Would the world be a happier place if everyone were atheist ?
- Thread starter NK278
- Start date
"Religion" in itself, is not bad. Fundamentalism, which is usually the loudest thing that people hear, is close-minded, fearful, and most often full of resentment. Please understand that there is a huge difference, and use your Intuition to know the difference.
Please watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmN2RL4VJsE
Quantum physics is the understanding of our age that sort of ties many "religions" or disciplines together.
Think of this: When you heard a beautiful piece of music when you were a child, you KNEW it was beautiful. No one had to teach you that. When we operate within our world, we have our own tone or frequency coming off of us, out into the world. When we do something wrong, we know it's wrong before we do it because it is an off-tone or frequency (lower) than the one we know is right.
A plant, a living thing, thrives in good soil. Put it in bad soil, or feed it with salt water, or don't give it any sun, and it will wither away. The same is with us. What we watch on TV, what we focus on, what we feed ourselves (obviously) will affect our wavelength and well-being (I used to play FPS games, and I stopped, and I was much better off for it - cut the cord)
The Cherokee elders would tell a story to the young children once a year, that within all of us are two great wolves, constantly fighting. One is Love, Forgiveness, Kindness, Understanding, and the other is Hate, Jealousy, Greed, and Violence. The children ask "Which one wins?" To which he responds, "The one you feed."
Our energies, or wavelengths don't cease when our bodies die. They continue, although in a different way.
I challenge you to try meditating, try just sitting and listening to either of the following two "love" frequency tones (It may seem high pitch to the point of annoyance at first, but just let it soak in):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg2Q5rBYkNA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgMQOAWeVs0
Look at the sun tomorrow (not too long though!), look at the beauty of the trees, and think happy thoughts.
Peace
Please watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmN2RL4VJsE
Quantum physics is the understanding of our age that sort of ties many "religions" or disciplines together.
Think of this: When you heard a beautiful piece of music when you were a child, you KNEW it was beautiful. No one had to teach you that. When we operate within our world, we have our own tone or frequency coming off of us, out into the world. When we do something wrong, we know it's wrong before we do it because it is an off-tone or frequency (lower) than the one we know is right.
A plant, a living thing, thrives in good soil. Put it in bad soil, or feed it with salt water, or don't give it any sun, and it will wither away. The same is with us. What we watch on TV, what we focus on, what we feed ourselves (obviously) will affect our wavelength and well-being (I used to play FPS games, and I stopped, and I was much better off for it - cut the cord)
The Cherokee elders would tell a story to the young children once a year, that within all of us are two great wolves, constantly fighting. One is Love, Forgiveness, Kindness, Understanding, and the other is Hate, Jealousy, Greed, and Violence. The children ask "Which one wins?" To which he responds, "The one you feed."
Our energies, or wavelengths don't cease when our bodies die. They continue, although in a different way.
I challenge you to try meditating, try just sitting and listening to either of the following two "love" frequency tones (It may seem high pitch to the point of annoyance at first, but just let it soak in):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg2Q5rBYkNA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgMQOAWeVs0
Look at the sun tomorrow (not too long though!), look at the beauty of the trees, and think happy thoughts.
Peace
i think the way to world happiness is coexistence of diverse ways of life. i wish we could somehow work towards achieving that level of acceptance of difference between us all, i think that is true freedom. i dont think locking down beliefs to just one direction is the right way to go, because i think one of the greatest strengths of humanity as a species is its diversity. i get very disturbed by John Lennon's song that goes "and no religion too", he wants to take away peoples right to choose to believe what means something to them, its not the solution. and im not sure that world conflicts are ever just purely about religion - i think sometimes they seem to be about religion only, but in reality that they are more usually about a range of problems.
It's hard to say whether the world would be a happier place, but something to consider is that nihilistic despair hits a fair number of irreligious folks, which can contribute to depression and anxiety. Although it is usually temporary and replaced with a self-created belief system, nihilistic despair is the terrified acknowledgement of and insecurity about a value void in the person's worldview, as it has yet to be filled by the individual after the perceived death of deities and their prescriptions for living. Without the psychological comfort and guidance that religion generally offers, life can be depressing and terrifying for a while as someone processes the extinction of their old worldview and generates a new one. Also to think about is that some folks will exploit the moral and philosophical relativity created from the void and adopt a position of "nothing is true, everything is permitted", potentially making yesterday's sins today's headline news.
All in all, the fear, anxiety, depression, and aggression that could result from this process would need to be taken into account when fighting for Earth 2.0.
All in all, the fear, anxiety, depression, and aggression that could result from this process would need to be taken into account when fighting for Earth 2.0.
Last edited:
Very interesting question. For as wrong as I believe religion is, I do question if regardless it doesnt fill some need in people where if they did not have it, society would be a much darker place. In other words prove to people their god is not real and watch them become crooks, murders, adulterous all at the drop of a hat.
I think it comes down to how you're defining religion. I see atheism to be a religion in itself. Religion is really just a group of people coming together to support and bond over a similar idea - beit faith, sports, ideals, etc.
Different types of religions have different messages, but as a whole, the social community and the sense of belonging has huge list of benefits associated from it. And people often note that it's changed their lives for the better. I think that if there is something that makes someone happy, and doesn't bring harm to someone else, than it's great.
As for the idea that religion causes strife in the world- I think this is a very simplistic way of looking at the world and social conflict. Religion is not the cause of these issues, it's the individual extremists within these religions that do this. I truly believe that if it weren't religion, it would be something else that spurs on their extremist ideals and actions. These people would exist and the strife and conflict they are causing would still happen if religion weren't here.
Different types of religions have different messages, but as a whole, the social community and the sense of belonging has huge list of benefits associated from it. And people often note that it's changed their lives for the better. I think that if there is something that makes someone happy, and doesn't bring harm to someone else, than it's great.
As for the idea that religion causes strife in the world- I think this is a very simplistic way of looking at the world and social conflict. Religion is not the cause of these issues, it's the individual extremists within these religions that do this. I truly believe that if it weren't religion, it would be something else that spurs on their extremist ideals and actions. These people would exist and the strife and conflict they are causing would still happen if religion weren't here.
When it really comes down to it, one camp says that this universe is too amazing to have happened by chance and the other says that chance is the only evidence we have. As long as one system of thought doesn't dominate the other, there exists freedom of thought and the source of human creativity. I think people need to be more accepting of things no one can proof or disproof and welcome the amazing potential of our minds to create the variety we see today.
Study epistemology and how different people arrive at their own understanding of knowledge. I think atheists, theists, agnostics, pantheists, would all get along better if they recognize that there are limits to accepting their knowledge as universal.
Study epistemology and how different people arrive at their own understanding of knowledge. I think atheists, theists, agnostics, pantheists, would all get along better if they recognize that there are limits to accepting their knowledge as universal.
Let me start by saying that I am agnostic. I also studied ethics in college.
As to the OP's question, this article seems to suggest yes
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=3189
Consistently, the nations that rank highest on the annual happiness index are the Nordic countries, which just so happen to be the least religious countries on the planet (many of them, including Denmark and Sweden, being upward of 80% non-religious or Atheist).
However, I think it also depends a great deal on the religion and what is preaches. Cyrus the Great, who founded the Persian Empire, is considered to be one of the most benevolent rulers in history and he was also a Zoroastrian. He freed the Jews from slavery in Babylon and allowed them to return to their homes. He also allowed all the people under his rule to practice their own faiths and set up regions in his empire called satraps where he allowed the conquered empires to continue to govern their regions in a similar fashion to before they were conquered. He also is regarded to have developed the first human rights charter called the Cyrus Cylinder, a replica of which presides in the United Nations headquarters in New York. The Cyropaedia or "The Life of Cyrus" was a book written by Xenophon depicting Cyrus as the archtype of an ideal ruler. The Cyropaedia was standard reading for politicians in Ancient Greece and was even influential on some of the Founding Fathers. Benjamen Franklin is known to have read it and Thomas Jefferson had two copies in his personal library.
So this, I believe, is ample evidence that religion and belief in God in and of itself is not necessarily harmful. However, if you look at the teachings of Zoroastrianism it does not believe in proselytization and its mantra can be captured in the expression "Good thoughts, good words, good deeds". I think the danger in religion is that any one slip up in the writing of a religious text can have a major impact on the actions of individuals who follow that religion and lead to harmful consequences. I see issues with many of the modern religions, especially in the ethical sphere. Christianity has historically had a heavy emphasis of proselytization. It is hard for me to see how someone can be tolerant of the views of others when their main goal is to convert them to their own faith. Therefore, the Christian religion seems to be in direct conflict with the moral notion of tolerance which was so chiefly displayed in the rule of Cyrus the Great. The conclusion being that had Cyrus been a Christian rather than a Zoroastrian (ignoring the fact that Christianity had not yet been invented at the time of his life) I don't think he could have been the great ruler that he was.
My position on the matter is that it's fine if some people find religion comforting in matters of the afterlife or whatnot but I do not think religion should be the source of moral guidance. I promote secular ethics and humanism, that is, the idea that what is right and wrong can be known on a purely human understanding of what promotes wellbeing and what causes suffering. Religion is not necessary in understanding these things but instead it requires ethical reflection. There are many secular ethical theories which are much more thorough in explaining what actions are right and wrong and giving reasons for their assertions than the ethical accounts given by various religious texts.
The Dalai Lama just so happens to share my view. His main concern is with the promotion of secular ethics and argues that it should not be seen as conflicting with religion, only that it should be separate from religion and based on universal notions that apply to everyone. That is all secular means, "separate from religion" not "in opposition to religion". I think anyone who reasons thoroughly will conclude similarly that any legitimate ethical principle will have reasons for what makes it good, and these reasons will be able to be understood by all rational bodies. No moral action can be simply justified by divine decree. It is a lack of ethical awareness on the part of many religious people who only act on their own or others interpretations of religious texts which leads to violence, intolerance and bloodshed. If they reflected on the moral implications of their actions for themselves they would not engage in these sorts of behaviors.
As to the OP's question, this article seems to suggest yes
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=3189
Consistently, the nations that rank highest on the annual happiness index are the Nordic countries, which just so happen to be the least religious countries on the planet (many of them, including Denmark and Sweden, being upward of 80% non-religious or Atheist).
However, I think it also depends a great deal on the religion and what is preaches. Cyrus the Great, who founded the Persian Empire, is considered to be one of the most benevolent rulers in history and he was also a Zoroastrian. He freed the Jews from slavery in Babylon and allowed them to return to their homes. He also allowed all the people under his rule to practice their own faiths and set up regions in his empire called satraps where he allowed the conquered empires to continue to govern their regions in a similar fashion to before they were conquered. He also is regarded to have developed the first human rights charter called the Cyrus Cylinder, a replica of which presides in the United Nations headquarters in New York. The Cyropaedia or "The Life of Cyrus" was a book written by Xenophon depicting Cyrus as the archtype of an ideal ruler. The Cyropaedia was standard reading for politicians in Ancient Greece and was even influential on some of the Founding Fathers. Benjamen Franklin is known to have read it and Thomas Jefferson had two copies in his personal library.
So this, I believe, is ample evidence that religion and belief in God in and of itself is not necessarily harmful. However, if you look at the teachings of Zoroastrianism it does not believe in proselytization and its mantra can be captured in the expression "Good thoughts, good words, good deeds". I think the danger in religion is that any one slip up in the writing of a religious text can have a major impact on the actions of individuals who follow that religion and lead to harmful consequences. I see issues with many of the modern religions, especially in the ethical sphere. Christianity has historically had a heavy emphasis of proselytization. It is hard for me to see how someone can be tolerant of the views of others when their main goal is to convert them to their own faith. Therefore, the Christian religion seems to be in direct conflict with the moral notion of tolerance which was so chiefly displayed in the rule of Cyrus the Great. The conclusion being that had Cyrus been a Christian rather than a Zoroastrian (ignoring the fact that Christianity had not yet been invented at the time of his life) I don't think he could have been the great ruler that he was.
My position on the matter is that it's fine if some people find religion comforting in matters of the afterlife or whatnot but I do not think religion should be the source of moral guidance. I promote secular ethics and humanism, that is, the idea that what is right and wrong can be known on a purely human understanding of what promotes wellbeing and what causes suffering. Religion is not necessary in understanding these things but instead it requires ethical reflection. There are many secular ethical theories which are much more thorough in explaining what actions are right and wrong and giving reasons for their assertions than the ethical accounts given by various religious texts.
The Dalai Lama just so happens to share my view. His main concern is with the promotion of secular ethics and argues that it should not be seen as conflicting with religion, only that it should be separate from religion and based on universal notions that apply to everyone. That is all secular means, "separate from religion" not "in opposition to religion". I think anyone who reasons thoroughly will conclude similarly that any legitimate ethical principle will have reasons for what makes it good, and these reasons will be able to be understood by all rational bodies. No moral action can be simply justified by divine decree. It is a lack of ethical awareness on the part of many religious people who only act on their own or others interpretations of religious texts which leads to violence, intolerance and bloodshed. If they reflected on the moral implications of their actions for themselves they would not engage in these sorts of behaviors.
Last edited:
what are you trying to say with this?
If you answer to the OP, then it seems that without religion there would be more murders, adulterous acts and all kinds of dirty things. So not a happier world at all...
Secondly, no one has proven in the whole known history that God does not exist. Very smart people have tried, philosopers and poets, scientists and matemathicians and physicists, so I don't know what you mean "if you prove to people their god is not real"...maybe if you trick people in believing god is not real, if you make them believe that you really prove something.
And thirdly, assuming that one can prove God does not exist, and by this the implication is that God really does not exist, and we go by your estimation that people will turn to do evil things, despite once being "holy"...that is really telling of people and their sick hypocritical nature, not religion. After all, you've just proved that God doesn't exist, so you can not put any fault for a inexistent God, or religion.
And finaly, in this situation, you still judge things by a moral standard, because you said "and watch them become crooks, murders, adulterous all at the drop of a hat." So the problem is in humanity's garden, not in some religion...of course, this is from the perspective that religion is illusion.
I don't think you understand.
Freedom of thought is a value, but is not a supreme value. People want and desire to have much more valuable values.
Beaside, you contradicted yourself perfectly.
Lucy…we have been through this many times…just as you think that I cannot prove that God doesn’t exist…you cannot give me any proof whatsoever that He does.
That is why they call it “faith” because without “faith” there would be no assurances that there is or ever was a God in the universe.
Can we please get away from the trying to prove our own personal point of view in regards to religion…that is the question…no one here is more correct than another, because it’s a question with no answer…there is no proof that life would be better or worse with religion or not…maybe both simultaneously in other universes.
This is a thread for mental masturbation.
Is a person a better person who does good because they believe god is watching or one who does good but believes there is no god? Or does it matter?
I thought I said it pretty clearly and used considerably fewer words than you in the process...
I'm not sure. I would say though, that the world would be very boring if everyone else thought exactly like I do.
I see you don't really agree with my view, but that's okay. I haven't arrived at a decision as to what I believe, but I'm in the process of sorting through it. I'm curious as to how I contradicted myself. I would rather not so if you have time, would you care to tell me?
Sorry, I'm not an atheist but it really bothers me when people try to say that atheism is a religion. This is simply false. A religion involves a belief system. Atheism is not a belief system, it is a single belief that no God exists. So when people try to say that what Stalin did and what Hitler did were caused by atheism in response to others claiming that Christianity is responsible for the inquisitions and other atrocities, these are not the same thing at all. Atheism is not a belief system, it is a single belief about the non-existence of deities. There are no established tenants of atheism or anything that it tells people to do. Therefore, if Stalin or Hitler killed millions of people it had nothing to do with atheism but is rather attributed to some other idealogy, in these cases Stalinism and Nazism. On the other hand, the inquisitions were carried out by Christians specifically adhering to their interpretation of the tenants of that belief system. Therefore, without that belief structure in place (namely the Christian religion) those tortures would not have occurred (may I remind you that the point of the inquisitions was to establish people's heresy or non-belief in Christianity. If the religion did not exist the inquisitions would not have taken place. This is just basic logic.)
It's funny, my dad uses this same argument when we discuss religion (he is a non-practicing Christian). He tries to argue that the reason religion is beneficial is because it offers a place for people to meet and people can go on trips with their church group and what have you and this is something that atheists and non-religious people are missing out on. And I respond "But you have never been on a trip with a church group. You go on trips with your friends from high school so... I don't see how that is something atheists are missing out on if you don't even do it." Also there are plenty of types of groups that can come together around things other than religion, like similar interests. I was part of the Secular Freethought Society at my university. They hold meetings to discuss things as well, just instead of holding hands and singing bible songs they hold intellectual discussions about different subjects.
I agree. This is why I have no problem with people choosing to practice religion so long as it doesn't effect other people. This is why I argue that as far as ethics is concerned, it should be separate from religion. As far as believing in God and heaven and these things, that is a personal choice and if it brings comfort to some people then they should be free to practice their religion so long as it does not encroach on other people's freedom. I am not part of what they call the anti-theist camp that Hitchens and some other established atheists are known for promoting.
I have to disagree with you here. Like the inquisition example above and many others, the individuals' religious belief is the direct cause of the harm they are causing to others. A terrorist bomber is spurred by a religious conviction about his Muslim faith (regardless of the fact that it is an extremist view of that religion) it is still ultimately caused by a religious view. That same person, had Islam not existed would likely not be blowing himself up at that moment or committing suicide at all. This idea was caused directly by that religion. When Zoroastrianism was the main religion of the Arab world people were not doing terrorist bombings or ritual suicides. They were out living their lives to the fullest because that is what that religion preached.
Wait, so conforming to religion breeds individuals? I had it the complete opposite...
You bring up some good points and this is probably why religion still persists or why it originated in the first place. I'm not a nihilist but an existentialist. I believe that we create our own purpose and meaning in life. Though their is a small portion of non-religious intellectuals who take up moral skepticism. This is rather tiresome and obnoxious. You get some who are moral nihilists who say that morality doesn't exist at all, famously Nietzsche. And other's who are moral relativists who claim that morality is just dependent on the personal beliefs of individuals or cultures so if the Taliban has a culture that doesn't believe women should get an education then that is fine for them, whereas for other cultures that may be wrong. These are both absurd ethical systems, and are found most prominently among non-religious people (since most religious people adhere to a form of objective morality based on divine command theory). However, the vast majority of non-religious ethicists are still ethical realists and promote substantive ethical approaches.
Then there is of course the type of despair that may come from the contemplation of death. On this topic many people don't want to think about the matter so it seems easy and comforting to accept one of the notions of heaven provided by various religions. I don't want to unsettle anyone but one of my favorite quotes comes from the philosopher and science fiction author Isaac Asimov who wrote:
The biggest farce of all is 'moral' relativism, anyone who understands the obvious oxymoron is over 5 and felt guilty over something... and I would usually respect Asimov, but maybe he would have been happier as a buddhist/hindu... as to Heaven/Hell, it would be inconsequential to me if either existed if I could help someone profoundly who otherwise was unable to help themselves, which isn't to say that I would want such a situation to exist solely for me.