Athiesm doesn't do that by it's nature.

Does what?

OH

But why would you really temper your tendency towards tribalism?

Actually atheists are the least tribal

That's not how it works though, those who are empirical and evidence based are that way usually llong before college. That mindset lends itself to both athiesm and scientific careers.

^

VC?

Yeah

You aren'ty understanding what I'm saying, Athiests are human, and therefore are just as tribal as everyone else.

that would be better

Just look at how easily the athiesm movement was destroyed by tribal division when the SJWs infiltrated it. The notion that they are somehow less tribal by nature is absurd.

Gotta pick up kids from school, back in a bit.

have to make a phone call back in 2 minutes.

kk

only reason i can think of for atheists being the least tribal is that most are left-leaning

and therefore all about that equality

Going left is really just reorganizing the tribes. If anything I would argue they are more tribal, not less. Modern Christianity is unique in the way it satiates the tribal instinct without being destructive.

Well, here we are again. Atheism clearly isn‘t a belief system and we all seem to agree that some kind of belief system is necessary. My initial thought was that they are less tribal, because they don‘t have a religion to look at as their tribe, but again. Atheism is not a belief system, it matters what people adopt instead of the belief in god and then we can look if they are more or less tribal.

Also we would habe to take a look at what tribalism really means.
I personally don‘t think tribalism is of great importance in this debate. The important thing about religion is mindset. And I would again point out that christians have a rather weak mindset generally speaking. This is not based on religious text or church doctrine and history, but rather on how christians behave today.

Yeah, this is basically my point. It's not entirely clear that a "athiest" society that didn't adopt a different belief system would be stable at all. The question is does the substituted belief system inherently require some sort of metaphysical or supernatural foundation to be effective in that role. I'm not sure it doesn't.

Exactly, if we can have a belief system, that doesn‘t need to lie to it‘s believers, that would be great.
If we look at the debate between Christianity vs Nordic Paganism, I would say we are mainly talking about testosterone. Christianity keeps testosterone in check, while Paganism let‘s it reign free. At least this holds true in the general interpretations. A thing right in the middle would be great, but I don’t think we have found that yet.

This also shows that science and religion are mostly conflicting.

I never said they didn't conflict. I just said that it doesn't take away from the fact that it's the backbone of western society.

Yeah, the others said that though.

Oh.

The problem is that religion is not sustainable in the long term, because people will see through the lies

I don't necessarily think of them as lies.

Well, but people do

That‘s what matters

To be sure, there are liars in the ranks, but the belief system itself is sincere.

And has a "truth" of it's own kind.

What I‘m saying is that people naturally drive towards atheism, because it makes more sense.

Atheism has increased rapidly since the scientific revolution.

I don't think so. It's far from the obvious for most people. At least in the US.

Well look at Europe

Actualy I think athiesm recently declined here.

What?

Don't quote me on that, I seem to remember seeing something recently.

Oh, atheists dont get a lot of kids?