Religion/Spirituality Atheism Discussion

[CHL]

How do we define good and evil? In a society unshackled by the moorings of a rule set provided by higher power(s), the new rule set would need be based on something. Probably legality. The upshot is that legality can be changed as the rule-makers see fit which allows for some flexibility. The drawback is that legality can be changed as the rule-makers see fit allowing for flexibility. We have a conundrum. Another problem how we determine who determines who the rule-makers are? Is it a simple majority rules type situation? Who protects the weak in a simple majority rules type of situation? Why protect the weak at all? If it is about survival of the fittest then clearly the weak aren't fit so they don't need to be protected.

Question: What if you are deemed to be weak by science and the rule-makers decide that the weak need to be exterminated? If that decision comes down you could be unable to escape this conclusion using science because the analysis has already determined that you are one of the weak. This possibility is why I would not want to live in a world where objectivity rules and logical conclusions are followed without consistent moral consideration made for those who are unable to protect themselves.

Another way to explain this is that if I were to follow a survival of the fittest mentality without some higher moral code to rely on then there is no reason for me to consider anyone who does not help me survive and advance. If you have something I want then I will take it if I can get away with it. If you have a woman I want then I will take her too if I see fit. If you are in my path then I will crush you if I see you as weak. There is no right and wrong. There is only strong and weak and survival. I think the world would rapidly degenerate into piracy. Now, one could argue we are already living in a world where the strong prey on the weak and this is true but I think that faith keeps a kind of governor on the baser instincts of large swaths of the unenlightened, providing order, structure and a safety net for those perceived as weak.

Another issue is that "strong" and "weak" are relative terms and for the strongest there would always be more weak people to take advantage of. I think in this scenario humans would wipe themselves out sooner or later.

What fantasy world do you live in where a sizeable proportion of atheists condone survival of the fittest? Most despise social darwinism.

 

[NERO]

What fantasy world do you live in where a sizeable proportion of atheists condone survival of the fittest? Most despise social darwinism.

Careful... I never said that a sizeable portion of atheists condone anything. I said that without the moorings provided by a ruleset from on high(whether the ruleset is actually from on high or not is irrelevant, it only matters that the masses believe it is), I believe we would rapidly degenerate into a world of piracy where the law of the jungle is the only law that matters. The current position of a sizable proportion of atheists is irrelevant to the discussion. Humans are animals and we are not immune to the laws of the jungle. We are inoculated against them with lifelong programming which ,whether we want to admit to it or not, is rooted in old world faiths. The enlightened thinker/atheist would be at mercy to the masses who would not observe the new ruleset.

Keep in mind that my understanding of this question is that the shackles of old world religion are suddenly removed and atheism became the replacement belief system. I would have a different answer if rational thought was the driving force behind our moral codes from the beginning of humanity which is clearly was not. Think of it like a person without verbal communication using signs versus a lifelong speaker of Greek learning sign language and being being forced to communicate with it. Under pressure the person will revert to his greek. If all a person knows is sign language than they will not revert. Humanity will not be able to let go of the moorings from on high and adopt atheism as long as the people who need those old belief systems are still around. This is not about what the atheists believe. This is about what the masses of non-atheists will do once they feel the god(s) are no longer looking at what they are doing when no one else is watching. I would not want to live in that world.

 

[EndDomination]

not all atheists are expert scientists and engineers

But the vast majority of expert scientists and engineers are atheists.
Obviously there would be a pretty large shift in terms of jobs (as many people are employed/supported by religious institutions), and our moral codes would be based on common sense and philosophy. There would also be a lot of changes in terms of cultural values, and international issues. Society would certainly be better, but "how much better?" is a question that would take a long time to answer.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

But the vast majority of expert scientists and engineers are atheists.
Obviously there would be a pretty large shift in terms of jobs (as many people are employed/supported by religious institutions), and our moral codes would be based on common sense and philosophy. There would also be a lot of changes in terms of cultural values, and international issues. Society would certainly be better, but "how much better?" is a question that would take a long time to answer.

i dont think religious institutions are really impeding on most of their work (outside of genetic/stem cells etc)..if america suddenly became atheist..the conversion wouldnt help them any because the problem is $$ and property rights when addressing a dramatic overhaul of structural infrastructure...which was implied by the pictures in the post i quoted. those smart enough and desiring to be expert scientists and engineers will do so regardless..i find it hard to believe that if everyone was atheist there would be a dramatic increase in the amount of people going into those professions.

i agree with everything else other than "society would certainly be better"..thats a fine opinion to have but i dont think its a given that society would be better. it may or may not but its far from guaranteed. it would put more of an onus on parents and individual leaders to instill good core values without institutions for them to fall back on for it..im not saying society would or wouldnt be better necessarily but its certainly not a guarantee

 

[thekingsmen]

But the vast majority of expert scientists and engineers are atheists.

This is a myth.

 

[thekingsmen]

Atheists Society would look like any other atheist society in recent memory. Alot of oppressed people and massive death. Ask the Russians from the Lenin and Stalin Era. Ask the Chinese during Mao.

 

[EndDomination]

Atheists Society would look like any other atheist society in recent memory. Alot of oppressed people and massive death. Ask the Russians from the Lenin and Stalin Era. Ask the Chinese during Mao.

An atheist government, coupled with atheist leadership, does not equate to the realities of an Atheist society as proposed by OP.
Nazi Germany was an officially Christian society, and does not equate to the realities of all Christian societies.

What the OP is suggesting is if the people of the society, as well as the society itself, was/were atheist. There have been religious people in all societies, as such there aren't any historical examples to pull from.

 

[Poitier]

But the vast majority of expert scientists and engineers are atheists.
Obviously there would be a pretty large shift in terms of jobs (as many people are employed/supported by religious institutions), and our moral codes would be based on common sense and philosophy. There would also be a lot of changes in terms of cultural values, and international issues. Society would certainly be better, but "how much better?" is a question that would take a long time to answer.

 

[tmonster]

Careful... I never said that a sizeable portion of atheists condone anything. I said that without the moorings provided by a ruleset from on high(whether the ruleset is actually from on high or not is irrelevant, it only matters that the masses believe it is), I believe we would rapidly degenerate into a world of piracy where the law of the jungle is the only law that matters.

1. you can't see that this is happening with religion

2. our species has an empathy drive and a social instinct, which can be suppressed or enhanced by indoctrination

 

[tmonster]

This is a myth.

 

[Poitier]

This does nothing to dispel what he said

 

[tmonster]

This does nothing to dispel what he said

this does nothing to dispel what I posted

 

[gho3st]

people need religion to explain their problems and to tell them how to solve them as far atheist society, it would thrive, reach a higher apex and ultimately self destruct. But what would a completely agnostic society look like?

Society would be a little different. I think more people would kill(People are more scared of deities than the law, go figure) or commit suicide. My friend told me she would've killed herself if it wasn't for Islam.

this some of the dumbest sht i ever heard. People been killing other people and use religion to justify it...

 

[thekingsmen]

What is this suppose to be? Do you really put that much faith in polls. Polls aren't even accurate. If they ask 100 people, that doesn't mean they have asked all scientists in the states or around the world.

 

[Poitier]

this does nothing to dispel what I posted

this does nothing to dispel what I posted