Happy Atheist Forum

Peace...

Greetings to all..I am a theist...Just thought I should mention that first..

As an atheist what would consider to be ideal conditions for humanity? If the world were relatively perfect what would that look like to you?

Roughly: a non-judgemental, peaceful world where people aren't trying to control the lives of others. One without mindless wars and killing. A world void of discrimination but full of love. In a nutshell, a world of hippies.  

Oh and welcome!

A perfect world would be without greed, cruelty.

Quote from: "Sophus"Roughly: a non-judgemental, peaceful world where people aren't trying to control the lives of others. One without mindless wars and killing. A world void of discrimination but full of love. In a nutshell, a world of hippies.  :)

I can only speak for myself, as there are as many kinds of atheists as there are kinds of any other not-a-thing (atheists don't share a set of beliefs, but rather a single disbelief).

A perfect world within reason, in my opinion, would be one in which greed is collectively curbed so that it never leads to negligent suffering. Call it a shift in priorities from self to collective. Not a complete shift, mind you, but one large enough so that it would make things like war and poverty incredibly rare. We have it within ourselves to do this on an individual level, I see it every day, so I have to conclude it's possible on a community, national, and even global level.

Welcome Saracen.
I would like to see a world where people treat each other better.
Religion doesn't seem to do the job.
Sophus doesn't want to control others, I wouldn't mind a bit of control.
I would like people to learn from an early age that meanness and cruelty to others is unacceptable.
In my perfect world teenagers wouldn't be driven to starve themselves to death.

Peace...

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Sophus"Roughly: a non-judgemental, peaceful world where people aren't trying to control the lives of others. One without mindless wars and killing. A world void of discrimination but full of love. In a nutshell, a world of hippies. :)

This sounds wonderful....However....

Is it possible to have a world order wherein there is a all encompassing peace, yet there is also the lack of directed judgement toward individuals?  Would such a world mean that humanity becomes unconditionally tolerant of any and everything?  In other words are these ideas opposing?

I am leading up to the idea that there must be a normative behavior which undergirds social order.  Such norms would have to be imposed on the masses.  

Despite the terrifying track record of religious movements in this regard, without the belief in some innate and higher authority is it possible to achieve social order without force?   Without social order is it possible to acheive a generally prevailing peace?

Quote from: "Saracen"This sounds wonderful....However....

I am leading up to the idea that there must be a normative behavior which undergirds social order.  Such norms would have to be imposed on the masses.  

Despite the terrifying track record of religious movements in this regard, without the belief in some innate and higher authority is it possible to achieve social order without force?   Without social order is it possible to acheive a generally prevailing peace?

Do you mean like a political system or a general mindset? I was under the impression you meant the latter, simply the behavior of people. If by realistic you mean the former then I would simply say reasonable laws. If I tried to go into great detail about what those would be we'd be here all day.

QuoteIs it possible to have a world order wherein there is a all encompassing peace, yet there is also the lack of directed judgement toward individuals?  Would such a world mean that humanity becomes unconditionally tolerant of any and everything?  In other words are these ideas opposing?

By "non-judgemenal" I mean within reason. Probably should have said "not judging someone for who they are (granted it's not harming anyone else)" or simply a world "without prejudice".

A world full of peace wouldn't need government to attempt to sustain it. But unfortunately that's never been the case. The good news is we, as a species, may be, slowly but surely, getting less barbaric as time moves on. It's only a mindset shift so I don't see why it's not realistic, or at least possible. Still, you won't see it happen anytime soon.

My "perfect" world would revolve around me.

Failing that, I'd settle for a world where honesty is so common a thing that it's not considered a virtue

Quote from: "Saracen"Is it possible to have a world order wherein there is a all encompassing peace, yet there is also the lack of directed judgement toward individuals?  

If you take not controlling people to be along the lines of not unnecessarily pushing views on others then yes.  It would be along the lines of the pagan golden rule:  Do as you will but harm none.

QuoteDespite the terrifying track record of religious movements in this regard, without the belief in some innate and higher authority is it possible to achieve social order without force?

Yes, it is easily possible to achieve social order without violence (not without discussions) and without thinking some man in the sky will smite them if they are bad.  Not only do I see it done all the time in small groups of atheists but there are also major countries who are doing great (Sweden for example plus others http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html (http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html) note that these are old numbers the percent of nonbelievers in the USA is now closer to 14%) while being largely secular.

Btw, don't be too nit picky about our original answers...half the time a religious person posts here for the first time they forget to come back so we kinda just throw out a response and wait to see if there will be a discussion or not.

A perfect world for me would include NO hunger, NO poverty, NO religion, NO politicians, NO war, NO diseases, and sex, drugs, rock and roll for everyone!

A symbiotic relationship between humans and AI, free of superstitious dogma. That's a perfect world.

As observed by @PeriodPiece on twitter...."Realistic and perfect?"

Quote from: "Whitney"As observed by @PeriodPiece on twitter...."Realistic and perfect?"

Yes, exactly.

Quote from: "Will"I can only speak for myself, as there are as many kinds of atheists as there are kinds of any other not-a-thing (atheists don't share a set of beliefs, but rather a single disbelief).
.

Point taken....

QuoteA perfect world within reason, in my opinion, would be one in which greed is collectively curbed so that it never leads to negligent suffering. Call it a shift in priorities from self to collective. Not a complete shift, mind you, but one large enough so that it would make things like war and poverty incredibly rare. We have it within ourselves to do this on an individual level, I see it every day, so I have to conclude it's possible on a community, national, and even global level.

I agree that extreme greed is a degenerative force in society, however, in what manner would someone "curb" greed and when does this become social pressure to redistribute wealth and resources?  How much of a persons wealth should be shared?  

Once again I did ask for a realistic protrayal of perfection because I wanted to know if in the absence of a social order which arises from religious ethos such as we see today would the atheist be prepared to offer an alternate system which would work as well or better for that matter.

I think countries like the England, Sweden,  US operating on secular laws is proof enough that religion is not necessary to maintain a civil society....in fact it could be easily argued that the countries with religion based laws are the least civilized.  I don't remember the last time someone declared war in the name of no god; a truly secular society would have one less thing
to fight over.

Quote from: "Saracen"I agree that extreme greed is a degenerative force in society, however, in what manner would someone "curb" greed and when does this become social pressure to redistribute wealth and resources?  How much of a persons wealth should be shared?

I think the problem comes from considering large amounts of money "wealth". The way it was originally conceived, money is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. It was a simple tool to aid interaction after the concept of private property spread. With the advent of private property and currency/trade, there was the first major shift from collective good to individual good that happened outside of situations where scarcity of resources necessitated competition. In other words, individuals became oriented to gain in wealth and power for themselves first and their family or community second, whereas generally it was the other way around when we were hunter gatherers. This isn't a bad thing, as we've seen some competition can bring out excellence, but it also creates inequality.

Tying that back into the money/wealth thing, the problem is that when the priority shifts too far into the individual side compounded with the fact that money is being confused for wealth, you get serious societal problems. Wealth is an abundance of something valuable, but money itself isn't value, but something which can be exchanged for value. When wealth is considered simply to be a lot of money, which is a finite resource, the resulting inequality victimizes those who haven't won in the competition, penalizing them with poverty. I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't want to play a game in which the losers live in poverty.

To answer your question as to how much money should be shared, I don't think there should ever be billionaires. Ever. There shouldn't be $100 millionaires, either. That amount of money under one person means that much money not with those unable to succeed in whatever economic system they're born into. Even in the richest countries in the world, there are millions starving.

Quote from: "Saracen"Once again I did ask for a realistic protrayal of perfection because I wanted to know if in the absence of a social order which arises from religious ethos such as we see today would the atheist be prepared to offer an alternate system which would work as well or better for that matter.

The first thing would be campaign finance laws, making elections 100% publicly funded and restricting the income of former representatives after they've left offices to prevent favors. Money has no place in politics. Moreover, we need extreme whistle-blower laws, protecting people willing to turn in those who abuse power. This is all to pave the way for a more progressive tax system, more like that under Eisenhower. It's important to fix campaign finance and bribery in government first because the increased tax revenue from a more progressive system would mean a lot of temptation for those outside of government to try and weasel their way into no-bid contracts and revolving doors.

I know this just sounds like "more government", but some government is necessary to help a society do well. Smart government is pivotal in a world with so many people. The only other centers of power are the market, which is greed-driven, and religion, which is either dogma-driven or is wildly subjective. Neither of them are stable enough to enact that kind of change I imagine.

In the words of Jimi Hendrix ~ "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

I don't see where Organized Religion can fall into such a world, as it is an entity that exists for the soul purpose of controlling people. I see no problem with people coming to terms with a personal view of God, but I believe that without Churches and the like, people would quickly find that they are too smart to believe in such things.

So I suppose a perfect world, for me, would probably be one without religion.

Great to be back, Forum!

Quote from: "Whitney"I think countries like the England, Sweden,  US operating on secular laws is proof enough that religion is not necessary to maintain a civil society....in fact it could be easily argued that the countries with religion based laws are the least civilized.  I don't remember the last time someone declared war in the name of no god; a truly secular society would have one less thing
to fight over.

Umm... The Soviet Union? I see your point though, Theocratic nations do lean way further to the barbaric side of things in the international playing field.

Quote from: "KebertX"Umm... The Soviet Union?

If they had declared war in the name of atheism then that would be an example but as far as I can tell their wars and the cold war were largely politically/economically motivated and the "red scare" was just propaganda taking the truth way out of proportion to make Americans support US actions against the Soviet Union.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "KebertX"Umm... The Soviet Union?

If they had declared war in the name of atheism then that would be an example but as far as I can tell their wars and the cold war were largely politically/economically motivated and the "red scare" was just propaganda taking the truth way out of proportion to make Americans support US actions against the Soviet Union.

Indeed. soviet Union has never declared a war with atheism as the banner cause.

Atheism was the effect of a political system, it was not the cause of it. And, as such, was a secondary ideology to them.

Indeed.

Everyone's nailed most everything I can think of except one. In my perfect world, there'd also be no more hairlips.

In my "perfect" world, there would be no diseases, no famines, no premature deaths, and the conscious choice to choose what you want to believe based on the evidence given.

I'd also like to state; what is perfection? How do we discern what absolute "goodness" is? Is it human nature that decides? Personally, I believe perfection is like an obstacle course that cannot be completed without failing. But, one who does complete the course, would have done it perfectly, therfore been called perfect. But how CAN it be done if it CAN NOT be done? Simple, perfection doesn't exist, not in a god, nor in a human. Anyways, I'm rambling. Each person has his/her own view of perfection, mine is what I originally stated.

 

For me.

A world with a Lot less people, A lot more skittles.

Change the prison system so it's not just slave camps for cheap cigarettes and shit, and actually try to rehabilitate these guys so they don't just get out and fuck up again.

Oh and no guns. No gunpowder.

I hate guns. I hate that they exist.

Quote from: "TheWilliam"For me.

A world with a Lot less people, A lot more skittles.

Change the prison system so it's not just slave camps for cheap cigarettes and shit, and actually try to rehabilitate these guys so they don't just get out and fuck up again.

Oh and no guns. No gunpowder.

I hate guns. I hate that they exist.

Come visit us in Scandinavia! You might like it here  :P And our jails are all about rehabing people back into society - with all the ups and downs it entails... And in my country, there are really not that many of us  

A world in which communities are homogenous and economically sound with stable values and monetary systems.  A world in which freedom of association is respected on the collective level as well as on the indivdual level.  In which the poisons of our society- alcohol, tobacco, pollution, etc.- are eliminated due to an increase in knowledge of biochemistry, ecology, and rationality.  Essentially, a world based on the lessons of history, rational scientific inquiry, the revealed laws of nature, common sense, and logic.

Quote from: "Saracen"

Quote from: "Will"I can only speak for myself, as there are as many kinds of atheists as there are kinds of any other not-a-thing (atheists don't share a set of beliefs, but rather a single disbelief).
.

Point taken....

QuoteA perfect world within reason, in my opinion, would be one in which greed is collectively curbed so that it never leads to negligent suffering. Call it a shift in priorities from self to collective. Not a complete shift, mind you, but one large enough so that it would make things like war and poverty incredibly rare. We have it within ourselves to do this on an individual level, I see it every day, so I have to conclude it's possible on a community, national, and even global level.

I agree that extreme greed is a degenerative force in society, however, in what manner would someone "curb" greed and when does this become social pressure to redistribute wealth and resources?  How much of a persons wealth should be shared?  

Once again I did ask for a realistic protrayal of perfection because I wanted to know if in the absence of a social order which arises from religious ethos such as we see today would the atheist be prepared to offer an alternate system which would work as well or better for that matter.

I look at the Vatican City, I look at the mega-churches of America, and I see greed.  If your argument is that belief in god causes people to give money to the people who really need it, you are sorely mistaken.  I don't think greed has anything to do with religion at all...I think greed is simply human nature, and by your set of beliefs...we have god to thank for that.

You cannot ask someone to describe perfection, because each person has an individual idea of perfection that will never jive with any other.  A group of people can certainly come to a consensus, or compromise as to what would be ideal...perfection is as impossible as god.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "TheWilliam"For me.

A world with a Lot less people, A lot more skittles.

Change the prison system so it's not just slave camps for cheap cigarettes and shit, and actually try to rehabilitate these guys so they don't just get out and fuck up again.

Oh and no guns. No gunpowder.

I hate guns. I hate that they exist.

Come visit us in Scandinavia! You might like it here  :P And our jails are all about rehabing people back into society - with all the ups and downs it entails... And in my country, there are really not that many of us  

what about natural disasters, like where i'm from in Washington State (seattle). there's earthquakes.

and where i live now in Florida (orlando), there's hurricanes and tornadoes and sinkholes......... and rednecks.

Quote from: "Asmodean"And in my country, there are really not that many of us  

I'm not surprised,a bit cold for bananas.
How about the monsters that sometimes look like Angelina Jolie?

Quote from: "TheWilliam"what about natural disasters, like where i'm from in Washington State (seattle). there's earthquakes.

and where i live now in Florida (orlando), there's hurricanes and tornadoes and sinkholes......... and rednecks.

Didn't have a thorough disaster in disastrously long time. Old World is old and our part of it has stabilized nicely over the billions of years  :P

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "Asmodean"And in my country, there are really not that many of us  :D

Quote from: "Asmodean"And that Terminator chick... T-X actress, that is, her grandparents are all from our parts  

Yes, and according to the Simpsons you have naked woman directing traffic, whilst all you can expect from a visit to Australia is a boot up the bum.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Yes, and according to the Simpsons you have naked woman directing traffic, whilst all you can expect from a visit to Australia is a boot up the bum.

Pretty much except for the naked woman part... And the directing part... And the boot part - everyone knows they go barefoot down under  :pop: