It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by nicolee123nd
Some people may see the growth in nonreligious people as a bad thing, weather it's for the sake of their religion or that they just don't like atheists. But I see this as a good thing. I'm an atheist, and I'm gonna admit, I think religion is holding us back from advancing, scientifically and spiritually.
An atheist population can become more scientifically advanced, mostly because religious activists won't get in the way. For example, the only reason evolution is a theory and not a law is because there are too many creationists in the equation. Face it, there's too much evidence and nothing to disprove evolution. Aside from evolution, there would be so much more scientific opportunities for the future, such as stem cell research, better birth control, origins of life on earth, searching for life on other planets, origins of the universe, and so much more. All because the Bible isn't stopping us anymore.
Without religion (Christianity in particular), we could have a better society overall. No longer would gays, women, blacks, and anyone else looked down on in some religions be considered lesser citizens. Kids wouldn't be bullied for their beliefs. It's a fact that, if there was no religion, most wars wouldn't have been fought. Some say 90% of wars are started because of religion, some say only 15%, but there is no way to tell really.
Originally posted by franklin555
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
I think that the argument held between self-proclaimed athiests and self-proclaimed Christians (at least Christians, with open enough minds to be reading the ATS forum), is not where the point I made earlier about a societies, or any societies dominant moral compass, really comes to into play.
Christians (and I am not one) are held together by one book. It is the bible. This book, like it or not, is a self-contained book of concise (and contradictory, at times) moral stances. For example, the bible says not to steal. It says not to murder someone in the heat of the moment. Later on, it says that if someone does cross you, to even forgive them. It also says vague things about not laying with another man, but if you are a Christian, you have to take this whole book as being the word of God.
So, today, if you are born into a Christian household, you kind of take for granted where the morality of not stealing a toy from the neighbor and lying about it comes from. That's because by now the Christian moral compass is woven within the social behavior/conduct of the United States, because, again, like it or not, when this country was founded until about the 1950s/1960s, this country was made up predominantly of self-proclaimed Christians; it was a Christian country. That doesn't mean I'm inferring that everyone who lived in the United States was a Christian, but pretty much.
What is religion's gift to a society? It offers the people of that society with more to do with their time (i.e. laboring) a foundation of a moral code. You see, societies are not ideal things. They are made up of many different people. One would even say a vast majority of individuals who make up societies are poor, under-educated laborers. That is why religion has been called the opiate of the masses. It gives people who can't be burdened with these thoughts, a foundation of conduct.
Ah, but back to the topic. When a person in the United States reaches athiesm, yes, reaches, it is a far step of self analysis that even most in the mainstream religion will never attempt. This has involved questioning, identifying and ultimately rebelling against the mainstream religion they themselves have come from.
They come to this enlightened naivete by saying, "I, who am intelligent enough to self analyze and define myself, have reached atheism. Everyone should be an atheist." But not everyone can. You see, there is a difference between the atheist who has reached atheism, and the atheist who would be gifted atheism in the absence and abhorrance of a religion. You say, "Well, I believe that cutting other people with a knife is wrong, because when I cut myself it hurts." You falsely try to assert that other individuals, left to their own devices to create a moral compass of their own would come to the same conclusion as you. You, who have self-analyzed, who can self-analyze, are not those who deny a religion and all tenets in it without real knowledge of what that religion was trying to accomplish or control.
I say that Aleister Crowley said that in the new age, "Do what thou wilt shall be the rule of the law." Each individual's will shall be, to that individual, their own law. The burden of proof, friend, the proof of an existence of agreed upon moral polemics amongst atheists rests with you.
If you ask the Christian, the Jew, or the Muslim, much as you look down on them for the superstitious belief in an invisible God, where his or her moral compass is, they need only hold up one book.edit on 13-6-2011 by franklin555 because: Forgot a word.
Originally posted by SonofPeleus
reply to post by nicolee123nd
Without organised religion, society would become absolutely morally bankrupt.
One fascist world government would dominate and we would become no more than robotic drones mindlessly following its rules.
No doubt that if you ban religion you have to ban all religion.
Also don't we have a bad enough idenity crisis going on this planet already?
Not at all. What it means is we are sick and tired of Political 2 faced B.S speech. Splitting hairs and trying to make it sound like two different sides of the same coin.
Ill try to explain it more clearly. its clear that you don't understand me, but i was vague.
If demons are real, they feed on negative energies to mantain their power. The same way good gods feed on prayers, faith, and good deeds. If they are real. Now, It doesnt matter if you believe in these evil spirits or not, they can still feed off you, whether you a god-fearing christian, a buddhist, a satanist, an atheist, agnostic, whatever. Beings from another dimension wouldnt care what a mortal human's beliefs are.
That would lead me to believe that if there were ever a rapture, when the good souls are taken from the earth, even an atheist could be taken. I'm in no way saying that "atheist are evil", I'm just saying the may be more apt, given the right situation, to cause lots of problems, for better or worse. but i'm gunna stay bias on that.
Im sure you know what a "band wagon" is.
And i've been hearing Some "there is no god" messages in music lately, teenage music. Like a song called "Morte et Dabo" by Asking Alexandria, The first one that caught my attention.So Teenagers listen to this stuff, And it gets in there head. before they have even tried to acknowledge the existence of some other worldly being, and they settle on "there is no god". Later On, some guy comes along and he announces the first church of atheism ( i know that makes sense, but maybe its not called a church) Either way, maybe these kids with that idea of atheism flock this guy, and he preaches the veiw of the world from the eyes of the atheist. Atheism just became a religion. As much of a contradiction as it is, its just an example.
As for morality, I'm not sure where it comes from, But im Certain that a person who worships a good, just god would more on the good side than a satanist (bad side). By that logic, i supposed a atheist would be on the "Fringe", right in the middle, if not more on one side than the other. they could go either way, as anybody could.
After all this i am inclined to change my opinion of Atheism, and i thank you for that. It seems any belief can be used as a weapon against people. As for my beliefs being LaVayan, Maybe, Satanic, no way in hell.
For example, the only reason evolution is a theory and not a law is because there are too many creationists in the equation.
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.
I'm just going to repeat what I believe the OP's main point was; of an idealic future where atheism is the main "belief" system, that is, if 95%, let's say, of the masses were atheists, either by laziness, or by choice.
Now, you say that atheists will modify their behavior so as not to be percieved externally as selfish so as to be percieved as "good". So that one, if he was to be considered "good" would have to learn, very quickly, to pretend to be "good", with no consequence societally as to whether internally, he or she was "bad".
How or why would an individual seek to be a wholly "good" person? What would be worth gaining from acting "good" at the same time as thinking "good"? Wouldn't it just be easier to never second guess your internal monologue, whether or not you knew it had "bad" tendencies, as long as you could keep up the appearance of "good" by mimicking the "good" behavior of others?