Has atheism made the world a better place?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I think it depends on the atheist in question.

Actually many people (mistakenly) thought that agnosticism means "I belief God exists, but not the God of all religion that I've researched about." Wrong, but whatever that disarms people from violent tendencies, real tolerance > inside-our-head philosophical squabbles.

I’ve always approached my agnosticism as I don’t know if there is or if there isn’t a deity. And ultimately, whether there is one or not has no bearing on the life I’m living.

[Rojava Free State]

I think it depends on the atheist in question.

Actually many people (mistakenly) thought that agnosticism means "I belief God exists, but not the God of all religion that I've researched about." Wrong, but whatever that disarms people from violent tendencies, real tolerance > inside-our-head philosophical squabbles.

I don't care if people like me for how I live. Screw what others think, I say you gotta fight for your rights

[Albrenia]

I think it depends on the atheist in question.

Actually many people (mistakenly) thought that agnosticism means "I belief God exists, but not the God of all religion that I've researched about." Wrong, but whatever that disarms people from violent tendencies, real tolerance > inside-our-head philosophical squabbles.

I've heard Agnosticism defined as everything from 'I don't know', to 'I don't think about it' to 'I don't believe we can know'.

Personally, I'd just consider it as a particularly open-minded flavour of Atheism. Hilariously enough, the strawman position many attribute to Atheists of actually hating God is in fact not an Atheist position - you cannot hate what you do not believe exist, except maybe in a 'Wesley Crusher is fucking annoying' sort of way.

[Rojava Free State]

Actually many people (mistakenly) thought that agnosticism means "I belief God exists, but not the God of all religion that I've researched about." Wrong, but whatever that disarms people from violent tendencies, real tolerance > inside-our-head philosophical squabbles.

I've heard Agnosticism defined as everything from 'I don't know', to 'I don't think about it' to 'I don't believe we can know'.

That's not too diverse a definition. As a former agnostic or possibly a more atheist leaning agnostic, I can tell you that agnostics claim to not know if God exists and as a result they don't reach a final conclusion. I pretty much think there is no God but I'm not 100% sure. I'm only 98% sure

[Telconi]

Nothing, they simply do not have information. Just like we don't try to quantify a baby as an anti-vaxxer because they don't hold the belief that children ought to be vaccinated, or we don't quantify them as homophobes because they don't hold the belief that homosexuals ought to have equal rights.

Simply put, a baby is simply nothing, it isn't an atheist any more than it's any other name we put to some sort of conclusive state of thought.

Again, Atheism doesn't require active or conscious rejection of any belief system. A baby is not a stamp collector until it grows up enough to desire to be one. One is not barred from describing a baby as 'not a stamp collector' until it can actively reject said action.

It does though, disbelief in a concept requires that one be at least aware of the concept they don't believe in.

Otherwise it's just ignorance of the entire concept of deities and theism.

[Region of Dwipantara]

And simply put, babies aren't born with any religion or belief set. Think that'll settle.

Is there an experiment where someone was never taught anything?

There isn't, because it's probably human rights abuse.

But yeah, I heard a question which goes like this: Suppose a baby is stranded on an island and somehow survived until adolescence (maybe someone or something cared for them, but never said anything about religion). When they reached adolescence, missionaries from major religions carrying each of their respective holy books come to try recruit the now-adult baby. What religion, if any, would the baby pick? Remember that a religion's weakspot will be viciously criticized by its competitor.

[Rojava Free State]

Talking about radical atheism here, not normal atheist or spiritual atheist,

The idea that everything came from nothing for no reason whatsoever and theres not poin in anything in life for no reason whatsoever and when you die nothing happens for no reason whatsoever, i think is a dangerous worldview for a society to adopt to it fullest, and not good for anybodys mental health, even in strongly none religious countires like norway where im from, where 30 to 40 percent of the population is atheist, even they think theyre some reason we are here,and belive in some sort of ``afterlife`` or whatever we call it. Iv meet some few Richard dawkins like fundamentalist atheists, but theyre a minority and most people in my country find them annoying.

The most religious countries are the scariest my guy, and the most irreligious are the most peaceful too. Also I would rather mAke my own purpose to exist than have someone make the decision for me

[Rojava Free State]

Is there an experiment where someone was never taught anything?

There isn't, because it's probably human rights abuse.

But yeah, I heard a question which goes like this: Suppose a baby is stranded on an island and somehow survived until adolescence (maybe someone or something cared for them, but never said anything about religion). When they reached adolescence, missionaries from major religions carrying each of their respective holy books come to try recruit the now-adult baby. What religion, if any, would the baby pick? Remember that a religion's weakspot will be viciously criticized by its competitor.

The Nuremberg code, Belmont Report and National Research act ban that

[Albrenia]

Again, Atheism doesn't require active or conscious rejection of any belief system. A baby is not a stamp collector until it grows up enough to desire to be one. One is not barred from describing a baby as 'not a stamp collector' until it can actively reject said action.

It does though, disbelief in a concept requires that one be at least aware of the concept they don't believe in.

Otherwise it's just ignorance of the entire concept of deities and theism.

*shrug*

I'm just repeating myself here. Atheism is just not believing in any religion. Be it from logical deduction, incredulity at the idea, complete ignorance or being unable to comprehend the idea is meaningless.

[Albrenia]

Is there an experiment where someone was never taught anything?

There isn't, because it's probably human rights abuse.

But yeah, I heard a question which goes like this: Suppose a baby is stranded on an island and somehow survived until adolescence (maybe someone or something cared for them, but never said anything about religion). When they reached adolescence, missionaries from major religions carrying each of their respective holy books come to try recruit the now-adult baby. What religion, if any, would the baby pick? Remember that a religion's weakspot will be viciously criticized by its competitor.

Would be interesting to see the result, although it would likely depend mainly on the personality of the subject and the oratory skills of the various missionaries.

I'd imagine the faiths most skilled in spreading the word to newcomers would have a natural advantage over the others.

[Region of Dwipantara]

Talking about radical atheism here, not normal atheist or spiritual atheist,

The idea that everything came from nothing for no reason whatsoever and theres not poin in anything in life for no reason whatsoever and when you die nothing happens for no reason whatsoever, i think is a dangerous worldview for a society to adopt to it fullest, and not good for anybodys mental health, even in strongly none religious countires like norway where im from, where 30 to 40 percent of the population is atheist, even they think theyre some reason we are here,and belive in some sort of ``afterlife`` or whatever we call it. Iv meet some few Richard dawkins like fundamentalist atheists, but theyre a minority and most people in my country find them annoying.

The most religious countries are the scariest my guy, and the most irreligious are the most peaceful too. Also I would rather mAke my own purpose to exist than have someone make the decision for me

The place where I came from is known to be a melting pot of different religions, cultures, and ethnicity with a rich history of tolerance. During the 2017 mass demonstrations however, when a Chinese-Christian governor was accused of blasphemy, the word "kill him" still spreads through mosque sermons, school conversation, and social media with relative ease.

That's a secular, non-Arabic country. Now imagine an actual Islamic country who fully practice the sharia.

[Rojava Free State]

.

Morgan freeman: Aah yes, The great period, a most wonderful feature of the English language

[Jabberwocky]

If there is no God, then atheism is as irrelevant as religion.

[Region of Dwipantara]

If there is no God, then atheism is as irrelevant as religion.

Not wrong. If there's no unicorn, then aunicornism is as relevant as the unicorn itself. It is relevant however when this concept of "unicorn" have real-world implications. For example, maybe the High Priest said that the non-existent unicorn ordered us to throw innocent gays off the highest tower in town to death.

[Albrenia]

If there is no God, then atheism is as irrelevant as religion.

I wouldn't call religion irrelevant even if they are factually wrong.

[Grahnol]

Talking about radical atheism here, not normal atheist or spiritual atheist,

The idea that everything came from nothing for no reason whatsoever and theres not poin in anything in life for no reason whatsoever and when you die nothing happens for no reason whatsoever, i think is a dangerous worldview for a society to adopt to it fullest, and not good for anybodys mental health, even in strongly none religious countires like norway where im from, where 30 to 40 percent of the population is atheist, even they think theyre some reason we are here,and belive in some sort of ``afterlife`` or whatever we call it. Iv meet some few Richard dawkins like fundamentalist atheists, but theyre a minority and most people in my country find them annoying.

The most religious countries are the scariest my guy, and the most irreligious are the most peaceful too. Also I would rather mAke my own purpose to exist than have someone make the decision for me

ehhh, not wrong. But I think that it's more about how they apply religion rather than those countries being incredibly religious. The way I see it, you should never enforce any sort of religious stance in the government, whether it be a state religion or state atheism. Countries that have certain bases in their foundation in religion is completely fine, hell, I bet many, in fact, perhaps most do. My point is that a country with an incredibly high percentage of religious people isn't bound to have social problems or violence. The problems instead lie on the fact that certain countries openly enforce their zealous religious values upon the very law of their country and that people have often refused to change how they practice their religion in accordance to the shapes of modern society, creating an incorrect fit and resulting in social problems. The problem isn't religion, it's how religion is used. I think religion in many cases is still incredibly important for many people, perhaps many societal fabrics too, but it's best we keep a secular society that modernises the use of religion to harmonise with the currents and shape of modern society and technology.

[Rojava Free State]

The most religious countries are the scariest my guy, and the most irreligious are the most peaceful too. Also I would rather mAke my own purpose to exist than have someone make the decision for me

The place where I came from is known to be a melting pot of different religions, cultures, and ethnicity with a rich history of tolerance. During the 2017 mass demonstrations however, when a Chinese-Christian governor was accused of blasphemy, the word "kill him" still spreads through mosque sermons, school conversation, and social media with relative ease.

That's a secular, non-Arabic country. Now imagine an actual Islamic country who fully practice the sharia.

Are you in Malaysia?

[Rojava Free State]

The most religious countries are the scariest my guy, and the most irreligious are the most peaceful too. Also I would rather mAke my own purpose to exist than have someone make the decision for me

ehhh, not wrong. But I think that it's more about how they apply religion rather than those countries being incredibly religious. The way I see it, you should never enforce any sort of religious stance in the government, whether it be a state religion or state atheism. Countries that have certain bases in their foundation in religion is completely fine, hell, I bet many, in fact, perhaps most do. My point is that a country with an incredibly high percentage of religious people isn't bound to have social problems or violence. The problems instead lie on the fact that certain countries openly enforce their zealous religious values upon the very law of their country and that people have often refused to change how they practice their religion in accordance to the shapes of modern society, creating an incorrect fit and resulting in social problems. The problem isn't religion, it's how religion is used. I think religion in many cases is still incredibly important for many people, perhaps many societal fabrics too, but it's best we keep a secular society that modernises the use of religion to harmonise with the currents and shape of modern society and technology.

I too support a government that endorses no religion, including the disbelief in religion altogether. Religion isn't the government's role

[Albrenia]

ehhh, not wrong. But I think that it's more about how they apply religion rather than those countries being incredibly religious. The way I see it, you should never enforce any sort of religious stance in the government, whether it be a state religion or state atheism. Countries that have certain bases in their foundation in religion is completely fine, hell, I bet many, in fact, perhaps most do. My point is that a country with an incredibly high percentage of religious people isn't bound to have social problems or violence. The problems instead lie on the fact that certain countries openly enforce their zealous religious values upon the very law of their country and that people have often refused to change how they practice their religion in accordance to the shapes of modern society, creating an incorrect fit and resulting in social problems. The problem isn't religion, it's how religion is used. I think religion in many cases is still incredibly important for many people, perhaps many societal fabrics too, but it's best we keep a secular society that modernises the use of religion to harmonise with the currents and shape of modern society and technology.

I too support a government that endorses no religion, including the disbelief in religion altogether. Religion isn't the government's role

Indeed. A government has no place to dictate religion or lack of religion on the individual. Everyone's better off that way, faithless or faithful.

[The Free Joy State]

Is there an experiment where someone was never taught anything?

There isn't, because it's probably human rights abuse.

But yeah, I heard a question which goes like this: Suppose a baby is stranded on an island and somehow survived until adolescence (maybe someone or something cared for them, but never said anything about religion). When they reached adolescence, missionaries from major religions carrying each of their respective holy books come to try recruit the now-adult baby. What religion, if any, would the baby pick? Remember that a religion's weakspot will be viciously criticized by its competitor.

Interestingly, some research has found young children to be sceptical of religious tales. Vaden and Woolley's 2011 study found that four-year-olds were similarly sceptical of the veracity of religious and non-religious tales, with only six-year-olds being significantly more believing of the religious stories could have happened. The researchers found that children with high familial religiosity (religious parents, attending Churches, possibly Bible camp) were more likely to believe the stories factual.

Shtulman and Carey (2007) asked children aged 4 to 8 to assess the likelihood of a person doing things that are improbable (drinking onion juice) to impossible (eating lightning). After telling a story, filled with impossible and improbable events, they asked adult volunteers and their child subjects to assess which were impossible and which improbable. Adults easily separated the impossible from the improbable. But the younger children were resistant to most of the improbable events and marked many impossible. Only the older children showed similar responses to the adults.

[Krasny-Volny]

You’re not alone. John Lennon thought the same thing.

If you see religion as collective physical dogma, a series of rigid doctrines and ideology with their respective adherents, it’s a form of tribalism that really only encourages division, segregation, and strife.

But if you see religion as an essentially spiritual and metaphysical experience rather than a doctrine like a political or social ideology, it can be so much more. It becomes an intensely personal experience individuals possess.

I think most forms of religious doctrine we’d be better without.

I think that religion as genuine spirituality is priceless.

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

Actually many people (mistakenly) thought that agnosticism means "I belief God exists, but not the God of all religion that I've researched about." Wrong, but whatever that disarms people from violent tendencies, real tolerance > inside-our-head philosophical squabbles.

I’ve always approached my agnosticism as I don’t know if there is or if there isn’t a deity. And ultimately, whether there is one or not has no bearing on the life I’m living.

Isn’t that pretty much the textbook definition of agnosticism?

[The Free Joy State]

I’ve always approached my agnosticism as I don’t know if there is or if there isn’t a deity. And ultimately, whether there is one or not has no bearing on the life I’m living.

Isn’t that pretty much the textbook definition of agnosticism?

Technically, there are -- at least according to the somewhat-knowing-Wiki -- several types of Agnosticism:

• Strong Agnosticism: The firm belief that God's existence is unknowable, one way or the other, as there can never be objective proof.
• Weak Agnosticism: Not knowing whether God or not exists, but withholding judgment until such time as evidence, if available, becomes available.
• Apathetic Agnosticism: Not knowing whether or not God exists and not finding the question of interest, as their existence has little impact on human affairs.

One can also be an agnostic theist, which is believing in God, but not claiming surety that God exists; it is also sometimes defined as knowing God exists but -- as God is unknowable -- not claiming to know the nature or essence of that God.

[Panslav]

You’re not alone. John Lennon thought the same thing.

If you see religion as collective physical dogma, a series of rigid doctrines and ideology with their respective adherents, it’s a form of tribalism that really only encourages division, segregation, and strife.

But if you see religion as an essentially spiritual and metaphysical experience rather than a doctrine like a political or social ideology, it can be so much more. It becomes an intensely personal experience individuals possess.

I think most forms of religious doctrine we’d be better without.

I think that religion as genuine spirituality is priceless.

Expand on that. I, being materialist, think that there's nothing spiritual, but wouldn't mind talking about.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I’ve always approached my agnosticism as I don’t know if there is or if there isn’t a deity. And ultimately, whether there is one or not has no bearing on the life I’m living.

Isn’t that pretty much the textbook definition of agnosticism?

There are several kinds of agnosticism though.