Viability of an atheist society

[Kitsunegari]

I'll preface this question by stating that i'm not really religious myself, but, would a majority-atheist society be able to stand the test of time? IMO there would be a severe lack of cohesion that would put it at risk of being displaced by groups with higher levels of consensus and determination, even if said groups were backwards in many ways vis-a-vis this hypothetical atheist society. Although there aren't really any historical precedents with regards to atheism on such a scale, we can see that in history there have been many societies that were prosperous and advanced in many ways, but were unable to survive because they lost the will to defend themselves more than the ability to do so; the saying, "if you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything," and its variants, come to mind.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

We already live in a post-modern atheistic society. Soviet Union and Communist countries were also atheist to a significant degree.

So the fact is that an atheistic society is far more decadent and worse than a religious kind of one.

[Hobbes]

So the fact is that an atheistic society is far more decadent and worse than a religious kind of one.

Define decadent and why you think the description applies to our society. Also how this is related to religion or the lack of it.

[Col. Tartleton]

I'd feel more desire to attend church services if I lived by a church that looked like Disneyland. Jesuits = Vatican Assassins = Winning!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Atheism isn't decadent. Decadence is decadent.

[justicar5]

We already live in a post-modern atheistic society. Soviet Union and Communist countries were also atheist to a significant degree.

So the fact is that an atheistic society is far more decadent and worse than a religious kind of one.

really? We are more decadent than Rome? Than the Court of Charles II or Louise XIV? Than Constantine? Than Charlemagne? Than The Mughal Emperors? Than the HRE?

[Lazarus]

really? We are more decadent than Rome? Than the Court of Charles II or Louise XIV? Than Constantine? Than Charlemagne? Than The Mughal Emperors? Than the HRE?

You made a list of decadence and didn't put in a special mention for Caligula?

[Armatus]

not another one of these threads..

actually people will be people no mater what they believe (or don't)

[Nikephoros Kapatsos]

actually people will be people no mater what they believe (or don't)

[Nikephoros Kapatsos]

This here provides you of how many atheists and agnostics are out there. Now think to yourself how are the more darker coloured nations doing.

There was once a time when society had lost it cohesion that was the time of the dark ages, when Europe was ruled by the church. Now yes thus far most Atheist societies were failures, but these failures were no of the faults of their beliefs. Anyways is Cuba all that bad? Or perhaps the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the others. It is not the fault of someone's view upon life that corrupts society, it is the hierarchy itself that paints a picture of a ill-managed community of people. I'm living in a Religous and Atheist society and it's not all bad. Quite honestly we haven't seen the start of this change, nor haven't we seen the end of Atheism therefore; we can't say an atheist is all bad, or a duo, a group, a mob, society, and nation of Atheists are bad. Anyways I suggest to do some research, but honestly I believe in this:



I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.

[Kitsunegari]

I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.

Oh, i agree, but that's not what i'm trying to discuss.

Wild monkeys do quite well, regarding social behaviour. Wolfs are also quite fine... And also all humans prior to say - 250.000 to 800.000 BCE (only a rough guess) were atheists/non-religious, then they all became spiritualists and then partly theists and then even later quite some become atheists/non-religious...

Umm what?

Sorry, but history obviously isn't your strong suit. "We can see that..." can we? Where? Have you ever read any real history books? Your just saying that to confirm your own assumption - regardless if it's true. Sweet! "A dog chasing it's own tail comes to mind..."

Well i have a BA in History and am close to my Masters, not sure what that has to do with this though.

[Foreign Intruder]

Umm what?

Really? Well: society or social coexistence without anarchy and genocide or disproportional violence worked quite fine before anykind of belief (political or religious) was present. Certain social standards (also such that are considered human: altruism, taking care of others...) are already inherent in many non-human societies or communities if you like. Was that that difficult?

Well i have a BA in History and am close to my Masters, not sure what that has to do with this though.

Instead of claiming any kind a scientific degree no one here can verify, why don't you name some examples for your claim that:

we can see that in history there have been many societies that were prosperous and advanced in many ways, but were unable to survive because they lost the will to defend themselves more than the ability to do so

And at least, for a start, don't come up with examples where environmental changes or technologically advanced invaders played a role in the down-come of these societies.

PS: My girlfriend is a famous top-model, and she already has here Masters in history!

[Kitsunegari]

Really? Well: society or social coexistence without anarchy and genocide or disproportional violence worked quite fine before anykind of belief (political or religious) was present. Certain social standards (also such that are considered human: altruism, taking care of others...) are already inherent in many non-human societies or communities if you like. Was that that difficult?

Us humans have different desires and needs than wolves, "wild monkeys", or our hominid forebears, such comparisons have no place in reasonable discussion.

Instead of claiming any kind a scientific degree no one here can verify, why don't you name some examples for your claim that:

Well you posted:

Sorry, but history obviously isn't your strong suit. "We can see that..." can we? Where? Have you ever read any real history books?

PS: My girlfriend is a famous top-model, and she already has here Masters in history!

Pics or GTFO

[Foreign Intruder]

Us humans have different desires and needs than wolves, "wild monkeys", or our hominid forebears, such comparisons have no place in reasonable discussion. [if you say so, then that must be true]
Well you posted:
Pics or GTFO

Why the acronym? Anyhow... you've just exposed yourself for what you really are - and how unable you are to conduct any kind of debate. This was a little easier than I had imagined. Well...

Bye, bye - and have a nice day!

[Sumonious]

I want comment a little bit on Vietnam supposed high concentration of Atheists. The data is flawed because most Vietnamese don't really understand the concept of atheism(Oh, the irony). Most misunderstand it as "not religious". In fact, most Vietnamese that are not Christian believe in folklore deities to some extend and large amount of Buddhists worships him as some kind of divine deity. I remember doing the poll years ago and at that time I was hugely confused as well. Their actual amount of atheist should be close to China, around 10 -20%.

[Himster]

I want comment a little bit on Vietnam supposed high concentration of Atheists. The data is flawed because most Vietnamese don't really understand the concept of atheism(Oh, the irony). Most misunderstand it as "not religious". In fact, most Vietnamese that are not Christian believe in folklore deities to some extend and large amount of Buddhists worships him as some kind of divine deity. I remember doing the poll years ago and at that time I was hugely confused as well. Their actual amount of atheist should be close to China, around 10 -20%.

Atheist =/= non-religious.
If you don't believe in god/gods then you're an atheist, there are a number of forms of buddhism that have no deities, or more specifically doesn't venerate them. It's a bit of a grey area alright.

[Sumonious]

Atheist =/= non-religious.
If you don't believe in god/gods then you're an atheist, there are a number of forms of buddhism that have no deities, or more specifically doesn't venerate them. It's a bit of a grey area alright.

That is what I was trying to say. Most Vietnamese(e.g my family) do not fully understand atheism and usually misunderstanding it as "not religious". Although they tend to worship ancestor and folklore deities, which seems to has evolved from shamanism and animist belief, they do believe in divine deity(s) to some extend.

[James the Red]

Understand that positive atheism is also an accepted theory by modern societies, if you tell someone your an atheist they wont give a second glance (well from most people in lots of places around here anyways)


What I don't like is you people saying I have to prove there is a God in order to not seem crazy/stupid. Its obviously an accepted theory amoungst the populace and the educated. You can not like it all you want but don't be jerks about it. Im not saying its right, im saying its the truth about the world, people dont have to prove anything in this debate, its why the Religion VS Atheism debate threads in forums never stop and never achieve anything.


Oh, and before you ask, Ive met several atheists that mocked religion and tried to start debates. There are many people like Dawkins out there.

[Tankbuster]

What I don't like is you people saying I have to prove there is a God in order to not seem crazy/stupid.

Nobody said that. But philosophically, theists do have the burden of proof and that's a fact.

That doesn't mean every theist has to start their own private blog with their evidence for a God, but you do have to be aware that this is the state of the debate. Otherwise you are going to look rather stupid to people with a clue.

Its obviously an accepted theory amoungst the populace and the educated.

Never take refuge in the false security of consensus.
Just because a theory is well-accepted doesn't mean that you wouldn't have the burden of proof in a debate.

Im not saying its right, im saying its the truth about the world, people dont have to prove anything in this debate, its why the Religion VS Atheism debate threads in forums never stop and never achieve anything.

If you're going to have the debate, you do need to talk about the evidence you have for your position. Otherwise you should stay out of debates.

[Fight!]

Understand that positive atheism is also an accepted theory by modern societies, if you tell someone your an atheist they wont give a second glance (well from most people in lots of places around here anyways)

Oh, and before you ask, Ive met several atheists that mocked religion and tried to start debates. There are many people like Dawkins out there.

Of course.

These sorts of things depend primarily on where you live. In the United States there is an overwhelming majority of theists to atheists, and in nearly all areas you will find that Christians push their religion more than Atheists. It's all a question of who the majority is. While Theists are still more likely to push their beliefs as a minority than an Atheist minority would on account of evangelical beliefs of their religion, the question of majority vs minority is the significant issue when it comes to this kind of stuff.

[Lazarus]

What I don't like is you people saying I have to prove there is a God in order to not seem crazy/stupid.

If you want to believe in God, that's your business. It's a perfectly acceptable, ordinary belief.

If you want to tell me there is a God, then it's your business to prove it.

That's not what i was trying to discuss really. What i am thinking is that a majority-atheist society will have trouble resisting those that are more religious, in the absence of any other ideology or sense of common identity to rally to. Strongly religious societies are usually more motivated and stronger demographically.

True, but you'll find Atheists will easily adopt common ground. As SLN said, Nationalism is great at filling the religious void. Even the idea of keeping God out of the community may be enough to rally them.

You might even get a community of Atheists who all adhere to Buddhist scriptures and so defend each other simply as a kindness