Pericles,

It's a hypothetical. I've got some good mates who are Atheist and neither they, nor I, give a s*%t about each other's personal feelings on the "greater scheme of things". Sure, it get's discussed on occasion but generally it 'live and let live'. There is a few on here that would like to see it gone. 'Fables' was brought up already.

Thanks for you thoughts on the rest. The way I see it is that it would happen two ways. One way would be by force, by making worship illegal and punishing people for worshipping. I believe that has been tried throughout history by various people for little or no success. 'Wanton slaughter' would probably sum that way of doing it up. The second would be by choice. Some event or understanding that makes people let faith go. Chances are the transition would be fairly smooth for the population, different story for the Vatican et al, you'd assume.

What's an Atheist called if religion doesn't exist?. Just curious.

Severin,

That's insulting and rude. Don't bother aiming comments in my direction again thanks.

Runner,

STFU mate. You're a hypocrite and rude....and a nutter.

StG,

So, if "god" didn't forbid it, all those religionists would be unable to work out basic rules of interaction? The *only* reason runner doesn't murder daily is "god said so"? The *only* reason runner doesn't walk about hitting people randomly, or stealing, is "god said so"?.

What lousy people your world contains. Once normal kids learn that others will hit back, ethics starts to emerge without any special input. *Even* monkeys (goodness me, chooks!) get it.

If certain subtypes can't learn from experience, and then apply those first principles, maybe they are constitutionally unfit to hold positions of responsibility, thereby protecting the billions.

Rusty

StG
I think there are a number of issues intertwined.

Belief in the afterlife is probably pretty minimal as a constraint on behaviour.

The best example I met in real life was a Balinese girl who asked her boyfriend why he had cheated on her. "I didn't!" he protested.

"Then swear to it." she said.

"No." he said.

Now *that's* fear of the afterlife, and of course it was that fear in traditional western society that gave rise to the use of oaths in court proceedings. (Anyone who doesn't believe in negative consequences in the afterlife as punishment for false statements should solemnly affirm, not swear.)

But I think what you are driving at is, without religion, would not people be more morally unconstrained? Of course the religious have long argued that religion is the necessary basis for morality. But religion is no more a necessary basis for morality, for caring about the misfortunes of others, for helping the poor, the sick, the aged, the oppressed and so on, than it is a necessary basis for having a sense of awe at the beauty of nature. From an atheist point of view, there is simply no reason to bring "God" into the equation, than there is to bring the invisible pink unicorn, or the magic teapot into the equation. Contrary to theist belief, sympathy for our fellow creatures does not arise from "God" but is part of human nature and culture. We can and do value these moral sentiments directly in their own right.

Without religion it may be harder for people to have hope, but that is not any reason to believe religion is true. There is no reason or evidence for believing that a supernatural all-powerful personal creator mentioned has anything to do with the origin of the universe, of species, or of morality; and it is an intellectual vice to reason backwards from the desirability of his supposed existence to conclusions of fact.

Runner if you feel so strongly about the baby issue, you should really commence a thread as your platform, and be brave seeking comments from OLO posters on that issue as STG bravely sought comments on his query/thread.

STG actually composed his question correctly and explained his reasons for doing so.

Great topic STG and should have posted after I had read twice. Should have given it more thought of the consequences too.

For example, those who follow religion zealously: who and what would they latch onto if religion were abolished. [not talking Christians of the non-religious variety btw].

Strike! Can one imagine? Who would the fanatical religious dictate to and about what issue? Who would some of them judge? What tools would they use to 'judge' and crucify another's disposition lifestyle and life choices? How would they live their lives?

Runner: you would be 'shocked' out of your socks if you interviewed 5,000 or 10,000 catholic, anglican, methodist, presbyterian, orthodox, 'religious' men and women from any era within Australia on questions relating to any of God's commandments. Just as they would be shocked replaying your life's sins for each year.

Abortion is not a black and white issue. I do not agree with it, however understand and sympathise with girls and women in certain situations that need, for sanity and health reasons, to progress.

One can never condemn girls and women on this issue as there are individual reasons regarding this act [it is their business and God's business and not yours to generalise, judge nor condemn]

StG

I apologise if you were offended by the depiction of god in the video. However, that is the god I encountered in my bible studies as a child - irrational, vindictive and egotistical - not a god of love. Whenever love is mentioned in the bible it is always demanded by god and never earned.

Finally (even among the religious), there is no consensus on the existence of an afterlife, the fear of eternal damnation only works for a few - and what a way to prevent harm of others?

The majority of humans have a conscience, for example I feel bad for upsetting you, however I would be personally dishonest to pretend that I saw the god of the bible as anything other than a bully. Therefore, I am sorry for upsetting you, but not for expressing my honest opinion - which is what OLO is about.