Gay marriage should never be recognize by the state because...

[C0ckney]

Only as a placebo - homeopathy for the spirit!

i really don't understand what you mean here.

do you think that, for example when a relative or close friend dies, there is anything that can provide comfort, solace etc. that is not 'a placebo' or 'homeopathy for the spirit'?

[MikeH]

but whether those things can be done elsewhere or in other ways (i don't deny this, although whether you can replace someone's faith with something else depends entirely on the individual) is irrelevant IMO. the fact is that an enormous number of people have faith and their relationship with God provides those things for them.

Perhaps they'd be better dealing with those issues themselves. If that was all religion did I wouldn't have a problem with it.

But the downside is that it also affects their judgement so they become even less rational than we already are as humans. Your ability to make rational choices is hindered by religious baggage Much of which may really only be relevant to the community in which the religion was founded. Whether it be the roles of the different sexes, sexual repression, views on life saving medicine or research, attitudes to contraception. And those views don't just affect the individual, they also affect those around them.

One of the main issues at the moment of course is the one that started this thread. The way that otherwise totally reasonable seeming religious people are arguing that loving same sex couples can't get married. So on the one hand people are getting comfort from their God, on the other hand someone like Asher, if he were living in the US, would be persecuted as a second class citizens purely because of a religious background in the country.

It's not acceptable.

[Elok]

You won't know for sure what religion does until you have a genuinely and completely irreligious society, which AFAIK hasn't happened. Even Europe remains "culturally Christian," no? A number of countries have "Christian Democrats" and state-sponsored churches--which always sort of baffled me. And while religion is informally banned from public life there, there's still a reasonable minority of churchgoers. I've never been outside the states, so correct me if I'm wrong, but that is the state of things, right? If so, you don't know what can be done without religion.

And I don't think there will ever be such a society. Atheism may be more friendly to science, but it's really ****ty for inspiring people, unless you build up some kind of framework of ideas in addition to it--Marxism, for example, or Ayn Rand's brand of libertarianism. And such groups invariably begin to display at least some of the traits of religious belief.

[Lorizael]

And I don't think there will ever be such a society.

It's a big universe. Just you wait.

[MikeH]

Modern humanism is fairly inspiring. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

Despite all the things we've screwed up I find the universe a wondrous place. I think the science is far more beautiful and inspiring than the idea that some super being made it all. I think it's amazing that humanity ever came to exist, and even more amazing that despite everything, despite our often cruel and violent nature, that we've produced as much amazing beauty in art, literature, engineering etc. as we have.

It's more inspiring and amazing that we've done that without God/Gods than if we'd done it with one. And really, our invention of Gods is fairly amazing. It might be outdated now but as Lori said, in the past religions have caused the spread of language, reading, writing, history as well as art etc.

[C0ckney]

Perhaps they'd be better dealing with those issues themselves.

or perhaps they wouldn't. it's not really a question you can answer.

as for the second part, for me this essentially comes down to what you said earlier about people finding things with which to push their prejudices. i don't think, that for example, without religion there wouldn't be homophobia.

[MikeH]

I did/do fear humanism becoming too much like a religion though. I'd never describe myself as a humanist.... but the humanist wedding ceremonies and funerals I've been too have been really good, and really not like a religion so maybe not. Just celebrations of people really.

[Lorizael]

You should follow my philosophy instead. Make your ultimate goal achieving omniscience by transforming humanity into an ever-expanding entity comprised only of knowledge.

[MikeH]

or perhaps they wouldn't. it's not really a question you can answer.

as for the second part, for me this essentially comes down to what you said earlier about people finding things with which to push their prejudices. i don't think, that for example, without religion there wouldn't be homophobia.

Maybe not, but at the moment the only argument against gay marriage that can't be dispelled with evidence is "God says it's wrong". So it'd remove that obstacle. We already have removed it in most civilised countries though so that's good.

[Elok]

Yeah, but there's really not a whole lot to Secular Humanism. It's a negation of religion and an affirmation of science--but when/if religion goes away, there's not going to be anything left of it. And, going by the Wiki page, it explicitly rejects authoritative moral guidance. I'm sure it sounds like a plus to you, but something's going to fill the vacuum. Humans are tradition-minded creatures. If religious communities cease to be a threat, humanism will become an authority itself, fracture and fight like any other belief system--unless it remains completely neutral and cautious, in which case it will be overtaken by something meatier. In 2133 you might well have Dawkinists in power in the UK, pushing to have Hitchenite teachings removed from school books for their incorrect ideas about the origins of consciousness. Okay, that's silly and speculative, but do you think a change in opinion is going to change human nature?

Whoa Nelly, that's an XPost.

[Proteus_MST]

Of course, and then the obvious response is that religion can bring people together, strengthen communities, provide charity for the impoverished, serve as institutions for learning and recordkeeping, etc. These qualities aren't exclusive to religion, of course, but religion does have them.

I´d agree with this...
it is like communism. Communism itself is kinda good idea (IMHO)...sharingthings like production facilities etc. so that all can profit from them. The problem is its practical application because of humans trying to abuse the system to satisfy their own will to power (and try to create a two tier siociety, with themselves at the top and the whole rest at the bottom).

Same goes for religion...
of course it doesn´t help religions the religions of the book, that their religious book contains lots of passages that can justify almost everything...
you want to persecute people and kill who believe in other religions? Just read certain pasages of the Deuteronomy and you get your justification...
You want to get justification to do good things? This time you just have to read certain passages in the new testament.
You want to get justification to convert everyone (no matter whether foircibly or not)? Also you just have to read the right passages from the new testament and interpret them to your liking.

But fact is...it doesn´t matter to, for example, someone who is starving,
if the person who feeds him does so because of atheist moral reason, or if s/he does so, because s/he believes that [enter divine entity] wants him/her to do it.
(which is why I only see reason to fight against religious fundamentalism [and the attempts of fundamentalists, especially within the USA, to gain influence in government] but not religion per se.
(Maybe my view is influenced by the peaceful coexistence of religion and atheism in germany. We have religious lessons at school, which only kids from religious families have to attend [the others can opt to get lessons in philosoophy] and which don´t just include the contents of the own religion, but also comparative religious studies, as well as religious criticism [for example by Ludwig Feuerbach]. We also have church taxes which only people who belong to a church have to pay, taking away any reason by german clerics, to preach fire and brimstone, just to elicit donations from their sheep, which they desperately need to pay for the upkeep of their church and the like (AFAIK most of the money that german churches get from church taxes go to charitable projects anyway [like homes for old people, soup kitchens, hospitals and the like]). You also rarely see religious people fighting against evolution. So, by and large, IMHO in germany the governmental regulation of certain religous things [church taxes, religous lessons in school] has been for the best of the whole society)

[Lorizael]

...but do you think a change in opinion is going to change human nature?

No, that's what genetic engineering and nootropics are for.

[MikeH]

Yeah, but there's really not a whole lot to Secular Humanism.

Which is why it's good.

We've got a long tradition of the rule of law in this country, and I don't really think we need a huge amount in the way of 'moral guidance' in the religious sense. Treat people as you'd like to be treated pretty much covers it.

[MrFun]

I believe in treating others the way you would like to be treated. It's one of the reasons I'm a Democrat, rather than a Republican.

[Heraclitus]

No, that's what genetic engineering and nootropics are for.

Cybernetics and mind uploading also.