• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

If in the next hour, everybody alive became an atheist, what would happen?

What kind of rough estimate would you have for the number of True Christians?
By the time I left the church, i was thinking it was probably on the order of five.
Probably the most hated members of their congregations. Not for being judgmental, not for pointing out that the others were Christing incorrectly, but for just living their innocuous life by the actual scriptures and NOT bragging about it.
Despicable rat bastards that they are...
LOL...it is always nice to be made to feel like I'm an optimist ;) Though when I left the church, my number probably wouldn't have been much higher either. I would discount much of the fundagelical community, as they have become much like the Pharisees of Jesus' lore filled with their hate, love of rules, and pretentious piety. I'm sure a significant minority from most any congregation is just faking it as well for a multitude of reasons as well.

Ignoring theological arguments about who gets the Heaven E-ticket and if there really is a valid theological argument for the existence of eternal torment....As the NT does seem to have message about forgiveness, and that humans are stuck in their foibles, I would think there would be a solid swath from the RC's, to a strong helping from the Amish, Mennonites, Lutherans, among many un-labeled others that have what I would call real faith. There are large minorities that seem to actually want to understand where their holy book is trying to lead them and try to live lives being decent to others, trying to care and feed those in need, that try to put love first, and let their god handle the rest. If one has western wealth, but only give less than 2-3% of your annual income to helping those in need (the Church bingo club doesn't count) and/or spends less than 1 hour a week helping others in need, then does that person really have faith in their Christ? If one supports massive governmental military structures and most every war, does one really have faith in their Christ? By then, the number of Christians who have this feeling of a divine Jesus in their heart would be greatly reduced to something in the couple hundred million.
 
...What kind of rough estimate would you have for the number of True Christians?
I think to avoid the NTS fallacy, in this type of discussion, you really have to go with
"self-professed" Christian/atheist.
Sure, I don't like the idea that people can pretend to be something they're not, (atheists faking it in the clergy etc.) But since you're doing a simple head count what other way is there? People argue over whether Hitler was a true Christian.
 
Imagine what might happen if, in the next hour, everybody alive who is a theist becomes an atheist, through a mechanism unknown. Over the next hour, everybody who is a theist right now suddenly no longer believes in God or gods, and they truly wonder why they ever did. This transformation is 'secret', in the sense that each person is only aware of their own deconversion. They don't know it's happened to everyone else around them. Of course, they can choose to tell people they've become an atheist if they want.

The newfound atheism also comes with rejecting corollary beliefs (e.g. in an afterlife) though not necessarily all supernatural/mystical beliefs (you could still believe in crystal healing).

The newfound atheism is permanent. Nobody ever reacquires a belief in God.

How long would the world take for it to be aware of the event? Would there be people who claimed they were still theists?

Would strife reduce? Would people still go to church? Would prayers be uttered?

What would happen in theocracies? What would happen to biblically-based political viewpoints? What would happen in Islamic terrorist groups? To the religious of any faith?

What would happen after one day? After a year? After twenty years?


What would happen to biblically-based political viewpoints?

I think this is a really interesting question arising from the Op.
Surely atheist lawmakers would be left wondering how we came to have so many laws which seemingly depend upon Judeo-Christian meta ethics.
 
Surely atheist lawmakers would be left wondering how we came to have so many laws which seemingly depend upon Judeo-Christian meta ethics.
Why would that be a mystery?

You do know that among currently existing atheists, we're aware that the Bible and the Torah and the Koran exist, right? We just don't think a divine being sponsored, dictated or wrote them. We don't think a divine being was necessary to create long lists of behaviors to be observed that had some real or imagined benefit to society.

Unless there's some sort of amnesia included in the sudden atheism, there's no mystery.
 
...What kind of rough estimate would you have for the number of True Christians?
I think to avoid the NTS fallacy, in this type of discussion, you really have to go with
"self-professed" Christian/atheist.
Sure, I don't like the idea that people can pretend to be something they're not, (atheists faking it in the clergy etc.) But since you're doing a simple head count what other way is there? People argue over whether Hitler was a true Christian.
Oky doky, though the US prisons are about as full as the general population percentage wise as are cities are of "self-professed" Christians. So it looks like you will have to keep your pedophiles in your category.
 
Surely atheist lawmakers would be left wondering how we came to have so many laws which seemingly depend upon Judeo-Christian meta ethics.
Why would that be a mystery?

You do know that among currently existing atheists, we're aware that the Bible and the Torah and the Koran exist, right? We just don't think a divine being sponsored, dictated or wrote them. We don't think a divine being was necessary to create long lists of behaviors to be observed that had some real or imagined benefit to society.

Unless there's some sort of amnesia included in the sudden atheism, there's no mystery.
Additionally, the Japanese seem to have a very similar laws and have thru their history only the tiniest of Christian influence. Though getting rid of some of the funny US mid-western blue laws would then be pretty easy.

As well as there are several philosophers and other eastern religious writers from before the Jesus incident that suggested similar ideas of do unto others, as you would like done to you blah blah blah. And the 10 commandments is a joke, as we have documents far older that also list silly things like murder and theft as crimes.
 
Why would that be a mystery...

Because a world suddenly (miraculously) full of atheists would be wondering who made those laws?

Do you really believe that atheists today wonder who made those laws? Why do you think that others that become atheists would?
 
...Oky doky, though the US prisons are about as full as the general population percentage wise as are cities are of "self-professed" Christians. So it looks like you will have to keep your pedophiles in your category.

LOL Nice try.
We aren't talking about self-professed pedophiles.
 
Why would that be a mystery...

Because a world suddenly (miraculously) full of atheists would be wondering who made those laws?
No, we would not be wondering that, unless you're going to add a very selective amnesia to the OP's conundrum. All the OP is suggesting that tomorrow, Kim Davis wakes up with no RELIGIOUS belief to prejudice her against gay marriage. Nothing to suggest she won't remember protesting teh gays, or why, or that the law used to support her side.

She may still have the prejudice, or she may not. She'd just no longer stand on scripture to support her position, whatever it may be.
 
Because a world suddenly (miraculously) full of atheists would be wondering who made those laws?

Do you really believe that atheists today wonder "who" made those laws? Why do you think that others that become atheists would?

No. I don't wonder about that. Because that ISNT relevant to the Op scenario.
How does an entire world full of newly-minted atheists, instantly brainwashed into beleiving there is no God, deal with laws which are based on a book nobody believes. Wouldn't they all wonder why indecent exposure was a crime? Abortion? Sodomy? Blasphemy?
 
Do you really believe that atheists today wonder "who" made those laws? Why do you think that others that become atheists would?

No. I don't wonder about that. Because that ISNT relevant to the Op scenario.
Sure it is. It's not like everyone gets turned into something that doesn't currently exist. They turn into atheists. Atheists exist. How do current atheists view the existence of current laws?
How does an entire world full of newly-minted atheists, instantly brainwashed into beleiving there is no God,
Maybe it's not 'brainwashed.' Maybe it's more like 'sobered up.'

Are you so young you've never had that moment where, for a given topic or belief or behavior (I'm thinking Bell Bottom Pants, personally), you suddenly think to yourself 'Hey! What were we THINKING?'
deal with laws which are based on a book nobody believes. Wouldn't they all wonder why indecent exposure was a crime? Abortion? Sodomy? Blasphemy?
No.
Just look at Sodomy laws. As time goes on, society has been becoming more liberal on the subject, without a sudden influx of instant atheism.
Strangely, no one's suddenly finding it a mystery that sodomy WAS a crime. They just question why it shold still be a crime.

That'll be what happens after the Atheism (be it brainwashing or enlightenment). Which laws do we keep as laws going forward.
 
Keith&Co said:
She may still have the prejudice, or she may not. She'd just no longer stand on scripture to support her position, whatever it may be.

This is in conflict with the Op scenario.
All religious prejudice and belief would disappear from the moral/political landscape.
Are you saying there might still be some atheists left who think it's immoral to offend someone else's religious sensitivities?
 
Do you really believe that atheists today wonder "who" made those laws? Why do you think that others that become atheists would?

No. I don't wonder about that. Because that ISNT relevant to the Op scenario.
How does an entire world full of newly-minted atheists, instantly brainwashed into beleiving there is no God, deal with laws which are based on a book nobody believes. Wouldn't they all wonder why indecent exposure was a crime? Abortion? Sodomy? Blasphemy?
AHA, you are talking about Islamic Sharia laws. Yeah, such a realization would be a much greater shock for those in Islamic nations that had such laws. I would imagine there would be not only a thunderous face-palm slapping sound from those nations but a real sense of shame for them having supported the stoning of anyone who took Allah's name in vain. But they wouldn't wonder why. They would still remember that they once supported such nonsense and why but would be ashamed that they did.
 
Last edited:
Keith&Co said:
She may still have the prejudice, or she may not. She'd just no longer stand on scripture to support her position, whatever it may be.

This is in conflict with the Op scenario.
I don't think so.
All religious prejudice and belief would disappear from the moral/political landscape.
Are you saying there might still be some atheists left who think it's immoral to offend someone else's religious sensitivities?
No, I'm saying that the prejudice against homosexuals MAY not be solely a product of religious beliefs. Many apologists insist that even if we didn't have The Bible, we'd still instinctively KNOW that such behavior is wrong.
Personally, i think that's a load of hooey, but it's possible.
 
Apologists who claim we have an inner moral compass assert that God put it there.
Those apologists would now be atheists with no basis to continue with that proposition.
 
...Oky doky, though the US prisons are about as full as the general population percentage wise as are cities are of "self-professed" Christians. So it looks like you will have to keep your pedophiles in your category.

LOL Nice try.
We aren't talking about self-professed pedophiles.
Right, you were saying something about not questioning whether or not any "self-proclaimed" Christian was really a Christian or not. And I pointed that being a convicted robber, burglar, rapist, drug dealer, and yeah probably pedophiles doesn’t seem to deter people from saying they are Catholics, Protestants, Jews, or Muslims. So there doesn’t seem to be much of an argument that pedophiles would decide to choose to be atheists as it would be “easier”…. With that said, I’m sure there are atheist pedophiles, just like there are atheist murderers and rapists.
 
Do you really believe that atheists today wonder "who" made those laws? Why do you think that others that become atheists would?

No. I don't wonder about that. Because that ISNT relevant to the Op scenario.
How does an entire world full of newly-minted atheists, instantly brainwashed into beleiving there is no God, deal with laws which are based on a book nobody believes. Wouldn't they all wonder why indecent exposure was a crime? Abortion? Sodomy? Blasphemy?
Strange ideas, as you imply that you are in Australia. You think there still are sodomy and blasphemy crime-laws?

Abortion laws vary quite a bit, as that fetus does eventually become a living baby. So it should be fairly understandable that at some point it becomes a contentious debate over rights.

Indecent exposure...LOL. Just what do you think the temple priests would have done to these soccer ladies?
IMG_5246.jpg

Or what about this legal Portland exposure? I want to ride my bicycle, I want ride my bike....
-8e2ef2444ceb0476.jpg
 
Why would that be a mystery...

Because a world suddenly (miraculously) full of atheists would be wondering who made those laws?

Why? Modern western law is overwhelmingly NOT based on Christian or Jewish law.

As I posted in a thread about a year ago, regarding the claim that the Ten Commandments were the basis of US Law, and should therefore be displayed on the grounds of the Oklahoma Capitol:

The Wikipedia page on Western Law does not contain a single use of the words 'Commandment' or 'Commandments'; nor of the word 'Ten'.

It does say:

and:
Roman law became the foundation on which all legal concepts and systems were based.

The article on Roman Law likewise does not contain a single use of the words 'Commandment' or 'Commandments'; the word 'Ten' appears twice:
In 451 BC, according to the traditional story (as Livy tells it), ten Roman citizens were chosen to record the laws (decemviri legibus scribundis). While they were performing this task, they were given supreme political power (imperium), whereas the power of the magistrates was restricted. In 450 BC, the decemviri produced the laws on ten tablets (tabulae), but these laws were regarded as unsatisfactory by the plebeians. A second decemvirate is said to have added two further tablets in 449 BC. The new Law of the Twelve Tables was approved by the people's assembly.
No support for the Ten Commandments fanbois there.

Still, Canon Law sounds more promising; It is "the body of laws and regulations made by ecclesiastical authority (Church leadership), for the government of a Christian organization or church and its members", according to Wikipedia.

If Western Law is based on both Roman and Canon law, then the Ten Commandments surely get a look-in on the Canon Law side of things, right?

Wrong.

Still no mention of Commandment or Commandments in the Wikipedia article on Canon Law; but the word 'Ten' does appear:
The Book of Concord is the historic doctrinal statement of the Lutheran Church, consisting of ten credal documents recognized as authoritative in Lutheranism since the 16th century. However, the Book of Concord is a confessional document (stating orthodox belief) rather than a book of ecclesiastical rules or discipline, like canon law.
But wait! There is still hope. According to Wikipedia:
The Catholic Church has what is claimed to be the oldest continuously functioning internal legal system in Western Europe, much later than Roman law but predating the evolution of modern European civil law traditions. What began with rules ("canons") adopted by the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem in the first century has developed into a highly complex legal system encapsulating not just norms of the New Testament, but some elements of the Hebrew (Old Testament), Roman, Visigothic, Saxon, and Celtic legal traditions.
Obviously, the Hebrew Law will turn out to be based on the Ten Commandments, right?

Right?

Halakha (/hɑːˈlɔːxə/; Hebrew: הֲלָכָה, Sephardic: [halaˈχa]; also transliterated as halacha or halachah) or halocho (Ashkenazic: [haˈloχo]) is the collective body of Jewish religious laws derived from the Written and Oral Torah. It includes the 613 mitzvot ("commandments"), subsequent talmudic and rabbinic law and the customs and traditions compiled in the Shulchan Aruch (literally "Set Table", but more commonly known as the "Code of Jewish Law").
Wait, 613?? Six Hundred and Thirteen??? Shit. The Oklahoma Capitol is going to need a bigger monument. A MUCH bigger monument.

Still, those 613 must include the ten they have on the current monument, right?
The Talmud notes that the Hebrew numerical value (gematria) of the word "Torah" is 611, and combining Moses's 611 commandments with the first two of the Ten Commandments which were the only ones heard directly from God, adds up to 613.

Shit. Two out of ten commandments, which contributed to Hebrew Law, which was a minor contributor to Canon Law, which was itself a minor contributor to Western Law. Worse, the Talmudic tradition has these 'First two' as:

1. I am the Lord thy God
2. Thou shalt have no other gods before me

But number 1 there is not recognised as a separate commandment in Protestant traditions; who have the first Commandment as:

I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before me.

On the basis of this quick analysis, the only one of the so-called 'Ten Commandments' that could have had any influence on Western Law at all was: "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before me". A phrase that is clearly and unequivocally overruled by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and therefore explicitly does not form the basis for US law.

But then, since when have facts had any place in this debate?

The answer to "Who made those laws" is "In the case of the longest lived and most basic laws,originally the Romans, and then a load of kings and their parliaments modified them; More modern law usually has the identity of the original lawmaker(s) included in it - for example, the 1275 Statute of Westminster was drafted by Robert Burnell, and passed into law by King Edward I". Almost all of modern western law is NOT based on religion.

And clearly few atheists and even fewer theists are sufficiently curious about who made the laws we currently observe to ask the question; so why becoming atheists would pique their interest in this hypothetical, I do not know.

You, for example, seem not to care - as you have not bothered to make even the most cursory check to see whether your guess - that law derives from Judeo-Christian sources - is in fact correct.
 
Back
Top Bottom