I believe in a secular government when it comes to religion. I don't think it is fair that everyone should be forced to follow rules of one religion when it is first and foremost, a belief.
People should be allowed to follow any religion they want, but I think logic, facts, and evidence from the real world make more reasonable and fair laws.
For example, murder being illegal, should be viewed as punishment for the unlawful killing of a citizen, and not because god said it was wrong. Is this fair?
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.48  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: human rights crisis    theocracy   Extremes   Christians  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
This suggests, that secular nations end up being more stable and promotes overall well being. Therefore, unless you want life to suck for everyone, we should make laws not based on a majority religion.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.66  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: given state    life expectancy correlate negatively.This   violent crime rates   secular nations end  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 53%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: given state    life expectancy correlate negatively.This   violent crime rates   secular nations end  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Also by technicality, China isn't secular, they are state atheist.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: @YeshuaBought China    Vietnam   China   technicality  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: @YeshuaBought China    secular people   Vietnam   China  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Where is your Real World evidence, to support your claims?
Do you have any evidence, where any citizen, has filed a Restraining Order against any Religion for it forcing anyone to do anything according to any Religion?
Maybe for Religion stalking any citizen?
Or for any Religion to tell any citizen, to commit any crimes?
Do you have any evidence, where any Religious building has been protested, because the Religion was forcing citizens, to do this or that?
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.42  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: secular nations    sharp decline   individual rights   eternal foundation of righteousness.The majority rule  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Reproduction rates are irrelevant: we no longer live in the Medieval world, where numbers allowed a nation to start pillaging nearby nations. Nowadays, a nation with 5 million people, declining by 1% each year, can be far more successful, than a nation with 1.5 billion people, growing by 5% each year.
Technological and academic development actually strongly anti-correlate with religiousness of the society. The biggest technological and scientific leap humanity has ever had was during the acceptance of the Enlightenment doctrine, which explicitly denounced the concept of "sacred" in favor of the concept of objective truth.
Religion and communism are moral siblings: both advocate for the people bowing down to a central doctrine. They only happen to rarely come together because they compete with each other for people's minds - it is much like USSR and Nazi Germany competing with each other, while both being similarly destructive systems.
What makes societies thrive and economies tick is people's respect for individual liberties. And that is strongly antagonistic to all religions I know of.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Secular does not mean atheist, it means agnostic if anything. It just means you don't consider religion when making choices in the context of politics.
When you say: " think everyone should be free to express their opinion, on God and religion, without, losing their liberty, or security." This is secular, so long as you accept people's right to be free to express their opinion on A lack of god and religion without losing liberty or security.
Do you understand now?
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
Only in reproduction, but this has been attributed to women's rights, and given resource constraints is probably a good thing. In the case of academia and technology, the opposite is true. Less religious nations tend to be the most technologically developed.
"This suggests as secular nations continue to develop, although crime will drop, it will push the human race to the brink of extinction."
No, It just means population will level off to loss rates. For everyone dying, 1 will be born.
"Laws must be justified by something more than the will of the majority.
They are not in the US and the overwhelming majority of developed countries. The opposite is true, yet again and the data proves it.
"Because in countries with little to no religion, communism develops.
This slippery slope fallacy is simply not the case.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.9  
  Sources: 4  
  Relevant (Beta): 44%  
  Learn More About Debra
I do lack concern for the future of humanity, but my argument has nothing to do with it: humanity can thrive infinitely even with very low fertility rates.
I do not remember ever receiving funding from any religious entity, despite working at a Catholic university. All of the donors of our research group are purely secular. This seems to be the case overall: religious entities contribute only a negligible amount of resources to the scientific funds.
Of course communist countries ban religion: they cannot allow any competition to exist. Heavily religious countries just as much ban communism; try to promote communism in Iran or Saudi Arabia, and I do not envy your fate.
Communism and religion are siblings and rivals at the same time, same way Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were.
"You know very little about religion" is not an argument. You cannot know what I know about religion based on a few comments I have made around here, and even if you could, it would have no impact on the validity of my argument.
I indeed do not know as much about religion as religious people do (it would be bizarre if it were otherwise), but I know enough about the essence of religion and its history to conclude that religion and individual liberties are incompatible. Religions are heavily collectivist and put the individual behind the bigger picture (god's design). Similarly, communism puts the individual behind the commune. The difference is only the entity playing the role of the tyrant; that entity exists in either case.
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
When?
Was it definite dismissal or simply critique?
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 23%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 70%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: definite dismissal    critique      
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.88  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
>>>I do not remember ever receiving funding from any religious entity, despite working at a Catholic university. All of the donors of our research group are purely secular. This seems to be the case overall: religious entities contribute only a negligible amount of resources to the scientific funds.<<<
Charles Darwin
Isaac Newton
Aristotle
Albert Einstein
Were all associated with religions, went to religious founded schools for training, and received money from religious institutes for their findings.
>>>"You know very little about religion" is not an argument. You cannot know what I know about religion based on a few comments I have made around here, and even if you could, it would have no impact on the validity of my argument.<<<
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.76  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
The quote you cited does not state that humanity is endangered by low fertility; it merely states that infertility is a prevalent health ailment. And to some extent it is true, not as much because infertility is bad per say, but because it usually correlates with some other psychological or physiological issues (for example, many people are infertile not because they cannot give birth to a child, but because they have difficulty communicating with others and finding a partner).
All of the individuals you listed had far more critical views on religion than the vast majority of people living at their times. Aristotle, for example, viewed gods very philosophically, and his views were very different from those of the traditional ancient Greek religion.
Of course people of the past associated with religion all the time; everyone did. Such was the culture. When everyone is religious, then scientists are also going to be religious. This is not an indication of anything.
The religious state founded by the Founding Fathers was a result of them and those who followed them escaping the religious tyranny of the Europe and the British crown, and they explicitly wrote down secularism of the government into the Constitution. Of course they were religious, but their views were extremely heretical by their time's standards.
There are plenty of countries on Earth the systems of which were not founded on religious values, and they still have plenty of individual liberties. The most obvious one is Japan, where less than 40% of the population is religious (7/8 of this number is formed by Buddhists, and Buddhism is somewhere in between religion and philosophy), and in which religious considerations are never even on the radar when it comes to politics.
I would venture that without religion the US would be much freer than it is now. We would not, for example, have all those indecency rules, where you are not allowed to walk naked on the streets, to have sex in some states under the age of 16, to show nudity on TV in prime time in many cases and so on - all of these consequences of religious prudes pushing for restrictions.
You do not need religion to establish the importance of individual liberties; you need merely to study a bit of history and to think about the logical consequences of giving the government or any other collectivist entity power to control the individual.
I would even argue that if you respect individual liberties not because of their actual practical implications, but because the Bible tells you so, then you actually are just following the tide and do not understand what it is you are defending.
  Considerate: 67%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: religious state    critical views   religious tyranny of the Europe   religious values  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
Of course people of the past associated with religion all the time; everyone did. Such was the culture. When everyone is religious, then scientists are also going to be religious. This is not an indication of anything.<<<
The USA was the only country that allowed human rights to supersede rulership.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: first thing mention    critical views   first article of the Bill of Rights   support.So support  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
USA and Britain are not all Christian. In fact, most scientists are atheist or agnostic.
"Tell that to the declining USA population versus China ever-growing population."
Statement is false. US is still growing, but birth rates have leveled off to near replacement rates, and China is only seeing slight growth.
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/12/new-estimates-show-us-population-growth-continues-to-slow.html
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/china-population/
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 66%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.06  
  Sources: 7  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 71%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
You know I agree with you, somewhat. The problem comes when ANY group tries to DEMAND that others follow THEIR "way". When they try to make laws that others have to follow ... because "their way" says that is how it must be! Everyone should be free to express their opinion .... if asked. Not to demand a hearing whenever, wherever they want. NOT to begin a propaganda display because they think EVERYBODY should LEARN what they think they know.
No, keep your religion (or none), to yourself ... and leave your doors open. If someone is interested they'll walk in .... or out, as they wish.
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.52  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 81%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 74%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: free country    secular reasoning   laws   follow laws  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.7  
  Sources: 5  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: early scientists    Zuckerman's study   birth rates   Christians  
  Relevant (Beta): 37%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 74%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: secular reasoning    fair religious views   religious freedom   free country  
  Relevant (Beta): 64%  
  Learn More About Debra
Consider these scenarios: Two people. One is Christian the other atheist in the medieval period. Both are scientists. The church finds out about the atheist and kills him. The Christian then is the only one left to make discoveries.
Did the church aid in the discovery? F*** no! They killed one of the Scientists!
It is relevant they were Christians here because Roman Catholic was the dominant religion at the time, and they buried dissenters. That is what happens when religion is in bed with politics. Good people get buried because they said something that goes against whatever teachings the church says is true, which is NEVER true.
Zuckerman's study was based on religiosity, and it is relevant because Christianity is not. IDGAF if they are Christian, Islam, Jewish, Buhdists, Hindus, Scientologists, or kool-aid drinkers, they are all grouped under the same umbrella term "religion" and they are not secular if they are imposing their will.
Religious people are happier because they are too to see anything wrong. They live in a dangerous delusion instead of accepting that they don't know anything. Is it worth it? No, absolutely not. Especially when that delusion has to be maintained at the expense of moral and social progress.
Don't go around Cherry-picking the first links that pop up in google and claim that is truth, cause it's a fallacy.
Think religion makes you happier? Only when you live in a stable country under low-stress conditions. Guess what correlates negatively with stability?
Religious rule.
Think religion makes you live longer? Only when advanced medicines and medical care are available. Compare life expectancy now to the very religious middle ages! Medicine does 30x more than the "3.68" years on average religion gets you.
Think religion makes technology? Let's compare the number of religious folk in general to the number of scientists who are religious.
About half are not religious, vs. ~16% of the total population. That means that crediting technology to religion is wrong.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 56%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.76  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 74%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.72  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 76%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: free country    liberal anti-theists   secular reasoning   free speech rights  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
You could similarly say, "Scientists in Soviet Union were all communists, hence communism is what is responsible for scientific progress achieved there. Communism supported them, and this support should be taken for granted."
You should easily see the flaw in this argument: it is confusing the cause with the effect. It is not that communism produced scientists; it is that scientists had to be communists. Science would be there both with and without communism. Communism exploited the scientific community by having them work in terrible conditions and bow to the central doctrine, and there is a good chance that, without the history of communism, science in Russia would be flourishing right now, rather than falling apart, with everyone able to do any worthwhile research fleeing the country.
Similarly, scientists of the 17th and 18th century were fleeing Europe for North America, escaping the religious dictate and seeking opportunity to do science in peace, free from bishops telling them what to do.
You cannot say that something is to thank for some achievements of the people, if that something was the only option realistically available to people. 500 years from now, when humans live for thousands years, they will not be saying, "Science before us only existed because people's life expectancy was very low." That would be a ridiculous argument.
I am talking about the modern Japan, obviously, which, while having a political system similar to that in the US, does not base any of its political elements on the religious reasoning - and the emperor there does not have any power whatsoever and serves purely as a cultural symbol.
I might be talking from the American perspective, but I have lived here merely for 20% of my entire life. I have lived in many other countries for extended periods of time, including Japan, and, trust me, the US is not the only country on the planet in which people are relatively free. It might be the freest country on the planet right now, but the difference from other free countries is not that dramatic. Chances are, if you move tomorrow to Canada, Japan or Switzerland, you will barely notice any difference in terms of what you can or cannot do.
My viewpoint of freedom is not what you think. I am against any form of coercion. Walking around naked does not coerce anyone into anything and does not violate anyone's rights, and the only reason it is not allowed is the religious heritage and prudence.
There are many countries that thrive that have far less prudish laws. In Spain public sex is legal, as long as nobody voices a complaint about it. In Japan, the federal age of consent is 13, exhibitionism is outlawed only in some places, and people watch the wackiest erotic shows on TV in prime-time (with no age restrictions). In some of the Canadian provinces women can legally walk around with uncovered breasts.
It seems to me that the US thrives not because of its relative cultural prudence (which, thankfully, is much less nowadays than it was before the sexual revolution), but despite it.
China is not the only country on Earth with a system not grounded in religious principles. That said, even China has been experiencing an economical miracle for decades now, due to reasonable free market policies by the government, and China is officially atheist. It does not have many personal freedoms, but it does have quite a bit of economical freedoms, in some narrow aspects even surpassing those in the US (for example, their intellectual property laws are nearly non-existent, which is one of the main reasons for their recent IT boom).
It seems that success and religiousness of a society, at the very least, do not correlate positively in any meaningful way.
Again, in Japan only 5% of the population follow any religion that is not Buddhism (which, again, can only loosely be called religion). Are you going to say that those 5% of the population make Japan free, in spite of the 95% people allegedly leaning towards communism trying to pull it in the other direction? Please.
If people follow the laws without understanding them, then they will just as much accept the bad laws offered by the politicians, since, again, they do not understand them. You cannot build a thriving society out of ignorant people; they have to be, to some extent, informed about the system they are living in. And religion does a very-very poor job at getting them informed.
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.42  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 58%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.04  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: findings of religious tie    religious affiliation   Zuckerman's study   Religious people  
  Relevant (Beta): 14%  
  Learn More About Debra
Attending religion consistently vs. only some times really shouldn't have much of an effect, especially considering the spread is so large.
You have to admit, that last one in particular is a real cherry pick, it isn't based on hard data.
If our goal was to make everyone happy, then would you recommend that we white-washed everything and made sure than nobody ever had any stress? That would make people happy, and live longer too. Is it a good idea? No. I have yet to meet a single atheist who prays, which makes me think the whole study is probably bunk. Also keep in mind they were not looking at just Christians, but religious in general. Religions that practice meditation have proven benefits, but Christians don't have that practice.
Voluntary exile doesn't solve the problem now does it? If you are tying to progress science, you need to interact with people. F*** what religion and religious leaders say. Religion leads people to wrong conclusions regularly and consistently, and who knows just how much it has slowed progress because of what it seems to believe.
There should be no religious governments period.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: real cherry pick    hard data.If   single atheist   practice meditation  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
Science holds no separation commonly method that is openly shared to separate religion as a complete state. Quarantine does not count as a separation of religion as a state. The separation of religion and state or what is better know and church and state is a practice derived by a series of unions made between legal history and basic principle with people is a organized order.
In basic scientists practice the religion of science, as a Christian practices Christianity, as a Catholic is called a Roman Catholic.
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 69%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: basic principle    legal history   complete state   series of unions  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra
We are not advocating atheism here, however; we are advocating secularism, which is a very different beast. I do not have anything against religious people, and even though I find their beliefs strange, I do not think less of them for having them - however, their beliefs should not be used as a reference for running scientific research, economical production, governmental activities and everything else requiring acceptance of some cold hard facts coming from the structure of the reality itself.
Belief in god has its place in the philosophical domain, but it is useless - and even harmful, for that matter - when we talk about constructing a vehicle that does not fall apart quickly. Or when we talk about designing a society in which people can peacefully interact with each other with mutual benefit.
I would argue that science requires atheism to truly take off, but it can flourish in a heavily religious environment as well - as long as that environment is secular, and scientists are actually allowed to freely exchange ideas and not be labelled heretics for questioning the doctrine of the church.
As for religious people overall being happier than atheists... That depends on how you measure happiness. I would expect religious people to be more content with their lives, because they do not have to spend a lot of energy, say, looking for the purpose of their life, as they already know what it is - but happier? I do not think this is what happiness is about. To me, happiness means having your needs and desires satisfied routinely, regardless of what the society or anyone else thinks of those needs and desires - and religion has a lot of negative things to say about such interpretation of the term.
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: religious people    mutual benefit   religious environment   scientific research  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.26  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: religious ceremonies    religious people   religious affiliation   balanced approach  
  Relevant (Beta): 40%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 73%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: religious people    atheist thoughts.If   exchange ideas   mutual benefit  
  Relevant (Beta): 13%  
  Learn More About Debra
Religion should never be allowed to have money and control over business, government, or the people's way of life in general.
Theocratic regimes need to be toppled and replaced with secular ones.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 49%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: people's way    PEW research center   general.Theocratic regimes   money  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
I have never advocated for atheism being prescribed in the law. I am advocating for a secular society, meaning lack of state or societal ideology, and treatment of all ideologies equally.
I am an atheist, and I do not care too much if atheism is widely accepted or not. You are assuming too many things about us, my friend. Obviously, ideally, I would like more people to be atheists - everybody wants others to be more similar to them, it is human nature - but I would not lift a finger to try to change the number of atheists in the world.
Science does not need atheism to take off, but atheism/agnosticism certainly helps. When science has to accept the existence of things it cannot prove, it creates a bad precedent interfering with the scientific method. Science has to be impartial to any human beliefs. People do not have to be atheists, but science has to be atheist.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: secular society    human nature   societal ideology   lack of state  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Variety is the spice of life and I agree that to just have one meal on the menu would bore us all.
But should we set some kind of moral limit?
I have and fight to end Christianity and Islam.
Both Christianity and Islam, slave holding ideologies, have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them the moral ways.
Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I. Jesus would call Christianity and Islam abominations.
Gnostic Christians did in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality.
https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/theft-values/
Humanity centered religions, good? Yes. Esoteric ecumenist Gnostic Christianity being the best of these.
Supernaturally based religions, evil? Yes. Islam and Christianity being the worst of these.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Variety is the spice of life and I agree that to just have one meal on the menu would bore us all.
But should we set some kind of moral limit?
I have and fight to end Christianity and Islam.
Both Christianity and Islam, slave holding ideologies, have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them the moral ways.
Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I. Jesus would call Christianity and Islam abominations.
Gnostic Christians did in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality.
https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/theft-values/
Humanity centered religions, good? Yes. Esoteric ecumenist Gnostic Christianity being the best of these.
Supernaturally based religions, evil? Yes. Islam and Christianity being the worst of these.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 24%  
  Learn More About Debra
Where is your Real World evidence, to support your claims?
Do you have any evidence, where any citizen, has filed a Restraining Order against any Religion for it forcing anyone to do anything according to any Religion?
Maybe for Religion stalking any citizen?
Or for any Religion to tell any citizen, to commit any crimes?
Do you have any evidence, where any Religious building has been protested, because the Religion was forcing citizens, to do this or that?
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.38  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 47%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.8  
  Sources: 2  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: nbsp    misogynous religions   Religious liberty   immoral ways  
  Relevant (Beta): 52%  
  Learn More About Debra
Once again, people doing science can believe whatever they want - but science itself should not feature those beliefs and has to be atheist, in the sense that, in the lack of proof of god's existence, it should assume that god does not exist. This is what the scientific method demands.
Science says, "I do not know", all the time, and has been for thousands years. Which is why it refrains from talking about things that have no indication of existing.
Science does consider hypothetical questions, of course, and one of those questions very well could be, "Is it possible that god exists? If so, what evidence would there be?" Which is very different from saying, "I believe that god exists". Science does not deal with beliefs.
Religion has funded science; communism has funded science; fascism has funded science; imperialism has funded science... Does not indicate in any way that, without funding from these sources, science would not exist. Science would likely exist under any circumstances, as bettering ourselves and improving our technology is our human nature.
Jeff Bezos has created Amazon. You could say that he created it thanks to the US government, but he is the one who has created it, and hence is an owner of it. Similarly, scientists may have made a lot of their discoveries thanks to the funding from religious institutions, but they are the ones who have made those discoveries, hence credit should go to them.
That is my point exactly: people are the ones doing science, not religion or anything else.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 61%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 74%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.52  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 69%  
  Learn More About Debra
Atheism is a Religion (Court Decision)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23920967?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Secular Humanism is a Religion
https://christiananswers.net/q-sum/sum-r002.html
Is Atheism a Religion
https://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/secular-philosophies/is-atheism-a-religion.aspx?
Atheists are sometimes more religious than Christians
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/05/american-atheists-religious-european-christians/560936/
Atheism is a Religion – article:
http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion
  Considerate: 73%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.34  
  Sources: 11  
  Relevant (Beta): 26%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.76  
  Sources: 12  
  Relevant (Beta): 55%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 41%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: new religion    new majority   Science   Next question  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 51%  
  Substantial: 63%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.54  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 35%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.98  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra