You should learn to read better.
Religious belief centers on the existence of the supernatural and tends to have a divinely mandated system of ethics laid out as obligations.
Atheist don’t believe in the supernatural.
*Everyone *can reason and logically construct arguments from their premises, the atheist simply doesn’t use the divine as a starting point.
And logical positivism doesn’t mean being logically upbeat.
And how many times do you have to be told that it would totally depend on which atheists “ruled the world”, as you very vaguely put it? The only thing all atheists have in common is a disbelief in god/gods/goddesses.
Here’s a clue for you: If you are talking about more than one, add an “s” to the end of the word.
Explain to me what this has to do with my reading? You are suggesting that Atheist can reason and use logic, and that Theist somehow cannot; I totally disagree with that. Religion is NOT an eraser of logic and reason; Galileo Galilei and Louis Pastuer had religion, logic and reason, as did Issac Newton and Blaise Pascal.
If you value the truth, then you should only believe in things that are true. The existence of gods can’t be shown to be true. So, there’s that.
Secondly, there is no benefit from being religious that only comes from religion.
Thirdly, there are costs to being religious that only come from being religious (or otherwise convinced of something on the basis of faith, which covers all sorts of woo): it allows one to ignore reality, and in the end, reality always wins. Faith doesn’t change the laws of physics.
You’ll note I said “Everyone can reason and logically construct arguments from their premises, the atheist simply doesn’t use the divine as a starting point.”
So your objection is baseless, but your persecution complex is doing beautifully.
Did you miss the “everyone”?
Explain to me why the existence of God has not been shown to you, but it has been shown to me? What then is the difference between me and you? Why is it that I can see the evidence of God, and you cannot? This is called " Disagreement", the facts can be right there, but not everyone is going to agree on those facts. The evidence of God is factual to me in my view, but your view is totally different. I could conversely state to you that there is no evidence that God does not exist, can you prove that? What gives your view more weight than mine?
And if your view ruled the world, would your world be different than mine if I did? And why?
We don’t “need” to be anything. We’d be better off without theism, at least in the sense that it would be one less thing to waste time on.
Hey, you said “no boundrys”. Immortality and unicorns are pretty minor compared to a lot of theist concepts.
You still don’t get it. if everyone was atheistic and didn’t believe in supernatural beings we would still have a huge number of philosophical differences over knowledge, ethics and existence. They simply would not have a divine or supernatural premise lurking in the background.
You’d be better off demanding “What would the world be like if everyone was a Solipsist?” or “What would the world be like if everyone was a Kantian?”
What is the factual evidence for the existence of your or any God?
You can’t prove a negative, and the burden of proving a claim is on the claiment. See Russell’s teapot.
I’ve no idea what your views are, beyond some sort of Christianity. If my views ruled the world, we’d have liberal democracy based on Enlightenment humanism everywhere, and tolerance for all faiths and creeds. Certainly a net gain there.
ETA: In case that was unclear, again, atheism can’t govern the world, because atheist has no content. Atheists do, though, they just aren’t uniform. I’m an atheist humanist, I’ve a friend who is an atheist Communist. Our ideal worlds are both religion-free, but are otherwise quite dissimilar.
I cannot give you a list, that is not allowed here, and the evidence is so great in numbers, it would take more than 100 pages to explain it; and that is not allowed here. I can’t give you the evidence without that insulting too many people here. I have already tried that here and will not try again.
Now this I agree with; the majority of people on earth believe in the divine or supernatural; if that were inverted and the majority were Atheists, I am having a hard time seeing what difference it would make.
This is not true.
Not allowed? That’s news to me. Also, unclear how providing evidence of a fact can insult others.
Not as dramatic a difference as many would hope, certainly. It might make the world 20-30% better off, optimistically, but it’d be no utopia. The problems religion causes are human problems; bear in mind that religion is a human invention to meet human needs, and it has rivals that can cause similar problems: nationalism, tribalism, romanticism, and so on.
Fantastic, I’m thrilled you agree, but do you actually understand? You think there’s no change from “People are special because the ultimate authority in the universe says so” to “People are animals no more special or important in the grand scheme of things than mice”?
Maybe you should consider the difference between the late medieval period and the late enlightenment period. The influence of one theistic world view declined steadily in the west while the overall quality of life improved dramatically.
I do agree again; but explain to me why and how it would be 20-30% better?
Explain to me why people are not more special than mice?
If we give you an explanation, will you ask us to explain the explanation, then explain the explanation for the explanation?
I have not done that yet. But if it bothers you for me to ask for explination, then I will simply not ask you for one again.