If We All Became Atheists?

[We Never Know]

You don't need knowledge of something to lack belief in it. In fact there are lots of things i don't know exist that i lack belief in.

Take your lack of believe.
You were once a believer, changed, and chose to lack belief based off treatment, lack of evidence, and etc.

Without concept you would have never believed or chose to have lack of belief.

 

[ChristineM]

So, are you suggesting that meat was introduced into their individual ecosystems after they were born by their vegetarian parents, or are you suggesting the majority to be birthed from vegetarian parents, and adopted into meat eating families?

Did you actually read my post?

 

[ChristineM]

Take your lack of believe.
You were once a believer, changed, and chose to lack believe based off treatment, lack of evidence, and etc.

Without concept you would have never believed or chose to have lack of belief.

This is true in my case but lack of belief does necessarily not mean you had to believe in the first place.

 

[Nakosis]

I'd be reluctant to let go of Newton, Einstein, Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Copernicus, Kant, Spinoza, Jesus, Buddha, Soloman, David, Paul, among the many others who have served as messengers to and for the human race. The way I understand it, is our world has many messengers and they span the globe and belong to nearly every culture of the world, if not all and the rest of us are set to the task of learning and acquiring a greater understanding from them. Of course, we have our favorites and typically accept those we are best able to understand as individuals, per our own understanding of life and how it operates, which we typically garner from that which we are exposed to of the messengers themselves.

It'd just be the messengers claiming to speak for God. The rest you can keep.

 

[Nakosis]

To lack belief in gods, one must be aware of the idea of gods.

Ok, not sure I'd agree but the idea doesn't bother me.

 

[Balthazzar]

Did you actually read my post?

I did. You stated that majority are indoctrinated to eat meat by their parents. You associate indoctrination to adding something to a diet apart from its original environment.

I associate ecosystem with the environment itself and apply it as a standard to identify individual needs and requirements as biological organisms.

 

[ChristineM]

I did. You stated that majority are indoctrinated to eat meat by their parents. You associate indoctrination to adding something to a diet apart from its original environment.

I associate ecosystem with the environment itself and apply it as a standard to identify individual needs and requirements as biological organisms.

As i said before, we are all entitled to our beliefs

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

With out religion there would be one less thing to divide us, argue about or fight about. Or even scare our children with.
However people would have nothing to protect them from having to take responsibility for their own actions or responsibilities.

I notice with some interest that a leading successful big time CNC you tuber often ascribes his successes to god, rather than his own efforts and abilities. That would worry me as a customer.
I would prefer to think that he was confident in what he did.

 

[Balthazzar]

As i said before, we are all entitled to our beliefs

Yup ... and word associations, among other things.

 

[Nakosis]

In the USA, fake news is primarily controlled, by those who hate religion; atheism. They have this chip on their shoulder, to where the ends justify their lying means. The DNC, who hates religion is more atheist. It also likes censorship, to go along with lying, so it can control the faux narrative.

Not sure this is true. I don't know that the left is devoid of religious folks. Just a different culture, a different set of moral values which by itself doesn't necessarily rule out religious beliefs.

The idea of human rights is based on a God given assumption. The idea of a higher power, in charge, allows for more ego self control needed to make human rights work. If this is left to man; just atheist humans, this becomes relative to those in power. We can see that within the US DNC. This is not to say many Atheists can simulate the same things as the religious, but there would be too many Atheist bad apples, for a steady state that did not eventually regress toward a dictatorship trying to play god. If there is no god, then some Atheist will try to become one.

The idea is to evolve beyond or religious past, not deny it. Human rights has become part of Western culture regardless of its origin.

Look at the Harris Campaign, being puffed up by fake news and marketing.she is purposely kept away from speaking candidly, as to not break the illusion. A religion person could not, in good conscience, live this lie. Harris has the opposite history; facts, and over the past four years did not display the level of competence being sold. The religious person to be true to the truth, in front of God, would prefer a competent person, since that allows them to choose a version of truth; facts.

Relative morality of Atheism equates to political expediency. Since there is no God as referee, then truth is what we want to belief, and can force feed onto others. Those who believe in God, will need to run a tighter ship based on the rules of a higher chain of command.

I don't think a specific political view is a necessary component of atheism. However, lets say you're right and atheism leans a person's view toward the left. I'd suppose the left would take over along with atheism so less political division among the citizens. Politics and religion, the two ideologies which create the most division gone.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Technically it does. Ask anyone who once was a christian and chose to become an atheist.

I was a christian for 18 years and I did not choose to become an atheist. What unconvinced me was realizing the evidence that convinced me god was real was flawed in many ways. I could no longer believe, it was not a choice.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Unless you are exposed to religion in some way.
You would have no knowledge of it.
Of necessity you would be an a atheist by default.

The only other, but unlikely, position is that you invent a religion.
Which is in all probability how proto religions started.
Since then a vast majority of religions have developed from former ones.
Which is true of Jews, Christian and Muslim.

 

[Balthazzar]

Unless you are exposed to religion in some way.
You would have no knowledge of it.
Of necessity you would be an a atheist by default.

The only other, but unlikely, position is that you invent a religion.
Which is in all probability how proto religions started.
Since then a vast majority of religions have developed from former ones.
Which is true of Jews, Christian and Muslim.

The quest to understand life and our place in it, and the terms we utilize to define certain principal understandings have evolved over the many millennia associated with human evolution and history.

 

[Secret Chief]

When I hear someone proposing a way to define "atheist", I always run it past two quick checks to see whether it aligns with usage even at a surface level. I think both are things that pretty much everyone can agree with about atheists:

1. Atheists exist. There actually exist real people alive today who are atheists. This means that if the definition requires something that would be beyond the practical ability of a human being, the definition is wrong.

2. Theists aren't atheists. If a person is a theist, they're necessarily not an atheist. This means that if a definition would include some theists, the definition is wrong.

When it comes to "rejecting gods"-type definitions of atheism, they generally fail one of these tests or the other. For instance, many theists reject all sorts of gods... monotheists even tend to reject every god but one.

... so if rejecting "any number of deities" made a person an atheist, this would end up including most (nearly all?) theists. By my point #2 above, we know this definition doesn't reflect usage.

Sorry, my wording then. For me, a theist believes in at least one deity (and may reject others). An atheist believes that no deities at all exist.
How's that grab you?

 

[PureX]

Unless you are exposed to religion in some way.
You would have no knowledge of it.
Of necessity you would be an a atheist by default.

This is wrong on several counts.

First, humans in every place and time developed an awareness of the possibility of God, and chose to fully explore that possibility in their own ways. Such an awareness is apparently written into our DNA. And has been there from very early on in our time-line.

Secondly, it is true that children have not yet developed this awareness, and are therefor not automatically 'spiritually minded'. And as a result, they are very often introduced to spiritual ideals and traditions by their parents and their clan before they could develop these on their own. But this in no way means they would not have developed them as they matured.

Thirdly, any human being that is completely unaware of the idea of deity would not properly be labeled an atheist. They would properly be labeled 'profoundly agnostic'. As atheism is not ignorance of God. It's the rejection of the god ideal.

 

[Secret Chief]

When I hear someone proposing a way to define "atheist", I always run it past two quick checks to see whether it aligns with usage even at a surface level. I think both are things that pretty much everyone can agree with about atheists:

1. Atheists exist. There actually exist real people alive today who are atheists. This means that if the definition requires something that would be beyond the practical ability of a human being, the definition is wrong.

2. Theists aren't atheists. If a person is a theist, they're necessarily not an atheist. This means that if a definition would include some theists, the definition is wrong.

When it comes to "rejecting gods"-type definitions of atheism, they generally fail one of these tests or the other. For instance, many theists reject all sorts of gods... monotheists even tend to reject every god but one.

... so if rejecting "any number of deities" made a person an atheist, this would end up including most (nearly all?) theists. By my point #2 above, we know this definition doesn't reflect usage.

Sorry, my wording then. For me, a theist believes in at least one deity (and may reject others). An atheist believes that no deities at all exist.
How's that grab you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry, my wording then. For me, a theist believes in at least one deity (and may reject others). An atheist believes that no deities at all exist.
How's that grab you?

That approach would need "deities" to have a coherent meaning. What is it?

Personally, I've only ever been able to define what a deity or a god is by listing specific gods: Thor is on the list, but Superman isn't; the divine messenger Mercury is on the list, but the divine messenger Gabriel isn't; ruler of the underworld Hades is on the list, but ruler of the underworld Satan isn't, etc.

There doesn't seem to be any coherence to what is or isn't a deity as far as I can tell, but you'd need it if someone were to reject "deities" as a category.

 

[LuisDantas]

I have some significant disagreements with the OP, but I do believe that there is no downside to universal atheism - and a lot.of upsides.

Mainly.because religion benefits from atheism, really.

 

[Heyo]

One quality which makes Scandinavian and European societies so appealing is imo, the plurality of belief. If they were uniformly atheist, wouldn’t they be as drearily oppressive as any theocracy? As was the case, for example, in the former Soviet Union?

That would go against the premise of the OP. In the named countries, atheism was never forced, like it was in the SU. And I see no reason why a predominantly atheistic country should become oppressive. You don't have to enforce what is collectively accepted.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One quality which makes Scandinavian and European societies so appealing is imo, the plurality of belief. If they were uniformly atheist, wouldn’t they be as drearily oppressive as any theocracy? As was the case, for example, in the former Soviet Union?

I always find this sort of chauvinism interesting:

"None of the diverse belief systems of these people include the thing that *I* consider most important part of *my* belief system, so those other belief systems are the same for all practical purposes."

"Since a modern secular humanist freethinker doesn't believe in God, he may as well be pushing for Soviet-era communism, despite the fact that these two belief systems are diametrically opposed."