believers, but it attracts non-believers to join them.

Another thing, theists promote early marriage and raising as much children as possible a means to expand their population. Atheists are less likelier to marry or have children than theists. So, that atheists are relatively so few is even more of symptom of the inherent drawback of atheism, not an explanation for why they don't build civilization.




I didn't say that religion built civilization, I said religion organizes communities which later develop to form civilization. Civilization are built upon intelligence and hard work, not mere skepticism. Skepticism is a product of intelligence and intelligence is a product of genetics.

For intelligent minds to thrive and bring about any development, there is need for an organized society with order and decorum maintained through a legal system, which for much of history is religion.

Let me counter your arguments with simple points.

1. For most of human history, humans were barbaric and animalistic. That religion has been with us since human history shows that it came from a time when humans were backwards.

2. With the industrial/enligtenment age came secularism. An age that involved rapid development in science, philosophy and technology.

3. Intelligent people are also a minority in any human society. Atheism being a minority is not something to be worried about.

4. Intelligent people do not always get to be presidents/kings/prime ministers. That position usually goes to the most evil, powerful, charismatic or murderous person. There is no civilization without war, bloodshed and propaganda.

5. Religion is the best and simplest form of control for human beings. It is harder to govern and control with the truth.


With these 5 points in mind, religion coexisting with so many civilizations is not a positive for religion.

budaatum:

I'm afraid science has developed by debunking beliefs.

Science, as in the use of the senses to test hypotheses, was not a thing early humans were conscious of. They were so ignorant that they believed in far more ridiculous gods than those believed in today. A reading of the early god books like Odysseus would show you how ignorant people actually were, and even the Bible we have today had to be revised so it's less ridiculous than its early versions were. Sceptism is why it was abandoned for the more 'scientific' explanation we have in Genesis. (Though I'm aware you would not agree that it was the science those who wrote it were capable of in their time).

A belief is the non-testing of a hypothesis. It was the lack of testing that made those hypothesis, things to be believed. The believing person takes a hypothesis as gospel. A scientist goes and checks with there own senses. You'd note this in child development, where sceptism develops as they grow, and even in the specific development of tintingz.

Here is [url=https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+13%3A9-12&version=KJV]Paul talking describing you[/url].

When tingz was a child, tingz spake as a child, tingz understood as a child, tingz thought as a child and tingz believed as a child: but when tingz became an adult and developed the ability to use tingz's senses, tingz began doubting what tingz believed and therefore began testing those beliefs with tingz's senses, as in tingz began doing science. And as a time went by, the result is the sceptical tingz we have today who is trying to make others stop seeing partly through murky glass; but understand and know in full.

Unfortunately, tingz is so anti-religion - as in, so anti the ignorance that people have told tingz the books really mean - and tingz is not sufficiently sceptical about his religious understanding (as in the interpretation the religious give to the text), that tingz throws the baby out with the dirty water, instead of deciphering the text tingz self.

Do know that I bother with tingz so much because I believe, as in I have a hypothesis, that states, "tingz is sceptical enough to eventually understand". And I am scientifically testing if my hypothesis is true or false.

Ok.

usermane:




OK. So why are atheists minority? You two ever considered this? It is because atheism as a mindset doesn't favor community growth.

Theism proactively build and sustain communities through daily or weekly congregational worship, annual festivals and rites like pilgrimage, special protection and privileges for members only. These things not only strengthen the bonds among the believers, but it attracts non-believers to join them.

Another thing, theists promote early marriage and raising as much children as possible as a means to expand their population. Atheists are less likelier to marry or have children than theists. So, that atheists are relatively so few is even more of a symptom of the inherent drawback of atheism, not an explanation for why they don't build civilization.

I hope you're not trying to commit argumentum ad populum fallacy?

Why are Atheists minority?

1. First of all we know humans want hope, they want quick answers to everything that's where Religions comes in it gives that delusory hope, like Karl Marx said "Religion is the opium of the people".

2. Religion was created to control the society with beliefs, in the past Religion was the standard for ruling a community, everyone depends on the leader spirituality, gods etc. Now Religion has been separated from the state in almost all the country. So Religion was a good tool hold the society in the past.

3. Why are theists majority? We can see from the past campaign how some Religion was spread via conquests and invasion.

4. Why are Atheists minority? Well Atheism only has one position which is "lack of belief in god or gods" that's all, there's no priest nor scripture Atheists follow, there are no rituals nor doctrines, what most Atheists affiliated with is humanism and other philosophical ideology.

5. Yes Religion creates a community, bringing people together and indoctrinate them with different practices and fear, it also causes disasters in history, today more people are becoming irreligious according to a stats.

6. The idea that Atheists can't build civilization is false, the humanists movement are filled with heretics, irreligious people that want better well being for humanity using scientific evidence, reasoning, knowledge etc.

In modern times, humanist movements are typically non-religious movements aligned with secularism, and today humanism may refer to a nontheistic life stance centred on human agency and looking to science rather than revelation from a supernatural source to understand the world.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

China is not even a Religious state but Atheist state and they're unified, developing and inventing new technology.

I didn't say that religion built civilization, I said religion organizes communities which later develop to form civilization. Civilization are built upon intelligence and hard work, not mere skepticism. Skepticism is a product of intelligence and intelligence is a product of genetics.

For intelligent minds to thrive and bring about any development, there is need for an organized society with order and decorum maintained through a legal system, which for much of history is religion.

Today most countries use secularism system to govern the society and not theocracy. So I still haven't gotten your whole point.

Humanism can achieve this without Religion infact I find humanism way better than Religion. If humanism was promoted very early the world would have dropped many barbaric and unreasonable practices.

AbdulSleeky:




Let me counter your arguments with simple points.

1. For most of human history, humans were barbaric and animalistic. That religion has been with us since human history shows that it came from a time when humans were backwards.

OK? But there has always been atheism. It came from the same prehistoric time as theism.

2. With the industrial/enligtenment age came secularism. An age that involved rapid development in science, philosophy and technology.

OK. As long as you distinguish secularism from atheism or irreligion, they're not the same.

3. Intelligent people are also a minority in any human society. Atheism being a minority is not something to be worried about.

First, I hope you are not interchanging atheism and intelligence?! Atheist being an unorganized, individualistic minority is somewhat something to be worried about in the context of founding a civilization. Otherwise, I get your point.

4. Intelligent people do not always get to be presidents/kings/prime ministers. That position usually goes to the most evil, powerful, charismatic or murderous person. There is no civilization without war, bloodshed and propaganda.

You're conflating atheism with intelligence.

5. Religion is the best and simplest form of control for human beings. It is harder to govern and control with the truth.

OK.

With these 5 points in mind, religion coexisting with so many civilizations is not a positive for religion.

How? Religion didn't just co-exist with these civilizations. Whether you speak of contemporary civilizations like the US or ancient like the Abbasid Empire. It played a huge part in unity and order in these civilizations, particularly among the earlier generations that laid the foundations upon which later generations would thrive.

tintingz:
I hope you're not trying to commit argumentum ad populum fallacy?

Why are Atheists minority?

1. First of all we know humans want hope, they want quick answers to everything that's where Religions comes in it gives that delusory hope, like Karl Marx said "Religion is the opium of the people".

2. Religion was created to control the society with beliefs, in the past Religion was the standard for ruling a community, everyone depends on the leader spirituality, gods etc. Now Religion has been separated from the state in almost all the country. So Religion was a good tool hold the society in the past.

Well, you were the one that implied atheist don't have or never had a civilization because they have always been scanty. And I'm explaining why they're scanty to begin with. Given the context, I'm not appealing to any fallacy here.

3. Why are theists majority? We can see from the past campaign how some Religion was spread via conquests and invasion.

OK? Majority of those conquered by religious invaders were not atheists, but by far mostly theists of a different religion from their invaders. You can counter that theists force their religion on atheists, and I won't disagree with you, but keep in mind, if atheists organize themselves as a collective unit, they'd be able to resist the theist from bullying them out of theism. But we know this never happens because atheism in itself won't allow atheist to organize themselves as theists do.

4. Why are Atheists minority? Well Atheism only has one position which is "lack of belief in god or gods" that's all, there's no priest nor scripture Atheists follow, there are no rituals nor doctrines, what most Atheists affiliated with is humanism and other philosophical ideology.

We seem to agree on this. Except that I see it as a limitation of atheism that prevent atheists from founding or building civilization, while you see nothing wrong with it and assume atheism can build a civilization notwithstanding.

5. Yes Religion creates a community, bringing people together and indoctrinate them with different practices and fear, it also causes disasters in history.

There is good and bad to everything. But even then, you think only religion indoctrinates people with practices and fears? Don't you see that those disasters are part of human nature and with or without religion, we'd have disasters?

today more people are becoming irreligious according to a stats

Of course. But some of them are returning back to religion as well. Last year I resolved that the Qur'an was not perfect enough as the Book of Life. I grew disillusioned with religion and found appeal in anti-religion, but it didn't last. Things are too grey even at this point to easily write off religion as it is.

6. The idea that Atheists can't build civilization is false, the humanists movement are filled with heretics, irreligious people that want better well being for humanity using scientific evidence, reasoning, knowledge etc.

OK. We hope to see them build a civilization from the grassroots. To be pragmatic though, humanism is nothing new. It is hard to be optimistic when the humanists had over 5000 years to achieve this, but they never did. What has worked in organizing communities that would later evolve over generations to civilization, was religion.

Knowledge and science can't answer every question. And how we interpret scientific revelation may differ from person to person. Here is a pinch test, what is the humanist position on the legality of abortion? What about addressing poverty?

China is not even a Religious state but Atheist state and they're unified, developing and inventing new technology.

China only became officially atheist about mid twentieth century with the communist revolution. But Chinese masses are not practically atheists and are deeply spiritual though they ascribe to milder and less prescriptive form of religions like Buddhism, Confuscianism and Taoism. The foundation of modern China is the Qing dyansty, which wasn't atheist.

Today most countries use secularism system to govern the society and not theocracy. So I still haven't gotten your whole point.

Ironically you didn't get my point. Before the contemporary civilizations or countries began to govern by secularism, they had to organize themselves with religion. It's like the American civilization of our time. The US is a secular country today, but the US wasn't born yesterday. The original founders of the US who established the communities that would later mature into the civilization it is today were Trinitarian Protestant Christians.

Humanism can achieve this without Religion infact I find humanism way better than Religion. If humanism was promoted very early the world would have dropped many barbaric and unreasonable practices.

Humanism wasn't born yesterday. And, all religions we know of were attempt at humanism, aside the fact that they are ascribed to "God". Now we can't really be certain that humanism wasn't promoted early. Perhaps it did, but it either didn't appeal to the people or it failed to live up to the expectations at the time, and thus it simply died out.

usermane:

OK. So why are atheists minority? You two ever considered this? It is because atheism as a mindset doesn't favor community growth.

Actually, its because people can not reason for themselves and are programmed to be theists by their parents, which is obvious by the mere fact that the theistic god one subscribes to is usually the one inherited from one's parents.

Thankfully, Mohammed was atheistic to his parent's beliefs or the religion he promoted would have been about the idols his parent's worshipped.

usermane:
But we know this never happens because atheism in itself won't allow atheist to organize themselves as theists do.

So, its not because throughout history people have been condemned and killed if they refused to worship the gods of their community?

I suggest you learn about Jesus Christ and Socrates, both who were atheistic to the religion of their day and were murdered because of it. Most would abandon their difference of opinion rather than die for their beliefs.

budaatum:

Actually, its because people can not reason for themselves and are programmed to be theists by their parents, which is obvious by the mere fact that the theistic god one subscribes to is usually the one inherited from one's parents.

No. Atheists are not minority because theists children refuse to reason. They're minority because they can't organize themselves as theists do.

Thankfully, Mohammed was atheistic to his parent's beliefs or the religion he promoted would have been about the idols his parent's worshipped

How do you know that? Qur'an simply stated that he started out misguided.

budaatum:

So, its not because throughout history people have been condemned and killed if they refused to worship the gods of their community?

Please read and digest the paragraph properly. It doesn't seem like you understand the point I'm making.

I suggest you learn about Jesus Christ and Socrates, both who were atheistic to the religion of their day and were murdered because of it. Most would abandon their difference of opinion rather than die for their beliefs.

OK. So why are you saying all this? Why so suddenly confrontational? Because you don't like the cold harsh facts I presented in a previous thread about the Black people, isn't it? I suspect because you left this comment only after leaving an aggrieved comment on that particular thread.

If you're not happy with one of my views, that's fine. But check your feelings, and don't bear grudges.

usermane:

Because you don't like the cold harsh facts I presented in a previous thread about the Black people, isn't it? I suspect because you left this comment only after leaving an aggrieved comment on that particular thread.

If you're not happy with one of my views, that's fine. But check your feelings, and don't bear grudges.

If you check the times for the posts you mention you'd find it was a full 5 hours before this one so I can't see how it could be the reason for my comment here. But then, you jump to conclusions with little consideration of the facts so no surprise there. I'm just not happy that you make sweeping judgements based on obvious little knowledge and are unwilling to learn because you think you already know the "cold harsh facts".

Humans started off ignorant and religion was how they increased in knowledge, but you expect ancient humans to look up at the sky and not deify lightning, thunder and Mars or wonder where their dead go, and create a religion to propagate their understanding.

Thankfully, education is replacing religion as the mode of propagating knowledge, which is why school is five days a week and religion is one day, and even your own religious parents would not have compromised on that fact and neither would you with your children. Unfortunately, Nigeria is lagging in science, history and anthropology, so Nigerians have little knowledge of the way things used to be and how they got to how they are today. Its why people like you would say all you know thinking you know all the "cold harsh facts" when the truth is you only believe the little you been told.

Please know that I do not bear grudges and my quoting you is not because I am aggrieved at you but because I am aggrieved at the ignorance you display and I respond so others may learn even if you refuse to, because it is only when we increase in knowledge that we truly serve God.

usermane:


OK? But there has always been atheism. It came from the same prehistoric time as theism.



OK. As long as you distinguish secularism from atheism or irreligion, they're not the same.



First, I hope you are not interchanging atheism and intelligence?! Atheist being an unorganized, individualistic minority is somewhat something to be worried about in the context of founding a civilization. Otherwise, I get your point.



You're conflating atheism with intelligence.



OK.



How? Religion didn't just co-exist with these civilizations. Whether you speak of contemporary civilizations like the US or ancient like the Abbasid Empire. It played a huge part in unity and order in these civilizations, particularly among the earlier generations that laid the foundations upon which later generations would thrive.

Your argument is baseless.

Religion has always been a great tool of control for those in power. It is the easiest way to unite people for a single goal- whether the goal is war, brotherhood, building or punishment.

That religion builds civilisations is a truism or at best a half truth.

DuBLINGreenb:
!slam didn't build anything they stole, plundered and jihaded their way through history and claimed cultures they met as theirs

Example is Constantinople or modern day turkey, the Christians had already built it up it was one of the valuable cites of Christianity especially Coptic Christians the !s/amists killed them and took it over

Till today we see them taking over churches like the Hagia Sophia, a Coptic Christian church that is actually older than Moha. And !$lam today it has been converted to mosque I can list many

The oldest university in Africa has a Muslim name today and people claim Islam brought it but that's not true the university was built before Islam reached Africa

Even words like shalom that is Hebrew/Jewish, !$lam turned it to Salam and claimed it whereas Christians still use it as shalom and acknowledge its Jewish origin.

In Mali the !$lamists are changing ancient history to make it look like !slam is the cause of everything good that happened in ancient Mali when it's not true and infact it is the cause of the insurgency all over the sahel region

https://youtu.bev/dacIWFvhKbA

WHEN YOU ARGUE, PLEASE DO IT WITH REASON NOT WITH RAGE.

FIRSTLY, YOU ARE OFF POINT WITH YOUR COMMENT. THE TOPIC IS ATHEISM AND IRRELIGION NOT ISLAM.

SECONDLY, THE DOMINANT CIVILIZATION OF THE MIDDLE AGE WAS THE ARAB/MUSLIM CIVILIZATION.
IT WAS DISLODGED ONLY BY THE WESTERN CIVILIZATION.

THERE HAS BEEN NO MAJOR WORLD CIVILIZATION THAT DID NOT LEAVE LASTING LEGACIES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY,CULTURE AND LEARNING IN GENERAL. ESPECIALLY ONE THAT LASTED FOR MORE THAN A THOUSAND YEARS.

MODERN CIVILIZATION WOULDN'T HAVE ANY FIRM FOOTING WITHOUT THE EARLIER CIVILIZATION (Muslim civilization) WHICH THEY ACTUALLY LEARNED ACTIVELY FROM.

ALL THESE ARE VERY EASY TO VERIFY BUT TO MENTION A FEW:

ALGORITHM WHICH IS THE BACKBONE OF COMPUTER PROGRAMMING IS THE INVENTION OF MUSLIMS. THIS IS JUST ONE OUT OF THE MANY CONTRIBUTIONS OF ISLAM TO THE FIELD OF MATH. IN FACT THE NUMERATION USED TODAY ie1,2,3,4etc IS A MUSLIM INVENTION. AND GUESS WHAT ITS CALLED? IT'S CALLED ARABIC NUMERALS. FACT.