> No, you read passages from the Bible and use that to inform your moral position.

Of course I do. There is no arguing that.

> The Bible is a bronze age text written by people living lives that were very different to our own.

The Bible is from the Bronze Age, the Iron Age, and the pre-exilic and exilic periods. It's unarguable that they were living lives very different from our own. That has nothing to do with whether or not the information is reliable or worthy. Socrates and Plato also wrote in different eras. So what?

> We can (and do) do better, particularly if we want to address modern issues.

It depends how you define "better" and from where you derive that definition, and why you settle on that particular definition.

> I'm not sure which Bible you've read

The entire thing, over and over. I've devoted my life to studying it deeply.

> but by modern standards, the Bible is extremely misogynistic.

False generalizations don't help us in dialogue. We'd have to discuss the specific places from where you get these misunderstandings.

> It seems to me that most atheists in the US or Europe have actually been over-exposed to Christian theology for most of their lives and have concluded, based on critical thought, that they don't believe it.

This is undeniably true. It's also true that most Christians have studied it and, based on critical thinking, DO believe it. Just like in other disciples, you can find intelligent people on both sides of a debate.

> It's just plain obvious that you shouldn't murder people.

Of course it is. That was my point, also.

> Calling that a religious insight is nonsense.

I didn't call it a religious insight. I said it was a religious view that came to us from religious cultures of antiquity. Research at Gibekli Teki, the oldest known temple complex of history, has led researchers to conclude that religion appears so early in civilized life (and even earlier than civilized life itself), that religion is the cause of culture rather than a product of it. It's from sites such as that that I made the claim that it was the religious worldview that motivated laws such as "do not murder."

> These are just logical, and don't require recourse to Christianity.

I never claimed they did. These are, however, rebuttal to the OP that "religion is irrelevant in civil affairs." It is most certainly not. These principles of Christianity, by your own admission, as logical. And though you didn't mention it, they're also beneficial. Therefore, they are not irrelevant.

> But surely whether the beliefs held by a religion are true is hugely important when using it to guide a society? That is why evidence is key (and lacking).

I agree that evidence is key. I'm an evidentialist and, upon examination of the case, I find the evidence for theism and Christianity far stronger than the case against, and certainly stronger than any case I've seen or heard presented by an atheist. The weight of evidence is what I follow.

Not the OP...

> Christianity is not homophobic, a slanderous term that is disjointed from reality. We find a moral reason to disapprove of same-sex relationships, but there is nothing of a mental illness, neurosis, or psychosis in the position we pick.

No, you read passages from the Bible and use that to inform your moral position. The Bible is a bronze age text written by people living lives that were very different to our own. We can (and do) do better, particularly if we want to address modern issues.

> The Bible is not misogynistic. You have a serious misunderstanding of the biblical texts and teachings.

I'm not sure which Bible you've read, but by modern standards, the Bible is extremely misogynistic. We can all find quotes to illustrate this.

> The Bible encourages critical thinking. We, of all thinkers, can consider all options on the table, whereby atheists automatically rule out any possibility of considering metaphysical possibilities

It seems to me that most atheists in the US or Europe have actually been over-exposed to Christian theology for most of their lives and have concluded, based on critical thought, that they don't believe it.

> It actually is a religious view. It comes to us from ancient societies based on their religious worldviews.

It's just plain obvious that you shouldn't murder people. Calling that a religious insight is nonsense. If you tried to write a moral code from first principles, not murdering would very quickly be the first item on your list.

> Christianity teaches honesty, truth (I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; also commanding against giving false testimony), justice, fairness, evidence, the testimony of witnesses, a fair trial, and punishment fits the crime.

These are just logical, and don't require recourse to Christianity.

> If you want to talk about reliable evidence pertaining to religion, that's a completely different conversation.

But surely whether the beliefs held by a religion are true is hugely important when using it to guide a society? That is why evidence is key (and lacking).

> you don't explain why you find Islam unfit for civil affairs

I actually did. If you go back to my 2nd post, I said, "As we look at the Islamic nations around the world run as theocracies and sharia law, they are places of oppression, persecution, and often violence. I think their record speaks for itself."

> i think it is misogynist, homophobic, encourages people to believe without critical thinking, etc.

I feel that you've been dishonest with me and disingenuous in the conversation. It seems from this comment that all along you wanted to slam Christianity for homophobia and misogyny and not really discuss the support of secularism in the public square. You had, it seems a hidden agenda.

Second, you have, I am confident, misunderstood and misinterpreted Christianity.

[list][*] Christianity is not homophobic, a slanderous term that is disjointed from reality. We find a moral reason to disapprove of same-sex relationships, but there is nothing of a mental illness, neurosis, or psychosis in the position we pick.
[*] The Bible is not misogynistic. You have a serious misunderstanding of the biblical texts and teachings.
[*] The Bible encourages critical thinking. We, of all thinkers, can consider all options on the table, whereby atheists automatically rule out any possibility of considering metaphysical possibilities.[/list]

So you are zero for three on those objections. We can talk some more about them if you wish.

Third, those positions (LGBTQ, women, and critical thinking) have almost NOTHING to do with public policy and civil affairs, except in some cases recently (the last 15 years) pertaining to LGBTQ rights. But misogyny has nothing to do with public policy or civil affairs, nor does critical thinking. Here is where I think you have put on a false front with a false discussion to, apparently, perpetuate a beef you have with Christians, viz., LGBTQ and women's status.

> i would say that all the beneficial things in Christian doctrine are or at least can be established by secular rationale.

They can only be established by secular rationale if you borrow capital from the Christian worldview as their foundation. If you truly believe in scientific and evolutionary naturalism, you have no ground to stand on for human dignity, the reliability of reason, human worth, or even some aspects of morality. It is Christianity that gives the grounds for such things, not secularism.

> murder is wrong is not a religious view

It actually is a religious view. It comes to us from ancient societies based on their religious worldviews. The secular worldview is that humans are an agglomeration of chemicals with no inherent worth. Some atheist societies see human life as disposable for the sake of survival and health. (Nazi Germany is one of the most atrocious displays of social Darwinism with their misguided views of eugenics, justifying in their minds the murder of millions.) It is religion that gives the perspective of human dignity and worth. Even now it is the religions of the world that oppose the murder of abortion. Those who do not see dignity of human life find reasons to take it.

> with regards to legal disputes i mean Christianity should not be involved in the legal process

Christianity teaches honesty, truth (I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; also commanding against giving false testimony), justice, fairness, evidence, the testimony of witnesses, a fair trial, and punishment fits the crime. Why should those values not be involved in the legal process?

> someone should not have to swear on a bible and Christian ideals should not be used over rational reasoning to declare guilt

Fine. It's OK if people don't swear on the Bible. But the Christian ideals are truth, honesty, justice, etc. If you're advocating those shouldn't be used, I question your definition of justice.

> i guess the reason i value a secular society is because i don't think religion is based on reliable evidence

Now it seems you're off into another hidden agenda. This position of yours has nothing to do with religions and civil affairs. If you want to talk about reliable evidence pertaining to religion, that's a completely different conversation.

> we shouldn't condemn murder because the bible says so, we should condemn it because it goes against the interests of a developed society

I agree that we shouldn't condemn murder because the Bible says so. Instead, the Bible says it because it's an affront to the dignity and rights of humans to life; because it's depriving a family of one of their members; and because it goes against the interest of a developed society. The Biblical world was all about order. It was one of the reigning paradigms of ancient culture. They made the laws they did (in the Bible and also in every other ancient culture) because things like murder were against the interests of a developed and orderly society. The Bible and the moral interests of a developed society are not in conflict, but rather in perfect harmony. You seem to have a distorted view of the Bible and how all of these elements intertwine.

you don't explain why you find Islam unfit for civil affairs. but as for Christianity, i think it is misogynist, homophobic, encourages people to believe without critical thinking, etc.

in regards to your second paragraph i would say that all the beneficial things in Christian doctrine are or at least can be established by secular rationale. e.g. murder is wrong is not a religious view, on the other hand as i previously mentioned i think Christianity does promote harmful societal ideals

with regards to legal disputes i mean Christianity should not be involved in the legal process. to give and example, someone should not have to swear on a bible and Christian ideals should not be used over rational reasoning to declare guilt

overall, i guess the reason i value a secular society is because i don't think religion is based on reliable evidence and as such it shouldn't be relevant in deciding how a country is run. we shouldn't condemn murder because the bible says so, we should condemn it because it goes against the interests of a developed society

> but then i would say the same for Christianity.

But you don't explain why, so it's tough for me to comment. The United States was established on Christian principles, and basically continues to run on that foundation (though the last 80 years has worked hard to undo that), and it has been quite fitting for civil affairs.

> is the fact that Christianity teaches some good moral codes enough justification to make it a key factor when creating civil policies and settling legal disputes

The moral codes of Christianity are beneficial to a just, moral, and stable society, but I'm not sure that's [i]enough[/i]. In addition to what I said in my original post, Christianity advocates for innocence until proven guilty, evidence before conviction, caring for orphans and widows, the strength of the nuclear family, societal strength from strong marriages, raising children to be moral and responsible citizens, and the value of education. Christianity brings ideas about no favoritism to the rich or powerful, to any particular ethnic group, to male over female, or to any economic or social status. Christianity values science, hospitals, good government, and good schools. There is nothing irrelevant about these firmly-held Christian beliefs and stances in civil affairs; all of these values and practices are quite beneficial to civil affairs.

As far as settling legal disputes, Christianity teaches the procurement of evidence, the use of witnesses for evaluation, wisdom in judgment, giving no priority to the rich or powerful, recognizing the dignity of all human beings, making the punishment fit the crime, etc. There's a lot of benefit here that is the reason I am not an advocate of secularism.

> Islam, also, is a system that I consider to be unfit for civil affairs

i agree but then i would say the same for Christianity. is the fact that Christianity teaches some good moral codes enough justification to make it a key factor when creating civil policies and settling legal disputes

My whole point is that religion is relevant in civil affairs, including legal matters. But we don't use to the Bible to make new laws. The laws of the Bible were part of the theocracy of ancient Israel, which doesn't really pertain to our situation today.

> does this mean explicitly Christianity and if so why not other religions

Christianity does have more to offer than the religions. Hinduism is a philosophical religion, with not a lot of practical teaching-to-life applicability like Christianity. Islam, also, is a system that I consider to be unfit for civil affairs. As we look at the Islamic nations around the world run as theocracies and sharia law, they are places of oppression, persecution, and often violence. I think their record speaks for itself.

> No, I don't advocate that the Bible be used to make new laws, but that really has nothing to do with religion being irrelevant in civil affairs

earlier in your comment you say religion can provide a standard of justice. how is this not religion being relevant in legal matters. also you say religion has a lot to offer, does this mean explicitly Christianity and if so why not other religions

I do not support secularism. So saying, I need to make clear that I firmly believe in the separation of Church and State, and that theocracies in our cultural situation are a mistake.

But I do not support secularism because religion has a lot to offer in the public square and has many benefits to government and civil affairs, such as standards of morality, a strong sense of justice, care for the poor, fairness to prisoners, relief for any oppressed populations, anti-racism and bigotry, and dozens of others. There is nothing irrelevant about these firmly-held Christian beliefs and stances in civil affairs.

But then your explanation that "e.g., the bible cannot be used as a reason to make new laws" is a strange one. No, I don't advocate that the Bible be used to make new laws, but that really has nothing to do with religion being irrelevant in civil affairs.

Do you support secularism, why or why not?

a secular society is a society where religion is irrelevant in civil affairs. e.g. the bible cannot be used as a reason to make new laws

secularism doesn't restrict religious freedom, just means religion isn't a factor in the way the country is run