wiredfalcon2 said:Look, if you haven't been following this thread closely, I already laid it out: the first real sign of progress is how much a society hates organized religion. It’s about that massive pivot away from the Catholic Church and the Pope to make room for Protestantism, Lutheranism, or whatever flavor of faith comes next. That whole "anti-establishment" phase—where everyone stops bowing down to the Vatican and starts questioning the absolute authority of the Church—is basically the spark plug for everything else. You distrust the central religious power, then people start getting rich, and eventually, the whole thing just dries up until nobody even cares about God anymore. Simple as that.
Consumerism—you know, that whole vibe where you can actually save up enough to buy some useless luxury junk that only the ultra-rich used to touch—has really only been a thing for maybe two hundred years. And this decline in religion? We’re talking maybe the last century, if that. So, I wouldn't go as far as saying wealth itself is what kills faith. It’s not like there's a direct link between having money and becoming anti-Catholic. Look at guys like Luther or Hus; those were clashes of power, people going head-to-head with the Pope and the central Church authority. That's politics, not just a bank account. Sure, poverty plays a role. When people are struggling, they tend to cling to nationalism and Catholicism because they see it as a sort of shield. But let's be real: most of these people were closeted believers anyway. They spend all year barely acknowledging anything beyond Christmas and Easter, but the second they feel threatened, suddenly they’re "super religious." It’s a performance.
Poverty doesn't turn atheists into believers, and it sure as hell doesn't make Protestants suddenly convert to Catholicism. I didn't see people in Chicago during the Great Recession suddenly finding God and flocking to the local parish just because their bank accounts hit zero. But you know what I do see? I see these "devout Catholics" who, the second things get tough, morph into these ultra-right-wing, anti-immigrant types with pure venom in their eyes. It's pathetic. ☕
I guess the real catalyst for development wasn't Protestantism, but rather factors that don't really have anything to do with religion. Most historians argue that the trajectory of Western progress—leading to the discovery of new continents, global trade, colonialism, the Industrial Revolution, and modern warfare—actually started back in the 13th century with the Mongol invasions of the West. That set off a chain reaction that brought the Black Death to the US and Europe in the 14th century. After that massive population drop, economic structures shifted, creating a desperate need for new trade routes and exploration. Once the Americas were rediscovered, it basically kicked off the wheel of modern history that’s still spinning today. Religion had very little to do with it; churches were mostly just political players with limited influence. They might have cut down a few revolutionary ideas here and there, but I suspect politics and the global trade of things like sugar and cotton cut them down much more often. Up until the early 20th century, most Western societies were incredibly conservative, racist, and religious. Religion was mainly used as legitimacy—a way to claim a God-given right to use other people on the planet however they wanted (originally it was about animals and plants, but as things progressed, the demand for human slavery emerged). The British, who didn't care much about the Pope, were pretty much the undefeated champions of the world in that regard. The Spanish followed the Pope, which left them in second place, but like I said, these are mostly just modified myths used as tools by warriors, explorers, or merchants. Protestantism itself just adopted pieces of cultures that those parts of the West already possessed; Northern and Southern European cultures were already distinct long before. All those religions, schisms, and whatnot are just different flags or playstyles, but the game remains the same. Economic and industrial progress brings about new insights and myths, which eventually allow society to start discarding ancient religious myths (either rejecting them entirely or just valuing them less because they aren't useful anymore). Maybe you're pushing your own agenda just like believers push theirs, but you're doing it aggressively because you don't know any other way. I mean, go ahead, who's stopping you? It doesn't really bother me. You both seem pretty exhausting. The idea that you think you're better than Patrick Martin, or that Patrick Martin thinks he's better than you, is just a subjective idea, I guess.
wiredfalcon2 said:Look, I already laid this out when I was talking about comparable nations—you know, looking at scale, cultural spheres, that whole lack of a massive colonial empire history, stuff like that. You can't sit here and bring up Belgium or the Netherlands, talking about how they basically had half of Africa or half the known world under their thumb, and then try to compare them to somewhere like Estonia. That's just not apples to apples. We’re talking about small players here, nations under 30 million people, tucked away in Europe, without a history of carving up continents. You can't compare America to Poland or France either; they're sitting on 60 or 80 million people. So, if you actually look at what we can realistically compare ourselves to, the correlation is pretty damn obvious—societies with heavy religious coloring are economically failing 9 times out of 10. Case closed.
I see these idiots making fun of the Czech Republic, even though they joined the EU a decade before we did. Their people actually had enough sense to stay rational—they didn't go obsessing over religious fanaticism during the war like some lunatics; they just handled things sensibly and split off from those stubborn Slovaks. Honestly, looking back at where we were in the 80s, the Czech Republic is basically our version of America. Once they finally shook off all that Soviet madness, they just started thriving. They’ve got the lowest unemployment rates out there. Doesn't mean they're New York City, but for us? Yeah, they're definitely the gold standard.
You seem to be taking a one-way correlation for granted—the idea that if a society is religiously oriented, it's mostly because that's why it's economically underdeveloped. But why assume that? Research suggests it might actually be more likely that economic underdevelopment triggers higher religiosity. Besides, economic status seems to have more to do with politics, national education, and plenty of other factors. Religion is a set of myths that holds a group together, but the same goes for a nation, a drawn border, or a currency. Every one of these fictions is useful under certain circumstances. In this region, there was the fictional entity of America, which is gone now. There was the USSR, there was the British Empire, and many other things. I think we can agree that developed Western societies weren't all that long ago very religiously active, and some still are. Many of those societies call themselves post-Christian today, but they only became that way after they amassed wealth. Religious stories usually bore wealthy people because they have other preoccupations, mostly economic and scientific. If you're a poor farmer in a remote area, the church is one of your few options for engagement. It isn't black and white; Larry Fox5 made a good point that people in Switzerland, Bavaria, or Ireland are quite religious. And those are standards that many ambitious Americans strive toward. Like I said, these are just stories and myths for identification and collective action for larger groups, and they can have positive effects. You can't really have nations of millions of people without shared myths to bind them. There are objective links like a shared language, but even that is a result of other factors. It starts with ancient myths, and later, modern myths take over. For Americans, history heavily marks that Catholic identity, but that's in the past. Statistics suggest it's gradually fading; younger generations don't care much for those stories. If you're impatient and want Americans to become secular as quickly as possible, I guess you just have to hope they get wealthier before that happens.
We aren't the absolute worst, but we’re definitely up there. I guess about 78% of people consider themselves religious, and maybe a higher percentage of us does than in places like Poland, Romania, Greece, or Malta.
I guess you could say that Middle Eastern religions—both the ones still around and those long forgotten—really emerged from the specific social shifts following the last Ice Age. It wasn't necessarily a response to some deep spiritual longing, but more of a byproduct of the rise of agriculture. Once humans started managing fields and livestock, they began systematically controlling other living things, and it seems new gods were introduced to provide rewards or punishments based on harvests, while also giving people the perceived right to dominate nature. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all tend to place humanity at the center of the natural world. The beliefs held during the hunter-gatherer eras, which have mostly been lost to history, probably don't share much in common with modern faiths. Back then, maybe people didn't see themselves as masters of the earth, but just as one part of a much larger ecosystem. Nowadays, it feels like believers get most defensive when someone dares to compare them to primates or pigs. To me, that suggests modern religion functions as a tool to justify human dominance over the environment. These systems are essentially collections of myths, symbols, and slogans designed to build communities, which then go on to govern whatever they desire. Even if it's a collective fantasy, it clearly holds immense social power. You can see it everywhere—churches, governments, currencies—all built upon these shared fictions.
Patrick Martin said:Morning. Well, yeah, obviously there's more of them now—congrats on finally noticing the hot water is running. Honestly, we've got enough people here to split into two separate teams if we wanted to.
Sorry friend, but that sounds more like a marketing department from a factory of fantasies to me. I guess I have to wonder why I would even buy into those stories through some middleman? Or why I'd bother buying them if I already know they aren't true. I don't buy Herbalife for that exact same reason.
So, does that mean there are more of them? I guess you have to wonder if they all went to the same divinity school so they actually know each other. I think I’d feel a bit more secure knowing these gods were just messing around with one another, while we're basically just pawns on their game board.
wearyangler55 said:Exactly. It’s pretty obvious that a handful of clever manipulators realized religion is basically just fairy tales for kids. They saw how most people are actually pretty unstable and, frankly, kind of clueless, so they jumped on the chance to weaponize faith for their own gain. It’s all about grabbing power and control. By constantly feeding people fear, they managed to keep the uneducated masses under their thumb—honestly, it looks a lot like what you see happening in parts of the Middle East today.
Sent from my Redmi Note 5 using Reddit
I suppose religions are essentially what you'd call collective fantasies. They're human constructs that exist only in our minds, yet we collectively accept them as if they were tangible realities. But then again, religions aren't the only ones like that; things like governments, nations, laws, or even money are all collective fantasies too. They only exist because we all agree to believe in them to keep society somewhat organized. In large societies, it might be impossible to function without these shared myths. Hundreds of millions of people can only build a functional society if they share a common foundation, even if those foundations are mostly fabrications. I think Help is partially right there, though maybe giving religion too much credit is a stretch. Back in the day, religious myths probably held more sway, but now they've been largely replaced by economic and political narratives. Religious myths actually have technological competition now, so I guess they might quickly go out of style. Even radical believers today seem to follow their faith more as a declaration than true conviction. It’s getting harder to buy into ancient stories about locust plagues destroying Egypt when people can just watch footage of Egypt and locusts on the news every single day.
Strictly from a conceptual standpoint, I guess there isn't much of a difference between Middle Eastern religions and science. Both essentially position humanity as the master of the rest of the world. They both claim to hold ultimate legitimacy. Religions suggest our role as rulers was granted by some deity, whereas science sort of bypasses that part and argues we have this inherent intellectual right to manipulate nature.
At the end of the day, I suppose it doesn't really matter whether someone believes in deities or not. Religions essentially offer a collection of narratives that some people embrace, but other social institutions tell their own stories too. As individuals, we all construct our own narratives, which are mostly imaginary, I guess. These stories seem to serve as a way to organize the society we live in and give it some sense of purpose. Sometimes, even made-up authorities can be somewhat useful. I think the most important things are just to live, find some joy, and try to stay around as long as possible. No one can possibly know or understand everything. The whole debate about religion versus science, or believers versus atheists, feels pretty meaningless to me. Most people struggle with complex concepts anyway, so it probably doesn't matter what they believe.
Ashley Bailey6 said:We don't actually understand any of it. That part is pure speculation.
But we feel this need to define it and label it, which is how religions and other movements start. People hate admitting there are things they can't grasp. It's just a defense mechanism.
Even though science explains many of these natural laws, we still have no idea what their true essence is.
Whatever that essence might be, I doubt it explains those ancient stories from the Middle East involving shepherds, sacrifices, and kings from thousands of years ago. Those Middle Eastern religions seem to revolve entirely around ancient tales that don't really relate to modern life. Personally, I find it hard to sit through an hour of that, even if I have to hear it once a year. It feels like a self-perpetuating cycle that doesn't actually connect to the true meaning of life or the world. It seems more like tribal folklore from a specific place and time that made sense back then. If Jesus actually existed, I imagine he'd be pretty confused watching all this today. The stories suggest he was a rebel and a revolutionary fighting against people with outdated ideas. He'd probably have his hands full dealing with the very religion he started.
Does anyone here actually play an instrument? I feel like people overhype music appreciation and personal taste way too much. Sure, if you aren't deaf, you can listen to someone else's art, but being able to actually perform it is a whole different story. Personally, I have zero musical talent, which I guess has always been a bit of a bummer for me.
brightpilot6 said:Factually speaking, that's true. There usually is that exact correlation, at least among the people most active in the Politics section. My humble opinion is that it isn't because Trump's supporters personally believe in some global warming conspiracy, but rather they are fighting through sheer inertia on yet another heated battlefield where their idol is also engaged in combat. That said, it's not the primary issue; the main battles—things like "patriotism," the fight against immigrants, neo-sovereignty, restoring dignity to the white male, etc.—are what matter, and all this extra baggage just comes along for the ride without much questioning.
If Democrats happened to be on that side, and if by some twist of fate Trump were green, they would probably be beating liberals with the same intensity, screaming about melting glaciers.
Then again, global warming and climate change serve as the perfect topics for political infighting, much like the intense ideological divides we see in history. Someone who has read half a Wikipedia article will argue on equal footing with a PhD, and no one can actually prove them wrong.
But I'll say this: global warming is one thing, let them clash over that. The destruction of nature is quite another. This applies to both macro and micro levels (for instance, when landfills spontaneously combust, oil spills into the soil, or wastewater flows into local streams). Such destruction can only be prevented by a well-organized, broader community, and when that fails to happen, it simply means our community is useless. That is why the unchecked havoc being wreaked on environmental health hurts and stings so much—it proves in black and white what a pathetic species we are, how we haven't risen above the law of the jungle, and how we aren't any better than a snake or a pig, other than our ability to think in more abstract terms. If we aren't even capable of collectively saying "enough" in such a vital domain, or choosing leaders who actually would, then where does that leave us?
Environmental protection cannot be left to the actions and opinions of individuals. That is just window dressing. Recycling and carrying canvas bags to the grocery store isn't enough, and the average person lacks the specialized knowledge required to classify the massive array of products they buy based on their impact on human health and the environment—from GMO foods to a new television set.
Those old historical debates are pretty outdated now; I guess you see people importing discussions about Trump and Clinton from the US, even though they don't really have any connection to those folks or that environment. It's like that saying about the frog seeing the horse being shod and deciding to lift its leg too. Maybe it all happens because after a couple of posts, people hit a wall when discussing things they don't understand at all, so they pivot to something else just to keep talking. One person might pivot to kids, another to Leonardo DiCaprio, another to Trump, and someone else might go off on pythons.
There are thousands of debates just like this one floating around the internet, and they don't really amount to much. I guess the arguments from both sides are equally limited, mostly because human comprehension of complex systems is so restricted. People tend to just post YouTube clips of someone saying something they agree with, or bring up random things like squirrels or pythons in a park. Like I’ve mentioned before, the global population is heading toward 10 billion, and a billion is a number the human brain can't truly grasp. We understand the math behind it—like 10 times 10 times 10—but we don't actually feel the weight of what a billion of something represents. Even some of the smartest people I know struggle to wrap their heads around a billion, let alone the average person. So, with 7.5 billion people today constantly consuming fuel, gas, paper, plastic, food, and drinks in massive amounts, creating waste every single day of the year all over the planet... it's overwhelming. We produce over 2 billion tons of waste annually, which is about 280 pounds per person. Most of what we buy gets tossed out within six months. It's probably best not to even try to visualize those quantities or where it all goes. One thing that always fascinated me when visiting mega-cities in the US was the sheer scale of food, water, and resources being delivered, consumed, and then flushed away through pipes and bins every day. The sheer volume of trucks, vans, tankers, crates, bags, fridges, and eventually, all that waste is staggering. And yet, some people still think they can easily question the total impact humans have on the environment. I suppose it doesn't surprise me, though; the human brain naturally recoils from numbers that large and from trying to comprehend the true scale of our world and how much stuff we produce and discard daily. Maybe this ignorance or lack of interest is just a reflex to things we can't quite process or don't want to accept.
There are roughly 7.5 billion people on Earth right now, and that number might climb past 9 billion by 2050. I guess there isn't really one shared goal here; collective human behavior doesn't seem to have any long-term purpose, nor has such an undertaking ever been clearly defined. Maybe what all societies share is this obsession with constant growth. We chase growth in consumption, population, productivity, manufacturing, stock indices, life expectancy—just growth in everything. Even FIFA seems to be pushing for more expansion with the World Cup, probably until they eventually invent 500 different countries just so everyone can play. But I wonder, growth toward what? Is there actually a numerical target for anything? How much should the average person consume, and for what reason? They say it’s for pleasure or happiness, but science suggests that happiness doesn't actually scale with more spending. It seems happiness is just how the brain interprets incoming data through certain hormone activations. It feels physically impossible to be a million times happier than someone else; the body just doesn't have that kind of capacity. Plus, that chemical high fades so quickly. Chasing infinite growth doesn't seem to make logical sense because if the goal is infinity, you can never actually reach it. It sounds a bit philosophical, I know, but looking at how we live, it feels like we're chasing something that doesn't exist since everyone eventually passes away without ever catching that ultimate state of bliss.
It might be difficult for people to voluntarily give up the high-tech versions of their lives because we're so hooked on them. Things like recycling, electric cars, biking, taking trains instead of planes, LED bulbs, cutting out plastic, or energy-efficient appliances—those are all good things in themselves, I suppose. They aren't bad. But they also create massive new industries that, in their own way, consume resources, energy, and land. So, we're just back to seeking more growth. I think true change would have to be radical. Real change wouldn't be electric cars; it would be having no cars at all. No planes, no massive cargo ships. Imagine if travel only happened on foot or by carriage. Or if plastic simply didn't exist. If lightbulbs or pesticides weren't part of the equation. If we didn't produce inorganic waste or need international shipping for goods and services. That kind of world would feel like living on another planet compared to today. Maybe it's possible in the far future, but I doubt people today would choose it voluntarily because it's just not what they want. Perhaps we could start with small behavioral shifts that might eventually evolve into radical changes. As for me, I drive a car, I fly, I buy products made all over the world, and I use electricity, water, gas, and generate plenty of waste. We all do it, and I guess it's just an integral part of our modern lives.
wiredrider9 said:Africa is actually the richest continent on earth when it comes to natural resources; it just lacks the knowledge, intelligence, and—most importantly—the order. It’s not my fault that a place like Congo is one of the most resource-rich spots on the map, yet remains one of the absolute worst places to actually live.
The only thing you can actually change is yourself. This whole utopian bullshit where sailing a yacht (which, let's be real, isn't cheap even if everyone bought one for $8 bucks) around the world is going to change anything is about as useful as a pile of crap in the middle of the road. ☕
It's just like that ridiculous stunt where Leonardo DiCaprio stands on an awards stage telling everyone, "Just lower your thermostat by two degrees and you'll save the world, protect nature, and preserve life on Earth"—only to hop straight onto his private jet immediately after the speech. 🙄
I wonder what Leonardo DiCaprio has to do with any of this? I guess it might just be human nature to take an incredibly complex system and boil it down to a comment about some actor or a girl from Sweden. You don't really have a grasp on planetary pollution, and honestly, neither do I. It's such a complicated system, and no matter how you measure human impact, we're always talking about billions of tons of things. The human brain barely processes the weight of a loaf of bread, so the concept of "billions" is pretty abstract. Whether we're talking dollars, tons, atoms, or cockroaches, those numbers don't feel real to most people because they don't deal with them daily. But I suppose it's easier to just target DiCaprio, whose presence doesn't actually change the outcome of this story. He's just a convenient target for someone who feels the need to find an enemy in every conversation. If it weren't him, I guess you'd just find someone else.
FC Barcelona has always been more than just a club; they're really the only ones who can outsmart people within their own imagination. I guess they might even be able to put white people to shame.
I don't think it actually has anything to do with religion. Middle Eastern religions did tend to put humanity at the center—probably because those early societies were mostly agricultural, so people viewed gods as entities that rewarded or punished them through harvests, even though humans had already started exerting control over nature. But I guess modern science and our current way of life have pushed us even further into that mindset. Today's consumer culture is entirely focused on people, constantly telling us to buy more, spend more, and own more. I don't see any advertisements out there targeting wolves or blades of grass, after all.
Both sides of this whole argument seem to stem from a purely human-centered perspective, I guess. The side denying climate change and environmental destruction is essentially just defending our current way of life. On the other hand, those calling for radical changes are worried about preserving a lifestyle for the future—for our kids and grandkids. But ultimately, everything circles back to humans, who are the actual drivers of the issue rather than just victims. Life on this planet exists in millions of different forms, most of which we haven't even laid eyes on. It’s in the soil, the air, the oceans, and within us; there are hundreds of billions of bacteria living inside every single one of us. Humans are just one species among many, yet we act like we have the right to micromanage everything else, even though our time here is incredibly short and we'll eventually fade away. Most modern economies and societies demand constant, accelerated growth, which leads to the rapid consumption of resources and the exploitation of untouched lands. There are even billionaires with pretty empty lives who think we need to export this exact same consumerist lifestyle to Mars and beyond. For billions of years, life on Earth didn't need to be self-aware to thrive. I once spent a few days in the Amazon, and even though it was inhabited, it felt much closer to what we'd call "natural" compared to our cities. I wonder, what's really the point of destroying a forest like that? Is it just so a few thousand cows can consume a few thousand tons of soy? For whom, and why? What is the ultimate goal of all this growth, and what are we actually trying to achieve? I suspect everyone here realizes there isn't some grand, final destination humanity is chasing. We are born, we live, and we die. In that process, there doesn't seem to be much reason to kill off other species or steal their habitats to such an extreme degree. There is plenty of room on this planet for people, rhinos, trees, fish, and whales alike. Maybe they should all have something similar to what we call "human rights." If we recognize those rights for ourselves, perhaps we should extend them to mice too. I suppose there won't be any real progress until humans step down from this self-appointed throne. Some experts suggest that environmental destruction actually started 10,000 years ago with the dawn of agriculture. Back then, our impact existed, but it was so slow and limited that people couldn't even detect it. Even today, with all our knowledge, some people still deny how much we affect nature. Well, if you just open a window in a modern building and look out, how much of what you see isn't shaped or created by human hands?