How would atheism be better for the world?

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

Now we all know that religion brings nothing but violence and suffering, so I went on a quest to see if the grass truly is greener on the other side:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_pot

Most of the world's greatest scientists were not even atheists, the greatest scientific discoveries in the world were made by theists and deists... Now tell me, how would atheism be better for the world compared to religion?

[Manco]

At least try to be original in your arguments.

Communism =/= atheism.

[Tacitursa]

I love how people compare atheism to communism and use that as an arguement vs religious crusades/wars and jihads.

One thing people ussualy leave out though is the time frame which always interests me. When you consider the populations of Crusade and jihading countrys and the weapons they used there's quite a big difference.

I wonder what would of happened if during the medieval ages christianity and islam had the same populations and technology of war in the 20th century. Crusades would of looked alot more like the UN and there war would look much like iraq and afghanistan only it would of been alot worse as Saudi arabia , iran and the other muslim countries would of been joined together.

I think if the religious wars in history had similar population and technology they'd make communism look like a saint. I mean just compare Englands population back then of 2,000,000 to today of 65,000,000 im pretty sure there would of been alot more crusaders and crusaders armed to the teeth with guns and tanks.

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

I love how people compare atheism to communism and use that as an arguement vs religious crusades/wars and jihads.

One thing people ussualy leave out though is the time frame which always interests me. When you consider the populations of Crusade and jihading countrys and the weapons they used there's quite a big difference.

I wonder what would of happened if during the medieval ages christianity and islam had the same populations and technology of war in the 20th century. Crusades would of looked alot more like the UN and there war would look much like iraq and afghanistan only it would of been alot worse as Saudi arabia , iran and the other muslim countries would of been joined together.

I think if the religious wars in history had similar population and technology they'd make communism look like a saint. I mean just compare Englands population back then of 2,000,000 to today of 65,000,000 im pretty sure there would of been alot more crusaders and crusaders armed to the teeth with guns and tanks.

You have to realize that god did not order a crusade, the pope did because he wanted to stop European countries from fighting each other... This was simply a political motive, there's a difference between faith and politics....

Besides, in your scenario, Europe would have already been blown into bits and pieces before they could muster enough power to declare a crusade... You also didn't consider the deterring factor of countries going into all out war with this sort of technology. Detente would have been imminent...

You're taking a very simplified view of human nature. Violence has always existed, religion was just the casus belli during that time period. Same as communism really, I'm sure that GULAGs were not a key principle of that economic system...

At least try to be original in your arguments.

Communism =/= atheism.

As reference to the argument Saudi Arabia = Islam

[Manco]

As reference to the argument Saudi Arabia = Islam

So you're trying to counter stupidity with more stupidity?

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

So you're trying to counter stupidity with more stupidity?

Proving that atheists are not brighter than the rest of the flock by any margin... See there really is no difference. Humans are bad for the world, atheism and religion are tools for use as casus belli, doesn't necessarily mean that a world filled with atheists would be any better...

[Tankbuster]

Would atheism be better for the world as in "just replacing every believer in the world by a non-believer" be better for the world? Yes. Clearly yes. But not by so much.

The real fight, however, is not just atheism vs theism, it's that of rationality versus irrationality, that of reason against faith. The disappearance of religion would only be one part of that struggle.

The real ideal is for people to be more rational, more skeptical, to think harder about their beliefs, to be open to change and to not be so sure that you already have all the answers.

Now as it happens, religion stops a lot of people from reaching this stage and that's why people criticise it.

See what I'm getting at?

Most of the world's greatest scientists were not even atheists, the greatest scientific discoveries in the world were made by theists and deists... Now tell me, how would atheism be better for the world compared to religion?

Most of the people who plucked chickens were not atheists either.
Spot the fallacy in your argument.

[Helm]

Lack of ideological dogma of any description would be better for the world.

[boofhead]

Lack of ideological dogma of any description would be better for the world.

So what about an ideology that said human life is important, love human life etc.

That is better than some psychopath without ideology or set morals who sees people as tools for his own use.

[Manco]

I'm never going to say the world'd be better off completely atheist, but is that really relevant?
It doesn't matter what's best for the world, it matters whether it's true or not.

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

I'm never going to say the world'd be better off completely atheist, but is that really relevant?
It doesn't matter what's best for the world, it matters whether it's true or not.

It's obviously relevant otherwise we wouldn't be spending so much time debating about it...

The world would be better because people would be allowed to choose their beliefs based on their experiences rather than blindly obeying aged virgins spitting versed rhetoric from pulpits.

Atheists do this too you know... They just take whatever Dawkins writes and flame message boards with this divine knowledge...

Science only really got started in a serious way once we put aside strongly held beliefs in the supernatural. That was the beginning of the Age of Reason and the modern world as we know it today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_science
See the title even has the word science in it...

[Arch-hereticK]

Atheists do this too you know... They just take whatever Dawkins writes and flame message boards with this divine knowledge...

That's true, but there's no dogma in atheism demanding blind obedience, it doesn't matter what Dawkins says. People will write flame message boards with the "divine knowledge" of anyone famous.

You guys can intentionally mis-interpret the definition of atheism all you like, I'm getting pretty sick of it, I'm not gonna bother correcting you. Buy a dictionary.

[Fiyenyaa]

I'm never going to say the world'd be better off completely atheist, but is that really relevant?
It doesn't matter what's best for the world, it matters whether it's true or not.

This is pretty much the way to look at it.

For all those who argue "well, most scientists/philosophers/thinkers were religious, so religion must be great" - think about what you're saying for one second. Unless you think that they got their scientific insights from a divine revalation, what has god got to do with it, in any way?
Isaac Newton may have formulated some of the most influencial theories ever known to man, but he was also a nutcase who believed in alchemy. People can be right about some things and wrong about others; and it's easy to be wrong about something that 99.9% of the population was also wrong about.

For all those who argue "communism is the worst form of government, it killed millions in the name of atheism" - no. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, there is no ideology, no rules, no tenets, no doctrine. There is quite literally no action that you can justify with atheism alone. Most atheists who aren't in favour of totalitarian governments don't want to stamp out all religion - we want to have a seperation of church and state, and secular government: this doesn't mean that you cannot be religious, it means that laws must be based on reality. If you think that's beyond the pale, then look how lovely life is in Iran.

[Helm]

The world would be better in a boring kind of way if everyone agreed upon the exact same belief system without the need to force the conversion or co-operation of anyone else who doesn't share that belief system.

[Arch-hereticK]

The world would be better because people would be allowed to choose their beliefs based on their experiences rather than blindly obeying aged virgins spitting versed rhetoric from pulpits.

[Manco]

The world would be better in a boring kind of way if everyone agreed upon the exact same belief system without the need to force the conversion or co-operation of anyone else who doesn't share that belief system.

, consensus religion is pure horse manure.

It doesn't matter whether the world 'll be all lovey dovey because they all share the same belief system, or lack of. All that matters is whether the belief system is the correct one or not

[Helm]

.

All that matters is whether the belief system is the correct one or not

Everyone thinks they have the correct belief system.

[Manco]

Everyone thinks they have the correct belief system.

Which is irrelevant to what I'm saying.

I'm saying that regardless of all the blabbering about all the different religions and how they can coexist and so on, only one religion (or atheism) can be correct. And instead of all this lovey dovey nonsense of how one specific religion and its traditions are so beneficial for humanity (benefits that are invariably not unique nor inherent to said belief), people should be constantly challenging their beliefs and discarding those who fail in search of the truth.

[Helm]

Which is irrelevant to what I'm saying.

I'm saying that regardless of all the blabbering about all the different religions and how they can coexist and so on, only one religion (or atheism) can be correct. And instead of all this lovey dovey nonsense of how one specific religion and its traditions are so beneficial for humanity (benefits that are invariably not unique nor inherent to said belief), people should be constantly challenging their beliefs and discarding those who fail in search of the truth.

Atheism isn't necessarily correct it just...isn't wrong because atheists don't generally believe in anything specifically. An imposed atheistic society would tend to amount to Communism so that would be wrong in principal.

You're going to claim ALL of those achievements for atheists?

I would claim them for the impartial scientific method over belief in the supernatural and mysticism.

[Helm]

Science only really got started in a serious way once we put aside strongly held beliefs in the supernatural. That was the beginning of the Age of Reason and the modern world as we know it today.