I keep coming back to look at this. It’s a brilliant image.

I agree. If it were a bumper sticker, I’d put it on my car.

love it.

Loved it so much, I put it as my destop background. Hopefully it becomes relaity!!!!

Can this be made into a t-shirt?

Great!!!! let’s EvoLve!!!

This is a great graphic and an accurate depiction of human history to date. What is the next image? What is the next evolutionary step?
Mankind will soon, hopefully, go beyond the negative connotations of atheism.  We need a positive “..ism” to express freedom for mankind from ignorance and superstition. 
What do we want as the new “...ism”?

The next stage (5th - you need 5) would simply be “Realism-Objectivity” or “Reason-Sanity” or “Reality-Science.”

I also quite like “Anti-anthropocentricism” but maybe too many letters.  But am am a strong opponent of even atheists, rationalists, humanists and scientists that still put Mankind at the center of all things (like that DOW Chemical ad that refers to HU - the Human Element as if we are an elemental constituent of the Universe not unlike He - Helium or H - Hydorgen).  I also loathe scientific terms that are clearly anthropocentric, like Visible Light, Subsonic, Ultrasonic et. al.

Oh, for three possible -isms (to keep with the theme of the graphic), I would choose either Realism, Objectivism or Rationalism.  (Objectivism not to be confused with Ayn Rand’s bogus term of the same name that is anything but objective but is just pure egoism, greed, capitalism and narcissism, all in a shiney new wrapper for all too popular consumption.)

The picture seems to suggest that polytheists are somehow more primitive than monotheists. It’s true that polytheistic religions pretty much came first, but speaking as an atheist, I can’t really see how believing in one god is any more advanced than believing in many gods in any realistic way. Would you tell a Hindu that his religion is sillier than a Christian or a Muslim, because he believes in more gods (I would say they are equally silly).

I do think it’s a clever idea and designed well, but I wonder if there’s some (ironic) ethnocentrism.

Notice that their genitals slowly get larger from left to right. DOES THIS HAVE ANY SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATION

There are some very distracting ethnocentric overtones to this photo. Chrisitanity is certainly at least as pagan and heathenistic in content as tribal animism. Whether you’re burning lambs and virgins for Yahweh or the rain gods, it’s really all the same.

First of all, this isn’t implying that one is better or more silly than the other. It’s simply pointing out the history in progression. Notice it looks very similar to the money to man image everyone has seen, no doubt. As for the penis comment above, I just don’t know what to say about that. To me, the last three look the same but because of the body size, it may appear to be different sizes. I doubt it was intentional… but then, maybe not.

monism

A broader timeline, one including all organisms from single cells forward, would show that atheism preceded theism (by several billion years) and that theism is one of the most recent characteristics in the terrestrial organism’s inventory. When opposable thumbs developed there were (and still are) plenty of old-school creatures who did not have opposable thumbs. And when theism developed there were (and still are) plenty of atheists, human and non-human, reminding us of bygone days. But as the image shows, if we anthropomorphically confine our timeline to homo sapiens, and we pretend that there were no human atheists during the first three periods, it can be made to appear that atheism is something late in the sequence of development.

I don’t get it.

DebG:
Careful about putting something like this on your car. Some nice religious person might take offense and key the side of your car.

Whats next??

unificationism

this stuff gives me the creeps.  for the record, so do evangelists.

but why do we gotta go straight to atheism from the death of monotheism?  why do we need any theism at all?  why does the human individual need a structured prescribed system of knowledge such as science nor religion? we refuse to just simply exist

You’re all as dumb as you are doombed.

Religion is the biggest joke humankind has ever played on itself.

The next step in this line could quite possibly be the Solipsism. Look it up.

Awareness is the nature of the Self. (Shiva Sutras 1.1) Awareness is not religion.

there certainly is a lot of ism’s in this world

@anthony you said: “but why do we gotta go straight to atheism from the death of monotheism?  why do we need any theism at all? “
But that is the very definition of atheism: without theism.

This picture is just plain condescending.  I’m agnostic and don’t believe God is and object which can be refuted nor proved.  Looking at the ideas spread on the net, most of them by groupies of Dawkins, it seems atheism is beginning to look more and more like an ideology with its hoards of sheep.  Let it be clear: not even atheists can prove the inexistence of god.  I agree with condemning the bigotery of people getting in the way of science, democratic debate or peace for religious reasons, but the motivations hiding behind are mostly political and call for political action.  What is being said here, however, is that, on an evolutionary scale, theists of any sorts are inferior to atheists.  Messages like this not only miss the mark, they turn atheism into an unjustified and offensive dogma, just like any kind of religion.

Mmmm, I don’t mean to say here that religion is offensive, my bad.  But is IS unjustified rationnally (and doesn’t need to be, as it’s dealing with faith, not knowledge).  Sorry for that.

Dawkins, like the historians of religion he quotes, is depressingly West-centric:  the culmination of religion is a nasty little group of monotheisms from the Mediterranean.  Hinduism is a vibrant polytheism, as is Taoism.  Catholicism (when people pray more to saints than to the core deity) is just as polytheistic.  Buddhism is non-theistic in principle, often polytheistic in its popular forms. 
This does not look like a simple “progression” story to me, any more than evolution does (see Gould’s writings on the silliness of evolving-toward-us).
Dawkins is content with simple-minded ideas about religion that would horrify him about biology.

I agree.  It’s a brilliant image, but shouldn’t HENOTHEISM (the worship of a particular god without disbelieving in the existence of others) be put between POLYTHEISM and MONOTHEISM? 

It’s just a thought.

So true.It comforts me greatly to know that, as civilizations pass, their gods go with them.  Christianity, Islam and Judaism will be long gone when and if the human race survives the Big One Dec.21, 2012.

”(see Gould’s writings on the silliness of evolving-toward-us). “

I agree. Such images give the false impression that humans are the pinnacle of evolution. Of course we are exactly as evolved as all other species and there is no reason to think that our continued evolution will make us more upright, more intelligent or more anything. Our descendants may well be single celled, or even Christian.

Now all we need is a little Neohumamism.

** change, not progress not evolution

Just another ironic variant on a misleading but iconic image of evolution.

Dawkins’ statement above buys into the “evolutionary progress” of religion as put forward by 19th century historians. He’s not been doing his home work.

Religions neither progress nor evolve—they simply change.

The de-deification of culture (including the sciences) is our task for the next 100 years.

the anti_supernaturalist

but why are all the figures male FFS!!!!!

Next step: we become our own gods (advancements in bio engineering, robotics, computer graphics, artificial intelligence).

And after that, we unify as one almost all powerful god like entity (we are more powerful as one) and eventually find we’ve completely lost our touch with our ancestry, our own humanity, the animals, spirituality. And lost the meaning of happiness trough strife and struggle. Because there is nothing left to achieve.
And recreate ourselves as the tribalistic ‘primitives’ we used to be (be it virtual, or trough some other kind of unimaginable technology), so we can do it all over again, but this time try and get all the easter eggs.

Yes, I am crazy, but am I mad?

I wouldn’t say atheism is the final step. It only focuses on the material world from our subjective point of view through material sciences. I feel like the final step would be closer to Buddhism’s enlightenment where one realizes that the material world is an illusion and all that exists is the ever transcending spiritual energy from which all matter and consciousness arises. Some call this energy god.

Hi everyone. I’m new to The Reason Project. (But I’ve read Sam Harris’s books and love them!) I must say, I really dig this project’s intentions to create a dialogue between people of differing beliefs.  I was raised a liberal Jew (and by that I mean I was forced to go to Hebrew school to have my Bar Mitzvah and then I never had to go back again.) Neither of my parents were religious at all. But, as I grow older (I’m 29 now), I find that, although I was sort of raised as an atheist who went to Hebrew school, I guess I would consider myself more agnostic than anything else. I have a hard time believing that in this amazingly complex and breathtaking world in which we live that there is nothing supernatural going on beyond what our eyes can see. That said, I believe the Bible to be an outdated rule book for the masses. On the flipside, I do believe there is something good to be taken from all religions, the golden rule. That seems to be the recurring theme in all religions, save perhaps Islam. They are some scary mofo’s! Has anyone read (or listened to the audiobook) The Vortex? It is very interesting…a vortex of energy from which we all came and are all still very much a part of swirls endlessly and, if we think it, truly believe it, the universe will give it to us. I know this isn’t what a bunch of atheists want to hear, but spirituality is pretty cool. It can be comforting. But religion, in my opinion, should have laws set against it…for instance, one can only practice his or her religion in the confines of their own home. Do you know how many homeless people we could shelter if every chirch, synagogue, and mosque were vacant buildings up for grabs? Well, nice to meet you all. I’d love to chat with some intellectuals who aren’t Jesus freaks. If interested, hit me (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

The next stage will not have “Theism” in it at all as awareness of the word or concept will not exist in any form.

Wow, brilliant!

Bit fucked that they are all men yeah?  I understand that the words all end in “m,” but damn.  Or was this purposefully done?  Criticizing patriarchal systems as well?
Doubtful.