Would atheism cure the Middle East?

[Q]

If somehow it became an excepted fact that God either didn't exist or had never interacted with humans, would this solve the fighting in the Middle East? Are all, or practically all of the car bombings and suicide attacks a result of religous motivation?If so wouldn't the belief that organized religion is false end this fighting? Obviously they would still hate us for being in Iraq, but I am referencing more towards the struggles between Muslims and Jews.

[QED]

Well, there's a lot of discussion in some European countries at the moment about the level of integration of migrants coming from Asia. A lack of cultural assimilatioin is being blamed for much of the tensions in our societies. A large part of this is seen as a rigid adherence to religiously mandated dress-code (which is very much tied-up with a general culture), hence the recent debates in France about school uniforms. Now although it seems to be obviously wrong for people to single others out becasue of their distinctive appearance, if they were atheists they probably wouldn't stand out.

Now I have to add that it makes me very uneasy typing this in lest anyone brand me as a ethnicist, but the observation can be made from a neutral viewpoint and that is what I beleive I am doing. While I positively enjoy the opportunity to make contact with people of different cultures, I will be perfectly frank and say that I myself recently experienced some very confusing signals emerging from my own subconcious when talking to Jewish men who follow a Torah-true life. While my concious understands the triviality of mere appearance and readily sees it as having no real significance, I think I can understand how such trivia might become sufficiently inflated to allow others to mask the fact that such people are equal members of the human race.

It just seems to be the case that we all have an inherent reaction to people who look different to us. This being the case, in religious dress-code we might have a recipe for the sort of dehumanization that psychologists tell us is necessary for killing to take place.

[AlAyeti]

God help us if Atheism were to become dominant in the Middle East. The hundreds of millions killed by atheists in China and communist-bloc countries would become insignificant to what the Arabs would do with absolute power and no conscience leading the masses.

The Taliban would look like amateurs.

Those bodies buried in the deserts in Iraq (and I'm sure Iran) would make mountains.

Imagine Bin Laden influenced by Nietzsche? Nazi's and European Socialists were bad enough.

Communist Arabs would deplete the worlds lead supplies making all of the bullets needed to wipe away the opiated masses.

Atheism in the Middles East?

Yeeeehhhh!

[Bugmaster]

Eh, I tend to take the middle view on this. Yes, the conflict with Israel is largely political, and thus the mere absence of religion would not shut it down completely. On the other hand, religion is the primary motivator for suicide bombers (77 virgins, man ! come on !). Without it, these men might still hate Israel, but they wouldn't be willing to die for their hatred.

So, the conflict would not disappear, but it would probably become greatly diminished.

How likely is this to happen ? Not very likely at all, I'm afraid :-(

[QED]

God help us if Atheism were to become dominant in the Middle East. The hundreds of millions killed by atheists...

Al I'm going to have to stop you right there... what you seem to be doing (apart from exaggerating numbers!) is suggesting that people are killing other people in the name of Atheism. Can you explain how this works? The killing that we are considering in the Middle East is inter-secular and I have described how in order to kill, people need to be de-humanized and the best way to achieve this is to create arbitrary divisions such as those among Sunnis, Shiites, Kharijitis, Wahhabi, Ismailis, Druze and so on.

Wherever there is division, there is conflict. Would you not agree? The various religions on this planet are all trying to capture the essence of something they perceive not with their direct senses but with their emotions. The fact that there is nothing tangible beyond these emotions gives rise to a never ending source of disagreement about what it is they are getting emotional about!

Does this not register with you at all? Of course to any person of any given faith it probably seems obvious... all that's required for World peace and harmony is for everyone else to share my faith. But you must know that this is a vain hope. While the object of unity is intangible, there can be nothing to unite around.

I would therefore suggest that we would do better to unite around all that is tangible, all that we can see, touch and be assured of it's existence. This material approach would replace faith with a more pragmatic version and humanism could provide an alternative moral compass which is no less useful for the conduct of society than what is on offer now.

I do understand that you see the World bathed in depravity and injustice and feel that the only remedy might be a genuine fear of God and the consequences of individual action but I'm afraid to say that the reality of human nature is to ignore a threat if it interferes with a strongly held objective (look at how people over-eat, borrow too much money, smoke too many cigarettes etc. while ignoring the consequences that are off in the future). I do sympathize with your frustration... if only everyone believed in heaven and hell... but you have to see how things like the promise of 77 virgins in other peoples faiths can create arbitrary morals which permit things like random slaughter.

If the tangible consequences of diabetes bankrupcy or lung-cancer aren't enough to control peoples behavior then I'd say that there's little hope of intangibles doing the trick any better. For this reason I would argue that on balance, we would experience more calm in a world that shuns arbitrary faith.

[AlAyeti]

Al I'm going to have to stop you right there... what you seem to be doing (apart from exaggerating numbers!) is suggesting that people are killing other people in the name of Atheism. Can you explain how this works?

Exaggerated numbers?

You presented a decent post and I am trying to pursue that direction myself. But, the numbers of people slaughtered in Russia alone put atheist-politics a long way ahead of religious atrocities.

What communist atheist country is a place where anyone lives a good life? Anyone except the wealthy leaders living well while the people suffer. Just surviving does not seem to excite human beings. They always seem to be expecting more from life than just survival.

Atheism promotes evolutionary action. Those at the top know for a fact, that they deserve a bigger slice of the pie because they are obviously higher up on Darwin's list than the weak little people so easily subjugated by those wih a conscience like a maruading male lion. I think that is a very accurate analogy.

But, the problem I have is that I do see the value in secualrism, but if I even slighly agree with you secularists you think I am selling out God.

I am a Christian. No Christian believes anything on faith. The word "faith" is better defined as trust. Everything in the observable world speaks to a designer. Umm, Designer. It is not 2005 because of wishful thinking no matter how hard infidels.org try to evaporate Jesus.

The evidence of things unseen are now a fact of science.

If the nutballs that inhabit the Middle East grasped the concept of Darwinian evolution - the religion of atheism - than the survival of the fittest would go Nuclear faster than it is now.

There are not a lot of atheists on Earth. Most people know there is a God.

Though I'm no Einstein, Einstein was:

"My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we can comprehend about the knowable world. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.

(Calaprice, ibid., 204 / To a banker in Colorado, 1927. Einstein Archive 48-380; also quoted in Dukas and Hoffmann, Albert Einstein, the Human Side, 66, and in the New York Times obituary, April 19, 1955)

This same concept forms my idea of Jesus Christ as God.

Al and I disagree with the cause but not the effect.

Atheism in the Middle East, where emotion overrides logic, like in Humanism, would bring that world to a place where abortion would be legal until a person died from old age.

It would all depend on who claims to be the justified abortionist.

Want to pick sides now?

[QED]

AlAyeti, from what I can see your argument rests almost entirely on the behavior of totalitarian communist regimes. I'm not pretending that millions of people weren't slaughtered by paranoid and power crazed despots (I see now where you got your figures for -- either the high-end estimates for the Russians alone or medium estimates for all communist regimes across Asia put together) but I do need some convincing that this has anything at all to do with Atheism.

AFAIK Communism started out as a grand political and social project but as with all non-democratic regimes the leadership is able to dispense with accountability and the system ends up amplifying the character (along with all attendant psychosis) of whoever the leader happens to be. Frankly I don't see that the non-reference to God has any influence in any of this. I say this because look at how devout Saddam Hussein was. His attitude to genocide was evidently unmoderated by any belief in God. And it's become an awful cliche but Hitler too had some fine words to say for God.

The main thing is that I can just as easily imagine a different project where Stalin is replaced by a leader of the Taliban for example. History is contingent and the events leading to communism could have been very different if the outcomes of past conflicts between nations had turned out differently. Under the leadership of the Taliban all of what is now Europe and Asia might have become a Caliphate. Are you going to tell me that this totalitarian islamic regime would have been incapable of committing the same level of atrocity? I think that the numbers of deaths simply reflects the size of the population under totalitarian control. Genocide becomes just as expedient when the leadership can afford to dispense with the niceties of accountability. Religion to me would seem to be incidental to this.

Possibly you've already made your mind up over this, but I haven't. To me your argument falls short because of the reasons I've given here. If you take the model of western democracies as an example the difference isn't that the leadership feels directed by their own moral compass -- instead they know that they are accountable to their voters. Thus they respond to the moral compass of the masses. This ensures a degree of "averaging out" such that no individual psychosis is allowed to be amplified with the terrifying consequences witnessed in the communist regimes.

[McCulloch]

The evidence of things unseen are now a fact of science.

Are you speaking of spiritual things?

If the nutballs that inhabit the Middle East grasped the concept of Darwinian evolution - the religion of atheism - than the survival of the fittest would go Nuclear faster than it is now.

Self destructive behaviour is not the hallmark of those who do not believe in an afterlife.

There are not a lot of atheists on Earth. Most people know there is a God.

Do you have statistical evidence?

Though I'm no Einstein, Einstein was:
"My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we can comprehend about the knowable world. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.
(Calaprice, ibid., 204 / To a banker in Colorado, 1927. Einstein Archive 48-380; also quoted in Dukas and Hoffmann, Albert Einstein, the Human Side, 66, and in the New York Times obituary, April 19, 1955)

Einstein was an expert in theoretical physics. Not in theology.

Atheism in the Middle East, where emotion overrides logic, like in Humanism

Is there any basis for this inclusion?

, would bring that world to a place where abortion would be legal until a person died from old age.
It would all depend on who claims to be the justified abortionist.
Want to pick sides now?

[AlAyeti]

Possibly you've already made your mind up over this, but I haven't. To me your argument falls short because of the reasons I've given here. If you take the model of western democracies as an example the difference isn't that the leadership feels directed by their own moral compass -- instead they know that they are accountable to their voters. Thus they respond to the moral compass of the masses. This ensures a degree of "averaging out" such that no individual psychosis is allowed to be amplified with the terrifying consequences witnessed in the communist regimes.

My mind is very close to being "made up." Atheism has been given the chance to do something with mankind and it hasn't been pretty.

Western democracies are heavily influenced by Biblical justice and this is the silver lining.

I hope that you know that I favor a neutral system of government. This would mean "secular" and of course a democracy. But unfortunately secular means anti-Christian now.

But if there really is a free and unfettered exchange of ideas, then Christianity will always be grasped by the true (or truly) freethinkers.

I just compare the atrocities of atheists because the scales of justice demand that I do. How many id--ts think that Christians started the Crusades?

The Taliban - another typical strain of Islamic totalitarianism, has to be put in check. Secular laws are the only thing able to do that.

The Gospels define the follower of Jesus. In many ways I don't see why we even involve ourselves in political matters. Let people suffer outside the walls if that is what they choose. Pick up the pieces of shattered lives and do what Jesus would do. Secularists are right in that Jesus never forced His views on anyone. Laws don't stop people from breaking them anymore more than a person calling themself a Christian makes them one. If free speech survives Liberalism closing dialog, then new Christians won't end until Jesus reboots the machine of life.

Christian Denominations for the most part, are a fine example of the decency of Christianity. And, the goodness that some secularists have in them, should be applauded and not reviled. Indeed there seems to be a divine plan for those that don't have to be religious, being involved in running things as sort of referees. This doesn't make their ideology right, just their actions.

But atheists have proven time and again that the base and evil nature of human beings will come to the surface more than not if that mindset takes control.

The opiate of the masses is actually real opium.

I can only use communist countries and MTV worshippers as examples. In my opinion, atheism is a mental disorder that history has already weighed in on with an opinion with a thumbs down.

I wouldn't want the already ubiquitous sociopathic middle easterner getting a hold of a belief system founded on nothingness.

And gimme a break, atheism is something from nothing. The equation cannot exist on a calculator or in the human mind.

Maybe someone should tell a suicide bomber that after he gets to the last virgin he's screwed.

But telling a sociopath that there is no reason for life and we've got even bigger problems in the Middle East.

Think about the sociopath that can suck a human child from his or her mother (a godless SOB) and couple that with a five-thousand year old history of war mongering!

Islam is a false religion, but if they won't follow the real Jesus, then point the power of secularism to at least doing to Islam what it's doing to peaceful Christians (that are following the True God).

Yes, my mind is made up on that.

[AlAyeti]

McC,

Let's go through your rebuts:

The evidence of things unseen are now a fact of science.
Are you speaking of spiritual things?

Paul didn't have a microscope. And science sees far more than just the unseen now.

Self destructive behaviour is not the hallmark of those who do not believe in an afterlife.

Atheism is self-destructive behavior. Menatally as well as physically, but most importantly spiritually.

You have your opinion and I have mine.

There are not a lot of atheists on Earth. Most people know there is a God.
Do you have statistical evidence?

How many billions of God believers on Earth? Even many Chinese don't buy into the Goverments BS. They know better. You should as well.

Einstein was an expert in theoretical physics. Not in theology.

That quote does not serve you well. Ask Paul up above.

Atheism in the Middle East, where emotion overrides logic, like in Humanism
Is there any basis for this inclusion?

Have you ever read the Humanist Manifesto? Signed by "so many" educated elite. Yet, they refuse to look at science on sexuality and life and let their emotions run wild. Like little pouty children. Nothing more nothing less.

[Chad]

Sorry to break into the middle of your debate McCulloch, just had a few things to say!

Atheism is self-destructive behavior. Menatally as well as physically, but most importantly spiritually.

It's been far from self-destructive for me. Infact, I've improved my life more as an Atheist than I did as a Christian. Yes, my spiritual side was destroyed, as in any belief in the supernatural or afterlife...but that doesn't bother me in the least.

There are not a lot of atheists on Earth. Most people know there is a God.
Do you have statistical evidence?

How many billions of God believers on Earth? Even many Chinese don't buy into the Goverments BS. They know better. You should as well.

According to http://cia.gov/cia/publications/factboo ... tml#People, 2.36% of the worlds population are Atheists (152,128,701 people). So you're able to relate that to a real population size, the USA has an estimated population of 297,000,000 people. Are you implying we should believe in God because so many other people do? That's a lousy reason to believe something. It reminds me of a fashion trend, "Everyone else is wearing it, so I have to as well!".