Thought experiment

[Czernobog]

So, let us for a moment, imagine that the universe exists, but there is no God. In what way would the Earth be different? Note, I'm not talking about humanity, or society - although, if someone wants to take a stab at that, I suppose that would be a way to go - but rather the planet itself. In what demonstrable way, that can be presented with evidence, would the Earth be different?

 

[Ozone]

so, you're going to imagine for a moment that the universe exists. but the universe is imaginary. it's an ideal projected onto nature, even an illusion that all things in the world are interconnected as one super thing. to get a sense of it, once you realize the word universe and the word babylon are two different ways of saying the exact same thing, then and only then can you factor god into it reasonably.

 

[Czernobog]

so, you're going to imagine for a moment that the universe exists. but the universe is imaginary. it's an ideal projected onto nature, even an illusion that all things in the world are interconnected as one super thing. to get a sense of it, once you realize the word universe and the word babylon are two different ways of saying the exact same thing, then and only then can you factor god into it reasonably.

So...the universe doesn't exist? Really? Stars, planets, quarks, solar systems? They are all figments of the imagination? Even when all of these things can be scientifically proven to exist?

 

[Ozone]

so, you're going to imagine for a moment that the universe exists. but the universe is imaginary. it's an ideal projected onto nature, even an illusion that all things in the world are interconnected as one super thing. to get a sense of it, once you realize the word universe and the word babylon are two different ways of saying the exact same thing, then and only then can you factor god into it reasonably.

So...the universe doesn't exist? Really? Stars, planets, quarks, solar systems? They are all figments of the imagination? Even when all of these things can be scientifically proven to exist?

do the stars and planets and quarks and solar systems exist? probably, but those things aren't the universe. the universe is your feeble human brain at work trying to encapsulate it all. consider the news today...

maybe you're giving too small of a bandwidth to the realm of possibility.

 

[Fenton Lum]

"So, let us for a moment, imagine that the universe exists, but there is no God."

There's no need for imagination in what you've laid out here.

 

[Mudda]

The earth wouldn't have so many idiots on it.

 

[ding]

So, let us for a moment, imagine that the universe exists, but there is no God. In what way would the Earth be different? Note, I'm not talking about humanity, or society - although, if someone wants to take a stab at that, I suppose that would be a way to go - but rather the planet itself. In what demonstrable way, that can be presented with evidence, would the Earth be different?

Ok, I will imagine it. Here is what I imagine... Their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.

 

[Czernobog]

So, let us for a moment, imagine that the universe exists, but there is no God. In what way would the Earth be different? Note, I'm not talking about humanity, or society - although, if someone wants to take a stab at that, I suppose that would be a way to go - but rather the planet itself. In what demonstrable way, that can be presented with evidence, would the Earth be different?

Ok, I will imagine it. Here is what I imagine... Their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.

There are so many things wrong with your musings that I'm not even sure where to begin, but lemme give it a shot:

1. "Their religion would be socialism."
   So, you think that religion, and ideology are interchangeable? Really? How does one "worship" an ideology? I'll be interested to hear how this works.
   
   
2. "It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure."
   So, it is your position that the only way to develop a sense of morality, and ethics is by giving up all personal responsibility to some Magic man in the Sky, and let other people tell you what that magic man has decided is the way you should act? Really? I'm sorry that you are so incapable of making decisions for yourself, and need someone else to make all of your ethical decisions for you.
   
   
3. "Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance."
   Again, you seem to think that anyone who does not surrender to religion, is a socialist. That presumption is just too ridiculous to even warrant more than mockery. The only part of that that even remotely deserves discussion is the "normalization of deviance". It is impossible to normalize deviance, as deviance - by definition - is different, and out of the norm. If it was "normal", then it wouldn't be deviance, now would it. Of course what you really mean is the acceptance of deviance, which, for some reason offends you. Like most zealots, you can't comprehend that acceptance of the choices of others does not dictate that you must engage in those choices. You seem to have a hard time distinguishing between "I can't do that because of my religion," and "You can't do that because of my religion,"
   
   
4. "They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause."
   Sooooo...Socialism is the replacement religion for your make-believe magic-man in the sky, or science? You seem to be confused about how science works. It doesn't require belief; it just is. Gravity works whether a person "believes in" gravity, or not. And finally...
   
   
5. "They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought."
   Yeah...that isn't the goal of atheists; that is the goal of religious zealots. Muslim zealots want to kill everyone who doesn't agree with them. Christian zealots used to do that, unfortunately, pretty much every Christian Theocracy was replaced by secular democracies, so Christians had to find another way. Now they just want to legislate anyone who disagrees with them out of existence. Atheists don't give a shit what other people think, just so long as no one tries to force atheists to act as if they think the same way.

 

[ding]

So, let us for a moment, imagine that the universe exists, but there is no God. In what way would the Earth be different? Note, I'm not talking about humanity, or society - although, if someone wants to take a stab at that, I suppose that would be a way to go - but rather the planet itself. In what demonstrable way, that can be presented with evidence, would the Earth be different?

Ok, I will imagine it. Here is what I imagine... Their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.

There are so many things wrong with your musings that I'm not even sure where to begin, but lemme give it a shot:

1. "Their religion would be socialism."
   So, you think that religion, and ideology are interchangeable? Really? How does one "worship" an ideology? I'll be interested to hear how this works.
   
   
2. "It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure."
   So, it is your position that the only way to develop a sense of morality, and ethics is by giving up all personal responsibility to some Magic man in the Sky, and let other people tell you what that magic man has decided is the way you should act? Really? I'm sorry that you are so incapable of making decisions for yourself, and need someone else to make all of your ethical decisions for you.
   
   
3. "Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance."
   Again, you seem to think that anyone who does not surrender to religion, is a socialist. That presumption is just too ridiculous to even warrant more than mockery. The only part of that that even remotely deserves discussion is the "normalization of deviance". It is impossible to normalize deviance, as deviance - by definition - is different, and out of the norm. If it was "normal", then it wouldn't be deviance, now would it. Of course what you really mean is the acceptance of deviance, which, for some reason offends you. Like most zealots, you can't comprehend that acceptance of the choices of others does not dictate that you must engage in those choices. You seem to have a hard time distinguishing between "I can't do that because of my religion," and "You can't do that because of my religion,"
   
   
4. "They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause."
   Sooooo...Socialism is the replacement religion for your make-believe magic-man in the sky, or science? You seem to be confused about how science works. It doesn't require belief; it just is. Gravity works whether a person "believes in" gravity, or not. And finally...
   
   
5. "They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought."
   Yeah...that isn't the goal of atheists; that is the goal of religious zealots. Muslim zealots want to kill everyone who doesn't agree with them. Christian zealots used to do that, unfortunately, pretty much every Christian Theocracy was replaced by secular democracies, so Christians had to find another way. Now they just want to legislate anyone who disagrees with them out of existence. Atheists don't give a shit what other people think, just so long as no one tries to force atheists to act as if they think the same way.

lol, you were the one who asked me to "imagine that the universe exists, but there is no God," right? Now you want to argue with me over my answer?

 

[Czernobog]

So, let us for a moment, imagine that the universe exists, but there is no God. In what way would the Earth be different? Note, I'm not talking about humanity, or society - although, if someone wants to take a stab at that, I suppose that would be a way to go - but rather the planet itself. In what demonstrable way, that can be presented with evidence, would the Earth be different?

Ok, I will imagine it. Here is what I imagine... Their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.

There are so many things wrong with your musings that I'm not even sure where to begin, but lemme give it a shot:

1. "Their religion would be socialism."
   So, you think that religion, and ideology are interchangeable? Really? How does one "worship" an ideology? I'll be interested to hear how this works.
   
   
2. "It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure."
   So, it is your position that the only way to develop a sense of morality, and ethics is by giving up all personal responsibility to some Magic man in the Sky, and let other people tell you what that magic man has decided is the way you should act? Really? I'm sorry that you are so incapable of making decisions for yourself, and need someone else to make all of your ethical decisions for you.
   
   
3. "Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance."
   Again, you seem to think that anyone who does not surrender to religion, is a socialist. That presumption is just too ridiculous to even warrant more than mockery. The only part of that that even remotely deserves discussion is the "normalization of deviance". It is impossible to normalize deviance, as deviance - by definition - is different, and out of the norm. If it was "normal", then it wouldn't be deviance, now would it. Of course what you really mean is the acceptance of deviance, which, for some reason offends you. Like most zealots, you can't comprehend that acceptance of the choices of others does not dictate that you must engage in those choices. You seem to have a hard time distinguishing between "I can't do that because of my religion," and "You can't do that because of my religion,"
   
   
4. "They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause."
   Sooooo...Socialism is the replacement religion for your make-believe magic-man in the sky, or science? You seem to be confused about how science works. It doesn't require belief; it just is. Gravity works whether a person "believes in" gravity, or not. And finally...
   
   
5. "They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought."
   Yeah...that isn't the goal of atheists; that is the goal of religious zealots. Muslim zealots want to kill everyone who doesn't agree with them. Christian zealots used to do that, unfortunately, pretty much every Christian Theocracy was replaced by secular democracies, so Christians had to find another way. Now they just want to legislate anyone who disagrees with them out of existence. Atheists don't give a shit what other people think, just so long as no one tries to force atheists to act as if they think the same way.

lol, you were the one who asked me to "imagine that the universe exists, but there is no God," right? Now you want to argue with me over my answer?

When your "imagining" is a thinly veiled attack on progressives, and atheists? Yeah.

 

[ding]

So, let us for a moment, imagine that the universe exists, but there is no God. In what way would the Earth be different? Note, I'm not talking about humanity, or society - although, if someone wants to take a stab at that, I suppose that would be a way to go - but rather the planet itself. In what demonstrable way, that can be presented with evidence, would the Earth be different?

Ok, I will imagine it. Here is what I imagine... Their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.

There are so many things wrong with your musings that I'm not even sure where to begin, but lemme give it a shot:

1. "Their religion would be socialism."
   So, you think that religion, and ideology are interchangeable? Really? How does one "worship" an ideology? I'll be interested to hear how this works.
   
   
2. "It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure."
   So, it is your position that the only way to develop a sense of morality, and ethics is by giving up all personal responsibility to some Magic man in the Sky, and let other people tell you what that magic man has decided is the way you should act? Really? I'm sorry that you are so incapable of making decisions for yourself, and need someone else to make all of your ethical decisions for you.
   
   
3. "Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance."
   Again, you seem to think that anyone who does not surrender to religion, is a socialist. That presumption is just too ridiculous to even warrant more than mockery. The only part of that that even remotely deserves discussion is the "normalization of deviance". It is impossible to normalize deviance, as deviance - by definition - is different, and out of the norm. If it was "normal", then it wouldn't be deviance, now would it. Of course what you really mean is the acceptance of deviance, which, for some reason offends you. Like most zealots, you can't comprehend that acceptance of the choices of others does not dictate that you must engage in those choices. You seem to have a hard time distinguishing between "I can't do that because of my religion," and "You can't do that because of my religion,"
   
   
4. "They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause."
   Sooooo...Socialism is the replacement religion for your make-believe magic-man in the sky, or science? You seem to be confused about how science works. It doesn't require belief; it just is. Gravity works whether a person "believes in" gravity, or not. And finally...
   
   
5. "They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought."
   Yeah...that isn't the goal of atheists; that is the goal of religious zealots. Muslim zealots want to kill everyone who doesn't agree with them. Christian zealots used to do that, unfortunately, pretty much every Christian Theocracy was replaced by secular democracies, so Christians had to find another way. Now they just want to legislate anyone who disagrees with them out of existence. Atheists don't give a shit what other people think, just so long as no one tries to force atheists to act as if they think the same way.

lol, you were the one who asked me to "imagine that the universe exists, but there is no God," right? Now you want to argue with me over my answer?

When your "imagining" is a thinly veiled attack on progressives, and atheists? Yeah.

No. This is exactly what I believe. Karl Marx said that communism is naturalized humanism.

 

[Czernobog]

So, let us for a moment, imagine that the universe exists, but there is no God. In what way would the Earth be different? Note, I'm not talking about humanity, or society - although, if someone wants to take a stab at that, I suppose that would be a way to go - but rather the planet itself. In what demonstrable way, that can be presented with evidence, would the Earth be different?

Ok, I will imagine it. Here is what I imagine... Their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.

There are so many things wrong with your musings that I'm not even sure where to begin, but lemme give it a shot:

1. "Their religion would be socialism."
   So, you think that religion, and ideology are interchangeable? Really? How does one "worship" an ideology? I'll be interested to hear how this works.
   
   
2. "It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure."
   So, it is your position that the only way to develop a sense of morality, and ethics is by giving up all personal responsibility to some Magic man in the Sky, and let other people tell you what that magic man has decided is the way you should act? Really? I'm sorry that you are so incapable of making decisions for yourself, and need someone else to make all of your ethical decisions for you.
   
   
3. "Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance."
   Again, you seem to think that anyone who does not surrender to religion, is a socialist. That presumption is just too ridiculous to even warrant more than mockery. The only part of that that even remotely deserves discussion is the "normalization of deviance". It is impossible to normalize deviance, as deviance - by definition - is different, and out of the norm. If it was "normal", then it wouldn't be deviance, now would it. Of course what you really mean is the acceptance of deviance, which, for some reason offends you. Like most zealots, you can't comprehend that acceptance of the choices of others does not dictate that you must engage in those choices. You seem to have a hard time distinguishing between "I can't do that because of my religion," and "You can't do that because of my religion,"
   
   
4. "They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause."
   Sooooo...Socialism is the replacement religion for your make-believe magic-man in the sky, or science? You seem to be confused about how science works. It doesn't require belief; it just is. Gravity works whether a person "believes in" gravity, or not. And finally...
   
   
5. "They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought."
   Yeah...that isn't the goal of atheists; that is the goal of religious zealots. Muslim zealots want to kill everyone who doesn't agree with them. Christian zealots used to do that, unfortunately, pretty much every Christian Theocracy was replaced by secular democracies, so Christians had to find another way. Now they just want to legislate anyone who disagrees with them out of existence. Atheists don't give a shit what other people think, just so long as no one tries to force atheists to act as if they think the same way.

lol, you were the one who asked me to "imagine that the universe exists, but there is no God," right? Now you want to argue with me over my answer?

When your "imagining" is a thinly veiled attack on progressives, and atheists? Yeah.

No. This is exactly what I believe. Karl Marx said that communism is naturalized humanism.

Except while all Marxists may be atheists, not all atheists are Marxists. You are making the exact same mistake that Christians get angry about - you are assuming that all atheists are the same flavour. We aren't.

 

[ding]

Ok, I will imagine it. Here is what I imagine... Their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.

There are so many things wrong with your musings that I'm not even sure where to begin, but lemme give it a shot:

1. "Their religion would be socialism."
   So, you think that religion, and ideology are interchangeable? Really? How does one "worship" an ideology? I'll be interested to hear how this works.
   
   
2. "It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure."
   So, it is your position that the only way to develop a sense of morality, and ethics is by giving up all personal responsibility to some Magic man in the Sky, and let other people tell you what that magic man has decided is the way you should act? Really? I'm sorry that you are so incapable of making decisions for yourself, and need someone else to make all of your ethical decisions for you.
   
   
3. "Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance."
   Again, you seem to think that anyone who does not surrender to religion, is a socialist. That presumption is just too ridiculous to even warrant more than mockery. The only part of that that even remotely deserves discussion is the "normalization of deviance". It is impossible to normalize deviance, as deviance - by definition - is different, and out of the norm. If it was "normal", then it wouldn't be deviance, now would it. Of course what you really mean is the acceptance of deviance, which, for some reason offends you. Like most zealots, you can't comprehend that acceptance of the choices of others does not dictate that you must engage in those choices. You seem to have a hard time distinguishing between "I can't do that because of my religion," and "You can't do that because of my religion,"
   
   
4. "They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause."
   Sooooo...Socialism is the replacement religion for your make-believe magic-man in the sky, or science? You seem to be confused about how science works. It doesn't require belief; it just is. Gravity works whether a person "believes in" gravity, or not. And finally...
   
   
5. "They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought."
   Yeah...that isn't the goal of atheists; that is the goal of religious zealots. Muslim zealots want to kill everyone who doesn't agree with them. Christian zealots used to do that, unfortunately, pretty much every Christian Theocracy was replaced by secular democracies, so Christians had to find another way. Now they just want to legislate anyone who disagrees with them out of existence. Atheists don't give a shit what other people think, just so long as no one tries to force atheists to act as if they think the same way.

lol, you were the one who asked me to "imagine that the universe exists, but there is no God," right? Now you want to argue with me over my answer?

When your "imagining" is a thinly veiled attack on progressives, and atheists? Yeah.

No. This is exactly what I believe. Karl Marx said that communism is naturalized humanism.

Except while all Marxists may be atheists, not all atheists are Marxists. You are making the exact same mistake that Christians get angry about - you are assuming that all atheists are the same flavour. We aren't.

But all atheistic nations have been communists.

 

[DGS49]

Without God, there can be no universe; there can be no life.

Something does not arrive out of nothing, and everything in the universe is temporal (has a beginning and end).

Supposing a universe without God is like supposing a skyscraper existing on an island that has never had human habitation. It is an absurdity.

 

[hobelim]

But all atheistic nations have been communists.

All nations that believe that Jesus is God are nations of idolators, people who worship that which is not God.

Not believing in that which is not God is righteous. Professing to believe in that which is not God is sinful.

Thats the way the cookie crumbles.

 

[Toro]

I don't care as long as God is a Jew.

 

[hobelim]

So, let us for a moment, imagine that the universe exists, but there is no God. In what way would the Earth be different? Note, I'm not talking about humanity, or society - although, if someone wants to take a stab at that, I suppose that would be a way to go - but rather the planet itself. In what demonstrable way, that can be presented with evidence, would the Earth be different?

To answer your question, the earth itself wouldn't be any different at all.

Whether God exists or not the history of humanity and society probably wouldn't change either. People would have heard and felt thunder, or an earthquake, or saw a meteor impact and its aftermath thousands of years ago and tribal leaders and wise men would have concluded there was an invisible angry being of immense power up there somewhere whose wrath needed to be appeased with sacrifices and offerings...

 

[xyz]

There are so many things wrong with your musings that I'm not even sure where to begin, but lemme give it a shot:

1. "Their religion would be socialism."
   So, you think that religion, and ideology are interchangeable? Really? How does one "worship" an ideology? I'll be interested to hear how this works.
   
   
2. "It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure."
   So, it is your position that the only way to develop a sense of morality, and ethics is by giving up all personal responsibility to some Magic man in the Sky, and let other people tell you what that magic man has decided is the way you should act? Really? I'm sorry that you are so incapable of making decisions for yourself, and need someone else to make all of your ethical decisions for you.
   
   
3. "Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance."
   Again, you seem to think that anyone who does not surrender to religion, is a socialist. That presumption is just too ridiculous to even warrant more than mockery. The only part of that that even remotely deserves discussion is the "normalization of deviance". It is impossible to normalize deviance, as deviance - by definition - is different, and out of the norm. If it was "normal", then it wouldn't be deviance, now would it. Of course what you really mean is the acceptance of deviance, which, for some reason offends you. Like most zealots, you can't comprehend that acceptance of the choices of others does not dictate that you must engage in those choices. You seem to have a hard time distinguishing between "I can't do that because of my religion," and "You can't do that because of my religion,"
   
   
4. "They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause."
   Sooooo...Socialism is the replacement religion for your make-believe magic-man in the sky, or science? You seem to be confused about how science works. It doesn't require belief; it just is. Gravity works whether a person "believes in" gravity, or not. And finally...
   
   
5. "They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought."
   Yeah...that isn't the goal of atheists; that is the goal of religious zealots. Muslim zealots want to kill everyone who doesn't agree with them. Christian zealots used to do that, unfortunately, pretty much every Christian Theocracy was replaced by secular democracies, so Christians had to find another way. Now they just want to legislate anyone who disagrees with them out of existence. Atheists don't give a shit what other people think, just so long as no one tries to force atheists to act as if they think the same way.

lol, you were the one who asked me to "imagine that the universe exists, but there is no God," right? Now you want to argue with me over my answer?

When your "imagining" is a thinly veiled attack on progressives, and atheists? Yeah.

No. This is exactly what I believe. Karl Marx said that communism is naturalized humanism.

Except while all Marxists may be atheists, not all atheists are Marxists. You are making the exact same mistake that Christians get angry about - you are assuming that all atheists are the same flavour. We aren't.

But all atheistic nations have been communists.

Except for France, which might qualify as atheist and communist, but is a borderline case.

 

[ding]

lol, you were the one who asked me to "imagine that the universe exists, but there is no God," right? Now you want to argue with me over my answer?

When your "imagining" is a thinly veiled attack on progressives, and atheists? Yeah.

No. This is exactly what I believe. Karl Marx said that communism is naturalized humanism.

Except while all Marxists may be atheists, not all atheists are Marxists. You are making the exact same mistake that Christians get angry about - you are assuming that all atheists are the same flavour. We aren't.

But all atheistic nations have been communists.

Except for France, which might qualify as atheist and communist, but is a borderline case.

Try looking at the communist states.

 

[Czernobog]

lol, you were the one who asked me to "imagine that the universe exists, but there is no God," right? Now you want to argue with me over my answer?

When your "imagining" is a thinly veiled attack on progressives, and atheists? Yeah.

No. This is exactly what I believe. Karl Marx said that communism is naturalized humanism.

Except while all Marxists may be atheists, not all atheists are Marxists. You are making the exact same mistake that Christians get angry about - you are assuming that all atheists are the same flavour. We aren't.

But all atheistic nations have been communists.

Except for France, which might qualify as atheist and communist, but is a borderline case.

Atheist? Yes. Communist? No. It is a Democratic Socialist country, not unlike the scandanavian countries.