Atheism - less war?

[Silver]

They sure like to say that...lol, don't they. Buddhism, by and large, is very religious.

I suppose I view Buddhism, overall, as more of a philosophy than a religion due to the fact that most sects do not believe in a deity.

[LastPoet]

*cough* Reincarnation *caugh*

[Jerome]

I think there would be benefits and at the same time losses.
No more religious genocide, religious wars, brainwashing, persecution of LGBT people, that kinda stuff etc. The world would solve many problems, I believe. There would be less artistic thought. People would look at the world at a completely logical and rational way.

[downbeatplumb]

My gut reaction would be to say fewer wars.

BUT.

The same arseholes who would start religious wars would still be around and they would still be arseholes.

So who knows?

[The Grand Nudger]

They sure like to say that...lol, don't they. Buddhism, by and large, is very religious.

I suppose I view Buddhism, overall, as more of a philosophy than a religion due to the fact that most sects do not believe in a deity.

More to do with the baggage we carry with regards to what does or does not constitute a religion, we imagine that a deity is required because the two always seem to be hand in hand -in our experience-. It isn't.

---

I think it is the offshoot of Hindustani thought in a very real and palpable sense.

But I think it is fair to class it as an atheist religion as it doesn't mean that either all atheists subscribe to it or that it is derived from atheism.

Of...course you do, because you're committed to the idea and positively require to be able to call something an "atheist religion" despite having it repeatedly explained to you why the usage of the term in that manner is utter trash.

What I mean to say is that, contrary to some naive interpretations of the meaning of the word, one can be an atheist and be considered as being an adherent of a religion such as Buddhism or Jainism. Hence why experts who know about religion (in peer reviewed journals etc...) understand the possibility (as accepted by Rhythm) of someone being religious and atheism.

Religious and also an atheis-t. This does not make Buddhism or Jainism "atheist religions". end of.

The nativity comes when one assumes that atheism is a worldview like Christianity etc that defines a person and restricts them to not adhering to a religion....

or that it is a religion, or that the principles of buddhism or jainism follow from atheism so that the term may be used as a qualifier with primacy......

I do not think atheism is so restrictive - but I understand that post-Christian atheism can take on the form of Christian thought (E.g. Only Christian thought is rational thought/only atheist thought is rational thought). I don't think that you all subscribe to this way of thinking but I am sure you are familiar with it and the rejection of merging atheism with religion is quite apparently similar to rejecting the idea of mixing Christian thought with 'pagan' thought....

There is no such thing as christian atheism, the reason is nestled within the whole "christ" bit (pro-tip, christ doesn't mean "some dude named jesus, maybe"..christ isn't a last name...it's a title with requirements).

Whether or not something is rational is not an offshoot of it;s being "christian" or "atheist" - pigeon.

In short, speak for yourself and stop pretending that your communicating scholarly or academic thought, because it's embarrassing.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

So beliefs and actions etc are not based on atheism at all?

Atheism = lack of belief in a god or gods (some people debate this, not me, as it defines me perfectly).

Everything else is mutually exclusive to this. You can be a secularist, a conservative, a murderer, a misanthrope, even a spiritualist, and an atheist.

However, none of them is relevant to atheism (or, rather, none of them are precondition or a condition of atheism and being an atheist).

[thesummerqueen]

Beliefs are based on atheism only insofar as you don't base your beliefs and actions on the decisions of a deity. You see why this is problematic. Instead, ask what atheists DO base their beliefs on.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

So would a world in which everyone was atheist have more, less or the same amount of war?

Only the monotheist religions have made war in the name of religion. Only its god has approved, sanctioned, called for, or ordered war.
Only its god has approved, sanctioned, called for, or ordered genocide.

Beyond that, I do not do hypothetical alternate history except in that newsgroup.

[The Grand Nudger]

That may not be entirely accurate Nony. Polytheistic religions could be just as brutal. I'm not sure the number of gods in the pantheon is the operative factor - but rather the nature of the character in the narrative.

[Dawud]

They sure like to say that...lol, don't they. Buddhism, by and large, is very religious.

I suppose I view Buddhism, overall, as more of a philosophy than a religion due to the fact that most sects do not believe in a deity.

So what is the difference between a religion and a philosophy?

---

So beliefs and actions etc are not based on atheism at all?

Atheism = lack of belief in a god or gods (some people debate this, not me, as it defines me perfectly).

Everything else is mutually exclusive to this. You can be a secularist, a conservative, a murderer, a misanthrope, even a spiritualist, and an atheist.

However, none of them is relevant to atheism (or, rather, none of them are precondition or a condition of atheism and being an atheist).

So you can be spiritual and atheist - everyone agreed?