If the whole world were atheist...

[shy ♡]

You seem to be implying that people fight wars only for the reasons you listed and that religion is simply an excuse but that's totally false; you say that protecting what you own or what you love is a reason to go to war, well people feel that they own their religion, don't they? They love their religion, don't they? Religion is a motivation for conflict in of itself, therefore religious conflicts would never have happened if religion hadn't ever existed.

However, that's not strictly relevant because the question says "atheist" not "areligious". Buddhists are atheists.

Furthermore, it is totally impossible to gauge whether or not there would be less war because societal development would have gone completely differently without theism. Seriously, we can't even comprehend how different it would be and it is near-pointless for someone who hasn't studied sociology in-depth to even attempt to contemplate an atheistic history.

... How do you know it's totally false? I'd like to see evidence for that.

As you said, people feel they own religion and love it. But that's the same base instinct - owning, loving. We'd fight over owning and loving something else. Chairs. Houses. The moon. Water.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

... How do you know it's totally false? I'd like to see evidence for that.

As you said, people feel they own religion and love it. But that's the same base instinct - owning, loving. We'd fight over owning and loving something else. Chairs. Houses. The moon. Water.

The evidence is that religion can be a motivation in of itself, therefore disproving your implicit statement that religion is not a motivation in of itself. If someone hits my girlfriend and I hit that person back because I love my girlfriend, am I not fighting for my girlfriend?

My point still stands, if there's one less thing that people own and love then that's one less thing that they'll fight about.

 

[Pwnemon]

SO GUYS LETS JUST LIVE IN POVERTY THEN NO FIGHTING SIMPLE.

I think the reason people fight is because, very simply, they feel insulted. In this case, it would be because their beliefs have been insulted, purposefully or inadvertently. But, TES, have you ever had an argument with your girlfriend about magic? Because that would be the exact same problem as a religious war (albeit on a smaller scale.)

 

[Saith]

People would still blow others up for, say, Ireland, or commit genocide in the name of Mother Russia.

 

[Tarvos]

Patriottism is the other thing that costs needless lives.

 

[Harlequin]

Which isn't even entirely true, because the three Abrahamic religions (collectively over 50% of the world, and hence the ones that spring to mind whenever "religion" is mentioned) all have the same god. They even revere many of the same prophets and holy figures. It even seems, at the base level, these three religions are more similar than they are different. So what have they to fight over?

Eating pork, women's rights, Hell, which prophet is best prophet, how best to worship the God...

 

[1. Luftballon]

That's a drastic oversimplification and the logic is fallacious. That implies that any two people necessarily have the same set of things that they would fight with someone else over and that any two people feel about those things to the same extent. Also, if there's only one thing, then when those people are in contact, they'll only fight if that one thing comes up. However, if there are ten thousand things, then if any of those things come up, they will fight.

In other words, if two people have a 1% chance of broaching the one thing that would make them fight, then two people who have a thousand things that would make them fight, there's probably a higher chance that they would broach one of those topics and then fight.

it is oversimplified, yes; and sure, they'd have more people to be in conflict with, but you imply that all conflicts are equally severe. the difference between, say, a barroom brawl and a provocation of war is not negligible.

 

[shy ♡]

The evidence is that religion can be a motivation in of itself, therefore disproving your implicit statement that religion is not a motivation in of itself. If someone hits my girlfriend and I hit that person back because I love my girlfriend, am I not fighting for my girlfriend?

My point still stands, if there's one less thing that people own and love then that's one less thing that they'll fight about.

That's... not evidence. You have to, you know, provide proof that religion is actually a motivator in and of itself. Some sort of actual proof other than 'here I said it is! that makes it so.' If you're concerned that my statement was based on absolute fact and thus I'm being a hypocrite, please re-read what I wrote: nowhere did I state that what I said was absolute fact. If I did I would have had some sort of evidence other than what I posted. Which I don't, other than anecdotal evidence and my own opinion, and I suspect the same for you.

You're defending your girlfriend because of love and the desire to protect those you love, a pack instinct. Which has obviously evolved in humans to be much more and have more thought out processes, but that is the reaction at its most basic. It's not specifically your girlfriend. You'd do the same for anyone who is in your 'pack' (social group, whatever) that you love. If you rid the world of girlfriends, we'd still be fighting.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

SO GUYS LETS JUST LIVE IN POVERTY THEN NO FIGHTING SIMPLE.

I think the reason people fight is because, very simply, they feel insulted. In this case, it would be because their beliefs have been insulted, purposefully or inadvertently. But, TES, have you ever had an argument with your girlfriend about magic? Because that would be the exact same problem as a religious war (albeit on a smaller scale.)

No, I haven't. I occasionally ask her if she's cast any spells lately and if she's seen the effects she was looking for.

Also, we're talking about theism/atheism not religion/areligion.

People would still blow others up for, say, Ireland, or commit genocide in the name of Mother Russia.

Of course they would, but that would happen anyway, with or without theism. The point is that there are conflicts that wouldn't happen without theism and therefore there would be a drop in conflict.

it is oversimplified, yes; and sure, they'd have more people to be in conflict with, but you imply that all conflicts are equally severe. the difference between, say, a barroom brawl and a provocation of war is not negligible.

But I'm not talking about the severity of conflict, I'm just saying there would be less conflict.

That's... not evidence. You have to, you know, provide proof that religion is actually a motivator in and of itself. Some sort of actual proof other than 'here I said it is! that makes it so.' If you're concerned that my statement was based on absolute fact and thus I'm being a hypocrite, please re-read what I wrote: nowhere did I state that what I said was absolute fact. If I did I would have had some sort of evidence other than what I posted. Which I don't, other than anecdotal evidence and my own opinion, and I suspect the same for you.

You're implicitly stating it as absolute fact by not saying that what you are saying is opinion. Just because you didn't explicitly state something doesn't mean you didn't state it.

It is common sense that religion causes conflict, I shouldn't need to prove it to you. Furthermore, there is no objective proof of the cause of any conflict. What may appear to be the cause of a conflict may actually be an excuse to start conflict for another reason and what a man says his motivations are may be totally different to what his motivations actually are. There is only anecdotal evidence of what causes conflicts.

You're defending your girlfriend because of love and the desire to protect those you love, a pack instinct. Which has obviously evolved in humans to be much more and have more thought out processes, but that is the reaction at its most basic. It's not specifically your girlfriend. You'd do the same for anyone who is in your 'pack' (social group, whatever) that you love. If you rid the world of girlfriends, we'd still be fighting.

I'm not saying that there would be no fighting, I'm saying there would be less conflict.

And the pack instinct is the reaction, not the stimulus. An attack on my girlfriend is the stimulus, so I am fighting to defend my girlfriend. Similarly, an attack on a deity is a stimulus, defense of said deity is the reaction. Attack and defense is conflict. If no one believed in a deity, then any conflict caused by attack on a deity would not happen, i.e. there would be comparatively less conflict in a world without theism than a world with theism.

 

[Eloi]

It is hard to know what everyone would do, on such a massive scale, however we can pare down personal reaction. I would've already been dead right now in a world of atheism. If the world was this shitty, and there was no hope, no possible way to see the future, or to see something better, no possible way to change my lenses of vision, the knowledge that every single people that dies just *dies* (I probably wouldn't have too many relationships either, in fear of their death), the knowledge that ever single disability is an unchanging, hopeless affect on people's lives centuries away from any sort of care (I'd probably live inside to avoid losing my ability to do anything worthwhile), my life would probably be a melancholy - no, wait, it wouldn't, I'd be dead, because I wouldn't have any reason to endure the grief. I mean, if I truly believe that this world has nothing to offer, and there is no other worlds that we can access within our short, short, short lifespans, there would be *no* reason to stick around. As well, there would always be crime, prejudice, hate, et. al. even without religion. If atheism were a cure-all for those things, than the USSR would've been a positively lovely place to live, but it wasn't. The French Revolutionary gov't, a "rationalistic" nation, held one of the bloodiest rules witnessed, and inspired many causalities, all with the absence of religious authority. A world without religion would be a world like this one, only without the possibility of hope for myself personally.

 

[opaltiger]

If the world was this shitty, and there was no hope, no possible way to see the future, or to see something better, no possible way to change my lenses of vision, the knowledge that every single people that dies just *dies* (I probably wouldn't have too many relationships either, in fear of their death), the knowledge that ever single disability is an unchanging, hopeless affect on people's lives centuries away from any sort of care (I'd probably live inside to avoid losing my ability to do anything worthwhile), my life would probably be a melancholy - no, wait, it wouldn't, I'd be dead, because I wouldn't have any reason to endure the grief.

The only reason you feel this way is because you were brought up with religion. You were brought up to expect something more. If you hadn't been, the idea of people just dying, as you say, would be entirely mundane and not particularly worrying.

Moreover: really? Is this really how you feel? The world would stop mattering because there's nothing after death? Can you not see how utterly backwards that is? Surely if there was nothing after death you'd want to take advantage of what came before death. But you say you'd rather be dead? You'd rather consign yourself to non-existence without even the brief pleasures of living out your life, knowing the people you know, loving the people you love? You would forsake those people for fear of death? Do you live only for the sake of what will happen after death? I don't believe that.

If atheism were a cure-all for those things, than the USSR would've been a positively lovely place to live, but it wasn't. The French Revolutionary gov't, a "rationalistic" nation, held one of the bloodiest rules witnessed, and inspired many causalities, all with the absence of religious authority. A world without religion would be a world like this one, only without the possibility of hope for myself personally.

Atheism is not a cure-all. No one is claiming it is. The USSR and Revolutionary France were not what they were because the society was atheistic, much like the USSR was not what it was because it was communist. Also, there is a world of difference between forcing atheism on a population and everyone simply being atheist because religion never existed. Equating the two is a fallacy. And besides, why do people so like to quote Stalinist Russia and conveniently ignore today's secular, rational societies, which consistently have the highest standards of living and happiness?

 

[Eloi]

The only reason you feel this way is because you were brought up with religion. You were brought up to expect something more. If you hadn't been, the idea of people just dying, as you say, would be entirely mundane and not particularly worrying.

No, I was brought up with people with disabilities, affected by tragedy, or just plain dying left or right. Non-existence is frightening because it is, and also knowing that there is no opportunies to say, see the world with color, for instance, would absolutely tear me up inside, not because I expected to see it, just that I can't and never will.

Moreover: really? Is this really how you feel? The world would stop mattering because there's nothing after death?

There'd be zero reason to care about things beyond my lifetime.

Can you not see how utterly backwards that is?

Explain it to me in loving detail how utterly backwards that is, because I don't.

Surely if there was nothing after death you'd want to take advantage of what came before death.

What can I possibly do, as myself in my current position, that would actually matter?

But you say you'd rather be dead? You'd rather consign yourself to non-existence without even the brief pleasures of living out your life, knowing the people you know, loving the people you love? You would forsake those people for fear of death?

Knowing they'd be gone, forever, at any moment, would make me want to never have known them. I can't sufficiently express to you over a post in a thread on a Pokemon fan forum how unimaginably sad that is for me.

Do you live only for the sake of what will happen after death? I don't believe that.

I am able to live somewhat happily because I know this isn't it.

Atheism is not a cure-all. No one is claiming it is.

Society would not have less crime, it'd have different justifications.

The USSR and Revolutionary France were not what they were because the society was atheistic, much like the USSR was not what it was because it was communist. Also, there is a world of difference between forcing atheism on a population and everyone simply being atheist because religion never existed. Equating the two is a fallacy. And besides, why do people so like to quote Stalinist Russia and conveniently ignore today's secular, rational societies, which consistently have the highest standards of living and happiness?

I was just pointing out that atheist societies are not perfect, as theist societies are not perfect either, and because there is not a lot of atheist societies to choose from, then examples of imperfection are not as well known. I am just saying humans are humans and their bad behavior will not cease or increase in absence of religion.

 

[shy ♡]

You're implicitly stating it as absolute fact by not saying that what you are saying is opinion. Just because you didn't explicitly state something doesn't mean you didn't state it.

It is common sense that religion causes conflict, I shouldn't need to prove it to you. Furthermore, there is no objective proof of the cause of any conflict. What may appear to be the cause of a conflict may actually be an excuse to start conflict for another reason and what a man says his motivations are may be totally different to what his motivations actually are. There is only anecdotal evidence of what causes conflicts.

I'm not saying that there would be no fighting, I'm saying there would be less conflict.

Stating something does not equal saying it is absolute fact. That's a rather strange opinion, honestly.

It's not common sense religion causes conflict. Many, many people don't think that way. Regardless, saying 'it's common sense I don't need to prove it' is a backwards way of thinking. Nothing should be taken on 'common sense' without need of proof. It was common sense many years ago that, let's say, black people are stupid, or a woman's brain is smaller than a mans'. (Well, some people still think that way, but.) Common sense! No need for proof. Or, hey, religion is common sense! Why bother with proof? (If you disagree with religion being common sense - which I do too - that is only because of proof otherwise.)

There is only anecdotal evidence of what causes conflicts.

Exactly. So why do you think you're 100% correct?

And the pack instinct is the reaction, not the stimulus. An attack on my girlfriend is the stimulus, so I am fighting to defend my girlfriend. Similarly, an attack on a deity is a stimulus, defense of said deity is the reaction. Attack and defense is conflict. If no one believed in a deity, then any conflict caused by attack on a deity would not happen, i.e. there would be comparatively less conflict in a world without theism than a world with theism.

This is really going into an entirely different direction from the point. I'll try to make myself clear.

Attack on your girlfriend is stimulus. The attack can be replaced with any sort of attack on your pack/loved one. An attack on your son/mother/sister/cousin. The girlfriend is not key. The attack is.

 

[opaltiger]

No, I was brought up with people with disabilities, affected by tragedy, or just plain dying left or right. Non-existence is frightening because it is, and also knowing that there is no opportunies to say, see the world with color, for instance, would absolutely tear me up inside, not because I expected to see it, just that I can't and never will.

But you wouldn't know colour existed in the first place.

There'd be zero reason to care about things beyond my lifetime.

Why is there any reason to now? You seem to be suggesting that the only reason anything matters is because there is life after death?

Explain it to me in loving detail how utterly backwards that is, because I don't.

If there's nothing after death, there is nothing but the world. I don't know about you, but that would make me care about the world quite a lot!

What can I possibly do, as myself in my current position, that would actually matter?

Live.

Knowing they'd be gone, forever, at any moment, would make me want to never have known them. I can't sufficiently express to you over a post in a thread on a Pokemon fan forum how unimaginably sad that is for me.

I... cannot comprehend this attitude. At all. Perhaps that is why your point of view is so baffling.

I am able to live somewhat happily because I know this isn't it.

Your happiness is derived from knowledge that things will be better after you die?

I was just pointing out that atheist societies are not perfect, as theist societies are not perfect either, and because there is not a lot of atheist societies to choose from, then examples of imperfection are not as well known. I am just saying humans are humans and their bad behavior will not cease or increase in absence of religion.

But evidence seems to point towards atheist (or at least secular) societies being better than religious ones, is my point.

 

[Tarvos]

But you wouldn't know colour existed in the first place.

Physics class?

 

[Music Dragon]

Yet again mankind's maddening obsession with eternity...

Why does everything become meaningless and futile if it does not last forever? Why are you incapable of appreciating a good book once you've read the ending? Why can you not enjoy a song after the music fades out? Why do you no longer like a film after watching the final scene? Why do you not relish the taste of a delicious meal unless you can eat it forever and ever? Why is the love of your friends and your family inadequate simply because they will not stay with you for all eternity?

Why can there be no beauty in that which is finite? I don't understand. Is it not typical of us humans to truly appreciate only that which can be lost to us, and not that which we take for granted, that which can never be taken away?

And what exactly would you do with your eternal life if you had it? What meaning would you fill it with? Do you not see how time and repetition dull your favourite song, your favourite food, your favourite picture? Do you honestly believe true life - not the mere state of living, no; I mean life - could ever exist without death by its side? Do you think existence in perpetuity could possibly be preferable to the beauty of growth and decay, birth and passing away, immeasurable joy and insufferable pain?

Tell me, first, what meaning is to you; tell me first what you would do with eternity on your hands. Then, perhaps, we can talk.

 

[opaltiger]

Physics class?

Oh, sure, you might know of it as a concept, but in the same way as we know of UV and IR and so on. I might be wrong, but I doubt people spend much time lamenting their inability to see in those spectra.

 

[Eloi]

But you wouldn't know colour existed in the first place.

I wasn't making a metaphor. If I were color-blind, and told that I could never see color and since there is no way to fix it and because there is no afterlife in which my vision will be restored, it has a soul-crushing permanentness.

Why is there any reason to now? You seem to be suggesting that the only reason anything matters is because there is life after death?

Well, there'd be no reason to not say, put anthrax on my last will and testament, as there is zero consequences for doing so because I would be dead.

If there's nothing after death, there is nothing but the world. I don't know about you, but that would make me care about the world quite a lot!

The world is full of murderers, rapists, spiders, and textured walls. I don't like it all too well. And there would be something besides the world, there would be fictional worlds in which you can see your life pale in comparison towards, which yourself could make.

Live.

Yes, then what?

I... cannot comprehend this attitude. At all. Perhaps that is why your point of view is so baffling.

Perhaps.

Your happiness is derived from knowledge that things will be better after you die?

I'm happier for it.

But evidence seems to point towards atheist (or at least secular) societies being better than religious ones, is my point.

This is because they are more recent, and thus have had less time for atrocities to be committed within them.

Why does everything become meaningless and futile if it does not last forever? Why are you incapable of appreciating a good book once you've read the ending?

I like fan fiction, and write it.

Why can you not enjoy a song after the music fades out?

I enjoy cover versions, re-mixes, and parodies.

Why do you no longer like a film after watching the final scene?

I adore fan films.

Why do you not relish the taste of a delicious meal unless you can eat it forever and ever?

I often ask for the recipe after consuming a meal from some one else so I can do just that.

Why is the love of your friends and your family inadequate simply because they will not stay with you for all eternity?

It makes them leaving more bitter and uncopeable, not their actual relationship inadequate.

Why can there be no beauty in that which is finite?

There can be, its just depressing to observe it die.

I don't understand. Is it not typical of us humans to truly appreciate only that which can be lost to us, and not that which we take for granted, that which can never be taken away?

By "truly appreciate" you mean "deathly afraid of losing and thus don't do much with it because you don't want it in danger", than yes.

And what exactly would you do with your eternal life if you had it? What meaning would you fill it with?

I'll figure that out in the eternity given to me.

Do you not see how time and repetition dull your favourite song,

I have listened to Billie Jean 1003...sorry, 1004 times, (I started keeping track after noted how many times I was listening to it) and I still like it, if not more due to it being such a nuanced thing.

your favourite food,

I've had spaghetti five (make that six) times this weak.

your favourite picture?

I love my picture on my walls because I am given ample time to look at them and study them.

Do you honestly believe true life - not the mere state of living, no; I mean life - could ever exist without death by its side?

This life needs death, the afterlife needs death as well, but not full death.

Do you think existence in perpetuity could possibly be preferable to the beauty of growth and decay, birth and passing away, immeasurable joy and insufferable pain?

I prefer plastic flowers to organic flowers because the latter depress me when they sour up and die. That should give you your answer.

Tell me, first, what meaning is to you; tell me first what you would do with eternity on your hands. Then, perhaps, we can talk.

I'll live without fear.

 

[Music Dragon]

I prefer plastic flowers to organic flowers because the latter depress me when they sour up and die. That should give you your answer.

Indeed. This discussion is over.

 

[Tarvos]

Oh, sure, you might know of it as a concept, but in the same way as we know of UV and IR and so on. I might be wrong, but I doubt people spend much time lamenting their inability to see in those spectra.

Yeah. But not being able to observe colour is entirely different from not knowing it exists. You would know it exists and what it could do, just that you can't see it.

Take me: I do not have proper depth perception. That doesn't mean I don't know the sun is farther away than the moon. It isn't unsettling to me. I know the sun is farther away than the moon, I just lack the ability to perceive the actual distance properly.

@Eloi: Death is depressing, but living eternally is even more depressing.