Silly social theories of the atheistic or secular variety

[Questioner]

(Mods, if this isn't political please move it - I asked for a definition of "political for this forum but never got a reply).

These are a few silly social theories I've seen postulated, typically by atheists or those who ascribe to some secular philosophy or belief system of some variety or another:

1. Beliefs have no worth "outside of society"

This right here refutes the worth of atheism altogether, given that in America and most Western nations, the majority of society believes in a God, atheism therefore has no worth outside of society.

Or likewise, Newton's theories of planetary orbitational have no worth outside of a "Flat Earth Society", nor Galileo's theory of heliocentrism outside of a Medieval Catholic society which believes in egocentrism.

So commenting on the silliness of this theory really isn't worth it to begin with, and in practice, atheists, or people arguing on behalf of scientific theories don't really believe this, since they'll argue that said theories have some from of "inherent worth", or those holding said theories are worthy of some "inherent" notion of rights and respect, regardless of whether or not most of society is Christian, believes in a God, or whether or not atheists are only a fragment or so of the population.

In practice, many if not most people have a very simplistic, childish idea of what "society" is to begin with, given that any aspect of society, from a city, a state, to an entire country is composed of thousand or millions of men and women, families, schools, colleges, universities, churches, businesses, prominent individuals and historical figures, or other private and public institutions, which interrelate in complex ways, certainly not reducible to a simplistic, cliched or iconographic image which those to selfish, uneducated or immoral to actually learn more about the society they are part of to begin with often erroneously attribute to it and the people who comprise it, interact with in it, and influence it in positive and creative ways, (as opposed to immoral, uninformed and destructive ones).

2. Life is about survival:

This right here is easily debunked, and only remotely the case in the most impoverished or poorly educated demographics, such as illiterate 3rd world countries, or criminal gangs.

In practice, for most, or at least most civilized men and women, survival is merely a means to an end, and life is an end in and of itself, with things which are considered to be inherently worthy and desirable, whether a loving family, well-raised children, higher education, sports, arts, humanities, career pursuits or ambitions being motivations in thinking men and women, not solely the lowest physical impulses or stimuli such as eating, drinking, sleeping, mating, and so forth.

If life were about survival, there would be no science, since science and higher intellectual or creative pursuits in general, is not about survival for the most part, but according to scientists themselves is "just plain fun", or ultimately an "aesthetic" end, such as appreciation for and of the universe itself

If life were about survival, then there would be more arguments to be made for disbanding the majority of science, mathematical, artistic (e.x.) endeavours, such as defunding the moon landing or the invention of most scientific theories, and reduce the overall standard of living to that of an impoverished 3rd world country solely for the sake of "survivalism", which mankind did for 10,000s of years as hunter-gatherers prior to any modern scientific pursuits or endeavors (civilization being a historical novelty, with most of humanity's past being hunter-gatherer societies which "survived well enough" even without sciences, many modern potential catastrophies such as pollution, man-made global warming, nuclear warfare, gun violence, plagues caused by city living, and so on being, in part, attributable to the development of science or technology itself.

Even the silly notion of "wars for resources" (which probably has more in common with "Age of Empires" than anything in the real world) is easily debunkable - typically in first world nations, it is "resources" for the war, not the other way around, wars being primarily ideological or cultural in motive, other than perhaps in the most impoverished areas or 3rd world countries..

(All of WWI, for example, started over the assassination of a politician, and cost much more in resources to wage than were lost by the death of said figure; or as far back as ancient Greece and Rome, the Trojan War was fought over a woman of noble birth).

Some have even argued, that warfare in humans, and possibly even animals is a cultural devolution from sports or competitive games, with "blood sports" such as gladiatorial contests or organized duels having served the purpose of "sport" in more primitive days and ages.

 

[dblack]

These are a few silly social theories I've seen postulated, typically by atheists or those who ascribe to some secular philosophy or belief system of some variety or another:

1. Beliefs have no worth "outside of society"

This right here refutes the worth of atheism altogether, given that in America and most Western nations, the majority of society believes in a God, atheism therefore has no worth outside of society.

Or likewise, Newton's theories of planetary orbitational have no worth outside of a "Flat Earth Society", nor Galileo's theory of heliocentrism outside of a Medieval Catholic society which believes in egocentrism.

So commenting on the silliness of this theory really isn't worth it to begin with, and in practice, atheists, or people arguing on behalf of scientific theories don't really believe this, since they'll argue that said theories have some from of "inherent worth", or those holding said theories are worthy of some "inherent" notion of rights and respect, regardless of whether or not most of society is Christian, believes in a God, or whether or not atheists are only a fragment or so of the population.

In practice, many if not most people have a very simplistic, childish idea of what "society" is to begin with, given that any aspect of society, from a city to an entire country is composed of thousand or millions of men and women, families, schools, colleges, universities, churches, businesses, prominent individuals and historical figures, or other private and public institutions, which interrelate in complex ways, certainly not reducible to a simplistic, cliched or iconographic image which those to selfish, uneducated or immoral to actually learn more about the society they are part of to begin with often erroneously attribute to it and the people who comprise it, interact with in it, and influence it in positive and creative ways, (as opposed to immoral, uninformed and destructive ones).

2. Life is about survival:

This right here is easily debunked, and only remotely the case in the most impoverished or poorly educated demographics, such as illiterate 3rd world countries, or criminal gangs.

In practice, for most, or at least most civilized men and women, survival is merely a means to an end, and life is an end in and of itself, with things which are considered to be inherently worthy and desirable, whether a loving family, well-raised children, higher education, sports, arts, humanities, career pursuits or ambitions being motivations in thinking men and women, not solely the lowest physical impulses or stimuli such as eating, drinking, sleeping, mating, and so forth.

If life were about survival, there would be no science, since science and higher intellectual or creative pursuits in general, is not about survival for the most part, but according to scientists themselves is "just plain fun", or ultimately an "aesthetic" end, such as appreciation for and of the universe itself

If life were about survival, then there would be more arguments to be made for disbanding the majority of science, mathematical, artistic (e.x.) endeavours, such as defunding the moon landing or the invention of most scientific theories, and reduce the overall standard of living to that of an impoverished 3rd world country solely for the sake of "survivalism", which mankind did for 10,000s of years as hunter-gatherers prior to any modern scientific pursuits or endeavors (civilization being a historical novelty, with most of humanity's past being hunter-gatherer societies which "survived well enough" even without sciences, many modern potential catastrophies such as pollution, man-made global warming, nuclear warfare, gun violence, plagues caused by city living, and so on being, in part, attributable to the development of science or technology itself.

Those "social theories" have nothing to do with atheism. Are you just making shit up?

 

[Questioner]

These are a few silly social theories I've seen postulated, typically by atheists or those who ascribe to some secular philosophy or belief system of some variety or another:

1. Beliefs have no worth "outside of society"

This right here refutes the worth of atheism altogether, given that in America and most Western nations, the majority of society believes in a God, atheism therefore has no worth outside of society.

Or likewise, Newton's theories of planetary orbitational have no worth outside of a "Flat Earth Society", nor Galileo's theory of heliocentrism outside of a Medieval Catholic society which believes in egocentrism.

So commenting on the silliness of this theory really isn't worth it to begin with, and in practice, atheists, or people arguing on behalf of scientific theories don't really believe this, since they'll argue that said theories have some from of "inherent worth", or those holding said theories are worthy of some "inherent" notion of rights and respect, regardless of whether or not most of society is Christian, believes in a God, or whether or not atheists are only a fragment or so of the population.

In practice, many if not most people have a very simplistic, childish idea of what "society" is to begin with, given that any aspect of society, from a city to an entire country is composed of thousand or millions of men and women, families, schools, colleges, universities, churches, businesses, prominent individuals and historical figures, or other private and public institutions, which interrelate in complex ways, certainly not reducible to a simplistic, cliched or iconographic image which those to selfish, uneducated or immoral to actually learn more about the society they are part of to begin with often erroneously attribute to it and the people who comprise it, interact with in it, and influence it in positive and creative ways, (as opposed to immoral, uninformed and destructive ones).

2. Life is about survival:

This right here is easily debunked, and only remotely the case in the most impoverished or poorly educated demographics, such as illiterate 3rd world countries, or criminal gangs.

In practice, for most, or at least most civilized men and women, survival is merely a means to an end, and life is an end in and of itself, with things which are considered to be inherently worthy and desirable, whether a loving family, well-raised children, higher education, sports, arts, humanities, career pursuits or ambitions being motivations in thinking men and women, not solely the lowest physical impulses or stimuli such as eating, drinking, sleeping, mating, and so forth.

If life were about survival, there would be no science, since science and higher intellectual or creative pursuits in general, is not about survival for the most part, but according to scientists themselves is "just plain fun", or ultimately an "aesthetic" end, such as appreciation for and of the universe itself

If life were about survival, then there would be more arguments to be made for disbanding the majority of science, mathematical, artistic (e.x.) endeavours, such as defunding the moon landing or the invention of most scientific theories, and reduce the overall standard of living to that of an impoverished 3rd world country solely for the sake of "survivalism", which mankind did for 10,000s of years as hunter-gatherers prior to any modern scientific pursuits or endeavors (civilization being a historical novelty, with most of humanity's past being hunter-gatherer societies which "survived well enough" even without sciences, many modern potential catastrophies such as pollution, man-made global warming, nuclear warfare, gun violence, plagues caused by city living, and so on being, in part, attributable to the development of science or technology itself.

Those "social theories" have nothing to do with atheism. Are you just making shit up?

Nothing directly to do with atheism, but people who've identified themselves as "atheist" or "secular", or "secular Humanist" have been the primary ones I've seen making these arguments.

 

[ReinyDays]

Social development is driven by need ... and not theory ... at the height of the Wars of Religion in Europe, there was a real social need to stop killing each other over perceived beliefs ... from this need came the Humanist Theory ... of course it's silly, God is roaring with laughter, but it has slowed down the cold-blooded murder ...

 

[Questioner]

Social development is driven by need ... and not theory ... at the height of the Wars of Religion in Europe, there was a real social need to stop killing each other over perceived beliefs ... from this need came the Humanist Theory ... of course it's silly, God is roaring with laughter, but it has slowed down the cold-blooded murder ...

Secular Humanism as a belief system is only one of many theories which have existed, "secular", "religious", or otherwise, since those Wars of Religion you describe.

Most contemporary theories, whether evolutionary psychology, or theories of law, society or government more or less debunk this somewhat fictitious history to begin with, showing that the roots of violence in mankind has universal, genetic precursors to some extent or another (which the law rightfully restrains and punishes in the event it amounts to crime, as opposed to mere civilizationary maladaption or personal immorality which doesn't fall outside the law and societies' boundaries on criminal behavior), with ideological conflict, whether "religious", "secular", or otherwise described being the primary source of violence, warfare, and conflict in human history.