The need for the debasement of religion

[kx000]

The USA is already a secular nation, it was founded that way, so I'm not sure what you think the danger is. Secularization doesn't mean the abolition of religion, it just means that religion and government are separate, for the preservation of both.

Is your morality based on the fear of God? Because I don't need a God to tell me not to murder, rape, and steal. And I'm also an atheist and an artist, and a musician.

My morality is, like you, based on my own free will. My faith in God is, like you or the opposite of you based on my claim to superior knowledge.

 

[aaqucnaona]

@HD - I like how you address only a single line - classic behaviour.

Anyone who goes to church or revivals would point that out as flawed to say the least.

Is one of the follower's "Jesus loves me" orgasm capable of paying for the harm of the subversion of science and anti-modern views? Is the comfort of Allah being on the side of a starving kid in Iraq worth more than the twin towers?

Religion is compassionate and without its open doors and food lines and medical assistance and overseas ministries,

Secular humanism does a lot of humanitarian work. And religion does that help not because of some great love of humanity, it does that so that christianity can spread.

not forgetting contributions to the war budget as much as dislike that fact,

Religion pays to kill people. Nice one on the "Good things religion does' list.

many people would die from one lack or another.

No they wouldn't. We did just fine for over 98% if our time without either of those.

Unfortunately, religion creates wars and wars drive an economy forward.

Nice to see another classic pull - "Religion drives progress". True in 1800, not true anymore. Economic progress is driven by competition, cultural progress is driven by Globalisation, technological progress is driven by science. Hell, religion does drive even artististic progress anymore. See, how it is become more and more futile?

Secularization of the world would likely result in either massive revolts, or what is considered to be the "anti-Christ" as a spirit grasping mankind by the jugular.

And interesting observation - religious fundamentalists cant think of a person staying in line if he does not fear the G-man.

It would destroy everything America was founded upon and likely would result in a civil war to uphold our freedom of speech and to worship as we choose.

This isn't about america, its about the entire civilization of our species. Stop with the local identities and see the human species for what it is - a single, super-powerful dominant species on a tiny little rock. It is also not about stopping religion - its about debasing it, making it a bit less important, not by restrictions or rules, but by changing the vision of the masses.

It would effectively self-fulfill the prophecies of the Revelation and, in doing so, nullify its own purpose of attempting to destroy the very religion that prophecied secularization would happen.

Can you please, for a second, take off the religion-colored glasses?

Every child molester, baby killer, murderer or otherwise depraved person would vote yes to this. Secularization would destroy any reason for morality, or, at best, redefine morality to suit whatever so-called scientific trend could be pushed upon society.

And I am sure creationists tax fraudsters and jihadist terrorists have excellent moral values, give they have a hotlone with God.

Even entertaining a thread suggesting doing away with religion and the right to believe how one wants is a disgrace to science by demanding the installation of a regime that God doesn't exist,

Whats that stuff you just put in my mouth? Dont taste good.
Those three words are in no way even resembling my OP. I suggested a policy choice, I am making the cause for a cultural movement and God and religion need only be less important, not abolished.

when in fact He just might.

I am extremely disappointed that you are blinded to the true god, Allah and instead worship in futility a mere messenger - Jesus. Thats what it sounds like to me. Tell me, unicorns might exist, change the game laws? Bigfoot might to be real, notify the police? The Kraken - pass the news to the sailours, will you?

I'd hate to imagine the negative impact it would have on the arts.

Its 2012, not 1400 - religion is not the prime motivator nor subject of art anymore.

Most every song, poem or painting out there can find the essence of what the artist believes. If you told me I couldn't paint what I was inspired to render, I'd simply stop painting.

You can believe and do what you want. Stop with the sensationlisation and appeal to emotion and exaggeration. If your inspired rendering take control of your life like the insect-brain fungus and causes you to spew nonsense in the sciences or kill others, only then is it a problem to the civilization - with is what this thread it about. Another illustration of the problems you face when looking through the G&R Glasses.

If I couldn't research the possibility that God may be out there somewhere along with my other unorthodox projects, I'd stop researching anything. I'd smash my Stratocaster, my amp, studio and lay me down to die.

If you pursue the sciences for the purpose of confirming a preset bais, if you dont care about the rest of the real stuff like data, theories, observations and so on, if you give it all up once you cant entertain the presupposition, then on what basis do you call yourself a scientist - an intellectual who pursues knowledge sceptically and critically and studies and believes ecclectically? Certificates and degrees - is that all that makes you a scientist?

 

[aaqucnaona]

You mean, people wouldn't have consciences anymore?

Sounds like a non-sequitor to me.

He's a creationist, fundamentalist, radical, nationalist patriot and suspected psuedo-scientist. I dont think those things go very well with people who have unbaised logical, rational, critical thinking skills.

Ps. @HD, no offense, I am just doing my bit with the burden of rejoinder. Plus, those are some nice fish you have in your barrel there. LOL. Just so you know, as a sceptical people, the sciforumers are going to be severely harsh on you, so do keep a tab on your anger and hitting back thingies - if you let emotion rule on a topic of intellectual discussion, you are getting yourself closer to those ban predictions some guys made. Keep a cool head like Jan, Wynn or SAM and you'll have a lot of fun for a long time here.

 

[wynn]

He's a creationist, fundamentalist, radical, nationalist patriot and suspected psuedo-scientist.

You are unnecessarily boxing yourself by projecting onto others like this.

 

[aaqucnaona]

You are unnecessarily boxing yourself by projecting onto others like this.

But he is, that is my first impression of him, if he will turn out to be otherwise, I will retrack this. And how am I boxing myself? What do you mean and in what context?

 

[Yazata]

Secularization would destroy any reason for morality

You mean, people wouldn't have consciences anymore?

Sounds like a non-sequitor to me.

The unstated premise appears to be that the only cause, support or justification for morality is religious faith.

I live in a very religiously diverse area (Silicon valley). We have adherents of just about every religion on Earth around here, as well as large numbers of atheists and agnostics. Whatever their religious adherence, most people are secular in the sense that their religion (if any) is a private matter in their own lives.

(I think that increasing religious diversity naturally tends to make religion a more private and personal matter.)

The striking thing to me is that unless people wear distinctive dress or something, I can't really predict which individual belongs to which religion, or whether an individual believes in any religion at all, just from observing their behavior at work, at the store, or when conversing about non-religious subjects.

It's true that some people are scrupulously compassionate and considerate, while other people are hugely egocentric. Some people would never harm or exploit those around them, and some are always on the lookout for an opportunity.

But the thing is, those kind of differences in people's actual behavior don't really seem to be correlated with religious adherence. It's more a matter of individual personalities.

 

[wynn]

But he is, that is my first impression of him, if he will turn out to be otherwise, I will retrack this. And how am I boxing myself? What do you mean and in what context?

You judge people quickly - and this boxes you in.

 

[wynn]

The unstated premise appears to be that the only cause, support or justification for morality is religious faith.

One way to look at this is that religious faith is one of the reference frames for one's conscience.

If we look at Kohlberg's theory of moral development, we can see that the reference frame for one's conscience expands as progress is made on the moral scale, from the person being limited to themselves (in the preconventional level), to considering the whole Universe (in the post-conventional level).

Ideally, religious faith provides the most complete, the biggest possible reference frame for one's conscience, given that religious faith concerns itself with the ultimate origin, end and purpose of everything.

 

[aaqucnaona]

You judge people quickly - and this boxes you in.

Possibly, yes. I have still not formed a complete picture of you - you are a complex person. He seems to be an angry troll, thats just my first impression. Hopefully, he will give us reason to change that view.