Could universal Atheism end all war?

[TampaWRX]

So the question is posed, could Atheism end war as we know it? Here's my reasoning behind the question, as I'm not quite sure myself and I am an Atheist.

Take away all of the world's religions, thereby shifting the world's fundamental beliefs systems from ones focused on death and what happens afterward, to one focused exclusively on life and what happens in the here and now. If humanity were to one day universally believe that this life is in fact all that they have, that an afterlife is not a reality, could we then assume that they would value life above all other things? Can we assume that they would be much less motivated to lay down their life in the name of political causes? Would you effectively eliminate the chance that people could form up armies and willingly kill each other? Would life be better protected by secular, rational morality as opposed to those based on faith?

The question is an old one, as I'm well aware, but I thought it would make for a good discussion and or poll. :)

Thoughts?

[mataj]

I voted no. Nothing can end wars. The only thing about war, that would disappear together with religion, would be casus belli.

"Man's greatest joy is to slay his enemy, plunder his riches, ride his steeds, see the tears of his loved ones and ravish his women." - Genghis Khan.

[Secession]

Humans would find another excuse. So long as resources are finite people will kill each other over them and make up excuses.

[Jard]

I dont think that the erradication of religion alone would bring about world peace. There are too many historic and cultural differences. I dont know if any one has seen "Equilibrium". It is a film on a new world order, the system they have might work; get rid of all culture, all religions and then drug everyone....

[TampaWRX]

Just as a sidenote, I was not arguing the "religion as excuse for war" angle. I was thinking more along the line of the individual soldier's willingness to die knowing that death would be his ultimate end. I don't want to cover the same old ground, as we all know religion has been used as a catalyst for war numerous times in human history. I think that's a given...trying to approach the subject from a different angle.

mataj - Genghis Khan was definitely a ruthless and heartless SOB. Maybe you are correct, people always seem willing to kill and die for power. Maybe one day this integral failing of the human animal will be rooted out and disposed of. I'm afraid we need to move another rung or two up the evolutionary ladder before that will be possible. :(

[ironside]

No, atheism wouldn't end war. Greed, avarice and corruption (etc) would still cause war whether or not we believe in God.

The only way war can be ended (I think) is through a Kantian style focus on rational thought... but unfortunately it is almost impossible to imagine as society stands today.

[DeathMonkey]

Humans would find another excuse. So long as resources are finite people will kill each other over them and make up excuses.

Indeed. Religion, or religious beliefs are not really the cause, its those who take hold of the rhetoric and dogma and corrupt it to their own ends. Without religion, these evildoers would find some other way of accomplishing the same thing.

[mataj]

its those who take hold of the rhetoric and dogma and corrupt it to their own ends That's why rhetoric and dogma were invented for.

[earth]

IMO there will never be anything such as universal atheism. A friend of mine and I back in high school used to ponder a lot about religion. We both came to the decision that it will always be there.

There will always be people that need comfort from that that goes bump in the night. If you remove religion something will just take it's place to fill the void.

[skibum8]

WW1 wasn't a war of religion. WW2 wasn't a war of religion. Viet Nam wasn't a war of religion. The spanish american war wasn't a war of religion. The Chilean- Bolivian war wasn't a war of religion. The end of war will coincide with the end of humanity and human beings, who happen to be war like creatures.

[S.S.D.D.]

No.......

[J2828]

No. Nothing will ever stop war between humans. There will always be something to fight and die over.

[MikeD4o7]

The only way war can be ended (I think) is through a Kantian style focus on rational thought... but unfortunately it is almost impossible to imagine as society stands today.

Exactly. I agree 100%, and no... universal atheism would not stop all war, just some.

[mataj]

To paraphrase Klausewitz: Commerce is merely the extension of war through less honest means.

[Viking]

End humanity and you will end war.

[Thermopylae]

No, it couldn't, but it certainly would help the spread of democracy, and help pacify the world a hell of a lot. And plus, mankind would probably avoid an early extinction.

[WiseAker]

"Imagine there's no heaven it's easy if you try." Blah blah blah
Pass the joint please... :devil:

Every liberal a wanted liberal

[Thermopylae]

Not all atheists are liberals. Myself, being a conservative, that you cannot question.

[TampaWRX]

No, atheism wouldn't end war. Greed, avarice and corruption (etc) would still cause war whether or not we believe in God.

The only way war can be ended (I think) is through a Kantian style focus on rational thought... but unfortunately it is almost impossible to imagine as society stands today.
Categorical imperative is one of the most beautiful concepts western rationalism has ever devised and I agree, you will not find enough rational people on Earth to make it a viable means of guiding the masses. That said, who would the greedy and corrupt find to fight their wars? If everyone knew, or at least believed most fervently, that death was their ultimate end and that once dead, they would completely cease to exist, who would be willing to kill and be killed in someone else's name? The hypothetical is just not a settled thing for me.

[Prophet]

Religion is only used as a blanket to justify the real motive behind war which is: POWER and GREED. :devil: But if the "so-called" religious leaders revealed there true motives then NO one would follow them. But tell the gullable or the poor that god is on your side and wants you in this fight and you got yourself a religious war. War in a sense has given many the feeling of self worth.

Until we fundamentally shift our view of each other (and I mean all of us) and see that we are really all alike then we might have a chance to end war.

Nations fight for the very same reasons individuals do. Pride, embarrasment, ego, shame, fear and the list could go on and on.

If we want to truly change the world then we must change ourselves and how we interact with others. ;)

As always education is the key.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Most wars now days are over resources.

Expect the next major one over safe water.

[cicero191]

Most wars now days are over resources.

Expect the next major one over safe water.

Not terrorism?

[Duo_Maxwell]

Terrorism affects relatively few people directly. Safe drinking water affects everyone on this planet. The world's capacity for safe water is rapidly being drained with no feasible plan for resolving this.

The next major war will be on safe drinking water. And given history's pattern, it will somehow start in the Balklans.

[DMann]

If you could convince people there is no devil...that would be a start.

[mataj]

Expect the next major one over safe water.Israel/Syria, and India/Pakistan is also about water.

[DMann]

the privatization of drinking water is happening slowly... under the radar

[Jard]

What is water if it is not a ressource?

[Duo_Maxwell]

it is the key to human surivial. Without clean water, we are all doomed. Expect a major war within in the next 10 years over clean water unless some major technology comes around and stops the problem (considering what's out there, it's a good bet that we'll see this problem at least stalled for a couple decades)

[Jard]

yeah right duo, but water is a ressource.

[DMann]

i don't get that response jard

[Jard]

"Most wars now days are over resources.

Expect the next major one over safe water"

[Jard]

this was posted by duo, i was just stating that water is actually a ressource.

[Jard]

Every war ever has been about a ressource of some kind, i truely believe that. It will continue to be that way, no person or country goes to war for the benefit of others. And this applies to iraq.

Ressource lead to power and power to domination.

[DMann]

good point



oil


metals to make weapons



very good point

[jamesrage]

Ending religion will not end war because that is not the soul driving factor behind most wars,for example there is control of territory,money,cultuaral beliefs/moral values(one's idea of right and wrong), and so on.Trying to get rid of religion will just cause more wars.

[DMann]

Ending religion will not end war because that is not the soul driving factor behind most wars,


what? have you no sense of history?

[jamesrage]

Religion is just an excuse that is used.The sole factor of war is money,and land.Taking away religion will just remove one excuse for war and create another.

[DMann]

I had a friend tell me something that i never forgot....the stupidest thing to get into a fight over is religion and women

stay out of other men' s***** (girlfriend's sex parts)

stay off their land....don't steal their ****....and you'e fine


don't try to tap my bud(marijuana) the 'chronic" is getting very expensive


and I won't wreck your your face

[Anvils Hammer]

the underlying basis of all war isnt resources, it is mankinds desire to have those resources, greed.
if we all worked together in the same way the citizens of a country do there is MORE than enough resources to go round, but we dont, we cant.
war will continue till two sides finnally hit the button and the survivors dont ever want to fight again.

as einstien said i belive-
"i know not what weapons WW3 will be fought with, but WW4 will be fough with sticks and stones.

i just hope that day doesnt come in my lifetime, or anyones for that matter,
call me a pessimist, but mankind will annihilate itself a thousand times over if given the chance.
agent smiths "virus" analogy from the matrix, much truer than id like it to be.

and yes ive seen "equilibrium", its brilliant, but scary.

[earth]

don't try to tap my bud(marijuana) the 'chronic" is getting very expensive

Where you live and how old are you? I'm only 26 but the chronic is the same price now as it always has been. I get a half-quarter for $40CA. That'd make an oz. $320CA.

God loves Hydro.

[DMann]

400 here in nevada...that's an OZ
i'm 44

[Jard]

:eek: :shock: :crying: 400 $

just come back from dam; max 300$ for top quality buds. :cool:

[DMann]

can't find HASH anywhere


have you ever ****ed on Hash?
OMG


scrumptious


honeymoon was in amsterdam

[DMann]

oops...sorry for the original post but the weed takes precedence

[The Big Bog]

Religious differences have been a factor in many wars. However, as long as greed and racism continue to lurk around, we'll never be able to end war. Unfortunately. :mad:

[mahayana]

This subject of ending war is a serious one that has entertained great thinkers for thousands of years. I believe you have to change human nature before "they will beat their swords into plowshares."

Less seriously, universal free marijuana might just do the trick...historical note, in 1970 an ounce of average weed was $12, "mexican" $20.

[admirralsdoll]

Marijuana wars great where do I sign up :D

[TampaWRX]

You bunch of stoners have hijacked my thread! :lol: I'm not a marijuana kind of guy. I can appreciate the relative consequence free high, but I'm actually a believer that nothing should be free, so I stick to alcohol. Hangovers are pretty much a thing of my formative years, but every once in a while I tie one on and pay for it the next morning. That just seems fair and balanced somehow. :)

[Anvils Hammer]

You bunch of stoners have hijacked my thread! :lol:
:lol: :lol:
maby we should change the question to "marijuana, discuss!"
the posts might be relevant then.

[GlassY7S]

~Just quick thing about origional topic:

~“Religion is the opiate of the masses"...

~Without the treat, why should the dog fetch?

~If the dog shouldn’t fetch, why should it obey anything at all?

[Truth]

Religious differences are the cause of all wars, at least differences in general that is... However, it would seem more prevelant now than ever that the divisions we have established may no longer be leaning towards government establishment, but truly religious or ethnic instead. There are only 300 million gods in India, enough for 1 in every 3 people... I think that the world we view today no loner cares who you are, but only who you worship. There may be a hint of nationalism in there somewhere, but it has been a while since a country with strong nationalism fought itself (like the US)... Of course, if there are further ethnic/tribal divisions in that country then conflict is inescapable... But it truly prevails that most if not all at least major conflict and even divisions can be traced back to a superiority of belief or self... All based on religion.

[Truth]

Religious differences have been a factor in many wars. However, as long as greed and racism continue to lurk around, we'll never be able to end war. Unfortunately. :mad:

What if greed and racism themselves sprung out of original religious identities? Of course then the question arises, how can they be stopped. I believe that a grassroots apporach would work- take out the roots of the weed that flowers in to many nasty things and you can in turn stop them. Like cutting a stump out of the ground, the holes would take time to fill and heal, but the inescapable trace back to religion as an answer to unanswerable questions would definately seem to show at least a hint of why divisions exist at all today...

[Truth]

the underlying basis of all war isnt resources, it is mankinds desire to have those resources, greed.
if we all worked together in the same way the citizens of a country do there is MORE than enough resources to go round, but we dont, we cant.
war will continue till two sides finnally hit the button and the survivors dont ever want to fight again.

as einstien said i belive-
"i know not what weapons WW3 will be fought with, but WW4 will be fough with sticks and stones.

i just hope that day doesnt come in my lifetime, or anyones for that matter,
call me a pessimist, but mankind will annihilate itself a thousand times over if given the chance.
agent smiths "virus" analogy from the matrix, much truer than id like it to be.

and yes ive seen "equilibrium", its brilliant, but scary.

Both very good movies and yes, both very true... I feel the resource wars could be stopped by our rejection of the capitalist system to which we all fall prey in our everyday lives, we simply only do what we do for profit, the betterment of ourselves, or the betterment of the elites... If we were to turn aways from this system, and your analogy of wars being over resources is correct, than we have found yet another solution to war...
However, I feel it truly is much more than that, please see my other relevant posts on this page.

[Oliphaunt]

a man might not believe in god.. but that man will believe in money as his god.. he will believe in land as his god.. that mans own pride will be his god.. we're fundamentally fallible creatures

[2ruballa]

Ultimately it is the will of man that is the cause of moral evil in the world. God gave us the gift of life and free will and with that comes responsibilities.

[Soren]

See above: Amen!

Take away all of the world's religions, thereby shifting the world's fundamental beliefs systems from ones focused on death and what happens afterward, to one focused exclusively on life and what happens in the here and now. If humanity were to one day universally believe that this life is in fact all that they have, that an afterlife is not a reality, could we then assume that they would value life above all other things? Can we assume that they would be much less motivated to lay down their life in the name of political causes? Would you effectively eliminate the chance that people could form up armies and willingly kill each other? Would life be better protected by secular, rational morality as opposed to those based on faith?


Thoughts?
Answer: See the "success" enjoyed in the Soviet Union. Ideology attempting to replace religious faiths officialy replaced them, but essentially only substituted a more brutal faith which held that there were not ways to "repent" of crmes against the state, other than death or disappearance.

[TampaWRX]

See above: Amen!

Answer: See the "success" enjoyed in the Soviet Union. Ideology attempting to replace religious faiths officialy replaced them, but essentially only substituted a more brutal faith which held that there were not ways to "repent" of crmes against the state, other than death or disappearance.
The problem with bringing up the Soviet Union is that it was a fascist regime. The fact that they claimed to be Atheists means nothing. Likewise, their fascism does not at all reflect upon Atheism, as fascism has likewise embraced religion at certain points in history.

[Soren]

The problem with bringing up the Soviet Union is that it was a fascist regime. The fact that they claimed to be Atheists means nothing. Likewise, their fascism does not at all reflect upon Atheism, as fascism has likewise embraced religion at certain points in history.
I'd like to point out here that in both cases, theology or ideology, assumptions are made about the nature of the universe, thus they are both grounded in a sort of faith. These faiths (and I include Atheism here) are only as good as their underlying assuptions. Debate's role is to discover them, not neccessarily to prove them.

[DMann]

atheism doesn't contain any inclinations towards 'faith"....at least that's my interpretation.

[Fasdf]

Atheism is the faith that god doesn't exist. There's certainly no evidence to prove god exists, but there's no evidence on the contrary either, not that I can think of what that evidence would be supposing it did exist.

[DMann]

I think a "faith that God does not exist" is using inaccurate language. That supposses we HOPE that god doesn't exist... Or we imagine and hang on to that imaginary ideal. We don't thinik like that. Most atheists I know KNOW god doesn't exist. It's firm. It isn't faith. Our minds are about proof where christians are about faith and belief.

[ukangel]

I think a "faith that God does not exist" is using inaccurate language. That supposses we HOPE that god doesn't exist... Or we imagine and hang on to that imaginary ideal. We don't thinik like that. Most atheists I know KNOW god doesn't exist. It's firm. It isn't faith. Our minds are about proof where christians are about faith and belief.

How can you know God doesnt exist ? to know you would need proof and you cant prove a negative. There is no logical distinction between a Christians faith and an atheists faith. Though you could argue that atheism is actually an absence of faith.

[liberalpuppet]

I think a "faith that God does not exist" is using inaccurate language. That supposses we HOPE that god doesn't exist... Or we imagine and hang on to that imaginary ideal. We don't thinik like that. Most atheists I know KNOW god doesn't exist. It's firm. It isn't faith. Our minds are about proof where christians are about faith and belief.

I would beleive that as an atheist you would HOPE that their is not a God. Because if proven wrong then I would not want to be on his bad side.

[TampaWRX]

How can you know God doesnt exist ? to know you would need proof and you cant prove a negative. There is no logical distinction between a Christians faith and an atheists faith. Though you could argue that atheism is actually an absence of faith. Exactly, Atheism is by definition an absence of faith. I am not sure what other interpretation could be presented which would not be agnosticism? I do not recognize any god because I have no need for a god. It all seems completely incomprehensible to me. It is not that I believe there is no god, it is that the concept of god given the reality of the world in which I live is completely and totally foreign to me. It does not fit the reality I experience and is therefore useless to me. I would never try to rationally prove the Judeo-Christian god does not exist because there is no rational proof of its existence to refute. That and I really don't care what people believe, until their beliefs begin to intrude on the lives of myself or others. The problem with religious believers is their drive toward propogation. The entire world would be so much better off if believers would simply believe what they believe and leave the rest of the world alone, rather than continually attempt to spread their faiths with open as well as subliminal tactics.

[DMann]

If you can't prove he does or doesn't exist...then there's not a whole lot there in the first place.

[Soren]

That and I really don't care what people believe, until their beliefs begin to intrude on the lives of myself or others. The problem with religious believers is their drive toward propogation. The entire world would be so much better off if believers would simply believe what they believe and leave the rest of the world alone, rather than continually attempt to spread their faiths with open as well as subliminal tactics.
But oddly enough TampaWRX is willing to do the same with his or her faith in atheism and created an entire thread to do so. This is what is called a 'shell' game, since TampaWRX is unwilling to play by the same rules he or she has provided others.

[Soren]

I think a "faith that God does not exist" is using inaccurate language. That supposses we HOPE that god doesn't exist... Or we imagine and hang on to that imaginary ideal. We don't thinik like that. Most atheists I know KNOW god doesn't exist. It's firm. It isn't faith. Our minds are about proof where christians are about faith and belief.
Well, that comment does show trust in some assumptions about the universe that you cannot prove. Thus it is in a certain sense faith. For every individual the entire superstructure of logic is built on a faith, or if you prefer, a trust in certain (to the thinker at least) basic and underlying principles. Obviously we disagree on these.


Everyone lives by faith in something, whether they call it faith or not.


If you want to go on arguing you can do so, but I think I have made my point. Goodbye!:whack:

[DMann]

Just because you THINK you made your point, doesn't mean you HAVE.

[Soren]

Just because you THINK you made your point, doesn't mean you HAVE.
Most atheists I know KNOW god doesn't exist. It's firm. It isn't faith. Our minds are about proof where christians are about faith and belief.

Just because you have "proof" doesn't make it truth. I can "prove" anything I want by starting with the right ( or should I say wrong? ) premise. You have criteria for accepting what is proof do you not? Are these not a matter of faith (or if you prefer it) trust or even knowledge? I do not use this term "faith" as many do, as a mere statement of belief, but rather as a statement of knowledge. If you want to dispute where I put my trust, that is your right; but it is not your judgement to make for me and for every citizen of any nation, it is mine, since the last time I checked you are not omniscient. :p

[DMann]

their are LAWS od science that you follow to develop proof. For instance, you have to test and retest according to guidlines that aren't open to interpretation.

[TheGreyGhost]

This "Universal Atheism"........will it be forced on us?........

if we refuse.....what will be done to us refuseniks?

[DMann]

This "Universal Atheism"........will it be forced on us?........

no. i don't think that's been a proposal that's been offered up here. has it?

if we refuse.....what will be done to us refuseniks?


you'll be sent to refusnikland

[crawfish]

Wars are hardly based on religion. They are usually based on property, racism or hatred, and religion has been a valuable tool to those that would use it for those purposes, but it is hardly the only tool.

I think it's human nature, not religion, that causes war, and thus eliminating religion would only eliminate one of the reasons we kill each other.

[Soren]

their are LAWS of science that you follow to develop proof. For instance, you have to test and retest according to guidlines that aren't open to interpretation.
I suggest that you read Thomas S. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. In it you would discover that the methods used, the evidence accepted and the types of questions which are even asked within a specific field are colored intensely by the current scientific model (in his words, paradigm) for each field. I'm afraid that science, as useful as it is, is in many ways as subjective as every other human endeavor. It has assumptions, too, but these assuptions are not normally examined by scientists, except during periods of intellectual crisis when the models can no longer support be supported because of the weight of evidence that a particular model (such as Newtonian physics in the early 20th century) is in some sense flawed. The trouble is, that new conceptual models of science unwittingly introduce error in one place while removing it in another.:eek:

Science isn't objective, nor can it be, since the price of progress is to make assumptions about one (or many) thing(s) so that you can make conclusions about other things. It is therefore not a firm foundation for your argument. Don't misunderstand me. I think that science is a good thing (I might be dead of typhus or smallpox without it!), but I don't see, given its history (which it has historically been fond of intentionally misconstruing in order to support the current paradigm(s)) how it is a stable basis for any moral system.