Has atheism made the world a better place?

[Neutraligon]

So, he showed himself. 2000 years ago, in a time where nobody here existed, people didn't fully understand natural phenomena, and where the only methods that could "prove" he's the son of God that could be passed down to future generations effectively amounts to "trust us guys, this here is 100% correct".

And something tells me that if He came back right here, right now, you and every other atheist would still not believe Him to be God.

If he where able to demonstrate that he had indeed come back (might be difficult) and that he is who he say he is (also might be difficult) then I would probably believe him...I would not worship him however as the idea of worship is disgusting.

[Neutraligon]

Most atheists aren't against people believing in a God so much as They are against people believing in disturbing shit and trying to make public policy based on said beliefs. at least from my experience as an atheist with several atheist friends, I can say this. I haven't done a poll of atheists so I wouldn't know if this rings true worldwide. It's why I never had an issue with mormons or Quakers despite them being religious

The latest group of atheist influences, like Mr. atheist, genetically modified skeptic, Tell tale, etc. explicitly make a point to not be an asshole to people of a religious slant and they tell all their fans to follow suit. The last major generation of atheist influencers and propagators, the likes of Hitchens and Dawking were a little more rude in that regard, but that’s probably because they come from a more academic background, which often carries with it a very pompous and snooty Vibe. I’ve noticed the same thing with Christians. The less educated they are the more friendly they are with criticism. Like you I don’t have a statistic to back that up, but that’s just been my experience.

I think it may have less to do with them being educated and more to do with their age. The current group of atheists have come about in a time when atheism is at least more publicly talked about. Dawkins and the like had to deal with essentially starting the conversation and getting it out there.

[US-SSR]

A Lutheran theologian once posited that the role of atheism was to keep religion benign. Insofar as it works to blunt the worst excesses of religion, atheism does make the world a better place.

But neither atheism nor many religions are necessarily about making the world a better place. Atheism is the philosophical proposition that, it being impossible to demonstrate the existence of any god, it is inconsistent to behave as if any god exists. And the core purpose of many religions is to prepare their adherents for a life to come, not necessarily to make this one any better or more bearable.

iow it's possible to discuss and act to make the world a better place without reference to any religious or nonreligious tradition.

[VoVoDoCo]

The latest group of atheist influences, like Mr. atheist, genetically modified skeptic, Tell tale, etc. explicitly make a point to not be an asshole to people of a religious slant and they tell all their fans to follow suit. The last major generation of atheist influencers and propagators, the likes of Hitchens and Dawking were a little more rude in that regard, but that’s probably because they come from a more academic background, which often carries with it a very pompous and snooty Vibe. I’ve noticed the same thing with Christians. The less educated they are the more friendly they are with criticism. Like you I don’t have a statistic to back that up, but that’s just been my experience.

I think it may have less to do with them being educated and more to do with their age. The current group of atheists have come about in a time when atheism is at least more publicly talked about. Dawkins and the like had to deal with essentially starting the conversation and getting it out there.

Fair point.

[Lower Nubia]

I mean.. he did. Let me introduce Jesus Christ. God on Earth.

So, he showed himself. 2000 years ago, in a time where nobody here existed, people didn't fully understand natural phenomena, and where the only methods that could "prove" he's the son of God that could be passed down to future generations effectively amounts to "trust us guys, this here is 100% correct".

Notice the pride in this statement? Why must he show himself to you today, and not the people 2000 years ago? Why shouldn’t people 2000 years ago get the Christ?

[Rojava Free State]

So, he showed himself. 2000 years ago, in a time where nobody here existed, people didn't fully understand natural phenomena, and where the only methods that could "prove" he's the son of God that could be passed down to future generations effectively amounts to "trust us guys, this here is 100% correct".

Notice the pride in this statement? Why must he show himself to you today, and not the people 2000 years ago? Why shouldn’t people 2000 years ago get the Christ?

Why not both? If pennywise the dancing clown can come every 20-something years, why can't jesus?

[Lower Nubia]

I mean.. he did. Let me introduce Jesus Christ. God on Earth.

Sorry, Jesus was an impostor. Further, any claim about Jesus is simple hersay. That is the problem with revelation. For anyone who has not experienced revelation it is nothing more then claim by another person, with no reason to believe that the person actually experienced anything divine. For Jesus, I was not alive during that time, and there is no evidence left over that Jesus (as described in the bible) existed, let alone was divine. I have no reason to believe this story, and as such it cannot be used to say that god has appeared.

You’re welcome to that opinion. I emphasise opinion. This doesn’t even have scholarly merit.

[Lower Nubia]

Notice the pride in this statement? Why must he show himself to you today, and not the people 2000 years ago? Why shouldn’t people 2000 years ago get the Christ?

Why not both? If pennywise the dancing clown can come every 20-something years, why can't jesus?

I’m sorry, is God pennywise?

[Lower Nubia]

I mean.. he did. Let me introduce Jesus Christ. God on Earth.

That’s laughable. He chose a time without cameras and recording equipment. In his attempt to show he was the one true God he chose the method of communication that’s literally the god of every major religion shows: ancient manuscripts over a one-on-one conversation with us.

And it’s worth mentioning that the historicity of Jesus is under dispute. Jesus was a common name, some parts of the crucifixion don’t make sense, and there’s some claims mean the New Testament that never happened, or at least there’s no evidence of happening.

I’m sorry, he has to appear now because of cameras? Why not in one thousand years time when their are portable genetic identifiers and holographic imaging, which can accurately quantify not just origin, but also allow vastly superior and more trustworthy means of recognition for future generation, after the year three thousand?

Your last paragraph is literally ahistorical and proports pseudo-historical opinion.

[Cedoria]

Maybe we haven't "made the world better" (I mean, individual Atheists certainly can and have and its absurd to suggest otherwise), but people not being allowed to kill us for it ABSOLUTELY is a "better world" then one in which they can.

[Neanderthaland]

The only virtue atheism has ever concerned itself with is truth.

[Lower Nubia]

The only virtue atheism has ever concerned itself with is truth.

Literally every large religion wants truth.

[VoVoDoCo]

So, he showed himself. 2000 years ago, in a time where nobody here existed, people didn't fully understand natural phenomena, and where the only methods that could "prove" he's the son of God that could be passed down to future generations effectively amounts to "trust us guys, this here is 100% correct".

Notice the pride in this statement? Why must he show himself to you today, and not the people 2000 years ago? Why shouldn’t people 2000 years ago get the Christ?

God, being God, certainly had the right to. But when I say that There is no evidence for God, and you said that God was on earth thousands of years ago, that’s not good enough for me. The untested observations of uneducated and illiterate peasants thousands of years ago It’s just not convincing to me.

[Neanderthaland]

The only virtue atheism has ever concerned itself with is truth.

Literally every large religion wants truth.

If that were true, faith wouldn't be their chief virtue.

[VoVoDoCo]

Why not both? If pennywise the dancing clown can come every 20-something years, why can't jesus?

I’m sorry, is God pennywise?

Clearly he wasn’t saying that. He was saying it would certainly help his case if he did. If God wants us to know him, then why only show up when there are no cameras around? Why inspired the writers of the Bible to write Falsehoods like the flood? If he wants to stand out amongst a sea of gods, why choose a method that all gods choose, that being ancient manuscripts? Pennywise was just a clever way of phrasing it

[Lower Nubia]

Notice the pride in this statement? Why must he show himself to you today, and not the people 2000 years ago? Why shouldn’t people 2000 years ago get the Christ?

God, being God, certainly had the right to. But when I say that There is no evidence for God, and you said that God was on earth thousands of years ago, that’s not good enough for me. The untested observations of uneducated and illiterate peasants thousands of years ago It’s just not convincing to me.

Ahh, the true reason. I want God to show himself to ME. So do I, but I’m not high and mighty enough to expect such an event, just for me.

You have something of chronological snobbery about, the ‘peasants’ 2000 years ago weren’t illiterate. Otherwise we wouldn’t have a wealth of literature on the subject.

[Lower Nubia]

Literally every large religion wants truth.

If that were true, faith wouldn't be their chief virtue.

Are you suggesting that religions don’t want truth?

[Lower Nubia]

I’m sorry, is God pennywise?

Clearly he wasn’t saying that. He was saying it would certainly help his case if he did. If God wants us to know him, then why only show up when there are no cameras around? Why inspired the writers of the Bible to write Falsehoods like the flood? If he wants to stand out amongst a sea of gods, why choose a method that all gods choose, that being ancient manuscripts? Pennywise was just a clever way of phrasing it

Your last two questions are answered on the CDT. Your first question is pointless. Why should he have to show himself again? Just to convince people today? When there are plenty of convinced people today anyway?

[Neanderthaland]

If that were true, faith wouldn't be their chief virtue.

Are you suggesting that religions don’t want truth?

Yes. Faith is antithetical to the search for truth. Faith is the belief that you already know the truth. And resistance to being persuaded otherwise.

[Fuzzbuckets]

No... The default state of humanity had religion. It's why literally every civilization had some form of god or worshiped some sort of deity. Hell cavemen probably thought storms were some type angry god striking them down for not eating a fish right or something.

Explain to me how humans had religion before they invented religion. Explain to me how the first humans were somehow born believing in god without anyone ever explaining the idea to them or them inventing the idea themselves.

Sun worship. Plain and simple.

[Makdon]

If that were true, faith wouldn't be their chief virtue.

Are you suggesting that religions don’t want truth?

Religions have rarely put truth first, for example, the catholic church kept the bible from most people for centuries

[Albrenia]

Clearly he wasn’t saying that. He was saying it would certainly help his case if he did. If God wants us to know him, then why only show up when there are no cameras around? Why inspired the writers of the Bible to write Falsehoods like the flood? If he wants to stand out amongst a sea of gods, why choose a method that all gods choose, that being ancient manuscripts? Pennywise was just a clever way of phrasing it

Your last two questions are answered on the CDT. Your first question is pointless. Why should he have to show himself again? Just to convince people today? When there are plenty of convinced people today anyway?

I wouldn't say He 'has' to show Himself today, but I am saying it would be in His creation's best interests to do so. Assuming one of the most common religions is the true one, that leaves 1 Billion souls at maximum with any chance of salvation, and six times that many at least to end up in whatever version of Hell is on offer.

Despite what many self-righteous believers may claim, most nonbelievers would actually change their tune if shown clear evidence of divinity which would be trivial for an omnipotent being to display.

As to the original question, I agree with an earlier poster who said Secularism is what has made the world a better place, since Atheism can be championed by many, and some of them are not even nearly on the 'good' side of any alignment scale (the Chinese Government, for example).

[The Emerald Legion]

Are you suggesting that religions don’t want truth?

Yes. Faith is antithetical to the search for truth. Faith is the belief that you already know the truth. And resistance to being persuaded otherwise.

Which is why no less than three of the Stanzas of the Havamal talk about the importance of understanding the world around you, keeping your wits, and the importance of wisdom.

And that's three I can think of off the top of my head out of more than a hundred.

Meanwhile, it's commentary on faith is 'Better not to Pray at all than to pray too much. The gods will give you nothing you won't have to repay.'

[Lower Nubia]

Are you suggesting that religions don’t want truth?

Yes. Faith is antithetical to the search for truth. Faith is the belief that you already know the truth. And resistance to being persuaded otherwise.

How convenient to your ideology but that wasn’t my question. Are you suggesting that religions don’t want truth. That they search for a lie and not a genuine reality? You’ll say yes, but it’s obvious if you ask someone why they’re religious and they’ll say: “it’s the truth.”

Faith in the truth negates your statement anyway.

Just as you have faith that you have found the truth.

Faith in having found the truth as part of your ideology is a bit more ubiquitous amongst ideologies than you’re letting on.

[VoVoDoCo]

That’s laughable. He chose a time without cameras and recording equipment. In his attempt to show he was the one true God he chose the method of communication that’s literally the god of every major religion shows: ancient manuscripts over a one-on-one conversation with us.

And it’s worth mentioning that the historicity of Jesus is under dispute. Jesus was a common name, some parts of the crucifixion don’t make sense, and there’s some claims mean the New Testament that never happened, or at least there’s no evidence of happening.

I’m sorry, he has to appear now because of cameras? Why not in one thousand years time when their are portable genetic identifiers and holographic imaging, which can accurately quantify not just origin, but also allow vastly superior and more trustworthy means of recognition for future generation, after the year three thousand?

Your last paragraph is literally ahistorical and proports pseudo-historical opinion.

He does not have to. Assuming he exist, he can do it if he wants to. But if he is interested in proving that he exist in a world that is becoming more secularize every day, then it’s in his own best interest to prove himself.

Skepticism relies on changing your views when the evidence becomes more substantial in favor of one proposition over another. It would be better for God to show them self at every stage of development. It would be better for God to show them self at every stage of development.

-Back when we didn’t invent the camera, he should’ve given us profound scientific insights that would improve in the legitimacy of his knowledge over the random guessing‘s of other religions. But we didn’t see that. We read about a diety that tells us to put the blood of the dead birds in our house to ward off infection, a god that tells us that a bunch of prophets came to life when Jesus died but failed to tell us what happened after, a god that tells us in genesis that the earth is older than the Big Bang (assuming the light that he talks about in Genesis is the Big Bang).

-When we invented cameras, he should’ve shown himself for all the world to see. In front of live audience is across the world, he should’ve broken the laws of physics with ease. when we invented cameras, he should’ve shown himself for all the world to see. In front of live audience is across the world, he should’ve broken the laws of physics with ease. He should’ve breaking the laws of physics and showing it to be an object of his design,He should’ve breaking the laws of physics and shown it to be an object of his design. But we didn’t see that. Instead we began taking pictures of a natural world. This world, based on the available evidence, is completely natural. It is made out of natural components and has a natural explanation for its existence. Its origins can be assumed to be natural. That’s what we see.

- When we invent portable genetic identifiers and holographic imaging, and assuming God exist, you’ll be able to provide even more evidence of his existence. It should be overwhelming, and become more overwhelming over time. That’s what you would expect to see from God that wants to prove he exists. But we don’t see that.

As far as my last paragraph being a historical, which parts? I would say the Bible‘s account of profits coming back to life is a historical. Some historians have been confused at the aspect of how Pontius pilot planned this crucifixion on the Sabbath. if it was common for the Jews to complain about crucifixions being on the Sabbath, then why would he do it for Jesus? If it’s because he usually just ignores them, why did he agree to let Jesus go early because of the Sabbath? Also, the Bible is the only source to my knowledge that paints Pontius pilot in such a favorable image. He would kill just for fun, but the Bible paints him as somebody that hates his job. There are things in the New Testament that are questionable, to say otherwise is pseudo historical.


I apologize if something didn’t make sense, I’m using voice to text