h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

From the Human Nature Review (http://human-nature.com/nibbs/): "Many world conflicts have origins that are 'only a hiccup' when one considers the evolution of humans over millions of years, a Waterloo conference on religion and peace was told Saturday. Christopher diCarlo, a lecturer at Wilfrid Laurier and Guelph universities, represented atheism during an afternoon of views on how various religions can hope to achieve world peace."

For more, see http://therecord.com/news/news_0210079187.html

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I'd be more inclined to suggest agnosticism might do it... but I aint sure.

Atheism *could* help acheive world peace. Any religion could--as long as everyone followed it. If everyone has the same ideology it's harder for them to argue. IMO, the problem comes in when more than one religion settles down, or a religion branches off from another.

Of course, religion isn't the only thing people argue about. Perhaps the acheivement of world peace would be helped if natural resources were distributed evenly. It would certainly go a ways preventing war involving a certain country whose name starts with I...

and s,
~Wes

I reckon that the big problem is when someone is so sure they are right about something that they will kill some other people in that just cause. Of course, it won't be them actually pulling the trigger, just some soldier in the 'theater' of battle conducting 'operations' such as shooting kids in cars at roadblocks. Its the arrogance of solving problems with weapons instead of language. Most soldiers can't even say to someone 'stop or I'll shoot' when they are overseas.

this rambling rant will probly be censored if anyone hits the complaints button. Nevermind eh. WTF do I know and whats the point of posting that here eh???

Jenny, I agree with you...the tyranny of 'rightness' (is there such a word?) has some terrible crimes to answer for.

I would suggest that atheism would have less to do with it than a balanced and cohesive moral code that advises against warfare. Whether that was a religious moral code or a wholly secular one would not make any difference.

BTW, Attila the Hun was an Atheist (hence "Scourge of God")....

I probably ought to continue advocating uncertainty.

I mean, what kind of arrogant idiot is so absolutley convinced in a cause that they will kill and die for something that is just taken on trust?

Hitler? Stalin? Atilla?

face it, no "atheist" state did more good than bad.

go one, name one.

(of course i also must note, in the intrests of fairness, that there are maany "theist" states that did more bad than good too)