What will have to change before our societies can exist without God?

[The Dude]

With each passing year the weight of scientific evidence shifts closer and closer in favour of a materialistic, godless universe, and further away from what the Bible or the Quran would have us think. And with each passing year, religious representatives and adherents get more and more adept at circumventing facts and reason with warped logic and mental gymnastics.

Believing is something we all do, whether it be in the existence of God or in the fact that when you sit down on your chair it is in fact capable of supporting your weight like it always has. Beliefs can be proven to be unjustified, or the probability of their accuracy can be reinforced by repeated positive practical results. But something that science and logic have far less of a grip on is the power to want to believe something. Even on this forum we have a select few people that will take their religious fiction with them into their graves while common sense defies them. No amount of practicality or science is going to dissuade these people from believing what they want to, instead of what they should.

We're all in some way guilty of this. I want to believe that Middle Eastern cultures are inherently less civilised than western ones, and I admit I sometimes cherry pick my sources and examples to corroborate my claims, even when I know full well that practical counterexamples exist. Others would rather believe the world is far more equal than that, and that people are all unique and wonderful in their own way, despite the copious amounts of proof that human behaviour is often a collection of uncontrolled impulses and unconscious traits that we all share, and that history has shown that humans can be manipulated by using the same tricks over and over again. And we would all rather believe that the majority of people are sane, kind individuals and that murderous psychopaths are a minority we can categorise and systematically fight and disable.

Usually when we change our minds on things it's because we've been allowed to gradually come to terms with the improbability of our convictions. One of the reasons internet discussions so rarely result in a new mental paradigm for the people involved is because this graduality is never considered. Most online exchanges are knee-jerk responses that make sense to the author because they know the origin of their own logic, and the thought processes and conclusions that precede it, but fall on deaf ears with people not properly warmed up to them.

So what if tomorrow we could, by whatever method takes your fancy, shift the weight of evidence so greatly in favour of godlessness that the only way for society to remain unchanged is for us to collectively stick our heads in the sand and reject reality for fantasy? What then? Would society collapse because en masse believers would be without purpose? Because the Vatican would lose its legitimacy, or the mosque in Mecca would become a quirky place of mass arcanery overnight? Would there be wars, or riots? Would religious extremism multiply exponentially as people realise that they would rather cling to faith against all reason instead of accept this new paradigm?

I guess it would.

As someone wholly convinced that one day belief in a deity will be invalidated, I wonder what will have to change before we get there? Is society as we know it ready for this? As much as we like to think we're the "modern world", a wonderfully meaningless phrase, I often think that despite our advanced technology and our scientific progress, we are also in a phase of spiritual transition. Medieval times were not that long ago, and you don't even have to go back -that- far to arrive in a society where religion dominated every aspect of life. Today we like to think we're atheistic as a society, or at least secular, but in many households rejecting God is still considered controversial, and Pascal's Wager does a good enough job at keeping the congregation from showing up at every sunday. Much as I would like if it we could overnight create a seamless transition to global atheism, is mankind ready for it? Will it ever be?

[I WUB PUGS]

What will have to change before our societies can exist without God?

Nothing, society doesn't rely on GOD for existence.

I think you are again confusing GOD and Religion. Religion doesn't need GOD and GOD doesn't need Religion to exist. Man has even in the last century elevated a fellow man to such heights that they have willingly followed them into destruction. There are numerous examples of this. I'm sure there is an instance on going at this very moment.

Religion is merely the following of a set of tenets one uses to guide oneself. Normally to a fault. Nazism wasn't just a political movement, we all know if was a Religion too. The same can be said for Stalin's Soviet Union. Or even Charles Taylor's brigades of Child Soldiers. GOD can however be perverted to lend weight to evil.

The faults of religion do not remove the existence of GOD. GOD cannot scientifically be proven to exist or not. We can however, rather easily determine that Religion is faulty, but it will always be with man, even if there were no GOD.

Removing GOD from society will not remove humanity's need for belonging, guidance and acceptance. All three of those are powerful tools for the shepherd to manipulate his sheep.

[The Dude]

Nothing, society doesn't rely on GOD for existence.

I think you are again confusing GOD and Religion. Religion doesn't need GOD and GOD doesn't need Religion to exist. Man has even in the last century elevated a fellow man to such heights that they have willingly followed them into destruction. There are numerous examples of this. I'm sure there is an instance on going at this very moment.

Why do you keep capsing God? Either way, I'm not confusing anything but I am for the sake of the argument simplifying. The amount of non-religious theists are neglible, and even then they rely on a lot of the same spiritual ideas that I believe are responsible for the deception to which we've subjected ourselves over the millennia.

And I do think that society relies on God for its existence. Our current one, anyway. There are a lot of people who never even considered the possibility of taking control of their own lives and instead prefer to simply let the church and an ancient book tell them what to do. A crisis of purpose would be immense. So how could we buffer that? And then the fact that the disproving of God would make it clear to the world that all its collected clergy is nothing more than a gathering of crazy old men in silly robes.

GOD cannot scientifically be proven to exist or not. We can however, rather easily determine that Religion is faulty, but it will always be with man, even if there were no GOD.

Indeed it can't, but the probability of his existence can be diminished. Significantly enough, in fact, to even make people come to terms with the fact that he probably doesn't exist. "Probably" is the only meaningful thing we can ever say about it.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Nothing, society doesn't rely on GOD for existence.

I think you are again confusing GOD and Religion. Religion doesn't need GOD and GOD doesn't need Religion to exist. Man has even in the last century elevated a fellow man to such heights that they have willingly followed them into destruction. There are numerous examples of this. I'm sure there is an instance on going at this very moment.

Religion is merely the following of a set of tenets one uses to guide oneself. Normally to a fault. Nazism wasn't just a political movement, we all know if was a Religion too. The same can be said for Stalin's Soviet Union. Or even Charles Taylor's brigades of Child Soldiers. GOD can however be perverted to lend weight to evil.

The faults of religion do not remove the existence of GOD. GOD cannot scientifically be proven to exist or not. We can however, rather easily determine that Religion is faulty, but it will always be with man, even if there were no GOD.

Removing GOD from society will not remove humanity's need for belonging, guidance and acceptance. All three of those are powerful tools for the shepherd to manipulate his sheep.

Why the CAPS used RANDOMLY in mid-SENTENCE just because you have the word of your IDOL there?

Either way, what needs to change is human nature. It's far easier to believe stuff you'd like to believe than hard fact, which might sometimes be very difficult to accept. One way or another, the average human will always believe in something that makes the world easier to tolerate. In fact, I recall the discovery of a gene (VMAT2) which, among other things, makes some people more or less prone to religion than others (by making them less capable of critical thinking), and it's fairly common.


P.S. By saying that human nature has to change I don't mean it won't happen. Evolution always applies, and our nature will indeed transform sooner or later, if we don't drive ourselves to extinction too soon.

[I WUB PUGS]

Why the CAPS used RANDOMLY in mid-SENTENCE just because you have the word of your IDOL there?

Either way, what needs to change is human nature. It's far easier to believe stuff you'd like to believe than hard fact, which might sometimes be very difficult to accept. One way or another, the average human will always believe in something that makes the world easier to tolerate. In fact, I recall the discovery of a gene (VMAT2) which, among other things, makes some people more or less prone to religion than others (by making them less capable of critical thinking), and it's fairly common.


P.S. By saying that human nature has to change I don't mean it won't happen. Evolution always applies, and our nature will indeed transform sooner or later, if we don't drive ourselves to extinction too soon.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/idol

Now you're applying your interpretation of me because I say "GOD". I was taught god was to be in all caps when used in a personal sense. I realize this may not apply to anyone that didn't grow up where I did.

Just because I believe in GOD or God or god doesn't mean I idolize he/she/it. Idolizing is yet again another aspect of religion.

Yet again, atheists claiming that GOD/God/god = Religion.

Religion is order. GOD is simply GOD. Religion is a tool of man.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

NVM, digressing

[Slaytaninc]

I really don't like the implications that I see here that people who are religious are blind followers of what others tell them to do. The motivations of even the most devout and righteous Christians may very well be the exact same as the most skeptical athiest.

It's pretty much the old "If you don't think like me, you're somehow less human"

[Carl Jung was right]

Boo hoo why won't people believe what I believe

An increasing amount of evidence points to that modern medical methodology is inherently flawed, politically motivated and ineffective, yet hundreds of millions depend on it for treatment. An increasing amount of evidence points to that the typical lifestyle of the person in a developed country contributes to his physical, social and psychological degeneration, yet people still chug down sugar drinks, sit behind TV's/computers and ruin their cardiovascular system through lack of sleep. An increasing amount of evidence points to that top down political decision making process is increasingly irrelevant and out of touch with the needs of society, yet people still fanatically uphold outdated and dangerous political ideologies.

The fact that something seems the only rational and logical choice right now doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be accepted by everyone. There's a mass psychological need for hierarchies, traditions and habits, and they will stick around so long as humans walk the planet. That is why religion shouldn't be fought per se, but the ignorance and bigotry that it is used to cloak behind.

[The Dude]

Boo hoo why won't people believe what I believe

Not the case at all. I'm perfectly content to know that this is as good as mankind will ever get. We don't owe it to anyone to be better, and certainly not to me. But I am fascinated by the fact that we are essentially machines who prefer to tell themselves that they are not. It's... I don't know, odd? Curious? Amusing? This has absolutely nothing to do with frustration, and far more with fascination.

An increasing amount of evidence points to that modern medical methodology is inherently flawed, politically motivated and ineffective, yet hundreds of millions depend on it for treatment. An increasing amount of evidence points to that the typical lifestyle of the person in a developed country contributes to his physical, mental and psychological degeneration, yet people still chug down sugar drinks, sit behind TV's/computers and ruin their cardiovascular system through lack of sleep. An increasing amount of evidence points to that top down political decision making process is increasingly irrelevant and out of touch with the needs of society, yet people still fanatically uphold outdated and dangerous political ideologies.

So the question is, what has to be done to get people into a lifestyle that yields better practical results? I think we're in agreement here as to the fact that we're not exactly optimally functioning right now. That room for improvement exists.

The fact that something seems the only rational and logical choice right now doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be accepted by everyone. There's a mass psychological need for hierarchies, traditions and habits, and they will stick around so long as humans walk the planet.

Will it? You don't think that could change?

[Carl Jung was right]

So the question is, what has to be done to get people into a lifestyle that yields better practical results? I think we're in agreement here as to the fact that we're not exactly optimally functioning right now. That room for improvement exists.



Will it? You don't think that could change?

My point is basically that if the wicked character of man isn't changed by religion, it almost certainly won't be changed by the absence of it. "Belief in god" by itself is not the worst thing about religion, but that an absolutist, maximalist religious doctrine gives excuse for and serves as a source of bigotry, oppression, extremism and obscurantism. That's why certain far east philosophies such as Buddhism and Confucianism for instance, at their core, try to re-make man or society through spiritual means, rather than merely provide him with a background set of theistic beliefs and rituals to follow. I always viewed Buddhism as essentially an atheistic doctrine which tried to adapt itself to local Hindu or animist customs. But the fact is, no matter what method is used, whether it be mass psychiatric treatment or some new philosophy, unless the underlying current of the problems associated with human behavior is addressed, then it's pointless to expect a new belief/value system to emerge that won't incorporate the flaws existing in the systems that came before it.

[basics]

" So the question is, what has to be done to get people into a lifestyle that yields better practical results? I think we're in agreement here as to the fact that we're not exactly optimally functioning right now. That room for improvement exists."

The Dude,

I take it you have never been in and around a churchload of born again believers? If you had you would see a lifestyle that does yield better results. Of course being few and despised they cannot influence anyone very much because the world doesn't want to know. The world thinks it has its own answers and because of that thinking it stumbles from one disaster to another something that you can readily see but yet not prepared to accept why it is.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Boo hoo why won't people believe what I believe

This is what I got out of it too.

An increasing amount of evidence points to that modern medical methodology is inherently flawed, politically motivated and ineffective, yet hundreds of millions depend on it for treatment. An increasing amount of evidence points to that the typical lifestyle of the person in a developed country contributes to his physical, social and psychological degeneration, yet people still chug down sugar drinks, sit behind TV's/computers and ruin their cardiovascular system through lack of sleep. An increasing amount of evidence points to that top down political decision making process is increasingly irrelevant and out of touch with the needs of society, yet people still fanatically uphold outdated and dangerous political ideologies.

The fact that something seems the only rational and logical choice right now doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be accepted by everyone. There's a mass psychological need for hierarchies, traditions and habits, and they will stick around so long as humans walk the planet. That is why religion shouldn't be fought per se, but the ignorance and bigotry that it is used to cloak behind

Great analysis. Rep given.

One thing I'd like to point out is that God and religion are not a question for society per say. I would argue that God is to be examined on a very personal individual level. As much as some would love to believe, Human beings are not mindless sheep who will eventually say "NO GOD. NO GOD. NO GOD." because everyone else around them does. There are scientologists in the world today. That should tell you that even a "joke" religion can foster zealous supporters in a VERY hostile environment. Minus some kind of medical mind control, a la Equilibrium, there is no conceivable society that does not involve God or religion in some way. I hate to break it to the more militant atheists out there, but God is not "dead". The idea of God is very much alive and thriving. You cannot defeat a belief that is planted more in the heart and soul of the individual rather than the minds which can be changed with time (Political Ideologies).

[Cooraan]

With each passing year the weight of scientific evidence shifts closer and closer in favour of a materialistic, godless universe

How?

[fkizz]

I don't see how Atheism is a step foward or a better society. This sounds more a "people shouldn't have different beliefs from me, thats wrong" rather than a "lets improve society"

[removeduser_4536284751384]

I don't see how Atheism is a step foward or a better society. This sounds more a "people shouldn't have different beliefs from me, thats wrong" rather than a "lets improve society"

Atheism doesn't lead to a better society. But the world views that lead to a better society also lead to atheism.

[Cooraan]

Atheism doesn't lead to a better society. But the world views that lead to a better society also lead to atheism.

Nothing smug about that statement.

[fkizz]

Atheism doesn't lead to a better society. But the world views that lead to a better society also lead to atheism.

typical atheist misconception: that atheism is an emergent thing of modern society, a "privilege" of modern era

atheism always existed, that's why the word "conversion" exists, to convert the atheists of thousands of years ago.

you are not special nor new for not believing in God.

[AqD]

Atheism doesn't lead to a better society. But the world views that lead to a better society also lead to atheism.

But since monkeys and other primitive animals don't have religion, it's possible that we learned religion during evolution - changed to be religious from non-religious. So a better society with no religion/god of any sort may invert the progress again. How can you tell it's better or not?

[MaximiIian]

Atheism doesn't lead to a better society. But the world views that lead to a better society also lead to atheism.

Not entirely accurate; it's more that the views that lead to a better society lead to pluralism and tolerance. This allows atheists to become more open about their thoughts and conscience. But it also allows minority religions, spiritualists, and others to do the same. It breaks the control or dominance of one religion, and replaces it with the interaction of many.

[Lazarus]

There was nothing in that post that suggest Atheism was new? And you DO realize you also convert heathens, right? Anyway.

Contrary to my posting record - I don't want society to get over God completely, and I think we'll see an increase in religious people rather then a decrease. Stop using God as a substitute for a real answer to a scientific question - certainly. Stop using God as justification for oppressing people you disagree with - I'm all for that movement too.

With the internet and the constant push towards becoming a global community, humanity needs God. I get global news - I hear about every school shooting, every starving child, every columbian kidnapping, every sex slave... The human heart is a limited thing. I'm not designed to feel that much sadness and empathy. I struggle with it. The more I become a part of a global community though, the more I'm going to hear about everyones problems, and the closer to home it's going to feel. Even right now I'm struggling to find enough heart to care about the world as a whole, let alone when we become a type 1 civilization. Now there are two types of people who will survive well in this sort of environment.

1. Those of us with almost limitless empathy
2. Those of us who feel no empathy at all

Because I really don't want to think thousands of years down the line of my emotionally dead descendants, I'm willing to tolerate and concede the continued existence of God as long as the preachers and imams and doomsdayers and everyone else who owns a soap box to stand on continues to encourage empathy and consideration of others. I feel that will tip the balance in favor of group number 1.

I don't find strength in God personally, so it won't help me, and I know that there are some people who are already born with unlimited empathy who don't need to draw extra strength, and I know there are some people who have an empathy "switch" that they just click off to prevent overload. But some people DO need a God to continue to care. I'll tolerate God for them - if only so that my offspring removed over several generations can still experience the wonder that is another human being caring for them.