So, how do you create a religion-free society?

[SidneyCarton]

I trust that no one here seriously considers the methods the PRC uses against the Falun Gong, and I think it can be effectively argued that real persecution (not the kind commonly claimed here in the United States) only serves to radicalize the faithful. So, as active, violent repression is both repugnant and self-defeating, how would you construct a religion-free society?

[stopbush]

1. Education...which may involve - for lack of a better word - some re-education as well.

[demwing]

3. Explain re-education please

your definition, not the dictionary's

[stopbush]

14. Re-education would involve slapping down myths and

received opinion.

I'm not just talking about religious dogma. I'm talking about history being taught from something besides the viewpoint of the victors. For instance, the USA could use a re-education in who founded this nation and why, ie: the freethinkers. I think we'd be better off if we got over the rags-to-riches myths of Horatio Alger (yep, another clergyman) that serve not to elevate people's fortunes, but to numb them into thinking that wealth is just around the corner as part of their American birthright (after all, everyone defines rags, riches and hard work for themselves, don't they?).

Americans seem to have a distinct dislike of reality, which is why we're so shocked when reality bites us in our collective butts in a major way. Hence the nostalgia for a time that never was. Hence the feeling of entitlement for a life that was never seriously within one's reach.

That's not to say better things couldn't be within one's reach, just that wishful thinking and willing ignorance won't get you there.

[uberllama42]

16. I would also like to know what you mean by that

"Re-education" has a really negative connotation. I would like to see a society without religion, but as we've already said, any government attempt to coerce society into such a state of affairs is both futile and morally wrong.

[stopbush]

25. I know it has a bad connotation.

That's why I wrote "for lack of a better word."

[county worker]

2. First I would want to know why on earth would you want to?

If you don't want to practice any religion fine but why inflict your ideas on the society?

I would think you don't want religion inflicted on you so why the reverse?

Or is this just a what if type of question?

[SidneyCarton]

6. This is totally a what-if question.

A poster in another thread intimated that the Atheists here in R/T wanted to impose Atheism by force like it's done in the PRC. She was swiftly debunked, but it does raise the question, can it be done, and how?

As a Theist myself, this is wholly an academic question to me, I just like to know what people think.

[county worker]

17. Good, I thought it was that.

[county worker]

21. Seems to me religion is based on ones faith which can't be eradicated from their minds.

You could restrict public practice but not a persons beliefs.

[SidneyCarton]

24. All too true.

[boobooday]

4. Wish to God I knew!

heh heh

[Coyote_Bandit]

5. If you wanted to do it here in the US

you'd have to start by getting rid of the First Amendment. Ain't happening.

[SidneyCarton]

8. Good point.

That creates a whole different can of worms.

[eShirl]

7. I would say that is an unrealistic goal.

If you could snap your fingers and magically eliminate all religion, new ones would develop.

[SidneyCarton]

9. I would agree with that too.

Humans are naturally irrational. We find stuff to worship, if not God, we'd find celebrities or something else.

[Mythsaje]

10. You don't. n/t

[tularetom]

11. Boy, if I knew I would have done it by now

Spirituality - good

Religion - not so good

Organized Religion - sucks

[Lydia Leftcoast]

47. Actually, unorganized religion--REALLY sucks

Those megachurches that both atheists and mainstream religious people dislike are so awful precisely because there is no one providing oversight.

The "ministers" are self-selected, the congregation is usually ignorant, and no one is keeping watch.

The megachurch minsters get away with financial fraud that would get a mainstream clergyperson thrown out on their ass, because 1) In mainstream churches, the clergy person is answerable to both the denomination's governing bodies and a board of lay people elected by the members, 2) Churches are required to report their finances to the governing body.

[dbonds]

12. Education

And a series of Pink Floyd concerts.;P

[SidneyCarton]

15. Say what you want, I consider a good dose of Pink Floyd every once in a while

a "religious experience"

:P

[uberllama42]

18. Hush!

Don't ruin the Floyd for me.

[dbonds]

22. The way I meant it was..

After going to a Pink Floyd concert you realize there is no spirituality in church. Floyd is about as cosmic as it gets.

[stray cat]

13. Murdering anyone who practices any belief system and all their family

just like any good person would do :sarcasm: After all restriction of freedom is a progressive value?

A foolproof way of course is to destroy everyone....

[SidneyCarton]

19. Seriously now.

I get it, we're fishing for extreme responses. I'm not, I'm trying to see how others think here. I'm a Theist, I neither know how, nor desire a religion-free nation, but some do, and I am curious on how, if at all, they believe this is possible.

[PassingFair]

65. No, thats been tried before. It's nasty and bloody and it doesn't really work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade

The Albigensian Crusade or Cathar Crusade (1209–1229) was a 20-year military campaign initiated by the Catholic Church to eliminate the Cathar heresy in Languedoc. The Crusade was prosecuted primarily by the French and promptly took on a political flavour, resulting in not only a significant reduction in the number of practicing Cathars but also a realignment of Occitania, bringing it into the sphere of the French crown and diminishing the distinct regional culture and high level of Aragonese influence.

When Innocent III's diplomatic attempts to roll back Catharism<1> met with little success and after the papal legate Pierre de Castelnau was murdered (allegedly by an agent serving the Cathar count of Toulouse), Innocent III declared a crusade against Languedoc, offering the lands of the schismatics to any French nobleman willing to take up arms. The violence led to France's acquisition of lands with closer cultural and linguistic ties to Catalonia (see Occitan). An estimated 200,000 to 1,000,000 people were massacred during the crusade.<2><3>

The Albigensian Crusade also had a role in the creation and institutionalization of both the Dominican Order and the Medieval Inquisition.

[Chemisse]

20. I think you would have to start a new colony in an isolated place

The moon maybe, and only bring Atheists who will bear children and raise them as atheists.

But I suspect that religions would evolve over time. People are just curious about spirituality. That doesn't bother me as long as people don't impose their beliefs on others.

[SidneyCarton]

23. I think this is a realistic argument.

Although the moon is a little arid, maybe Mars?

[Chemisse]

33. Lol - yeah perhaps there is a smidgeon of water on the moon - nt

[stopbush]

26. Ask Sweden. They're 65% atheist.

Is it a question of "creating" a religion-free society? I'd think non-belief is a by-product of a combination of things.

[dmallind]

27. Well frankly you don't.

I don't even want to.

I believe education and access to easily understandable, well-communicated science information will over time reduce the number of religious believers, especially the ones who cause the most trouble, but it would not, and should not, close an option for a person to freely choose their own opinions.

The US is in a fascinating point in its religious identity. Nonbelievers are still marginalized and distrusted intensely, and open nonbelievers are almost entirely shut out of any elected office with significant impact, but it's not like it was just a few decades before. People know there are atheists out there - often their friends and neighbors or family, and know that they are not satanists, or evil or immoral to any degree different from believers. The internet has demonstrated to isolated atheists in areas without a thriving public nonbelievers' organization that they are not really alone and that some of their heroes are atheists too. Education that is a bit less jingoistic has stripped away the canard that founders were all pious trinitarians. Easier communications with less religiously dominated countries has demonstrated that largely non-believing societies are not slanted towards anarchy or evil, and are often if anything more humanitarian than our own.

It is I think getting close to a tipping point, where atheism will soon be accepted by most, and seen as a normal choice for people who are just like the rest. After that the numbers of social conformity-driven believers will drop like a rock.

But my hope or dream is not for a nation of atheists, but a nation that cheerfully accepts them in every way on an equal footing. I no more care if my neighbor believes that a Jewish carpenter rose from the dead than I care if he believes the Orioles are a fantastic team destined for imminent success. I also find such stories intrinsically fascinating for both enjoyment as well as lower and higher criticism and study. I never want them to go away, and am thankful that they never will, as there is no tyranny that can eradicate ideas once they are developed, whether the idea is true or not, or even benign or not.

What I do want to eradicate is religious, which in the US means Christian, dominance and undue influence in politics and legislation. What any set of believers think their god of choice wants in the area of rights, freedoms and options should apply only to followers of that religion, and since there is no more chance of a 100% Christian US than there is a 0% Christian US, none of their dogma should be legislated on the rest of us for that reason. Murder is not illegal because it is forbidden in Christian scripture, and it would not change if Christianity had no influence at all on politics. Things like gay marriage, abortion, sexual freedom, etc ARE restricted because of religious influence on our laws, and would, and will, change when that tipping point is reached.

[SidneyCarton]

29. Thank you for you thoughts.

[mwb970]

28. Encourage spirituality at the expense of religion.

One can have a spiritual view of the Universe and of humanity without succumbing to crazy myths and legends, inevitably male control-freak deities, and meaningless rituals. Spirituality is a natural human need; religion is a destructive, manipulative human invention. There's a big difference.

[SidneyCarton]

30. This will work for some...

But others will crave greater structure than Spiritualism offers.

[mwb970]

31. Back to fairy tales and myths, then?

It always comes down to accommodating the least intelligent among us, it would seem.

[SidneyCarton]

32. Life is a conversation, those who shout the loudest tend to get heard.

It is human nature to create myths, at best they are simplified explanations for complex phenomena, at worst they are pernicious half-truths that lead to all manner of mischief. Human nature is human nature, we can deal with it, but changing it will not happen swiftly, if at all.

[Why Syzygy]

38. Your method is the one I would choose.

Decriminalize entheogenic substances for all, not just a few 'churches'. I would also include, restructure academics to allow for alternative theories of history and science. Eliminate the fear and stigma of thinking outside the container. Return to a governance of/by/for the people, bottom up instead of the current malformed top down structure. A world like that would be Nice.

Yes, and stop catering to the least intelligent. I don't know what they need, a toy box maybe. But their stranglehold needs to be loosed from those who would dream deeper.

[moggie]

34. I don't think it's possible

Religion seems to fill a need for some people, and unless we evolve out of that, there's likely to always be some level of religious belief in any society. But the markedly different levels of such belief in different societies today show that progress is possible.

I'd suggest that the following would tend to make society less religious:

1. Good (and free) education for everyone (to graduate level, for those who want it). Studies have repeatedly shown that the more educated a person is, the less religious they tend to be.


2. Efforts to reduce poverty, including a good welfare safety-net for the unemployed. Poverty breeds hopelessness, which causes people to seek hope through religion.


3. Publicly-funded healthcare for all. When people are dying from easily-treatable ailments, or being driven into bankruptcy by the costs of treatment, the resulting fear drives many into the arms of religion.


4. Peace. War brings a lot of praying.


5. A democratic government with a commitment to civil rights (yes, including religious freedom). Under an oppressive government, people often look to religious movements.


6. A culture which values critical thinking and questioning, rather than automatic deference to authority.

And, you know what? Even if that doesn't succeed in reducing religious belief, it's all still worth doing.

There's a book I haven't yet read, because it's pricey over here, but it sounds worth a look: Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment, by Phil Zuckerman. Blurb:

Before he began his recent travels, it seemed to Phil Zuckerman as if humans all over the globe were "getting religion" - praising deities, performing holy rites, and soberly defending the world from sin. But most residents of Denmark and Sweden, he found, don't worship any god at all, don't pray, and don't give much credence to religious dogma of any kind. Instead of being bastions of sin and corruption, however, as the Christian Right has suggested a godless society would be, these countries are filled with residents who score at the very top of the "happiness index" and enjoy their healthy societies, which boast some of the lowest rates of violent crime in the world (along with some of the lowest levels of corruption), excellent educational systems, strong economies, well-supported arts, free health care, egalitarian social policies, outstanding bike paths, and great beer.Zuckerman formally interviewed nearly 150 Danes and Swedes of all ages and educational backgrounds over the course of fourteen months, beginning in 2005. He was particularly interested in the worldviews of people who live their lives without religious orientation. How do they think about and cope with death? Are they worried about an afterlife? What he found is that nearly all of his interviewees live their lives without much fear of the Grim Reaper or worries about the hereafter. This led him to wonder how and why it is that certain societies are nonreligious in a world that seems to be marked by increasing religiosity. Drawing on prominent sociological theories and his own extensive research, Zuckerman ventures some interesting answers.This fascinating approach directly counters the claims of outspoken, conservative American Christians who argue that a society without God would be hell on earth. It is crucial, Zuckerman believes, for Americans to know that "society without God is not only possible, but it can be quite civil and pleasant."

A look at how Scandinavian societies developed in the 20th century might yield some useful insights.

[SidneyCarton]

36. Agreed. As a Theist, I see the reforms you are suggesting as being desireable

In and of themselves.

[emilyg]

35. I wouldn't want to. My

religion gives me great comfort - as it does other people.

[SidneyCarton]

37. My religion gives me comfort as well.

This is a thought experiment, my reasons for it are mentioned upthread.

[Odin2005]

39. I'm an Atheist, but I don't think its possible.

Simply for the fact that the two phenomena of myth and naive animism are a fundamental part of human existance, a side effect of our social instincts and our own nature as creative toolmakers. We live in an omnipresent "social reality" with notions of intention, agency, free will, etc. that that no real existance, they are confabulations imposed on us by out social instincts, and people will always impose these confabulations on the physical world.

I have read an interesting hypothesis associating an over-active social instinct with Schizophrenia, Psychosis, and religiosity; and and under-active social instinct with Autistic spectrum disorders and skepticism of religion. This is interesting, because as somebody on the Autism Spectrum I noticed early on that religion was merely a projection of the social reality I have trouble understanding, indeed, many people seem to think that this projected "social reality" is more real than the actual physical universe, how else to explain the New Age and Neo-Platonist notions that the physical world is less real than their confabulated "spirit world"?

The Cosmos itself, in all it's splendor, is what I "worship", not some confabulation of our own social insticts.

[RLBaty]

40. Can you say Liberal, MO!

That's just one example, but perhaps, as comments suggest, it is being proposed that more modern efforts, perhaps on other planets, would be more successful.

Robert Owen also tried to set up such a "utopian" society that didn't go over very well.

My apologies if the above notes are duplications. I haven't read all the comments.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[Silent3]

41. The most I hope for is reduced influence of religion...

...better separation of church and state (where freedom of religion is just another form of general freedom of thought and philosophy, not a special protected category, and where "freedom" isn't interpreted to mean excessive accommodation and special privilege for religion), loss of tax-free status for churches and clergy (where perhaps their charitable programs run by religious groups could at least take advantage of the same tax laws that govern non-profit organizations), and much wider acceptance of atheism.

The way to move in that direction is in large part what's going on now -- more and more atheists speaking out, letting others know they aren't alone if they have doubts, not being afraid to criticize religion, and working to deprive religion of its special protected status in the world of public debate where religion is so often treated with kid gloves in away that political, non-religious philosophical, and scientific ideas are not.

[RLBaty]

43. Re: The most I hope for is...

...the loss of tax-free status for clergy?

Sounds like that would include the revocation of Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 107, for example, the income tax free ministerial housing allowance some have been discussing on that other thread in this forum.

Maybe that IRC 107 suit will get filed and we'll just see if it can hold up to constitutional scrutiny.

As to one of its spawns, 70-549, that is also more specifically dealt with in that other thread.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[darkstar3]

42. It is incredibly simple to build a religion-free society

if we have patience, and if we enforce STRONG education in the following fields:

1. Science, specifically the "pure sciences" such as physics, biology, and chemistry.
2. Critical thinking
3. Argumentation

Trust me when I tell you that if you combine these skills successfully in any child, they will grow to a person with an analytical, properly skeptical, and curious mind. AND, perhaps most importantly, they will not be afraid to question anything that they already "know" in their hearts.

Will this create a society free from "people of faith"? No. It has already been demonstrated that people of intelligence and with scientific backgrounds can have faith. BUT, there is a big difference between faith and religion. As was stated in one of my favorite movies:

"So, crisis of faith averted?"
"I think you could say I've been burdened with an overabundance."
"Are you saying you're a believer?"
"Nope, but I have a good idea"

[SidneyCarton]

51. I think you are going to have to delineate what you define as "faith"

And what you define as "religion"

It is clear from your post that you consider these things to be different, but from your post, the difference between the two is not entirely clear.

[darkstar3]

58. It's actually a pretty simple division.

The man/woman of faith often uses that faith to try and better their own life or the lives of others. While their motives may be based on less than solid information, many people of faith can only be called wonderful examples of humanity. I have an Aunt who falls strongly into this category. But when people of faith dive too much into the religion/organization aspect, things change.

To borrow from yet another phrase seen here recently: Faith drives people to volunteer at soup kitchens. Religion flies people into buildings.

To be clear, I'm not saying that people of faith are the ONLY ones who volunteer for charity, but I am saying that when they do it's often because of their faith.

For me, as an atheist who has seen far too much power put into the hands of religious leaders, I would love to see a world with no organized religion. But that doesn't mean I want to stop individuals from being able to believe in something bigger than themselves. I just wish they didn't have the power and motive to shove it down my throat.

[SidneyCarton]

62. By your definition, one be a person of faith, and yet be a member of an organized religion.

[darkstar3]

64. If the words missing from your post are "can" and "not", then yes.

One CAN be a person of faith, and yet NOT be a member of an organized religion.

[SidneyCarton]

72. It would appear that both are equally true.

[Silent3]

57. I'm not sure how "incredibly simple" that would be.

I do like the idea of teaching more about science, critical thinking, and argumentation. I'd add civics to that list as well.

But I'm not sure, however, just how well that effort would take. Education should certainly help some, but I just don't know what percentage of the population would take to a more logical approach to life, regardless of education.

Also, even if you, like myself, think that this knowledge and these skills are a good thing for people to learn, one has to be careful not to cross the line from education into indoctrination.

[darkstar3]

59. I am certainly not talking about indoctrination.

I do, however, agree that civics should be added to the list.

As to how well the effort would take...there's no way to know, since it definitely hasn't been tried before...

[Evoman]

44. Easy, you allow it to exist without encouraging it, while teaching critical thinking.

Force never works, it creates fanatics and martyrs.

Giving religion power obviously doesn't work, because the religious misuse it.

In the end, it starts and ends with education. Problem is, you gotta get people educated, and it sure isn't easy with the devoutly religious.

I think it's only a matter of time before religion becomes unpopular enough to declare it dead. God is running out of places to hide. The only thing that may shorten the time it takes, though, is more disasters or large scale wars....it can go one way or other, but many people lose their faith when they see the misery of war.

[ironbark]

45. Interesting

that the vast majority of respondents have looked to education/re education/critical thinking…..etc…

And no one (that I can see) has looked to the provision of an alternative source of sense of meaning, purpose, belonging, community, contribution to society.

There are lots of people who attend church for no other reason than the sense of community provided.
There are just as many more who just seek an organization to be involved in that is doing some social good.

I would have thought that some ‘critical thinking’ would have recognized these basic human needs.

;-)

[darkstar3]

55. Ooooh, nice shot, but wide of the mark.

I love how you put the term critical thinking in quotes, as if it's some sort of nebulous concept. I guess that makes sense, since you ignore the biggest contribution critical thinking would have to the situation you're talking about. The human search for reason/meaning/purpose/belonging/community can be found in MANY different places, so church most certainly doesn't have a monopoly.

I'm just gonna leave it at that before I say something mean.

[ironbark]

66. Then perhaps the re education and critical thinking camps

can explain the “MANY different places” to the children .

Perhaps a course in Communities, Collectives and Communes can contrast the monasteries that lasted only a several hundred years with the very well thought out secular-political and philosophical communes that lasted….….oh….

Well perhaps they can apply some critical thinking to the raw statistics on welfare and aid programs run by the various faiths and those run by….oh…..

“I'm just gonna leave it at that before I say something mean.”

Just as long as you don’t use one of those nasty emoticons…they are the cutting edge of critical thinking and devastate any argument.

[darkstar3]

70. Who pissed in your cornflakes this morning?!

Did I EVER mention anything like a re-education camp?

Did I go off on an ad-hom or attack anyone or anything personally?

Did I ever start in on the eternal debate of "what good/bad has religion done over the centuries?"

You attack me personally for simply pointing out that your faith is not the only place where people can find meaning. How original...

Oh, and BTW, :wtf:

[ironbark]

75. 55# your restraining yourself from saying “something mean”

70# you’ve got piss in my cornflakes and your telling me it’s raining.

“Did I EVER mention anything like a re-education camp?”

Did I EVER say you did?

“Did I go off on an ad-hom or attack anyone or anything personally?”

Nope, you introduced yourself as on the verge of saying “something mean” ( for god knows what reason) and now your making reference to invisible “ad-hom” and “attack”…..

“You attack me personally for simply pointing out that your faith is not the only place where people can find meaning.”

1/ I don’t have a “faith”

2/ It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat “ad-hom”, “attack”, “personal attack” if you cant quote it, or reference it, identify it or give anyone any kind of clue as to what it was supposed to be…..it’s quite likely it doesn’t exist and your barking up the wrong Ironbark.

“How original”

How bizarre

[darkstar3]

76. Let me see if I can put this together in a way you will understand.

1. Usually I leave grammar policing alone, but since YOU decided to get personal...You're means "you are." Your just means it belongs to someone.

2. Did I EVER say you did? {mention a re-education camp}

Yes, you did. I refer you to the title of your post #66: "Then perhaps the re education and critical thinking camps..."

3. I don't have a "faith"

Really? Then why are you so hell-bent on attacking or destroying the people who speak out against it?

4. The "something mean" from my original post:
When children are raised with the proper critical thinking skills and scientific know-how, they'll be able to recognize a lie or a logical fallacy when they see it. This will seriously decrease the membership rolls of most religions.

That's kinda mean, isn't it? It's certainly not an "ad-hom" attack, but unlike you I like to exercise restraint and perhaps avoid pissing off a large group of people by essentially calling them stupid! But you asked, so there you go.

5. It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat “ad-hom”, “attack”, “personal attack” if you cant quote it, or reference it, identify it or give anyone any kind of clue as to what it was supposed to be…..it’s quite likely it doesn’t exist and your barking up the wrong Ironbark.
I didn't have to quote it, I was replying directly to it.

Perhaps you should consider taking an argumentation class yourself. Then you might be able to recognize the difference between a knee-jerk reaction and well-argued response. You might then also be able to recognize when you've broken (or at least cracked) Godwin's law...

[saltpoint]

46. It's not a desirable goal because it would presume that religious

thought cannot be sanctioned in an interactive democracy.

In Christianity alone you get both Paul Tillich and Fred Phelps. It is a secure society that sanctions both.

[SidneyCarton]

52. Fair enough, I would agree.

I'm just curious what people think. As it is said in "The Hunt for Red October": "It is wise to know the ways of one's adversary"

(Even if the adversarial relationship is merely in message-board form)

[agent46]

48. Education with a bias toward the Humanities

My working definition of "Religion" --

Human beings are somehow genetically predisposed to a spectrum of non-rational cognitive experiences we might call "transcendental." Seems like over time, like everything else, this whole range of human experience would naturally gather about it stories and myths in the unique flavor of the people who conceived them. Religion seems inevitable sometimes. Is it any surprise that a species of myth makers and story tellers would evolve parallel to its own evolving capacity for language?

To me, "Religion" happens when the stories and myths become literalized and a society neglects the creative struggle to express the higher abstract experiences to which humans are heir - Wonder, Curiosity, Inquiry, Discovery, and Wow! -- with all accompanying lore . With that definition, religion is just a cultural artifact left over when the thrill is gone - a kind of general nostalgia.

Religion. Can't live with it. Can't live without it.

The only way to solve the dilemma seems to be cultivating a sense of scientific curiosity about the world and teaching genuinely open-minded skepticism in the schools. Religion is fine as long as we afford to religious experience the same exacting tests we might apply to anything else we want to learn about.

In a cultural environment like that, Religion would sink or swim - or give way to a new appreciation for the Humanities - a kind of Renaissance maybe. Either way Religion would be challenged to adapt to a more enlightened population.

As an after-thought, it's interesting how consumerism and unregulated capitalism became the weapons of choice for the Dominionists and other doctrinaire power/wealth-spirituality based movements. All you need to be god's chosen is a marketing degree and political leverage. Not much opportunity there for reclaiming the heritage of our civilization to pass on to the next generation.

[SidneyCarton]

53. I find your post most interesting.

As a graduate student in the Humanities (History) I can see what you're saying, strangely enough Historians are far more likely to be Atheists or Agnostics than Biologists (When you figure that one out, let me know, it boggles my mind)

[agent46]

69. Who knows? Maybe it's because Biologists

...actively study the mysterious unknowns of physical life - a phenomenon seemingly near miraculous. Maybe statistically Biologists get to experience a lot more "Wow! moments on the average than your typical book-bound historian.
:shrug:

"Wow!" tends to get people thinking about an elegance and intelligence to things that surpass usual expectations.

[SidneyCarton]

73. Perhaps.

I tend to find a fair share of wow, even in my books. But maybe it's just me.

[Strong Atheist]

49. I see no way to get there from here. I am pretty much resigned to living in

an insane world...

[SidneyCarton]

54. The only way to stay sane in an insane world is to go mad.

(Or so the voices tell me)

Or as Londo Mollari said "The Universe is already mad, anything else would be redundant."

[Strong Atheist]

56. I'll drink to that...

:toast:

[TexasProgresive]

50. Kill'm all and let God sort'm out!

:evilgrin: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
:rofl:snort! It (religion) will always be with us - one way or the other. Idealists never win because we don't choose our battles- It's all or nothing and what you get is nothing.

[PassingFair]

60. Stop teaching religion to your children.

Without the brainwashing and the easy
answers and the discipline via divine
threat, kids will GENERALLY be non-religious.

Fact:

Children tend to believe what their parents
tell them to.

[SidneyCarton]

61. Even if enforcable (which is doubtful) I doubt this would be as successful as you think it would.

[PassingFair]

63. I'm not saying that it should be FORCED...

You just asked how it could be done.

I have LOADS of anecdotal evidence that it works beautifully!

It has been enormously successful with every reproducing atheist that I know.

[laconicsax]

67. You don't--you work to reduce the role of religion.

Actively creating a religion-free society can't be done without infringing on the rights of others. Better to work to make society less religious (in terms of zealous observance). In a less zealously religious society, educating people about the physical universe is easier because there are fewer religious nutjobs seeking to impose their faith-based beliefs on everyone else and more moderate believers unwilling to make excuses for it.

It'd be neat to see a free society completely devoid of religion but altogether unnecessary and probably impossible. I've seen some strong evidence that people are wired for superstitious thinking and where there's superstitious thinking, belief systems based on superstition are never far behind.

It is possible to desensitize people to superstitious thinking by showing them how coincidence can start a cycle where every subsequent coincidence reinforces the superstition and other results are ignored or forgotten. For example "meterologists are always wrong" is a common superstition. Every time a weather forecast is wrong, the belief is reinforced and the times when the forecast is correct are glossed over and forgotten.

[kwassa]

68. Why would we want a religion-free society?

You seem to have passed over that part of the question.

[Evoman]

71. Because religion is lame.

It's sort of like Nickelback fans. You certainly don't want to kill them, or even outlaw Nickleback. But it doesn't mean the world isn't a better place without their shitty brand of turd-rock.

Religion is like Uber-Nickleback.

[SidneyCarton]

74. It would appear that some here might find such a society congenial.

I would not be one of them, but an earlier thread accused R/T forum Atheists of advocating violent repression in order to achieve such a society. This was my way of learning of other possible alternatives.

[laconicsax]

77. You know that accusation was unsubstantiated hyperbole, right?

It was a classic, 'it's true because I say so' accusation.

Call me crazy, but I would assume that if someone honestly advocated imprisonment, torture, and execution as legitimate methods of creating a religion-free society they might chime in on this thread.

Call me crazier, but if the aforementioned methods were widely endorsed by atheists on this board, there'd be at least one serious response along those lines in this thread or the one where the accusation was originally made.

[SidneyCarton]

78. Yes, I know it was hyperbole.

So I was curious what people really thought.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Deep13]

80. That's not the goal.

We cannot and should not hope to control the thoughts of others. We should not damage temples or burn books. In case this is not a given, no one should ever be harmed or coerced because of a private belief.

The goal is a secular society governed by rational and evidence-driven public policy. The way to do that is to enforce the separation of church and state completely. No tax exemptions for non charitable religious activity or property. No tax money for charities that include proselytizing as part of their mission. No tax money for religious schools. As a cultural norm, we need to stop indoctrinating children when they are too young to decide for themselves. (That's a big one.) And we need to feel free to openly challenge the factual claims of religion.