What would a world entirely populated by Atheist be like? (soul, golden rule)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now I will agree that some of what happened in the Old Testament did seem morally questionable, but would the Hebrews have been any more morals without God?
I have not robbed. I have not coveted. I have not killed people. I have not told lies. I have not trespassed. I have not committed adultery. I have not cursed a god.
Recognize that? It looks a lot like the 10 Commandments, but it is from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, written more than 1,000 years before Joseph ended up in Egypt.
In fact, Psalm 104 is nothing more than a stolen version of the Egyptian Hymn of Aten.
You're claiming that the Hebrews got their morals from god, when in fact the Hebrews got their morals from other civilizations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20
Well if there was no concept of murder being 'wrong', how would an atheist be able to live up to that standard in the first place?
Morality is a matter of logic, common sense, reason and rationality.
I can take any number of paths and arrive at the same moral conclusion.
I can start by asking myself, "How do I want to be treated?" a sort of "Do unto others..." Do I want to be murdered? No.
I can apply logic. If I murder someone, then I am punished by society; therefore, How do I win? What do I gain? and if not then I am punished by being murdered by those seeking vengeance, and again; How do I win? What do I gain? I don't win and I gain nothing.
I can approach it from the standpoint of my own desires. I desire peace and prosperity. How do we achieve that? First and foremost through stability, and stability requires, among things mutual respect.
I cannot live a peaceful and prosperous life if people are trying to murder me, or my family and or my laborers/workers, staff, friends, and I cannot have peace and prosperity if I am wasting time, money and resources hunting down others to murder.
If you cannot arrive at such moral conclusions on their own merits without a god or without having to take your cues from a book that alleges to be the word of a god, then you have a serious problem: you are not as intelligent as you think you are, or as moral as you think you are and you are not even a good person at most basic level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20
Some societies don't see murder as wrong, so it's relative.
I know of no such societies. You'll have to provide some evidence of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20
What makes you think atheism would lead to a moral, peaceful society?
Because atheists can think for themselves.
I'm not so pathetic that I need a god to tell me how to live my life or what to do. I can successfully figure that out on my own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20
I don't deny atheists could devise their own moral systems, but ultimately, altruism is relative enough in human nature.
The only [true] altruists I know are soldiers.
Read excerpts from the citations of Medal of Honor winners. How many soldiers (and marines) jumped on an hand-grenade to absorb the blast and protect the lives of their comrades? How many army medics and navy corpsmen gave their lives protecting wounded soldiers and marines?
Mother Teresa? She's not an altruist. Mother Teresa didn't do what she did because she thought it was the right thing to do; rather she did it because she believed the bible was the word of god, god commanded it, and she feared the wrath of god; plus as an extra added bonus, she believed her good works would be rewarded with eternal life in heaven.
That is not altruism. Altruists do it "just because" without any expectation of award or reward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20
Talking to people though I believe it's not just a minority who are capable of evil, but most are, in the right circumstances. History bears that out. Seemingly 'normal' people committed heinous acts. Some of that was because of religious paranoia, but a lot was for other reasons: competition, tribalism, greed etc.
I wouldn't disagree.
Only 5% of the population are truly good. Those are the people who will do the right thing 100% of the regardless of the consequences to themselves, their jobs or careers, their families, their friends, their wealth and assets and even their own life.
About another 12% of the population are basically good. They will do the right thing, but if and only if they suffer no consequences. The thought of losing their job, being black-listed in their career field, having their family and friends turn against them, losing their wealth, or being imprisoned or killed deter them from doing good 100% of the time.
66% of the population is basically "not good." They will only do the right thing if they are rewarded in some way, shape or form.
12% are basically bad. They will do evil, but only if they believe they will suffer no consequences.
And then 5% are sheer evil. They do nothing but even and are not concerned with consequences at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20
My point is, religion AROSE because of humanity's nature.
And what is humanity's nature?
Humanity's nature is such that the strong prey upon the weak, enslaving them. People go to tremendous lengths to disenfranchise and marginalize others for the express purpose of enslaving them...
...and that is what religion does.
It's also human nature to attempt to control, and the best way to control is to exploit people's ignorance and fears....
...and that is what religion does.
Religion has always been a fundamental tool to exploit, control, enslave or enrich unjustly.
To rebel against a king, was to rebel against god. Luther says exactly that in many of his writings. When people (um, that would be the nobles and the bourgeoisie – the peasants --- not the slaves who are not real people under the pope’s scheme) were pushing for leniency for those who survived the Peasants’ Revolt, Luther criticized them, saying, “It is God's will that the king be honored and the rebels destroyed; and He is as merciful as we are.” As a result, about 100,000 rebels who surrendered were executed. The Catholic kings even used Luther’s arguments to justify slaughtering their own Catholic peoples who rebelled. And of course I'm referring to the Peasant's Revolt in the German Duchies and Principalities, not the earlier Peasant's Revolt in London led by Wat the Tyler.
Romans 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God’s appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 13:2 So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment.
The New Testament teaches you to be a good slave. How moral is that?
And that is not just a criticism of Judeo-Christianity, because we see the same thing in Egypt and other areas where religion is practiced. There's a famine, people are starving to death, yet they give their last bit of food or wealth to the priests to perform a sacrifice to end the famine or save them, but neither happens.
We see the same thing even now. People are hungry and have little money, but they'll hand over their money to evangelists who promise that god will improve their lives or heal them or make them wealthier, but none of those things happen either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20
People were COMPLIANT with the growth of religion because it gave them what they wanted; security, freedom from fear of death - it just replaced the fears they had with new ones.
No, it was convert or die.
Or, convert and profit, or don't convert and be disenfranchised.
Wow, what great moral choices.
When christianity was elevated to the same level as the pagan religions in Rome, the discrimination began immediately. Soon enough, you couldn't go anywhere in Roman politics or in the military, unless you where a christian.
And then when Emperor Theodorius later outlawed all religions except christiaity, rampant murder and discrimination became even worse. The Poles didn't convert to christianity, rather their king did, and when he did, it was either covert or die, so the Poles didn't convert willingly.
And let's not for the Mark of the Beast.
Without the Papal Seal, you were persona non gratis.
No business could operate without first getting papal approval, which could be obtained from the local bishop by bribing him. So if you wanted to open up a black-smith shop, or open your shoe store or sell fruits and vegetables in the market, you had to bribe the local bishop and get the Mark of the Beast -- the papal seal -- so that you could legitimately operate your business, and you had to pay a tax to the church annually. And if you didn't have the Mark of the Beast -- the Papal Seal -- the church authorities would confiscate your business and assets and throw you into an ecclesiastical prison, as opposed to the king's prison.
So if people were "compliant" it was only because they had no choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20
Arguably people have natural feared the forces of nature as angry deities - religion was a codified way to live with these natural deities.
But we have a greater understanding of the forces of nature, and religion, which did a very poor job of explaining them, is no longer necessary (or desirable).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20
All this aside, my real point is that I do not believe that an Atheist/secular society would be as utopian as you think it is, as you seem to blame much of the world's violence and suffering on religion.
No one said it would be utopian, but it would certainly be better than what exists now.
The first step toward a utopian society is getting rid of religion and getting people used to accepting the reality, which is that each person is solely responsible for their own feelings; their own actions; their own well-being and that is a necessary component getting people to understand that they are in control of their own lives, and not living "god's plan."
The question came to my mind during a conversation here on board. We were discussing if Atheism will ever be a majority, or even complettely wipe out religion from this planet. I mentioned that France may be close to a possible model , but I wonder what the ramifications of a totally Atheist society and state would be?
Would there be advantages and disadvantages, and what would those be? To even think of a society without religion , would be like a whole new kind of civilization for man, because religion has always been a major factor with humans, excluding primordal man. Is it even a valid real possibility, or is it just hopeful speculation?
For the world to be totally Atheist, the transformation required would indeed be the most dramatic historical change humanity has ever made. Almost cataclismic and stupendous, it would be nothing short of incredible! Atheism would have to do far more than what religion did , to complettely incert itself into the consciousness of all of humanity.
It surely would have to then remove religion totally from human consciousness, something I think is impossible; and yet, just to examine the senerio for what its worth, no one could deny that religion must first be removed from all peoples. The belief system of humanity as a whole, would have to be changed and belief in God or gods must be permenently excised.
Thats a very tall order ( one would then, at the least, should compliment religion for doing this already). I wonder if Atheism then would follow any example, conversely, that religion has already laied? You know, copy at least some of how religion did this incredible thing; the domination of human thought. What role would science then take on? A different role than it has now? Or would science even coperate? Would Atheism have its own inquisitions? And what would the risk factors be?
What would a world entirely populated by Atheist be like?
I think a religious world was the best chance humanity had at reaching anything near a workable world of unity. But religion has failed to produce that. And I don't think any other kind of society could produce what religion couldnot; if humanity can mess up religion, it would mess up anythingelse. Still, that is speculation, because religion has dominated the world from its conception. We can only speculate on any other thesis. Now we have a world of " Mixture", religion here, Atheism there, and secularism in the rest. One could argue that the less religion we have, the worse things seem to get. But understand this; we have not had " Pure Religion", in quite sometime.
Which brings to question concerning the other alternitives; if they were not Pure, would they work worldwide? Can human nature, in whatever form, ever be pure? Can it be absolute; stainless or unpolluted? What can be without contamination?
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,707 posts, read 15,396,441 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickiel
I think a religious world was the best chance humanity had at reaching anything near a workable world of unity. But religion has failed to produce that. And I don't think any other kind of society could produce what religion couldnot; if humanity can mess up religion, it would mess up anythingelse. Still, that is speculation, because religion has dominated the world from its conception. We can only speculate on any other thesis. Now we have a world of " Mixture", religion here, Atheism there, and secularism in the rest. One could argue that the less religion we have, the worse things seem to get. But understand this; we have not had " Pure Religion", in quite sometime.
Which brings to question concerning the other alternitives; if they were not Pure, would they work worldwide? Can human nature, in whatever form, ever be pure? Can it be absolute; stainless or unpolluted? What can be without contamination?
Great post Mickiel.
I will answer the other posts later, perhaps. I think I went a bit too far in the other direction. I do not believe society necessarily NEEDS religion, I guess I was disputing this idea that a society free of religion would necessarily be that much better, and reminding people that a lot of morality did indeed come from religion. The fact is, atheists cannot imagine a world without religion. They take all the good bits from religion but reject the bad. Talk about cherry-picking.
The Egyptian book of the dead is religious, in case you haven't noticed. Most ancient codes of laws were religions in name - Hammarubi was another in Babylon, both may have influenced or been influenced by Hebrew monotheism. Point us, even though a lot of those laws are unjust, the basic fundamentals of good behaviour are codified in them.
It's easy to talk about the golden rule when you already know about it. But it's not exactly something that we all have when we're born, hard as it may be to believe that. Despite all the rare examples of altruism in animals, ultimately the goal is to compete at the cost of others.
So perhaps NOW a secular society might work, but only because you've inherited a lot of morality from religion. Yes, religion has produced immorality too but that doesn't negate the morality. Show me any secular philosophy which has been even a fraction as influential as religion philosophy or philosophies espoused by religious leaders, philosophers, thinkers.
I think a religious world was the best chance humanity had at reaching anything near a workable world of unity. But religion has failed to produce that. And I don't think any other kind of society could produce what religion couldnot; if humanity can mess up religion, it would mess up anythingelse. Still, that is speculation, because religion has dominated the world from its conception. We can only speculate on any other thesis. Now we have a world of " Mixture", religion here, Atheism there, and secularism in the rest. One could argue that the less religion we have, the worse things seem to get. But understand this; we have not had " Pure Religion", in quite sometime.
That's true we have not had pure religion for a long time...That time is now referred to as the "dark ages"...That was when witches were burned, mental illness or epilepsy was thought to be caused by demons, other illness was thought to be caused by "evil" vapors, and the only "cure" was to bleed the patient, and slaves were kept by many...There were too many atrocities committed in those days of pure religion to list here, but I'm sure readers will get the idea...
It seems to me that you have it all backwards, because in my seventy years of life the world has become less religious, and we no longer do these things, except in religious theocracies such as Iran...and we are far better for it.
Quote:
It is possible that mankind is on the threshold of a golden age; but, if so, it will be necessary first to slay the dragon that guards the door, and this dragon is religion.
Bertrand Russell
Quote:
Which brings to question concerning the other alternitives; if they were not Pure, would they work worldwide? Can human nature, in whatever form, ever be pure? Can it be absolute; stainless or unpolluted? What can be without contamination?
We have many examples of what will work better. Just look at the more secular humanistic nations of the world....They are not perfect, but they are far better than the more religious countries.
I will answer the other posts later, perhaps. I think I went a bit too far in the other direction. I do not believe society necessarily NEEDS religion, I guess I was disputing this idea that a society free of religion would necessarily be that much better, and reminding people that a lot of morality did indeed come from religion. The fact is, atheists cannot imagine a world without religion. They take all the good bits from religion but reject the bad. Talk about cherry-picking.
The Egyptian book of the dead is religious, in case you haven't noticed. Most ancient codes of laws were religions in name - Hammarubi was another in Babylon, both may have influenced or been influenced by Hebrew monotheism. Point us, even though a lot of those laws are unjust, the basic fundamentals of good behaviour are codified in them.
It's easy to talk about the golden rule when you already know about it. But it's not exactly something that we all have when we're born, hard as it may be to believe that. Despite all the examples of altruism in animals, ultimately the goal is to compete at the cost of others.
So perhaps NOW a secular society might work, but only because you've inherited a lot of morality from religion. Yes, religion has produced immorality too but that doesn't negate the morality. Show me any secular philosophy which has been even a fraction as influential as religion philosophy or philosophies espoused by religious leaders, philosophers, thinkers.
Very interesting points, and I certainly agree with them.
That's true we have not had pure religion for a long time...That time is now referred to as the "dark ages"...That was when witches were burned, mental illness or epilepsy was thought to be caused by demons, other illness was thought to be caused by "evil" vapors, and the only "cure" was to bleed the patient, and slaves were kept by many...There were too many atrocities committed in those days of pure religion to list here, but I'm sure readers will get the idea...
It seems to me that you have it all backwards, because in my seventy years of life the world has become less religious, and we no longer do these things, except in religious theocracies such as Iran...and we are far better for it.
We have many examples of what will work better. Just look at the more secular humanistic nations of the world....They are not perfect, but they are far better than the more religious countries.
Is the Soviet Union better because its secular? Is China better? Is Korea better off? One could argue they are not, especially if you argue with the citizens of those nations. I don't see a non-religious society being better off, they are still " Off", just in a different mask of direction. Religion has failed to bring about perfection, and I maintain that was the best chance for it that we had.
By Pure Religion, I meant a time in history way before the dark ages; but you know, after checking, I still couldnot find such a period of purity. I should have stated there has never been a period of Purity.
Is the Soviet Union better because its secular? Is China better? Is Korea better off? One could argue they are not, especially if you argue with the citizens of those nations. I don't see a non-religious society being better off, they are still " Off", just in a different mask of direction. Religion has failed to bring about perfection, and I maintain that was the best chance for it that we had.
By Pure Religion, I meant a time in history way before the dark ages; but you know, after checking, I still couldnot find such a period of purity. I should have stated there has never been a period of Purity.
There hasn't been a Soviet Union for years, but are Russia, China and Korea the best example you can think of?
Russia is religious, predominately Russian Orthodox, but many religions are represented... Religion in Russia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
China too has many religious people, although their government is officially atheist...The same applies to North Korea.
You obviously tried to choose the nations with the worst performance, but you should have looked closer to home....According to Nation Master the US leads the world in incarcerated people (715 per 100,000) by a long ways, where as the most atheistic country, Estonia ranks 37th in the same statistic (339 per 100,000). Prisoners per capita statistics - Countries compared - NationMaster
There hasn't been a Soviet Union for years, but are Russia, China and Korea the best example you can think of?
Russia is religious, predominately Russian Orthodox, but many religions are represented... Religion in Russia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
China too has many religious people, although their government is officially atheist...The same applies to North Korea.
You obviously tried to choose the nations with the worst performance, but you should have looked closer to home....According to Nation Master the US leads the world in incarcerated people (715 per 100,000) by a long ways, where as the most atheistic country, Estonia ranks 37th in the same statistic (339 per 100,000). Prisoners per capita statistics - Countries compared - NationMaster
Impressive satistics, I was unaware of that. But we can also look at Germany, Luxemburg, Hungary, Spain, Belgium, France, The UK and Czech Republic and still see some serious problems; and those countrys have the highest percentage of Atheist.
Impressive satistics, I was unaware of that. But we can also look at Germany, Luxemburg, Hungary, Spain, Belgium, France, The UK and Czech Republic and still see some serious problems; and those countrys have the highest percentage of Atheist.
We could go back and forth all night
There is crime in every nation, but there are other factors besides religion and atheism, so I don't think much can be proven with this kind of argument.
What say you about this study?
Citing four different studies, Zuckerman states: "Murder rates are actually lower in more secular nations and higher in more religious nations where belief in God is widespread." He also states: "Of the top 50 safest cities in the world, nearly all are in relatively non-religious countries."
Within the United States, we see the same pattern. Citing census data, he writes: "And within America, the states with the highest murder rates tend to be the highly religious, such as Louisiana and Alabama, but the states with the lowest murder rates tend to be the among the least religious in the country, such as Vermont and Oregon."
And these findings are not limited to murder rates, as rates of all violent crime tend to be higher in "religious" states. Zuckerman also points out that atheists are very much under-represented in the American prison population (only 0.2%). http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/facu...on_Atheism.pdf
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
