I didn’t mean to alienate you with the humor. I had hoped it would lighten things up somewhat. But my point is that holding out for completion of evidence doesn’t make sense. The problems are endemic. If the evidence is induced, how do you determine when the evidence is complete? But if the evidence is deduced, how will you maintain consistency in all propositions even if it is complete?
Hmm… because god is imaginary.
Would the world be better off if no-one believe in the spiritual/non-physical?
I don’t know, but it certainly wouldn’t be any worse off. And it may even be a plus because it would be a little less annoying (no fundies telling us that Harry Potter is evil!) Religion doesn’t contribute anything to society (art, philosophy, charity) that can’t be done without the fabrication of diety/spiritual element.
Disclaimer: Just because I think that the world wouldn’t be worse off without religion doesn’t mean I have a desire to start trying to force anyone to give up their religious beliefs. You can believe whatever you like as long as it doesn’t affect me.
I tend to think the world would be a better place.
People might just value life a little more if they all thought, ‘this is it.’
There might be a few less children going hungry if the parents thought it was ok to use birth control.
While people/countries would surely find other things to fight about, maybe the lack of fundamental spiritual differences would curb some of it.
I think science could easily exist without religion. In fact, I think religion has stumped some of the growth science could of had up to this point.
I think there are a large number of people who are so peculiar in their thinking that they will only do good things if there is a perceived authority telling them to do so.
If I, as an atheist, tell the average man on the street that killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, etc, why would he listen to me? If, however, I trick him into thinking that killing me and stealing from me will earn him eternal damnation or some other malarky, then and only then will he stop killing me and stealing from me.
Maybe.
I think the opiate of the masses is necessary but one should strive not to be a part of those masses.
But the down side to that is that those who act blindly on faith can just as easily commit atrocities in the misguided belief that such “authority” is telling them to. And we are unfortunately seeing that very thing happen quite a bit these days.
Gex wrote:
Are you making the same argument as SentientMeat? If so, you’ve destroyed your own argument since all adults don’t agree with you. If not, then you’ve answered with a non sequitur.
Re: ***Atheists: would the world be better if no one believed in the spiritual/non-physical? ***
Doesn’t the truth matter?
But of course; why, are you uncertain of this?
Leaper
Atheists: would the world be better if no one believed in the spiritual/non-physical?
I hate the term atheist…It brings to mind some sort of back room cabal of slobbering baby slayers. I prefere, otherwise spiritually incontinent. And I must admit that I have roamed this earth for some 47 years in search of some rhyme or reason to be (mostly through narcotics and alcohol…which I find easier on yer head than religion, in the long run). And I imagine my attitude wells from a narcisstic ego (and God only knows why I should be at all snooty, considering my life of absolute brilliance),but I just can’t get over the limiting precept of being a rat in the preordained maze.
I for one would find a mythically faithless world a lot less colorful…and as such a quivering bowl of low self esteem that is I, I need me some group to feel easily above, as the devoutly religious…And the good part is, as Christians, they got to forgive me for this thinking … and ya can’t buy that kind a easy out.
Here’s the thing that scares me the most about some religions. Humanity is quickly reaching a point where basic religious concepts like “be fruitful and multiply” and “subdue the earth” and “ignore the science in favor of the gospel” are going to have to prove themselves valid, or else we’re all f----d.
As an atheist, I know that’s not gonna happen. But at the same time, I can’t sit back and say that without religion the other forms of enforcing social cohesion and control–things like communism–wouldn’t be just as irrational, just as bloody, and just as fanatical. I can’t even look over the past few hundred years and say such things wouldn’t be worse.
An all-Atheist world will eventually make up their own mythologies.
posted by Rug Burn
I’m not uncertain that truth matters.
But I did get the impression from the OP that truth doesn’t matter, what’s important is what we believe.
A society that has no supernatural beliefs would require such a radical change in human psychology that I find the question of “is it better or not” utterly impossible to answer.
I’ve read the OP several times and fail to see where your impression comes from. Care to elaborate?
Posted by ** Rug Burn**
OP:
** Atheists: would the world be better if no one believed in the spiritual/non-physical?**
Does the existence of the truth, or the truth have anything thing to do with whether or not any one believes or knows it?
If the truth is that a god or transcend being exists are atheists and others better off not believing in their existence?
To the question:
: would the world be better if no one believed in the spiritual/non-physical?
Only if the spiritual/non-physical does not exist.