If everyone was atheist...

[Chavi]

*fetches can opener for a huge can of worms*

I contend that if everyone was atheist, there would be MORE conflict. As it is, several billion people subscribe to a moral code which forbids murder and theft. (Yes, I know that some of those people commit murder nonetheless, but most don't.) If all these billions of people were to switch to a purely arbitrary, ever changing, manipulatable moral code which is different for every person, I would imagine that we would see far more conflict as a result.

I've linked to this before, and if threads like these keep popping up, I don't know if I'll ever be able to stop: http://www.mrwiggleslovesyou.com/rehab477.html
(God prefers atheists!)

Funny cartoon. However consider that the definition of God is an omnipotent all-powerful being unconstrained by time or physical limitations. By that definition, God isn't 'bothered' even by an infinite amount of complaints - if He as a being transcends our reality.

Besides, I don't think killing people in the name of a holy war is very ethical. Do you?

Exactly. We have no debate here.

[Chavi]

On a side note, to all those who defend Atheism as having the higher moral ground over all religion, lets not forget that Atheist ideology was directly responsible (in the guise of Communism) for hundreds of millions of deaths. From Stalin's great purges to Mao's starvation marches and everything in between.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_atheism

So don't give us that sanctimonious holier-than-thou (pun intended) bullshit about Atheism being the key to world peace.

[/0]

What atheist ideology? Can you outline the principles of atheist ideology?

[QuantumJG]

*fetches can opener for a huge can of worms*

I contend that if everyone was atheist, there would be MORE conflict. As it is, several billion people subscribe to a moral code which forbids murder and theft. (Yes, I know that some of those people commit murder nonetheless, but most don't.) If all these billions of people were to switch to a purely arbitrary, ever changing, manipulatable moral code which is different for every person, I would imagine that we would see far more conflict as a result.

Yitzi your a total moron to suggest that all morals people have would cease to exist if religion no longer existed. I still abide by the law because:

i) Obviously it's the law
ii) Using common sense you can prove to yourself why there is a law against something. Say murder.

On a side note, to all those who defend Atheism as having the higher moral ground over all religion, lets not forget that Atheist ideology was directly responsible (in the guise of Communism) for hundreds of millions of deaths. From Stalin's great purges to Mao's starvation marches and everything in between.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_atheism

So don't give us that sanctimonious holier-than-thou (pun intended) bullshit about Atheism being the key to world peace.

Stop this nonsense about Athiesm => Communism.

What about Osama Bin Laden? He is Islamic and is the founder of the "lovely" extremists al-Qaeda. Can you call him a moral person?

[letsride]

*fetches can opener for a huge can of worms*

I contend that if everyone was atheist, there would be MORE conflict. As it is, several billion people subscribe to a moral code which forbids murder and theft. (Yes, I know that some of those people commit murder nonetheless, but most don't.) If all these billions of people were to switch to a purely arbitrary, ever changing, manipulatable moral code which is different for every person, I would imagine that we would see far more conflict as a result.

Yitzi your a total moron to suggest that all morals people have would cease to exist if religion no longer existed. I still abide by the law because:

i) Obviously it's the law
ii) Using common sense you can prove to yourself why there is a law against something. Say murder.

On a side note, to all those who defend Atheism as having the higher moral ground over all religion, lets not forget that Atheist ideology was directly responsible (in the guise of Communism) for hundreds of millions of deaths. From Stalin's great purges to Mao's starvation marches and everything in between.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_atheism

So don't give us that sanctimonious holier-than-thou (pun intended) bullshit about Atheism being the key to world peace.

Stop this nonsense about Athiesm => Communism.

What about Osama Bin Laden? He is Islamic and is the founder of the "lovely" extremists al-Qaeda. Can you call him a moral person?

this.

Chavi and yitzi, single minded fools

[Chavi]

Stop this nonsense about Athiesm => Communism.

Why? If you want to prove the moral supremacy of Atheism over all religions, you should be able to back it up with examples.

What about Osama Bin Laden? He is Islamic and is the founder of the "lovely" extremists al-Qaeda. Can you call him a moral person?

Nobody would dream about defending Osama bin Laden. But your pointis completely moot (and dare I say - not clever at all), because he only represents a fringe group of cave-dwelling illiterates in Waziristan. Communism however, was always seen as the upholder of Atheist, Marxist secularism during the 20th century.

[schmalex]

*fetches can opener for a huge can of worms*
 If all these billions of people were to switch to a purely arbitrary, ever changing, manipulatable moral code which is different for every person, I would imagine that we would see far more conflict as a result.

I think most people who aren't blinded by bias would see that religious moral codes are USUALLY even more "arbitrary, ever changing, manipulatable"

[natalie.krystal7]

Imo, if religion was taken away, it would be the destruction of human choice, and subsequently of life itself.

I also subscribe to the line of thought that if there was absolutely no religion or root thereof, the morals that people create for themselves would forever differ, and create even more conflict. To one person murder could be completely fine, and to another abhorrent, but who would then decide that?

Better allow people to choose clearly defined stances, than to create 6 billion minute ones where groups of the same ideology would subsequently form anyways.

[QuantumJG]

I would just like to produce a snippet from a blog:

Atheists and atheist political regimes have committed horrible crimes against humanity. Josef Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, perhaps Hitler, and their atheistic tyrannies tortured and murdered millions.

Given that atheists make up a tiny proportion of the world’s population, and that religious governments and ideals have held sway globally for thousands of years, believers will certainly lose in a contest over “who has done more harm,” or “which ideology has caused more human suffering.” It has not been atheism because atheists have been widely persecuted, tortured, and killed for centuries nearly to the point of extinction.

Sam Harris has argued that the problem with these regimes has been that they became too much like religions. “Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag, and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.”

I'm lucky that I'm an atheist now and not 500-1000 years ago because I would probably be killed for my disbelief.

I hate this concept that atheism is a religion itself because we are saying that we dont believe in a god. Each religion fights with other religions about who's the most superior. Religions then constantly try to force this notion of atheists (disbelievers) being against everyone.

Perfect example:

Chavi calling atheists communists.

That's enough to turn any American away from Atheism. 'Communism' was actually the tactic used to keep HMO's in business.

[Cianyx]

Hmm? If everyine was atheist, how would militant atheism work?

[letsride]

back it up with examples.

Ironic how you always insist for something to be reliable it needs evidence, yet you believe a religion that states the world was made 4000~ years ago.

[Spreadbury]

Atheist ideology was directly responsible (in the guise of Communism) for hundreds of millions of deaths. From Stalin's great purges to Mao's starvation marches and everything in between.

Mao's actions were undertaken with the aim of ensuring a functioning Communist society the way Mao himself believed it. Mao did not lead "starvation" marches because people worshiped God.

Imo, if religion was taken away, it would be the destruction of human choice, and subsequently of life itself.

I also subscribe to the line of thought that if there was absolutely no religion or root thereof, the morals that people create for themselves would forever differ, and create even more conflict. To one person murder could be completely fine, and to another abhorrent, but who would then decide that?

Better allow people to choose clearly defined stances, than to create 6 billion minute ones where groups of the same ideology would subsequently form anyways.

I dislike this post. How would atheism destroy human choice? Because people would be able to decide for themselves their own moral code (in accordance with the law, and other social norms, and of course your own personal values) rather than conform with archaic ideas?

Secondly, religion needs to get off its damn high horse. Why the hell should religion- which has itself been the root cause of so many wars, tortures and other atrocities be allowed to determine what is 'right' when it can't even learn off its past mistakes. The same atrocities, such as torture, have been committed in most religious sects i'm sure. What has religion done to deserve the view that its morals are correct, unquestionable, and obviously better than anyone elses? Because I don't believe in God my morals are of less value? Ignorance at its peak if I may say so myself.

And to your final statement, consider the second part of what I wrote (in the starting post), and the definition of atheism I provided. Atheism is the desbelief of deity's, and this idea would be far more uniform between people than an omnipotent force- who has been interpreted in countless ways.

[Spreadbury]

the key to world peace.

I know neither religion, nor atheism is the key to world peace, and I doubt such a thing is attainable; but can a religion accept another religion as valid as it sees itself without sacrificing its own principles or compromising belief in it?

[MuggedByReality]

Whilst religion would be gone, many people would remain passionate about moral values which they personally believe in and upholding these is still likely to lead to conflict.

From other debates i've come across on VCEnotes, some individuals here have demonstrated that they draw their morals directly from their religion, and while it may be a generalisation (and thus unreliable), i'm sure many people in the wider community would do so as well.

Do you deny that our society is built upon the morals taken from Judeo-Christian theology?

And also the Enlightenment, which served to circumscribe the more pernicious and disempowering elements of religion.

Atheist ideology was directly responsible (in the guise of Communism) for hundreds of millions of deaths. From Stalin's great purges to Mao's starvation marches and everything in between.

Mao's actions were undertaken with the aim of ensuring a functioning Communist society the way Mao himself believed it. Mao did not lead "starvation" marches because people worshiped God.

 Absolutely. Chavi's quoted argument is a perfect example of a genetic fallacy. He may as well argue that a serial killer going on a mindless rampage (and happening not to believe in God) is an example of atheism killing people. Or that Hitler's purported vegetarianism is pertinent in understanding his motives.



   As for whether atheist populaces are more or less likely than religious ones to commit crimes and to swindle, lie, cheat on partners etc, I think it'll need an econometric test to prove anything; pure rhetoric will simply leave each side disagreeing.
 I do agree with the writer here, in that if religious instruction is proven to prevent recidivism among prisoners, it should be used.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/alexsingleton/100045599/the-best-way-to-stop-prisoners-reoffending-send-evangelicals-to-proselytise-them/

[Spreadbury]

Just a point to note in terms of Russia and China's imposed atheism; it was done to sever connections with the old society, not necessarily because religion was bad.