First, Norsefire, I want to critique your belief that a single religion would benefit humanity (in the same light you shine on atheism.)
You said: "for society as a whole, that hope and common ground and overall happiness and faith, is more beneficial than a dull world."
Fair enough, I agree that if everyone believed in the same things we would have next to no problems.
However, that isn’t the slightest bit realistic.
What happens when someone doesn’t believe in your god? Are they rejected by society? Are they just supposed to go along with it anyway? How could we progress towards truth if we simply cling to a doctrine? Sounds like a little doublethink to me.
Next: What happens when the 2 homosexuals decide they want to merry? I can guarantee not everyone is going to support it. Indeed, every religion that I am familiar with condemns the idea.
So we have a splitting of ideas, and the society divides, boom our world goes back to the usual fray it’s in today (not overnight but you get the idea.)
So we suppress the gays. They need to be made to think like everyone else, or at least not openly show there heretics. Society goes on, conforming to the accepted values. Of course, gay isn't the only issue, there will be multitudes, easily as many as there are today. The system becomes chaotic, and the doctrine must now be enforced on the minorities, lest they rebel, and shatter the unity.
Now you mentioned an atheist-only society leading into A Brave New World, but your mono-religious one has the consequences of a similar dystopia. Read 1984? The system you describe is near-identical to that imposed by The Party. Sure, yours may worship the 'real god,' but the reality is, it's no different than the blind worship of Big Brother, and the universal acceptance of everything he says being identical to The Word of God. Pure doctrine. And in response to "you can't prove god doesn’t exist," well, the beauty of 1984 was, Winston couldn’t prove that Big Brother was wrong either. Furthermore, the Party was beneficial too: they had the perfect method of quelling revolutions, of stopping crime, violence, etc... Society as a whole progressed steadily.
But at the cost of the individual. It neither progressed forward either, rather backwards. How can you have scientists if the dogma must be adhered too, how can technology evolve if thinking outside the box (which inevitably leads to a questioning of the current dogma) is detrimental to the regime?
Clearly, it cannot. Either it's a world divided by free-though, or a world united and mindless.
----------------------------------
Alright, enough with the extremes. I'm sure this is not what you had in mind. A Brave New World is not what atheists have in mind either (some might, but the majority don't mind if you believe in some deity if it does not affect them adversly.)
Alright, Norsefire, also claim that atheists are striving for a cultureless world, devoid of hope, etc...
Now, I would like to ask: if everything is going great, why would we need hope? Hope is the antibiotic of depression and sorrow, but if there is no sickness; no cure is necessary, correct? (I'm not implying anything by this, just a thought.)
Now, who said Atheists do not have faith? Is it not faith to step out of my bed? Do I not trust that my senses and memories do not deceive me? Do I not assume that while pouring milk in my cereal it hasn’t alchemically transformed into a caustic poison? Etc...
Faith is inherent in our existence. The real provider that a belief in a deity has is that you 'know' someone is watching over you, protecting you: "Big Brother is watching you."
So let those who want a spiritual protector believe in it. That in itself has no problems. I personally reject the notion with all my 'soul;' such a belief cannot not help me.
Next, you say atheism will lead to a lack of culture.
Now, what defines a culture? Certainly their beliefs, but that may also be merely their morals, or laws, their customs, and technologies. Artistic styles develop in regions and create culture. Where does art come from? Certainly god is not required; the fact is, someone had to think up a deity. The Greek's certainly did not create Zeus because he showed himself.
Rather, the arts (everything from paintings to novels) come from our surroundings, our own thoughts, whatever they may be, and are not limited by a dogma.
Next, on morals, which I think pretty much covers family values, societal interactions, etc...
Where do morals stem from? A doctrine, tenet, or dogma, a God? No. While frequently attributed to such sources, they much rather stem from our own instincts. Our emotions. Nature provided us with the will to survive, to be sociable, and to feel empathetic. Atheist or not, the large portion of the populace will agree that killing is wrong. One of the happier aspects of being an Atheist is that, I can recognize that it is me myself who has such morals, not for fear of punishment from deity.
Will there be times when other emotions cause you to disregard them. Of course, however, that happens whether you have belief in a deity or not.
From our natural instincts, we have family values. Furthermore, it is inevitable in some cases that the 'love wears off,' people feel like divorcing. Looking at nature, most animals do not keep the same mate for their lifetime. And what problems are there with that? Once again thanks to instincts, many parents might try to stick together to affect their children as little as possible. This is not divine love, this is not an act of god, and this is humanity in its glory!
It's funny how good is attributed to the divine but bad is attributed to humanity; religion really has a negative view of life.
Of course, in the end, we get sociopaths, nutters, occasional bursts of rage, and commit some atrocity like murder. In which case, this is where the law intervenes. Logical. The way things are kept in order in either societal type.
Atheism is hardly detrimental to society.
Now, where do the problems stem from? Why is atheism/theism, deities and doctrine brought into the picture? Because when we create a law, that society is to abide by, when we determine the manner in which EVERYONE MUST act, theists are always imposing their doctrine. Everyone has an agenda, atheists, theists, the churches, and the pope.
Returning to the idea of homosexuality, this is where religion becomes a problem. From the theists perspective, their doctrine states that it is immoral, and that therefore it should be discouraged. This is where proof and reason need to decide things, not unfounded doctrine.
If I believe I am a god, everything is fine until I decide that I should rule the world, that you should do as I say.
This is where the doctrines clash and cause holy war, etc...; "My god says it's ok, yours doesn't, I'm right, your wrong, your evil, you must die."
This is what atheists generally want to avoid. They want the laws that they, and everyone else, are forced to abide by to be founded upon truth (as close as we can derive it,) and do not we all? But religions simply don't provide. At best, their tenets are in agreement with everyone yet are fallaciously derived. At worst, their tenets disagree with a good minority (or majority,) but they still force them, despite having no factual basis.
I would best sum up the athiest position as one against dogma, of any nature.
Alright, now that was allot to say. My appologies for any grammatical errors, or incoherant ideas.
-Andrew
You said: "for society as a whole, that hope and common ground and overall happiness and faith, is more beneficial than a dull world."
Fair enough, I agree that if everyone believed in the same things we would have next to no problems.
However, that isn’t the slightest bit realistic.
What happens when someone doesn’t believe in your god? Are they rejected by society? Are they just supposed to go along with it anyway? How could we progress towards truth if we simply cling to a doctrine? Sounds like a little doublethink to me.
Next: What happens when the 2 homosexuals decide they want to merry? I can guarantee not everyone is going to support it. Indeed, every religion that I am familiar with condemns the idea.
So we have a splitting of ideas, and the society divides, boom our world goes back to the usual fray it’s in today (not overnight but you get the idea.)
So we suppress the gays. They need to be made to think like everyone else, or at least not openly show there heretics. Society goes on, conforming to the accepted values. Of course, gay isn't the only issue, there will be multitudes, easily as many as there are today. The system becomes chaotic, and the doctrine must now be enforced on the minorities, lest they rebel, and shatter the unity.
Now you mentioned an atheist-only society leading into A Brave New World, but your mono-religious one has the consequences of a similar dystopia. Read 1984? The system you describe is near-identical to that imposed by The Party. Sure, yours may worship the 'real god,' but the reality is, it's no different than the blind worship of Big Brother, and the universal acceptance of everything he says being identical to The Word of God. Pure doctrine. And in response to "you can't prove god doesn’t exist," well, the beauty of 1984 was, Winston couldn’t prove that Big Brother was wrong either. Furthermore, the Party was beneficial too: they had the perfect method of quelling revolutions, of stopping crime, violence, etc... Society as a whole progressed steadily.
But at the cost of the individual. It neither progressed forward either, rather backwards. How can you have scientists if the dogma must be adhered too, how can technology evolve if thinking outside the box (which inevitably leads to a questioning of the current dogma) is detrimental to the regime?
Clearly, it cannot. Either it's a world divided by free-though, or a world united and mindless.
----------------------------------
Alright, enough with the extremes. I'm sure this is not what you had in mind. A Brave New World is not what atheists have in mind either (some might, but the majority don't mind if you believe in some deity if it does not affect them adversly.)
Alright, Norsefire, also claim that atheists are striving for a cultureless world, devoid of hope, etc...
Now, I would like to ask: if everything is going great, why would we need hope? Hope is the antibiotic of depression and sorrow, but if there is no sickness; no cure is necessary, correct? (I'm not implying anything by this, just a thought.)
Now, who said Atheists do not have faith? Is it not faith to step out of my bed? Do I not trust that my senses and memories do not deceive me? Do I not assume that while pouring milk in my cereal it hasn’t alchemically transformed into a caustic poison? Etc...
Faith is inherent in our existence. The real provider that a belief in a deity has is that you 'know' someone is watching over you, protecting you: "Big Brother is watching you."
So let those who want a spiritual protector believe in it. That in itself has no problems. I personally reject the notion with all my 'soul;' such a belief cannot not help me.
Next, you say atheism will lead to a lack of culture.
Now, what defines a culture? Certainly their beliefs, but that may also be merely their morals, or laws, their customs, and technologies. Artistic styles develop in regions and create culture. Where does art come from? Certainly god is not required; the fact is, someone had to think up a deity. The Greek's certainly did not create Zeus because he showed himself.
Rather, the arts (everything from paintings to novels) come from our surroundings, our own thoughts, whatever they may be, and are not limited by a dogma.
Next, on morals, which I think pretty much covers family values, societal interactions, etc...
Where do morals stem from? A doctrine, tenet, or dogma, a God? No. While frequently attributed to such sources, they much rather stem from our own instincts. Our emotions. Nature provided us with the will to survive, to be sociable, and to feel empathetic. Atheist or not, the large portion of the populace will agree that killing is wrong. One of the happier aspects of being an Atheist is that, I can recognize that it is me myself who has such morals, not for fear of punishment from deity.
Will there be times when other emotions cause you to disregard them. Of course, however, that happens whether you have belief in a deity or not.
From our natural instincts, we have family values. Furthermore, it is inevitable in some cases that the 'love wears off,' people feel like divorcing. Looking at nature, most animals do not keep the same mate for their lifetime. And what problems are there with that? Once again thanks to instincts, many parents might try to stick together to affect their children as little as possible. This is not divine love, this is not an act of god, and this is humanity in its glory!
It's funny how good is attributed to the divine but bad is attributed to humanity; religion really has a negative view of life.
Of course, in the end, we get sociopaths, nutters, occasional bursts of rage, and commit some atrocity like murder. In which case, this is where the law intervenes. Logical. The way things are kept in order in either societal type.
Atheism is hardly detrimental to society.
Now, where do the problems stem from? Why is atheism/theism, deities and doctrine brought into the picture? Because when we create a law, that society is to abide by, when we determine the manner in which EVERYONE MUST act, theists are always imposing their doctrine. Everyone has an agenda, atheists, theists, the churches, and the pope.
Returning to the idea of homosexuality, this is where religion becomes a problem. From the theists perspective, their doctrine states that it is immoral, and that therefore it should be discouraged. This is where proof and reason need to decide things, not unfounded doctrine.
If I believe I am a god, everything is fine until I decide that I should rule the world, that you should do as I say.
This is where the doctrines clash and cause holy war, etc...; "My god says it's ok, yours doesn't, I'm right, your wrong, your evil, you must die."
This is what atheists generally want to avoid. They want the laws that they, and everyone else, are forced to abide by to be founded upon truth (as close as we can derive it,) and do not we all? But religions simply don't provide. At best, their tenets are in agreement with everyone yet are fallaciously derived. At worst, their tenets disagree with a good minority (or majority,) but they still force them, despite having no factual basis.
I would best sum up the athiest position as one against dogma, of any nature.
Alright, now that was allot to say. My appologies for any grammatical errors, or incoherant ideas.
-Andrew
