Atheist Societal Structure

[Brentos]

Serious question,

What would America look like if there was no religion at all when it was founded? What would our country look like? Societal structure? Family structure? Law code? What kind of society would we conceive of? Survival of the fittest? Perfect utopia? socialist commune?

Or, it is easier conceptually, what if we carved out a state now(or separate country) in the U.S. that (for arguments sake) was free *from* religion completely and could have it's own law code? What would that look like?


<Full disclosure for those who don't know me, I'm a Christian and a liberal. I'm not flame-baiting, I'm just curious now to look at the other side of a lot of what is discussed here>

[smirkymonkey]

1. A hell of a lot better than it does right now.

Secular Humanists tend to have a much better track record when it comes to actually putting the concepts of compassion and tolerance into practice.

What is it about organized religion that makes people so hateful?

[goddess40]

3. because it puts them on "teams" and they have to win

What is it about organized religion that makes people so hateful? - I would modify your question just a tad by adding the word "some". But that said I have to add those that don't "actively" hate do it passively by not speaking against those that actively hate.

They spend so much time pointing out how they are different and "better" then the other religions instead of focusing on how much they are alike. It gets to be a replacement for "my daddy can beat up you daddy" by changing it to "my god can beat up you god"

[Brentos]

7. Please, I would like an answer to the topic, not flames.

I would like to see a discussion to dream up the principles, guidelines, laws. I think this would be a fun excercise. I'm not here to say A is better then B. I want to see what we think this world would look like.

[goddess40]

2. It really comes down to the individuals

Any specific religion really isn't the answer - a decent person is a decent person. For many religion just helps them by giving them an easily understood ruder and something to belong to. Most religions have the same basic rules for getting along with others - it just that when bad people contort those rules do we have problems, as people rioting over silly cartoons or inquisitions....

[Brentos]

10. You make excellent points.

So, if were talking *no* religions at all, what are the same basic rules for getting along that we would have? Do the strong prey on the weak because they can? Do the weak band together and create laws for protection? Would it work? Would some people deem certain acts right/wrong and make laws? If that is the case, would we have much more of a location-based legal system?

[wtbymark]

4. A lot better, thats how it would work, a lot better

religious societies continue to torture, execute, persecute, vilify, discriminate, excommunicate, ostricize, convert - I'm sick of it

[Brentos]

11. Please, stay on topic, no flaming.

And, based on you throughts, would non-relgious groups do the same? One that gether together as societys or clubs? Or would that go away?

[trotsky]

30. I think you're confusing "flaming" with negative opinions.

The poster neither flamed you nor your religion. They offered up their opinion in accordance with your question.

[BurtWorm]

5. It would look a like what the Deist founders wanted it to look like.

There might be no mention of the Creator or "self-evident" truths in the Declaration of Independence, but otherwise, things would probably be not that much different.

[Brentos]

8. Family Structure?

I'm not sure that would be the case, because the founders still took lessons from faith, even if they weren't religious. Their world-view was still founded on that.

Would families tend towards the nuclear family as it did for so long? Or, would it have been anyone/anything they want? Would we come together as a people and ban anything?

[BurtWorm]

17. But the founders didn't say much about family structure

or even social structure. They left it to the people to decide how to pursue their own versions of happiness.

Family structure is not dependent upon belief systems, but on what works. In fact, when belief systems intrude, insisting that families be this way or that, it's a recipe for institutionalized dysfunction. What works in some circumstances, for some tempers, proclivities and persuasions, won't work for others.

[Brentos]

21. Yes, excellent points

What would family structure in this society look like, though? What would work? Polygamy, monogamy, no marriage at all? What makes any of these good or bad? Or would everyone be allowed to do whater they wished? If so, would that work? or cause more issues?

[BurtWorm]

25. It would probably have progressed just as it's progressing.

It's difficult to shoehorn atheistic founders into a world in which atheism was a sin. Atheism as we know it wasn't possible until the Enlightenment.

[manic expression]

54. That is interesting

because monogomy is based off of religious values, IIRC. So, in a completely "atheist society", would the same customs be used, even if they were originally religious?

Actually, I don't see anything wrong with polygamy, as long as the participants are treated well.

[BurtWorm]

63. Customs are, by definition, based on what has always been done.

It's a very rare atheist, in my experience, who has a total atheistic program for society--in fact I can't say I've ever come upon such an animal. In my experience, atheism is live and let live. Religious people may not see atheists that way because of their notorious outspokenness on church and state issues. But that sort of activism is based on the desire to have the religious regard atheists as the religious would have atheists regard themselves.

[manic expression]

68. True,

but I can't help but wonder if such customs would be so strongly enforced.

[sinkingfeeling]

6. I would image that it would have a true representative democracy,

great community participation in decision making, a fair (pay by ability) tax structure, and a population devoted to the common good. Education and science would be held at a much higher esteem. Generosity to people less fortunate would be seen in both public and private institutions.

[Brentos]

9. Why do you think this?

I think you may be correct, but I want to follow the reasoning and logic behind these ideas. What would constitue the law code, and why? Would the strongest rule because they were the strongest? Would slavery have happened at all or continued? Would we have conquered natives, fought Mexico, won\lost other wars? Moved towards being conquerors, or more peacfully towards neutrality?

[sinkingfeeling]

18. Because I believe (unlike some religions which assume the opposite),

that human beings are born with certain characteristics, including a sense of 'morality' and justice. That people are basically born 'good' and that on a species level, we seek the same things. Love from family and friends, shelter, food, to live without fear or humiliation, and a desire to make decisions using our own minds. Religion, by definition, attempts to impose a doctrine or dogma upon its followers. Most have adopted a paternal attitude, only the leaders of that church (generic) can interpret the holy writings and set values. The worst have deemed some human desires as 'sin' and seek to control every aspect of their followers lives. And much of religion is built on ancient superstition and myths.

Humans without religion can be spiritual. They see beauty in the world and its creatures. They are interested in human differences as well as common ideals. I believe that without religion, the human mind and heart would be more esteemed and valued. Therefore, I think society around the world would be more compassionate and peaceful.

Besides, we would be free to explore all the great teachers of the past, be it Jesus or Plato or Muhammad.

[Brentos]

22. More great points!

Couldn't it also be argued, that many people are born with "might makes right" and a winner-takes-all mentality? Most kids don't understand life/death until they've killed something (usually a goldfish, or ant, or something). Would that be right or wrong? If there is no reward/punishment system, would everyone still be good, assuming we agree on what "good" is? Would the death penalty be used more/less? Abortion; more/less? War? helping the needy, less fortunate?

I would love it if everyone explored all teachers, that would be great, and could lead to a better world!

[varkam]

12. I don't think that we can really have any idea.

We've all been raised, at least to some extent, with religion being a part of the societies whose norms we have all internalized. It's an interesting thought experiment, but I don't think anyone can really give a definitive answer.

Although to echo a thought already posted, I don't think there is any correlation between religious fervor and moral character. There are some very bad Christians and likewise, some very bad atheists - to get pseudo-scientific on you; if you were to form a hypothetical scatter plot with every individual point a point on the graph with fervor being on the x-axis and "moral character" on the y-axis, you would find pretty much no relation between the two.

[Brentos]

14. Good points

I agree with your scatter diagram thoughts completely.

And, for this excerices, I would like to theorize on the a-religous society. What would make it tick? How? Why?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

13. I guess there has never been such a thing

so we really don't know. As far as guessing... well, I know from reading on DU that atheists are concerned, caring and gentle people. Far more evolved than knuckle dragging superstitious faith types.

It would probably be Utopia...Nirvana. No disease, no rancor, no hate, no possessions, no rape, no brutality, no divorce.

But I'll tell you this: the music would SUCK.

[Brentos]

15. Hmmmm...

I'm assuming a big smilie at the end of that post.

Please no flaming either way, just the topic.

If you really believe Utopia, why do you think that?

I assume sarcasm was intended, so why do you think it wouldn't work, then?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

16. Just a tad of sarcasm

really. I don't know whether "it" would work or not, but I do know (absolutely no sarcasm here) that religion is widely seen on DU as the root of all evil. So it would probably be one HELL of a place. (no pun intended)

But the music would still suck.


My real, non-sarcastic opinion is that religion is no more the root of all evil than is envy, greed, or any of the other things we struggle with. Religion is simply a locus of all these things, kind of like burning a leaf with a magnifying glass. Without it, the strong people are still going to own the weak people, the smart people are going to put one over on the less-smart people, and everybody will still want their kids to win at soccer and be cheerleaders. I don't see that it makes much difference, really.

[trotsky]

28. Quote

"Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things - that takes religion." -- Steven Weinberg

Oh, and by the way, do you think people are incapable of making good music without believing in a god? The following people might disagree:

* Skunk Anansie
* Trey Anastasio
* MC Paul Barman
* Burton C. Bell
* Matt Bellamy
* Björk
* Carla Bley
* David Bowie
* Branden Boyd
* Isaac Brock
* Peter Buck
* Jerry Casale
* Nick Cave
* Vic Chesnutt
* Chumbawamba
* Billy Corgan
* Justin Currie
* Julia Darling
* Mark Jonathan Davis
* Deicide
* Ani DiFranco
* Micky Dolenz
* Paul Draper
* Danny Elfman
* Brian Eno
* Filter
* Robbie Fulks
* Liam Gallagher
* Noel Gallagher
* Bob Geldof
* Greg Graffin
* Dave Grohl
* Kathleen Hanna
* Taylor Hawkins
* Paul Hester
* Stephan Jenkins
* Billy Joel
* Matt Johnson
* Kirk Jones
* Mark Knopfler
* Kramer
* Tom Lehrer
* Jim Lindberg
* John Lydon
* Barry Manilow
* Marilyn Manson
* Shirley Manson
* Nick Mason
* Dave Matthews
* Sarah McLachlan
* Mike Mills
* Momus
* Frank Mullen
* Randy Newman
* Mojo Nixon
* Krist Novoselic
* Gary Numan
* Andy Partridge
* Trent Reznor
* Brian Ritchie
* Brad Roberts
* Chris Robinson
* Henry Rollins
* Laetitia Sadier
* Captain Sensible
* Nick Seymour
* Slayer
* Robert Smith
* Peter Steele
* Al Stewart
* Ken Stringfellow
* Matthew Sweet
* James Taylor
* Tool
* Eddie Vedder

[TallahasseeGrannie]

33. Now those folks are good musicians in their genres

but I'm thinking in terms of sacred choral works, classical mostly. Without religion, much of our musical heritage wouldn't exisit. We're probably looking at a gender difference here, too!

On edit, I meant to say in that sentence s GENERATIONAL difference and not GENDER. Sorry...got g-word happy there.

[Goblinmonger]

39. That's kind of circular

That's like saying there wouldn't be any good religious art without music.

I hardly think Mozart was much of a Christian. And Handel would have written kick ass music whether he had the Messiah to write about or not. Bach just kicked ass. Religion had nothing to do with that.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

43. I couldn't disagree with you more

Mozart was a devout Catholic who wrote some of the most beautiful masses in the world. Handel's Joshua (from the OT)is even better than the Messiah. And Bach was a choirmaster/organist who has written about how he was inpsired by his faith. As a person of faith, to sing the B Minor Mass (as I have) is a spiritual experience. Religion had EVERYTHING to do with it..with their inspiration, and at the very least, with their financial support to write and a captive audience to perform for.

[Goblinmonger]

49. I don't want to turn this into another

Hitler was christian debate. But Mozart was so devout that he had all kinds of affairs and was a drug addict.

But the point I am making is that he would have been fantasitic without there being religion. Do you think if the catholic church did not exist, Mozart would have been sitting around twiddling his thumbs trying to figure out what to do? I seriously doubt it. Same with Handel (who, BTW, was so devout he did not want the Messiah performed in a church), Bach, Beethovan, Dvorak. They were all wonderful musicians. Sure the church gave them money and a captive audience. But it didn't give them their talent.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

51. I think we are talking about different things

or at least from different perspectives. Devout to me does NOT mean you never have affairs or you don't take drugs. Two different things. Was Hitler a Christian? So they say. Is he sitting at the right hand of God? I have NO idea!

I just don't think you can separate the Church from their (Bach, Handel, etc.) works. I know you can't separate it from mine (not putting myself in that category, however). Did the church give them talent? No. Did it give them inspiration? Absolutely. Did it give them training and a mileau in which to create? Absolutely. Would they have produced without it? Who knows?

It is hard for us to look back at those days from our own times and know to what extent the Church pervaded the lives of these men. What I remember from my humanities graduate work is that Handel did not consider the Messiah (which is not a Mass) liturgical and it therefore had no appropriate venue in a church. It really is more a theatrical piece. But he was known to be a church goer and there is an essay about "Handel in prayer" written by someone who used to see him praying alone in London in an Anglican church.

I can understand a secularist or atheist looking to understand and even prove that the human spirit is all that is needed to create; and they are probably right. But I would hope we could be realistic and "give the devil his due" (pun intended) about the fact that the Church played a huge role in the creation of many of the masterpieces we revere today.

[Goblinmonger]

53. Well if you are going to do that

then you know you open the door for all the masterpieces that they inevitably squashed. The middle ages were horrible for theatre because the catholic church thought it was a sin. So all we get is a million versions of Everyman. How about all the music that they wrote off as being of the devil. And the art that was banned for not being religious.

Sure, the church provided money and training to composers. Though legend has it that Bach and Mozart (and others) were playing piano almost naturally at a very young age. They remembered music full score at an age less than 5. The church did not do that.

[okasha]

78. Medieval theatre

"The middle ages were horrible for theatre because the catholic church thought it was a sin."

Flatly untrue. Much of medieval theatre was sponsored by the Church, or by tradesmen's guilds in celebration of religious feasts. It was the Puritans who held theatre--and novels, and narrative poetry--to be sinful because they were fiction, or in their view, "lies."

[trotsky]

41. That's one of those "We'll never know" things.

Was religion responsible for that music? Or would those composers have been able to write just-as-beautiful music, inspired by the majesty of nature rather than a particular religion or god?

Like I said, we'll never know.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

44. I can speak to that personally

but just for me, of course.

I design large stained glass windows for church. In order to be inspired, I turn to my spiritual beliefs. Without them I wouldn't do it.

But your mileage may vary.

[trotsky]

47. So without your beliefs you wouldn't find stained glass beautiful?

That seems odd to me. Lots of artists work with stained glass and make things that aren't religious in nature at all.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

50. No, I probably would not

do that kind of work. I have painted portraits in the past for a living, but that was straight money. My body of work in churches is done specifically in order to help create a sacred place. I don't particularly enjoy working with glass, but I love designing. My inspiration for design always comes from Bach. If I'm not playing Bach..usually a cantata... there's nothing there. Now, the crafting part..putting glass with glass, I could do asleep. But the design inspiration comes from my soul.

And I certainly don't deny that many folks create without a spiritual bent. Well, now..I take that back. I think creating, in itself, is spiritual but it doesn't necessarily mean things unseen, deities, etc. It is such a human thing to do and you really access your inner self. And we all have that.

But you don't need a deity to create. However, with the church, Western Civilization's art history would be sparse indeed, as would its musical literature. The secular folks have made a good showing in the last century, though.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

34. Forgot to respond to your quote

"Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things - that takes religion." -- Steven Weinberg

It is a good one.

I will add, that I have also seen, in my life, some very bad people learn to do good through religion.

Yin and Yang.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

38. One last thought

Is James Taylor an atheist? I just bought a CD of Christmas carols by him!

Interesting.

[trotsky]

42. More of an agnostic.

http://www.celebatheists.com/w/index.php?title=James_Taylor

Some excerpts from an interview with Bill Flanagan on page 51 of the July 10-24,1997 issue of Rolling Stone.

BF: One of the themes of this record is disbelief - trying to make sense of life without believing in God. In "Up From Your Life," you sing, "For an unbeliever like you/There's not much they can do." In "Gaia", you call yourself a "poor, wretched unbeliever."

JT: Well I find myself with a strong spiritual need - in the past five years, particularly. And, certainly, it's acknowledged as an important part of recovery from addiction. Yet, it's hard for me to find an actual handle for it. I'm not saying that it's not helpful to think of having a real handle on the universe, your own personal point of attachment. But...I think it's crazy. But it's an insanity that keeps us sane. You might call a lot of these songs "spirituals for agnostics."

BF: Does not having faith in a personal god make it harder to stick with a 12-step recovery program?

JT: Twelve-step programs say an interesting thing: Either you have a god, or you are God and you don't want the job.

[greyl]

27. Of course there has.

Matter of fact, a few cultures still survive today who wouldn't know what the hell any of us meant by "religion".
Believing otherwise is to believe in our own culture's mythology.
Humans have existed for 3 million years.

"As for religion being "a part of every observable society," if what is meant is that every society we know has sought to find some explanation for matters of deep human concern that we do not begin to understand (death, the origins of the universe, etc.), that's doubtless true.
If one wants to call the constructs developed "religion," OK. I don't see what that implies, apart from the fact -- I presume it is a fact -- that people seek answers to hard questions, and where understanding reaches limits (very quickly, in most areas), they speculate, construct myths, etc. To draw conclusions about "human nature" from historical constructs of dominant societies in the past few thousand years seems to me quite a stretch.
On "submission to an authoritarian God," that's part of some belief systems, not others. As for monotheism, I think a strong case can be made that that's not to be found in the Old Testament, pre-Babylonian exile, and may well have its roots in non-Semitic cultures, as often argued. - Noam Chomsky

[TallahasseeGrannie]

35. Not to split hairs

but the assignment was a world of atheists, not a world without religion. Not the same thing, I don't think.

[greyl]

37. I'll see your split hair and raise ya a friz

The assignment was The United States without religion, wasn't it? :)
Anyway, what do you see as the difference between "without religion" and "atheism"?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

40. Call

you on the question. But actually I think we are both right. The title was an Atheistic society and the reigion part was in the body.

Now, let's see.. without religion and atheism. I think of religion as something organized. You can be a spiritual person and pray every day to something but not be religious, in my opinion. Atheism to me implies no spirituality at all, kind of a what you see is what you get type of thing.

But hey, I don't have a doctorate in theology or anything.

[greyl]

48. Gotcha. :)

See, though I consider myself an atheist now, I have a past full of beliefs which I've since abondoned for something better. However, being an artist and musician, it's real difficult for me to say "I'm not a spiritual person". But that gets into a different area about defining spirituality free of superstition or without throwing scientific knowledge out the window. Anyhoo... :)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

52. So here is how I define

spiritual. To me (and this is just personal) it is the appreciation of mystery and the belief that there is something greater than ourselves that we can access. For me, Christ. For some, nature...the universe... the subconscious.

[WhollyHeretic]

19. I think your subject line and question are very different things.

Atheism is not something to base the structure of society on. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in god. My convictions on what is right or wrong stem from various places such as family, friends, critical thinking, and societal influences.

I think religion should be completely removed from government, what people do with there own lives is up to them but it should not be a part of government. I think religion does nothing but muddy the waters when making laws. People use it to try to insert their bigotries into law(not saying all theists do this, mostly fundies). "Homosexuality is a sin" is not a basis for a law, it is just a declaration that the person is a bigoted loon. It sounds simplistic but government should be based on the Golden Rule, not on various millennia old religious books.

[Brentos]

23. I completely agree

and for the sake of this discussion, though, is what would an a-religious society/world look like? Its just a philisophical excercise for me since I come from the religous side and this is a good way to explore diffrerent view points. We could make separate discussions for any religion, also, but that isn't my intent on this thread.

[trotsky]

20. Impossible to know for sure.

But laws would at least have to be based on what is good for society, not what is pleasing to a god.

Society might be a little less inclined to place absolute trust in positions of authority.

Family structure would probably be the same. Economic factors have changed the family far more than (ir)religion over the years. Atheists have families that they love, too, you know.

Hopefully we'd have a lot less desire to label things as "evil" or "of the devil" and more effort to actually solve problems rather than write them off as Satan's work.

[Brentos]

24. I agree on the labeling part, definately.

Why would family structure be the same? Wouldn't more men have multiple wives, or marry cousins, and such, if no stigma had ever been attached? Although by the current century science would probably catch up on the incest bit and people would generally choose not to, I would imagine. Would there even be a such conecpt as marriage? Wasn't that originally a religous invention? Or did religions co-opt it? (I don't know that answer).

Would society be more apt to follow might-is-right? What would be the compunction against killing? Would it be along the hopes of "If I don't kill them, they won't kill me?". Or would it be more like Hamurabi's <sp? code, "EYE for EYE, etc."?

[trotsky]

26. Lots of animals in nature mate in pairs for life.

And they don't have religions.

A good writeup of the history of marriage can be found here: http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm

Basically, yes, religions pretty much co-opted it.

As far as "might-is-right" - please consider the current Christian administration and its foreign policy.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

36. They could just as well be based on maintaining the status quo.

It's impossible to accurately hypothesise what a society where it is not the case that until recently the majority of the population were religious would be like, because we have literally no data to extrapolate from.

Attempts at prediction reveal far more about the prejudices of the predictor than about the actual question.

My prediction, for what it's worth, is that even if the US had initially been populated entirely by atheists, with no contact with the outside world and no knowledge of religions, within a few generations religions/cults, probably with various sexual and dietary taboos, would have flourished, because people appear to be predisposed to be religious.

The very first humans were presumably agnostics/atheists, never having even thought about god(s). That religion rapidly became so ubiquitous suggests to me that an atheistic society is unstable (in the game-theoretic, not the social, sense) - it will inevitably rapidly become religious.

However, as I've said, that probably tells you more about me than about what would actually happen.

[trotsky]

46. You seem to be taking this question back to an indigenous state.

I think that goes outside the range of what was asked, namely, "What would America look like if there was no religion at all when it was founded?"

If there was no religion at all when it was founded, that would seem to imply that the first humans and generations since had not been religious, at least in this hypothetical world.

That aside, I think the predisposition you observe towards religion was more of a predisposition towards explaining things, and the ability to hypothesize causes where the actual causes were unknown or not understood. Ignorance comes before knowledge, and humans were ignorant for a long, long time.

Then there's the idea of the "god gene" - which of the following individuals is going to be more likely to survive produce offspring?

A) Ug, who looks at the night sky, sees stars, and thinks they are his dead ancestors watching over him, and goes to sleep in his cave.

or

B) Mog, who looks at the night sky, sees stars, and wonders what they are, how far away are they, are they hot or cold, are they on fire, why do they move, AHHHH a sabre-toothed tiger! *munch, crunch, munch*

[htuttle]

29. China, during much of it's history, has been predominantly atheist

Confucianism is nothing at all like a religion. It's a set of ethical and behavioral codes that people should follow in order for society to run smoothly (according to Confucians, of course).

As for China's family structure, as a predmoninantly agrarian nation Chinese families tended to be large and multigenerational for most of it's history until population control policies were instituted by the Communists -- family size and structure tends to be driven by economics, rather than religion, IMO.

[greyl]

31. Which ties in to, and is supported by, this article:

Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies

In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies (Figures 1-9). The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a “shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health. Youth suicide is an exception to the general trend because there is not a significant relationship between it and religious or secular factors. No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal health. Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional. None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction.
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

-Thanks Angry Girl and varkam

[saltpoint]

32. It's too bad Christianity was so poorly represented in the early years

of the formation of the country.

Several loads of nutcase extremists from Europe, plus the lovely Spanish in Mexico and Central/South America.

If those folks were Christianity, then the betrayal of Christianity was a done deal before the first boot stepped off the boat.

Falwell and Dobson and Pat Robertson and people even worse than that are a direct descendant of extremist fundamentalism. Whether in Islam or Christianity, it sucks, and it's too bad it was such seeds that dominated the garden that early on.

I would warmly welcome a time machien that would erase the profoundly negative effects of early extremist religion in the United States.

[greyl]

45. You mean our little part of North America I suppose? ;)

I'm pretty sure you'd see a heck of lot more Native Americans, for one thing.

(I don't care for the first part of the question much because our European country here only goes back about 400 years depending on how you look at it, but the immediate culture it came is much older.)

I didn't miss the second part of your question, I'll address that in a bit. ;)

[Nikia]

74. A lot of Native Americans were killed off by disease

And many of the active European killers and conquers really weren't that religiously minded. They just wanted the land and resources.
It turns out also that the Europeans weren't the only ones who took part in genocide and assimilation. For example, the people of New Guniea, who look black in their hair patterns and skin color, originated in South East Asia which is now populated by people who look more like Chinese. There is evidence of similiar extermination and assimilation of certain ethnic groups all over the world. Some of these groups still exist in small numbers, but now occupy the less desireable land of the invaders, which was a small part of their original territory.

[greyl]

80. Disease brought by missionary-minded people

who came here solely to convert the Godless heathens.
Not all, but many.

"And many of the active European killers and conquers really weren't that religiously minded. They just wanted the land and resources."
Where do you think they got the idea that they had the right to take those resources from "savages" through force?

[Nikia]

81. Many other cultures took resources by force too

Any ethnic group that occupies large areas probably used force against the other people who lived there. Pre Columbian Native Americans were not immune from this sort of behavior either. Religion wasn't necessarily involved. Religion is one way that people differentiate themselves from each other. There are also other ways that people differentiate themselves from each other that have nothing to do with religion. While modern thinking, some of which may have been inspired by religion, encourages us to see all people as our brothers and sisters, many cultures of the past and present have no such beliefs. I do not believe that the majority of people are born this way if not exposed to that belief, just as you believe that the majority of people would not believe in God if they were not exposed to the idea.

[manic expression]

55. It is difficult to say

What if we were founded as a Buddhist nation, what would we look like today? What if we were founded as a Shinto nation, what would we look like today? Asking what we would be like today if we were founded by open atheists is exactly the same type of question.

To answer your question, I really don't know. Perhaps it would be more progressed, having no obstacles of Christian fundamentalism. Perhaps it would be exactly the same, as the mistakes and atrocities and shortcomings did not happen because of the Bible. Would atheists use the same laws, the same customs of marriage? Would the culture stay more or less the same? Those are factors that need to be considered as well.

Who is really to say?

[WhollyHeretic]

56. Yawn. You can't respond to a single post in here without calling atheism a

religion can you?

[manic expression]

57. Please

Try to keep to the topic, or at least make a real point.

I didn't even call atheism a religion in that post, I merely compared the possibility of one hypothetical situation to another. So why did you bring that up?

[InaneAnanity]

59. You compared...

...atheism to other religions. Thus, you inferred that atheism is a religion, when in reality it is the lack of religion.

[manic expression]

69. Not completely

those situations would not be so different, as it is looking at the hypothetical of a dominance of another mindset/belief system. I didn't say that it was a religion in the post, but only stated that. Not only does this have nothing to do with the question, it is incorrect.

I recall you, of all people, saying that it is wrong to infer something when it is not exactly said.

[InaneAnanity]

91. You have said such things before...

...and your entire DU existence seems to consist of screaming over and over that atheism is, in fact, a belief system.

Pardon me for my inference, even though it was absolutely justified.

[manic expression]

121. You have done this exact thing before

diverting the discussion because of a lack of a real argument. Please point out where I "screamed", and point out how what I said was wrong. Comparing one hypothetical situation to another is quite valid.

So I guess YOUR inferences are justified, while others' are not. :eyes:

[beam me up scottie]

58. Women would know true equality.

GLBT people would be recognized as normal.

There would be very little, if any, unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases because sex would be considered a normal healthy activity, and children would be properly educated.



I'm not saying there would be no intolerance, but without their handy little misogynistic, homophobic and puritanical manual, men would have to try a lot harder to come up with reasons to justify their prejudice.

[varkam]

65. I agree 100%

The data also seem to support your notion that unwanted pregnancies and STDs would decline. The more religious a country is, the more problems it has with things like that (accding. to a study put out last year in the Journal of Religion and Society).

Personally I can't wait for the day when brain scientists are able to prove that homosexuality as a biological basis (some studies already suggest that certain brain structures such as the SCN are significantly larger in homosexuals), and all this talk about sin and immorality would be revealed for exactly what it is: bigotry.

[NMMNG]

60. Women would have rights equal to men

Gays would not be treated like pariahs, and would be allowed to marry just like straight couples.

Children would be given thorough educations, including full science courses with no ballyhoo about evolution being "only a theory" (which is designed to imply that it is untrue), and comprehensive sex-ed with all the facts they need to protect themselves.

Tax dollars would not be squandered on "faith-based" charities that discriminate against service recipients based on religious criteria.

Candidates for public office would not be able to buy votes by talking up their love of God and referencing their Christianity ad nauseum. They would actually have to win based on what they were going to do for the nation.

Lawmakers would not be bought by small groups of vocal people who want to impose their will on the nation based on a work of classic fiction they consider to be the word of God.

[lvx35]

61. It would look like most communist states.

Where religion has been banned and God removed. You'd see people would have put somebody in His place, a man like Mao, Stalin, Kim il Sung with his face plastered everywhere and essentially worshiped. Religion/worship/spirituality is natural in Man, it happens, it is not coerced or trained.

[charlie]

62. Where do you get that certainty?

It's bosh. Mao, Kim, and Stalin arose in societies where fealty to the party/state was absolute and rigidly enforced, where the citizenry was completely isolated from the outside world (and largely from each other). There's no reason to think that liberal democracy couldn't flourish with no religion (note the OP said "no religion", not banned or removed religion). Germany's Christianity didn't innoculate it against Hitler's cult of personality. Enlightened government isn't the sole province of religious believers.

[varkam]

67. The same place the faithful always get it. n/t

[lvx35]

72. The entire study of anthropology, pretty much.

Where has an isolated culture been discovered that didn't have religion of some form? There seems to be a false idea amongst atheists that religion is somehow taught or introduced, an unnatural state. But when the European settlers came to the Americas for instance, did they find a bunch of Atheists? No, they found indigenous people practicing indigenous religions, from white buffalo to totems to peyote rituals. The fact that its always there in some form in geographically and culturally isolated groups tells me that it is innate in man.

[charlie]

77. Again, your confident assertion

that a society founded by atheists would result in something like "most communist states" is unfounded. Whether the compulsion to "essentially worship" (as you put it) is innate or not is immaterial. Your contention that it's either religion or a cultic despot is a false dichotomy. It also makes religion out to be merely a mechanism to safely divert an instinctual obeisance to power.

Again, sustained liberal democracy in a society of atheists is not the far-fetched notion you want it to be.

There seems to be a false idea amongst atheists that religion is somehow taught or introduced, an unnatural state.

There's also people like you with the false idea that religion is the only bulwark against communist-like authoritarianism, forgetting the lineage of kings, popes, and dictators who became the Face of the State within believing societies.

[lvx35]

82. It doesn't seem like you are addressing my key point though.

I think we're talking about two different models, and we need to differentiate. On one hand, lets say that we take all the atheists in America and give them, say California as a nation. Now would California be communist? No probably not, it would probably be a normal free government, probably even a very nice place to live for the residents because people think the same. (and yes, atheists are smarter on average than fundies! :) ) Now on the other hand, lets give California, with the people that are in it now, over to an atheist government. What would that mean? It would offer freedom from religion, or the right to choose atheism, but the US government now does that, and people choose religion. How would be different?
Ultimately you realize that to have such a place you need to suppress religion in some way, or redirect the human desire to be religious, or expel the majority of the population...This is where the authoritarian side necessarily comes in. I mean, asking honestly: how could get around that???

[charlie]

95. Neither model

And yeah, I suppose we're talking past each other. The OP posited an America founded at a time of no religion. A fantasy, yes, a thought experiment to imagine how atheist America would evolve in contrast to the country today. I tried to emphasize the point with my "no religion" vs banned/removed post above, but I should've made it clearer.

In any case, let's continue with your key point. I'll concede that the religious impulse is inevitable because I don't want to argue about that.

I contend that in all likelihood, America would be much like it is today, yet markedly different (for the better!) in key ways. NOT a Communist-like hellhole.

Consider how Christianity came to permeate many of our civil institutions, though Christianity is largely absent from the country's founding documents. Christmas is a federal holiday, chaplains are on the gov't payroll, "so help me Shiva/Cthulu/Ayn Rand" isn't a legal oath in court, the White House holds Easter festivities, public schools organize Christmas celebrations, our legal and political history is thick with references to God as the measure of justice and authority, etc, etc. How did this happen? Initial cultural homogeneity and a weak proscription against such practices. Who would even notice, let alone object, when there's Nobody Here But Us Christians? It was a non-issue and the rare claim otherwise would be derived from a short ambiguously worded snippet from the Constitution, "Congress shall make no law..."

In time, this created a body of precedent, a thicket of entanglements nearly impenetrable to anyone who objected to the primacy of place Christianity enjoyed.

You've seen this a million times:

Ardent Christian: America is a Christian nation.

Ardent Secularist: No, it's not.

Then the flurry of quotes and counter-quotes from the Founding Fathers follow: Jefferson was a Christian. No, he was a Deist. No matter, he believed the legitimacy of the state could only come from alliance with God's Will. Actually, this is what he had to say about the lunacy of religion... and on and on.

See how keen both sides are to claim the weight of precedence. The winner can say it's the other guy who's trying to wreck the established order.

So, what would atheists do in their newly minted country? Same thing, only different. The Constitution could contain an article that explicitly decrees that the relationship between the State and its citizens will remain secular. From there, history unfolds as it did before, this time with a hardier resistance to those who would use state power for theistic ends. As before, the initial cultural hegemony of atheists would create precedence and a societal mindset that would make commingling of government and religion extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible.

No thought control, no gulags for believers. And believers would enjoy a reduction in the sectarian strife that comes with attempts to secure a favored place for a religion in government.

So, once again... the notion that a Communist-like model is the only avenue for a society founded on atheistic principles is flat out wrong. Communism is an ideology whose second prescription for establishment, after revolution, is dictatorship. It is not some condensate of pure atheism. Atheists can appreciate the value of free thought, expression, and assembly at least as much as any free-thinking believer and would be no less vigilant against state restrictions.

[Zhade]

87. Religion is ALWAYS taught or introduced.

Always. Without exception.

Disagree?

Go ask a baby what religion they are. Any baby.

See, because babies aren't really all about cognation, they don't hold any religious ideas in their undeveloped mind. At some point, EVERY human being is exposed to religion, and goes from there.

In the case of isolated cultures, of course they develop religion. Humans tend to look for explanations to life's mysteries, especially when they don't have access to already-pondered explanations. Hence the prevalence of new religions in the ancient world (though many borrowed bits and pieces from other belief systems), and the corresponding decline in all-new faiths as mankind became less and less isolated from one another's explanations.

[trotsky]

70. Lots of Christians in today's America essentially worship Bush.

It's a sign of being weak-minded, unable to think critically, needing to look to one person for all the answers. There is nothing inherent in an atheistic system that would result in that.

[lvx35]

73. The problem is...

What you are talking about is pure fantasy...a free atheistic system? A world where everybody voluntarily believes what you do? Creating utopias like this is EASY...and it could be anything..."If we all just believed in talking things out and getting along the world would be fine!!!" The point is that people believe what they believe, they do what they do of their own choice and if you want to change that, you have to talk about ways you are going to enforce that change. People are naturally religious, and communist states realized you either actively suppress religion, or it will pop up.

[trotsky]

76. If one is prejudiced against atheists and atheism,

I can see why one would think that way. I disagree with your assertion that people are "naturally religious." I think they are naturally curious and without the tools, desire, and/or inclination to explore other answers, they tend towards grabbing onto an easy, comfortable one. Religion.

[lvx35]

83. :) why don't you guys call yourselves "pro-reason?"

instead of a-theist? Its so much more powerful to define yourself in terms of what you are for instead of what you are against.
I agree that people are curious and want to learn. I think there should be way more critical thinking going on. Its just too bad you don't hone in on these issues instead of how people relate to the mystery of beingness.

[trotsky]

85. "You guys"?

The first clue that you don't understand atheism is calling us "you guys." There is nothing in particular that unites us other than being unconvinced that gods exist. That's all.

Atheists can call themselves any number of positive things - freethinkers, humanists, rationalists, scientists, etc. - and generally do.

I think it's just too bad that more Christians don't "hone in" on issues that really matter, like taking back their faith from the right wing, rather than worrying about what an assortment of atheists on an obscure Internet message board call themselves or talk about.

[beam me up scottie]

86. Once again, trotsky, you nailed it.

I think it's just too bad that more Christians don't "hone in" on issues that really matter, like taking back their faith from the right wing, rather than worrying about what an assortment of atheists on an obscure Internet message board call themselves or talk about.

There are way too many right wing talking points about atheists around here lately.

[lvx35]

92. "unconvinced that gods exist."

That's more of an agnostic stance, being "unconvinced that gods exist." Atheism is about asserting that they do not exist. Its antagonistic or against theism, as its name implies. It defines itself off of what its against therefore it always attracts enemies...Just the fact that a-THEISTS gather at a THEOLOGY message board should illustrate this quite clearly...You don't have a focal point other than other people's beliefs.

But the real problem is in your statement about what Christians should do, because it seems to assume that I am one. I'm not. I'm a science minded guy who believes in evolution. I just don't see a reason to think that I am fundamentally different than the universe, so I see the universe as a being, and I call that being "God". That's my concept, a Hindu has a different one, a jew has a different one. So when you say you don't believe in God, you really have to pick which one. If you pick the Christian God, you have to understand you are legitimizing that religion by opposing it as "THE concept of God". If you pick all conceptions of God, then you have to be prepared to argue against Newton's God, (who just started the big bang and stood back) or Gandhi's God, who was simply the concept of Truth. I don't think many of you are REALLY opposed to all of the people that atheism pits you against.

[trotsky]

98. Um, wrong.

That would be your understanding of what an atheist is, but that doesn't mean it is correct.

I don't know why we are repeatedly attacked for engaging in discussions on the THEOLOGY forum, after all theology is defined as "The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions." There is absolutely nothing about that definition that would preclude atheists from having opinions.

And no, I'm not actively opposed to the near-infinite number of gods out there. I'm simply unconvinced that any of them exist. Got any proof?

Now an interesting point should come out of your post. You reacted quite negatively to the idea that I assumed you were a Christian. Could you maybe, possibly, turn that around and think about how an atheist might feel when you tell them they don't really believe what they tell you? Enjoy the scent of hypocrisy.

[beam me up scottie]

101. Game over. trotsky wins.

You reacted quite negatively to the idea that I assumed you were a Christian. Could you maybe, possibly, turn that around and think about how an atheist might feel when you tell them they don't really believe what they tell you? Enjoy the scent of hypocrisy.

[lvx35]

106. You seem to be confused about definitions.

first of all, atheism is a disbelief in the existence of God, not an openess, nor the recognition of limited knowledge that comes from agnosticism, which I have the utmost respect for. Secondly, thelogy is the study of God, flat out.

Main Entry: athe·ism
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity (God)


Main Entry: the·ol·o·gy

Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
Etymology: Middle English theologie, from Latin theologia, from Greek, from the- + -logia -logy
1 : the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world
2 a : a theological theory or system <Thomist theology> <a theology of atonement> b : a distinctive body of theological opinion <Catholic theology>

So, if you are an atheist, you are fundamentally antagonistic to Theology. This is what atheism means. a-theism. I have no problem with this in itself, not for a scientist on a physics forum, or a farmer, but on a theology forum its annoying. Its not the atheism itself: If you were a-political yet spent your time on political forums condmening people, it would be just as annoying. What you're doing is finding a group of people whose shared belief you disagree with, and antagonizing them.

[trotsky]

112. Sorry, but you are wrong.

You do not need to actively disbelieve or deny a god to be an atheist. This argument has gone back and forth on here for a long, long time, and all I ask is that if Christians object to being lumped together with Falwell et al, try to understand that from an atheist's point of view we don't necessarily think that we "disbelieve" in a god, or have a "doctrine" that there is no god. A little respect goes a long way, wouldn't you say?

By the way, if you want to play the definition game,

the·ol·o·gy, n.
1. The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.

Nothing that sets up atheism to be "antagonistic" to theology there! Can't atheists have opinions on the "nature of religious truth"? Can't atheists engage in rational inquiry into religious questions?

Sorry that our presence here upsets you so much, but we aren't leaving. Not as long as hateful and disrespectful attitudes like yours continue.

Oh, and a little side note: amoral does not mean antagonistic to morals, it simply means lacking morals. Live and learn!

[lvx35]

117. I'm not telling you to leave.

Its a free country. And I'm not hateful, just annoyed.

"atheist's point of view we don't necessarily think that we "disbelieve" in a god, or have a "doctrine" that there is no god."

Dude. I will say this in completely logical terms:

there does not exist a case where an individual believes in God and is an atheist. Therefore, an atheist *necessarily* disbelieves in a god, and holds that as doctrine, contrary to what you just said. It seems to me that you are trying to redefine atheism.

If you don't necessarily disbelieve in God, cool, pontificate the possibilities. But don't call yourself an atheist, becauuse you're not one!

[trotsky]

118. By your understanding, I am not an atheist.

By mine, I am. I do not believe in any gods.

Let's leave it at that, shall we, dude?

[lvx35]

119. sure.

get out and have some fun this fine valentines day! :)

[beam me up scottie]

122. Actually, you are incredibly ignorant about atheism.

Not to mention the fact that it's rude and arrogant to tell someone what they do or don't believe, even if you did know what you were talking about.

If you would have paid attention to trotsky, you would have learned something.
But you chose not to, and I doubt that you will bother to read the references I am posting.
However, I'm posting them anyway because I believe others in this forum do want to learn about their fellow DUers.

Atheism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Atheism, in its broadest sense, is an absence of belief in any deities. That is, all who do not have such a belief — whether they are nontheists, agnostics, or even Buddhists — are covered under this term. Atheism can also be defined more narrowly as the active rejection of the existence of gods, either of a specific or general kind, or even of the possibility that gods can exist. Generally speaking, atheism refers to a lack of belief in all deities for whatever reason.

Although atheists often share common concerns regarding empirical evidence and the scientific method of investigation and a large number are skeptics, there is no single ideology that all atheists share. Additionally, there are atheists who are religious or spiritual, though many of these would not describe themselves as atheists.

***

Weak and strong atheism

Weak atheism, sometimes called soft atheism, negative atheism or neutral atheism, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities without the positive assertion that deities do not exist. Strong atheism, also known as hard atheism or positive atheism, is the belief that no deities exist.

While the terms weak and strong are relatively recent, the concepts they represent have been in use for some time. In earlier philosophical publications, the terms negative atheism and positive atheism were more common; these terms were used by Antony Flew in 1972, although Jacques Maritain (1953, Chapter 8, p.104) used the phrases in a similar, but strictly Catholic apologist, context as early as 1949 <7>.

Although explicit atheists (nontheists who consciously reject theism), may subscribe to either weak or strong atheism, weak atheism also includes implicit atheists - that is, nontheists who have not consciously rejected theism, but lack theistic belief, arguably including infants.

Theists claim that a single deity or group of deities exists. Weak atheists do not assert the contrary; instead, they only refrain from assenting to theistic claims. Some weak atheists are without any opinion regarding the existence of deities, either because of a lack of thought on the matter, a lack of interest in the matter (see apatheism), or a belief that the arguments and evidence provided by both theists and strong atheists are equally unpersuasive. Others (explicit weak atheists) may doubt or dispute claims for the existence of deities, while not actively asserting that deities do not exist, following Wittgenstein's famous dictum, "Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent."

Some weak atheists feel that theism and strong atheism are equally untenable, on the grounds that faith is required both to assert and to deny the existence of deities, and as such both theism and strong atheism have the burden of proof placed on them to prove that a god does or doesn't exist. Some also base their belief on the notion that it is impossible to prove a negative.

While a weak atheist might consider the nonexistence of deities likely on the basis that there is insufficient evidence to justify belief in a deity's existence, a strong atheist has the additional view that positive statements of nonexistence are merited when evidence or arguments indicate that a deity's nonexistence is certain or probable.

Strong atheism may be based on arguments that the concept of a deity is self-contradictory and therefore impossible (positive ignosticism), or that one or more of the properties attributed to a deity are incompatible with what we observe in the world. Examples of this may be found in quantum physics, where the existance of mutually exclusive data negates the possibility of omniscience, usually a core attribute of monotheistic conceptions of deity.

Agnosticism is distinct from strong atheism, though many weak atheists may be agnostics, and those who are strong atheists with regard to a particular deity might be weak atheists or agnostics with regard to other deities.

A chart showing the relationship between the weak/strong (positive/negative) and implicit/explicit dichotomies. Strong atheism is always explicit, and implicit atheism is always weak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

What is the Definition of Atheism?:

Atheism, broadly defined, it is the absence of belief in the existence of any gods. Christians insist that atheism means the denial of the existence of any gods; the absence of belief in any gods is, for some strange reason, often ignored. At best it might be mistakenly referred to as agnosticism, which is actually the position that knowledge of gods is not possible. Dictionaries and specialized references make it clear, though, that atheism can have a much broader definition.

Theism, broadly defined, is simply the belief in the existence of at least one god. Contrasted with this is atheism: broadly defined, it is the absence of belief in the existence of any gods. There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about this definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists — atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means.

Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different. According to them, atheism is the denial of the existence of any gods; the absence of belief in any gods is, for some strange reason, often ignored — at best it might be mistakenly referred to as agnosticism, which is actually the position that knowledge of gods is not possible.

The truth is that the broad definition of atheism is most accurate.

Some atheists go on to deny the existence of some or all gods, but not all do, and by no means is this a necessary step to be considered an atheist. This is fully attested in comprehensive, unabridged dictionaries and it is how atheists in the West have been using the term for a couple hundred years.

http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/p/overview.htm

[lvx35]

126. Words have meanings that are set

and 'atheism' is one of them. Like what a 'Christian' is, its open to some interpretation, but if you don't believe Jesus existed, you really can't be one, because its essentially based on the life of Christ, whatever you may believe about his ultimate nature. And yes, I read what you posted. Interesting, but still, all atheism is based on a lack of belief, whether weak or strong. Its defined by a negative not a positive, which is my original point.

[beam me up scottie]

127. No, your point was to redefine atheism so that you could vilify us.

You're not the first one to do so in this forum, and we're sick of it.

You cannot accept the broad definition because if you did, that would make your prejudice unjustifiable.

And again, atheism is not "based on a lack of belief", it IS a lack of belief.

Here are your "points" :

an atheist *necessarily* disbelieves in a god, and holds that as doctrine, contrary to what you just said. It seems to me that you are trying to redefine atheism.

If you don't necessarily disbelieve in God, cool, pontificate the possibilities. But don't call yourself an atheist, becauuse you're not one!

You seem to be confused about definitions.

first of all, atheism is a disbelief in the existence of God, not an openess, nor the recognition of limited knowledge that comes from agnosticism, which I have the utmost respect for.

So, if you are an atheist, you are fundamentally antagonistic to Theology. This is what atheism means. a-theism.

Atheism is about asserting that they do not exist. Its antagonistic or against theism, as its name implies.

when you say you don't believe in God, you really have to pick which one. If you pick the Christian God, you have to understand you are legitimizing that religion by opposing it as "THE concept of God". If you pick all conceptions of God, then you have to be prepared to argue against Newton's God, (who just started the big bang and stood back) or Gandhi's God, who was simply the concept of Truth. I don't think many of you are REALLY opposed to all of the people that atheism pits you against.

You can continue to try to redefine atheism if it suits you, but expect to be called on it when you do.

And according to Skinner, we have just as much right to post in this forum as you do.

I suggest you get used to it.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

130. An analogy to homophobes?

Sad. Disrespectful.

The analogy could easily be that you are like the racists of the South in the 50s and 60s, wanting to declare this forum a "Whites Only" group where blacks should not be surprised to be discriminated against or even ganged up on. But that would be unfair and inappropriate, wouldn't it?

Our role is not antagonistic, it is simply to present another viewpoint. You pick one definition of atheism, and one definition of theology, declare them incompatible, and proceed to bash atheists for daring to show their faces in here.

Want to be free of the antagonistic atheists? Go to one of the liberal religious groups. We're not allowed in there. This forum was expressly created to take the atheist-theist discussions out of GD, so we have the rules, moderators, and admins on our side.

Who's on yours?

[beam me up scottie]

131. You're comparing your "persecution" on DU to that of GLBT people?

How revolting.

Your comparison of atheism to homophobia is pitiful and it reveals your religious bigotry, but it doesn't quite match the desperation shown in the first.

I'm not surprised, unfortunately.

Atheists are quite accustomed to intolerance from people like you.

Religious bigotry has become even more mainstream since one of you got selected as pResident.

Keep pushing those intolerant stereotypes, he's counting on you to spread the ignorance.;)

[Zhade]

132. We're not denying anything, since we don't see anything to deny.

It'd be like saying those who don't believe in unicorns deny that unicorns exist. Nope - since there's no objective evidence unicorns exist (like gods), there's nothing to deny.

Saying that it's a denial is a way for theists to assert that there is a god, but the assertion doesn't make it true.

Comparing atheists to homophobes, and calling us assholes, is out of line (and ironic, considering I'm queer).

Finally, no one's getting used to anything. We're not going to fall silent just because people don't like our support for things like the separation of church and state. It's your choice if you want to antagonize us - it rolls right off our backs, because people like yourself who make comparisons like the above aren't really worth wasting time on, and your words are merely self-defensive posturing.

Wonder why your faith is so weak that you have to insist on it not being discussed? Your Jesus, assuming he existed, was purportedly made of tougher stuff.

[Zhade]

133. Mods, thank you for your quick work.

NT!

[Inland]

100. "It defines itself off of what its against ", or what it is not.

That's why I thought the OP was a valid invitation to define it in some other way, something positive. After all, it's not just being against that creates enemies, it's the comfort of being against without ever taking the chance of providing a vision of an alternative. That creates enemies, if only because it doesn't rule out something worse, like communism. Somebody who insists that it couldn't be any worse has got to realize that it sure can.

[Zhade]

89. I f I were to say I am pro-reason, wouldn't that insult believers?

Heck, I know believers who have reasoned out their faith. Sure, it's still founded on unproven assertions, but once past the initial assumption (say, "god exists"), they can have very good reasons within that assumptive framework for their beliefs.

Calling myself "pro-reason" would make it seem like all believers are "anti-reason". This is factually inaccurate and needlessly inflammatory.

[varkam]

90. Good point. nt

[lvx35]

93. So are you really against the reasonable religious friend?

Does he really represent what you are against? So what if you are on the same side as him, so long as you fight ignorance and intolerance.

[Zhade]

96. I'm uncertain what your post has to do with my post.

I don't recall saying I was against any reasonable person who happens to be religious. Sounds like a misreading on your part.

[lvx35]

97. Sorry, I mixed you up with somebody else

who I've argued with before with the same image. My only point is that I think its more productive to argue against fundamentalism than religion, that's all. But you probably don't disagree.

[Zhade]

120. I think religion is uncessary and can easily lead to fundamentalism.

But definitely, fundies are the biggest threat.

[Zhade]

88. People are not naturally religious. They are naturally pattern-seekers.

Humans look for explanations to mysteries, and sometimes the desire for an answer causes them to get ahead of themselves in accepting an explanation.

I suppose, as humans have a tendency to want to believe unfounded assertions, that it could be said they are naturally religious, though I think it's more a matter of religion fitting in with the human need for answers.

[BiggJawn]

64. I would like to think it could be a kinder Society.

But instead of Pat Robertson being here calling for the assasination of foreign leaders, he'd be someplace else calling for the invasion of "that EEE-VUHL GAWDLESS Country".

Realistically though, I think it'd be pretty much as it is now, except the "persecuted " majority acting like a minority would truly be a splinter group. Maybe an Atheist could finally be elected to public office w/o having to deflect questions about or out-and-out lie about his "faith", but then again, maybe not.

[charlie]

66. One possible difference

There's fewer diehard bluenoses amongst atheists, so just possibly, maybe... no Carrie Nation, no Prohibition, no Comstock, no Anslinger, no Hays Office, and we wouldn't have had to import our premium postcards from France.

[Nikia]

71. Religion/ideology comes into play in all large societies

We don't know about the religiousity of early humans, but their ethical values tended to be based on individual and group survival. Groups were small enough that everyone knew everyone and were often related by blood or marriage. Their survival was linked to others in the group. As a result, they tended to be very good to members in the group and neutral or hostile towards other groups. Their hostility often resulted in a need to aquire more resources in order to survive.
The same was true of societies that settled down when there were still few people banded together. The village supported other villagers. If the village needed more resources for survival, it was not unethical to raid another village. It would be unethical to steal from ones neighbor though because the groups survival was linked.
This behavior is true in modern hunter-gatherer socieities and other small groups regardless of religious beliefs, although modern missionaries have often successfully taught that murdering, stealing, and raping ones neighboring groups is wrong. The same ethical principle of acting good to ones group and hostile towards everyone else if they stand in way of ones prosperity applied though.
As some groups grew larger and more prosperous, often individuals were not related and didn't even know everyone in their group. It wasn't necessarily evident how ones individual survival depended on people who they did not know. In such societies, there was usually also stratification in status and wealth, allowing for rulers and priests who did not take part in food production. A unifying religion was often important in unifying the group.
Modern states are usually unified by a common heritage, religion, or ideology. Many states that are not unified by one of these things have civil war, which we see in many states right now. The United States is ethnically and culturually diverse. Unlike what Bush and his friends would have you believe though, I believe that the United States is unified more by the common ideology of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution than any religion. It has always been this way from the beginning even as religiousity waxed and waned.
We cannot say how things would be different if the people coming to the Americas all had no religion. Many colonists did come in pursuit of religious freedom. The ideology that we hold did develop in a religious society as did modern science. The ideology does not depend on religion though and is enough of a uniting force. The rest of the world, in the past, did need religion to help unify society. Some dictators could unify a people by them putting their faith in him, but religion based on eternal god(s) was better because societal cohesion would outlive the death of the doctator.

[genie_weenie]

75. What are the parameters?

Can I draw from Grco-Roman tradition? Chrisitian philosophy didn't start to make any sense until Plato and Aristole were co-opted by Augustine and much later by Aquinas. Am I barred from drawing on Christian traditions? Am I historically barred from using ideas that did not exist in the 1700s?

This is not a flame. just give me some idea of what you want me to use to respond.

Good post.

[greyl]

79. Observation: There is no One Right Way for People to Live.

I presume that most atheists who considered how to answer this question began with the assumption that there is concievably "one best way" for people to live, and that free from religion as seen today in this country, it's only a matter of applying pragmatic logic to the problem.
That assumption is false, and is a result of being a product of a culture that says that, indeed, there is one right way for people to live - Our Way.
The "one" answer to the question can't be found in philosophy. The multitude of answers can be found among the tens of thousands of diverse human societies that have existed, beginning 3 million years ago. None of them was a utopia(as our culture attempts to be), but most of them worked, and some them continue to work.
As a general rule, those cultures that work don't have recieved wisdom enforced by leaders(religion) as their organizing principal.

[Goldensilence]

84. I find the question one sided

This is assuming that relgion was the driving force behind the founding of this nation. Which it wasn't obviously. did it play a part in it? Yes but was not the driving force.

That being said the OP assumes that without relgion there is no sort of cohesivness between government and the masses. Morals would not exist. Also that spirituality and religion are one in the same when they are not. You can be spiritual without being religous but can't be relgious without being spiritual.Sorry but some of the post are at best naive at such thoughts as to family structure, social structure etc etc.

That being said how did the Native American cultures survive so long with a loose fit spiritual outlook? Aboriginess? How about pre-roman germanic tribes? To support Greyl they did what worked. I don't religion evolved as much as a moral precept as more to explain the world around us.In early humans i am sure they realized the sun played an enormus role in life on this planet so it became an object of worship. Same with rivers, oceans, forests, etc etc until the whole planet becomes an object of worship(gaia). It's my opinion that the chrisitan god and others have seperated us from these ideas to where our worship is not here but out there. That Heaven is out there and not here. So in essence it doesn't matter what happens to Earth. Everything is here for us. Not us as being a part of this community of life that has been sustained for millions and millions of years before we arrived. Hopefully if we don't blow the planet up it will go on for millions and millions of years after us.

That being said as well i think we'd would have dropped a good bit of supersition and educate ourselves well in this soceity. That it would be based on what was good for the community at large. Overpopulation would not be a problem becasue we would understand our resource base well. Oil would've been a temporary crutch as a source of energy and even then much more efficient like it could be. We'd have a great national park system. I think this to othere would be stil lbe spirituality and commune with the land and fellow creatures. I think that too is innate to be a part of a community at large and understanding our role in it. Would there be spats of violence...well yes it is species survival and of course the US wouldn't be the only nation in the world. You always have a right to defend yourself.

But i think to put it best we'd understand that there is no one right way to live. That this obession we have with it has passed and would enjoy the diversity of life and living.

[FM Arouet666]

94. What do you think the U.S. would like?

You are arguing like a reich wing radio host, sorry, I won't bite.

So I ask you, expose your hand, what do you think the U.S. would look like if atheists landed on plymouth rock. Oh, and the 'survival of the fittest' bit, social Darwinism, it went out with the nut ball Conservatives in Nazi Germany. You need a new gig.

And for the record I am a liberal Atheist, scientist and doctor.

I like the carve out idea. You can have the south, except South Beach, and I will take New York, Chicago, and California, got to have Napa, you ain't getting the wine. :evilgrin:

[Inland]

99. Did anyone take up the invitation to hang some meat on atheism's bones?

I'm pretty much aware of the "not that" and "against them" positions of some atheists, and the "stop discriminating against me" and "remove overly religious nutbags from government", but it was a valid invitation to provide some sort of value system, something postive, that atheists are for. Once the defintion of not believing in a diety is reached, what else is there?

It's a tough question, but not an unfair one. One way might be cribbing some of the better theses of religion just because they seem to make sense. The Golden Rule isn't invalidated because some religious people thought it up first.

[beam me up scottie]

102. Oh brother.

[trotsky]

103. I have never seen someone so supposedly liberal, yet with such

a huge axe to grind against non-believers.

Atheism is not a philosophy, it's not a belief system, it's not a religion. See how that all ties so neatly together? Here you bash atheism for the opposite reason that you've been bashing it before! Can't have it both ways, you know!

You cannot derive what's the "best" family structure from atheism, what the "best" kind of marriage is, what the "best" kind of economic system is, NONE of that.

Atheism is a starting point. A recognition of the fact that no god, witch, demon, fairy, or sprite is going to help you or punish the bad guys. Atheism forces us to come up with our own rules that will work, rather than declaring one set of rules "holy" and squelching all debate.

Stick around, Inland, you might just learn something.

[FM Arouet666]

104. Oh my, how misinformed you are

Believers do not have a corner market on values. Yes, religion has played a significant role in framing contemporary morals. However, you are sadly mistaken to assume that a belief in god is necessary for a person to be moral. Cribbing? As in cheating, stealing the positives of religion for an immoral atheist cause? Interesting choice of words.

Human history is complex, what is considered moral today may not have been so many years ago. Moral values change, religion has played a role, but it is but one of many factors which has shaped our society. A belief in god is not necessary to inherit the influence religion has played in shaping modern society.

No, the golden rule is not invalidated, nor is an atheist practicing deceit by accepting the golden rule while denying the existence of god.

[Inland]

107. You misunderstand.

I certainly never said that a belief in god is necessary for a person to be moral. I just said that that the OP had a valid question, which was, what would atheism look like as the foundation of society?

It seems to me that what the threads consistently look like is "I don't accept revealed morality" without a discussion of the positive. The simplistic "God tells us what is right and wrong" of the religious is met with "there is no God" but not "X is how we determine right or wrong". The result is a nullity, which is avoiding the entire issue of the OP and most everything else in life.

As for the word cribbing, I meant it innocently enough, since creation of something out of whole cloth is pretty much impossible. It's only stealing if somebody thinks that it's soiled by it's association with (various) religion and if somebody gets to stake out ideas, sort of the way that rationality and science have been claimed by some atheists as exclusive intellectual property taht can't be used by the religious. Me, I've got no problem with accretion.

[FM Arouet666]

123. Oh my, I have a tendency to misunderstand.

I think you have over simplified the continual debate seen in this forum. I do not accept 'revealed morality', god does not instruct me on right from wrong, yet I do not find a huge vacuum contained in the variable 'X' which you seem to assume takes the place of god in the mind of the nonbeliever.

Revealed morality? Who revealed it to you? The bible?, written by humankind, your church?, a collective of other human beings. What society today considers moral is based on history, religion is but one voice in a chorus which defines what is accepted as moral. Contradicting the notion that morals are 'revealed' does not lead to nullity. What you perceive as divinely inherited morals, I perceive to be an inheritance from thousands of years of human experience. No nullity, no deity, a continual struggle to define a means with which we can all live in peace.

[Inland]

124. That's an answer.

Disregarding who "revealed" it, I think a few thousand years of human experience has led to a common set of moral values, which, combined with some common sense and goodwill, get a basis of discussion. That's neither atheist nor religious. It's not even liberal or conservative, IMO. It's just a start. That's what politics are for in a liberal democracy which neither rules in nor rules out any particular idea because it is religious or because it has a religious heritage or because religious people buy it.

[FM Arouet666]

128. Well now, I may have found something you have posted I agree with.

However, by agreeing with your post, I do not accept the notion that moral values are immutable. History clearly shows how morals are relative, changing with time and place. Human history is complex, how a population arrives at a certain set of moral values involves many paths. Religion is but one path, and I agree, contemporary society should not deny the enormous contribution religion has made. And, not just in discussions of morals, in fields of science, medicine, literature, the arts, the list is endless.

I wonder, what are these christian values that atheists are allegedly dismissing? Do atheists refuse to accept ideas simply because they are held by religious folks? Are we Satanists, believing in the anti-bible? Kill, rape, cheat, a mechanistic world view run amok?

I personally do not rule out any particular idea simply because the person who proposes the idea is an "opponent." There are several logical fallacies which label the error in logic you describe, an error you seem to think DU atheists practice on a regular basis.

I cannot agree with your proposition that most atheists commit the crime you charge them with. I do see a number of atheist posts which are reactionary, intentionally or unintentionally provoked by religious folks. And yes, I see provocative posts from atheists, intended to bait believers.

Rule out a particular idea simply because religious people buy it?

Matthew 7:12
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Luke 6:31
Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Moral values I believe, as do many Christians, Jews, Muslims, and I suspect a common thread through many civilizations.

[greyl]

105. You're being much too simplistic.

When do you think "The Golden Rule" was 'discovered'?

Do you imagine that some Holy Copernican Epiphany was necessary to direct humans to get along with each other?

Are termites having a problem because they haven't quite yet nailed down the high-minded concept of The Golden bloody Rule yet?

Can you point me to a shred of evidence that suggests that turtles, gorillas, or crocodiles are breaking The Golden Rule more than humans that consider themselves "Saved"?
Forgive me for being maieutic.
Did you check "yes" next to "humanity itself is the problem" in that other thread?

The Op wasn't simply asking for the dictation of "some sort of value system", it was asking for an application of imagination toward the infinite possibilities of how humans may organize without unfounded beliefs.
You'd have to admit, that's asking the imagination to stretch pretty damn far. You may also admit that, following over 2000 years of experimentation, it's pretty sad that the bishops of morality have "come up with"
The Golden Rule.
That's nursery school curriculum, isn't it? Right before the lecture on big spiny purple and green germs?

"The Golden Rule isn't invalidated because some religious people thought it up first." - Inland, Feb 2006

[Inland]

108. All I wanted to know was the positive.

All the OP asked for was the atheist vision, and you give SIX rhetorical questions trying to show how religion fails. It's another, longer version of what one is against.

[greyl]

109. ahh, raspberries. You don't know what maieutic means, do you? nt

[Inland]

110. No, but I do know when someone "answers" a question with a question.

Or in your case, six, in order to make sure that the issue remains just where I said it does consistently, namely, on the negative without any attempt at the positive.

Excuse me, seven, counting your vocab quiz.

I've got you in the "no thanks" category.

[greyl]

111. Get real, your questions were answered. You're ducking the answers.

"Did anyone take up the invitation to hang some meat on atheism's bones?"
Answered.

"Once the definition of not believing in a diety is reached, what else is there?"
Answered.

Read the thread for comprehension if you're still not sure.

[Inland]

113. Seven questions provide the answer. Is this a koan?

Too mystical for my blood. Try rewriting them in statement form.

[greyl]

114. No thanks.

Look to the cookie!

[Inland]

115. I had you in the "no thanks" category already. Thanks for wasting my time

eom.

[greyl]

116. Oh, no no no. Thank YOU. nt

[ozone_man]

125. It would be the best of all possible worlds.

The founders wanted a secular society. Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, and Adams were among the strongest advocates. Though John Adams seems to think that religion with all of it's evils was necessary to keep the masses in line. Her's a quote often taken out of context.

"Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!" But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell."
-- John Adams, quoted from Charles Francis Adams, ed., Works of John Adams (1856), vol. X, p. 254

John Adams is here describing to Thomas Jefferson what he sees as an emotion-based ejaculatory thought that keeps coming to him. This was not his reasoned opinion. Although John Adams often felt an urge to advocate atheism as a popular world view (because of the sheer abuses perpetrated by religious charlatans), he was of the firm and reasoned opinion (basically undisputed in his day) that religion is essential to the goal of keeping the masses in line.

Knowing what we know today, to say this is pure slander against atheists. And yet it is still quite popular, especially among the uneducated, the widespread acknowledgement of its falsehood notwithstanding.

Thus, Adams was not above presenting such travesties as his National Day of Prayer and Fasting proclamation. These acts reflected his view that the masses needed religion to keep this world from becoming a bedlam. However, Adams, like Washington and Jefferson, did not apply this reasoning to himself -- as we can plainly see from the quotations in the main section: religion was good for the masses but not for John Adams, who was above all that and needed no piety in order to maintain his own sense of civility.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/adams.htm


Jefferson states that this country was founded on common law which preceded Christianity in England by 200 years.

In a February 10, 1814 letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, Jefferson addressed the question directly. "Finally, in answer to Fortescue Aland's question why the Ten Commandments should not now be a part of the common law of England we may say they are not because they never were..." Anybody who asserted that the Ten Commandments were the basis of American or British law was, Jefferson said, mistakenly believing a document that was "a manifest forgery."

The reason was simple: British common law, on which much American law was based, existed before Christianity had arrived in England.

"Sir Matthew Hale lays it down in these words," wrote Jefferson to Cooper, "'Christianity is parcel of the laws of England.'"

But, Jefferson rebuts, it couldn't be. Just looking at the timeline of English history demonstrated it was impossible: "But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it....

"We might as well say that the Newtonian system of philosophy is a part of the common law, as that the Christian religion is," wrote Jefferson. "...In truth, the alliance between Church and State in England has ever made their judges accomplices in the frauds of the clergy; and even bolder than they are."

.

It was a long-running topic of agreement between Jefferson and John Adams, who, on September 24, 1821, wrote to Jefferson noting their mutual hope that America would embrace a purely secular, rational view of what human society could become:

"Hope springs eternal. Eight millions of Jews hope for a Messiah more powerful and glorious than Moses, David, or Solomon; who is to make them as powerful as he pleases. Some hundreds of millions of Mussulmans expect another prophet more powerful than Mahomet, who is to spread Islamism over the whole earth. Hundreds of millions of Christians expect and hope for a millennium in which Jesus is to reign for a thousand years over the whole world before it is burnt up. The Hindoos expect another and final incarnation of Vishnu, who is to do great and wonderful things, I know not what." But, Adams noted, the hope for a positive future for America was - in his mind and Jefferson's - grounded in rationality and government, not in religion. "You and I hope for splendid improvements in human society, and vast amelioration in the condition of mankind," he wrote. "Our faith may be supposed by more rational arguments than any of the former."

.

The Treaty With Tripoli, worked out under Washington's guidance and then signed into law by John Adams in 1797, reads: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1120-10.htm

Regarding the question as to what we might have become if we were atheists, I like to think that we would be 200 years ahead in our evolution as a society. We have made progress in the abolition of slavery, civil rights, and most women's rights, but have gone backwards in our religious beliefs, which is getting to the point where it is threatening the wall between church and state and women's rights. The free religion aspect of our country and perhaps the frontier nature of our country are probably responsible for spawning (since 1900) the evangelical religions that have taken over much of South America and Africa, and that is a bad thing, since that's the last thing they need in developing countries, to be brain washed by fundamentalists. Hopefully the world can recover from the damage wrought by religion over the last 2,000 years before we end in destruction over imaginary gods.

Religion seems to teach that the reason for doing good instead of bad is that one will be punished in hell or rewarded in heaven, to do what God wants and that can be a dangerous. Atheists or secular humanists apply reason and ethics, usually not derived from the Bible (though there are some good morals to be learned like the Beatitudes), to decide what is good or bad to do, so a secular society would be much healthier.