Sure, a lot of the stories are allegories or metaphors, as opposed to factual historical accords. The point is, faith gives a person a connection to their community, and provides support for their morals for when times get tough.
Sure, probably. But again, a clever, well-time lie can bring the community together and provide hope in the face of struggle and so on and so forth.
All religions are our (often a bit odd) attempts to answer philosophical questions that we simply have no way of reaching objective answers on. Humans are hard wired to create religion. All religions share patterns of what you can see as deeper truths, or deeper ideas. My goodness. I’m alive. One day I will not be alive, that’s a scary thought. Look at all this beautiful creation. Where did it come from? Something bad happened, why? Look we had a baby and it has its own consciousness, wow that’s incredible, what’s happening there? Why do we die? What happens after? What do these patterns mean? I loved her and she’s dead, will that be forever?
But we know that 'nothing' can produce 'something' and we all using this knowledge...
It is called nontheistic religions and they are fine.
Uhm, nope.
You do however need faith to hope that Moritz aus Magdeburg isn’t just using that Kindergeld for liquor and OnlyFans.
If theism is a belief in a separate higher power and atheism the lack of that, I’m not sure where general spirituality fits in. Finding meaning in connecting with others and accomplishments is enough to hold a society together, whether or not they name specific Gods or they just celebrate those feelings. I’m essentially agreeing with you and many others here but mostly because atheism is so poorly defined, I don’t even understand what the disagreement is about. It really does just feels like edgy teens trying to get a rise out of people most of the time.
Nontheism is the absence of a belief in God. Atheism is the belief in the absense of God. Stay retarded, kebab.
Religion was never about factual truth, it was always about something immeasurable beyond it. That's why religion is not science, and science is not religion. Trying to mix up the two only causes problems.
Hindi and French cookbooks don't claim to be universal, eternal truth.
The only examples i can think of are like the USSR who instead of placing their faith in a non-interactive god they place their faith in their leaders. That usually seems to lead to the leadership believing that they are above the laws of physics or the cold calculations of reality and things go sideways eventually.
Ask a French or Italian cook if a cookbook can't be a universal truth, i dare you.
If that AI will be able to provide stable isotope of any chemical element from eight period I will call it Sally.
And none of this is truth outside teh internetz.
Sure it is. There has never been a single successful atheist culture throughout history, that's the truth.
All that PRC shrines with all tha gods living inside them will agree with you.
generally if you describe yourself as an atheist you've already drawing a line in the sand and labelling yourself as someone that explicitly refuses to believe in a god. If you're a nontheist you just won't care, or if pressed would call yourself a nontheist if you know the word or otherwise something that means the same.
My fuck, you are dense. Atheism is the belief in the non-existence of God. I said there has never been a successful atheist society in the history of humanity, then you came in blathering about nontheism and agnosticism and other unrelated shit as a cope.
You described apatheism - 'ok, you are god JHWH if you say so, but i'm not interested. Have a nice day'.
Do you need to belive that Zeus isn't ever existing to be a non-beliver in Zeus? No, you don't.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/atheism
The truth is the need for food. All religions attempt to fill that gap. We have all wondered the big questions. Some of us think divinity, others think materialism. We will never get an answer in this life and I can’t prove God exists any more than an atheist can prove He doesn’t. In that light both stances are beliefs.
No we are. We absolutely are, in the same way we are wired to detect patterns in the trees in case it’s a tiger. There’s a whole field of very objective study on this, here’s an article from new scientist. https://archive.is/j2bzu
...
[example needed]
It is complicated - have fun to guess sex of someone with AIS. Or to force GenPop to make test for AIS compusolary for each female newborn.
Do you just make a dichotomy that everyone who isn't a beliver is woke, and everyone woke isn't a beliver?
