Why Atheists are more advanced than people who believe in God

Frank_Mackey

Civilization's progress:

Polytheism -> Monotheism -> Atheism

Many gods -> One god -> No god

blue[]ce

ROFL!!! nice one Frank!

albert_sy2

Just look at the most fanatically religious peoples in the world....... poor, backward, stone-age, uneducated, etc etc

Frank_Mackey

^ Like Americans... ?

perkins

Frank_Mackey wrote:

Civilization's progress:

Polytheism -> Monotheism -> Atheism

Many gods -> One god -> No god

dream on.

its good to dream.

its bad to be a dreamer.

Oneiros

Oh please... don't delude yourself F_M. I've met some atheists who are total morons (I think they are those rumored Da Vinci Code atheists LMAO).

Advanced in what sense? Smarter? Faster? Can leap tall buildings in a single bound?

micketymoc

Some of the smartest people I know are Catholic. So it's a stretch to think that your analogy in society necessarily applies to individuals.

Maybe more advanced societies tend to atheism. Big maybe. Please provide supporting data.

blue[]ce

u guys are too serious. :P

only problem with atheists is, we only agree on one thing. God does not exist as for the rest, it's a free for all

im still crossing my fingers though that perhaps one day, religion would play a smaller role in our lives. my example would be PEX. before, it was mostly the theists who posts here with a minority of atheist. Now, there are much more atheists than theists posting :P I can only hope.

albert_sy2

Arthur Clarke once posed a possible future where religion would be outlawed. That's one future I hope to live to see.

Then again, Frank Herbert posed a possible future where the universe is consumed in jihad.

bubuyog

I think a more plausible inference would be:

Religiously tolerant societies are more advanced than intolerant ones.

neoreo09

you don't need a religion to be smart. you don't need to be an atheist to be smart.

magtataho

albert einstein, one of the smartest people ever, happens to be a very religious and peace-loving man.

kaya lang, i'm not sure if it's Catholicism per se (just correct me if i'm wrong). More like pantheism.

Still, ascribing success to religious beliefs sounds more like a cop-out to me. That is, insteading of placing accountability on oneself, one "transfers" the blame to his religion, upbringing, teachers, friends, boy you name it.

Admiral New

DEFINITIONS
The most obvious problem with this proposition is its lack of definition. There are three terms in the very sparse explication which are clamoring for clarification: “advanced,” “civilization,” and “progress.” The first term must be defined in order for it to be measured, and, ultimately, in order for your hypothesis to either be validated or invalidated. When you say “advanced” do you mean atheists are more intelligent, richer, or perhaps more peace-loving?

Second, you must define which civilization you are looking at. Is it Eastern or Western? Perhaps more specifically, is it Southeast Asian or Western European? Precision will ensure the accuracy of your observation. If you insist on taking civilization as a whole (as in all civilizations in the entire world), then prepare to write an encyclopedia, because that will require some very extensive research and severely compelling evidence.

Finally, you must define “progress.” I find this term rather confusing because when you claim to show “civilization’s progress,” your illustration depicts religion instead (“Polytheism -> Monotheism -> Atheism”). Which one do you mean? If indeed you are referring to civilization (all of it), then you will have to prove that all civilizations all over the earth has demonstrated the progression you have identified. If you are referring to religion, you would have to trace the evolution of various religions (identifying them at the same time) along the lines that you say they have taken. I think the greatest challenge there is not tracing the genealogy of religion (though that is quite a handful already), but how that development ultimately culminates in atheism.

OBSOLESCENCE
Your proposition, I think, has one troublesome assumption, which, I believe, sheds light on your meaning of “advanced.” Allow me to explore my little hypothesis.

I find myself particularly absorbed by your outline (“Polytheism -> Monotheism -> Atheism”) because it reminds me of the Marxist theory on historical progression. According to the Marxists, civilization moves from Feudalism, to Capitalism, to, ultimately, Communism. Each succeeding step is more “advanced” than the previous--somehow, the preceding mode of economics becomes obsolete. I think this very same notion of obsolescence is at play when you compare deists and non-deists. The horizontal illustration is somewhat deceptive because obsolescence implies “something new and something old” and the old one is less desirable than the new one. In effect, it implies hierarchy. It might have been better if you had depicted “civilization’s progress” thus…

Atheism
^
Monotheism
^
Polytheism

…which, I think, effectively encapsulates your meaning. Based on this extrapolation, the advanced-ness of atheists is founded on their subscription to a mode of thought that sits at the top rung of civilization’s evolutionary ladder.
My problem with this notion of obsolescence is that it implies that the previous stage had flaws, which were ultimately addressed in the succeeding stage. Somehow, polytheism possesses certain shortcomings that are addressed by monotheism. And monotheism possesses certain shortcomings that are addressed by atheism. There are two points I wish to raise concerning this issue. One, you would have to demonstrate what shortcomings are addressed by each succeeding phase. Two, you would have to demonstrate how these shortcomings are addressed by each succeeding phase. This second point includes, definitely, proving that atheism is the next, natural step in the evolution of civilization/religion (whichever you mean).

HORIZONTAL
Allow me to propose an alternative model, one that does not deal with obsolescence. What if you had an originating idea, called “System of Meaning.” From this origin, you have two separate branches: Theistic and Atheistic. Both branches split into various smaller branches. The Theistic branch has two prominent subdivisions: polytheistic and monotheistic. They do not necessarily branch out at the same time; the latter emerges later than the former. Both main divisions (theistic and atheistic) exist in a horizontal relationship, each with their own peculiarities. It is an overly simplistic model, I know, but my point is, theism and atheism do not necessarily have to be treated in a vertical manner, especially if such treatment entails the utilization of crude evaluation terms as “advanced.”

Frank_Mackey

Jeez, I can't believe some people here thought that post was meant to be serious...

and I'm not just talking about the Admiral...






Get a Life(tm), folks!

salermo

Most of them are serious.

micketymoc

Frank_Mackey wrote:

Jeez, I can't believe some people here thought that post was meant to be serious...

and I'm not just talking about the Admiral...

Get a Life(tm), folks!

Well, you should've made your first post funny in the first place! *peace*

Frank_Mackey

^ That wasn't the problem. The problem was some people seem to have misplaced their sense of humour...

hotchillipepper

Frank_Mackey wrote:

Civilization's progress:

Polytheism -> Monotheism -> Atheism

Many gods -> One god -> No god

hehe he.. i like that.. that explain it all!

let us face it, religion is necessarity in shaping a civilization, as one of the philosoper said, Religion was part of humanity's childhood, as human mature, its no longer needed. Please don't mistaken, religion and spirituality, we can be spiritual but not being religious.

they're were dime a dozen of messiah in Jesus times, there was a need for Constantine to choose a state religion, to unify a strong nation, and Jesus teaching was the most appealing to him, its non violence and also taught people to pay taxes.

Just imagine, during the colonizations of uncivilized society,tribe against other tribe, the best tool to control human with less/no force is to conquest their minds.

Although, human didn't really stop kill other human, its just elevated us to different complex level. hehehe..

albert_sy2

You Christians please stop quoting Einstein out of context. His "god does not play dice with the universe" quote was a reaction to quantum theory, and was an expression of his idea of the behavior of the universe. He often used "god" to mean "the universe" or "nature".

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." -- Albert Einstein.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -- Albert Einstein

"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it." -- Albert Einstein

Lucca Yamazaki

Lemme see now, from the Book of Civilizations, IV...

Mysticism -> Polytheism -> Monotheism -> Theology -> Paper (w/ Civili Service) -> Printing Press -> Replaceable Parts -> Steam Power -> Assembly Line -> Industrialism -> Plastics -> Ecology (w/ Fission)

So... atheists aren't exactly very advanced. They're just very good at recycling. Hey, at least they're helping the environment not like those stupid uneducated mink-wearing, seal-clubbing, tree-chopping religious people.

micketymoc

Now you're wrong. Read from the Book of Empire Earth: it's Prehistoric Age, Stone Age, Copper Age, Bronze Age, Dark Ages, Middle Ages, Renaissance, Imperial Age, Industrial Age, Atomic Age, Digital Age, Nano Age.

Infidel!!!