If the religious impulse could magically be eliminated from humanity,

[guillaumeb]

what would have changed in the long course of humanity's existence?

The following quote inspired this post, along with some very few responses from non-theists here which state that religion is responsible for most of the violence in history. Here is the quote:

“What I find most mystifying in the arguments of the authors I have mentioned, and of others like them, is the strange presupposition that a truly secular society would of its nature be more tolerant and less prone to violence than any society shaped by any form of faith. Given that the modern age of secular governance has been the most savagely and sublimely violent period in human history, by a factor (or body count) of incalculable magnitude, it is hard to identify the grounds for their confidence.”

― David Bentley Hart, Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution And Its Fashionable Enemies

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/849387-atheist-delusions-the-christian-revolution-and-its-fashionable-enemies

As to secular governance, and as examples of secular societies with a history of massive violence, I suggest the following societies as my own examples of the author's point:
USSR,
Peoples Republic of China, and
North Korea.

All were founded as explicitly non-theistic societies where reilgion was prohibited or allowed but severely discouraged in a variety of ways.

[Thomas Hurt]

1. You might consider....

that all of those societies had pre-existing religious traditions and that the totalitarian gov't were not and have not been able, AFAIK, to rid their societies of religions.

I am not sure that the world has witnessed a "truly secular society".

Hitler's ideology, the Reich and the final solution did not magically arise from the ground on some date certain, but was built on a foundation of hundreds of years of antisemitism.

You might have to find that truly secular society before Hart's argument is credible.

[guillaumeb]

2. So can there be no truly secular society?

Or is the past 300,000 years too much history to overcome?

But the phrase "truly secular society" demands or invites the question of what exactly a truly secular society would be.

But truly secular or only a veneer of secularism, the 3 examples were/are extremely violent societies. Religion is not the issue, the issue is that violence is an attribute of human society.

[Voltaire2]

3. Well those are all totalitarian governments first and atheistic second.

Stalin ditched enforced atheism during WWII, reinstating the orthodox church after the German invasion. The canard of citing stalinist regimes as "what a secular society would look like" is unoriginal nonsense.

There are many examples of state imposed theocracy, so we've learned nothing much from this other than governments do lots of shitty things, and axe grinders keep bringing up the same sorry arguments.

A more interesting experiment is ongoing in western europe, in Japan, and to a lesser extent here, where religion is fading from the scene, not by government fiat, but because people have stopped believing.

If the trend continues in the developed world we may get to see what a naturally secular society is.

[guillaumeb]

4. Evidence of your own beliefs.

This "naturally secular" society that has never actually existed. As if 300,000 years of human existence can be magically and gradually eliminated. It is fine to wish for things, but recognize that this wish exists only in the pages of speculative fiction.

[Voltaire2]

24. you never fail

[Eko]

5. I have never had a religious impulse.

There are 96 secular countries out there, to pick the absolute worst and say that is representative of secular countries is laughable. Tell me how great Somalia (98% religious), Afghanistan (97% religious) and the most religious of them all, Ethiopia (99% religious.) Food for thought, "The Ethiopian government ordered a state of emergency in October 2016 that permits draconian restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression, association, and assembly. The order followed a year of protests during which security forces killed hundreds of protesters and detained tens of thousands. Authorities regularly used arbitrary arrests and politically motivated prosecutions to silence journalists, activists, and real or perceived opposition party members. Torture remains a serious problem in detention. The Ethiopian government has not conducted meaningful investigations into any of these abuses. Ethiopia is among Africa’s leading jailers of journalists and has little independent media. Repressive laws severely restrict the activities of nongovernmental organizations. The ruling party coalition won all 547 parliamentary seats in the 2015 election." https://www.hrw.org/africa/ethiopia
Sound great to you?

[guillaumeb]

7. All 3 of these countries have been invaded many times.

All 3 are probably among the poorest countries.

None of them sound good, but neither does officially non-religious North Korea or Russia or China for that matter.

[Eko]

11. How does secular

France sound to you? Better than those? Ireland, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Canada or even, gasp The US?. And poor countries, are you saying that countries that are poor factor more than religion/non religion? So having money/not having money supersedes having/ not having religion? Well now, that changes everything doesn't it? Kind of makes your initial argument moot then doesn't it.

[guillaumeb]

14. All much richer western countries.

So no, it does nothing to refute my argument which is more about the unreality of the argument that religion can be magically eliminated.

And my argument is rooted in the fact that religion has accompanied humanity for 300,000 years.

[Eko]

21. So has the notion that

the earth is flat. Does that make it so?

[marylandblue]

23. For 290,000 of those 300,000 years

every society on earth was hunter-gatherer. For 295,000 of those years writing did not exist, and for 4,800 of the remaining 5,000 the vast majority of people could not read.

For 290,000 of those 300,000 years all religions were either animistic or shamanistic. For about another 8,000 years polytheism was added to the mix and only in the last 3,000 years were there any monotheistic societies.

So, while I agree we've had religion a long time, the mere fact that we've had it so long proves nothing. Any description of a future society is, by definition, speculative, but it's not hard to imagine that under some circumstances, the role of religion could greatly decline or disappear, or could take some form that we wouldn't even recognize as religion, just as the ancient Romans thought Christians were atheists because they had only one god.

[trotsky]

33. Yeah there's a reason he won't answer a question I've asked him several times now.

Namely, EVEN IF every human being who had ever lived, believed in the SAME god and the SAME religion, would that logically prove the god exists?

[guillaumeb]

35. It is a silly question.

It really is a silly question.

[trotsky]

38. Why do you think it's silly?

It's a basic logic question. Nothing silly about it. Please explain.

[guillaumeb]

41. No, you answer it with your reasons.

You posed the question, so presumably you already have a belief and an answer.

[trotsky]

42. Unlike you, I'm perfectly willing (and able) to answer it.

The answer is: No.

No matter how many people believed in a god, or followed a religion, that doesn't logically make the god (or any of the religious beliefs) real. It doesn't work that way. At one time, pretty much every human being alive thought the earth was flat. Did that make the earth flat in the past? Nope.

Same way with your god. I realize this upsets you, because it completely destroys your favorite smug "argument" that because there are so many religious believers, that must make them right. (I.e., argumentum ad populum.)

Now go ahead and try to show that I'm wrong - that the number of people who believe something logically makes that something more likely to be real.

This should be good. But I bet you won't even try.

[guillaumeb]

43. When you ask an unanswerable question, why do you expect me to answer?

And you did not actually prove anything by your answer. It is merely your opinion. But if you feel that you have proven something, congratulations.

[trotsky]

46. LOL sure gil, you're right.

I didn't PROVE that simply believing in something doesn't make it real.

So you believe that when everybody thought the earth was flat, that made it so, huh?

LOL

You are a barrel of laughs, gil. And what makes it even funnier is that all the laughs are directed at you.

[marylandblue]

49. It's not unanswerable, you just refuse to answer it.

[Voltaire2]

25. "300,000 years" - nope. Not a fact.

[Eko]

13. Tell me a better non secular

country than those I listed. Please.

[guillaumeb]

17. Your list:

France:
Ask French citizens of Algerian descent about French tolerance. Go to the banlieux surrounding Paris and ask them about equality.

Germany:
Ask Germans of Turkish descent about German tolerance. I would say ask the Jews, but most of them are not their to be asked.

Netherlands:

Ask Muslim immigrants in Holland the same question. Or Google the name Geert Wilders.

Scandinavian countries also have issues with non-ethnic Scandinavians.

Canada:
Ask the First Peoples about Canadian tolerance. My father's mother was Cri. She had a bit to say about intolerance directed at First Peoples by Canadian authorities and white Canadians of English descent.

[Eko]

20. And you still,

have yet, to show an even or better country that is non secular. Really, you can rail about how bad secular countries are but until you can show some non secular ones that are better all you are doing is pissing in the wind. This is where your reasoning falls apart entirely, I'm sorry, but you cant do it, can you?

[Act_of_Reparation]

29. Russia?

Does something motivate you to time and time again present Russia as an atheist state when it is not? Or did you just stop paying attention to Russia in 1961?

[marylandblue]

6. China does not have a history of religious violence

nearly to the degree that the West has or comparable to the persecutions since the Communist takeover.

[guillaumeb]

8. Remind the Tibetans of this.

And the Muslim Uighurs. I am certain that they might disagree with you.

http://religionandpolitics.org/2016/08/09/the-persecution-of-chinas-muslim-uyghurs/

https://www.freetibet.org/religious-freedom

I am certain that Tibetans and Uighurs would have much to say about the secular government of China and tolerance.

[marylandblue]

9. Your sarcastic response is completely out of line

My post clearly referring to pre-communist China. Communist China is a secular Western import.

[guillaumeb]

10. So Communism in China is a secular import?

Meaning that secular regimes can be just as repressive and intolerant as Western religious regimes?

Agreed. So is it the Communism, the secularism, or the fact that intolerance always accompanies humanity in the form of tribalism?

And if intolerance is a human condition, should one expect intolerance to be reflected in human institutions no matter how much we attempt to eliminate it?

[marylandblue]

12. Don't ask me, I am not a New Atheist

I am an old agnostic.

[guillaumeb]

15. So you are open to argument?

Intolerance has always been a human characteristic, so that must be remembered when deciding that one aspect of humanity, religion in this case, is the most important factor.

[marylandblue]

16. You must have me confused with the group you call "the choir"

I have never taken the position that religion is the root of all evil. My view is that the Abrahamic faiths bred intolerance as a method of social control. Ancient polytheistic and eastern religions are generally more tolerant and syncretistic. They were also used as methods of social control, but intolerance of other faiths was not nearly as common.

[guillaumeb]

18. You are correct, I do refer to some as "the choir".

A much more polite term than many used by some here when speaking of theists.

And I was not implying that you made this claim about religion.

My view is that intolerance is an aspect of tribalism, and that aspect is present in every human society.

[marylandblue]

19. Okay, but I don't agree that intolerence is an aspect of tribalism

If you look at tribal societies around the world, some were friendly like the Tahitians and others were warlike such as the Apaches. It all depends on environmental and social conditions. In our modern global and diverse society, tolerance within our tribalism is something we need to learn for survival.

[guillaumeb]

34. I would disagree, but perhaps I should have framed it as

intolerance for "the other", meaning those of a different tribe. This is not the same as saying that every tribe exhibits intolerance, but that intolerance is an important aspect for the tribe.

But, as you astutely noted, what served prehistoric and early humans does not necessarily serve in 2017.

[trotsky]

28. FWIW, no one here has "taken the position that religion is the root of all evil."

That's gilly's way of arguing dishonestly.

[marylandblue]

31. I was using it as a figure of speech

to describe the people here who have a more negative view of religion than I do and seem to drive gil crazy.

[trotsky]

32. Oh yeah I know.

But gil has used it and been serious.

[Mariana]

48. "The choir" includes every non-theist on this board.

We're all identical and interchangeable, you see. If some other non-theist said something Gil didn't like, he holds it against you, because in his mind every non-theist must have exactly the same opinions and ideas. That's why he'll bring up real or imaginary posts by someone else, on another thread, about a different subject, as if it has any relevance to the current conversation.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

56. Dude, it was my turn to post this.

You have GOT to follow the marching orders sheet that comes out every Sunday. Man, some freaking people in the choir just NEED to be the soloists ALL the time.

[Voltaire2]

26. so your argument appears to be that we should

ignore the long and horrible history of intolerant religious states while focusing on your three examples of totalitarian secular states to the exclusion of the many other examples of non-totalitarian secular states, in order to evaluate the merits of a secular society.

Great argument. Holds water like a sieve.

[guillaumeb]

36. No, that was not my actual argument.

I suggest that you reread what I actually posted because I said nothing of the kind.

[Lordquinton]

22. Another oldie

but not goodie... Always the same examples of "atheist governments" stacked up against, well... the entirety of human history I suppose.

[guillaumeb]

39. Given that most humans have religious beliefs,

would it not be logical to expect that most governments reflect that?

[Lordquinton]

44. Well, you used the "angry atheist" trope the other day

Think gets me one space closer to Bingo.

[guillaumeb]

45. Where did I use this phrase?

[trotsky]

47. He didn't say you used the phrase.

He said you used the trope.

Read.

[guillaumeb]

50. The question remains.

And the poster could respond with an example.

[trotsky]

55. Give your track record of providing links to what you've claimed,

I don't think you have any right whatsoever to demand others comply to your requests.

[Lordquinton]

53. Back where I called you out for it

Go look.

[guillaumeb]

54. A non-answer. But I understand. eom

[Lordquinton]

63. I'm glad you understand that you used it

It was back when you were trying to drive away Mineral Man.

You also forget that you don't get internal links after it was discovered you were going back and deleting them, but I took a screenshot of your usage of it just in case.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

57. Do you not know what a trope is?

Because you sure talk a lot of smack about literature interpretation to not know that. And if you do know what it means, why did you respond with "Where did I use this phrase?"

[guillaumeb]

58. Let me clarify for the choir:

Where did I use the phrase angry atheist, or any such variant expressing the same concept?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

59. Stop with "the choir." It's wrong, insulting, and juvenile.

And it hasn't gone unnoticed that you didn't answer my question. Do you know what a trope is?

[guillaumeb]

60. Waiting for anyone to provide substantiation for the claim.

And so far, waiting with no actual response. Interesting, is it not?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

61. Well, I'm going to assume you don't know what a trope is, then.

Feel free to answer the question if that isn't a correct assumption.

And, as mentioned, you are not one to be asking for links to claims. Anyone reading this group regularly knows that you rely on that trope a lot.

[guillaumeb]

62. I will assume that none making the claim can actually sustain their claim.

And regular readers do know that such claims are regularly made by a small group here.

[trotsky]

27. There's no such thing as a religious impulse.

Instead we have certain ways our brains tend to think and analyze things.

https://www.amazon.com/Believing-Brain-Conspiracies-How-Construct-Reinforce/dp/1250008808

...The brain, Shermer argues, is a belief engine. Using sensory data that flow in through the senses, the brain naturally begins to look for and find patterns, and then infuses those patterns with meaning, forming beliefs. Once beliefs are formed the brain begins to look for and find confirmatory evidence in support of those beliefs, accelerating the process of reinforcing them, and round and round the process goes in a positive-feedback loop.

You never did answer me when I asked you something before, though.

Even if every human being who ever existed believed in one particular god and one particular religion, would that logically make the god real?

[DetlefK]

30. These examples for violent secular societes do not count. For the following reasons:

1. They are totalitarian regimes. They do not want to share power. Religion is cultural factor that is competing with them for power, so they are anti-religion.

2. Karl Marx lambasted religion as "opium for the people": propaganda that keeps them obedient.

3. The French Revolution was anti-religious, because they saw the Church as an ally of their aristocratic oppressors. (Plus, the rise of materialism and science happened in the 18th century. Being anti-religion was new and hip.)

[guillaumeb]

40. To #3, the Revolution was just as violent and bloody

as the monarchy that it replaced.

[mia]

37. Perhaps the USSR, Peoples Republic of China, and North Korea lack empathy.

Here's another take on the subject.

https://www.ted.com/talks/jeremy_rifkin_on_the_empathic_civilization

[Irish_Dem]

51. Wouldn't matter, given that human nature is a mixture of good and evil.

Religion was just an excuse to act out violently.
But it also promoted wonderful acts of goodness.

[guillaumeb]

52. True.

it has been used to justify many types of actions.

As has patriotism, and nationalism, and other things that humans use as justification for actions.