[Notary Sojac]

though we magnanimously allow it to those weaker conservatives who can't get along without it

Thank you for the suggestion, although I'm uncomfortable with the tone of the comment above and I would not go that far.

Here's a post I made to the American Spectator webpage, in response to an article titled "Can Civilization Survive Without God". It sums up many posts I've made to FR over the years.

I think it's safe to say that "civilization cannot survive without people who -believe- in God".

It's beyond questioning that the Western statesmen whose outlook was infused with the Judaeo-Christian worldview have been better stewards of liberty, even for unbelievers, than the criminal heads of state who rejected that worldview.

However, as one of those unbelievers, I separate the questions of "is Christianity beneficial?" from "is Christianity true?" and answer them differently.

[grey_whiskers]

Great, here's the next question -- for those who claim "religion" confers "survival value".

Does "survival value" serve as (even an imperfect) indicator of "truth" ?

It's beyond questioning that the Western statesmen whose outlook was infused with the Judaeo-Christian worldview have been better stewards of liberty, even for unbelievers, than the criminal heads of state who rejected that worldview.

Why is liberty "better"? Or, going one step further, why does "survival" matter? What difference does it make to the universe if humans are free or enslaved, alive or extinct?

Why does one make liberty a desideratum?

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

However, as one of those unbelievers, I separate the questions of "is Christianity beneficial?" from "is Christianity true?" and answer them differently.

You're a different breed than some of the more militant atheists I've come across, who claim that religion has caused Most-o-The-World's-Suffering^TM, or even the trolls who claim "Hitler was a Christian, he said he was."

As an ex-atheist, I salute you.

Cheers!