[vacri]

> Ultimately, secular thought (agnosticism and atheism included) is just an inferior product compared to religions.

No, it really isn't. It's really strange that you talk of science, then just throw out that 'today we have more suicide and depression', when we know we have extremely poor historical records of both those things, particularly depression.

Just because it doesn't have some canned answers doesn't mean secular thought is an inferior product. Secular thought has brought us egalitarianism, for example - civil rights gains are not birthed from religion. It wasn't Jesus that brought us feminism, desegregation, or minority voting rights.

[catawbasam]

"civil rights gains are not birthed from religion"

I find this statement particularly ironic as we enter the holiday weekend in which we are called to remember the life and work of Martin Luther King Jr.

As Wikipedia says-- "He is best known for his role in the advancement of civil rights using nonviolent civil disobedience based on his Christian beliefs."

[vacri]

It's not that ironic. There were plenty of impassioned essays in the 19th century using the bible to support slavery, for example. And also to oppose slavery. It's not like christianity enshrines civil rights for all.

Similarly, it wasn't anything inherent to christianity that made King behave that way; King chose the parts he wanted to implement. Evidence for devout christians not following the non-violent tenets of the faith is hardly rare.

[AnimalMuppet]

I believe that stephenhess's point was that secular thought was an inferior product in terms of its ability to provide certainty and meaning to people. If you look at some branches of existentialism, say (You validate your life by having a "final experience? Or, worse, by experiencing angst? Seriously? That's how I'm supposed to validate my existence?), then it becomes pretty hard to disagree with stephenhess (presuming that I understand his point correctly).