What if Atheism was the dominant concept?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: arielmessenger Perhaps it is that part of right brains that registers spiritual phenomena that isn't developed in atheistic minds. Both hemispheres should be functioning in coordination to be fully conscious of the world seen and unseen. My understanding is that every mental state has a corresponding physical pattern in the human brain so I assume inactivity in some region of the brain of atheists that is active in theists.

I'm very right-brain oriented. I still don't have these theistical euphorias that you speak of.

I've been through several occasions where I was a little loopy because of cough medicine, but I didn't extrapolate existence of a supreme being from it.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Suburbanite You just made all those words up. What the hell are you talking about?

(S)he's trying to imply that atheists have malfunctional brains because they don't pray to miscellaneous personalities.

[Athena]

Quote by: Isherwood Exactly. Anarchy and chaos on a social level wouldn't be to anyone's advantage. Social behaviors that lead to a more constructive and healthy society should be encouraged by anyone regardless of their philosophical leanings.

And this is totally essential if we are to have liberty. That is why public education was focused on teaching good citizenship. I don't know a better way of saying this, but there are two ways to have social order, culture or authority over the people. The US detemined to avoid authority over the people, and have social order through culture, a culture transmitted by public education. But since replacing this education with education for technology of military and industrial purpose, and leaving moral training to the church, effectively all hell has broken loose. We have moral decay and social chaos and have returned to authority over the people, to maintain a degree of social order. Unfortunately, our dominant religion teaches us this the only way to do things, because people are born in sin, so a religion inspired by classic education to give us liberty and a democracy, has reversed without that education, to taking away that liberty and making autrocatic authority over us strong.

[Jack]

I find it odd that the theists presume that if atheism was the dominant philosophy the atheists would act just like the theists.

I think that if free thinking were the norm, people would still have the freedom to believe in things like gods and fairies and ghosts. They just wouldn't have the power in numbers to attempt to legislate their beliefs so that everyone has to bow down before their supposed gods.

Atheists don't have a belief system they could try to force anyone else to follow.

Quote by: arielmessenger The problem atheists see when theists talk of God is who then is responsible for evil in the world?

Actually this problem of "evil," particularly, if God cannot prevent evil and wants to God is not omnipotent OR if God can prevent evil and choses not to God is not all-loving. The religious term for dealing with this problem is "theodicy," a defense of God's goodness and omnipotence in the existence of evil.

There has never been, in my view, a satisfactory explanation that reconciles an omnipotent, all-loving God with the pervasiveness of evil. What did Rwandan babes in swaddling clothes do to deserve being butchered with machetes? Why didn't the omnipotent, all-loving Christian God save their lives?

Indeed, in my view, the existence of evil proves not that there is no God, but rather that the characterization of the Christian God by Christians is obviously wrong.

Regards
S.

[another day]

Quote by: arielmessenger Perhaps it is that part of right brains that registers spiritual phenomena that isn't developed in atheistic minds. Both hemispheres should be functioning in coordination to be fully conscious of the world seen and unseen. My understanding is that every mental state has a corresponding physical pattern in the human brain so I assume inactivity in some region of the brain of atheists that is active in theists.

Hmm...no. Rather it is a case of emotion overriding logic/rationale in theists, and logic overriding emotion in atheists.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: The_Genius Well, it is a myth. It lacks scientific foundation and fossil records does not support this myth either.

I see you've brought the proverbial knife to the gunfight. I've offered a link that shows clear evidence of observed instances of speciation proving evolution. You're reply? "Nuh-ah!"

Your objection to the fossil record is what I've come to expect from theists who don't understand evolution. The fossil records that we have (and what we have is considerable) are like clues a detective uses to solve a murder case. We may not have a video tape of the perp shooting the victim, but with the weapon, fingerprints & other forensic evidence we can figure out what happened.

If atheists were in charge, more people would understand this very basic logic.

Back to instincts... Let's say, someone has insulted you in poublic. And your "instincts" tell you, I should kill that person. Since you don't have fear of punishment, you would kill that person... A man without any moral education but only driven by instincts, is dangerous. Your argument was a joke. If we all start following our instincts blindly, we would kill ourselves even before 2010 world cup.

Worst hypothetical I've read in days. Morality comes from collective interpretation of social instincts. Not individual interpretations. Look at your own nation: for decades, a majority knew they were being treated unjustly and a minority knew they were in the right: Two different interpretations of social instinct that clashed.

By the by, atheism cannot be used to justify racism as theism often is. Atheism doesn't have "chosen people" nor are there any ancient atheistic texts explaining how it's justified for one people to be ensalved to another.

[rez]

Quote by: Zhavric Morality comes from collective interpretation of social instincts. Not individual interpretations. Look at your own nation: for decades, a majority knew they were being treated unjustly and a minority knew they were in the right: Two different interpretations of social instinct that clashed.

I agree with you and I see what you mean, but I don't think the genius over here will.

The person would have a fear of punishment. Killing that person will effect their social status, thus their high status seeking desires. It simply would not be wise to kill that person - no morals needed.

[Osborn F Enready]

One good possibility......

Maybe if Atheism were the dominant concept, there would be "open-season" on all these outgoing, theory pushing, logic refusing religious zealots, kind of like the religious zealots imposed on non-believers in the not to distant history. (Heretics, Witches, etc.)

It wouldn't be beneficial, except to thin the herd that has maintained somewhat rigid control of the earth for quite some time.

No more Pat Robertson broadcasts polluting my airwaves.
No more George Bushes polluting my politics.
No more crusades in the name of the unprovable.

I am surely no atheist, but it would be the lesser of two evils in the choice between athiesm and religion, in my opinion.

(so why pick evil, become agnostic and let time tell the tale of what is beyond the natural world, so you can focus on whats truly important..... living.)

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready One good possibility...... Maybe if Atheism were the dominant concept, there would be "open-season" on all these outgoing, theory pushing, logic refusing religious zealots, kind of like the religious zealots imposed on non-believers in the not to distant history. (Heretics, Witches, etc.) It wouldn't be beneficial, except to thin the herd that has maintained somewhat rigid control of the earth for quite some time. No more Pat Robertson broadcasts polluting my airwaves. No more George Bushes polluting my politics. No more crusades in the name of the unprovable. I am surely no atheist, but it would be the lesser of two evils in the choice between athiesm and religion, in my opinion. (so why pick evil, become agnostic)

I don't see a witch hunt so much as I see prosecution for fraud / scam.

[Osborn F Enready]

Zhavric said: I don't see a witch hunt so much as I see prosecution for fraud / scam.

Word. Enough reason and evidence for it, thats for sure.

[Yasa]

I didn't read all the posts, but I am kind of an existentialist and like to believe that it is up to people to learn what is "right" and what is "wrong" for themselves. I have quite good morals, however those are subjective, so the answer to the question that it could either be "good" or "bad" depending on different views. If we didn't focus on punishment in the afterlife.. would it really change much? What if we did just live for the day and for life itself and focus on what effects us in this reality? I have a feeling that despite religion there will always be "good" and "bad" people with different views and morals.

[Dread_Naught]

Go watch the movie "Equilibrium"

[webjedi]

@Lullaby Chainer
- - - - - - - - - - - -

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Quote: Quote by: webjedi View Post If there is no God, there can be no religion. Or, there is no God and atheists are right? Forgive me if I chuckle every time I hear someone spew this crap.

- -
That's a nonsensical response. The statement was related to Stalin's opposition to religion vs. God, which you obviously did not read. If you have an answer - an intelligent answer to the question, please let's hear it, but all you did was take a statement out of context to insult me. Don't do that. I don't post crap, and I don't appreciate your disrespect.

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Quote: Quote by: webjedi Every single one of our presidents have been Chrisitan, and there has been no holocaust. Of course not. Thankfully the US government isn't controlled by just one person, dear. If it were a dictatorship, I'm pretty sure atheists would have been snipped at early G W Bush.. and I'm sure our situation in Iraq would be a bit more scary than it already is.

- -
Again with the condescending language - my name isn't dear, and I am not dear to you. You are not adding anything to the discussion. Stop.

As for your response, you'll have to re-phrase, I did not understand it.



- -

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Quote: Quote by: webjedi View Post Religions originally were an attempt to influence the weather, the tides, the harvest, and so on; they had little to do with the rules of society. It's a shame they had to not only corrupt thought.. but politics too. :[

- -
What are you talking about? Societies that suppress religion are extremely politically corrupt.

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Quote: Quote by: webjedi You may be able to present proof that satisfies the argument to your personal satisfaction, but you can't irrefutably prove it. Gravity is irrefutable, the nature of the supernatural is not. Logic is irrefutable too. There are no square circles, I know this. I have logical proof against a self-contradicting god.

- -
No, you don't. If you think you do present it.

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer I also have mountains of scientific evidence that opposes biblical flaws.

- -

I believe you on that one, but unless you actually present it I can't address it. I am not a literalist - the Bible has a point to make (more accurately many points to make), but it has been written down by humans in several different languages over thousands of years. If you are saying I should be surprised that there are semantic errors you are jumping to a wrong conclusion. You don't know me and you shouldn't attach your preconceived notions about me.

Additionally, you cannot prove the non-existence of God according to the scientific method. By the very definition, science does not have the capability to prove anything that cannot be tested, can it? Therefore in general your evidence is probably worthless if you are trying to convince an intelligent, well-informed person that God does not exist.

Of course, I would need to see your evidence to address it, wouldn't I? So present the evidence or stop harping about how much you know and what you think you can prove.

- -

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer I have psychological evidence that examines one's thoughts and cultural patterns, namely memes.

- -
And that relates to our topic in what way?? Are you overgeneralizing? That is fallacious logic (specifically an error of the overwhelming exception) - if a large sample exhibits a certain behavior that does not prove there are no exceptions. I'm not sure I understand where you're going with that.
- -

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer I have moral evidence that easily bids your religion's racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobias, cruelty, inhumanity, ect as repulsive and calls, with the help of early societal psychoanalysis, your religion's validity into question.

- -
What religion?

That entire paragraph was just an exercise in defamatory derision. If you have something to say you shouldn't need to be flaming like that, should you?

- -

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer I have logical PROOF and mountains of sundry evidence against religious gods.

- -
What gods? I don't believe in Zeus or Odin, so you may be asking the wrong person. See my post here: What if Atheism was the dominant concept?

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Quote: Quote by: webjedi Besides, proposing that they are so concerned about the immorality of other people begs the question: who is to say what religious people - or any people - are wrong in their deeds? Just the megalomaniacal, racist, sexist, homophobic, intolerant, sinister, cruel, brutal, genocidal ones.

Another emotional rant. *sigh* What is it you hate about religious people that you are not displaying here for all the World to see? Don't you see your tirade smacks of intolerance?

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer It doesn't help when someone refuses medical treatment not only for themselves, but for others, in favor of attempting to summon supernatural powers to disrupt the natural causality of existence through thoughts to accomplish a deed that can actually be done with simple medicine.

- -
You'll get no argument wit me on that one. Surely you are not proposing I would refuse medical treatment - for myself or anyone else? Sounds like you are way overgeneralising here.

- -

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Prayer kills.

I pray twice a day - they tell me I'm still breathing.
- -
It also doesn't help when we have people who are encouraged to think their beliefs are absolute and all others will face eternal torture. Those are the kinds of people that bomb abortion clinics and snipe the ungodly. Ew.

There are certainly those who are both religious and crazy/violent. Is your argument that because some people blow up abortion clinics that all people who share their opinion blow up abortion clinics?

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Quote: Quote by: webjedi Thus, the flaws of man preclude atheism as a succesful means of societal organization. What exactly are "LAWS OF MAN"?

FLAWS F-L-A-W-S as in failings, shortcomings, imperfections. Do you disagree that we are flawed creatures or did you not read the post?

- -

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer You're big on not citing ANY of your claims, which is unpleasant, and you're big on making generalizations, which is ignorant.

I don't appreciate the word "ignorant". Maybe if you weren't so busy pointing fingers at people you'd see how spiteful and mean-spirited you are being.

If you have a challenge to a piece of information i have provided it just ask, I am happy to cite my sources. Some of my previous posts in which it has been appropriate to cite sources:
The Biological Imperitive
Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat
Iranian President Speaks on 60 Minutes(Youtube Video Inside)
Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat
Trade center demolition


- -

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Since you aren't in favor of citing information, I'll have you know that the more advanced a society becomes, the larger the Atheistic population becomes. That's actually a fact, but I'll let you do my work and look it up for yourself.

I'm assuming you are saying the proportion of atheists to non-atheists increases, obviously as a society progresses the number of piano players and plumbers increases as well. If so, well, I don't believe you, and of course I'm not going to go to the library and check out 40 or 50 books for you.

The Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians were the most advanced societies in the World at one time, they were not atheist societies by any definition. The U.S. is arguably the most advanced society of modern times and we have a very small proportion of atheists compared to other societies.

In modern times more and more people have turned to technology and trinkets to satisfy their spiritual needs. Hence, we have a phenomenon of materialism. Other problems are tearing at the fabric of our society. Family members are no longer as important to each other as they once were, marriages are failing at record rates, an enormous upturn in children being raised by one parent or daycare workers has occurred, people with bad health want drugs to solve their problems even while hurting their own bodies by bad eating habits and not exercising (for example), people tend to trust and rely on others less and less, and I believe ultimately our society is worse off because of it. Maybe you feel differently.

For me, there will always be more things I want - things I don't even need. Being at peace and satisfied with my place in the Universe is a much better solution to my lack of possessions than an eternal quest to get more, more, more. I would argue that most people would feel the same way if they gave themselves the chance.

.

[webjedi]

@The Bacon Guy
- - - - - - - - - - - -

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Quote: Quote by: webjedi If there is no God, there can be no religion. Atheism is a rejection of religion. You know this, and I'm not going to go around in circles about this. A rejection of religion, but not a hatred of religion and not a compulsion to destroy it. Such characteristics are totally individual.

Hatred isn't required to kill tens of millions of people. In Stalin's case, for instance, it was political ambitions. Lack of religion, however, did not server to improve his sense of conscience.

Furthermore, the destruction of religious institutions served to increase the power of the state in influencing the norms of the Communist society. This resulted in family members turning on each other, "undesirables" being purged, and a lot of people died being worked to death on all kinds of state projects because they were "enemies of The People". If the USSR, China, and North Korea are any indication, a society that lacks a moral conscience is a scary proposition.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Quote: Quote by: webjedi that they are not technically atheist doesn't change the fact that their actions would have been different if they had not replaced religion with their own doctrine. Perhaps, but this proves nothing of the nature of atheism. Stalin was a fascist who would presumably have persecuted anyone disagreeing with him. The fact that those disagreeing with him were theists is purely incidental. It's fascism which is the problem; not atheism.

But was the level of fascism, and therefore the wholesale destruction of a society and the deaths of tens of millions of people decreased or increased by the forced removal of religion? I would argue that atheism increased the suffering of those caught up in these "revolutions".

When Mao tore the societal fabric of China apart he raised himself to demigod status. This obviously would not have been possible without the destruction of religion:

Quote by: The Bacon Guy From: VDARE.com: 07/29/03 - Remembering The Cultural Revolution: A Nightmare On Film In 1966 Mao launched the Cultural Revolution. It was an assault on the Communist Party and on all authority except Mao’s. The “great leader” felt that policy failures and endless killings had demoralized the old party cadres, causing them to lose their revolutionary spirit. Mao’s solution was to set millions of youths (Red Guards) on their elders to purge the Communist Party with humiliation and murder. “It was glorious to beat people to death,” said Girls Middle School student Liu Tingting, whose high ranking father, Chinese President Liu Shaoqi was purged and allowed to die in prison of medical neglect. ... Li tells the story of a revolutionary-spirited newly married couple. They decorated their bedroom with pictures and quotes of Chairman Mao and found themselves denounced for making love under the eyes of their leader. In their defense they pleaded that they always first turned out the lights. Other of Li’s photos graphically capture the emotional pain of the humiliation inflicted by young punks on powerful men, governors and Communist Party First Secretaries, some of whom were veterans of the Long March. Still others show “enemies” kneeling, hands tied behind their backs, waiting to be shot in the back of the head. ... It is chilling that Mao could so easily move a vast tradition-bound society to outrageous and immoral acts of destruction. Historic treasures were destroyed along with people. Production was disrupted, and the economy sank. ... It is astonishing that these Red Guard brigades formed suddenly without years of organization and brainwashing. ... The National Socialists in Germany had to indoctrinate and train their Hitler Youth. Soviet efforts at indoctrination persisted for decades with mixed results.

And as I'm sure everyone here is aware China is still today one of the worst societies to live in. I would argue that the Judeo-Christian ethic would be much better for them.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Quote: Quote by: webjedi It's not my idea of intelligent discourse. That’s your opinion which you are entitled to. I’d just prefer it if you didn’t falsely accuse me of insulting people.

It is not false that calling my arguments idiotic is insulting. It is not flattering, and it is not neutral. Objectively speaking, it is insulting. I'll stick to the arguments and I'd appreciate it if you'd do the same.

.

[webjedi]

@Athena
- - - - - -

Quote by: Athena Come on, Athena is not a supernatural being. My point was human beings can make their own laws without a God giving them laws, and they do a much job of it when they study something besides a holy book.

- -
Give me an example of what you mean. You have the Communist societies which are pretty terrible places to be. During the "Cultural Revolution" Chairman Mao persecuted anyone who disagreed with the rules The Party made up for themselves, and that turned family members against each other, killed +60 Million people, and ultimately resulted in a society that even today political freedom and human rights are a travesty.

On the other hand you have our society which, based on the doctrine that God, not Chairman Mao or the Communist Party or George Washington or any other human being, gave us our human rights, they have endured through a great deal of stress. Lincoln suspended habius corpus, Hoover spied on people, and of course there was slavery, etc. All of these our country has surmounted. We were first to ban slavery, we were the driving force behind human rights - especially political freedom and free speech. This was not a result of reading Greek poetry, this is rooted in the belief of our Founding Fathers who derived their morals, logic and philosophy from the Bible.


- -

Quote by: Athena Our present democracies were inspired but Athens democracy and philosophers have everything to do with us having science and technology and a more moderate religion with democracy. We have evolved, building on the past and still have a ways to go. Advancing, however, is very difficult when the masses are largely ignorant of what has gone before.

- -
Actually the Greeks were very religious. So were the Romans. Both societies made big advancements. The Hebrews had a very legalistic society for their time, the Muslims advanced science and math, the Egyptians made many advancements in math and astronomy. All of these societies were heavily religious. While I don't believe in their gods, at least they had a sense that there was something greater than they, and that morality was important to society.

If you argue, as many here do, that a moral code is not necessary for society, or more importantly that it does not matter if we share a moral basis of conduct then I would say you are brewing a recipe for disaster.

On the other hand, if you agree that in order for any society to be healthy it must have a universal moral code then the question becomes: where does that code come from? It is pointless for this to come from a man, it will be challenges by someone stronger, more ambitious, and/or ruthless at some point in the future an ultimately it will amount to nothing. If it is based on the Bible then it is on solid ground, and when humans attempt to replace it with rules that serve their personal objectives eventually it will be challenged on the grounds that they are no more authoritative then any other person, and that only God can dictate morals.


- -

Quote by: Athena I think you are missing a lot.

Not sure how to respond to that other than to say that I don't claim to have all the knowledge of the Universe. If you do, congratulations. Otherwise, you are not really saying anything with that statement, are you?

.

[webjedi]

Quote by: sdbest There has never been, in my view, a satisfactory explanation that reconciles an omnipotent, all-loving God with the pervasiveness of evil. What did Rwandan babes in swaddling clothes do to deserve being butchered with machetes? Why didn't the omnipotent, all-loving Christian God save their lives?

If God removed the ability of humans to sin - no matter how viscous or disgusting that behavior may be - we would no longer have free will. If we always did what God wanted we would merely be extensions of Him. The fact that we have a choice to sin is what makes us autonomous beings.

Would you prefer to be made a robot in order to eliminate evil from the World?

.

[Jack]

Would you prefer to be made a robot in order to eliminate evil from the World?

Hmmm, where have I seen that statement before?
Do you believe your god has a divine plan for your life? Do you believe that he has already determined how your life will unfold? Then what good does free will do anyone?
Do you anticipate a heaven in which there will be no evil, goodness and righteousness alone will exist? Will there be no sin in heaven? Then the robot analogy should apply to the ascended.

The fact that we have a choice to sin is what makes us autonomous beings.

If by autonomous you mean free to think for ourselves, whether or not we "sin" is irrelevant. We're talking about a notion in your head, like the notion of gods.

[rez]

Quote by: webjedi We were first to ban slavery, we were the driving force behind human rights - especially political freedom and free speech. This was not a result of reading Greek poetry, this is rooted in the belief of our Founding Fathers who derived their morals, logic and philosophy from the Bible.

We should take out the First Amendment and make America a Theocracy. Maybe, then, we would never had to surrmount slavery and other basic human rights.