Explain how any of what you said even relates to my claim.

Oh man. I didn't think I'd have to dumb this down, but I reckon I will. (Pulls up pants, spit backy juice) Religious beliefs are deeply ingrained in a culture, but more significantly, into individuals. To the point of them dying in defense of them. They are important, and as such, they should be taken seriously and in some instances (school holidays for example), the state should cater to them. I was also responding to some of your comments further down. The idea that we should ignore religious beliefs when it comes to societal decisions is asinine. What do you think society is comprised of? As for the idea that we should rely on science to make enlightened decisions, or whatever nonsense you were spouting, that is precisely what 20th century communist governments/rebels thought. And they used that to justify the killing of millions. Your ideas are misplaced and, again, asinine. You cannot make a perfect world through science and government coercion.

It would be a better world than that guided by religion. Nothing you said in OP was applicable to the my OP. I understand your qualms, but the problem is that there are so many belief systems that none should be catered to. All people should stop feeling empowered by whatever book they believe in. I realize it is an idealist future and is not possible due to human incompetence, but I was just stating my opinion

It would in no way be a better world than one governed by religion, which it isn't now anyway. The world sucks because people suck. A world governed by "science" will not establish limits on the strong, allowing them to do what they will to the weak. At least in religion (all proper religions anyway) people are restricted by morality, and proper religions at least admonish the strong to take care of the weak. Most of what is good with our civilization is the direct result of Christianity (rights, equality, etc.). Hell, without Christianity, we wouldn't have science as we know it today, including the foundational belief that the universe (nature) is not arbitrary. That is what has allowed so much scientific discovery. Christianity established that framework.

So yeah again there is that religion brings morals argument. Clearly you can not be reasoned with. I have argued with many like you before, all deaf to reason

My point, since you seemed to have missed it, is that Western civilization and all that you hold to be true and good is the result of Christianity. Without it, it is hard to imagine the advances we have made that led to what we have today.

I understand you believe that, but I disagree. We could be so much farther if we successfully separated religion from state after WWII

I'd really like to hear an argument supporting that position. As for my position, nations in which there was the greatest degree of separation, particularly after WWII, were the most brutal. And no, I'm not under any illusions that the US would be able to sustain freedom any better than any other place with those policies. As for the comment you disagreed with, it is historical fact. Not an opinion to be disagreed with. Without Christianity, advances in Western civilization would not have happened.

It is not fact. It is how you interpret history. Myself and many of my colleagues fail to see Christianity as providing any meaningful contributions in the last 100 years

The history of the West is far longer than 100 years. I'm not sure what exactly what Christianity HAS contributed in the past 100 years, but Western civilization has been in a crisis since the beginning of the 20th century, so whatever you think has been the most influential factor in the last century or so has been wildly detrimental. My point is that Christianity laid the groundwork for ideas that we take for granted. Rights, equality, science, philosophy, etc. It was a process that started at least a thousand years ago, if not before. Don't be so short-sighted.

LOLOLOLOL. Religion set those outlines. Don't even kid your self bud. Equality? Garbage, Christians today even have a hard time of being accepting of others. Science? Christianity has drowned anyone who posed discoveries and theories that challenged the Vatican's understandings. Philosophy? Philosophy has been around much longer than Christianity. Christianity has done nothing except drive man to look for alternatives

Wrong. On all accounts. History homie. Read it. Equality? Before Christianity, equality was unheard of. It leveled the playing field, which is why it posed a threat to those in power. You should actually read the Bible. It's quite radical. Science? Where do you think the belief that the universe is governed by established laws came from? Before Christianity, scientific discovery was impossible because the prevailing belief was that nature was not only eternal (it isn't), but also subject to the whims of gods. Christianity took the Greek idea of science (philosophy) and established a universe subject to the laws we now accept without question. Philosophy? I am well aware that it has been around since long before Christianity, but early Christian thinkers took Greek philosophy and removed all the superstition that was embedded in it, applying (yet again) the idea of a universe subject to order and laws. Again, without Christianity, we wouldn't have that. Definitely not in the way we have it now.

I will agree that Christianity acted as a balancer, but it still does not promote equality. I still strongly disagree about science though

I'm telling you right now, as a fact, that Christianity established the idea of equality in the West. I would love to see any evidence to the contrary. As for science, you can disagree if you want, but it's the truth. It's literally the same thing as disagreeing with someone who says the sky is blue. It's a matter of historical record. In the New Testament, the Bible admonishes wives to obey their husbands, husbands to love their wives, slaves to obey their masters, etc. In that age, why would it be necessary to say those things? Women had no choice but to obey their husbands (they had no rights) and slaves had no choice but to obey their masters. There must have been something that was different in Paul's audience, something that requires him to address that issue in particular, otherwise it would make zero sense. The thing that had changed in his audience was Christianity and the message of equality, that all were the same before God. Paul was telling them not to rebel against the culture so that they would remain blameless before both God and their neighbor. It was radical, nonviolent, and peaceful. As for husbands loving their wives, Paul was writing that to encourage men to treat their wives as equals, otherwise why would it matter? If women were less than men, why would they be admonished to love them? Again, it wouldn't make sense. You have to look at early Christian history, not just the weird, bastardized version in the US. I've already given you the specifics on science. If you don't do your own research, you cannot "disagree." Before Christianity, the prevailing thought was an eternal (no beginning) universe that was subject to no consistency or rules. Then, in the Middle Ages, when the Catholic Church became the dominant force in Europe, that changed. Superstition and paganism was replaced with reason and Christianity (officially). The idea that the universe is fixed (not quite right obviously) and subject to rules was a Christian concept that stemmed from the belief in a God who made things orderly and reasonably. Those ideas, while not perfect, paved the way for scientific revolutions. Again, any evidence to the contrary would be appreciated.

So you are just gonna cough up the same stuff over and over again. Christianity crushes science. Look at galileo. Look at how the church accepted the heliocentric theory hundreds of years later. Open your eyes. Christianity does nothing to support equality. The good ole west loved slavery, despite being good christians. But thats ok with you right, because your silly little book says it is.

I never once said that all of the practices in the West were good, and I would even go so far as to argue that current trends in the West are by no means better. Western civilization has been in a state of crisis since the end of the 19th century, but you keep holding onto the dead Enlightenment way of thinking. You have not refuted any one of my points. Not a single one. I give you proof, you come back with emotions. I explain that the foundations of all that is good in Western civilization is the result of Christianity. You show me a couple of garbage examples (though somewhat correct) and expect that that's good enough. It isn't. Use your mind. Use your reason. Read. Learn. All I have seen so far is a complete failure to accept evidence. In fact, it seems that you have fallen into the very same pattern that you have accused religion of acting within. Intellectual integrity. Honesty. Willingness to accept evidence and debate accordingly. That's all I'm asking. Apparently that's too much.

You have provided no evidence. Blanket statements that can not be proven are not facts. GG. Seriously, you accuse me of not providing facts but everything you have stated has been huge generalizations that are not even accurate. GG

I gave you very specific examples of grand, complex ideas. If that's too much, I understand. But nothing I said was a generalization.

EVERYTHING YOU HAVE SAID HAS BEEN A GENERALIZATION. Why do I even bother arguing with Christians, they are all hypocrytes. They wont even accept it, yet they achieve this hypocracy with an astounding frequency and magnitude.

Additionally, how does anything I have stated make me a hypocrite? Or is that another word you don't understand? Do you use "ironic" a lot too?

Oh god it's the without religion there wouldn't be morals argument