I would put it thus: Those of us who eschew religious insistences and dogmas if favour of, for want of a better term, free-thought and a life lived free from divine authoritarian impositions, are perhaps more inclined to acknowledge our commonalities, our intrinsic shared humanity, and therefore we are perhaps more inclined to place such an acknowledgement above religion's divisive rhetoric which, invariably, arrogates to itself a right to determines people's worth and value on the basis of simplistic 'them and us' dichotomies.Śiva wrote: ↑Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:33 pmI have to disagree with you right here. I think the first-person perspective belongs to the religious and spiritually inclined people of the world - they tend to view themselves as the prime agent in the mortal world (with divine agents typically above them in an orchestrated structure [triad-topped simple hierarchies are popular]). The non-religious person assumes a collectivist perspective if you ask me - their prime concern in many decisions is how it impacts the climate and the population of the world.superuniverse wrote:...
The modern non-religious man assumes a new existential position toward reality compared to all previous history. He regards himself as the sole subject and agent of history
In other words: You don't have to be religious to be a bastard, but it helps.