If We All Became Atheists?

[TagliatelliMonster]

You'd be quire wrong. People would be motivated to do that for all kinds of different reasons. Especially for ego, money, and power.

Again, you'd be quite wrong, as murdering, raping, torturing and even disfiguring women as a form of cultural subjugation has been happening all throughout human history.

Again, you're wrong. Societies have been victimizing (brutalizing, enslaving, etc.) the minorities within them foreve as a way of holding the majority together, and in power.

I note you completely ignored the specific examples I gave and responded with generalizations.
It's very telling.

No, but it clearly illustrates your particular bias for falsely blaming everything on religion.

No, it doesn't. In fact by saying what I did in the quote you are responding to, I specifically acknowledge that religion is NOT the "only" reason where people find motivation to do evil things.

I have no bias at all against religion in particular. In fact, I could say that exact thing about you: that you have a bias to excuse religion for the harm it clearly causes.

I have no problem at all with the fact that religion is just one of many ways to poison human minds to the point where they will commit atrocities.
But here, religion is the specific point under discussion. So... yeah...

I know that in many instances, those murderer's families were paid a significant sum of money as "Earthly" compensation.

And in many cases, they weren't. So what?

I also know it's that not difficult at all to find someone sufficiently unhinged mentally to commit mass murder/suicide for no reason at all because it's happening nearly every day in the U.S., and religious has nothing to do with it.

Way to ignore the point again.

And again, you will be quite wrong.

So you think Mohammed Atta would have hijacked an airliner and flew it into the WTC no matter his beliefs?
Abdeslam and his cohorts would have massacred all those people in Paris and the Bataclan, no matter their beliefs?
Those people in Nigeria would have burned those women alive no matter their beliefs?

Please dude...

And crazy people will do crazy things. It has nothing to do with religion.

I note you ignored the point again.

Some people do crazy, horrific, destructive things. And they blame it on politics, religion, economics, psychology, biology, or even nothing at all. But the real reason is that they have become mentally unhinged from their own collective human reality. And have become lost in some violent internal fantasy. And your blaming it on religious will do absolutely nothing to help this sad human phenomena. But I suppose it will make you feel superior for a minuet or two.

Here's a graphical representation of what you sound like right now

 

[1213]

For the same reason DNA is evidence that you and your cousins share grand parents.

DNA is inherited by off spring in slightly mutated form. This is why you can compare DNA and determine levels of relatedness and common ancestry.
All DNA of all species falls into a nested hierarchy. AKA, a family tree.

We factually share ancestors.
As such, common ancestry of species is a genetic fact.

Sorry, I don't believe that we share ancestors with animals. But, the idea is interesting. If that would be true, it should be possible to trace the genetic changes that led from the common ancestors to modern version. Do you know has anyone ever done that, made a list of the changes in genes that led to modern man from the common ancestor of all? Would be funny to see someone attempting to do that.

 

[Heyo]

Sorry, I don't believe that we share ancestors with animals. But, the idea is interesting. If that would be true, it should be possible to trace the genetic changes that led from the common ancestors to modern version. Do you know has anyone ever done that, made a list of the changes in genes that led to modern man from the common ancestor of all? Would be funny to see someone attempting to do that.

That's a task still not completed, but scientists are working on it.
What you should know is that phylogeny (the study of genetic ordering) almost completely recapitulates taxonomy (the study of morphological ordering). I.e. the classifications of Linné and Darwin have been confirmed by genetics.
A special tool in the geneticist's box are Endogenous retroviruses, an insertion made by viruses, which mostly hits non-coding areas but gets inherited. We share some insertions with chimpanzees and bonobos, but not gorillas, some with chimpanzees and gorillas, but not orang-utans, and some with all great apes but not with lesser apes. These groupings by endogenous retroviruses can be followed back to the phylum level.

This may go way over your head, as you seem to never had any education in biology or even science in general. If you have a penchant to learn, my OP Why the Theory of Evolution is True. Part 1: What is Science? is still open. If you think you have a general gist about biology and have specific questions, just ask. But please do some homework first and read up on the links provided, they may already answer your questions.

 

[blü 2]

I disagree. Atheism is an opinion, a philosophical position. Nobody is born with such. Nobody is born holding a belief that Santa does not exist, by the same token.

In one sense it's a philosophical position, perhaps, but in practical terms it's usually not. Rather it's part of acculturation, like learning to speak your parents' language and knowing the (real) heroes in the stories about where you live ─ in effect a datum, rather than a reasoned position.

 

[Augustus]

I don't think people would be motivated to fly planes into buildings or have suicide vests detonated in crowded places, if they didn't follow a religion telling them that dying as a martyr for the religion would guarantee them a place in paradise.

Iirc the first suicide bomber was a socialist.

I don't think people in Nigeria would be burning "witches" if they didn't follow a religion that instructs them that they should burn witches.

Reprisals against people for carrying out “black magic” have existed in the vast majority of cultures throughout history.

I'ld change the word "religion" in that saying with "radical ideology" or "dogma" though. It's not just traditional religions that are capable of poisoning people's minds to such an extent that otherwise good people are willing to engage in monstrosities while thinking they are fighting the "good fight".

It doesn’t have to be a radical ideology, several recent wars have been justified by liberal interventionists in the name of “human rights”.

Everyone needs and ideology/worldview and if people stop having a “religious” worldview they adopt something functionally equivalent.

This is the mistake of assuming getting rid of religion would mean “one less thing to fight about” as people don’t lose worldviews they replace them.

 

[Augustus]

I disagree. Atheism is an opinion, a philosophical position. Nobody is born with such. Nobody is born holding a belief that Santa does not exist, by the same token.

Usually the people who are most insistent that babies are atheists are also the most insistent that they don’t “believe gods don’t exist” they simply “lack the belief that gods exist”.

Unless you are specifically ruling out the possibility of gods though, you need to remain agnostic as to whether babies believe in gods (unless they want to make an argument that gods may exist but only the kind that don’t have enough power to make babies believe in them).

An agnostic atheist should be agnostic on babies believing in god too.

 

[Heyo]

This is the mistake of assuming getting rid of religion would mean “one less thing to fight about” as people don’t lose worldviews they replace them.

Religions have proven to be violent, dogmatic and not open to reason or compromise. So, even if religion gets replaced by an alternative world view, say humanism, chances are that violence will be diminished.
Now, you may say that that is comparing apples to oranges, since there are many religions and only one humanism, but that is one of the faults of religion, there are so many who all don't get along. Conflicts could also be avoided if there was only one religion. But as religions are dogmatic and not open to compromise, that won't happen peacefully.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Religions have proven to be violent, dogmatic and not open to reason or compromise. So, even if religion gets replaced by an alternative world view, say humanism, chances are that violence will be diminished.
Now, you may say that that is comparing apples to oranges, since there are many religions and only one humanism, but that is one of the faults of religion, there are so many who all don't get along. Conflicts could also be avoided if there was only one religion. But as religions are dogmatic and not open to compromise, that won't happen peacefully.

It’s humans that have proven to be violent, dogmatic and not open to reason or compromise.

 

[Augustus]

Religions have proven to be violent, dogmatic and not open to reason or compromise. So, even if religion gets replaced by an alternative world view, say humanism, chances are that violence will be diminished.
Now, you may say that that is comparing apples to oranges, since there are many religions and only one humanism, but that is one of the faults of religion, there are so many who all don't get along. Conflicts could also be avoided if there was only one religion. But as religions are dogmatic and not open to compromise, that won't happen peacefully.

Some religions have, so have some “secular” ideologies.

People would not simply adopt humanism, but all kinds of different ideologies. Humanism is no more universal than the Christianity that it developed out of.

Ideologies like fascism and communism have proved to be “pound for pound” more violent than religion. Nationalism also.

To be honest though, I don’t really think there is any meaningful way to differentiate “religious” from “secular” worldviews anyway.

Humans are a violent and irrational species and always will be so. Violent and irrational ideologies are the product of this, not the cause.

 

[Heyo]

Some religions have, so have some “secular” ideologies.

People would not simply adopt humanism, but all kinds of different ideologies. Humanism is no more universal than the Christianity that it developed out of.

Ideologies like fascism and communism have proved to be “pound for pound” more violent than religion. Nationalism also.

Agreed.

To be honest though, I don’t really think there is any meaningful way to differentiate “religious” from “secular” worldviews anyway.

Is there a difference between a world view and an ideology for you?
I think that religions are more ideologies than world views, at least they share the dogmatism. A world view, on the other hand, doesn't have to be dogmatic.

Humans are a violent and irrational species and always will be so. Violent and irrational ideologies are the product of this, not the cause.

Humans have been more violent and irrational in the past. I see a tendency towards more rationality and amity.

 

[Valjean]

Secret Chief said:
I disagree. Atheism is an opinion, a philosophical position. Nobody is born with such. Nobody is born holding a belief that Santa does not exist, by the same token.

Atheism is a lack of an opinion. It has no position, doctrine of beliefs.
Everyone is born as such. Noöne is born with a belief in gods. Theism is learned. Atheism is the innate default.

You seem to believe that atheism is the belief that there is no god. That would be hard or strong atheism -- a minor subset. Plain, unmodified "atheism" is a simple lack of belief, usually a deferred belief, pending evidence.

 

[Valjean]

Sorry, I don't believe that we share ancestors with animals. But, the idea is interesting. If that would be true, it should be possible to trace the genetic changes that led from the common ancestors to modern version. Do you know has anyone ever done that, made a list of the changes in genes that led to modern man from the common ancestor of all? Would be funny to see someone attempting to do that.

The idea might well be the most extensively and consiliently evidenced theory in all of science.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Atheism is a lack of an opinion. It has no position, doctrine of beliefs.
Everyone is born as such. Noöne is born with a belief in gods. Theism is learned. Atheism is the innate default.

You seem to believe that atheism is the belief that there is no god. That would be hard or strong atheism -- a minor subset. Plain, unmodified "atheism" is a simple lack of belief, usually a deferred belief, pending evidence.

If atheism is lack of an opinion, why are atheists in general so opinionated?

 

[Valjean]

It’s humans that have proven to be violent, dogmatic and not open to reason or compromise.

Yes, we're tribal, killer apes, but it's religion that's often used to excuse the violence, to lay the moral foundations enabling it, and to dehumanize the recipients so that the religious feel no moral obligation toward them.

 

[Valjean]

If atheism is lack of an opinion, why are atheists in general so opinionated?

About what?
I know that with myself the subject only comes up in RF discussions like this. My friends have no idea what my religious beliefs might be.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If atheism is lack of an opinion, why are atheists in general so opinionated?

"If not collecting stamps isn't a hobby, why do people who don't collect stamps have so many hobbies?"

 

[PureX]

I am saying we no long look to religion to address our social issues.

Of course we do. Billions of us do. Billions of people use their religious practices to help them determine and adhere to what they believe to be proper moral and ethical behavior.

Religion as a resource for personal growth and improvement, great! But just as you can anecdotally point to people who find help in being a better person, there are equally anecdotally those who pay lip service to their religion with a distinct disconect with what is taught at the pulpit and how they conduct themselves day to day.

So, in your mind, we should only trumpet the abusers of religion, and then blame religion for this while ignoring the billions of humans that use their religion as an effective means of self-improvement? Because this seems to be the atheists most common modus operandi.

There are lots of different flavors of religion, each stressing or emphasizing different things, but within a country, every citizen is a member of that one institution. If the goal is to improve society, it is a more realistic expectation that the goal will be achieved by working through that unified institution as opposed to a myriad of religious sects and denomenations.

The goal of most religions is not to improve society. It is to improve the individuals within it.

 

[PureX]

I note you completely ignored the specific examples I gave and responded with generalizations.
It's very telling.

Yes. It tells us that you were trying to use your specific examples to justify painting a very broad general point, which was deliberately misleading. So I ignored that effort.

In fact by saying what I did in the quote you are responding to, I specifically acknowledge that religion is NOT the "only" reason where people find motivation to do evil things.

And yet just seconds before, you were trying to justify exactly that point.

I have no bias at all against religion in particular.

You certainly have a bias against them in general, though. So much so that you want us to believe that they are responsible for most of the violence in human history.

In fact, I could say that exact thing about you: that you have a bias to excuse religion for the harm it clearly causes.

You could say it. But you couldn't show it to be a bias.

I have no problem at all with the fact that religion is just one of many ways to poison human minds to the point where they will commit atrocities.

The minds that commit those atrocities are already poisoned. They just use religion, or politics, or history, or ethnic and racial bigotry, or greed, or ego, or paranoid delusions, or whatever else to rationalize expressing that poison.

But here, religion is the specific point under discussion. So... yeah...

Ne. Here, religion is just your chosen scapegoat.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes, we're tribal, killer apes, but it's religion that's often used to excuse the violence, to lay the moral foundations enabling it, and to dehumanize the recipients so that the religious feel no moral obligation toward them.

The 20th Century was the bloodiest in human history, thanks in large part to two secular ideologies, fascism and communism.

Centuries after the European enlightenment, Europe descended into the the most savage episodes in it’s long and brutal history, so I think you probably have the wrong culprit in religion.

 

[Augustus]

Is there a difference between a world view and an ideology for you?
I think that religions are more ideologies than world views, at least they share the dogmatism. A world view, on the other hand, doesn't have to be dogmatic.

I treat them as being the same.

An ideology doesn’t have to be dogmatic, it is simply how you explain to yourself how the world works, what is desirable, ethical, etc.

We all have an ideology, although it’s not necessarily a name brand one.

Humans have been more violent and irrational in the past. I see a tendency towards more rationality and amity.

Whether humans are less violent now is open to debate.

The 20th c certainly wasn’t a high point, and there are arguments that patterns of violence have shifted, but have not necessarily dropped over the long term (or that it is too soon to tell).