Secular Versus None-Secular

[not-christian]

Hi!

I just registered and wanted to ask a question I never get answered by theist, and was hoping you guys could help me out. My question is simple and straightforward:

Why are secular societies superior to none-secular ones? (The people of the most secular societies on the planet live longer, healther, safer lives etc, as well as in highly technologically advanced socities, compared to then none-secular ones, why?)

 

[JustMeSee]

Welcome to Christian forums.

 

[not-christian]

Well, Hi Jee.

 

[ragarth]

Interesting question! I'm interested in hearing the answer to this question from a theistic standpoint as well.

 

[Washington]

Welcome.

I honestly have never heard of any society that qualifies as truly secular. All appear to have the trappings of one or more religions to some degree or another. As for a hypothetical secular society, I can see its citizenry suffering from the anxiety produced by the lack of comfort religion provides. Many people simply can't function well in life without the security of religious belief, and succumbing to this need, will adopt whatever works, no matter how absurd.

 

[DarkProphet]

Welcome.

I honestly have never heard of any society that qualifies as truly secular. All appear to have the trappings of one or more religions to some degree or another. As for a hypothetical secular society, I can see its citizenry suffering from the anxiety produced by the lack of comfort religion provides. Many people simply can't function well in life without the security of religious belief, and succumbing to this need, will adopt whatever works, no matter how absurd.

France tries hard to be as secular as possible so I think that would qualify as a secular society and they live longer then most other societies.

 

[Washington]

France tries hard to be as secular as possible so I think that would qualify as a secular society and they live longer then most other societies.

Over half identified themselves as religiously "faithful."

FRANCE
The Government does not keep statistics on religious affiliation. According to press reports, only 12 percent of the population attends religious services of any faith more than once per month. Asked about religious faith in a 2003 poll, 54 percent of those polled identified themselves as "faithful," 33 percent as atheist, 14 percent as agnostic, and 26 percent as "indifferent." The vast majority of the population is nominally Roman Catholic, but according to one member of the Catholic hierarchy, only 8 percent of the population are practicing Catholics. Muslims constitute the second largest religious group, with approximately 4 to 5 million adherents, or approximately 7 to 8 percent of the population. Protestants make up 2 percent of the population, and the Jewish and Buddhist faiths each represent 1 percent, with those of the Sikh faith less than 1 percent. According to various estimates, approximately 6 percent of the country's citizens are unaffiliated with any religion.

source
​

 

[not-christian]

Welcome.

I honestly have never heard of any society that qualifies as truly secular. All appear to have the trappings of one or more religions to some degree or another. As for a hypothetical secular society, I can see its citizenry suffering from the anxiety produced by the lack of comfort religion provides. Many people simply can't function well in life without the security of religious belief, and succumbing to this need, will adopt whatever works, no matter how absurd.

Well, you are wrong, I dont know if i should say "Trust me", and "could you answer the question", or just give up

Sweden is usually an example of a highly secular society, and most of the European nations are. They are, AS A PEOPLE secular.

Now, back to the question, without talking about any specific nation?

 

[Washington]

Well, you are wrong, I dont know if i should say "Trust me", and "could you answer the question", or just give up

Sweden is usually an example of a highly secular society, and most of the European nations are. They are, AS A PEOPLE secular.

I have no idea what you're implying by your, "AS A PEOPLE," but assume it's suppose to have some kind devastating effect on data such as the following.

"Sweden was pagan before the 11th century, when the country underwent Christianization. Since the Protestant Reformation in the 1530s, the country is Lutheran, with the Church of Sweden (Swedish: Svenska kyrkan) being allowed the status of state church until 2000. As of 2006, 75.6% of the Swedes were members of the church. "

source
​

"Religions by country as 2007"

Country or Territory: Sweden

Christian . . . . 75% - 90%
Muslim . . . . . 3%
Buddhist . . . . 0.2%
Hindu . . . . . .0.08% - 0.12%
Others . . . . . 0.3%*

source

​

AS A PEOPLE, are the Swedes who comprise the above data somehow not true Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and Others?

Morover, just how can I be wrong that I have never heard of something? Do you know that I heard of a society that qualifies as truely secular? If so, please tell me when I did this. And, just where is the wrong in what appears to me? Either something does or it does not. It may be factually incorrect, but this has no effect on how it appears TO ME. You're coming across as one strange dude, n-c.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Secularism isn't the same as atheism. 100% of the population could be devoutly religious (and even of the same religion) but still live in a secular nation, one that does not force a particular religion on its people or try to advance specifically religious goals. In this sense, pretty much all developed nations, and a lot developing ones, to my knowledge are secular.

To the OP, I'm not sure whether it could be said that secular societies are universally superior to non-secular ones. There are plenty of underdeveloped, unstable nations that are secular, and some non-secular nations are better off than they are. But in general I get your point that people in secular societies tend to be better off.

I'd say it's because liberal democracy is fundamental to a stable, developed society where people flourish, and liberal democracies are inherently secular. That's not to say I think religion impedes development, but that state-imposed religion does. Religion and secularism are not opposites.

 

[Tenka]

Why are secular societies superior to none-secular ones?

Only secular democracies are better.

 

[Axioma]

Well, as far as I'm concerned, getting rid of religious misogyny is a definate plus for a society. Of course, I have to admit to some bias in this matter, what with being female and therefore having some selfish interest in not seeing society run by people who believe women belong in the kitchen.

 

[Verv]

Hi!

I just registered and wanted to ask a question I never get answered by theist, and was hoping you guys could help me out. My question is simple and straightforward:

Why are secular societies superior to none-secular ones? (The people of the most secular societies on the planet live longer, healther, safer lives etc, as well as in highly technologically advanced socities, compared to then none-secular ones, why?)

Because freedom is superior to chains and also because Christianity is based on the free will of individuals to choose.

You cannot forcefeed anyone anything and expect good results.

One must let them objectively decide.

Because some people are bound to violate God's will, why try to prevent it with senseless laws?

 

[brightmorningstar]

The definition of secular I found in the free on-line dictionary means worldly rather than spiritual and not specifically relating to religion.
Most nation states that are considered secular therefore are not quite as secular and they make out as there are high levels of spirituality in the forms of yoga, meditation horoscopes etc.

No the secular idea is being highjacked by atheists trying to rule out religion from public life. In fact the religious worldview is that the world and everything in it belongs to God, the atheist worldview is that there is no God so it doesn’t.

Now in a democracy all worldviews are able to be brought to the table, which is good.

 

[not-christian]

I have no idea what you're implying by your, "AS A PEOPLE," but assume it's suppose to have some kind devastating effect on data such as the following.

"Sweden was pagan before the 11th century, when the country underwent Christianization. Since the Protestant Reformation in the 1530s, the country is Lutheran, with the Church of Sweden (Swedish: Svenska kyrkan) being allowed the status of state church until 2000. As of 2006, 75.6% of the Swedes were members of the church. "

source
​

"Religions by country as 2007"

Country or Territory: Sweden

Christian . . . . 75% - 90%
Muslim . . . . . 3%
Buddhist . . . . 0.2%
Hindu . . . . . .0.08% - 0.12%
Others . . . . . 0.3%*

source

​

AS A PEOPLE, are the Swedes who comprise the above data somehow not true Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and Others?

Morover, just how can I be wrong that I have never heard of something? Do you know that I heard of a society that qualifies as truely secular? If so, please tell me when I did this. And, just where is the wrong in what appears to me? Either something does or it does not. It may be factually incorrect, but this has no effect on how it appears TO ME. You're coming across as one strange dude, n-c.

It seems you do not listen to what I am saying. Swedish people are some of the most atheistic on the planet.

The figures you have DO NOT say anything about religion, but about peopel REGISTERED. When a swede is born they are REGISTERED AS A LUTHERAN AUTOMATICALLY in Sweden. It has nothing to do with religion.

Now, ONCE AGAIN, Why are secular soceities superior to none-secular ones?

 

[not-christian]

Because freedom is superior to chains and also because Christianity is based on the free will of individuals to choose.

You cannot forcefeed anyone anything and expect good results.

One must let them objectively decide.

Because some people are bound to violate God's will, why try to prevent it with senseless laws?

I do not really understand your answer here. As used earlier, Sweden as an example is atheistic and superior to any Christian nation/people, they live longer, healthier lives, low violence and crime, no poverty etc.

 

[not-christian]

Only secular democracies are better.

I am unaware of any people that are secular and not democracies. Maybe you are?

 

[not-christian]

Well, as far as I'm concerned, getting rid of religious misogyny is a definate plus for a society. Of course, I have to admit to some bias in this matter, what with being female and therefore having some selfish interest in not seeing society run by people who believe women belong in the kitchen.

But.. But, who is suppose to cook my food?


I am just wondering WHY, and asking the Theist, so far, no one has given a proper answer, one is even denying secular societies. Really odd indeed. I visited Moscow (but not Moscva.. get it Mos... oh never mind) a coupel of months ago by the way.

 

[Verv]

I do not really understand your answer here. As used earlier, Sweden as an example is atheistic and superior to any Christian nation/people, they live longer, healthier lives, low violence and crime, no poverty etc.

Well, I am not so sure about that.

Oddly, in the top ten 'happiest countries' in the world also exist Bhutan and Brunei, very seriously religious countries that dwarf most other nations in religiosity. Ireland is also in the top 20 far above many at number 11 and they are a infamously Catholic nation.

I'd also like to point out the variation they have in number for Swedish atheists, being between 46% and 85%, which is just ridiculous.

You should put things simply, NC:

Sweden has a relatively small population, a lot of coastline and natural resources, safe borders, etc. These are all reasons why it succeeds more than others.

I think being 'atheist' or 'agnostic' has no correlation with being better off -- especially when you cannot even offer up a decent number on the percentage of atheists/agnostics there are there.

You cannot just say "41-85% of Americans are white." That is a ridiculous statistic.

EDIT:

And how come Vietnam, 81% atheist, is not better off than its Buddhist neighbor buddies?

And how come China, who is probably upwards of 90% atheist, and north Korea, which officially persecutes most Christians, are not living in paradises?

Atheists conveniently leave out these nations in order to make it look like they correlate with success.

Secular governments are successful; religious governments are hit and miss.

Officially atheist governments? The only ones I can name is an official list of the 20th centuries most bloodiest nations:
- USSR
- P. R. C.
- D.P.R.K.
- Khampuchea

 

[SallyNow]

What do you mean by "secular nation"?

Yes, people who live in countries where the government is non-theocratic - secular - do live longer. However, the societies and people themselves are not secular. That's an American myth.

People who live in theocracies live in countries with highly conservative, extremist, often non-elected governments have a shorter lifespan for a variety of reasons, such as reduced access to healthcare, reduced women in the workforce, less education, more terrorist activities, high rates of rape, honour killings, FGM... the list goes on.

You're trying to prove that some societies are secular. Well, yes, some of the most sucessful societies have secular governments, but the private lives of many of the citizens, if not the vast majority, are still religious in some way. They know the difference between public and private life and don't try to confuse the two.

Or are you talking about the secular, atheist government in China?

Countries with secular governments succeed because their citizens are a mix of the religious, the agnostic, the atheist, and everything inbetween. They also have gone through the Enlightenment and later movements, which could only really be done in countries that already had citizens with the free time to think about their situation, rather than just live in it.

If you're just trying to prove some anti-theist agenda... well, it isn't working. It's clear that countries with secular governments are doing well, but it is just false to claim that so-called "atheistic" countries are doing well (if one can even agree on what a real "atheistic" country is)