Oh come on man, please; are you trying to suggest that at no time in human history, that religion has not lead the world? No, no; you got to get real with this debate; must I now show all the times that religion has already led the world? Atheism has never led this world. And if you are suggesting religion has never led it, I totally disagree with you.
Then what is the purpose of this thread?
Your examination is going to be worthless if you can’t understand what you’re looking at.
I don’t believe you at all. I don’t think you’re a liar, mind you; I just think you have no idea what other people think or how your views compare to theirs. Your view seems to be that you’ve carved a 100% “I walk alone” unique approach to God and spirituality, and to my reading you’re a somwehat unorthodox Christian.
I don’t despise religious people and I don’t want them eliminated. I think a large number of people have already told you the same exact thing, and it hasn’t sunk in one little bit.
This is an utterly meaningless statement implying no understanding of atheism, religion, or science. Religion does a lot of things that science by definition doesn’t do, and that’s why a lot of atheists find science more meaningful to religion. Science doesn’t have much to say on ethics or morality or personal conduct, for instance, although you can use scientific facts in discussions of those things. Religion offers tons and tons of those things - in general believers think that’s good and atheists think it’s bad. So again, you’re wrong when you keep saying atheists have to replace religion with something that’s just like religion but not religion.
You’re the only one who said it can. I’m not even sure what it means since it’s not like one religion rules the world.
You mean “A” religion? Never happened. And I’m assuming you meant individual countries. No individual or philosophy has ever ruled the entire world.
But “A” religion is not the same as “ALL” religion.
You cannot answer how a single government enshrining “all” theists would operate, because that’s never happened. And cannot happen - some religions would not allow any aspect of another religion to tell them what to do.
Likewise, you cannot answer how a single government enshrining “all” atheists would work.
Your problem appears to be that you don’t understand that atheism is not like a particular religion. It’s alternately like all religions under one umbrella or no religion at all. And it suffers the same problem. You can’t get religious people of different faiths to agree on a single, universal set of principles. Likewise you can’t get areligious people of different beliefs to agree on a single, universal set of principles.
ETA: Also, your analysis fails for many Buddhists, who do have religion but don’t believe in a god or gods.
Mickiel, perhaps it would help if you explained what you think religious leadership has added to the world? That might make it easier for people to explain how they think those things can (or should) be replaced.
Are you suggesting Great Briton never ruled this world, I totally disagree. Rome never ruled the world? Egypt never ruled the world? My goodness, will wonders never cease?
I’m not only suggesting these things, I absolutely know these things are true.
At no point did any of these nations rule the world. At no point did they control even a majority of the people or populated landmass of the world. And at no point did the dominant religion of these nations become the only religion of the world - actually Rome was known to be incredibly pliable towards other religions as long as you paid your taxes and didn’t get uppity.
You would have been better off suggesting Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan but even they never got close.
So, now I must ask, what do you mean by “ruling the world”? Because it obviously does not involve physical, political, or economic control of even a majority of the people on the planet.
Were you home-schooled?
Lines, Czarcasm. Careful you don’t cross them.
Remember, it’s the post, not the poster.
No warning issued.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db18_Fig_6.png
Statistics show otherwise. While its true some very secular countries such as Japan has very low illegitimacy, it has a strong social cohesiveness and very unatomistic unlike the United States.
A reasonable request;
I think religion has added at least these things;
Some unity
A voice the government has to take serious
A monetary force
A local neighborhood rally of inspirations
A choice for youth that has possible positive connotations
Fellowship for loners
A platform for morality
I could go more, but at least give me something that Atheist could offer in each of these realities.
I can’t believe this!
I apologize for overstepping-let me rephrase.
From whom did you learn that Great Britain and/or Rome and/or Egypt ruled the world?
Again, you are conflating the effect of a specific religion with that of religion in general.
I assure you Buddhism does little of any of these things.
Specific groups of atheists have obviously had ideas on how to run governments (see France after the Revolution, Mexico after their Revolution, various communist nations).
But just as different state religions have different ideas on how to run things, different atheist states also clearly have different ideas on how to run things. And this includes either active discouragement of religions (China after Mao took over) or acceptance of whatever people want to believe (China now).
world?
[/QUOTE]
]Look under " How big was the empire".
What has the Family Research Council added to our society?
Hey, here’s a thought. What’s the abortion rate in Japan?
Could I suggest that, were the majority of the world to suddenly become atheist, you probably wouldn’t see fundamental changes in behavior? Not to say that there wouldn’t be differences, but good people would still be good people, jerks would still be jerks, and people who are now inclined to fight over whether there is a God or not would find new things to fight about.
I’d also suggest that right now, religion itself doesn’t rule the world. Individuals, some of whom are religious, do. Should they be replaced by atheists, the new rulers would face the same challenges, the same range of choices, and the same variety of behavior that current world leaders do.
And? In what way did they control a majority of the population, landmass, or money of the world? In what way could they impose their will freely on all other nation? For all their territories, it never represented a majority in any of those things.
“Influence” over the entire world is not the same thing as ruling it. Both the Soviet Union and the US had influence over the entire world during the Cold War. Neither ruled the world.
So, again, what is YOUR definition of “Ruling the World”? Because it clearly does not involve physical, political, or economic control of a majority of the people, landmass, or money.
I did.
Would you mind looking at this?
