Why does that need explaining? Even in a highly extreme version - rather than some kind of democracy where athiest leaders have been voted in, you instead have me, Tyrant-King Revenant I, as atheist overlord - I would allow for priests. Why not?
You need to re-read that - he’s not allowing for preists - he’s saying they would have to find other things to do… there would be no need for them (as priests).
What does “rule the world” mean? If all the presidents, prime ministers, kings etc. in the world were atheists, I doubt if it would make much difference, except in those few countries, like Iran and the Vatican, that are essentially theocracies, with political power wielded directly by people who are, in the first place, religious leaders. Most countries besides these allow a fair degree of religious freedom in practice, and I would hope (as an atheist) that atheist rulers would not do any more to actively stamp out religion than most political leaders who happen to be religious do to stamp out atheism or rival religions.
If you are asking whether organizations of the general philanthropic type that you list would have been founded in a word without religion (which is a quite different matter from atheists being the rulers), I think the answer is yes. The organizations might be a different, and would certainly have different names, but atheists in general are just as motivated to do good and to try to make the world a better place as religious people are. The religious proselytizing aspect (quite large in some cases) of those organizations would not be there, but there would, on the whole, have been broadly similar organizations founded to do much the same sorts of charitable, philanthropic and socially beneficial work that they do. (I am not sure I accept that all the ones listed in the OP actually do do beneficial work, but some of them clearly do, and I take it that the point was to list organizations that do that, and were founded by people at least partly motivated by religion.)
I don’t know about that, simple conquest outnumbers wars of religion. Further, religious wars often have a materialist agenda behind them. Religion functions more often as an excuse for war than a motive for it.
ETA: There is some evidence that religious wars are more destructive than others, as compromise between the warring sides is made more difficult by the nature of the conflict.
I think that mickiel highlights the biggest problem with a ‘theistic’ society - the inherent nature of “us vs them” - sure, even in an atheistic society we would find reasons to fight, it just wont be over ‘who’s version of god is superior’.
i’ve had more syrians weeping on my shoulder than you have had hot dinners.
can never go back.
Basically your atheist world would look a lot like a world filled with people that don’t believe in Santa Claus.
Few people would worry incessantly about placating an all powerful gift giver
Few people would reach for supernatural explanations for events and disappointments
Few people would use Santa Claus as an excuse for behaviour and would have to justify their actions on other things.
However atheism isn’t a homogeneous organized system of belief, it’s simply a description for a belief system without a god.
i have been in situations in gender based, religious places that i was so shit scared for my life you wouldn’t believe.
talk islam. talk christians. buddhists.
Mickiel, having read your previous thread I think I know how deep your research into non-Christian organizations will go, so let me give you a hand. Ever hear of the Red Crescent Movement?
shhh let him google.
You’re going to Hell, you know.
But not for that. The reasons for your damnation are structural.
I don’t doubt it, but stroll on over to List of wars. Religion is just one of many things people will kill over, and it’s not #1 on the list.
That’s very Protestant of you.
Two quotes for you, both by Prof. Wouter Hanegraaff:
And:
Moving on:
I think this is like asking what would happen if left-handed people ran the world.
Meaning that I know of no reliable studies which show that people who self-identify as “atheists” tend to act any more (or less) “morally” than people who self-identify as “theists.”
(If you - any of you - know of such a study, lemme know.)
Here’s a couple of Islamic groups for your list, Mickiel:
Union Of Good
American Muslim Council
And now for the topper, Mickiel: Here is the list you asked for, complete with descriptions that you refuse to provide for your list.
There is no “atheist view of family values” just like there is no “a-unicornist view of family values”.
Atheists have families. They raise those families according to their values. What those values are varies from atheist to atheist.
No doubt; as I am from heavily-Protestant Kentucky, my influence has been Protestants.
Er, it’s rather hard to say that religion isn’t based upon “the adherence to certain propositions held to be true”, when without holding the proposition that one’s God or Gods are real and you are worshipping them correctly, you don’t have a religion, you have theater.
I have to list them for you? Can you not think of ONE example in the world where religion dictates laws of conduct?
No, read it again. I said no religious sectarian violence (or, vastly reduced violence of this sort, if there are still some religious people around).
No, I’m suggesting some of it is.
No, I don’t think so.