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?

[Zzyzx]

.

.

Oh, and 'lack of belief in deity' would only be 'better' in your own view; what would such a lack of belief do for anybody? Better hospitals? Better science? Better buildings? Better politics?

Hospitals, science, buildings, politics are a function of a society – not a religion or lack of religion. European and Asian nations that are minimally religious have all the above.

Yes they do...but 'minimally religious' is not 'atheist.'

Agreed.

There is no such thing as an "Atheist society" any more than there is a "Christian Society." There may be a majority of one or the other in a society but the pure form does not exist to the best of my knowledge.

At most you could call them 'secular,' and to be very honest,

I chose "minimally religious" – is that a problem?

the European nation hospitals tend to be handed down to society by religions,

Can you substantiate this claim?

I can tell you that I won't be doing that: good grief, If I were in China right now, I'd be buried.

I'm glad that you are above ground because you are one of the few Theists whose posts are thoughtful, rational and often challenging.

For societies which are intrinsically atheist, in which there is no belief in a deity evident? We have absolutely no evidence at all that such a society would be better, worse, or any different from, a theistic one. None. Zip.

Agreed. Therefore any comments about an "Atheistic society" are hypothetical or irrational. Any finger-pointing at disreputable or disruptive societies in the past (or present) assuming that they are Atheistic are meaningless.

.............and if there is no God, so that all societies are 'without God,' and only think they have one to worship, the problem is worse; in that case, all the evidence shows us that a purely atheistic society just ain't gonna happen. There's something about humans that seems to produce religion; it's a part of us.

Humans seem inclined to invent religions and gods to explain what they do not understand or to provide an external code of conduct to follow.

Many people seem unable to formulate their own morals and ethics based upon their society and their experience – but rely on religion to provide that guidance for them.

Others are confident that they are capable of learning from their society and their personal experience to formulate personal moral / ethical codes and abide by them (without threat of eternal punishment).

Seems to me, then, that God or not (and remember, I'm a bone deep theist, here) that an atheist society would be, if not impossible, then exactly like a theistic one, with all the same motives, problems, murderous or honorable intentions, political shenanigans, power grabbing or altruism that religious societies have.

If an "Atheistic society" would be "exactly like a theistic one" WHY bother with the baggage of theism?

Because people actually believe in a deity? Turn the question around: if a theist culture would be like an atheist one, why force people to give up their faith in deity? What makes you think everyone would?

Where did "force people to give up their faith in a deity" come from?

There is no need to force or coerce people away from religion – but there seems to be evidence that people are and/or have been forced to accept religion.

Advancement of knowledge and education (particularly critical / analytical thinking skills) and technological / economic advance seems adequate to reduce the influence of religion – as indicated in Europe and belatedly the US.

Religion is declining in technological / advanced / educated nations and advancing in underdeveloped areas of Africa, Asia, and South America. Does that tell us anything?

The premise, here, seems to be that 'giving up the baggage of theism' is a good thing. I don't see why it would.

Instead of building palaces of worship a society could choose to improve schools, research, medicine, literacy, etc. Instead of praying for things to happen the time could be used to work toward making them happen. Instead of people deriving income from providing religious services they could find different employment.

Atheists have been, are, and can be just as nasty as any theist ever conceived. So....if it's a difference that makes no difference, why would atheism be 'better?' Especially since the only evidence we have in the matter is that it, well....isn't?

I do not insist that "Atheism is better" – but do note that belief in "gods" does not insure a "better" society (as you seem to agree).

ot;]
Yet the claim here is that an atheistic society would be better simply by virtue of being atheist. I'm pointing out, as you just have, that no....there's no evidence that it would be.

Agreed. There is no difference in results of a society with or without belief in "gods" – so I question the need for a belief (and any baggage accompanying).

Several European nations are moving strongly toward being composed largely of non-believers (and the US is moving in the same direction but seems to be a generation or two behind). Little about the societies seems to have changed as they abandoned religion.

Secularism is not atheism. Thats one.

Agreed. Let's keep that in mind. Many regimes identified as <shudder> Atheistic (and terrible) are merely secular.

For two....the world has long been comprised mostly of those who simply 'don't go to church.' The difference here, it seems to me, isn't so much that there a whole bunch of people who suddenly don't believe in God, but that because these nations are becoming more secular (and freedom to believe, or not believe, is becoming more usual) that those who simply live their lives are more 'upfront' about that. I could be wrong, but something tells me I'm not. At least, not very.

I view "don't go to church" as a move away from theocratic influence. Organized / commercial religion depends heavily on church attendance and "contributions" for its influence and income. As influence and income decline (and the "empty churches" increase) organized religion declines.

Belief in some vague "something bigger" or a "god" on a personal level is very different from powerful religious organizations.

Yeah, I think you may be going "on faith" (according to your own definition of 'faith') a lot more than theists do. We, at least, have something to hang our hopes on, even if you don't like the quality of the evidence we have.

Rather than "faith" (which often connotes supernatural beliefs) this Non-Theist operates on the basis of confidence in observation, analysis and conclusions.

I do not have "faith" that my truck will start or that someone loves me – but instead consider experience. Since the truck has started every time for many years and is well maintained, I trust that it will start the next time also. If someone declares love but acts in unloving ways I will conclude that their actions belie their words. If they consistently act in loving ways I will conclude that they reflect love.

OK, the problem is, 'faith' is synonymous with 'trust,'

The words are defined differently (with some overlap) as any dictionary search will verify.

and is used frequently in non-religious areas. "Full faith and trust' is a legal term we are all familiar with; being a 'faithful' spouse. "I have faith in you." "Don't you have any faith in your own abilities?" Like that.

I have self-confidence and have confidence in those I choose as friends and associates. "Faith" has nothing to do with those decisions. Many of my friends are Christians, some are Agnostics, a few are Atheists. Their theistic position makes no difference provided that they don't make it an issue.

The quality of the person is my consideration – not their "faith" or lack thereof. I regard religion as insignificant.

So 'faith' is NOT purely religious, nor does the meaning change when it is applied to religious things; it still means 'trust,' and has absolutely NOTHING to do with the quality of the evidence that inspires that trust.

I gave a few examples of this; the cop who put his faith in a freeway...a faith that, please pardon me, had a lot more evidence going for it than yours in the idea that your car will start everytime you hit the ignition switch. He was wrong; that freeway fell down.

What you call "faith" I identify as confidence. Why is that a problem for you? Do you insist that my opinion be phrased in your word preference?

Your car will, at some point, fail to start for someone when the ignition switch is turned.

I can insure that my truck will not start for anyone other than me with very little difficulty.

That WILL happen. You have faith that your spouse and children love you, and that faith is based on their actions, but...are you sure that their actions are based entirely on love?

I have no wife (and thoroughly enjoy being woman-free) and have no contact with my daughter and son.

When I have had a wife / mate / partner (married fifty years – not to the same woman, and not always legally or theisticly sanctioned) – I base my confidence in their feelings toward me upon the consistency of their actions. If they ever should display many negative actions (or primarily so) they are "history" and I move in different directions.

Now your faith in them may be, and I hope that it is, solidly based. However, some people have faith in the love of their spouses, and get severely disappointed. Happens all the time.

Perhaps it would be wise to base trust on identifiable actions – for any person. If the actions are inconsistent with words, consider the actions in making decisions and do not rely heavily on words.

The same goes for "gods" in my opinion. No identifiable actions, no basis for trust.

"Faith" + "Trust." Simple as that; you trust that what you believe to be true is true enough to behave as if it's true. You trust that your car will start; you have faith that it will, so you turn the ignition. In fact, you have so much faith that it will start that you made promises on the strength of this; if it doesn't start, you might be late to work, or to a meeting, or to pick your kids up. But you aren't worried; it will start. You have faith. That's why you got in the car and started it just in time, and didn't go out and test it two hours earlier so that you could walk there or call a taxi just in case.

But someday....someday, your car won't start. That might happen when YOU attempt to start it. In fact, you won't know that it will start until, voila', it starts. Then and only then does faith stop being faith and become something else; knowledge.

Correction: Since it is me starting the truck, it is confidence rather than faith. That you consider it something else is not binding upon me.

I understand that religionists often attempt to justify their faith in supernaturalism by claiming that "everyone has faith in something" –

It seems to me as though doing so demeans religious faith. If a person has "faith" that a sewer cleaner will solve their plumbing problem is that comparable to a person having faith in a god?

But I'll tell you what: when the word 'faith' is never, EVER used in a non-religious manner, and comes to mean something other than 'trust,' I'll concede the point. However, at the moment?

We agree to disagree

Faith = Trust, and for the one doing the trusting, it's exactly the same thing, whether the beliefs he places his trust in is in his version of God...or that your car will start. The only difference is in the quality of the evidence.

The words are defined differently in standard-use dictionaries. That there is overlap does not indicate they are interchangeable universally.

But tell me: If, for some reason, I knew that some kids had gotten into your garage last night and messed with your sparkplug wires, or pulled your ignition, so that I was aware that your trust that your car would start was very misplaced,

Haha – the kids would be most puzzled because 1) there is no garage, 2) the truck is a diesel (which has no spark plug wires or ignition). Therefore, your prior "knowledge" would be worthless.

do I then get to insist that your trust is actually 'faith,' because it's based on belief alone and not fact? Because, of course, at that point it would be.

My confidence is based on many years of experience, not belief or faith.

Why is what I have 'faith' and not 'trust,' because YOU don't like the evidence for the beliefs I hold?

I have no opinion regarding your personal "faith" or whatever you wish to call it. That is your business, not mine. I would appreciate the same consideration regarding my confidence.

I've never been able to figure that one out.

Perhaps this discussion will help.

[Jashwell]

We can use facts. All the early hospitals were religious. It's useless to speculate about whether, if there had been atheistic societies, there would have been medical and scientific advancements given us by them, because there haven't been any.

Almost all the early people were religious. The point is, when you're going to do statistics on this sort of thing, there are too many variables to separate religiosity. It's kind of like if I said "all the early hospitals were made by people who didn't believe in atomic theory". It's true, but correlation is not causation.

For instance, between about a thousand years ago and five hundred years ago you would be executed for not being Christian, in much of what is now western culture. Even if this were not the case, the overwhelming majority of the population were.

Is anyone surprised that atheists aren't from over five hundred years ago aren't as famed and widespread for their inventions and ideas?

That's atheists in theistic societies. Yes, this sort of thing happened. Er....you do realize that the only atheistic societies we actually know about, you know, those of the twentieth century, did the same sort of thing to theists?

Where is the all fired "Better" difference between the theocracy which punished people for not belonging to their religious beliefs, and, say...Mao and/or Stalin who murdered people for not agreeing with their beliefs about religion?

I don't see one. If an atheistic society would be so much better for humanity than a theistic one, then...er...why wasn't it?

I don't think it'd be much different, though I think a more non-religious society (in the sense of more secular) would be. People having more individual beliefs, and taking less religious laws completely seriously.

With regards to atheistic societies, they were anti-theistic societies, not just atheistic societies. You can't say your reason for doing something is a lack of a belief - it's got to be a feeling or a belief in itself. E.g. Stalin had very negative beliefs towards theism. Those aren't beliefs that derive from him being an atheist.

Much worse things happened to individual people in the middle ages than in the 20th century - it was just on a much smaller scale, because of the less sophisticated technology. (And the indirect effect that sophisticated technology like rifles make war much more attritious). There was genocide, rape, arbitrary murder, war, etc. We'd do well not to overlook it, just because it was millenia ago and on a smaller scale.

I understand what you're getting at, but here's a few points to consider:

Most major religions are expensive. Temples, prayer rooms, lots of time and effort. Sometimes even emotional stress stemming from the religion.
This might not directly address theism, but I think most people from many religious cultures (there are some cultures like judaism where there are a surprisingly high number of atheists) would stop funding these things if they discovered that their beliefs were wrong.

If it is the case that atheism is more reasonable, wouldn't you want people to stop being theists?

If they chose to be. Mind you, since I don't happen to think that atheism is more reasonable than my own beliefs, the question is moot. I certainly believe you have the right to try to talk other people into agreeing with you.

The problem I have with the conversation we are having right now is this really odd idea that, even though we have absolutely no evidence that an atheistic society would be 'better' in any way than a theistic one, folks here are still arguing that it would be.

Isn't that exactly the sort of thing that frustrates atheists when they accuse theists of being stupid for believing in God, with no evidence? I mean, the irony of this is so thick I could put it on toast and eat it for breakfast.

It is kind of silly to think that an atheist society would be so much different when the only difference is whether or not they believe in a certain entity. I don't even think getting rid of organised religion would significantly alter society.

And neither is religious belief. It's always based upon something. Faith is what one does about belief. Belief is ALWAYS based on something. Some evidence; it may not be evidence that you like, or that anybody else likes, but it's always something. That 'something' may not make logical sense to someone trained in it, but it's still something.

As human beings, shouldn't we strive to base our beliefs on shared principles of evidence? Evidence that is hard for another person to dispute?
I think it's bad to base significant beliefs on evidence that you can't give to other people. (Here significant seems to mean more a major change from the norm - e.g. I wouldn't expect you to not believe me if I just said that I'd had a glass of water, because it's not something that controversial)

[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?

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!

I would say that it is people coming together to infect the world with its own ideas. Kinda like Christianity.

[sizzle-d]

It is kind of silly to think that an atheist society would be so much different when the only difference is whether or not they believe in a certain entity.

You need to go on the net more often (reddit atheism subforum). Normally, i'ld be trying to converse with atheists to maybe make them to think of Christianity but i'm less bothered. It doesn't take a genius to know why atheism was never popular.
In one sentence, atheism is destroying its self.

[Jashwell]

It is kind of silly to think that an atheist society would be so much different when the only difference is whether or not they believe in a certain entity.

You need to go on the net more often (reddit atheism subforum). Normally, i'ld be trying to converse with atheists to maybe make them to think of Christianity but i'm less bothered. It doesn't take a genius to know why atheism was never popular.
In one sentence, atheism is destroying its self.

Yeah, even an idiot can figure out that up to about 330 years ago, atheists (and other religions) would be executed by Christians via blasphemy law. No wonder it was never popular.

I want to take this argument seriously but you're comparing atheists in general to atheists on reddit.
Have you ever really met an atheist in person?
Are most of the atheists you know people you've only met on the internet?

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Less and less. Churches are being turned into pubs. A smaller percentage of the population is engaged in regular worship than even a few decades ago.

Seprating the wheat from the chaff.

The math of Jesus being shown for the reality it is.

Finally, outing people for what they are and have always been.

[sizzle-d]

Yeah, even an idiot . . .

There are plenty of them

. . . can figure out that up to about 330 years ago . . .

the farther back, the better.

. . . atheists (and other religions) would be executed by Christians via blasphemy law. No wonder it was never popular.

Indeed. Tell that story to Madalyn Murray O'Hair. Atheism was so good that her son became a Christian.

you're comparing atheists in general to atheists on reddit.

Didn't your hear what one of the charismatic masters said. "go into where ever you can find them", "we are creating street epistemologists" duh. And you can tell Richard Dawkins who publicly asked atheists to ridicule religious people.

Have you ever really met an atheist in person?

Fortunately, no. It'll probably destroy its self before i see one of them.

Are most of the atheists you know people you've only met on the internet?

That's where they lurk in huge numbers kinda like bees in a hive.
We now have atheist churches. I guess their god will be called the nothing god.

[Jashwell]

Yeah, even an idiot . . .

There are plenty of them

. . . can figure out that up to about 330 years ago . . .

the farther back, the better.

. . . atheists (and other religions) would be executed by Christians via blasphemy law. No wonder it was never popular.

Indeed. Tell that story to Madalyn Murray O'Hair. Atheism was so good that her son became a Christian.

you're comparing atheists in general to atheists on reddit.

Didn't your hear what one of the charismatic masters said. "go into where ever you can find them", "we are creating street epistemologists" duh. And you can tell Richard Dawkins who publicly asked atheists to ridicule religious people.

Have you ever really met an atheist in person?

Fortunately, no. It'll probably destroy its self before i see one of them.

Are most of the atheists you know people you've only met on the internet?

That's where they lurk in huge numbers kinda like bees in a hive.
We now have atheist churches. I guess their god will be called the nothing god.

I've noticed you've taken to splitting up not just my paragraphs, not just my sentences, but literally the clauses in my sentences.

I'm taking you less and less seriously. This is practically just you slandering atheists. This is a debate forum, please address what I've actually said with logical arguments, not with your demeaning views on a group of people.

As I said in response to "an atheist society would be better":

It is kind of silly to think that an atheist society would be so much different when the only difference is whether or not they believe in a certain entity.

What reason can you give for disputing this?

[Zzyzx]

.

It doesn't take a genius to know why atheism was never popular.
In one sentence, atheism is destroying its self.

In the real world, Atheism is growing and Christianity is declining in developed / technological / better educated nations while Christianity is growing in undeveloped / non-technological / less educated nations of Africa, parts of Asia and South America.

Young people in particular are abandoning Christianity so as the older generations of believers die out their religion should continue to decline (or perhaps die with them).

Education seems to be the enemy of most supernatural belief systems (particularly when critical / analytical thinking is encouraged).

[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!

I would say that it is people coming together to infect the world with its own ideas. Kinda like Christianity.

Would it then be a religion, or an 'anti-religion'?
Can an atheistic idea be spread? I mean, isn't it sorta' like 'the default' belief until one learns and accepts something else?