Originally Posted by trumptman
The win isn't on the topics, but based on the participants. It isn't hard at all to note that all communal concepts follow the same precepts as religion and the human centered ones have been much more violent and harmful.
Whilst I agree with the first bit - and Blair is the very worst person to represent religion as he is a text-book example of the sort of blood-lust and hypocrisy atheists accuse religionists of.
But your second sentence is wrong.
Not all human communal efforts follow an equivalence of religious precepts at all. This seems a very strange thing to say.
One need only look at head-hunter societies, the Mayans or the IK in today's world to see that is not the case.
The belief that there was a perfect initial state, a fall, some manner by which the fallen must redeem themselves and then finally we will have utopia again is plainly evident. Worse still, while such a thing might be plausible with a diety, they plainly are IMPOSSIBLE to believe with only human centered endeavors.
Not sure what you are saying here....seems very unclear.
But to attempt an answer - apologies if I misunderstand the proposition - the idea of 'a fall' is indeed idiotic. Worse it is a sick invention of sick minds designed to control people.
However, metaphorically there is some truth deep down in the idea: we can return as individuals to a better state - before commerce and greed ruled the world for example. Unless you think they always did.
Again I don't accept redemption is impossible minus God - there was an interesting German philosopher who evolved a whole system based on this idea and - surprise! - it worked!!
Also Zen and allied systems achieve the same thing.