Imagine No Religion...

The words of John Lennon resound with seculars and atheists everywhere, and it is often a point articulated on this very board, that mankind would somehow be 'better off' without Religion. I'm sorry, but I just can't imagine it, Johnny. Religion, or to a greater extent, human spirituality, is the fundamental thing which separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. One can argue which came first, cognitive thought or spiritual belief, but the fact remains, the two are interconnected and inseparable, and have been so for a very long time. Whether it is through our cognitive thoughts that we created religion, or religion is responsible for blessing us with cognitive thought, both are the basis for humanity, civilization, society.

It is through Religion, man developed societal structures, established boundaries and guidelines for how a civilized society functions. Through human spiritual belief, we are able to recognize morality, we understand what ethics are, we develop trust and faith, and we form the basis for our principles. All of this is what enabled man to emerge from the jungle and form civilizations. Without this core of human spirituality, humans would behave much like other animals in nature behave, with the only 'morality' being to advance the species and self-preservation. Humans have a natural inclination, because of our cognitive thought, to enjoy personal pleasure. Considerations of consequence, or detriment to others, always takes a back seat to natural human desire. Without boundaries, what would happen to that primal human desire?

When you go to a zoo, you see all kinds of animals not in their natural habitat. They are in a controlled environment, there are barriers, boundaries, limitations... there is a structure to their environment. Over time, the animals learn and adapt to the surroundings, they are well fed, and everyone enjoys a pleasant day at the zoo. Would it be the same place if the animals were in their natural habitat and you were walking through their domain? Would the animals behave the same? Of course, you can imagine, you'd probably not survive such a trip. The zoo in this analogy, represents Religion, and the animals in the zoo, are humans. It is through our structure, culture, rules, boundaries and limitations, we maintain a civilized society. Imagine no Religion? Imagine going through the Zoo of Life with no zookeepers, no fences or barriers, and no animal food. Same thing!

Now, are all Religions good? Has Religion always been good for man? Is Religion sometimes perverted? Does Religion sometimes cause great death and destruction? These are all perfectly legitimate questions, but by the same token, the conditions at every zoo are not always ideal. The flaw in Religion is not because of Religion, it is because of MAN! It is ALWAYS because of something MAN has misconstrued or misunderstood regarding Religion or human spirituality. It is because man is flawed, not Religion. It is because of human attributes of greed and gluttony, men often pervert and use Religion to perpetrate evil on other men. Still, without Religion and human spirituality, we're still swing in trees collecting daily bananas.

Our Founding Fathers didn't have the 'wisdom' of entertainers telling them to imagine a world without Religion. That line of thinking was pretty much unheard of in the mid 18th century, and would have likely had you committed, should you express such a thing. Washington said a nation could not stand without God, most of the states had official state religions. The philosophy used to unite us as a nation, was based on a human spiritual belief in a Creator, who endowed mankind with certain rights and they can't be taken away by man. Everything we are, as a united nation, is based on the foundational premise that all men are Created by a Creator, and we are all Created equally. The most important right our Founding Fathers believed we had, was the Freedom of Religion. The First Amendment spells out our fundamental right to worship freely, a right we didn't previously have under the King of England.

A most unfortunate choice of words, was Jefferson's quote to Danbury Baptists, the old "wall of separation between church and state." He should have more correctly stated his vision as a wall between religious dogma and government policy. That is what was intended. Through the years, our society has seen fit to continually adopt and apply an Atheistic philosophy to government, due to a complete misunderstanding of Jefferson. Atheism is the literal antithesis of what our nation is principally founded on. While the 1st Amendment does protect the Atheists right to not believe in the entity which the nation believes has endowed him with that right, it doesn't say a thing about making that view the prevalent philosophy of government.
 
our nation was founded by people (not all) who escaped religious persecution and foremost in their minds, they desired a government that would not control religion. i don't believe that there is an easy bright line rule on how that happens. so far, i think this country has done superbly well, given, we must balance not only atheists, but a multitude of different faiths.

do you want the government to be more involved in religion dixie?
 
our nation was founded by people (not all) who escaped religious persecution and foremost in their minds, they desired a government that would not control religion. i don't believe that there is an easy bright line rule on how that happens. so far, i think this country has done superbly well, given, we must balance not only atheists, but a multitude of different faiths.

do you want the government to be more involved in religion dixie?

Not at all. I don't want government involved at all with religion, but I don't believe you can completely strip government of religion. I agree with Jefferson, we should have a firm wall of separation between religious dogma and collective public policy, but we've gone way beyond anything Jefferson ever intended with that. For some reason, it is presumed we are supposed to be an Atheistic nation, devoid of any mention or consideration of God, and I just don't believe that was what our Founding Fathers intended, nor would have thought to be wise.

The Founding Fathers intended our government to be welcoming of all religious beliefs, not devoid of any and all religious belief. Our very foundational basis is rooted in religious belief and principles, how could it possibly be, that our government is supposed to shun religious belief? I believe this is a misconception, over the years, people have distorted Jefferson's intent of the 'wall of separation' and essentially created an Atheist government, devoid of religious belief.
 
=Dixie;791764]Not at all. I don't want government involved at all with religion, but I don't believe you can completely strip government of religion. I agree with Jefferson, we should have a firm wall of separation between religious dogma and collective public policy, but we've gone way beyond anything Jefferson ever intended with that. For some reason, it is presumed we are supposed to be an Atheistic nation, devoid of any mention or consideration of God, and I just don't believe that was what our Founding Fathers intended, nor would have thought to be wise.

why do you believe this? the government doesn't push atheism....no where have i ever seen such presumed. you need to understand that you can separate religion from government.

The Founding Fathers intended our government to be welcoming of all religious beliefs, not devoid of any and all religious belief. Our very foundational basis is rooted in religious belief and principles, how could it possibly be, that our government is supposed to shun religious belief? I believe this is a misconception, over the years, people have distorted Jefferson's intent of the 'wall of separation' and essentially created an Atheist government, devoid of religious belief.

our government is far, far, far from devoid of religious belief dixie.
 
why do you believe this? the government doesn't push atheism....no where have i ever seen such presumed. you need to understand that you can separate religion from government.

our government is far, far, far from devoid of religious belief dixie.

I don't know what country you've been living in since 1954, but this just isn't true. The philosophy we've adopted is that of Atheistic government, whether you like that descriptor or not. We don't allow religious expression inside government buildings, we banned school prayer, teachers can't have a Bible on their desk, you can't even erect a 10 Commandments monument in a Statehouse.

Oh yes indeed, you most certainly CAN separate religion from government, and that is exactly what has been happening for decades! I never claimed you couldn't do this, I am telling you, this is EXACTLY what is being done, and it's counter-intuitive to our founding principles. Separate the values and principles of religion from government, and you have no basis for the Constitution or anything in it, nor do you have a basis for freedom and liberty. We are founded on the principle that men are Created and endowed with rights from that Creator. You can't separate that belief from religion, because it IS a religious belief. Anything different from that, anything short of that, is NOT what our founding is based upon, and is irrelevant.
 
Every day I imagine a world without the primitive backwardness of religion only to wake up to a world that is 90% stupid.
 
Every day I imagine a world without the primitive backwardness of religion only to wake up to a world that is 90% stupid.


I'm sorry, I thought you were Native American. If you are, your tribe was not without belief in the spirits. Most Native Americans are very respectful of the spiritual. All the rituals from your native culture, are from the spiritual beliefs of your ancestors. Are you certain you wish to take a steaming dump on that?
 
Religion, all religion, has its place in society. The banning of religion would and could never work.
We should, instead, invest heavily (investment is not confined to money) in education (education doesn't only happen to children at school).
But, what we should ban, and I cannot think of any good reason not to, is the preaching of nonsensical salvation on television and radio. If my knowledge is such that the substition of it by religion improves my life then that must be good but it must be my choice.
Evangelism should be controlled wherever it raises its stupid head. To imagine that a society, presently happy to be without religion, is for some reason, when based upon standards of a foreign culture, lacking in morals or peace or respect or any of the other attrributes we as human beings have is wrong. Any group of people who raise the banner of their particular faith and sell it as if it were a can of beans, when it is not even worth that, should be prevented by law and made to endure the sufferings they use to whip the people to whom they preach.
So, briefly, that might lead to the legal abolition of madrassas, of god TV, of christian missions overseas and, in the USA particularly, the ability of men of dubious ethics and morals, to set up their own churches for personal profit.
 
Religion, all religion, has its place in society. The banning of religion would and could never work.
We should, instead, invest heavily (investment is not confined to money) in education (education doesn't only happen to children at school).
But, what we should ban, and I cannot think of any good reason not to, is the preaching of nonsensical salvation on television and radio. If my knowledge is such that the substition of it by religion improves my life then that must be good but it must be my choice.
Evangelism should be controlled wherever it raises its stupid head. To imagine that a society, presently happy to be without religion, is for some reason, when based upon standards of a foreign culture, lacking in morals or peace or respect or any of the other attrributes we as human beings have is wrong. Any group of people who raise the banner of their particular faith and sell it as if it were a can of beans, when it is not even worth that, should be prevented by law and made to endure the sufferings they use to whip the people to whom they preach.
So, briefly, that might lead to the legal abolition of madrassas, of god TV, of christian missions overseas and, in the USA particularly, the ability of men of dubious ethics and morals, to set up their own churches for personal profit.

The way you started off, I had such high hopes for you! Religion does have its place in society, it is the foundation of all civilized society. You seem to recognize that fact, but then you proceed to suggest we ban certain religious viewpoints. See.... this is why the Founding Fathers constructed something so brilliantly thought out., with the Constitution. While the foundation of the nation is rooted in a religious belief, the rights of everyone to worship and believe as they please, is also established. This means you have to remain tolerant of the Evangelists, they have the right to be on TV and radio, and do their thing.
 
I'm sorry, I thought you were Native American. If you are, your tribe was not without belief in the spirits. Most Native Americans are very respectful of the spiritual. All the rituals from your native culture, are from the spiritual beliefs of your ancestors. Are you certain you wish to take a steaming dump on that?

I am part Native American,But no I don't believe the Native Americans mythology ether,But spirituality is not necessarily religious.I see that as more of a mental thing.
 
Religion, all religion, has its place in society. The banning of religion would and could never work.
We should, instead, invest heavily (investment is not confined to money) in education (education doesn't only happen to children at school).
But, what we should ban, and I cannot think of any good reason not to, is the preaching of nonsensical salvation on television and radio. If my knowledge is such that the substition of it by religion improves my life then that must be good but it must be my choice.
Evangelism should be controlled wherever it raises its stupid head. To imagine that a society, presently happy to be without religion, is for some reason, when based upon standards of a foreign culture, lacking in morals or peace or respect or any of the other attrributes we as human beings have is wrong. Any group of people who raise the banner of their particular faith and sell it as if it were a can of beans, when it is not even worth that, should be prevented by law and made to endure the sufferings they use to whip the people to whom they preach.
So, briefly, that might lead to the legal abolition of madrassas, of god TV, of christian missions overseas and, in the USA particularly, the ability of men of dubious ethics and morals, to set up their own churches for personal profit.

I don't want it banned by law or government. I just want people to see the truth of science and put aside religious mythology for what is real.
 
We don't need religion to have structure to society or morality.

morality is simply the set of behaviors and attitudes which facilitate, voluntary and mutually beneficial cooperation between individuals. Religionists prefer religion over actual morality because they like the elitism and rational short circuiting of the god delusion. They like to have castes of priests to change the meaning of "god's words" according to the temporal brainwash needs of the elites.
 
This idiot starts off his post with confusion between Religen and spiraltuality. Listen to what John Lennon was saying... to make it simple for Dixie... Imagine a world where Religen did not get in the way of spirituality. Thats basically what the American Relevolution was about, casting off the king, who claimed to be Gods representative on earth by devine right, and replacing it with individual spirituality. Sure you are free to join a church but you are not free to try to use that church to govern.
 
I don't want it banned by law or government. I just want people to see the truth of science and put aside religious mythology for what is real.

Which is a debate for another thread.....its not what the OP is about or the fact that our founding fathers did not indend for religion to be kept in the closet...

This idiot starts off his post with confusion between Religen and spiraltuality. Listen to what John Lennon was saying... to make it simple for Dixie... Imagine a world where Religen did not get in the way of spirituality. Thats basically what the American Relevolution was about, casting off the king, who claimed to be Gods representative on earth by devine right, and replacing it with individual spirituality. Sure you are free to join a church but you are not free to try to use that church to govern.

Lets not play with words and in the end say absolutely nothing.....
Just as you are not free to use a church to govern....you are not free to use government to discourage religion.....
There is not separation of church and state in the Constitution....and the phase was not meant to banish prayer, religion, or spirituality from the public ...

We all the lie the liberals worship as fact, that there can never be any mention of religion or prayer used in public schools, public buildings, etc....
That was never the intention of the Founding Fathers....their intention was to not allow the State to establish a State religion....or promote a particular religion...nothing more, nothing less.....

And to head off the flack before it gets started, I'm agnostic,....so I don't even have a dog in this race....
 
...their intention was to not allow the State to establish a State religion....or promote a particular religion...nothing more, nothing less.....

Actually, bravo, many states already had an established official religion. Pennsylvania was Quaker, Virginia or Maryland was Methodist, this was a common practice of the time, and the Founding Fathers certainly weren't intent on changing that. They didn't intend on the Federal government telling the States which religion they could adopt, but the primary reason for the 'wall of separation' idea, was to prevent government intrusion into religion. It was to protect religion from government, not to protect government from religion.
 
Back
Top