How Atheism might prevail

[Sunrazor]

I’d hate to think that any well-intentioned mom and dad could be sued by their children for providing what nearly all Americans believe is a staple of good family values. I, too, was forced to sit through endless hours of Sunday school and church, and forced my own sons to sit through it, too. Then, one day, I simply decided on my own that none of it was real, rejected it out of hand and have been quite happy ever since. The only way I ever want to see atheism prevail is for individual human beings to decide for themselves that they have been hoodwinked and simply walk away from religion. That would be the only true victory for enlightenment.

[hotflungwok]

I’m not sure I want to see parental authority legislated on like that. As much as I dislike religious indoctrination in children, I think the parents should be allowed to raise their kids without gubmint interference. I think it would be a bad idea to give them that kind of power.

People are going to have to come to athiesm the same everyone does: by realizing it. Athiesm isn’t a belief, it’s a conclusion, and you can’t force that kind of thought process on people. They have to arrive at it on their own. This also means that some people simply won’t make it.

The way things are going now, it will happen eventually. I’m pretty confident that eventually, in most places, athiesm will become the norm and religion will take it’s place amoung other superstitions. I don’t think it will ever really go away completely.

[Captain_Amazing]

@kanicbird

Myths, unlike fantasies usually have some lost core truth to them and I appreciate the term. If I understand you, if you eliminate all religions that man(kind) will be free. I tend to disagree, there are too many things that happen to people on a spiritual / personal level that a form of religion will always be with man. The only thing you would loose is the old religions and a bunch of new religions developing.

Well, it’s Marx’s argument, not mine, but I think you’re misunderstanding his meaning. His argument (from his "Contribution to the Critique of Hegel) is, as he puts it:

Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But, man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man — state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, it enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.

. . .Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.

So it’s not religion that’s enslaving people, and getting rid of religion won’t make mankind free. Mankind is being enslaved by the economic and social conditions that exist, and what religion does is to justify the economic and social conditions and make them bearable. If you get rid of religion, those problems will still be there, but the illusion that they aren’t problems will be gone.

[gonzomax]

The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of europe in blood for centuries.
James Madison
Hows it working for us now. Religion is a personal thing and when it is publically orated the speaker should be shouted down. Keep it in your house and I will not say a word about it. Our government should not be atheistic. It should be completely neutral.

[Lemur866]

Wait…people who espouse religious beliefs in public should be shouted down?

That’s crazy. That’s exactly the opposite of what James Madison meant in the quote you gave. You want to use force or the implicit threat of force to shut down religious speach? Good luck with that.

No one should be shouted down, unless by their speach they are conspiring about illegal acts. Those who encourage specific acts of violence should be put in jail.

[gonzomax]

@Lemur866

Wait…people who espouse religious beliefs in public should be shouted down?

That’s crazy. That’s exactly the opposite of what James Madison meant in the quote you gave. You want to use force or the implicit threat of force to shut down religious speach? Good luck with that.

No one should be shouted down, unless by their speach they are conspiring about illegal acts. Those who encourage specific acts of violence should be put in jail.

You got that out of there,. Whew.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@gonzomax

You got that out of there,. Whew.

What’s the difference between “espouse religious beliefs in public” and “publically orate”?

[cosmosdan]

@gonzomax

The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of europe in blood for centuries.
James Madison
Hows it working for us now. Religion is a personal thing and when it is publically orated the speaker should be shouted down. Keep it in your house and I will not say a word about it. Our government should not be atheistic. It should be completely neutral.

Not to realistic. Our government is run by people who are not neutral.

People who are in the government should try and understand the intent of the founding fathers and honor the separation of church and state to the best of their understanding. The details and specifics of how that works is something people don’t always agree on. Saying people should not be allowed to voice their beliefs in public is just ludicrous, It’s a violation of the same amendment you’re trying to defend.