Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Okay guys, I've got a serious question for you. But before I pose it, there's an old saying that goes 'Be careful what you wish because you might just get it' So bear that in mind.
If you had a society in which there was no religion any more and everything was run entirely by secularists, in what way would that society be different from the one we have now? Would it be better, worse, or much the same? And whatever your answer is, tell me why you think so. Because I'd be very interested to know.
@KR3F: "If you had a society in which there was no religion any more.."
I suspect nothing much would change in three of the countries where I've lived: the UK, New Zealand, and Japan. They're already pretty much secular, and religious organizations don't have much say in people's lives. Though it would be good to see the bishops kicked out of the House of Lords. (In fact that whole house full of upper class twits should be emptied out and replaced with an elected upper house.)
Religion still seems to have a lot of influence in Australia where I live now. It's really depressing to see flag-draped Christian "patriots" tussling with bearded Muslims in front of mosques. The current debate over marriage equality has also brought the religious bigots out from under their rocks.
In a secular state, I think people would be less tribalistic and more respectful of individuals and their differences. I also think secular people place a higher value on the here and now, because that's all there is.
But even if we had a secular state, we'd still have to contend with imported bigotry and violence spawned by other religiously dysfunctional countries. There's nothing like religion for engendering envy and anger toward people who commit the grievous sin of being happy.
Thank you, Algebe for you interest in my question and for your very enlightening answer. I'm really surprised that religious extremists have such a hold in Australia - I would have though that was one place they'd be naturally ejected from. Maybe it's because the Aussies like to think of themselves more as Americans than Brits and thus adopted many ideas and culture from the USA?
I'm glad I got at least one answer, I had begun to think I was wasting my time asking for serious debate. My own concern is that, if we aren't very careful, we might just be exchanging one intolerant, money-making hierarchy for another.
@KR3F: "Maybe it's because the Aussies like to think of themselves more as Americans"
I think the anger against Muslims is linked to racism as well as religion. Australia has a history of institutionalized and popular racism that rivals that of the old South Africa. In many ways, Aborigines are still subject to a kind of apartheid. I don't think the South African government forcibly abducted children from their parents and forced them to live with white families. They did here.
Mix religious bigotry with racist bigotry, and you get a very nasty smell. As you say, there's also American influence. One example is the "Australia, love it or leave it" bumper stickers.
The other thing the religious bigots here worry about is sex. In particular, they are absolutely obsessed about what gay people do to each other. If two gay people get married, it will apparently destroy every church-sanctioned, god-blessed, heterosexual (presumably) marriage in Australia.
The government has just launched a pseudo-referendum on marriage equality, which has triggered a sickening persecution complex among all the poor little Christians. I'm more concerned about what clergy and Salvation Army officers here have been doing to children for decades.
Were you aware that the UK government shipped out 130,000 orphans to Australia, Canada and New Zealand? Many of those were placed in church-run homes, where they became fodder for pedophile priests.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/27/britains-child-migrant-p...
Algebe, what you tell about the adoptions is awful...
In my country, unfortunately, we have a more recient experience on that: at least 300,000 babies were stolen from 1950-1980 by the goverment, most of the times with the help of lovely catholic nuns... Most of them are still alive and don't know the truth. www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/world/europe/07iht-spain07.html?pagewanted=al...
We experienced the same bitterness about gay marriage when it was approved in 2005 (I'd say even worse, because only Belgium, the Netherlands and part of Canada had legalised it at that point... and here the Catholic Church has more power than in Australia).
Australia rates among the 5 more developed countries in the world, according to 2016 United Nations report...
Australia have 30% of non-believers according to the ABS 2016 Census...
Hey, it doesn't sound that awful to me xD
@Angiebot: "at least 300,000 babies were stolen from 1950-1980 by the goverment"
That's appalling. The involvement of nuns doesn't surprise me, but I thought doctors and nurses would have higher moral standards. And it looks like this horror continued way past Franco's time.
In Australia, the government took Aborigine children away from their families by force. Some were placed with white foster families, others in church or government institutions. They're called the "Stolen Generations."
http://www.australianstogether.org.au/stories/detail/the-stolen-generations
I was born in 1946, I'm 71 years old now and I'm gay. I know what it's like to be on the receiving end of hatred and intolerance. I was a boy myself when those children were shipped out and I regard it as the most shameful episode in British history. I know about it because a boy I knew was among those children. He committed suicide in Australia at the age of 35.
Did you know that, in Britain, the non-religious now outnumber the religious? We now have gay marriage too. Britain has led the world before, we gave it Democracy, organisation, free speech. Yes, and syphilis and gonorrhea. But it's wrong and misleading to judge the past by the standards of the present. Most of recorded history is propaganda anyway because it's mostly written by the victor, but Britain is still leading the world in many ways.
Even hetero men carry shoulder bags now, wear bracelets and necklaces here. I see young men who are obviously gay walking around on their own. In places like Brighton you see them in pairs - holding hands. It isn't so much about sexuality, it's about freedom of choice and expression and I am so thankful that I lived long enough to see it happen.
There's so very much I could say, so let me say what's most important. We are all individuals. We are all different from each other. All of you are unique and special people with a unique DNA that has never been before and will never be again. Improving to our society isn't so much about gods and religion. It's about learning to be accepting and tolerant of difference, to realise that difference enriches all of us, to understand that different is how nature intends us to be, It's called Evolution, guys. And it's real whether you believe in gods or not.
So then, my rant is almost over, but bear with me for just a moment longer. Three things -
Religion was never about gods and doctrines. It's about the acquisition of wealth and power - it always was and it still is, Get your head around that and live accordingly. If you can, then society will change for the better. If you can't, then it won't. You pays your money and you takes your choice, but whatever you do, look carefully at the small change they let you keep because it might just be counterfeit. Secondly, always remember that each and every one of us is a unique and special individual, made that way by evolution and the drive to sustain intelligent life, because the more differences we have as individuals, the greater chance we have of survival as a species.Lastly, there are many gods, religions and beliefs, but there is only one Truth. The pathway to that truth is called Logic. The universe runs on logic - not the word of some god. So try to be logical in your thinking and in your arguments and you'll find the truth. That's it, friends. Rant over.
Wisdom from experience and observation, thank you for sharing it. And I'm also glad you survived to see some positive changes; I hope we both survive to see some more as well.
You are a man with an open mind, CM, as most atheists are. It's those things that give me hope for the future.
Right back at ya
@KR3F: "We now have gay marriage too."
The UK was also one of the first countries to legalize homosexual sex between consenting adults. That was in the 1960s, but it was after we'd killed two of our greatest geniuses--Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing--with punitive hypocritical laws. I was in New Zealand then, and I remember a surge of anti-Brit mockery and prejudice. Legalization didn't occur in the New Zealand until much later. The Christian churches organized a huge hate campaign, and there were Nuremburg-style flag-waving rallies outside parliament. One senior politician told gay people to go back into the sewer where they'd come from. However, the law was finally changed in 1986.
@KR3F: "I'm glad I got at least one answer, I had begun to think I was wasting my time asking for serious debate."
PS.
You'll get more bites if you post questions like this in the Debate Room rather than the Atheist Hub. You'll get debate from the religious side of the fence, too. The Atheist Hub is for atheists only.
"If you had a society in which there was no religion any more and everything was run entirely by secularists, in what way would that society be different from the one we have now?"
My goodness, what a loaded question.
Naturally there would be huge differences in many places and small differences in others. There are countries where the prevailing class is secularist and also horribly oppressive, and vice versa. That doesn't mean that all states with religious governments would suddenly become oppressive secular states. And the same can be said for the other way around. Not all oppressive religious states would suddenly become free and liberated.
Finland would probably stay pretty much as it is. Same for Iceland, Norway, Russia, much of Canada and a good deal of the UK (except Scotland, of course).
The USA and much of Europe would suffer from a major loss of charitable organizations and suddenly find themselves with thousands of needy people to care for, since faith-based groups fill major parts of that sector in those areas. (This is also true of predominantly Muslim states) They will also find kindergarten and elementary school children out in the streets as a great deal attend schools either run by or paid for by churches in those places.
If you are offering an exercise aimed at changing or broadening people's perceptions, you picked a very good one. These are all things I've thought about before, but you still made me think again.
Thank you CM for answering my question, There's a lot to think about if we are going to change society and end up with something better. And thank you for your very interesting answer.
CM: As a side issue, are you aware that, in England, 'Trump' is a euphemism? It means passing wind from the anus - fart. It seems to us Brits that your President does an awful lot of 'trumping' .But he does it from both orifices and not just from his arse.
Hahaha! I think I heard that on The Big Fat Quiz Show, or somewhere. Isn't it short for "trumpeting" or something?
CM, you said, "The USA and much of Europe would suffer from a major loss of charitable organizations and suddenly find themselves with thousands of needy people to care for, since faith-based groups fill major parts of that sector in those areas. "
I think that would be temporary at its worst. Folks who feel impelled to help others will still do so. They would just organize around principles other than religion.
Exactly, CyberLn, It's a well-known fact that atheists have deeper pockets the 'devout' and I doubt that would change.
Oh yes, I have no doubt that would be temporary. It is not because these groups are faith-based that they are prevalent, it is because they offer a means for people to help others, which is what most people want to do regardless of any religious beliefs.
But as it stands the gov't and it's emergency and public assistance agencies do count in these faith-based orgs when doing their planning; and legislative politicians use them as arguments when considering funding.
Welcome KR3F
CMAllen wrote: "The USA and much of Europe would suffer from a major loss of charitable organizations and suddenly find themselves with thousands of needy people to care for, since faith-based groups fill major parts of that sector in those areas. (This is also true of predominantly Muslim states).."
I wonder what are 'faith-based groups'? Does that include Oxfam, for instance? A relative of mine worked full time for Oxfam for weeks and (like many charity workers) he's never been religious or superstitious. The Humanist Society Scotland run charity work but it isn't on their website. Everyone does their bit and it isn't clear to me that religionists are especially generous.
In fact, faith-based can hinder efforts. Our local council run an office for 'volunteers' who can choose to involve themselves in community projects. They could benefit from those few left in the Churches who insist on doing charity work in the name of their religious denomination. Still, the main thing is that everyone does our bit.
It probably varies geographically. Religion is so common in the USA that almost all charity work is somehow associated with a religious denomination - as if the recipients care.
I don't think religion (or associated superstition about god) motivates good, moral or altruistic behavior. That is motivated by both empathy and self-interest - by what perhaps might be called 'common humanity'.
Welcome. Welcome Welcome
K wrote: "..a society in which there was no religion any more and everything was run entirely by secularists.."
There wouldn't be secularists or atheists in a society with no religion. Those terms are only required because religion is still so common in the world.
Without religion there would be no need for creationism, faith schools or indoctrination "into the faith"; no religiously motivated child genital mutilation; no ritual slaughter of animals (halal/kosher); no Sunni vs Shia; and no justification for Zionism, Da'esh, Islamism or many other tribal-based conflicts. It wouldn't end all conflict, but it would remove one cause and one basis for tribal identity.
A world without religion would be just as moral and probably far safer. It would help humanity unite and focus on where we are going and not the past.
"Our mission is to advance atheism through activism, philanthropy, education and the cultivation of a positive secular community"...
http://www.kcatheists.org/about-us/
"US$98,000 for Earthquake and Hurricane relief"...
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/09/22/atheist-group-gi...
And if you're on the South Coast of England and want to meet likeminded folk, may I suggest contacting your local Humanist Society or Skeptics-in-the-Pub.
Here's a list of some other atheist charities: http://thaumaturgical.com/a-big-list-of-atheist-charities/#
And as matter of fact, my Christians friends have always been very surprised because I am far more charitable than them. My sister and I have always helped with money and other actions. For example, I remember my christians friends making fun of me because once I gave a blanket to a homeless person (they say they'd never do that), or calling to medical assistance for a homeless who has passed out on the street (and being mocked because of that), or sometimes buy them food, etc.
For me, it's a matter of education and sensibility, not a religious one.
ZeffD: I think that you and I would get along. Of course, even without religionism, people would find other way to disagree. But it would still be a huge step forward. I try to think of Religion as an evolutionary phase that humanity had to go through. But that phase is drawing to a close now, and a world without those restrictions clouding our perceptions, is the next step along that path. Where are we going? I have no idea. All I feel sure of is that Evolution is a process that will never end until the universe itself does.
In answer to your question KR3F, I look at the lessons that Sir David Attenborough teaches us through his nature programs. That is nature is economic. There is a niche that needs to be filled. When a species goes extinct another evolves to fill that vacuum. So if religion were to disappear, something would take its place. I have no idea what that would be, but injustices and prejudices will always exist in some form or another. That sounds cynical, but it is actually realistic. I live in what is called "The Bible Belt." I see injustices enacted every day in the name of god. Some are even governmental (unconstitutional). I see gays, women, minorities, muslims, atheists, immigrants, all discriminated against. I see the obtrusive nature of religion. I have been all over the world and I have learned that all people are basically the same, have the same desires, have the same differences, have the same percentages of demographic differences....even in enforced monocultures. As a child, I would visit Belfast every summer. I was amazed how similar it was to America. People sounded different but they said the same things.
Oh and a warm welcome. Looking forward to your unique perspective.
mykcob4: Thank you. Please see my answer to ZeffD. I agree completely with what you say and I am very much enheartened to know that there are so many logical thinkers around. The rule, as I'm sure you know, is never trust, or believe in, anything that can't be proved by logical analysis. To combat religious zealots use ridicule, not anger. And never give up hope of a better world.
Ok, guys - another question for you.This one involves a somewhat deeper concept than the last one, so you may need to think about it a little more. It concerns the man known as Jesus of Nazareth, who might have been a real man, or not. My own view is that, if he wasn't, then he ought to have been. But that's not the question.
The question is - What's the best way to teach someone to use a hammer?
Rather than have you messaging me with lots of different answers and me keep saying no, no,no - I'll give you the answer. You don't give the person a hammer at all. You give them a nail and a piece of wood. When your student has tried hitting the nail with a rock, his fist, another piece of wood or whatever and is frustrated and angry, you take him/her into the tool store and he'll see a hammer hanging on the wall. Now, you don't have to teach him anything, because he'll realise straight away what the hammer is for and how to use it. It's a well-known and effective teaching technique that I'm sure many of you will recognise.
And I wonder sometimes why it was that Jesus of Nazareth specifically asked to be nailed to a piece of wood when all the others were tied to crosses. Ok, at that time, crucifixion was a standard method of execution that was introduced, I think, by the Romans. The story has, of course -, like the character and life of Jesus himself - been distorted and embellished by the scribes of the Catholic Church when they began to inflict what became the biggest con ever perpetrated on humanity - and turned the life story of that man into a slick, well-oiled machine for the acquisition of wealth and power.
And I wonder if maybe Jesus of Nazareth was trying to tell us something - a message that's been missed, overlooked, or deliberately misinterpreted for more than 20 centuries. I'm not saying he was or he wasn't. All I'm saying is that I've wondered about that since I was a teenager and I still have no answer.
@KR3F: "And I wonder sometimes why it was that Jesus of Nazareth specifically asked to be nailed to a piece of wood"
Three reasons: First, the myth required physical, visible scars (stigmata) for Doubting Thomas to see and hysterical nuns to self-inflict. Rope burns don't have the same prestige. Second, there needed to be a set of nails for Saint Helena to discover and the medieval church to display in their tourist traps (a.k.a. cathedrals). Third, Christianity is a blood-worshipping cult whose adherents still pretend to drink Jesus' blood. So nail wounds were needed to produce the altar wine.
All of which suggests that the nailing part of the myth was added after the event (if any).
Algebe: Some of your reasoning I agree with and all of it is,as usual, interesting. The myth wasn't there when they crucified Jesus. That came much later on - 100 years later on, I think, and most of it was made up over a long period after that. Don't get me wrong.I'm not a closet religionist - just a man who thinks a lot. I'm not a clever man, I'm not a scholar, and I never went to university. And I know there's a lot of better minds than mine out there. But maybe, because of my life and background, I sometimes see things that other people don't - because I'm not bogged down with pre-conceived ideas, perhaps?
@KR3F
1) All Roman crucifixions were done by nailing someone to a cross. Only in remote regions when an ad-hoc crucifixion took place were victims tied instead of nailed.
2) I think you are correct in thinking that this is an embellishment by the church.
As far as teaching goes, I find leadership by example is the best method. I am amazed how people will use the wrong tool for the job or use a tool the wrong way.
Take something simple. Go to any steakhouse and observe how people tear their meat instead of saw it with the steak knife. People inherently make things more difficult than need be.
Pages