Atheists:

[erm]

I think it would be. It wouldn't be an end all solution to hapiness, but it would remove a major source of conflict.

Yeah. As wild as the speculation is to make a conclusion here, I think everyone following the same cosmological ideology (or, as in this case, getting closer to doing so), that did not demand anything "unworldly" of them, would reduce unproductive conflict by a notable amount. There'd be fewer people following ethical systems derived from something entirely separate to humanity, and so they'd shift towards ethical systems based on more "worldly" things such as humanism or utilitarianism.

I'd think it would be agnostics who make up the majority of these atheists, as I think a lot people are strong atheists purely as a reactionary position to the prevalence of theism, and would be weak atheists, specifically agnostics, otherwise. That might just be wishful thinking on my part though.

Insisting there's nothing outside the visible universe is stupid though, as is saying we know a significant amount about what is in the visible universe. I'd hope it wasn't those types of atheists that dominated, since that type of rigid thinking we limit truth-finding somewhere down the line, just like claiming to know what's outside the visible universe does.

 

[Intricate Mystic]

You didn't understand me. Hint: I'm not an atheist.

You are agnostic and don't like organized religion?

I celebrate beauty, humanity, mystery, bravery, happiness, among other things.

I like that. Do you remain hopeful when life gets difficult?

 

[Randomnity]

Theists celebrate ugliness, hopelessness, and deny our humanity? You've got to be kidding me.

Saying that theists celebrate ugliness, hopelessness, etc is as mind-blowingly foolish, ridiculous and flat-out wrong as saying that atheists do. Which was his point.

 

[iwakar]

Yeah. As wild as the speculation is to make a conclusion here, I think everyone following the same cosmological ideology, that did not demand anything "unworldly" of them, would reduce unproductive conflict by a notable amount. There'd be fewer people following ethical systems derived from something entirely separate to humanity, and so they'd shift towards ethical systems based on more "worldly" things such as humanism or utilitarianism.

As much as I wanted to say this, I was hesitant to do so because we cannot discount all of the inevitable nihilism that would result from such a massive group-think shift. Hell, we encounter it now routinely, especially on this forum

We might end up with scads of people the world over mentally circle-jerking themselves about the 'point of it all' because they've confused benevolence and productivity as purposeful only within religious adherences rather than outside of 'em. Ya dig?

 

[Intricate Mystic]

Saying that theists celebrate ugliness, hopelessness, etc is as mind-blowingly foolish, ridiculous and flat-out wrong as saying that atheists do. Which was his point.

The atheists I have met in the art world honestly fit my description pretty well. Maybe it attracts a subset of people that isn't reflective of atheists as a whole, though. To those atheists who do not conform to my stereotyped, pre-conceived notions, I apologize.

 

[erm]

As much as I wanted to say this, I was hesitant to do so because we cannot discount all of the inevitable nihilism that would result from such a massive group-think shift. Hell, we encounter it now routinely, especially on this forum

We might end up with scads of people the world over mentally circle-jerking themselves about the 'point of it all' because they've confused benevolence and productivity as purposeful only within religious adherences rather than outside of 'em. Ya dig?

Yeah I could see that happening. I think we can agree this is all pretty heavy speculation, so none of us actually know the consequences of all this with much certainty.

I could counter that idea though. Perhaps the prevalence of theism, and what we could call "focus on the supernatural", is the contrast, and thus the cause, creating that mindset in the first place? It might be creating a reliance on the supernatural for "meaning", and making the natural world seem "bleak" by comparison. In which case the universal dominance of atheism might well reduce the problem.

 

[iwakar]

Yeah I could see that happening. I think we can agree this is all pretty heavy speculation, so none of us actually know the consequences of all this with much certainty.

I could counter that idea though. Perhaps the prevalence of theism, and what we could call "focus on the supernatural", is the contrast, and thus the cause, creating that mindset in the first place? It might be creating a reliance on the supernatural for "meaning", and making the natural world seem "bleak" by comparison. In which case the universal dominance of atheism might well reduce the problem.

Thus illustrating the remarkable necessity and advantage of powerful imagination. The world is only as simple or as complicated as we dream it, no? Intuitives have a leg up here --but not universally and not necessarily.

 

[tinker683]

The atheists I have met in the art world honestly fit my description pretty well. Maybe it attracts a subset of people that isn't reflective of atheists as a whole, though. To those atheists who do not conform to my stereotyped, pre-conceived notions, I apologize.

Apology accepted

I was about to say...I'm using religious imagery in my avatar for petes sake! I'd figure you'd appreciate art work like that

 

[Randomnity]

The atheists I have met in the art world honestly fit my description pretty well. Maybe it attracts a subset of people that isn't reflective of atheists as a whole, though. To those atheists who do not conform to my stereotyped, pre-conceived notions, I apologize.

Ok.... I can't really comment since I don't know the people you know. But it's a really melodramatic and negative (and unlikely) picture to paint of millions (possibly billions) of people based purely on your impressions about a few (10? 20?) people you've met.

It's all about accurate sampling. For example every single practising Christian in my life IRL is batshit crazy. But not all the Christians in the world are, or even the majority of them. Perhaps not even a significant minority. It would be unreasonable for me to paint a picture of an all-theistic world based on my own personal experience with religious people.

 

[Within]

The atheists I have met in the art world honestly fit my description pretty well. Maybe it attracts a subset of people that isn't reflective of atheists as a whole, though. To those atheists who do not conform to my stereotyped, pre-conceived notions, I apologize.

I don't know what kind of people you have run into and what path of reasoning you follow when you interpreting the world around you. But from my point of view I recognize what you so eloquently put as a celebration of ugliness and hopelessness as something equally vital to the world as beauty and hope. It can be the physical manifestation of a person catharsis.

You need to dismount that high horse of yours and pry open those dull eyelids and realize that you should not be throwing out apologies in a thread as much as apologizing to yourself for being close minded.

 

[Intricate Mystic]

I don't know what kind of people you have run into and what path of reasoning you follow when you interpreting the world around you. But from my point of view I recognize what you so eloquently put as a celebration of ugliness and hopelessness as something equally vital to the world as beauty and hope. It can be the physical manifestation of a person catharsis.

You need to dismount that high horse of yours and pry open those dull eyelids and realize that you should not be throwing out apologies in a thread as much as apologizing to yourself for being close minded.

I personally don't see any value in celebrating ugliness or hopelessness. However, the reality of this world is that lots of people in it are suffering because they are living in extreme poverty, are sick, in pain, having mental problems, having emotional anguish, are lonely, etc.. Calling this to others' attention to try to make changes in the world may involve showing their suffering through art, and it may indeed be ugly. It can usually be portrayed in a way that moves us and connects us with our humanity, though. (In my opinion).

 

[Within]

I personally don't see any value in celebrating ugliness or hopelessness. However, the reality of this world is that lots of people in it are suffering because they are living in extreme poverty, are sick, in pain, having mental problems, having emotional anguish, are lonely, etc.. Calling this to others' attention to try to make changes in the world may involve showing their suffering through art, and it may indeed be ugly. It can usually be portrayed in a way that moves us and connects us with our humanity, though. (In my opinion).

Case in point, honey coating reality. Which one of us is really trying to deny our humanity.

On an off note, I recommend that you read Anton LaVey's The Satanic Bible. That dude sure likes to embrace his own humanity and all the urges that comes along with it.

 

[guesswho]

Do you think it would be better if everyone were an atheist?

(please explain)

Obviously variety has it's purpose. (So no, I do not think it would be better if everyone were an atheist)

However I think that in the future more and more people will stop believing in God, or at least in the classical God, and as long as humanity will have unanswered questions, there will be the God answer. (so that is theoretically as long as humanity will exist)

So basically unless we find answers to questions such as: What is outside our Universe? or What was before the Big Bang? Or why are the laws which govern our universe so perfect (apparently)? some people will always answer them with God.
God created the universe
God is responsible for the Big Bang.
God made the laws of physics.

So, not only that the world would not be better off without a God, but it will NEVER be without a God, even though the number of believers will be reduced.

 

[rav3n]

I personally don't see any value in celebrating ugliness or hopelessness.

It appears that ugliness, suffering and hopeless artforms don't solely reside with atheists. Which came first, the cart or the horse? How often do you see this symbol of suffering and martyrdom depicted in theist art or pretty much stamped indelibly...everywhere?

 

[Beorn]

The atheists I have met in the art world honestly fit my description pretty well. Maybe it attracts a subset of people that isn't reflective of atheists as a whole, though. To those atheists who do not conform to my stereotyped, pre-conceived notions, I apologize.

My guess is that the reason for this is that artists might be more inclined to be honest in the outworking of their beliefs as represented by their work.

It's not that atheists can't love truth and beauty. It's that they have no reason to love truth and beauty. It's just a preference.

That being said I actually object to the phrasing of the question in the OP. I think a appropriate and precise phrasing would be:
Do you think the world would be preferable to you if everyone were an atheist?

 

[iwakar]

It's not that atheists can't love truth and beauty. It's that they have no reason to love truth and beauty.

I do not understand this conclusion. How did you reach it?

 

[Beorn]

It appears that ugliness, suffering and hopeless artforms don't solely reside with atheists. Which came first, the cart or the horse? How often do you see this symbol of suffering and martyrdom depicted in theist art or pretty much stamped indelibly...everywhere?

Suffering and ugliness is present in this image and others like it. But, that is not only what is present. There is a reason why such images undeniably bring hope to millions.

 

[Beorn]

I do not understand this conclusion. How did you reach it?

I've discussed this before here and here

 

[ZPowers]

I've discussed this before here and here

I don't see God validating truth and beauty or morality as any better or making those concepts any more true than personal or social interpretation. It just means God random and arbitrarily assigned goodness or beauty to ideas or things. It basically means if God changed his mind or decided differently and said "skinning people alive is moral and beautiful" then that'd be moral and beautiful. It's no less random or pointless than any other basis for those concepts.

And I think that, like religion, a lot of the black in atheism or humanism comes with white too. Life is brief and not lasting, but at least we can respect it as more than some bullshit application to a good afterlife, but as an end of itself. Hell, I think I'd find the idea of killing another life form easier if I thought there were an afterlife. After all, it's kind of a favor.


As for the central question: I'd say I can't know. Probably not. The world would be better, maybe, if religious fervor were a little more controlled for some of the more extreme people. I guess I could also say if religion didn't close off some people's minds, but I guess that applies to any ideology.

 

[iwakar]

That being said I actually object to the phrasing of the question in the OP. I think a appropriate and precise phrasing would be:
Do you think the world would be preferable to you if everyone were an atheist?

She asked the question she wanted the answer to. The subjective opinion(s) she is looking for is pretty clear with her use of you, as in: "Do you think it would be better if everyone were an atheist?"

I've discussed this before here and here

What I know is that I am agnostic and love truth and beauty, so my reality is antithetical to your conclusion. There are many unstated presuppositions filling the gaps in your discursive, linear (rather than empirical) position, so that there are virtually zero substantive experiences to counter. I still do not know how you reached your conclusion.