Does a strong social network produce atheism

There's a good article in Mother Jones that states that freedom from existential danger allows people to be free from religion: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/12/why-do-atheists-exist

There's a discussion on this going on at

http://www.librarything.com/topic/162428

Thanks.

Yes, jbbarret, but there we get believers waxing philosophic. I'm embarrassed for the defenders of religion.

I've been a loner and a leader. Religion has seemed to me like a cop out since I was a kid.

>4 androidlove: believers waxing philosophic

All the more reason to present the alternative?

Or take a look at Spinoza's Theologico-Political Treatise.

Here's a clip:

"... no one can have lived in the world without observing that most people, when in prosperity, are so over-brimming with wisdom (however inexperienced they may be), that they take every offer of advice as a personal insult, whereas in adversity they know not where to turn, but beg and pray for counsel from every passer-by. No plan is then too futile, too absurd, or too fatuous for their adoption; the most frivolous causes will raise them to hope, or plunge them into despair - if anything happens during their fright which reminds them of some past good or ill, they think it portends a happy or unhappy issue, and therefore (though it may have proved abortive a hundred times before) style it a lucky or unlucky omen. Anything which excites their astonishment they believe to be a portent signifying the anger of the gods or of the Supreme Being, and, mistaking superstition for religion, account it impious not to avert the evil with prayer and sacrifice. Signs and wonders of this sort they conjure up perpetually, ...

... Thus it is brought prominently before us, that superstition's chief victims are those persons who greedily covet temporal advantages; they it is, who (especially when they are in danger, and cannot help themselves) are wont with Prayers and womanish tears to implore help from God: upbraiding Reason as blind, because she cannot show a sure path to the shadows they pursue, and rejecting human wisdom as vain; but believing the phantoms of imagination, dreams, and other childish absurdities, to be the very oracles of Heaven. As though God had turned away from the wise, and written His decrees, not in the mind of man but in the entrails of beasts, or left them to be proclaimed by the inspiration and instinct of fools, madmen, and birds. Such is the unreason to which terror can drive mankind!"

I was told by a preacher that conversion is easiest when a person is in despair. I know this to be true. For a brief moment, I thought 2+2=5. Ironically, I was brought to my knees because I had wandered into the wrong social circle. I had sought out that preacher for escape into debate. One day he brought in a hypnotist. I then lost my mind even further. It didn't last long. A girl rescued me. It's been 10 years, and we don't have a social circle. My experiences with socializing have been less than comforting.

The prosperous like religion because it's good for business.

2+2 does equal 5, for large enough values of 2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_eSwq1ewsU

bbl

If four lights can be disturbing so can four candles : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaGpaj2nHIo

6

Sigh...

I wish canines had the mental capacity to read and understand Spinoza.

For the present, I'll just have to settle for lesser philosophers such as Bertrand Russell - and Lewis Black.

Never found much to laugh about with old Bertie, except perhaps for that flying tea-pot of his.

>6 jbbarret: I've never read Spinoza. Philosophers often seem to me so convoluted they could be saying anything or it's opposite. That quote was right to the point. I might even be able to get through the book if it's all like that.

I just went to BN to see about getting some Spinoza for my Nook and found the Spinoza Trilogy for $5.99. That seemed like a fair price until I read the overview and found it was the Spinoza vampire novels. Not quite the same thing.

No. that wouldn't do at all.
Have a look at some of his stuff on line before you start to spend out.
Regarding the OP, and the quote I selected, have a look at the first few pages (following the heavy introduction) here:

https://archive.org/details/chiefworksofbene01spin

or here:

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/989/pg989.html

Spinoza defeats me. He's the pantheist, right?

Thanks, jbbarret - nary a vampire in sight.

>16 southernbooklady: the pantheist?

Yes, that's how he's been described. I can't claim enough knowledge of philosophy to put him, or anyone else, into a box, but I thought his comments that I quoted regarding belief in god or gods relevant to this post.

Believing, as I do, that nature is the ultimate authority (who first said that?), I could be described as a pantheist. But what really would be the point? As Dawkins said, pantheism is just 'sexed up' atheism.

>18 jbbarret: nature is the ultimate authority (who first said that?)

Feynman, I think? Or something similar: "Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."

I'd seen the "ultimate authority" quote as being attributed to Feynman, but didn't know whether he was quoting someone else.

Your quote has more provenance.

Spinoza's a true mensch...