<p>I never said that, I said that is what the Age of Enlightment was. It was of science and “rational” thinking. It was a philosophy of intellectual and science not involved with religion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah but you don’t blame the entire population for the actions of few.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So what does that have to do with religion? The fact of the matter is that during that time most if not all people were religious.</p>
<p>I think you’re categorizing religion and scientific thinking as mutually exclusive.</p>
<p>Religion in America is fu<em>ked up. Why are we so religious in comparison with almost all other developed nations (see: Europe)? Religion does good and religion does bad, but without religion, we could still establish social structures that enabled the good while disabling the bad. But then again, some people just *need</em> a higher power as a reason for their lives. Nietzsche notes that Christianity was a slave religion - and he’s right, to a large extent. Religion allows people to accept their place in life, no matter how ****ty, because God will make it all worthwhile for you in the end. Keep you in your place. Learn to enjoy being subservient to others, learn to realize that “money” and “status” aren’t everything, all I have to do is be “happy” and love “God”.</p>
<p>Hmmm I’m going to be Ayn Rand for a moment and say that selfishness is good 
go money! Bad Robin Hood >:(.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is that necessarily a bad thing?</p>
<p>I don’t know what the original purpose of the OP was, but I think this thread has gone from an honest inquiry to the typical “religion is bad” debates.</p>
<p>Okay, more inquiry then.</p>
<p>^^^ Yes, because the rationale of religious people to act “good,” “subservient,” “selfless,” whatever, stems from irrational beliefs. I would like to see people act good not from fear of hell or feeling obliged to do so for “divine” purposes, but from their personalities and their understanding of our world. </p>
<p>America is becoming more secular. It’s only a matter of time before complete separation of church and state takes place.</p>
<p>Whether the founding fathers were devout Christians or Deists has no place on the role of religion in today’s society. Most of them never intended any religion or denomination to be prominent in American politics, and that is how it should be.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m afraid you’ve missed it entirely on the Nietzsche part. </p>
<p>When Nietzsche wrote about Christianity and it’s “slave morality,” he was hardly talking about people’s tendency to believe in things like God. Rather, he was criticizing Christianity because it sought to make everyone equal. He saw equality as a tool for the weak, the “slaves,” to overcome the strong. It forced a common set of moral values upon everyone. It held that the “common good” was what was most important, a concept that Nietzsche abhorred. God has nothing to do with it, quite simply. Conformity and imposed moral values were the problem. Nietzsche would be just as critical of an atheistic movement like Marxism.</p>
<p>^^Exactly what I believe, too.</p>
<p>
Except that you’ve either completely misread most religious dogma or have skipped reading it and made assumptions. Fear of punishment, mortal or divine, is not an acceptable reason to be good in the vast majority of religions. Graciousness, however, is. You endorse good deeds coming from people’s “understanding of our world,” but you reject the reasons behind their acts if that understanding includes a deity?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Another faulty generalization. How do you know that everyone is acting out of fear? And since when was doing good bad? No matter what the justification is, isn’t doing good to others what we all seek for, religious or nonreligious?</p>
<p>I am glad that John Locke and Thomas Paine had an influence on the Founding Father’s. Without them, we would probably not have the seperation of Church and State. I’m not entirely sure if John Locke or Thomas Paine were religious, though, I think they did have a huge impact on religion during that era. The Age of Enlightment was a fascinating era, I wish I could study more about it other than what I learned in APUSH. :)</p>
<p>Separation of church and state came before Locke and Paine. Roger Williams from Rhode Island was the first American settler to promote the idea of disestablishment.</p>
<p>No offense, but you must’ve had a ****ty APUSH class if you learned that slavery was caused by religion.</p>
<p>No, that is my opinion. We never learned that slavery came from religion. Yet, if you look back, it was mainly religious individuals who owned slaves.</p>
<p>And I know it did, but Locke and Paine influenced the Founding Fathers immensely during that era. Because of the Enlightment era, the Founding Fathers created the constitution based on Deism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you look back, most if not all people were religious.</p>
<p>Exactly my point. hahaha.</p>
<p>@Millancad and thrillnite: I know that fear is not a plausible argument (although it is a reason nonetheless for some religious people), hence why I gave a second example. Especially you, thrillnite, twisted what I said by stating that I meant “everyone.” I’m especially careful about my rhetoric when it comes to using extremities. </p>
<p>I stated or implied numerous times on these boards that I strongly favor reason. To me, a good deed is without too much substance if the motivation comes from religious reasons. To Millancad, to answer your question, yes. “Our world” does not need religion and can be interpreted without it. I’ve been wanting to say “I’d rather live in a world of blunt truth than in one with beautiful lies.” More or less, I want people to do deeds from a humanistic and reasonable approach. The way I see it, if people do things for religious reasons, whether it’s from fear/graciousness/obligation/to achieve holy status/whatever, then their deed loses substance.</p>
<p>As dogmatic as I may sound here, but to remove misconceptions about my beliefs, my toleration ends wherever reason does. Anything can be justified as containing reason, but religion isn’t certainly one to be considered as such with impunity (or even with decent amount of support).</p>
<p>Interpret what I said however you want, but I don’t think I’d like to participate in this increasingly-controversial debate and I would like to get back on topic.</p>
<p>Lastly, I would appreciate if all of you give your opinion on how long religion will be prominent in American society:</p>
<p>Less than 100 years
For a few hundred more years
More than 1000 years
Forever</p>
<p>the OP is sort of stupid. Someone had to say it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is easily explained by the fact that most people were religious at this point in time; it was the societal norm. The same thing for owning slaves, pretty much. Religious justification was pretty much an after-thought.</p>