Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 11,751-11,800 of 12,463

[Tracy]

I dream of a world without religion. Taking responsibility for our own actions and everyone giving their best in this life because it's their one and only. Morality is something we feel inside and are taught by our elders/parents, we don't need an ancient book written by a mixture of unknowns to tell us how to behave. To deal with fact instead of belief, to cope with life's milestones without the false crutch of sugar-coated mythology... oh how liberating.

[Elaine]

Tracy, great comment! Does John Lennon's song sometimes play in your head?

[Elaine]

Secularist: is this word being used as a synonym for atheist? Even a person who believes in a supreme being can be a proponent of secularism.

[Gordon]

Yeah. I don't see 'Securalist' added to any description as a religion not a good sign in an 'organized' religion of some sort, like 'Secular, Fanatic Muslim' to be watched out for, that goes for any fanatical 'secular'?

[Heather]

Elaine wrote: "Secularist: is this word being used as a synonym for atheist? Even a person who believes in a supreme being can be a proponent of secularism."

I think that's what the person who was using it meant, considering that in a lot of places atheist is a dirty word, although at least she used "secularist" and not "unchurched" like a lot of people in my area use.

[Travis]

Heather wrote: "Elaine wrote: "Secularist: is this word being used as a synonym for atheist? Even a person who believes in a supreme being can be a proponent of secularism."

I think that's what the person who wa..."

'Unchurched'?
I'd never heard that one. Think I prefer it to secular, myself.

[Gordon]

'Unchurched' is new & extremely Haughty/snooty sounding lol, like 'unclean' or 'unedemucated'...

[Heather]

Travis wrote: "Heather wrote: "Elaine wrote: "Secularist: is this word being used as a synonym for atheist? Even a person who believes in a supreme being can be a proponent of secularism."

I think that's what t..."

We have it all over in my town; it's particularly used by a megachurch in my area that calls itself "the cool church." Personally, I think it's a derogatory term for an atheist, but I'm sure people would be shocked at my annoyance by it.

[Robin]

They should just called secular just non religious. there are people who believer who don't go to church like I do.

[Gordon]

When I drone thru the 'church belt' & had lunch, slowly drove by some of these churches I had to admit I was a bit creeped out, esp. since many of the houses near these nice big churches were in shoddy repair... I wonder how much $$ a place like that makes on a Sun? I'm not talking on TV 'send us ur $' theme, just a 'regular megachurch', is that misnomer? Regular-Mega?

[Alice]

Heather wrote: "Alice wrote: "The two are not mutually exclusive. Faith and reason each have their place.

BTW many secularists have too much faith in their version of reason."

I'm sorry, but I don't understan..."
This would be faith in man made philosophies such as socialism. At the fall of the Berlin Wall and the disintegration of the Soviet Union, many secularists stated that it did not disprove socialism; only that the leaders of the Eastern bloc did not correctly implement it. I would call that faith in their version of reason.

Others have faith in Man Made Global Warming. I have heard the phrase, "I believe in global warming" quite often. This is a theory that uses anecdotal data and has no way of proof via the Scientific Method. If you bring this up you are called a denier because Global Warming is "settled science". This is not only faith in a type of secularism, it is ego merged into into that secular faith.

Many, not all, followers of various faiths use these tactic against those who would disagree.

[Elaine]

Religious belief and belief in God is also faith in a man-made story. There is more evidence of climate change than there is of a supreme being.

[Heather]

Alice wrote: "Heather wrote: "Alice wrote: "The two are not mutually exclusive. Faith and reason each have their place.

BTW many secularists have too much faith in their version of reason."

I'm sorry, but I..."

While I would agree that socialism can be a bit on the end of idealistic, I would have to disagree with you on the front of global warming; it isn't just anecdotal evidence. In fact, it's quite the opposite. For one, we've completely disrupted the carbon cycle by burning fossil fuels. The carbon cycle can pretty much only handle life without fossil fuel burning; because we're burning fossil fuels, we're also releasing literally tons of carbon into the air, which is throwing the cycle off kilter because the plants that absorb said carbon cannot absorb the sheer amount that is now being pumped into the air. Scrubbers on smoke stacks do help, but our energies would be best spent researching new innovations.

[Travis]

Alice wrote: "Heather wrote: "Alice wrote: "The two are not mutually exclusive. Faith and reason each have their place.

BTW many secularists have too much faith in their version of reason."

I'm sorry, but I..."

But, if you 'believe' in science, you can still go and find the proof or get a degree so you can do the math yourself.

With religious belief, all you've got is the belief.

So, even trying to call both belief systems, science is still the one that gives you something solid to believe in.
It's still just comparing horses to unicorns.

[Gordon]

To play devils advocate, well not really, I have read the opposite type of research, global cooling due to the same burning of fossil fuels (which all can agree is no good for us environmentally & economically) is causing a speeding up of the next ice age... Which like global warming, in the end is NOT a good thing lol. The point being too far spectrum 'science' is about as worthless as fanatical religion. Every piece of science I can prob find documentation of the exact opposite, the cigarette industry is a perfect ex.

This post is more to propose that humans use a lil logic, address CURRENT problems facing humanity both in an specific area along with the globe, & when u say s 'science' lets stick to Practical Science, i.e. the use of it to study hydrocarbons = practical, learning organic chemistry & if a molecule is 'cis' or 'trans', very unpractical. I'm a Dr. but I don't need a science experiment to tell me vitamin C & Zinc is important for the immune system? I dont know if any of u know the amount of drama the AMA put up to admit that? u know why? Big pharm doesnt make $$ off vitamin C

The ADA (Dental) just admitted less then 8 years ago 'mercury amalograms in teeth' might not be the best idea?!? Really?? Since fillings were done mercury was Always said to be safe, not in my mouth dumbass I don't care what 'science' u show me, mercury is highly toxic, who do u think pays for the 'science' with that? I'll stick to porcelain.. I've actually had a moronic Dr. Tell me nutrition doesn't play a role in our health, there's no 'science' proving it... In the medical world, 'science' means double blind placebo/control studies. What a crock, more people die from aspirin in 1 year then all the years effedra was legal?!? Hmmm, wonder why AMA made effedra illegal?

The point of this long (sorry) response is that we are REALLY breaking it down to simple terms of 'science or religion'. I'll say no to both & request common sense with a side of empathy to the human species as a whole... Sry, the global warming got my discussion juices rolling

PS. I do believe in a form of global warming but we are doing a shitload of other nefarious things to our world, fracking, pollution, overpopulation, viral & bacterial immunity, overfishing, cutting down rainforests, jeez the list is crazy, we will face some other calamity before global warming ever gets the chance to hurt out great grandchildren lol

[Elaine]

Interesting post, Gordon; however, I think I would still prefer to rely on good science research than on common sense. Common sense is much too subjective for my comfort. I do agree that the human species needs a heck of a lot more empathy towards others. Does religion provide that empathy? I would argue that in many cases it does not.

[Travis]

Gordon wrote: "To play devils advocate, well not really, I have read the opposite type of research, global cooling due to the same burning of fossil fuels (which all can agree is no good for us environmentally & ..."

Because you can think of something worse, we shouldn't worry about global warming?
Can't we worry about all the bad stuff and try and fix it?

If we have to pick and chose, who gets to make the list?

[Gordon]

I hear u Elaine, I say all that tongue in cheek but,

Common sense when used correctly in science is extremely objective, meaning, it should be common sense the people doing the science behind the problems of nicotine shouldn't have a vested interest in said product, or 'watchdogs' of an industry shouldn't own parts of said industry? I swear that ignorance is a human trait, its sad

When applied to religion, the Vatican can shut their pie hole about countries like Africa & not using contraception because its against 'religious policy' - its only one of the most over-populated, AIDS infested, famine suffering, & highest infant mortality rates in the world,(telling Africans to practice Celibacy is NOT practical lol), See, Common Sense :)

@ Travis - Is that a real question? It sounds rhetorical?

I'm saying if ur going to bring up global warming why not bring up some other problems? They are just as bad, I'd argue some are even worse in our lifetime. I'm on board with all u said but people with the power to change choose not to, or are making $$ by not changing, these are the scumbags making 'the list', the non-existent list.

We absolutely need objective based science, but the paradox lies in whose doing the 'science'? Big Pharm? Big Tobacco? Oil Industry? SEC? EPA? FDA? Big, Scary thing in the universe that will smite me? The question itself seems simple but its not, 'bad science' can be the catalyst 'bad religion' uses - nuclear fission, MRSA, chemical warfare, Sponge Bob Square Pants lol, u ever watch that show? I love 'Family Guy' but that's cuz I'm an adult, I keep my kids away from most TV shows.

WE NEED ACCOUNTABILITY, is that a choice?

[Amber]

Wow, what a horrible choice. Great question! I guess if I had to choose, I would keep religion, and I'm not even that religious. I've seen the great impact a persons faith has on him/her, and would never want to take that away. Science is wonderful too, but we really have too much stuff, and people have gotten lazy with all the new gadgets and technology. People are still dying from cancer, so science has not helped in those circumstances. But maybe his/her faith helped in the end? I think humanity could survive without science, but I wouldn't want to be around if there wasn't any faith. Great question to ponder though...

[Ken]

Without science Amber, humanity would still be where we were 30,000 years ago. We may have survived until today but we would be a the same level of the other primates that have also survived this long.

[Amber]

Not necessarily... I don't think we'd be anywhere near where we are today, but I do not believe for a minute we'd be sitting around beating on our chests and trying to communicate with grunts.

[Ken]

So you don't believe that language is science? How about the wheel or levers or agriculture, are not all inventions the result of science?

[Travis]

Amber wrote: "Wow, what a horrible choice. Great question! I guess if I had to choose, I would keep religion, and I'm not even that religious. I've seen the great impact a persons faith has on him/her, and wo..."

Well, aside from the sorry state we'd be in without science, you are also going with the false idea that there is no faith without religion.
Those are two very different terms/ideas.

You can have faith without religion, but not vice versa.

and while faith may be some comfort when you have cancer, it's the science that gives people a chance of survival.

[Elaine]

Travis, your posting seems to me to be the perfect conclusion to the question asked on this forum 5 years ago.

[Gordon]

Any Scientologist's? I don't think they believe in faith, just simple 'the truth'... Don't ask me please (eye roll) ask Tommy Cruise. Cults don't work on faith they work on brainwashing which can cut a fine line no?

[Travis]

Gordon wrote: "Any Scientologist's? I don't think they believe in faith, just simple 'the truth'... Don't ask me please (eye roll) ask Tommy Cruise. Cults don't work on faith they work on brainwashing which can ..."


every religion starts as a cult and they all believe in 'the truth'.

Faith...brainwashing...seems like a 'you say potato' sort of thing.

[Myrna]

Faith is what keeps you going, especially in dealing with some terminating disease, but science without faith is worthless. If you don't have faith in your doctors then science is useless.

[Travis]

Myrna wrote: "Faith is what keeps you going, especially in dealing with some terminating disease, but science without faith is worthless. If you don't have faith in your doctors then science is useless."

and neither science or faith requires religion.

[Mary]

Myrna, are you saying that if you don't believe in your doctor, you can't be successfully treated? Can an unconscious accident victim not be treated because they didn't have faith in their doctors? Would someone who doesn't believe in science or technology be unable to use a computer? Maybe you meant you feel it works better together? But certainly science is not useless without faith.

[Kimsuong]

Wow. It is hell of a question. I only hope people keep praying and god keeps answering, leaning to a belief that it does not matter who created the world. Find knowledge in science and spiritual comfort in religion.

[Satyan]

“Religions die when they are proved to be true. Science is the record of dead religions... Oscar Wilde..

[Wendy]

Satyan wrote: "“Religions die when they are proved to be true. Science is the record of dead religions... Oscar Wilde.."

Wait. What religion was ever, EVER, proved to be true?

[Gordon]

Satyan wrote: "“Religions die when they are proved to be true. Science is the record of dead religions... Oscar Wilde.."

I think ole'Osca might been on one of his 'binges' when he was heard saying that cuz I dunno what he even means? I guess if I look at it logically:

'R' = True
'D' = {dying or being dead}
'S' = Science = 'The study of finding truth thru the scientific method' = True
Therefore
R x {D} = True
& if 'S' = True
Than if (R = True ) therefore {D} = must be true
{D} = "Valar Morghulis" = 'All men must die' - George R.R. Martin

Hey maybe Oscar did know his math :) wait, I don't know mine cuz 'R' is not proven to be 'True' & this proof has that variable as truth?!? Any math wiz's?

[Ibrahim]

stupid and immature question that cannot be answered in the majority of situations.

[Gordon]

Ibrahim wrote: "stupid and immature question that cannot be answered in the majority of situations."

That sounds like an answer containing words used by an ignorant person, how old are u? I feel like ur going to run into ur room & slam the door on me?!?

Please explain to me in ur day to day life how science & or religion cannot answer a question u have to answer, i.e. driving a car, or stealing food from a neighbor?

If U don't like the discussion, take a hike, its not like ur leaving an opinion worth the time to read, I just lost 10 sec. of my life I will never get back... waaa

[Angela]

For the point on Secularism: Believing in secularism has nothing to do with not believing in God. Secularism has two basic principles: strict separation of church and state - religious groups should not interfere in the affairs of state and the state should keep its nose out of the business of religion; and people of different religions are equal in the eyes of the law. Secularism seeks to protect the freedom of religious belief and practice of all people. Not only should we have freedom OF religion, but we should also protect freedom FROM religion as well.

For so many people to state that America is a Christian nation when we really have citizens of many different religions is a statement of elitism and snobbery. By saying that, we are also saying that Christianity is better and more important than say Judaism, or Islam, or Hinduism, or Buddhism, or even atheism. This is no different than the Middle Eastern countries defining themselves as Islamic countries. If we take issue with that, then we should make sure that in our own country, we do not allow one religion to take precedence over the others and have undo influence in the affairs of our government.

Secularism is about protecting the true workings of democracy. All are equal despite our individual beliefs.

[Nureen Faiza]

Ibrahim wrote: "stupid and immature question that cannot be answered in the majority of situations."

“It's not a silly question if you can't answer it.”-Sophie's World
:)

[Ibrahim]

I am sorry. I meant no offence. But the thing is, it IS immature. The reason for that is because science provides us comforts that we cannot imagine living without for e.g electricity that is now essential for practically everything. At the same time religion provides for us a REASON to do good in life because if we do good we will go to heaven and if we do bad we will go to hell. Imagine that if there was no concept of heaven or hell then would not EVERYONE we doing bad stuff? Because they would be like: we are gonna die anyway and after that there is oblivion so lets just enjoy ourselves in this one and only life because, and believe me when i say this, evil is much more attractive then good. Religion helps us remain nice and respected people whereas science provides us comfort. Asking a question like: would you rather live without religion or without science is immature and unanswerable because of these reasons. As for calling it 'stupid'.... yeah i admit it was a little bold..i should not have said that. sorry for that buddy. :)....but it STILL is immature. :D

[Nyie]

Nureen wrote: "Ibrahim wrote: "stupid and immature question that cannot be answered in the majority of situations."

“It's not a silly question if you can't answer it.”-Sophie's World
:)"
i agree with you!

[Angela]

Gordon, I totally disagree with the point you tried to make about which science to believe. "The point being too far spectrum 'science' is about as worthless as fanatical religion. Every piece of science I can prob find documentation of the exact opposite, the cigarette industry is a perfect ex." The point of science is that it is backed by provable facts. Documentation to the contrary is rarely backed by provable facts, but instead by propaganda that supports a particular industry's interests.

The tv is currently flooded with commercials supporting the development of natural gas as a viable alternative to burning the fossil fuels. But natural gas is just as dangerous to our environment as the fossil fuels. Especially when we look at the dangers of fracking. Why put the small percent of pure drinking water at risk for profits of the energy companies?

The point of relying on scientific evidence is based on our ability to tell truth from fiction.

[Angela]

Here's my final post for the moment:

A particular passage of The Gunslinger by Stephen King has stuck with me over the years. Towards the end, when the Gunslinger is talking with the Man in Black, they have a conversation about religion. The Man in Black asks a question about how big is big, how small is small? A little kid asks his dad, what is bigger than the earth? The sky. What is bigger than the sky? Space. What is bigger than space? The galaxy. What is bigger than the galaxy? The Universe. What is bigger than the universe? Son, we just don't know.

But we do know that there is something bigger than the universe. The same argument is played out for smaller and smaller and smaller. Again, there is always something smaller than what we know.

So then the Man in Black asks the Gunslinger about his God. This God of yours, is he the god of the earth? the god of the sky? the god of space? of the galaxy? of the universe? Why stop there? If our God is so great, then isn't he the God of whatever is out there that is bigger than the universe and beyond? And what are we to a God of that magnitude? Isn't this planet that we live on like a speck of dust on a single blade of grass to a God so large? And if God is that great, wouldn't he have lots of specks of dust within his creation?

So then, when we ask people to pray, do we really expect God to answer all our prayers for simple little things? I'm not belittling anyone's prayers. My dad currently has a recurrence of cancer, and yes, I have prayed for God's intervention. But in the scheme of God's existence, isn't my dad's cancer a small thing compared to wars and natural disasters affecting mass populations?

One summer, in the thick of our tourist season, I heard a little old lady tell someone that she was worried she wouldn't find a parking spot at the local library. She prayed to God that he would help, and low and behold, she was so blessed because God answered her prayers and there was a parking spot right in front of the library.

Really???

We ask how God could allow Hurricane Katrina or Sandy or any of the others to occur. But we fail to connect our own actions of high living on fossil fuels and warming climates to the increase in the strength of storms. We fail to realize that by destroying the wetlands that protect the mainland, that these storms are causing greater destruction to human life. Instead, we ask, how could God allow this to happen. We should be asking ourselves, how could we destroy the perfect balance God created for us.

Religion or science? Even though I am a Christian, I choose science of the two. God gave us brains. We should learn to use them.

[Gordon]

I don't think u disagree with me at all, in fact I think u agree with what I said. U just mentioned provable fact, using the cigarette industry was a bad example because its fact its a carcinogen but propaganda sustained the farce of its dangers for DECADES. But please tell me what a provable fact is? Because what it means to me is entirely diff. than a scientist in a lab. I made a blanket statement that the person looking at the 'science' needs to do their research & determine if problems are closer to fact or propaganda.

I used fracking as an example of how science is used as disinformation therefore causing exactly what u said. I know the dangers of fracking but the science u talk about can tech. take years before actually causing what the EPA classify's as a 'negative impact' on the environment & guess what? by that time its prob too late, the water is already contaminated, they are slamming the door after the horses have fled. Our 'watchdogs' are not doing their job!

The major point, in a perfect world ur last statement would be how the world runs, but its not. U know how badly the dangers of fracking are ignored, u know how little the gov't cares about GMO foods & how they could effect natural crops grown around them. U know the dangers chemicals like Saccharin, sucralose, aspartame, MSG, hydrolyzed vegetable protein, autolyzed yeast extract, color dyes, etc... are in foods, but what does the FDA do about it? The 'science' is there or partially there, but the powers that be choose 'junk science' over 'real science' because in the end the statistics that researchers use can be skewed & semantics altered.

When u say "Documentation to the contrary is rarely backed by provable facts" give me an example where our government has decided to fully back the 'true science' & not the 'junk science' (propaganda). Even much of this 'Documentation' u talk about is ongoing, years of study are required to actual document the effects a product has on anything for X amount of time? BUT I don't need the 'documentation' to tell me something is 'junk science'. Like I said, I didn't need the ADA's 10 year study to tell me that mercury prob shouldn't be in my mouth. But I'm not making the decisions, our congressmen & women are, the people with POWER CHOOSE to believe in 'junk science' (propaganda), because no matter what u say there are creditable researchers that will sell out to help confuse the population to the truth. That's my point, & I believe u are at least partially repeating my point. The 'science' based watchdogs, the EPA, FDA, FCC, SEC, AMA, ADA, the list goes on until I get a headache repeatedly drags its feet when we need to act.

Do u know one of the major reasons why wind power is not harnessed in area's of this country where it would be highly effective? The people who LIVE there say it would be an 'eyesore' & don't want it near their land. c'mon, really? The 'science' has been shown but the people rejected it for aesthetics.

[Angela]

Gordon, I do fully agree with you on your last statement. However, you still tend to clump junk science in with true science, which I refuse to do. Yes, the true science is out there that fracking is a very BAD thing. And you're right, the science is out there now, but we are tending to ignore it for the short term gains.

I doubt that there are creditable researchers that are selling out to help confuse the population and our decision makers. If you actually look at their credentials, they are rarely true scientists. Or they are those who have their own agenda to push, or money to make. In most cases, the true scientists are all in agreement.

And yes, having grown up in Kansas, I am quite aware of why we don't have massive wind farms. It will ruin their view. To which I ask, What view????

This is where capitalism and personal rights trump what's best for society. In fact, this is probably what leads all these arguments. We Americans are against regulations and government interference in our lives. Too many decisions are made for profit reasons, not for the safety and health of the masses. Once we allowed corporate interference in our government, we lost our way. This, to me, is just as bad - if not worse - as allowing religion to interfere in our government.

If we were truly concerned about leaving a debt for our grandchildren to pay, we would never even consider the possibility of fracking. Instead, we would be putting wind farms and solar panels all over the country. But what's the loss of a little drinking water when we can grab that ever elusive energy trapped inside and sell it for a profit today?

[Gordon]

U & I & many more educated people have no problems separating the 2, the problem is the majority of people in general & those who should be able to separate them can't, refuse to change, or are just plain ignorant, (sigh) we are on the same page & u be surprised at least in the medical world prefer the status quo, u can look'em up on Pubmed online.

[Ibrahim]

This debate is getting way out of hand....

[Lovely]

i would prefer a world without religon. Numerous countries, such as Japan and Sweden (just to name two), are predominantly atheist countries. The existence of these atheistic nations greatly help to confirm the assertion that religion is not needed to produce a successful and moral civilization.
Today's world is stricken by ruthless killings of innocents worldwide. If you dig you will find religion behind it.
One says I will conquer your religion the 9ther says I will fight till death and both of us get killed. Religion in past and present are full of bloodshed.

[Wendy]

Angela said: Once we allowed corporate interference in our government, we lost our way. This, to me, is just as bad - if not worse - as allowing religion to interfere in our government.

We have both now. In equal measure, interests of corporations & religions--one obvious, one insidious--run our government by fashioning the laws.

A man's brains splatter on the street...BOOM, a helmet law, which garners voter appreciation, Oh-thank-God the government stepped in to protect us from our own stupidity! But why stop there? BOOM, helmet laws for every kid on a bike and seatbelt laws for every person in a car. Oh-thank-God the government stepped in to protect us from ourselves, and to protect our kids from our carelessness.

The propaganda of, "Your insurance is high because of these unhelmeted/unseat-belted assholes," is no different than the propaganda of "these windmills will spoil your view," or "these oil rigs will lower your beach front property's value." It's all corporate promulgated interests. (Did anyone's insurance rates go down after the seatbelt/helmet laws? NO. Of course not...despite what was promised.)

Effective propaganda targets emotions...whether it's global warming, gun-control, prolife/prochoice, who may or may not marry. Stop the, "but this is different," type mindset and realize that picking a side, any side, fuels the propaganda and ignores the primacy agenda...goodbye freedom.

Yes, some issues are true and sincere and borne of honest intent. How to know the difference? Easy. The self-serving agendas of corporations and religions ALWAYS attach to a plethora of laws.
It's that simple.
Wendy Joyce

[Mickey]

Wendy wrote: "It's that simple."

Nothing is simple on this planet and it's social and economic structure. It is more than greed from corporations and the religious structures. The people on this planet is going through a precipice and they are having or cannot accept that the old rules of life are becoming invalid.

Technology is the main reason that the rich are getting richer and the poor getting poorer. It is more than greed or from corporations or religious influence.

Lee Iaccoca from Chysler Corporation in the 70's stated "We are building twice as many cars with half as many people as we were in the 60's".

What if in the future and I believe the world is going this route. What if in the future through automation that 20% of the worlds population can provide for 100% of all goods and services?

What to do for the 80% of the people that have no jobs or sources of incomes? Do we accept the religious belief from the bible, "He who does not work, neither shall he eat" from II Thessalonians 3:10. Do we just let 80% of the world starve because they have no source of income? When robots can perform almost any job on this earth.

What kind of economic system will exist? It will not be capitalism. Will democracy exist? I hope so. What will be needed is a one world government, hopefully a democratic one.

The world is far from simple and solutions are extremely complex. But the hardest part is giving up obsolete religious and economic views of how this world works. Like in Economics, will supply and demand laws still be true for determining prices? Religion with their if you do not work?

[Satyan]

Wait. What religion was ever, EVER, proved to be true?"

Religion is to do right. It is to love, it is to serve, it is to think, it is to be humble...

but then God has no religion

[Maria]

Satyan said: "Religion is to do right. It is to love, it is to serve, it is to think, it is to be humble..."

No, that's just being a good person. There are lots of good people who are not religious. Just as there are lots of religious people that are not good.