If We All Became Atheists?

[Augustus]

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.

Religion, ideology, progress, science…

All have been used in that regard to justify violence , oppression and extermination.

Religion is nothing special and has no superior ability to cause violence

 

[blü 2]

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

What's the point of having debate boards if you don't have an opinion?

And believers appear to me to adhere to their beliefs in debate no more or less strongly than nonbelievers.

 

[Heyo]

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).

The 20th century had a period of fall back, but was over all the best time to be alive in human history. Many nations have become more democratic and less authoritarian, and at the same time many have dismissed war as a political option. Especially in the second half of the 20th c, the number of wars and the death toll has dramatically declined. The superstition that women aren't rational enough to vote has been debunked, with consequences in voting rights in most nations.

 

[Valjean]

What's the point of having debate boards if you don't have an opinion?

And believers appear to me to adhere to their beliefs in debate no more or less strongly than nonbelievers.

In fact, it's they who are doing most the preaching and making the claims. All we atheists are doing it pointing out the factual errors in their claims and logical errors in their reasoning. It's the theists who seem hyper-opinionated.

 

[Augustus]

The 20th century had a period of fall back, but was over all the best time to be alive in human history. Many nations have become more democratic and less authoritarian, and at the same time many have dismissed war as a political option. Especially in the second half of the 20th c, the number of wars and the death toll has dramatically declined. The superstition that women aren't rational enough to vote has been debunked, with consequences in voting rights in most nations.

There are a variety of things at play here.

Quality of life due to technology is a separate factor. Most techs have both positive and negative uses and we now have a much greater likelihood of destroying humanity than we did previously.

There is also no reason to start counting in the 2nd half of the 20th c. It’s far too short a time scale to make any claim about long term trends. People were talking about a long peace and an end to major wars in the early 20th c too.

There are enough conflicts happening now that have a non-zero change of massive escalation that could wipe out all of the “gains” in a single instance, and I’m not sure that many countries have dismissed war as a political option, at least none of the major or secondary powers have.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sorry, I don't believe that we share ancestors with animals.

Sure, you are entitled to your beliefs. But they have no bearing on the facts of course.
And the genetic fact is that species share ancestry.

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.

You're talking about some 7 million years worth of evolution here. It's near impossible to do such a thing as genetic change occurs every generation in every individual.

 

[Heyo]

There is also no reason to start counting in the 2nd half of the 20th c. It’s far too short a time scale to make any claim about long term trends. People were talking about a long peace and an end to major wars in the early 20th c too.

Then take a longer time span than just a century. Include the 19th c and you include the Napoleonic wars and colonialism. Double the time span to 400 years, and you include the 30 years war and the American and French Revolution. Double again and you get the crusades. There has never been a 75-year span before in history when Western European countries weren't at war with each other.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Iirc the first suicide bomber was a socialist.

Great. That doesn't address the point I actually made though.
I didn't say there wouldn't be suicide bombers without Islam.

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

And the reason for it was that they
1. believed black magic was a thing, likely as part of some religious belief system
and
2. that belief system instructed them to be hostile towards those who supposedly practiced such "black magic"



Would you burn a "witch" if you didn't believe in witches and that they should be killed?

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.

And some worldviews are more inclined to lead to violence then others.
Some worldviews even literally call for violence.

 

[Augustus]

Then take a longer time span than just a century. Include the 19th c and you include the Napoleonic wars and colonialism. Double the time span to 400 years, and you include the 30 years war and the American and French Revolution. Double again and you get the crusades. There has never been a 75-year span before in history when Western European countries weren't at war with each other.

Why should we consider larger scale wars with lower frequency to be progress over smaller scale wars at higher frequency?

The 20th c taken as a whole was one of the most destructive, not one of the least.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

How is it painting a general point when I am talking about a specific thing?

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

I challenge you to quote me on that.
I submit this only happened in your imagination.

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.

I never said any such thing.
You should really stop making assumptions.

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

I know, it's why I don't say it and why I framed it as "I could say". But it doesn't seem to stop you.

The minds that commit those atrocities are already poisoned.

I have dozens of examples of people from Belgium who were just normal average joe's in Belgium, who's minds got poisoned by islamist propaganda and then went to Syria and became serial killing monsters for ISIS. Some of whom I have known personally.

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.

Yeah, sure. These guys where there in bed thinking "I really want to go on a mass killing rampage and then detonate myself and kill even more people in the process. But I need a good excuse... Let's find a good excuse. Ow, yes, I could say that I do it for Islam and yell Allahu Akbar right before pushing the button. PERFECT"


Be reasonable please. This is not how islamic terrorists are born. If it wasn't for the poison of islamist radicalism, these guys would not have turned into serial killing monsters. It's the poison of radical islamism that has done that.

And yeah, sure, other kinds of ideological poison can achieve the same thing, if and when people fall victim to such propaganda instead.
If you really believe something, you will act accordingly.

Beliefs inform actions. Let's not pretend as if they don't.

Ne. Here, religion is just your chosen scapegoat.

Errr no.
Religion is the topic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Which just goes to show that replacing one dogmatic ideology with another, is probably not a good solution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The 20th c taken as a whole was one of the most destructive, not one of the least.

Agreed.

Although I wouldn't say that the reason for that were the ideologies involved in the fighting sides.
I'ld say the reason for that was the weaponry used. A single weapon handled by a single soldier used in ww2 was more devastating that what 200 soldiers could do 500 years prior to that.

Imagine the devastation a Roman legion equipped with 20th century weaponry would cause.
Imagine the crusader armies armed with P90's and tanks instead of swords and arrows.

The devastation of the 20th century wasn't a result of "extra ordinary" hatred or violent inclinations of the people living at that time. It was a result of what the technological progress enabled.

It's not like prior to the 20th century genocide were unheard off... It's more like post 20th century, tech progress allowed people to carry it out far more efficiently.

The people didn't change. The nature of war did.

 

[Augustus]

Great. That doesn't address the point I actually made though.
I didn't say there wouldn't be suicide bombers without Islam.

So people wouldn’t commit ideologically motivated violence if it wasn’t for their ideology be it religious or secular.

Agreed.

What’s your point?

And the reason for it was that they
1. believed black magic was a thing, likely as part of some religious belief system
and
2. that belief system instructed them to be hostile towards those who supposedly practiced such "black magic"

There was no religion separate from culture in general and few religions had doctrines like scriptural monotheistic religions do.

The idea that “religion” is something distinct from secular is largely a legacy of Christianity.

Humans didn’t believe in magic because religion taught them to, it just seems to have been something pretty much intrinsic to human cognition. It’s more that people have to be taught not to believe in magic.

And if you think someone is doing you harm it is natural to reciprocate this.

And some worldviews are more inclined to lead to violence than others.
Some worldviews even literally call for violence.

But knowing if a worldview was “religious” or “secular” would tell you absolutely nothing about whether it was more or less inclined to violence.

 

[PureX]

Yes, we're tribal, killer apes, but it's religion that's often used to excuse the violence,...

Actually, politics, and greed, and egotism, and bigotry and vengeance are used to justify our violence against each other FAR, FAR , more often than religion is. And yet no matter how many times this is being pointed out to you, you just refuse to acknowledge it. Why?

 

[Augustus]

Although I wouldn't say that the reason for that were the ideologies involved in the fighting sides

Nazism and communism were unusually (although not necessarily uniquely) violent imo.

Imagine the devastation a Roman legion equipped with 20th century weaponry would cause.
Imagine the crusader armies armed with P90's and tanks instead of swords and arrows.

The devastation of the 20th century wasn't a result of "extra ordinary" hatred or violent inclinations of the people living at that time. It was a result of what the technological progress enabled.

I don’t think 20th c folk were necessarily worse, I just don’t think they were necessarily better either.

Lots of people who died in historical wars did so due to lack of antiseptics and basic medical care, or disease and famine caused by lack of modern medical and transportation tech.

Warfare was different and had different rationalities does to being massively different in nature.

Modern tech acts as a deterrent to war, but when wars start they may be more destructive. This doesn’t mean humans are better or worse when they refrain from war or unleash massive destruction.

My view is largely that things change, but that human nature remains pretty much the same.

Not better or worse, just different according to the environment and technology.

 

[ChristineM]

Actually, politics, and greed, and egotism, and bigotry and vengeance are used to justify our violence against each other FAR, FAR , more often than religion is. And yet no matter how many times this is being pointed out to you, you just refuse to acknowledge it. Why?

Perhaps because of the huge number of dead caused by religious conflicts throughout the ages.
Pointing things out will never change facts

 

[Augustus]

Actually, politics, and greed, and egotism, and bigotry and vengeance are used to justify our violence against each other FAR, FAR , more often than religion is. And yet no matter how many times this is being pointed out to you, you just refuse to acknowledge it. Why?

Because religion takes the role of Satan for post-Christian westerners who want to believe in some kind of salvation narrative but can’t put their faith in gods to redeem them.

They are not willing to go back to the tragic view of human nature, so need to think of violence as a kind of “error” that can be “fixed” by being more “rational”.

If religion is this great font of evil then humanity can still be redeemed by science and reason which will free us from the false consciousness of religion.

It is the religious faith of those who like to kid themselves they have moved beyond the “childish” need for religious faith.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So people wouldn’t commit ideologically motivated violence if it wasn’t for their ideology be it religious or secular.
Agreed.
What’s your point?

That is the point. But for some people become allergic to that point when the ideology being talked about happens to be a religious one.
Then they suddenly go all up in arms about it.

If you dogmatically follow an ideology that calls for violence, intolerance, etc... then you will end up engaging in violence, intolerance, etc.

If a religion says witches are real and should be killed, then followers will kill people they believe to be witches.
If a religion says being gay is an abomination and deserve to be killed, then followers of said religion will find gay people and abuse / kill them for being gay.
If a religion says to kill unbelievers, then followers of said religion will find unbelievers and kill them.

And we see examples of all of the above in the world today and in the past.
It is how religions managed to take otherwise decent people and nevertheless motivated them to commit atrocities.

Everybody agrees intolerant ideologies like Nazism etc did exactly that.
But for some reason, when the same is said about religion for the exact same reason, it suddenly is a problem.

But knowing if a worldview was “religious” or “secular” would tell you absolutely nothing about whether it was more or less inclined to violence.

Depends how you look at it.

In my experience, usually it is dogmatic thinking which leads to conflict. Dogmatic thinking more easily leads to inability to compromise and increases likelihood of intolerance of "the others".

 

[PureX]

Perhaps because of the huge number of dead caused by religious conflicts throughout the ages.
Pointing things out will never change facts

The facts are that far, far more humans have been killed by other humans for other reasons. WW1 caused the deaths of over 20 million people in the span of just a few years and religion had nothing to do with it. WW2 caused the deaths are 70 million, and again, religion had nothing to do with it. Five million died in the "Korean Conflict" and another 4 million died in the "not a war" war in Vietnam. Nearly 100 million humans dead because of warfare within the last 100 years, and NONE OF IT DUE TO RELIGION.

And yet your brain simply will not accept this information. Why?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nazism and communism were unusually (although not necessarily uniquely) violent imo.

How so?

My view is largely that things change, but that human nature remains pretty much the same.

Not better or worse, just different according to the environment and technology.

I don't disagree.