Elder Oaks Tackles a Hard Hitting Question

[LDSGator]

5 minutes ago, Godless said:

You can bring the hammer down and maybe they'll snap out of it. Or maybe they'll spend a significant portion of their adult life resenting you for

There is a third option. My devoutly Catholic parents are mortified that I’m LDS. We agree to love one another and don’t talk about religion. Works like a charm, everyone is happy.  Maybe parents of LGBTQ+ could do the same? 

Edited June 7, 2023 by LDSGator
Clicked post too quickly

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, old said:

The "perfect as you are" nonsense has just got to go.  It is poison and it is destructive.  If one is "perfect just as one is"; then life is absolutely meaningless; no purpose, no goals to achieve, no mountains to climb, it's just blah.  And what a pitiful existence.

With all due respect, I don't think my existence is pitiful or without purpose, goals, and meaning.

21 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

There is a third option. My devoutly Catholic parents are mortified that I’m LDS. We agree to love one another and don’t talk about religion. Works like a charm, everyone is happy.  Maybe parents of LGBTQ+ could do the same? 

That's more or less the relationship I have with my parents. Things improved drastically once they stopped trying to "fix" me.

Edited June 7, 2023 by Godless

[LDSGator]

Just now, Godless said:

With all due respect, I don't think my existence is pitiful or without purpose, goals, and meaning.

It’s not. We all love you bro. 

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, Godless said:

With all due respect, I don't think my existence is pitiful or without purpose, goals, and meaning.

Joking aside, @old has a good point. Those who truly consider themselves perfect have no motivation to change anything about themselves, and no reason ever to suppose they they are wrong or at fault in anything.

[LDSGator]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

Joking aside, @old has a good point. Those who truly consider themselves perfect have no motivation to change anything about themselves, and no reason ever to suppose they they are wrong or at fault in anything.

Usually the greatest, most moral people out there admit how they fall short-and it’s not just lip service for them. 

[Guest Godless]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

Joking aside, @old has a good point. Those who truly consider themselves perfect have no motivation to change anything about themselves, and no reason ever to suppose they they are wrong or at fault in anything.

No argument here. In fact, I'd say that improving myself IS one of my major goals and purposes in life. But there's a balance between working on yourself and accepting who you are. There's a potentially better version of me that exists, but that doesn't mean that I reject who I am now.

[Vort]

1 minute ago, Godless said:

No argument here. In fact, I'd say that improving myself IS one of my major goals and purposes in life. But there's a balance between working on yourself and accepting who you are. There's a potentially better version of me that exists, but that doesn't mean that I reject who I am now.

I agree with what you wrote, but I suspect my interpretation of what you wrote is somewhat different from what you meant in writing it. For example, if I find an aspect of my sexuality that I think is wrong and detrimental, I work to change it rather than just to accept myself as I am. So there is a line to be drawn, and I suspect we draw that line at different places.

[Guest Godless]

37 minutes ago, Vort said:

I agree with what you wrote, but I suspect my interpretation of what you wrote is somewhat different from what you meant in writing it. For example, if I find an aspect of my sexuality that I think is wrong and detrimental, I work to change it rather than just to accept myself as I am. So there is a line to be drawn, and I suspect we draw that line at different places.

That's perfectly fair. And the punchline is that ultimately it's up to the individual to determine if changes need to be made and what those changes might be, whether it's sexuality, sugar intake, media consumption, or any other life choices that don't have adverse impact beyond the individual (and I recognize that we might have different ideas regarding this as well).

[Vort]

1 minute ago, Godless said:

That's perfectly fair. And the punchline is that ultimately it's up to the individual to determine if changes need to be made and what those changes might be, whether it's sexuality, sugar intake, media consumption, or any other life choices that don't have adverse impact beyond the individual (and I recognize that we might have different ideas regarding this as well).

I was going to argue that it's up to God, not us, from a theological point of view. But upon further reflection, I realized that even in a non-Godless situation, it's still very much up to us. So I agree with you.

My only addition is that there is an objectively right determination and an objectively wrong determination (or a set of right determinations and a set of wrong determinations). It's important to choose the right. Without the guidance of God (obviously speaking from a theistic viewpoint), we often are not capable of finding that objectively correct choice, because we assume there is no objective morality, only the rules that we make up for ourselves.

[old]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

There is a third option. My devoutly Catholic parents are mortified that I’m LDS. We agree to love one another and don’t talk about religion. Works like a charm, everyone is happy.  Maybe parents of LGBTQ+ could do the same? 

Well yes; once a child is grown the role of the parent moves into more of a "give advice when consulted" role.  The problem becomes that too many parents put the cart before the horse.  They switch to the "give advice when consulted" role at age 10 . . .instead of age 18.  Ideally the process is a gradual one.  A child at 10 has no real concept of when it would be appropriate to ask for advice, while at age 18 the child wants absolutely 0 advice and wants to do everything one his own.  

If things have proceeded relatively well, by the time the child is mid-late 20s he'll come around and realize . . .oh yeah . . .maybe mom and dad actually did know something . . .not everything . . . but they were a heck of a lot wiser than I gave them credit for.

LGBTQ+ junk vastly formed during the childhood years while the child is under one's roof. In those instances it is the same as with drug use, alcohol, porn, etc.

If a 15 year old said "mom, dad, I'm going to look at porn all day long, and you just have to accept me and if you don't you are bigoted evil people", no sane parent would say "yeah you are right-we will do nothing and just let you watch porn all day long.".

It's the same with LGBTQ+. It doesn't just appear out of no-where.  It is something that is created, by small measures. Just like any vice is created.  A child does not go from 0 porn to watching naked people have sex. It goes by degrees... first swimsuit magazines, lingerie magazines, then maybe youtube videos, step by step by step . . until the full fruit of that path is born.

Parents have a real challenge these days to properly train their children in sexual matters and sadly most parents have abrogated their responsibility to someone else rather than properly teach their children right thinking, right feeling, and right acting with sexual things.

[old]

2 hours ago, Godless said:

Instilling your values in your child is one thing. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. How you respond if those values don't stick is another matter. You can bring the hammer down and maybe they'll snap out of it. Or maybe they'll spend a significant portion of their adult life resenting you for it. I've seen the latter play out many times, not just in my own personal experience. 

The sad reality is that yes, in some cases, queer kids literally don't get love at home, just abuse masquerading as "tough love". As I said, I don’t believe in being a 100% permissive parent. Discipline has a place in the home. But it has to come from a true place of love, and sometimes that means taking a step back and letting kids work through the consequences of their choices.

That's not true at all. It was less commonplace, sure. And it was also less visible because we didn't have the internet giving us an eternal window to the entire world. People who think that trans and other LGBTQ lifestyles are so much more commonplace now forget that it used to be a lot harder for us to see outside of our bubbles. And as bad as anti-LGBTQ bigotry is now, it used to be a lot worse. There's still work to do to make LGBTQ folks feel safe in our society, but we've come a long way in 30 years. Gay/trans people feel safer now than they ever did in the past, so they're making themselves more visible than they used to be. But a lot of them have been around for years, hiding their true selves out of concern for their safety. 

Maybe they will resent or maybe they won't.  The concept that a parent should be worried about what FEELINGS their child will have in the FUTURE regarding their raising of them is a fool's game. Why? Because it is unknowable. A brat child that says "I hate you!!!" to mom at age 15 may at age 25 apologize or at age 25 may be even more spoiled. It is one of the flaws in modern society-parents give more heed to a child's feelings than to doing what is right. Feelings are fickle, they come and go and they are not the right basis upon which to form a stable life.  Learning how to control our feelings is a process of a lifetime.  However, given that I know that feelings are fickle, if a child yells "I hate you!!!", it's more a . . okay . . . if I were an immature teenager I'd probably feel the same way . . .so I understand and I'm not going to allow those feelings to deter how I raise you.

Instilling those values is all a matter of balance at the right age.  For example, we go to Church.  That is just what we do as a family-I don't care if you do not like going to Church, as a family we go to Church, end of story. Now, as a child gets older and if the child doesn't want to go to extra Church activities-okay I won't force going to this camp or that camp or this activity or that activity.  I'll encourage it-but I'm not going to make a child go to YW activities.  You will however go to Church on Sunday. I would never "force" or "coerce" a child to serve a mission.  You are 18, you make your own decision about it.  

So "bringing the hammer down" it just depends on what hammer needs to be brought down, when and where and how much.  Raising a child in fact isn't so much about "bringing the hammer down"-it's about having the proper vision for the values you want to instill and then making modifications, adjustments, discipline when needed, etc. to instill those values.

I call bull-dookie (can I use that word MODS???) on queer kids not getting enough love at home.  That's a nice story but false.  More likely it's queer kid says "mom/dad you must address me as Dragon Lord"; parent: "no, that's ridiculous".  Queer kid goes boo hooing to anyone who will give them an ear . . ."mom and dad HATE me!!!!" It's just a symptom of spoiled rotten kids that's all and spoiled rotten kids love to play the victim, love to claim "nooooobooooody looooovess meeeee" . . .why? Because they are used to getting their way.  And when mom/dad say no to this, they throw a fit and there is a ready made "community" of a bunch of other spoiled rotten individuals waiting to tell them "we love you MORE than your evil parents".

Ever watch the movie "Inception"?  The man's wife dies b/c he put an idea into her head that grew and grew and grew.  That is what is happening to children.  Ideas are put into their head, primarily b/c yes they have access to the internet. . . and those ideas grow and grow and grow.  ESPECIALLY when there is a ready-made community who "affirms" them, calls them "brave", etc. and feeds their childish selfishness.

It is easy to prove that 30 years ago this was not a thing.  Very accurate companies have done polling on this for many years and the number of children identifying as LGBTQ+ has skyrocketed over the last 10 years. The other fatal logical flaw in the LGBTQ+ group is the idea that "if we don't affirm these kids they will commit suicide!!!!!"  Okay sure; let's go with that.  So given that society was much, much less affirming 30 years ago, we would expect to see 1000s upon 1000s of dead teenagers by suicide b/c they weren't "affirmed". . . ..except we don't . . .and we see the OPPOSITE happening.  MORE teen suicides as society has become more accepting not LESS.

The idea that there is any real measure of anti-LGBTQ+ bigotry is delusional. Yes, so much anti-LGBTQ+ bigotry when half the companies in the Western Hemisphere for the whole month of June have rainbow colors . . .when people get fired for not "affirming".  

Come on man . . .that is just so incredibly delusional.  But that is what the LGBTQ+ does . . .play the victim . . .nothing is ever good enough for them and if normal people don't acquiesce they will kill themselves, will kill you, will fire you, will dox you, etc. etc. etc.

They are nothing but a bunch of terrorists.

 

[old]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

No argument here. In fact, I'd say that improving myself IS one of my major goals and purposes in life. But there's a balance between working on yourself and accepting who you are. There's a potentially better version of me that exists, but that doesn't mean that I reject who I am now.

That is good . . .but there is a flaw.  You are godless; so HOW do you know what "working on yourself" and "improvement" really is.  In other words, how do you know that the goals you set for working on yourself are really good?  Maybe they are bad?  Without a fundamental moral basis, one cannot know which values are good and which are bad.  

[old]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

I was going to argue that it's up to God, not us, from a theological point of view. But upon further reflection, I realized that even in a non-Godless situation, it's still very much up to us. So I agree with you.

My only addition is that there is an objectively right determination and an objectively wrong determination (or a set of right determinations and a set of wrong determinations). It's important to choose the right. Without the guidance of God (obviously speaking from a theistic viewpoint), we often are not capable of finding that objectively correct choice, because we assume there is no objective morality, only the rules that we make up for ourselves.

Yes, exactly.

The atheists in this country have the LUXURY of being atheist.  What do I mean by that?  They are riding off the coattails of Christian society and extracting out value structures that are found in Christianity.  Without an overriding base moral system to generate their value system from . . .they are listless.

This is evident as other cultures across the world currently and throughout history have not and do not have the same moral structure as the West.  

The Chinese most certainly do not.  They locked thousands into apartment complexes, welded buildings shut and people jumped to death.  The moral framework that allowed them to do that to their people is a fundamentally different moral structure than a Christian framework.

The biggest problem with atheists in the west and this current secular society is that it takes some Christian values without Christ.  Those fundamental values simply do not operate, or work long-term without a belief in a Savior.

[Guest Godless]

7 hours ago, old said:

That is good . . .but there is a flaw.  You are godless; so HOW do you know what "working on yourself" and "improvement" really is.  In other words, how do you know that the goals you set for working on yourself are really good?  Maybe they are bad?  Without a fundamental moral basis, one cannot know which values are good and which are bad.  

What makes you think atheists lack a fundamental moral basis? We don't fully agree with yours, but that doesn't mean we don't have one. 

To answer your question, I determine for myself what my goals should be and how to best improve my life. I don't always get it right, but that's not the end of the world (usually). 

7 hours ago, old said:

The atheists in this country have the LUXURY of being atheist.  What do I mean by that?  They are riding off the coattails of Christian society and extracting out value structures that are found in Christianity.  Without an overriding base moral system to generate their value system from . . .they are listless.

Christians didn't invent morality, nor do they have a monopoly on it. What if Jews and Muslims have been right about pork all this time? I imagine you and I would both be screwed.

7 hours ago, old said:

This is evident as other cultures across the world currently and throughout history have not and do not have the same moral structure as the West.  

Western civilization was built with slavery, war, genocide, and geographical exploitation. A lot of the instability in places like Africa, Central America, and the Middle East can be directly traced to Western intervention. And a lot of it was done under the guise of religious (primarily Christian) destiny. So spare me the "righteous West" discourse.

7 hours ago, old said:

The biggest problem with atheists in the west and this current secular society is that it takes some Christian values without Christ.  Those fundamental values simply do not operate, or work long-term without a belief in a Savior.

Sure they do. As I said, Christians don't have a monopoly on morality any more than Hindus, atheists, or Buddhists. You may not agree with all of my values, but that doesn't make them universally wrong. Your god may take issue with that, but I'm not obligated to please him. This is America, not Afghanistan.

Edited June 8, 2023 by Godless

[person0]

7 hours ago, Godless said:

I determine for myself what my goals should be and how to best improve my life.

That is the problem.  If morality is not sourced to a higher authority (a.k.a. God), then there can be no basis for moral absolutes.  What you determine for yourself and what others determine for themselves can be vastly different, to the extent that some will justify any act.

7 hours ago, Godless said:

What if Jews and Muslims have been right about pork all this time?

That sense of right and wrong comes from God as their source.  Regardless of whether or not they have an accurate understanding of God's laws, they still see themselves as accountable to Him and as the source of all truth, including moral absolutes.

Without God, there is no absolute moral source with which to compare one's self.  A sense of morality without an eternal and universal source is irrelevant to any other being in existence aside from the individual who ascribes to it.

All that said, the truth is that mankind's innate sense of morality is sourced from the Light of Christ, regardless of belief in Him.

[Guest Godless]

55 minutes ago, person0 said:

That is the problem.  If morality is not sourced to a higher authority (a.k.a. God), then there can be no basis for moral absolutes.  What you determine for yourself and what others determine for themselves can be vastly different, to the extent that some will justify any act.

That sense of right and wrong comes from God as their source.  Regardless of whether or not they have an accurate understanding of God's laws, they still see themselves as accountable to Him and as the source of all truth, including moral absolutes.

Without God, there is no absolute moral source with which to compare one's self.  A sense of morality without an eternal and universal source is irrelevant to any other being in existence aside from the individual who ascribes to it.

All that said, the truth is that mankind's innate sense of morality is sourced from the Light of Christ, regardless of belief in Him.

Most of our essential moral values are perfectly capable of existing without a god. Don't kill, don't rape, don't lie, and don't steal are the only moral absolutes that really matter. A society, religious or not, can't survive without a generally universal acceptance of these moral values. 

[person0]

9 minutes ago, Godless said:

Most of our essential moral values are perfectly capable of existing without a god. Don't kill, don't rape, don't lie, and don't steal are the only moral absolutes that really matter. A society, religious or not, can't survive without a generally universal acceptance of these moral values. 

At the societal level, such would be wise to enforce for the longevity of society, however, at the individual level, outside of the fear of punishment by societal enforcement, there is no reason to adhere to such morals when there is value or gain to be had in breaking them, especially lying and stealing, but the others as well.  That is why one of the first things murder investigators try to establish is motive.  With motive and no source of moral absolutes, there is no morality that applies at the individual level.

[Backroads]

On 5/29/2023 at 7:31 PM, Godless said:

Interestingly enough, there are people who feel this way about supervisors/coworkers who are very religious and like to broadcast it. Obviously, that's their prerogative, just as it's your prerogative to seek employment in an environment that you consider a safe space for conservative Christians.

But I'd assert that failing to look beyond rainbow stickers, pronouns, red hats, and bible quotes and approaching people as people is how this country became so socially and ideologically divided. And yes, I'm guilty of it too.

I think we're all guilty of it to some extent. I was catching up on this thread and felt prompted to reply here, so here we go:

I do try to make an honest and earnest effort to love others, and to a degree I think I'm pretty good at it and can adopt a live-and-let-live attitude. The administrator directly over me at my job was a woman I initially worried about, however. Very progressive (which while common enough many people are surprised to see at a charter school), practically pioneered the pronoun inclusion in her communication, and while not exactly outspoken doesn't hide her views.

At this point I'd take a bullet for that woman. She is amazing and truly loving and adores the LDS people (apparently an LDS family took her in during a hard time in her youth) and spoke up for our more conservative families when there was some issues with the curriculum.

Yes, we love our ideologies and I think even the best of us have trouble seeing beyond our pet biases. But I think we can all make an effort.

[NeuroTypical]

10 hours ago, Godless said:

What makes you think atheists lack a fundamental moral basis? We don't fully agree with yours, but that doesn't mean we don't have one. 

Yay!  Glad you're here Godless.  I've heard many atheists say this same thing, but I've never heard one actually spell it out.  Ok, you say you have a fundamental moral basis - what is it?  Is this it?:

1 hour ago, Godless said:

Don't kill, don't rape, don't lie, and don't steal are the only moral absolutes that really matter. A society, religious or not, can't survive without a generally universal acceptance of these moral values. 

If that's not it, I do hope you'll share or clarify.  

Christian's fundamental moral basis: God is the ultimate arbiter of good and bad, and if He says it's bad, it's bad.  Most of the time it's not hard to figure out why.

Atheist's fundamental moral basis: ??

(If you can put it so simply a 10 year old can understand it, I'd really appreciate it.  )

Edited June 8, 2023 by NeuroTypical

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

Most of our essential moral values are perfectly capable of existing without a god. 

Strange, then, that basically every human culture (that I know of) that has lasted any significant time has included a belief in divine moral codes and the worship of some kind of god or gods. Do you have any evidence of long-lasting societies that have existed without a god?

1 hour ago, Godless said:

Don't kill, don't rape, don't lie, and don't steal are the only moral absolutes that really matter.

Which god proclaimed this? Or are you stating this as a self-evident truth? Because it is not.

1 hour ago, Godless said:

A society, religious or not, can't survive without a generally universal acceptance of these moral values. 

I think I do not agree with this. Every element of your "moral values" list is tolerated by pretty much every human society ever, including all those that survived for any length of time.

1 hour ago, Godless said:

Don't kill,

This one is clearly false. All societies, almost without exception, have allowed human killings (I assume you weren't including the killing of animals or plants) as a lawful activity under certain conditions. I doubt you will even attempt to defend this one; it's too easily disproven.

1 hour ago, Godless said:

don't rape,

According to feminist ideology, women have been forcibly raped literally from the dawn of time. Some go even further and state that every pregnancy ever conceived has been done through an act of rape. Even ignoring this extreme idea, no society ever at any time has protected women from rape. Yet all those societies have existed, and many have endured. As a feminist, you must acknowledge that your "don't rape" moral absolute absolutely is not an absolute, and that the practice has endured literally forever.

1 hour ago, Godless said:

don't lie,

This cannot be a moral absolute, because it is unenforceable. Can you provide me an example of an enduring society where lying, a moral absolute, was successfully disallowed? Nazi Germany, perhaps, where no part of the population ever lied about hiding Jews in their basements, and no Nazi soldiers ever dishonestly accepted a transparently false profession of innocence about the crime of hiding Jews?

1 hour ago, Godless said:

don't steal

According to many of the entire spectrum of political stripes and camps, government taxation of various types is exactly this. Yet government taxation has been a feature of, I would guess, all governed societies to some degree. However that may be, given that many lay claim to property that is not theirs and, through their power or connections or wiles, manage to make that claim legally upheld, this appears to be another invalid assertion.

My observation is that atheists, who have existed throughout recorded history, often like to proclaim the non-essential nature of religion and the uselessness of religious beliefs and practices. Yet these people who have always been with us can offer no examples throughout all history of an enduring society that lacks these things that they berate. Such a claim reminds me greatly of the man-hating feminists who insist that men are literally useless and that the world would be a far better place if all men were put to death (assuming that human, meaning female, cloning were perfected). I mean, good luck with that.

[askandanswer]

I've often thought that the government's attitude and behaviour towards organised religion in the Soviet Union was an important contributor to the fall of the former Soviet empire. On the other hand, the actions and attitudes of the government of China seems to be even more repressive than that of the former Soviet empire, and so far they don't look like falling - maybe faltering here and there, but not falling. 

[person0]

This is somewhat uplifting.  75% of members are not comfortable with alternative pronouns.

https://www.axios.com/2023/06/08/survey-religion-race-shape-divide-pronoun-usage

[Grunt]

11 hours ago, person0 said:

This is somewhat uplifting.  75% of members are not comfortable with alternative pronouns.

https://www.axios.com/2023/06/08/survey-religion-race-shape-divide-pronoun-usage

That's an oddly worded poll question, in my humble opinion.

[person0]

39 minutes ago, Grunt said:

That's an oddly worded poll question, in my humble opinion.

Yes, for sure.  I saw it from someone else who shared it and was pointing out that the pollsters tried to be misleading but still came away with the fact that the majority of religious people are not okay with alternative pronouns.

[Guest Godless]

On 6/8/2023 at 9:59 AM, NeuroTypical said:

Yay!  Glad you're here Godless.  I've heard many atheists say this same thing, but I've never heard one actually spell it out.  Ok, you say you have a fundamental moral basis - what is it?  Is this it?:

If that's not it, I do hope you'll share or clarify.  

I believe that the principles I mentioned are the core of moral fiber. And @Vort is right, they're not necessarily universal. Every rule has exceptions, which imo only strengthens the idea that true universal morality is a myth.

On 6/8/2023 at 9:59 AM, NeuroTypical said:

Christian's fundamental moral basis: God is the ultimate arbiter of good and bad, and if He says it's bad, it's bad.  Most of the time it's not hard to figure out why.

Atheist's fundamental moral basis: ??

(If you can put it so simply a 10 year old can understand it, I'd really appreciate it.  )

The atheist's fundamental moral basis: don't be a jerk. Being a jerk gets you ostracized, and ostracization is generally considered bad. If you want to be immoral, be a hermit. 

One key difference between atheist moral codes and (most) theistic ones is our stance on sexuality. So long as all parties involved are consenting and adults*, whatever. If not, *points to sign* don't be a jerk. Rapists and pedophiles are jerks. 

*Re: LGBTQ youth (and the T in particular) - You're not going to agree with this, but it's healthy to safely explore one's sexuality prior to adulthood. It's part of coming of age. I'm not saying minors should be having sex. I'm saying that they're going to think about it while they're minors, and trying to make them not think about it isn't particularly helpful. That being said, and I know I'm in the minority on my own side about this, I don't believe that transition surgery should be performed on minors. Puberty blockers and hormone therapy (after extensive, comprehensive gender counseling), sure. Surgery, no. 

 

On 6/8/2023 at 10:19 AM, Vort said:

According to many of the entire spectrum of political stripes and camps, government taxation of various types is exactly this. Yet government taxation has been a feature of, I would guess, all governed societies to some degree. However that may be, given that many lay claim to property that is not theirs and, through their power or connections or wiles, manage to make that claim legally upheld, this appears to be another invalid assertion.

To those who feel this way, I would say don't send your kids to school. Don't use public roads, tunnels, or bridges. Don't use public libraries, parks, transportation, or recreational facilities. Don't call the fire department if your house is on fire. Don't call the police if you're the victim of a crime. You see where I'm going with this?

On 6/8/2023 at 10:19 AM, Vort said:

My observation is that atheists, who have existed throughout recorded history, often like to proclaim the non-essential nature of religion and the uselessness of religious beliefs and practices. Yet these people who have always been with us can offer no examples throughout all history of an enduring society that lacks these things that they berate. 

I would argue that religion has an essential place in history, but not necessarily in our present. And religion doesn't necessarily mean gods. Daoists, Taoists, and Buddhists have thrived for centuries without a tangible belief in a deity. Nontheistic spirituality has been around longer than Christianity. Atheism (in terms of giving it a religious identity, some would call it humanism) isn't that big of a step away from that. Heck, it's not even incompatible with those belief systems.