Societies don't have to be secular to be modern

[Malthus]

In a sense you are saying to be secular you have to ban religious thinking and politics...which is not secular but totalitarian atheism.

I am not saying you have to ban religious thinking but yes, you have to ban religious politics. This is how the separation of church and state is perceived in many European countries, for example France.

It's funny how you denounce Europeans misunderstanding America as a fundamentalist theocracy, yet call European secular states to practice "totalitarian atheism".

Religion is a private thing. It should be kept to homes and churches. It has no place in the public sphere.

That is the problem with democracy: lots of people believe deeply in stuff I disapprove of because it's irrational.

Of course when I am dictator, that won't be a problem.

But until that happy day ... we have to put up with people believing in what I consider nonsense and having equal voting power anyway.

The solution, I suspect. lies in having certain principles established as constitutional rights that cannot be voted away, and a system of laws based on that. This avoids the problem, in part, of religious types creating laws demanding that their gods be given some sort of legal sanction.

What one cannot prevent, is people voting on issues in ways they believe pleasing to their gods, rather than on utilitarian principles.

[Malthus]

...  Also the fact that people, millions if not billions, of people cling to such beliefs supports my point that there is something about religion that satisfies very deep human needs and it will always have an important place in society.

With enough brain surgery, genetic modifications and appropriate drugs you can do away with all this superfluous evolutionary luggage.

However if you need to worship something - then worship something that is transcendent, visible and tangible all at once: the State.




G.

Yech. 

[Viking]

While there's quite a bit of evidence showing that the earth is not 6000 years old, I would challenge you to show any evidence  that proves Jesus was not resurrected, or that we do not go to heaven.

Most atheists would only argue there's no proof either way on those points.  But you went the extra difference to say that things like heaven and the resurrections aren't just unknown, but false.  Which must means you think you have some evidence on those points...

#¤%!#¤%"#&!"#¤% Lawyers and your theory of knowledge BS. Most well informed rational secular humanists would argue that we have

A) Very very very good evidence that the Earth is at least 780,000 times older than that.
B) That there is no good evidence (anecdotes are evidence, just very very poor) for the resurrection.
C) That there is no evidence (none at all what so ever) for the existence of heaven.

These three examples are at three very different levels of knowledge.

[grumbler]

What does it even mean in that context? I am talking about truth and facts, not about rational thought, in any case. There is nothing rational in stating that we will go to heaven after we die, or that Jesus resurrected on the third day, or that God created the Earth 6000 years ago. These are statements about reality, and they are false.   

Interesting that you cite the GIGO principal, and then ignore it by starting with unproven (and unprovable) theses of your own!    You don't know whether these "statements of fact" are true or false.  You merely assume that they are, and then draw conclusions based on them.

I was just using these as an example of how the religious thinking can go awry. However you failed to address at all my general point about the "garbage in garbage out" principle.

Indeed, and part of the reason for this is that you clearly do not (and maybe cannot) understand the "garbage in garbage out principle." The answer to the problem proposed by the principal is not to invent new garbage that gives a satisfactory output (as you do), but rather to change the assumptions and see what impact that change has on the output (as those of us who understand the GIGO principal do).

To use your example, let's assume that people go to heaven when they die and figure out the output.  Then, lets assume that they do not, and see what output we get.  If there is no significant change (and I myself believe that this is what we would find, given the relative novelty of the life after death concept and the relative consistency in moral reasoning), then we can ignore that assumption as meaningless.

That's how it works.  Maybe logic is something they don't teach in Polish law schools.

[grumbler]

Most well informed rational secular humanists would argue that we have

A) Very very very good evidence that the Earth is at least 780,000 times older than that.
B) That there is no good evidence (anecdotes are evidence, just very very poor) for the resurrection.
C) That there is no evidence (none at all what so ever) for the existence of heaven.

These three examples are at three very different levels of knowledge.

Again, the assumption here is that all knowledge is capable of being fully transmitted to others.  Let us suppose that there is a human who knows, for sure, that there is a heaven.  The human has been there, talked with denizens, talked with the people who run it, discovered the requirements for ending up in heaven after death, and comes back and tells you about it.  Would you believe it?  Remember, we are making the assumption here that heaven does, in fact, exist.

I suspect that you would not believe the person, thinking them either delusional or deceitful.

Then, let us assume that heaven does not, in fact, exist, bt the human who talks to you tells the exact same story.  Does this assumption change the output? 

I suspect that it does not.

Therefor, spending time on such issues is futile.

Now, the issue of "God's word" as justification for laws does force us to address whether or not gods exist and whether any existing gods should have a voice in human law.  If we assume that they do not exist (or don't care about human law if they do exist), then we reach a far different outcome than if we assume that they exist and do care about human law.

[Pat]

If there is no significant change (and I myself believe that this is what we would find, given the relative novelty of the life after death concept and the relative consistency in moral reasoning), then we can ignore that assumption as meaningless.

There is a significant difference, however, in that if there is no life after death, then our life here on earth becomes a lot more important. We have all seen the nihilism of those certain of life after death.

[The Brain]

USA! USA! USA!

[CountDeMoney]

There is a significant difference, however, in that if there is no life after death, then our life here on earth becomes a lot more important. We have all seen the nihilism of those certain of life after death.

Death cults and moon gods = bad.

[Pat]

I'm with you. It's just that it's a good example of the GIGO principle. If you start with the assumption that there is an after-life, and you go there by doing certain things, then it can lead to things like that.

[Neil]

There is a significant difference, however, in that if there is no life after death, then our life here on earth becomes a lot more important.

And that's why religion is essential.  Without some hope of a comfortable afterlife, there's nothing to keep the lower orders in their place.

[Pat]

There is a significant difference, however, in that if there is no life after death, then our life here on earth becomes a lot more important.

And that's why religion is essential.  Without some hope of a comfortable afterlife, there's nothing to keep the lower orders in their place.

Right. That is one of the main reasons for organized religion.

[Neil]

Right. That is one of the main reasons for organized religion.

It's also why insufficiently religious societies will always fail.

[Pat]

Look at the Indian religions, for example. That's exactly what they're designed to do. With christianity, as well, life on earth is supposed to be a life of suffering.

Same with Islam, which allows polygamy, and where the wealthy have many wives and the poor none. So they are promised virgins in the after-life if they die for their faith.

It's also why insufficiently religious societies will always fail.

Somalia is one of the most religious places around.

[Neil]

It's also why insufficiently religious societies will always fail.

Somalia is one of the most religious places around.

And?  What exactly are you arguing?

[Viking]

It's also why insufficiently religious societies will always fail.

Somalia is one of the most religious places around.

And?  What exactly are you arguing?

Presumably you would make the case that Islam is to Christianity what Aircraft Carriers are to Dreadnaughts?