Would the world be a happier place if everyone were atheist ?

[James]

[MENTION=10303]NK278[/MENTION] I think this has been a really good thread and has promoted some real debate/discussion. People believe different things, I guess a lot of it comes from how we were raised as children and the type of education we had, as much (or maybe even more) than the type of person we are.

As for proving/disproving the existence of a deity we'd need some agreement on what that represents, and I very much doubt we'd reach consensus on that point. Personally I kind of like the "little bang theory" or inflation. Have you heard of Alan Guth ? I'm not by any means saying that's the answer, I just prefer it as the maths seem to work better. They've just announced a 72 hour cease fire in Gaza, so I hope that turns out to last a lot longer. If it does people will happier whatever their religion or atheism.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Every last person in the world is an atheist. I find it funny we talk as if athiesim is the rarity.

 

[LucyJr]

I thought I said it pretty clearly and used considerably fewer words than you in the process...

Does that saves your post from inaccuracy and idiocy? I don't think so.

 

[LucyJr]

I see you don't really agree with my view, but that's okay. I haven't arrived at a decision as to what I believe, but I'm in the process of sorting through it. I'm curious as to how I contradicted myself. I would rather not so if you have time, would you care to tell me?

You fancy yourself as being "outside" of camps, by proclaiming the priority of freedom of thought. You rank this as a supreme value.
That makes you a hypocrite. You aren't really neutral. You just took a side, and you took it vehemently, the "freedom of thought" side. Its like a little religion (almost) for yourelf.
Moreover, if you are a little confused, you can not be neutral (even if you really think you can be).

 

[Eventhorizon]

Does that saves your post from inaccuracy and idiocy? I don't think so.

Is this another case where you have used a word you did not intend? My post certainly had no idiocy associated with it.

 

[Elis]

Wait, so conforming to religion breeds individuals? I had it the complete opposite...

That was not quite what I meant.

If we'd all have the same religion, or if we'd all be atheists, then -as I see it- we wouldn't see it as something that unites us. With no opposites, we wouldn't pay much attention to it.

I'd like to think that we could all just see us as humans one day, and accept us for our differences, but I don't think we're there yet, and removing religion wouldn't cut it.

As I see it, we'd just find other means to unite, and differentiate us from others.


edit:
My point about killing the individual was for if we'd remove all the factors that can unite and separate us, not just religion. It goes in absurdum, but I don't really think it affects any underlying problems - removing religion, that is.

Also, we're talking about all "confirming to atheism" here. Maybe not quite the same, but atheism is still a belief, and religions can be quite different from one another as well.

 

[Radiantshadow]

You bring up some good points and this is probably why religion still persists or why it originated in the first place. I'm not a nihilist but an existentialist. I believe that we create our own purpose and meaning in life. Though their is a small portion of non-religious intellectuals who take up moral skepticism. This is rather tiresome and obnoxious. You get some who are moral nihilists who say that morality doesn't exist at all, famously Nietzsche. And other's who are moral relativists who claim that morality is just dependent on the personal beliefs of individuals or cultures so if the Taliban has a culture that doesn't believe women should get an education then that is fine for them, whereas for other cultures that may be wrong. These are both absurd ethical systems, and are found most prominently among non-religious people (since most religious people adhere to a form of objective morality based on divine command theory). However, the vast majority of non-religious ethicists are still ethical realists and promote substantive ethical approaches.

Then there is of course the type of despair that may come from the contemplation of death. On this topic many people don't want to think about the matter so it seems easy and comforting to accept one of the notions of heaven provided by various religions. I don't want to unsettle anyone but one of my favorite quotes comes from the philosopher and science fiction author Isaac Asimov who wrote:

Thank you. I spent a lot of time in childhood reasoning through these things.

I typed that post a little too quickly and mis-worded my thoughts on the matter: I did not intend to represent all irreligious folks as subscribers to moral relativity. I'm not, for one. Although the existential void usually induces a period of moral and psychological confusion, it can simply result in the resolution of conflict between two conceptual models and does not necessarily produce moral relativity; for those whom it does, however, special care will need to be taken, as their sense of order and security may be sufficiently disintegrated to engender depression, analysis-paralysis and anxiety, or, in sad cases, aggressively anarchistic behavior that easily translates into crime.

All in all, my post is less concerned with whether one or another existential model is most logical or ethical and more with the possible psychological ramifications of atheism in particular, as per the OP's request.

 

[ThomasJ79]

You fancy yourself as being "outside" of camps, by proclaiming the priority of freedom of thought. You rank this as a supreme value.
That makes you a hypocrite. You aren't really neutral. You just took a side, and you took it vehemently, the "freedom of thought" side. Its like a little religion (almost) for yourelf.
Moreover, if you are a little confused, you can not be neutral (even if you really think you can be).

Well, thank you for letting me know. It appears I'm confused because I'm undecided between knowledge derived a priori and knowledge derived a posteriori. Having been a biology major I find that I have a tendency to rely on a posteriori through empiricism. But, I know that even science is prone to human biases, so we cannot be completely objective, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't aim to be objective. I realize this is a contradiction between objectivity is an ideal, one that can be said to be derived through a priori, like one of Plato's forms. But, that doesn't mean that all knowledge is innate either. It is suggested through science that our brains create subjective minds, minds which have created the numerous religious beliefs that exist. Why else are there so many different beliefs? Now people that have very fundamentalist beliefs believe that they have knowledge which is true. Every religion claims that theirs is true. They all can't be true, so how do you judge which ones are true? This is why I think it is important to recognize that many beliefs share a common belief in a God or gods and have very similar senses of morality. Maybe some knowledge really is innate after all, or maybe what we think is innate knowledge is a perception based on the biology of our brains. If the latter is the case we may not ever come to true knowledge. Anyways, I think the solution to these apparent contradictions is to be more tolerant of other people's beliefs because ultimately because even though no one knows for sure whether God exists or not, we can surely empathize with each other and appreciate the one life we have and try to improve the quality of life for everyone in the process. We're all in this together.

 

[NK278]

Duplicate

 

[NK278]

That sucks. Have you done some basic logic ? It helps you know, at least to define your own worldview.

I don't think it sucks .. I don't believe in god and I don't believe it's possible for me to confirm that belief (or that it's possible to confirm he exists) which means I'm an atheist and I'm agnostic. I like my beliefs and I don't think I need to believe in god to have faith in myself, others or the universe. Nor do I need god to be a good person.

 

[NK278]

[MENTION=10303]NK278[/MENTION] I think this has been a really good thread and has promoted some real debate/discussion. People believe different things, I guess a lot of it comes from how we were raised as children and the type of education we had, as much (or maybe even more) than the type of person we are.

As for proving/disproving the existence of a deity we'd need some agreement on what that represents, and I very much doubt we'd reach consensus on that point. Personally I kind of like the "little bang theory" or inflation. Have you heard of Alan Guth ? I'm not by any means saying that's the answer, I just prefer it as the maths seem to work better. They've just announced a 72 hour cease fire in Gaza, so I hope that turns out to last a lot longer. If it does people will happier whatever their religion or atheism.

Thank you I agree ... It's interesting to read other perspectives and what information they use to mold their views.

 

[Jack]

Unfortunately, religion for a lot of people tends to be like a mirror. They see in their religion the teachings that they want to believe themselves, even if it doesn't jive with the actual teachings of said religions. Anyway, I'd find an atheist world pretty depressing.

While it's true Atheism isn't anything but the lack of belief in a God or gods, culturally atheists tend to have a lot of similarities to each other in their thinking, and many can seem like cardboard cutouts of each other in terms of beliefs. Atheism for example doesn't necessitate materialism or scientism, but these seem to be the cultural hallmarks of atheists.

 

[Lark]

Unfortunately, religion for a lot of people tends to be like a mirror. They see in their religion the teachings that they want to believe themselves, even if it doesn't jive with the actual teachings of said religions. Anyway, I'd find an atheist world pretty depressing.

While it's true Atheism isn't anything but the lack of belief in a God or gods, culturally atheists tend to have a lot of similarities to each other in their thinking, and many can seem like cardboard cutouts of each other in terms of beliefs. Atheism for example doesn't necessitate materialism or scientism, but these seem to be the cultural hallmarks of atheists.

Atheism and secularism are all things to all men and would cease to satisfy their greatest proponents if they had to be anything other than this, which is in fact what sets them apart from the that which they seek to oppose.

 

[Jack]

Atheism and secularism are all things to all men and would cease to satisfy their greatest proponents if they had to be anything other than this, which is in fact what sets them apart from the that which they seek to oppose.

I don't know if you'll catch the irony in your having said this, but that's the exact same thing that the Apostle Paul said about his faith.

Personally though, I'm more interested in something being "set apart" by its de facto truth than whether it's satisfying to a few of it's proponents. I'm pretty sure most proponents of ideas are pretty satisfied in their positions and equally affirm that they should be universally accepted.

 

[sprinkles]

The biggest farce of all is 'moral' relativism, anyone who understands the obvious oxymoron is over 5 and felt guilty over something... and I would usually respect Asimov, but maybe he would have been happier as a buddhist/hindu... as to Heaven/Hell, it would be inconsequential to me if either existed if I could help someone profoundly who otherwise was unable to help themselves, which isn't to say that I would want such a situation to exist solely for me.

Anyone who says relativism is a farce needs to immediately stop cutting their hair and stop wearing any fiber blend or polyester clothing and be a kosher halal vegetarian that never works on Sunday, and never have their picture taken nor possess photographs of other humans. That's just a short list of things that will start applying to you if you throw out relativism.

Unless you can start proving which ones are right or wrong.

Edit:
Or basically if you ever can say "I have morals, but not these morals" then you're enjoying a choice afforded to you by relativism whether you like it or not.

 

[Quiet]

No i dont think the world would be a happier place if everyone was atheist

The world would be a happier place if more people were happy.

Live your life, let other people live theirs.

 

[La Sagna]

The world would be a happier place if more people were happy.

It doesn't get any simpler than that .

 

[Barnabas]

So. I'm an atheist agnostic (atheist is belief) (agnostic is knowledge). There are also theist agnostics. Regardless , do you think the world would be a happier place if everyone were either one of those and practicing humanists as opposed to fueling their faith/spirituality through the funnel of a "religion" ???


I think yes.

It really all depends on how you define religion

 

[Jack]

Unless you can start proving which ones are right or wrong.

So because you don't know how to sort through ethical nuances, moral relativism must be true? That's intellectually lazy, and irresponsible.

 

[Barnabas]

Atheism and secularism are all things to all men and would cease to satisfy their greatest proponents if they had to be anything other than this, which is in fact what sets them apart from the that which they seek to oppose.

It's funny cause he's quoting the Bible.