Has atheism made the world a better place?

[United Muscovite Nations]

America has executions, poverty, and is involved in pretty much all of those wars. Do you think that all Americans live in misery?

America uses executions... relatively more sparingly, poverty isn't as widespread, and they aren't as affected by those wars until/unless they sign up for military service.

But yes, compared to the REST of the western world, Americans live in misery. It's more a sliding scale than a discrete set of categories.

That's a generalization of an entire region if I ever saw one.

[Ifreann]

America has executions, poverty, and is involved in pretty much all of those wars. Do you think that all Americans live in misery?

America uses executions... relatively more sparingly, poverty isn't as widespread, and they aren't as affected by those wars until/unless they sign up for military service.

But yes, compared to the REST of the western world, Americans live in misery. It's more a sliding scale than a discrete set of categories.

Since people can live in America and yet not be affected by executions, poverty, and war, do you not see how the same can be true in the Middle East?

[New Bremerton]

Atheism has proliferated apostasy from the truth of religion. This alone makes it a negative effect on society, and more importantly it is deadly to heavenly society. Atheism destroys the joy of souls.

1. Apostates and infidels unite!
2. [In happy Droopy voice] I'm soooooo happy!!

Me? I was a totally miserable sod when I dabbled in belief.

Also when should I point out that the list of the least religious places on Earth overlaps pretty well with the list of the most prosperous, equal and cohesive societies on Earth?

And yet, the PRC and the Soviet Union were officially atheist.

It's almost like there's other reasons for that prosperity.

Secularism. Not religion or atheism. Democracy too, perhaps. Classical liberalism.

You forgot the steady state theory. An omnipotent and eternal God, by nature, has no beginning or end, and therefore exist outside of time or constraints of cause and effect.

However how does this make sense? How can something exist without a reason? It completely ruins the whole idea of nothing can come from nothing. This situation can only exist when said situation is made up. God exists because people thinks it does, therefore humans are "gods" creator. Still doesn't really make much sense though.

You're very clever, young man! It's turtles all the way down!

As for the question at the centre of this thread, I would think it's obvious that just coming to a realization about the truth (as I see it) shouldn't logically be expected to lead to a better world. If anything, by coming to that realization, the absurd world we live in becomes that much more apparent, as does the burden each of us have to make it better.

However, I do think that the atheist position places a greater burden on the individual to justify themselves, not before God*, but to their fellow human beings. And I find that to be a good thing. Atheism and the skepticism with which it often walks hand in hand leads us to a more rational mindset, to question traditions and authority. Justifying women being second class citizens or the Indian caste system becomes a lot harder if you can't invoke seemingly unquestionable scripture or other such explanations that rely on the authority of religions in and of themselves.


*Assuming we are speaking of an intervening, personal one who pays attention to human affairs

The obvious difference is the lack of primal reverence and fear. A God who will account for all your wrongdoings and exact punishments is a more frightening belief system than one where you have to consciously discipline and rely on your self-righteousness to be a better human being for others.

So a God-fearing Italian Made Man from Al Capone's Outfit who murders roughly a hundred people a year and prays his sins away every day has far more self-discipline and moral uprightness than a decent, law-abiding atheist who has never hurt a fly in his life. Frightening indeed.

No, because it didn't make the world less religious, it transferred the desire for spirituality and morality away from Christianity religious extremism and towards political extremism.

ftfy.

That's a question different people will have different answers to. If you think the world we live in today is good then sure. The west has been Godless since the 60s and 70s.

And all the better for it.

[Celritannia]

1. Incorrect: http://www.annclinlabsci.org/content/37/3/295.full

Galileo was persecuted for his theological work.
Michael Servetus was persecuted for theological positions.

Your link proves nothing.

2.It wasn't just the cathars though, as the quote states. It was any heretic, meaning anyone that wasn't a Christian.
But thank you, you just showed exactly what I mean. The Catholic Church did not help anyone.
So you are saying an entire religion is responsible for the death of a Pope

Of a papal nuncio*, and yes the Cathars were responsible for it.

3. You're statement: "Throughout the medieval period up until the beginning of the enlightenment, the Church was the largest patron of sciences"
So yes, you were.

The use of the word "largest" makes it clear I acknowledged there was others. Pick up a dictionary.

Restricting rights is cool?
This is why countries that are more religious use religion as a coping mechanism, because they have less access to rights, education, and medicine.
Not to mention, there are more freedoms in secular countries, which from your reply, you are against a lot of freedoms.

Yes, I am against arbitrary "freedoms".

1. You're obviously denying the evidence provided, as pure usual.
The Church persecuted scientists that thought they were superior to the Pope.

2. I asked if all the Cathars were responsible. An entire religion cannot be responsible for the death of one person. Plus, it seems to me the Cathars were threatened.

3. Saying it was the largest sounds like you are saying it was the sole one, but it was not the largest or sole one. China and India had far better understandings before Christianity even existed.

4. LGBT+ groups are people and deserve the same right. They are not arbitrary rights.
And a woman's choice to have an abortion is there choice alone.
Plus, the more religious the state, the more unproductive sex happens, leading to more abortions or unwanted pregnancies. Better sex education, science and general well being prevents this.
So you don't like rights and freedoms.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

America uses executions... relatively more sparingly, poverty isn't as widespread, and they aren't as affected by those wars until/unless they sign up for military service.

But yes, compared to the REST of the western world, Americans live in misery. It's more a sliding scale than a discrete set of categories.

Since people can live in America and yet not be affected by executions, poverty, and war, do you not see how the same can be true in the Middle East?

Not directly, obviously, but those things are examples of how dysfunctional the Middle East is, not the root cause. It's the dysfunction that would make people miserable, not just those things in particular. Same for the USA.

[Eglaecia]

And all the better for it.

That's subjective. Many peoples lives are far worse today than their parents and grandparents were.

[Celritannia]

And all the better for it.

That's subjective. Many peoples lives are far worse today than their parents and grandparents were.

Actually, the evidence I have provided time and again shows the least religious countries are the happiest, while the poorer nations use religion to cope through their hardships.
So it isn't subjective.

[Gikyvernisi]

Atheism is simply not believing in god, and that helped a bit in science, but religion is also good as it helps people to know the difference between good and bad and also consequences, also religion gives moral support to people who lost someone.
Atheism did make the world advance, but there are some more steps until we make the world better.

[Lower Nubia]

That's subjective. Many peoples lives are far worse today than their parents and grandparents were.

Actually, the evidence I have provided time and again shows the least religious countries are the happiest, while the poorer nations use religion to cope through their hardships.
So it isn't subjective.

That is such a bad correlation concerning least religious = happier. It's more likely more wealth, less hardship = happier.

[Ifreann]

Since people can live in America and yet not be affected by executions, poverty, and war, do you not see how the same can be true in the Middle East?

Not directly, obviously, but those things are examples of how dysfunctional the Middle East is, not the root cause. It's the dysfunction that would make people miserable, not just those things in particular. Same for the USA.

But do you think that everyone in this large region actually suffers from the various dysfunctions present there? Do you think that the billionaires living in penthouses in Dubai are miserable because of the war in Iraq? Because of poverty in Israel? Because ISIS executed some people in Syria?

[Gikyvernisi]

Well, actually not only a bit, but I'm not sure that saying "religion had bad science" is the neutral point I'm looking for.

[Celritannia]

Actually, the evidence I have provided time and again shows the least religious countries are the happiest, while the poorer nations use religion to cope through their hardships.
So it isn't subjective.

That is such a bad correlation concerning least religious = happier. It's more likely more wealth, less hardship = happier.

Which also includes better access to education, medicine, welfare, etc.
Meaning better technology for farming food, wider access to basic drugs for preventable diseases, and codes of strong laws that prevent wars. Not to mention all peoples (LGBT+, Straight, different races, men, women), are all equal.

Compared to poorer nations that have none of those so turn to religion for help and cope in their daily struggles to survive.

[Gikyvernisi]

That's subjective. Many peoples lives are far worse today than their parents and grandparents were.

Actually, the evidence I have provided time and again shows the least religious countries are the happiest, while the poorer nations use religion to cope through their hardships.
So it isn't subjective.

Saudi Arabia, Palestine/Israel, the poor African Nations...
That level of happiness.

[Celritannia]

Atheism is simply not believing in god, and that helped a bit in science, but religion is also good as it helps people to know the difference between good and bad and also consequences, also religion gives moral support to people who lost someone.
Atheism did make the world advance, but there are some more steps until we make the world better.

You don't need religion to know bad from good, or morals.
After all, what a religious moral says, and what a secular moral says can be different. For example LGBT rights.

[Lower Nubia]

That is such a bad correlation concerning least religious = happier. It's more likely more wealth, less hardship = happier.

Which also includes better access to education, medicine, welfare, etc.
Meaning better technology for farming food, wider access to basic drugs for preventable diseases, and codes of strong laws that prevent wars. Not to mention all peoples (LGBT+, Straight, different races, men, women), are all equal.

Compared to poorer nations that have none of those so turn to religion for help and cope in their daily struggles to survive.

The bit I've highlighted has nothing to do with atheism.

The bottom positive has to do with religion.

Ironically you've highlighted a positive of religion, not atheism.

[Ard al Islam]

Well, actually not only a bit, but I'm not sure that saying "religion had bad science" is the neutral point I'm looking for.

I disagree. The greatest scientific advances in the medieval era were by Muslims.

[Celritannia]

Which also includes better access to education, medicine, welfare, etc.
Meaning better technology for farming food, wider access to basic drugs for preventable diseases, and codes of strong laws that prevent wars. Not to mention all peoples (LGBT+, Straight, different races, men, women), are all equal.

Compared to poorer nations that have none of those so turn to religion for help and cope in their daily struggles to survive.

The bit I've highlighted has nothing to do with atheism.

The bottom positive has to do with religion.

Ironically you've highlighted a positive of religion, not atheism.

Yet the more advanced a country the less religious they are due to the access of better education and medicine, because people are not praying for their children to get better or a better harvest.

So when people are struggling, the more they are likely to turn to religion is your point?

[Eglaecia]

1. You're obviously denying the evidence provided, as pure usual.
The Church persecuted scientists that thought they were superior to the Pope.

You didn't provide any evidence that justified your claim. I clicked your link, I read every single physician listed on it. Only two of them had any relation to the Catholic Church. One was Galileo, who it omits was persecuted over his theology, and the other was Servetus who was persecuted for his religious views. Your claim was they were persecuted for their scientific research. All the others were not persecuted by the Church.

2. I asked if all the Cathars were responsible. An entire religion cannot be responsible for the death of one person. Plus, it seems to me the Cathars were threatened.

It doesn't matter what it "seems" to you because you don't know anything about the Albigensian Crusade. The Cathars stole property from the Church and declared war on the Church. They evangelized by the sword and that's how they met their ends. They were a violent terrorist sect and nothing more.

3. Saying it was the largest sounds like you are saying it was the sole one, but it was not the largest or sole one. China and India had far better understandings before Christianity even existed.

No it doesn't???? If something is the "largest" or the "smallest" then you are acknowledging there are others. Largest cannot be used in any circumstance to imply it was the sole patron. The word largest can only be used comparatively. Is English your first language???
And various Chinese and Indian authorities were generous patrons of the sciences - something I've never denied yet you seem to continue accusing me of - that doesn't change the fact that the Church was the largest patron of science in these times.
Please read Ronald Numbers' Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion

4. LGBT+ groups are people and deserve the same right. They are not arbitrary rights.

Homosexuals have never been deprived of any right.

And a woman's choice to have an abortion is there choice alone.

I don't care.

Plus, the more religious the state, the more unproductive sex happens, leading to more abortions or unwanted pregnancies. Better sex education, science and general well being prevents this.

This isn't relevant.

So you don't like rights and freedoms.

I don't like arbitrary, made up "rights" such as those afforded to you by the government.

[Celritannia]

Actually, the evidence I have provided time and again shows the least religious countries are the happiest, while the poorer nations use religion to cope through their hardships.
So it isn't subjective.

Saudi Arabia, Palestine/Israel, the poor African Nations...
That level of happiness.

Even India, South American nations, and certain US states, the more religious they are the more rights they restrict, leading to less happiness for certain groups.

[Gikyvernisi]

Well, actually not only a bit, but I'm not sure that saying "religion had bad science" is the neutral point I'm looking for.

I disagree. The greatest scientific advances in the medieval era were by Muslims.

But I mean that with atheism we went further, like more anthropology, biology, chemistry and other things that some religions didn't allow studying.

[Lower Nubia]

The bit I've highlighted has nothing to do with atheism.

The bottom positive has to do with religion.

Ironically you've highlighted a positive of religion, not atheism.

Yet the more advanced a country the less religious they are due to the access of better education and medicine, because people are not praying for their children to get better or a better harvest.

You're putting the cart before the horse. Education -> making atheists already assumes a good education system. Highlighting an already prosperous state. They're not rich or educated because of atheism.

In addition, medicine & education are not Atheistical inventions.

Further, I would suggest not education, but the freedom to pursue self is the factor for more atheists. Most education on religion & atheism is utterly poor.

Edit:

1944 1%
1947 3%
1953 1%
1954 1%
1965 2%
1967 1%
2011 7%
2013 11%
2014 11%
2016 10%

The proportion of US population that was atheist. The US was definitely developed in the 1940s, Atheism didn't lead to prosperity, it was a consequence of that freedom of self.

[Celritannia]

1. You're obviously denying the evidence provided, as pure usual.
The Church persecuted scientists that thought they were superior to the Pope.

You didn't provide any evidence that justified your claim. I clicked your link, I read every single physician listed on it. Only two of them had any relation to the Catholic Church. One was Galileo, who it omits was persecuted over his theology, and the other was Servetus who was persecuted for his religious views. Your claim was they were persecuted for their scientific research. All the others were not persecuted by the Church.

2. I asked if all the Cathars were responsible. An entire religion cannot be responsible for the death of one person. Plus, it seems to me the Cathars were threatened.

It doesn't matter what it "seems" to you because you don't know anything about the Albigensian Crusade. The Cathars stole property from the Church and declared war on the Church. They evangelized by the sword and that's how they met their ends. They were a violent terrorist sect and nothing more.

3. Saying it was the largest sounds like you are saying it was the sole one, but it was not the largest or sole one. China and India had far better understandings before Christianity even existed.

No it doesn't???? If something is the "largest" or the "smallest" then you are acknowledging there are others. Largest cannot be used in any circumstance to imply it was the sole patron. The word largest can only be used comparatively. Is English your first language???
And various Chinese and Indian authorities were generous patrons of the sciences - something I've never denied yet you seem to continue accusing me of - that doesn't change the fact that the Church was the largest patron of science in these times.
Please read Ronald Numbers' Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion

4. LGBT+ groups are people and deserve the same right. They are not arbitrary rights.

Homosexuals have never been deprived of any right.

And a woman's choice to have an abortion is there choice alone.

I don't care.

Plus, the more religious the state, the more unproductive sex happens, leading to more abortions or unwanted pregnancies. Better sex education, science and general well being prevents this.

This isn't relevant.

So you don't like rights and freedoms.

I don't like arbitrary, made up "rights" such as those afforded to you by the government.

1.

Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the Sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church. Standard practice demanded that the accused be imprisoned and secluded during the trial.

It was based on a scientific discovery.

2. And the Church stole lands of the Pagans of Europe and forced them to convert to their religion.

3. The Catholic church was only the largest patron in Europe, no where else. So it wasn't the largest patron of the sciences, and it only allowed science that subjected themselves to the pope's authority. Which is one of the reasons for the Protestant reformation.

4. They have in religious countries. From the medieval period and through to today. And when you look at trligious states in the US, they have more restrictions against them.

5. then why do you prefer the more religious states of the US that restrict those rights for women?

6. It actually is relevant. In secular nations there is better access to sex education and information concerning STDs. Compared that to the poorer religious countries, or other countries/states that have limited access to sex education and medication for STDs. Birth control is necessary and better sex health is necessary.

7. Compared to religious authorities that restrict those rights for LGBT communities and women?
It's the people that voted in representatives for change and ensure better rights for everyone, so it was the people wanting better freedom via elections.

[The Emerald Legion]

I disagree. The greatest scientific advances in the medieval era were by Muslims.

But I mean that with atheism we went further, like more anthropology, biology, chemistry and other things that some religions didn't allow studying.

Did you just imply chemistry was forbidden to the religious?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Not directly, obviously, but those things are examples of how dysfunctional the Middle East is, not the root cause. It's the dysfunction that would make people miserable, not just those things in particular. Same for the USA.

But do you think that everyone in this large region actually suffers from the various dysfunctions present there? Do you think that the billionaires living in penthouses in Dubai are miserable because of the war in Iraq? Because of poverty in Israel? Because ISIS executed some people in Syria?

No more than I think some billionaire living in a penthouse in New York would be miserable because of the poverty in the slums not too far from their penthouse.

"Everyone" was too strong a word, but I figure it should be pretty obvious I meant "most," not "all." The point was, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

[Celritannia]

Yet the more advanced a country the less religious they are due to the access of better education and medicine, because people are not praying for their children to get better or a better harvest.

You're putting the cart before the horse. Education -> making atheists already assumes a good education system. Highlighting an already prosperous state. They're not rich or educated because of atheism.

In addition, medicine & education are not Atheistical inventions.

Further, I would suggest not education, but the freedom to pursue self is the factor for more atheists. Most education on religion & atheism is utterly poor.

Edit:

1944 1%
1947 3%
1953 1%
1954 1%
1965 2%
1967 1%
2011 7%
2013 11%
2014 11%
2016 10%

The proportion of US population that was atheist. The US was definitely developed in the 1940s, Atheism didn't lead to prosperity, it was a consequence of that freedom of self.

Yet it is the better access to technology, education, and medicine that leads to a decline in religion due to people no longer praying for bountiful harvests or for their loved ones to get better, as seen in poorer countries.

Unless you can give me an explanation as to why secularism is growing in developed nations?

And as I stated previously, the US is a special case.
But when you go by state, the least religious the state, the more freedoms they have for more people, especially LGBT communities, and getting access to birth control.