>If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.

>>1828388
I do not think it is true that God is necessary for a prosperous society. If that is what Voltaire was arguing, I think he was wrong.

However, I do think that, no matter how many times we try to kill God using reason, he will always return. Because as a concept, the ideas of immaterial beings, supernatural occurrences, and divine creators are simply things inherent to human psychology - it is human nature to acknowledge their existence in some way or another.

I don't think that it's possible for our culture to override our instincts as humans to create magic and phantoms in our mind to explain things, or simply for fun. Therefore, as Voltaire says, if our culture had no concept of God or the supernatural or the ethereal, I think someone would eventually invent it. And it would become popular again.

Of course, perhaps in the far future, human nature itself may change such that Voltaire's assertion is no longer true. But assuming human nature remains as it is, I think he's right. Humanity will always invent the supernatural, it's a part of our psychology.

Perhaps, though, that isn't what he meant.

>>1828404
That may be a voltaire's opinion on religious dogma, but this is actually from a poem criticizing atheism.

The masses need a higher power to tell them about morals. Religion fits that role. It was never about a creation myth or virgin births, it's about some rules of how to live your life. Without that the masses go into random crazy shit.

>>1828434
True, it seems as though his argument is less "even if we got rid of God, he'd come back" and more "God helps our society, so who cares if he's real or not, don't rock the boat".

That being said, I think those two arguments are actually one and the same, and here's why. The cultural construct of God, according to Voltaire's line of thinking, seems to have some positive effects on society. So, suppose we lived in a world in which two competing societies existed, one with a concept of God and one without. Wouldn't the more prosperous culture win out in the end, according to the ideas of social darwinism? In that sense, isn't it inevitable that God be a part of human society? Therefore, what Voltaire is arguing is correct - there's no need to get rid of God because it won't make anything better, or even if it did, the net effect would be negative, and another culture WITH a God would take over anyway.

Of course, this all hinges on his claim that a Godless society is less prosperous, which I can't really confirm. You can make various philosophical arguments in support of or against religion but in the end I think the only way to know is by measuring the effects religion has on a society using the scientific method. And I'm not sure there's a large enough body of evidence to draw a conclusion yet.

>>1828441
The masses can be guided by a moral guide not dictated by god.

File: 1471970396123.jpg (52KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 500x500px

>>1828663
>The masses can be guided by a moral guide not dictated by god.

Name one (1) example of this moral guide not dictated by religion coming into effect at any point in time, anywhere.

File: voltaire.png (1009KB, 760x920px) Image search: [Google]

1009KB, 760x920px

>If the Holy Roman Empire did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it.

What did he mean by this?

>>1828684
Seriously?
>Confucianism.

>>1828726
>mandate of heaven?

>>1828704
dude it was Fredrick the Great that said that

quit misquoting

>>1828684
>Name one (1) example of this moral guide not dictated by religion coming into effect at any point in time, anywhere

Probably the Paleolithic when man did not worship much supernatural entities as far as we know than mere concepts like animal strength.

And people. They worshipped people. Women specifically.

>>1828388
Virtually every situation started off with religious leaders or priest at the top, religion was a glue that kept societies together, they were the only ones who commanded enough authority and were trusted enough to store food.
But then you are implying that civilization is necessary.

>>1829693
>every situation
every civilization*

>>1829693
It depends on what you mean by God. Creation figure? Man? Woman? Beast? It's such a broad term that I think using western monotheistic standards on past cultures is misinformed. There are different conceptions of what that really means, including lack of it.

>>1829708
?

>>1828704
He means that we all need something to laugh at, and if we don't have anything we'll point and laugh at something new.

>>1829711
God can mean many things. Be many things. Not all moral guides, some moral guides but not considered gods themselves.

>>1829747
What does this have to do with my post?

>>1829628
>as far as we know

so not at all. cool.

It's telling when the biggest European religion calls their god, the father, the son, and the holy spook.

>>1829760
Considering the fact that across Eurasia there's the phenomenon of Venus figures, and lack of male representation except for combination with animals, leads us to conclude several things.

First off women were of great importance because a tribe couldn't go on without them, maternity was important, as was motherhood. This was sociocultural central. You could come up with this conclusion without the Venus figurines themselves. Secondly men were depicted as part lion or bird to represent, possibly, their personality traits and importance in function of the tribe.

Thirdly, with the commonality of these prior two across Eurasia, we can assume at one point in time in the mid Paleolithic there was a culture of some sort that splintered and word was passed down orally, that's the only way to describe why this phenomenon is so important.

It is possible they worshipped animals themselves as well.

Maybe in the beginning. A religion is like a glue that holds people and provides rules to prevent it from falling into chaos. But as it becomes more advanced religion is less and less necessary. Might even become detrimental.

>>1828441
Edgy and dumb.

>>1828684
Modern day non-religious people who manage to live more morally upright lives than religious people.

>>1828684
>Name one (1) example of this moral guide not dictated by religion coming into effect at any point in time, anywhere.

In every first-world country I can think of, the law is an effective moral guide not dictated by religion. In fact, it's specifically designed to be religion-free.

>>1829882
Like Voltaire!

>>1829620
>Mandate of Heaven
Predated Confucianism and is a folk Chinese belief. Not to mention one its signs are "people are content with your rule."

That said, Confucianism isn't atheist. It talks about observing religious rites as a moral act. But Confucianism is a social philosophy since native Chinese religion believes the ""Gods"" (a wrong translation of the word "Shen") do not give a shit about humanity because they are busy running the universe. You honored Gods but it was man's task to be a Moral cunt to be able to live harmoniously with each other.

>>1830045
But his point is that all of the morals it espouses are inspired by religion.

>>1828388
religion would've formed no matter what

>>1830456
Or was religion inspired by the morals? Don't make assertions about things that can't be proven.

I don't agree. People argue that some aspects of modern society occupy the space of religion but the only time I agreed fully with this was when reading Marquis de Sade. He denounced religion at every point but all he did was place Nature in the place of God. Nature dictates how we should live. We cannot question Nature's laws. Nature is intrinsically mysterious and fundamentally veiled from Man.

>>1830496
Nature is only concerned with what is though. Nature doesn't care about what ought to be.

>>1830520
To Marquis de Sade, the natural order is the best state of being. He goes as far as to say women don't have the right to deny sex to any male because female animals in the wild are shared by all males as well. (Note that he did commit lots of biology errors. At one point in Philosophy in the Bedroom he says what we now would call genetic material comes only from the father)

>>1830531
The natural order would have had him killed though because he was a fucking weirdo. In a lawless society, someone would have murdered him.

>>1828388
You can believe in a god without being religious.

>>1830544
Sade was fucked in the head, no questions about that.

>>1828388
Voltaire was a fucking comedian. Stop treating him like a philosopher.

>>1828441
>Without that the masses go into random crazy shit.
Tooooo be fair the masses are still crazy shits with religion.

>>1828684
Humans are insane they need to think their moral behavior comes from a higher source to function morally.

File: 1458309016893.png (638KB, 495x597px) Image search: [Google]

638KB, 495x597px

>>1828388

>necessary to
>invent
>him

>>1828663
You need the masses guided by a leviathan. Otherwise there is no point in following it.

I believe God was one of the most useful inventions of mankind. Religion is possibly the best means of alienation of masses we've created.

>>1828388
As much as I am an atheist, I realize that it was a necessity for early societies.

>religious teachings teach one to go truth
>world convinces you not to listen to religious teachings
>world then uses religion and dumbs it down to give religion the appearance of having no importance

It's like someone gives you a useful tips to get farther into truth, go try it out. Religious ideas are good, and religious stereotypes are made up by people to stop you from even giving it a real chance

File: confucius1.jpg (66KB, 485x887px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 485x887px

>>1828684
Hi there.

>>1828388

>God
>Exist

>>1834509
Doesn't the part where the emperor is the son of heavens and shit kinda defeat your point? Confucius didn't introduce a divinity because he already had one.

Not to mention the literally religious praise to ancestors inherent to the traditional family values that Confucius defends.

>>1829738
This. That's why we had three Reichs instead of one.

>>1834521
>Doesn't the part where the emperor is the son of heavens and shit kinda defeat your point?
It doesn't because that that was not started by Confucius and is a folk Chinese belief.
>Confucius didn't introduce a divinity because he already had one.
True. But divinity isnt the bases of Confucian morality. Social harmony is. Only thing Confucius has to say about the divine is that it is moral to observe the rites.

In addition, Folk Chinese Religion isn't a dogmatic one. It teaches nothing save that the supreme being is Heaven and it is dutiful to honor heaven. Period. They even believe the "Gods" (in Chinese, Shen, which translates to "Spirit" really) do not give a shit about humanity beyond creating them since 1) They're busy enacting heaven's will and governing each of their departments and 2) Humanity is also a Shen, albeit a lesser one, and ergo is responsible for its own shit.

>Not to mention the literally religious praise to ancestors inherent to the traditional family values that Confucius defends.
Yes but Confucianism goes beyond that. It's a social philosophy that advocates in building a society, not just MUH ANCESTORing. I mean you could be a filial fucking cunt but a massive dick to others.