A few points.
First, an atheist society does not necessarily mean a skeptical society. I’d argue that a society which values science, skepticism, reason, etc. would be more inclined to deal with its natural conflicts better. Proof? I haven’t any. However, for all the controversies and bitterness that can develop between competing academic institutions, the thought of one group of genetic scientists taking up arms against another such group over a difference of data interpretation is laughable. Not so with differing religious sects.
I'd agree perhaps in principle; but in fact, I don't believe such a society will ever be achieved. Skepticism means exercising a conscious effort to question and challenge those beliefs that are presented to you; and while there are some people who do this, there are a vast majority of people who simply
cannot be bothered to figure things out for themselves. They want to have someone tell them what is right, or what is wrong. This can be a religious leader, a political leader, a scientist, whatever. But it remains that, as I argued before, there will
always be those who will seek power, and there will
always be those who are more than willing to follow such people unquestioningly. Look at how many people we have today given solid, scientific educations, who are taught critical thinking, who turn around and believe that crystals control their moods and that psychics can talk with the dead.
Like yourself, there is no way I can prove this; but I think, based on everything I've seen of human behavior, it is quite a reasonable hypothesis.
Second, your assumption seems to be that this sort of group conflict is innate to human nature. I think there is a component, possibly the principle component, which is learned. Children don’t grow up prejudiced, they learn it from their parents and family, mostly. I expect there’s tons of research on this, but I’m too lazy to look (how’s that for a cop-out).
Children don't grow up prejudiced? That may be true to a certain degree; but there are tons of studies that indicate a basic biological predisposition for certain kinds of preferences (and therefore prejudices). Studies done with infants where they are shown pictures of classically 'attractive' adults, and 'deformed' adults, show that those children consistently show a preference for the 'attractive' ones (attractiveness usually being determined by factors such as facial symmetry, clear skin, etc.). When children are in groups, it is common for them to form cliques, and pick on outsiders (without any training or prompting from adults). While some
specific forms of prejudice may need to be learned -- such as that based on religion, politics, etc. -- I think there's fairly clear demonstration that children need nobody to teach them how to discriminate, how to form cliques, how to seek power, how to fight with others, etc. Again, I recognize that there are some who have an idealized view of childhood, a kind of tabula rasa view whereby anything 'evil' is learned from adults. Personally, I've watched tons of children grow up, and while teaching from parents can certainly exacerbate or encourage certain forms of discrimination and prejudice, children need no teaching to be able to do it on their own.
Now, religion is one of the few vehicles whereby prejudice is actively taught. It’s inculcated into children from a very young age, and into adults by peer pressure and other techniques. Religion has quite mastered these procedures, and passes them from generation to generation. We’re not just talking a set of beliefs, mind you, but a way of thinking -- a mindset. There are several means of transmitting prejudicial mindsets in socially acceptable ways, but the supply of those which can produce extremism is not infinite. To lose one is to make real progress. They are all, in a way, flaws of reason. It would follow, then, that any society which valued reason, inculcated its youth into the rational mindset, and punished the irrational in one way or another would be a society most able to handle its conflicts, and least inclined toward extremism.
Sorry, gonna' have to disagree with you on this one entirely. This is the kind of generalization that always irks me, being based on a narrow view of "religion" which takes the abuses of certain groups and extends it to everyone. It is an entirely non-scientific, non-rational argument, based on the very kind of prejudice that you claim that "educated and skeptical" atheists are supposed to be immune to.
Take a religion like "Baha'i". It teaches that all beliefs are equal, that all forms of 'wisdom' lead eventually to the same truth. It believes in a world where unity between all races, religions, etc. will be achieved peacefully. In fact, Baha'i organizations promote peace all over the planet, often by supporting other organizations who are not associated with the Baha'i, and who are not themselves religious. Please tell me how this religion "actively teaches prejudice". (I don't believe in or subscribe to Baha'i beliefs; but don't see in any way how these beliefs "actively teach prejudice").
Martin Luther King was a devout Christian, a man with a passionate belief in god, very much a religious man. He fought -- and died -- for equality. Please tell me how his religious beliefs "actively taught prejudice".
On the flip side, I can point to many atheistic movements who
did "actively teach prejudice". What of social Darwinists, who used Darwinian theory to advance a belief that certain races were superior to others?
Yes, there are those who have religious beliefs who use those beliefs to teach/justify prejudice. Just as there are those who are atheists who use those beliefs to teach/justify prejudice. But neither theism nor atheism are implicitly discriminatory; nor is either immune to discrimination.
