What a waste

[Zzyzx]

.
Ancient cultures devoted large amounts of time and resources to worshiping their "gods", sacrificed food and animals (even people), built palaces and temples of worship, etc. It would seem as though using that time and the resources to better the lot of common people would have been more appropriate.

Are modern societies doing the same thing?

[Joab]

[Replying to post 14 by dianaiad]

...without a God, or religion, or the idea of one, would mankind have accomplished as much?

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe more.
Knowledge would probably have progressed quicker - no church to hold back thinkers
There would probably be a lot more books - little to no book burning
More people - less wars less birth control (though the world doesn't need more people)
Nicer people - less people arguing over stupid things.
Belief can make people do a lot of stupid things.

WOULD there have been all that? Here's the problem with your theory: in all the history of the planet, not one atheistic, religion-less culture has arisen and left behind any advanced buildings, monuments or writings. Not one.

Indeed, in the written history of the world, it turns out that the only officially atheist cultures and people were, er....less than positive about advancement in either arts, humanitarianism or sciences, and were, indeed, far more prone to burning books (and people, come to think) than any officially theist society.

You would think, wouldn't you, that if a culture without religion could have produced wonders, that a culture without religion would have, by now?


The point is, we may not know whether one could...but we do know that one hasn't. "Imagine" if it has ever been tried, didn't leave anything behind to tell us how well it did.

Can you name even one atheist culture?

Officially atheist?

Where 'there will be absolutely no religion" is the officially supported ideal?
I can, actually. They didn't last all that long, but the damage they did was, er, extensive.

On the other hand, those societies attempted to impose the 'no religion' rule from the top down. So, if you are asking if I knew of any societies where atheism was taught by parents to their children for generations...no.

But then, I think that tells us something about how 'wasteful' religion is. After all, if there have been any atheistic societies....naturally atheistic societies....then we have absolutely no evidence of them. They have left no monuments, no books, no manuscripts, no philosophies, no scientific advancements, nothing. Now that's a waste.

As to the 'top down' societies, well....we've only had a few of those, and every single one of them left us stuff; destruction and murder, actually, by the job lots.

Now me, I'm for a secular society, where religion and atheism exist together, where everybody can believe, or not believe, as they wish, and allow imagination and creativity full reign.

A theocracy may slow things down. Maybe...though we have a great deal of evidence that theocracies (or at least, one-religion societies) leave us some amazing things. However, given that we have absolutely no evidence that a...perhaps we can call it a 'culturally atheist,' as opposed to a 'politically atheist' society, so let's call it a culturally atheistic society...has ever existed, much less contributed in any way to philosophy or science, I think that it is, well, unlikely that a completely atheistic society would be all that wonderfully, er, wonderful.

So your question is appropriate. I guess I can't name even one 'atheist culture,' just nations where atheism was an important part of the politics.

Now doesn't THAT cause a problem for those who think that atheistic societies would be 'all that?'

I wonder who you claim think that atheistic societies would be all that wonderful?

But it is nice to see that you retracted your claim, even in the round about manner that you employed.

You may want to look into the use of the ruling elite of these alleged atheist societies in replacing religion with other types of worship, rather than atheism. See North Korea.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 18 by otseng]

I think these were the exception rather than the norm.

Agreed. And I never disputed that. However, one less christian book burning, normal or not, would be one less book burning.

Without Christianity, it would've probably taken longer for modern science to have arisen.

Perhaps. The blind faith preached caused people to question. However, I don't believe that the blind faith or christianity itself is the only or even greatest means of questioning.
So maybe, maybe not.
But surely christianity did benefit science (and art) to a degree. Just how much of a degree is the variable.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 20 by dianaiad]

Officially atheist?

I believe 'officially' wasn't a part of the question or even your original statement was it?
Are you playing word games again? tsk tsk tsk

I can, actually. They didn't last all that long, but the damage they did was, er, extensive.

Did I miss the atheist culture you can name....?

[dianaiad]

[

But it is nice to see that you retracted your claim, even in the round about manner that you employed.

.....and exactly what claim do you think I have retracted?

You may want to look into the use of the ruling elite of these alleged atheist societies in replacing religion with other types of worship, rather than atheism. See North Korea.

Worship of the political leader is not theism. Sorry...nor is it religion. Or rather, if it IS religion, because it has all the attributes of religion (except that the object of worship isn't a deity, in this case), then that causes problems for those who claim that atheism, as expressed by atheistic clubs and societies, are not themselves 'religion.'

(shrug)

You can't have this both ways, y'know, and I am enjoying the irony of the logic reversal this conversation reflects: the claim, without any empirical evidence whatsoever, that an atheistic society would be so much better than a theistic one that it would make all theistic societies 'wasteful' in comparison.

Talk about taking something 'on faith!'

[Zetesis Apistia]

.
Ancient cultures devoted large amounts of time and resources to worshiping their "gods", sacrificed food and animals (even people), built palaces and temples of worship, etc. It would seem as though using that time and the resources to better the lot of common people would have been more appropriate.

Are modern societies doing the same thing?

Well the newest twist is that atheists are forming their own churches now. Can you say Kansas City Oasis?

[99percentatheism]

.
Ancient cultures devoted large amounts of time and resources to worshiping their "gods", sacrificed food and animals (even people), built palaces and temples of worship, etc. It would seem as though using that time and the resources to better the lot of common people would have been more appropriate.

Are modern societies doing the same thing?

Yes. But they are doing it in the name of science and social justice. Human sacrifice is a civil right and and wasting time worshiping things like very expensive Basketball Shoes and the newest Apple product and other worshiping of materialism that wastes the time and effort of people is seen as success.

[connermt]

.
Ancient cultures devoted large amounts of time and resources to worshiping their "gods", sacrificed food and animals (even people), built palaces and temples of worship, etc. It would seem as though using that time and the resources to better the lot of common people would have been more appropriate.

Are modern societies doing the same thing?

Well the newest twist is that atheists are forming their own churches now. Can you say Kansas City Oasis?

I heard of that as well. I wonder, what's the point? Is it to be a 'club'? For tax exempt status? Or something else?
If any atheist can respond, it would be appreciated!

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 20 by dianaiad]

Officially atheist?

I believe 'officially' wasn't a part of the question or even your original statement was it?
Are you playing word games again? tsk tsk tsk

I can, actually. They didn't last all that long, but the damage they did was, er, extensive.

Did I miss the atheist culture you can name....?

Actually, it seems that you missed the entire post, in which I differentiated between politically atheist societies and culturally atheistic societies.

You know very well that I can name the politically atheistic societies...what I referred to as 'top down' atheistic societies, such as Maoist China, Stalin's Soviet Union, Albania, etc. Those were incredibly murderous societies. Mao not only killed off a bunch of his people, his policies destroyed an immense amount of Chinese cultural history and society. His 'cultural revolution' was--unfortunate.

However, I can't name a 'cultural atheistic society,' where atheism is not a political imposition and construct, but is internal to the lives of the people?

No. I can't...and isn't that a kicker?

Either way, the idea that theistic societies are 'wasteful' (with the obvious implication that a non-theistic society would not be) is thrown out the window, since I can't think of anything more wasteful than a politically atheistic society that thinks nothing of killing it's citizens by the millions, or a culturally atheistic society that either never existed, or did--and left us absolutely no evidence of it's existence.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 28 by dianaiad]

Actually, it seems that you missed the entire post, in which I differentiated between politically atheist societies and culturally atheistic societies.

Which is why I asked if I missed it.

No. I can't...and isn't that a kicker?

No, not really

Either way, the idea that theistic societies are 'wasteful' (with the obvious implication that a non-theistic society would not be) is thrown out the window...

Meh...wasteful or worthless? Hm... As much as I would like to honestly say religious cultures are both totally wasteful and worthless, imagination has never been a totally negative aspect of humanity. It is part of our creativity.
At least religious societies make some good stories!
I wonder what a side-by-side comparision would look like between a non-religious soceity and a religious society in the 'killing' aspect?

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 28 by dianaiad]

Actually, it seems that you missed the entire post, in which I differentiated between politically atheist societies and culturally atheistic societies.

Which is why I asked if I missed it.

No. I can't...and isn't that a kicker?

No, not really

Either way, the idea that theistic societies are 'wasteful' (with the obvious implication that a non-theistic society would not be) is thrown out the window...

Meh...wasteful or worthless? Hm... As much as I would like to honestly say religious cultures are both totally wasteful and worthless, imagination has never been a totally negative aspect of humanity. It is part of our creativity.
At least religious societies make some good stories!
I wonder what a side-by-side comparision would look like between a non-religious soceity and a religious society in the 'killing' aspect?

You really, really, REALLY don't want to ask that question.

True, we don't know what a 'culturally' atheistic society would be like in the 'killing' aspect, but we know that the top-down politically atheistic societies were more murderous than any fifty theistic ones.

But think of this:

If there is no God, then every society is an 'atheistic' society, isn't it? By that I mean that if there is no God, then of course God has nothing to do with whatever that society did; they were responsible for their own decisions.

So how would an atheistic culture be any different? People are still people. If God isn't responsible for the actions of His followers (as He would not be, if there were no God to give orders) then who IS responsible?

......and if the people making the decisions decide that there is no God to give orders, how would the motives for what is done change?

For instance, the motives behind the Crusades actually had very little to do with religion, per se, in spite of using religion as an excuse. The REASONS were all about politics, trade, land aquisition and a really neat way to get rid of troublesome and ambitious knights and nobles who might have an eye on the throne.

So if they didn't have religion to use as an excuse, do you think that the crusades wouldn't have happened?

They would have. The reasons for them were more important than the excuse.

So, again...if there is no God, then all societies are 'atheist,' aren't they?

If people don't worship a deity, they worship a leader...if they don't worship a leader, they worship....something.


So while I will give you this: there seems to be a 'wasteful' component to religions which devote a great deal of their assets to the protection and advancement of their beliefs, and to the control of the believers, especially from the POV of someone who disagrees with their doctrine.

However, I honestly do not see how an atheistic society would be any different, especially if there is no deity in charge of anything.