What would change?

[Sojourner1]

MOD HAT ON

After review this thread has been reopened.


MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Rois]

What would change about how you went about your life?

I wouldn't change my life---trying to be a good person and live your life the best way you know how is not exclusive to Christianity.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I wouldn't change my life---trying to be a good person and live your life the best way you know how is not exclusive to Christianity.

It's not even exclusive to theism, either. I'd venture so far as to claim that virtually every functional society in history has embraced variations of that code, regardless of their religious beliefs.

The only point at which all moral decency routinely fails in virtually every society is in its treatment of Outsiders: foreigners, neighbouring countries, in short: "the enemy". To this day, societies tend to treat their soldiers as heroes rather than murderers, even if they killed women and children by carpet bombing a foreign city. Somehow, people manage not to perceive Outsiders as "one of us", but as something so alien that killing it is not only necessary, but intrinsically good.

 

[Chazemataz]

If there's no afterlife then there is no point in moderation. One can afford to be charitible if they believe that their reward after death will be a gold palace in heaven where angels give them mint juleps. I personally think Mother Theresa is probably living in something now that makes Buckingham look like a tar paper shack.


However, if this is all that there is, then you need to get as much as you can fast as you can, basically, if your hypothetical is ever proved true, all you will do is create a lot Neros and Caligulas, the murder rate would go up and at some point societal advance would just break down because we would all too busy hording what we could, plotting against each other, killing each other and having relations with each other.


It's just the nature of man.

Nero and Caligulas were both uneducated pagans. They killed christians indiscriminatly in the name of their religion, which was worship of Jupiter, Neptune, Mars. It had nothing to do with having no religion.

Oh, and there are women dying in the Middle East because they dared to drive their husband's cars or didn't cover up their legs. We all know that's because they're a godless society, huh?

But look at other countries such as Switzerland and Denmark that are widely considered to be peaceful, prosperous, and happy. You'll find that a greater percentage of them are atheists. I believe one of the richest countries on Earth per gross capita right now is largely atheist, correct me if I'm wrong.

So, your argument just doesn't hold up to facts. Sorry.

edit to source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061113093726.htm

 

[The Nihilist]

Either I would embrace the more so humanist side of myself stronger, or I would finish becoming solipsistic. Though, the idea of irrefutable evidence that overcame faith (since I hold currently that faith is separate from evidence so that they do not interact, or something there about) would probably be a big enough blow to my current philosophy to cause me to completely rebuild it, in which case I am not sure.

That's a really good answer.

 

[Nooj]

They killed christians indiscriminatly in the name of their religion, which was worship of Jupiter, Neptune, Mars. It had nothing to do with having no religion.

Persecution of Christians didn't have much of a religious motive to it (although I'd be lying if I said there wasn't any. I'm sure some thought the Christians were angering their Gods). It had a lot to do with because Christians were a convenient minority to blame in the case of Nero, or because they were a perceived threat to the state.