mike_decock

Wouldn't the religious disapproval of promiscuous sex have been replaced with a "social" disapproval of promiscuous sex? Even if STDs weren't technically understood, the effects would have been observed and a link between disease and promiscuity would have been detected.

If science had taken root a few thousand years earlier, scientific education would have been more important as well. Are those with a strong scientific education less inclined to destructive "Caligula" type behavior? From being a geek, surrounded by geeks, this definitely seems to be the case.

Had science been allowed to progress uninhibited free from religious prohibitions, we'd probably be posting on this forum from different planets in our solar system, perhaps we would have made it out of the solar system by now.

-Mike...

Radorth

Ah yes, the skeptic's dream. More boobies on TV and fewer Christians to say anything. What a great country we would have.

I guess it doesn't occur to the hormone dominated non-Christian that children all over the world are deciding it's OK to be obsessed with sex, that their bodies are their resumes, unattractive people have little hope of happiness, good looks are something to flaunted, etc., just from watching commercials.

Rad

KnightWhoSaysNi

In my opinion, I don't think it would be too different. Non-belief in religion is not a cure for preventing wacky beliefs (e.g. the Raelians), nor hatred or oppression (e.g. Stalinism and Pol Pot).

Rhea

No Rad, it doesn't. because secular people like me would still be promoting the secular http://www.tvturnoff.org/ and showing that TV harms children.

You really think that no religion = no self-respect or understanding of health?

You have stated that you are completely blind to any good done by any atheist ever, so I guess I should not be surprised. But, Rad - newsflash - you're wrong.

Radorth

Another of your tendentious misrepresentations for all to see. I am on record to the contrary. I have gone so far as to say Bertrand Russell may have been a "better" person in some ways than I am. I merely said Christians have set the highest and most inspired examples, and invited you to present evidence to the contrary. Christians also exhibit the most remarkable improvements in behavior and have the most extraordinary testimonies of the power of God. That is because Christians are empowered to make choices which non-Christians cannot make.

Rad

Rhea

You are also on record saying exactly what I posted. ("The chinese atheist would never have done that [good deed]")

I've exhibited a remarkable improvement in my life. I've seen other remarkable actions and improvements.

But Rad, I gave you examples, and you said they didn't count because they weren't famous.

So I decline to play that game with you. You'll have to open your own eyes and look around you. I don't think I'm qualified to open your eyes for you.

philechat

Just for kicks, let me give you remarkable atheists who certainly performed great actions and aimed high toward the improvement of humanity:

The aformentioned Bertrand Russell.

Albert Camus
William Godwin
P. B. Shelley
George Bernard Shaw
The Buddha
(Taiwanese democracy activist) Peng Min-Ming

And here I am not even counting the self-defined agnostics and "pantheists" whose beliefs were as far from Christianity as they could be.

Jamie_L

What would a world without religion be like?

Well, I could go to a store at 9:00am or 8:00pm on Sunday for starters. And buy booze on Sunday, even if I were in the southeastern U.S. And there'd be more decent TV on Sunday mornings.

There'd be more real estate available in local communities without all those churches.

And maybe students would travel to other countries to build houses instead of churches. Oh, and those bloody Mormon "elders" (who are all like 18, by the way) and JW's would stop knocking on my door all the time. I mean, they aren't even selling anything I can use.

Oh, and there would be a smaller segment of the population willing to blow themselves up for causes. That would be a plus.

Jamie

Jamie_L

On a more serious note:

It's not just religion that needs to go. It's superstition. Get rid of both of those, and you'd be off to a bang-up start.

Or rather, if human beings became enlightened enough to throw off superstition of their own accord, we'd be in remarkably better shape than we are now.

Of course, John Edwards would be out of a job.

Jamie

Marduk

“Wouldn't the religious disapproval of promiscuous sex have been replaced with a "social" disapproval of promiscuous sex? Even if STDs weren't technically understood, the effects would have been observed and a link between disease and promiscuity would have been detected.”

I don’t know, I’d have to check the most ancient of civil codes “the code of hamurabi” 1750 BCE to see if there is any indication of non-religious based frowning on wild whoopee. I often wondered about the Greeks ca. 400 BCE lots of whoopee, maybe syphilis wasn’t prevalent till later.
Did people even in the Plague years make a connection between cause and effect or did they blame the disease on evil spirits?

“Had science been allowed to progress uninhibited free from religious prohibitions, we'd probably be posting on this forum from different planets in our solar system, perhaps we would have made it out of the solar system by now. “

I’m not convinced of this, the science and technology of a society are owned by the politicians and ruling wealthy class that provides the $, even now the majority of our technology is wasted on weapons and such. War was the sport of the day, (think Bush) if not Caligula than Napoleon or Ginghas Kahn or Alex the Great etc. etc. We’d be toast by now.