Is Atheism the cure for violence and intolerance pursued in the name of Religion?

Atheism might just be a cure for religion. I’ll have to think that one over.

You are either a violent ass or not. You will always find an outlet.

“Is Atheism the cure for violence and intolerance pursued in the name of Religion?”

Yes. If there are no religious people then there can’t possibly be violence and intolerance pursued in the name of religion, seeing as atheists are not religious.

@Just_Justine -Exactly
@ChazMaz-You are absolutely right,Mister.LOL

That is like arguing, vanilla ice cream is better then chocolate.

Humans are horrible, violent little creatures. If it wasn’t religion, they’d find some other excuse to kill & hurt people.

I can’t think of one instance where where we invoked the name of God in order to kick some ass overseas .

@Cruiser That depends on who “we” are. Eric Prince at Blackwater has suggested a mission from God, and Bush used language that could be interpreted that way as well. I’m sure you can find plenty of American people who support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as religious wars. They may be a minority, or they may not, but religious reasons are behind at least some of the support for those wars.

I hate to say it, but I agree with @Cloverfield.

I think @Cloverfield is right, atheism alone isn’t going to stop war, ethnic cleansing, and the rest. It may make it a bit harder to motivate people, but people will find other tribal signifiers to replace religion.

Then again, maybe the problem is that a miraculous conversion to atheism is just not possible. Someone would invariably re-invent religion to justify their violence. As Voltaire (I think) said, “f God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.” Or, in my words, since God does not exist, some have found it necessary to invent him.

“Humans are horrible, violent little creatures.”
Your point is? ;-)

@ChazMaz The point being that humans look for excuses to hurt others. It could be religion, or tribal, or sport, or different schools, or just because they dont like the way someone looks. Horrible, violent little creatures dont need a valid reason.

Racism stems from the belief of one’s ethnicity being superior to another’s. It has nothing to do with religion.

Religion provides a common list of right & wrong behaviors that whole communities can follow. (Not that they do, but that they could.). Religion helps to regulate behavior – whether positive or negative.

Atheism would encourage individuals to think through their moral dilemas without chalking things up to good vs. evil. However, it would not provide a common set of rules for behavior because there would be no absolute right or wrong. If there was an absolute, then atheism would be a religion. As it is, atheism calls for each individual to determine his/her own beliefs. So, I could determine that murder or violence is morally right for my survival. Therefore, atheism would not eliminate or reduce violence in the world.

I think a good prison and real mean laws is the cure.

exaggerated example:

Some guy breaks into my home. I shoot and kill him.
His mother will think I am a monster. I will be a horrible, violent little creature.

It just depends on what side of the fence you are on. :-)

Life is like the human body. It is a beautiful machine, with all sorts of “violent” things going on inside, in order for it to work.

What if they suddenly transformed into Atheists? They just wouldn’t believe there was a god anymore. Surely you’ve heard of Stalin. Atheist, and still a bloody bastard.

Would they have any basis for expressing their special brand of violence and intolerance? Sure. They’d find some other difference between people to exploit.

Also, would a miraculous conversion to Atheism prevent ethnic violence and intolerance, or would that type of violence continue to plague humanity regardless of belief in a deity? Regardless of deity or non-deity, people are still “tribal” and want all the best stuff for themselves and their group. That’s what it trickles down to: my genes (or those of my “tribe”) will survive, and yours won’t if I can help it, muthafukka!

Is racism a religious problem, or would racism still exist even if religion died? Yes, racism would still exist. See my answer to the previous question. Remember, also, religious beliefs and practices derive from the culture they were formed in, not the other way round.

Religion is just a common area for people find meaning and most people use them to form their worldview. If religion were gone people would find their meaning through alternative belief systems or political ideologies. This is the real problem in my opinion. Until everyones worldview has a common set of core values there will be friction inevitably resulting in violence. And by the way, my christianity lead me to pacifism when I was previously very pro war so not all religion leads to violence

I bet, that even an Atheist. In a moment of tragedy, will call for Gods help.

Humans do not like to feel alone.

[removed by me]

Of course not. Common sense is the cure for violence, religion and atheism.

@ChazMaz There are no atheists in fox holes.

I think this article is relevant to this discussion
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=484903&in_page_id=1
Bhuddist monks peacefully protest totalitarianism and are gunned down by military without provocation

@chazmaz @davidbetterman That’s not true at all, and it’s insulting to atheists to say that.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I think that human nature is human nature, and religion is a convenient front for conflict and wars. If there were no religion and no belief in a deity, people would still conflict. Conflicts happen over things like land and water rights—those will still be there.

@Rarebear – I apologize. Change the word ” an” with “some” . :-)

It isn’t religion, or the absence of it, that causes violence and war, it’s ignorance. In the words of Emma Goldman, “The most violent element in society is ignorance.”

@chazmaz Accepted. My father was an atheist, even when he was dying of pancreatic cancer. I asked him on his deathbed, after he had had a stroke and couldn’t talk because of aphasia, if he decided he believed in God. He gave me a look that said, “You’ve got to be kidding, you should know me better than that!”

—I don’t understand how you could get so much activity on a great question and not one great answer awarded. Can someone explain why great questions are so unappreciated on fluther?—

Religion is just the excuse.

@Rarebear Have you ever been in a foxhole with bombs dropping all around you and the enemy rushing you kamakazi style screaming things like Banzai?!!!??

@Cloverfield, I think the key in your statement is who is the ‘they’? Humans aren’t inherently violent or evil, but they can be incited to violence and evil.

Here’s an interesting quote I just heard uttered by a former FBI agent (from a video): “Fear, hate, greed, false pride, and blind loyalty are the five main categories of ways to control large masses of people.”

and another from Herman Goering

“Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back in one piece? Naturally the common people don’t want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country to decide policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, be it a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are under attack and denounce peacemakers for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

@davidbetterman There are plenty of atheists in the military, and there are atheists who have been in just that situation and remained atheist. It’s not as if someone took a survey of everyone who had ever been in combat and asked them what they believed, and what they had believed while under fire. It’s just an old hoary chestnut that sounds good, but for which there is no factual support.

Hm… I think that to say “cure” would be inaccurate. A cure, to me, sounds like something that is brought about by one person aiding another, or at least something that is administered.

In order to conquer the violent behavior and mindset of Western religions, one must begin the process internally.

@ChazMaz yeah, because calling for Gods for help when you’re delusional from fear is good proof that religion is necessary, sure.

Atheism isn’t a cure for anything. People have always been violent. However, religion (to some) gives yet another reason to be violent. This way, it would help if they magically didn’t believe anymore.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir F-ing brilliant.

@Snarp :)

How does calling on God suddenly = being religious?

Atheism may be a cure for religious violence, but it’s certainly no cure for violence.

Wouldn’t people just find something else to fight over if not religion?

They’d probably pick up ice hockey (or European soccer) and never miss a beat.

@CyanoticWasp Europeans don’t have soccer. They have football…

@jfos wanna start a fight?

Religion is just an excuse, really. People are naturally violent and fulla hate. If religion never existed or there never was any violence and death dealt in its name, we’d find something else to skullfuck one another over.

@Symbeline, great answer.

@Symbeline What do you mean people are ‘naturally’ violent? Any links to evidence? I’m not being an ass – I just don’t believe people are ‘naturally’ good or bad, violent or not? I do think it is hardwired in us to seek food and shelter and to be able to differentiate health from disease and those different from us (whatever that may be) but I don’t think anyone is just born violent.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir
Perhaps my wording was bad, but we’re very animal like in nature is what I mean.

@Symbeline Well sure, but I think humans don’t just randomly get violent – even when attacked, we surprise ourselves with the violence we’re capable of. Just thinking of my friends and family, I can’t imagine anyone being violent – I think most people can’t raise a hand to hurt any living thing.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I’m pretty sure I couldn’t hurt a fly myself, but if the need came to, I might surprise myself. I never said it was “random”. On a grander scale, such as religion, look what people have done throughout history, in the name of well being, prosperity and security. It’s a fitting example I’m sure, as we are, ultimately, creatures that live in packs.

It is my conviction that most evil deeds are committed by unbelievers, and I don’t mean atheists. I mean those who do evil through an inability to think outside their skins. It was Hannah Arendt, I think, who coined the phrase, “the banality of evil.” So many people who worked in the Polish death camps, who murdered their fellow citizens in Rwanda, – were, and are, ordinary working stiffs like any of us on Fluther, – who got involved in doing evil and justifying it “just because”, or “everybody was doing it.” Such people are unbelievers by default, because they simply cannot imagine a consequence that impacts on them. There is more to the subject than this, of course, but think how very easy it is to become an active participant in a lynching. Belief, whether religious or political, has little to do with it. For some years now I have concluded that true religion, irrespective of creed, is extremely rare.

I think that the critical thinking that leads to deconverting is what is the cure for violence and intolerance not necessarily atheism itself. You could certainly have the critical thinking skills yet still be religious.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I think I have to respectfully disagree with you a little. You are a non violent person, this is true. I believer you’re a very good, sweet, caring mother, wife, friend, etc.
But you live in a society that is bound by rules. I think what @Symbeline was saying was that we all have the potential for violence.
If the thin veneer of society and civilization were suddenly stripped away, you may find yourself in a situation where you would have the choice between acting in a violent manner and watching your children go hungry. Or be hurt. Civilization is the means by which we lay down rules of conduct, but civilization can vanish in an instant. Look at how the people acted in the dome after Katrina. There were naturally bad, violent people who took advantage of the situation and raped helpless women, took the food that had been distributed, did all kinds of things. There were the ones who fought back, and the ones who thought that the authorities would protect them. They were wrong, authority could not. What will happen to all of us if a disaster of a larger scale were to happen? When the stores empty out and there is no food? What would you do to feed your kids? To protect them? The thin layer of varnish called civilization vanishes very quickly under extreme circumstances like this to reveal the animal underneath.

@Trillian We all have the potential to be x, y, z, I agree – we just have to have a trigger.

On my part though I was going more in context with the question which involves religion, so it’s on a grander scale than one individual.
Classic example, older God fearing Christians such as the Spaniards (And many others.) may have combated their fear by doing the work of God, which was to eradicate heathens, witches and all.
If they were not afraid and were just manipulated by some freaky cardinal dude, then this was still a means to gain power, (Land, wealth and authority which was a great solution in such a chaotic age as the Dark Ages..) and whether it’s true or not, power is perceived by many as important, and the key to many things. Not saying it is, but power would not be sought after if it wasn’t often perceived as such by many.
Wanting it or not, Christianity DID help to create the societies we now have in the western world, as contradicting as that may sound. (Just like the Roman era shaped much of what is civilization.)
Whether one is good or bad is kinda moot in this point since most people think they’re good, no matter what their actions are. Hitler was an asshole but his own intent may have been genuine when it came to Germany’s prosperity. He was, apparently, an exemplary family man. I know it’s a lame example, but eh, I think it works.
While this kinda stuff seems black and white, ironically enough it creates many shades of gray. I’m trying to say that when we perceive a problem, we get aggressive as history has often shown. (Whether that’s bitching out your boss if he don’t treat you right or you beat the shit out of some fuck in the bar who’s tryna steal your woman.)
Not really talking about your daily work or family life, but that most certainly applies too. See if I had kids and someone was trying to hurt them, I’d feel absolutely no qualm in bashing their heads in with a hammer. (Even if I teach them that violence is never the answer.) There’s my trigger to turn into a Cro Magnon again, I never said it was random.
But to get back to my previous point, as a collective people agree to band together and survive through ideals and generations of mentalities, and eradicate adversity which comes to clash with our ideas of peace, guidance and security. When these are threatened, we fight back, such as America VS the Middle East for example.
Sure things change, America isn’t as it once was when it was founded, it’s slowly, or so it could be debated anyways, changing and leaving place to something else, leaving the significance that Christianity once held in the dust, but yet people thrive, which illuminates my point that religion doesn’t account for man’s violence and sense of strife, if that may be said.
And no I’m not bashing American values or anything, just using it as an example, because there’s still wars going on for different reasons other than religion, (With plenty of other countries too, once again, am not singling out the States.) and as sad as it is, war makes development and advancement possible since many of our great inventions were designed to thwart other people, or, if they were NOT, like Einstein “creating” the bomb for example, are used as blueprints for such.
(Would you believe that the original design of the French guillotine originates from a Scottish apparatus that was made to wash and then dry clothing?)
If we were never afraid of anything, how would we advance? Fear is a damn good factor, whether on the teeth and claws scale or the evil mastermind on a remote island scale.
I know I sound completely heartless, but whatever, I don’t LIKE the idea of the theory of selection, but I certainly believe it to be true.

As for ourselves as individuals, I’m not saying we’re all bloodthirsty cannibals. Here’s an example, in the first 18 months after a baby is born, if the mother leaves for even five minutes the baby thinks she’s never coming back, and cries until she does. This, apparently, is how we learn to feel sorrow in our later years, especially when a loved one dies. Sure it’s learned but the tools to learn it through DNA and all seem rather innate. So with that it’s not so hard for me to believe that violence as a solution in many cases lies within us, even if you stop in your tracks to mend the broken wing of a fly. (Never said being a nice person wasn’t innate either, but the point of the question was violence amirite?)
.
With all this shit I said about the grander scale of people in communities and countries though, i most likely appear as a complete Nazi, but at least please know that I go by this without taking sides or using emotion. I mean would different cultures in today’s modern age even exist if we could get along? (That is in consideration that culture originated from different people not being able to come in touch with one another or learning of other places as easily as we can today.)
Nevertheless, my relation is that what is innate within us to survive out in the woods does indeed transcend into a greater scale once we get together and band for the greater good, as they say.

@Symbeline Christianity did ‘shape’ civilization – but not exactly as stated. More like a razor cutting away at civilization and the mediators of it – and knowledge. Systematic destruction – by the Roman empire for the installation of Christianity is what led us to the Dark Ages. Included, but not limited to – the library of Alexandria carrying a copy of most books in antiquity.

What helped restore some of the lost knowledge was the Muslim influence in Spain through the moors. Who kept many sciences alive during the European Dark Ages. These are Muslim people… yes. So we should be thanking them, for not doing what the rest of the Christian zealot Romans did.

As far as the Romans, they had a civilization handed to them, and being bad students at best – managed to trickle some to the rest of Europe. It’s definitely not the most optimal outcome, but it’s good that it did happen rather than not.

Now, as far as atheism being the solution, it can be a part of the solution. What’s harmonious and may be a stronger solution is awareness. We’re all violent, but we must choose to channel it wisely and toward creative ends… rather than destructive ends.
In a zen way – violence against all, is violence against oneself. Which in itself is insanity.

@phoebusg Wasn’t bashing no Muslims. They’re a lot more advanced and as human as anyone else than many give em credit for, despite the cultural contrast. I mean say the issue about women being inferior for example, it’s really no better than how the western world treated women as for a long time. And many Muslims get out of there because they don’t want to live like the culture dictates they must.
.
I was of the mind that Romans pretty much introduced the concepts of things like hygiene and entertainment, (As cruel as entertainment was back then.) which are both quite important today. (Although as I recall, I think the Aztecs or the Mayas pretty much invented basketball.)
Of course I don’t know every single detail about era transitions into younger ones, but, as you say, if Romans were bad learners, it does go to show that violence is quite prominent since it seems much easier to massacre people than to accept them.
I mean the Dark Ages were chaotic and cruel, but despite Rome modernizing much, it, itself as a civilization was really no less cruel when you think about it. I think the word I’m looking for is convenience.

I agree about the zen business though, and it’s been proven before that we can indeed channel our aggressiveness to more productive means, but I think the effort it requires when something else is so easy and seemingly more natural holds much back.

No, in fact if everyone on the earth would simply agree on one religion and one set of religious principles, there still would be no end of violence.

Violence is often caused by a shortage of resources, and religion, or no, there will be fighting.

@Symbeline ahem, no. The etruscan people (Roman ancestors) didn’t know all that much about hygiene. The concept and word is Greek TM haha. Romans later picked up those and other habits, directly from the source of previously Greek colonies. Do me a favor, use Graeco-Roman to be more specific ;)

@phoebusg That is what I was talking about though. I mean when Rome became an empire, not before that. I thought it was case in point that we already all knew that Romans stole everything from everyone else. (Including their deities before Jesus came to be.) XD Wanting it or not though, they’re the ones who made it “famous”, so to speak. Like building your fortune from money you stole offa someone. Talking in a point of view as the victor gets the spoils here. Sad but true I guess.

Wouldn’t have happened if Leonidas had his say…Sorry. XD

@Symbeline Your assessment of fear of a threat to a particular way of life is spot on. That’s why we vheer for the hero in a movie. Our way of life has been threatened by the bad guy, and the hero has saved the day.
This according to a Film appreciation class I took.

@Symbeline that’s also inaccurate. Alexander the great made it famous, covering the most land and spreading the ideas all around (the middle east included, where the moors came from) which connects the dots all the way to renaissance. There’s many concurrent directions. So if any one person, or people can be credited for making it famous it is the Greeks themselves, and Alex. People assume there was no trade or connection with western Europe before the Romans got out of the caves. But, if you look back in many later European cities – they come from Greek colonies.

‘Stealing’ things is fine, so long you credit where they come from. Much of the knowledge in Greece was imported, later improved and re-traded.

As far as Leonidas, wasn’t his age even. The mistake came from general Pyrus, achieving a Pyrrian victory (victory coming at a great cost) – he was the defender of the western border. Decided to attack the pre-roman people, he won, but lost a huge army. They re-organized, and this was the beginning of the end.

But anyway, just pointing to some details :)

Violence is a part of us, most animals in nature are violent. We’ve to accept it, then control it. It’s not really that useful to us anymore, we’re not out there fighting beasts most of the time. We can channel it to things like martial arts, sparring etc. Then go back to civil life.

@phoebusg The Leonidas thing was a joke. :p
I certainly do appreciate the historical details, and it’s quite interesting, thing is that’s not really my point, and using Rome as my example, (Albeit rather loosely.) is just that, an example- one I used to underline the point that strife seems a major means to obtain many a thing. I’m sure there are more examples we could use right, throughout anywhere in history? I mean how did Alexander the Great become so powerful? Whether it’s him or not that made aqueducts famous, there’s no denying that the Romans continued on, and as far as I know, they obtained much of their stuff by invading other people. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Romans acquired much of their war and battle tactics by observing and fighting their enemies, and then used them themselves. Not that that is anything new though…
Also I’m quite aware that there were other civilizations before the Romans, but despite who is to be credited for who invented what, someone was known somewhere for revolutionizing something, no matter how “lost” it may have been after the fall of Rome. I always figured this is why Rome was an important part of man’s history, along with the establishment of Christianity.
Either way though it’s violence everywhere you look.

without reading this entire thread, the answer is no, most sectarianism religious violence have thinly disguised economic motivations.

@Symbeline again, I disagree. Rome stood on the shoulders of giants. As far as Christianity and its story – it’s the biggest rip off from other mythologies etc. But since it’s brought up. Take classics in uni – fun times :)

@CyanoticWasp How so?

Isn’t it through dogma and/or propaganda that people are persuaded? wars get fought – whether with weapons or by political means – over quite solid matters: fuel, trade routes, etc. Getting people aroused takes some finesse, however. Right now the incipient civil war in Nigeria has more to do with oil than with religion. The oil is in the (mainly Christian) south; but the northern (mainly Muslim) elites are anxious to have some control over it. So they are not prepared to consider dividing the country in two along ethnic/religious lines. Something similar is happening in Sudan.

You can bet that the people pushing the racial/ethnic/religious head are thoroughgoing unbelievers (in anything except the drive to power) and it is in their interests to keep a sufficient number of extremists roiled up by appealing to you-can-guess-what. Of course, whether Christian, Muslim, Hindu, whatever, they can recite the holy books and say the prayers with the best of them but it is my belief that many of them are nothing short of wicked (and I use the word in its most literal sense). They subvert honest belief by deceiving, and ultimately corrupting, the true believers. Aldous Huxley has written something on this subject. I am fairly sure it is in an extended essay on Cardinal Richelieu’s confessor.

EDIT: and what really scares me, so many of them are unaware of the evil that they do.