If you believe the world would be better without religion: Is 'atheism' important to society?

Question

It's sometimes asked on here if the world would be a better place if religion as an institution were eliminated. Often the comments from (presumed non-adherents) indicate it would be.

To those that would answer in the affirmative to the above-referenced question: would the world be better with a formal doctrine of atheism - in order to combat the rise of the further influence of theism - or is it sufficient to simply try to raise critically-thinking members of society?

In other words, atheism as a social institution or simply as the lack of an alternative social institution (religion)?

Part of the reason for asking this question is that, while most atheists arrive at their 'belief' through an application of some degree of skepticism/critical analysis, some do not; this latter group is often born into atheism, or accepts it blindly.

Glad to see the answers so far. Really just curious if any atheists *believed* in a formal doctrine of atheism. Like I said, *some* atheists are simply blind followers of "the faith".

Answer 1

Your idea has merit. I do think the world would be a better place without dogmatic religion.
A belief is fine provided it remains that way and is not used for any personal gain.
An open mind is also a prime requisite.
My son is to young to know of religion or a lack of.
I am atheist but will strongly urge him to look at religions when he is old enough to comprehend for himself.
If he chooses to become a theist....so be it. I will be about as disappointed as I would be if he was to be gay.
It is his life and I will not push my lack of belief on him in just the same way as I will not have others push theirs on him.
The world has enough problems with racism,bigotry etc.
Religion does not need to be sticking its nose in it and making matters worse.
A religious bigot, should he grow up to be one....Would disappoint me greatly.

Answer 2

If there was no religion, there would be no atheism.
Being an atheist would simply mean being normal, and the few oddballs who believe in gods, gnomes, and easter bunnies would be locked up in padded cells where they cannot hurt anyone or themselves.

However, there should be no forced abolishment of religion. Mankind should evolve mentally and intellectually to the point of abandoning the need for mythological gods to rule over him. If someone should believe in and practice a religion, it should be a personal thing and receive no special recognition or special treatment from any government system. The idea of teaching creationism in a science class is about as absurd as teaching Star Wars in a history class, with the exception of art history.

When atheism becomes the standard or default, there will be no real need for the term atheism. It will simply be a matter of noticing how some people have beliefs in addition to or opposed to the norm. When we reach this point, mankind will be able to progresss at a much faster rate. Rules and laws will be created based on what society views as best for them rather than what an angry god demands.

It's quite a utopian idea.

Answer 3

Atheism is a result, not a premise and should be treated the same as any other result we obtain from scientific reasoning, i.e. provisional and subject to change should further evidence come along but still the best fit to the data we have.

If there weren't any religion there would be no need for anyone to even think of non existence of gods as being an important attribute of a person and so there would be almost no one bothering to call themselves or other atheists (it would just be the default).

Theism is nonsense and will die of its own accord provided we can ensure that there is no compulsion in religion (only when there is compulsion can religion actually gain large numbers of adherents).

Answer 4

I don't think we ought to have a "formal doctrine" of atheism. I think that raising children to think critically from a young age would be sufficient to decrease the influence of theism.

So, I advocate the eliminating religion as an alternative social institution through education, but don't think that a formal doctrine of atheism should replace it.

Answer 5

to respond to your question specific.. Society would be a extra appropriate place. Why? seem at it this form each and all the religions are some sort or conflict, each and each faith desires to beg different people who what they have faith is genuine, additionally there people who have faith of their faith with pastime that they are going to do something achieveable to make that ensue and thats whilst the concern starts.. as a result as you will see there is conflict happening almost everywhere, its been happening via fact that faith has began and nonetheless immediately.. On an atheist viewpoint like myself ,the only thank you to end it relatively is that if we De-mystify faith and spiritualize technology.. Why technology? i'm no longer speaking approximately technology to reason nuclear mess ups, missiles like maximum governements are dropping plenty money on, relatively.. i'm speaking approximately technology to create technologically more suitable robots to do all our on a regular basis artwork, eg. bulding, accouting, gardening etc..or for scientific purposes coming up new varieties to rid the wolrd from sickness etc.. so we are able to get rid ourselves for the duration of the thought of working for money..So make the main of technology to ruin ourselves(which the government already is coming up missles, and different nuclear nonsense).. or we are able to apply technology to stay a happy and harmonius wolrd of affection!

Answer 6

Actually, we are presently seeing the deleterious effects of officially sanctioned atheistic humanism supplanting the morality of the general Christian faith in America.

And more recently we have the rise of militant atheism, which in their rage against the living and true God, they broadbrush all religions together, making no real distinction between Biblical Christianity, which never shed one drop of blood in defending or expanding it's faith, versus it's aberrant (RC, etc.( forms), or other religions, as they denigrate all religion as oppressive and violent, etc.(thus fundamental Islam is atheism's best friend), and in contrast to which they present atheism as a superior, "reasonable" alternative.

But what they fail to see is that they are simply presenting another religion, or belief system, as their principal tenet is something they cannot prove. And far from providing assurance of superior morality, they are hardly qualified to speak on the subject, as they have no transcendent objective authority by which to define such.

Assuring us that they will do what is reasonable, "sounds reasonable," but according to whose reason? The overall legacy of such an objectively baseless system of morality is not good, as in reality men like Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao acted out of such a system, each doing what was "reasonable" to them in slating their multitudes (close to 2 million). As Dostoevsky so eloquently put it, ”If God is dead, then all things are possible!” Joseph Stalin reasoned: ”The death of one person is a tragedy, but the death of millions is just a statistic.” Of course, that such men were acting out of an atheistic moral system is vehemently denied by them, even as they assert pagan Hitler acted out of Christian beliefs! (as if Jesus actually commanded His followers to do violence, or Paul acted such out).

The objection to the above examples is that such men were acting out of a "political religion", but that is just the point. Denying that an exceedingly complex and orderly creation (wherein disorder is recognized by contrast) had a designer, atheists end up being prone to worshiping something else, including themselves or others. Thus making such things as Stalinism possible. See N. Korea today. And it was atheistic communism which took torture and brainwashing to it's worse degree.

This does not mean atheists must be immoral, or cannot act morally, as the Bible confirms that we have an innate sense of right and wrong (Rm. 2:14 - though that can be defiled). In the west they do well as they are building upon a society that had it's foundation most principally in true Christian influenced ideals, though by no means exclusively. http://www.worthynews.com/america.html

Nor does it mean that "Christians cannot act immoral, but the difference is that the latter has a transcendent immutable standard defining right and wrong, as applied under the New Testament whereas the atheist only has reason (which Jesus did appeal to). But there is no certainly of how an atheists will define what is reasonable, and indeed, some propose removing Christian children from their parents, ala Communism!

Ultimately, anyone who honestly seeks after righteousnesses, truth, and mercy in obeying the light God give them will be attracted to Christ, as it is the Son of God who alone served selfishly and sinless day and night, and then who loved us and gave himself for us, that we might live thru Him.

Answer 7

There is no "doctrine of atheism". Atheism is simply non-belief in god or gods. People should not accept anything blindly.

Answer 8

atheim is not an organized doctrine,

it is just another name for having personal view of what is presumed best by oneself, rather than commanded by a pre set religion

so yes, world would be better without organized religions determined to hate/kill the others

Answer 9

The only required belief of atheism is to have no belief.

Answer 10

I really don't think anyone accepts atheism blindly. How can you accept blindly a LACK of belief?