What I want to know is what the world would be like if all the people who don’t collect stamps ran it. Those a-stamp-collectors surely have a lot in common. For example:
They don’t collect stamps
Uh, they breathe, eat, reproduce?
…
Profit!
Whoa, lost track of my internet memes there. Sorry.
Exactly. Just yesterday, a friend asked me what the world might be like if Mithraism, not Christianity, had become the official state religion of Rome. (Perhaps if Julian the Apostate had been vastly more successful than in real history.)
I had to say: it depends. Liberal Mithraism or conservative Mithraism? What would the long history have been of schisms, reforms, councils, and debates? Look at Christianity and iconoclasm: one century, it’s a major sin to sculpt an image of Jesus; another century, we have the Sistine Chapel!
Ruling atheism might be nasty hard-edged Stalinism or Pol Potism, or it might be enlightened, gentle, and even tolerant of dissent, permitting people to worship if they want to. No way to know!
Yes. It’s just as silly as an adult genuinely believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. With a hefty dose of outright evil added.
Atheism has no values, which is one of the things that makes it better than religion since religions are full of negative, destructive values. No values is better than bad values.
“Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” - Diderot
Human_Action:
Oh, I agree, but I wouldn’t say For You implied that the irreligious lacked a moral code, jist a certain type of moral code.
As it happens, my quest for world destruction, rape, and pillage is coincidental to my atheism.
That’s not going to work. “Remember: Pillage, then burn.” You can’t rape and pillage once you’ve destroyed the world.
Forgive me if this has come up, but is the OP honestly bragging about the Promise Keepers and Family Research Council?
The OP likes to make lists. He doesn’t like to explain them.
Or possibly just doesn’t like reading them.
Mickiel
October 2, 2013, 10:07pm
127
Well educate me; explain what an Atheist is.
Mickiel
October 2, 2013, 10:08pm
128
Explain your view of both scenarios please.
Mickiel
October 2, 2013, 10:09pm
129
An excellent foundation, is Bill Gates an Atheist?
Mickiel
October 2, 2013, 10:12pm
130
Now thats what I am talking about; good post. This gives us a list of organizations. Now the question is what do they do for humanity?
Mickiel
October 2, 2013, 10:15pm
131
njtt:
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 can agree with this, but your suggestion that Atheist would not stamp out religion, I don’t believe that.
Atheists (please try and use the plural when talking about more than one) that are like me have no problem with religious people, and would make no efforts whatsoever to “stamp out religion”. I’m sure there are some who would, just like many religious people want to stamp out atheism. But atheism is very diverse, and there are many different attitudes about most topics among atheists.
Mickiel
October 2, 2013, 10:21pm
134
As others have said atheism is a spectrum, not a monolithic group – in fact much the same can be said for any large group, amongst christians or muslims for example, there is more ideological diversity than there is unity.
The thing the irreligious lack is a rigid, codified morality, this I think is what is concerning you. Without that, we would be left to figure things out, which would probably trend toward situation-ethics. It would not be enough to know that a thing is wrong, we would have to know why it is wrong in this particular instance.
As a hypothetical, the bible says that god told us it is extremely wrong to take other people’s stuff and we could be faced with his infinite wrath for doing that (it is wrong because god said so). I have learned that my weird neighbor Ed who listens to his pet iguana is planning a shooting rampage at the mall. Now, I never go to the mall, so whenever he does this, it will not be me dodging his bullets, but I still think a shooting rampage is a bad thing. So, I know Ed is not home just now, I could break into his place and steal his guns, except, god told me it is wrong to do that. If I am a believer, that injunction will make me hesitate, if not, I am more likely to try to prevent a massacre with a theft.
Without a rigid moral code, there are fewer hypocrites, because we make decisions based on “whys”, not stone carvings. Consider the case of the fine christian women who protest outside of women’s health clinics and sneak in the back door of an evening to have their personal indiscretions taken care of (it happens). In a world run without religion, we all stand a better chance of being honest, unconflicted people, and I think that would be a good thing.
But see this is still based on a wide sweep evaluation of Theist, suggesting some of them cannot be honest and unconflicted people.
Those are links in that cite-why don’t you click on them?
Mickiel
October 2, 2013, 10:26pm
136
iiandyiiii:
Atheists (please try and use the plural when talking about more than one) that are like me have no problem with religious people, and would make no efforts whatsoever to “stamp out religion”. I’m sure there are some who would, just like many religious people want to stamp out atheism. But atheism is very diverse, and there are many different attitudes about most topics among atheists.
I understand that. I agree there are extremist in both camps; so you would allow religion to continue as it is if you were in power?
Ah, the old persecution fantasy…
Do theists try to stamp out atheism? Some do, some don’t.
Do theists try to stamp out religions other than their own? Some do, some don’t.
Why would atheism be so uniform, when theists are not?
ETA: Also, someone who is actively opposed to religion is an antitheist. Atheists just don’t believe in gods.
Curses, you’re right! If only I read the Bible or Koran more, I’d be better educated in rape, conquest, and pillage.
Mickiel
October 2, 2013, 10:30pm
138
Well I clicked on Austrialia and its organization seems to promote Atheism primarily; what does that do for humanity?
Mickiel
October 2, 2013, 10:32pm
139
Human_Action:
Ah, the old persecution fantasy…
Do theists try to stamp out atheism? Some do, some don’t.
Do theists try to stamp out religions other than their own? Some do, some don’t.
Why would atheism be so uniform, when theists are not?
ETA: Also, someone who is actively opposed to religion is an antitheist. Atheists just don’t believe in gods.
Curses, you’re right! If only I read the Bible or Koran more, I’d be better educated in rape, conquest, and pillage.
Well my point was you cannot say that Atheism , as a whole, would not try to stamp out religion. Because they are so diverse, you cannot say what the whole would do in that area.
Atheism doesn’t do anything at all. It’s neither an organization nor a dogma, but the lack of any dogma related to the existence of deities.
That’s like asking what would happen if people who are not into sports took over the world.