If We All Became Atheists?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Unless that location is where the virus likes to be.

Correct. But, off course, this has been researched extensively, and found to be false.
Insertion is random.

Sorry, I don't see any good reason to believe that.

Yeah. We know. Typical argument from incredulity. AKA "my evidence against that, is that I don't believe it".

Almost always makes it something that can be always something else.

que?

 

[Heyo]

I would say the human potential for violence combined with modern technology is a major problem that might even lead to the end of our species (or at least a massive destruction of large parts of it).

This risk exists even if most humans are peaceful, a small percentage is all that is required.

So we do agree that it's not the inherent aggression of humans that's the problem, but the uncontrolled aggression of some humans?

Following violent leaders seems to work in other social primates. It does not seem to be a form of cognitive error if any kind, no matter how much we may like to wish otherwise.

If you are likely to be successful, it seems to be evolutionarily advantageous (at least arguably).

Why would this make someone “stupid”?

Because "the human potential for violence combined with modern technology is a major problem". Following a violent leader works as long as you and your kids don't suffer from the consequences.
That's why aggression has worked as a strategy in the past and has been relatively successful. Not seeing that times have changed is stupid.

 

[Martin]

One less thing to argue about in the pub.

 

[Mock Turtle]

One less thing to argue about in the pub.

Never did, and neither about politics usually, so perhaps why I'm (not being religious) on RF.

 

[1213]

But, off course, this has been researched extensively, and found to be false.
Insertion is random.

Sorry, I have no reason to believe that.

 

[Heyo]

Sorry, I have no reason to believe that.

Well, you'd need a basic education in science and the capacity for critical thinking to have a reason to believe that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sorry, I have no reason to believe that.

That could be. But that's only so because you never actually looked into it.
Off course, willful ignorance is not an excuse.


Conversely: if you have no reason to believe that, it means you are not aware about the research and studies concerning it. Meaning that by that same token, you also have no reason to believe the opposite. ...right?

 

[1213]

...Meaning that by that same token, you also have no reason to believe the opposite. ...right?

If nothing indicates it has been done as you say, then I have no need to believe it has been done.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If nothing indicates it has been done as you say

But you don't know, as you haven't looked into it.

, then I have no need to believe it has been done.

Meaning that your answer would have to be "i don't know", not "such viruses insert in fixed spots in the genome", right?


You can easily cure this ignorance btw. All it takes is reading up from proper sources.
Then you will know.

 

[viole]

What would be the pros and cons?

So the Ahmadi's concept of peace is to convert everyone to Islam and unite the Islamic world.
I was wondering if this would work for atheism?
Certainly not any forced conversion. Just a movement to evolve beyond religion.
Understanding atheism doesn't deny God. Atheism only recognizes man's ignorance about God.
What atheism does deny is all messengers of God. I suppose a few people might be reluctant to let go of their favored messengers.

IMO, there'd be nothing lost which couldn't be accomplished by other means.

The cons are obvious. An enormous amount of poor people will get nuts when they realize this is the only life they have. For the main purpose of religion has always been to sedate them, by promising them a better life in the hereafter. And that would generate enormous instability.

Apart from that, that would not cause anything serious, if the social preconditions are fulfilled. We have cases of countries, especially in central and north Europe, who changed into de-facto global atheism, from a predominantly Christian past. Nothing really happened.

Well, one pro is that nobody in those countries would ever get upset if someone shows a nativity scene in a public space. In the same way nobody is upset if the Yule Goat (a pagan symbol) is shown in the same place. Once you realize that Jesus and Thor are basically equivalent for what concern their plausibility, while being nevertheless part of the same culture, there is no problem to show them in public space.

Ciao

- viole