Does secularism destroy societies?

I once got into an online debate with an atheist, where I said that it was in atheists interests to adopt a religion, because their atheism was contributing to the collapse of his society. The atheist asked me for evidence that secularism contributes to the collapse of society. I was unable to do so, because I was unable to think of any other society in history where secularism was so widespread. The second-hand sources I read of Roman history said that Rome was deeply religious during its collapse. So is there any direct evidence that secularism is bad for society?

There is NO secularism. Today's atheism is a cesspool of macro- and micro-religions, be it mass manipulative ideologies, politics, science & pseudo science or even fandom of sports teams; you name it. By micro, I mean millions and millions of people grouped into each idiotic bandwagon, because the population is so enormous. I'm pretty sure that regardless of his assumed symbolism, the prehistoric man was more atheistic than the vast majority of today's so-called atheists, because he was more in sync with the sensible world. He had to be.

I think the real problem is rationalism.  Modern atheists are rationalists.  One can have religious rationalists like the Mu'tazila, and they are equally harmful.  You would have to study history to make this case.  I think Rome mostly suffered from multiculturalism, not rationalism.  But Athens, medieval Christianity, and Islam suffered from rationalism.

OmegaKV wrote

The atheist asked me for evidence that secularism contributes to the collapse of society. I was unable to do so, because I was unable to think of any other society in history where secularism was so widespread. The second-hand sources I read of Roman history said that Rome was deeply religious during its collapse. So is there any direct evidence that secularism is bad for society?

Don't waste your time providing evidence. The atheist guy will not accept it, even if the evidence does prove your argument. People who "ask for evidence" don't ask in good faith. They are merely digging in their heels, and when you do provide evidence, no matter how strong it is, they immediately reject it, as they had always intended. They have already decided what to believe, and will not change just because you provided irrefutable evidence proving otherwise.

"Asking for evidence" is a familiar tactic by people -- especially atheists -- who are not interested in the truth. They are deceiving you, insofar as they lead you to believe they are willing to be convinced of an opposing view, when in fact they are trying to tire you out, sap your energy and time, and ultimately let you know that they will not ever do so. Don't bother responding to these people, whom you should ignore and dismiss as fools.

CONTENTS DELETED

fschmidt wrote

I think the real problem is rationalism.

This is true, and it's the result of the dysgenic decline. People with weaker senses can't be satisfied with empiricism, so they turn to rationalism for answers, just to create oddly disjointed and unrealistic worldviews.

fschmidt wrote

I think the real problem is rationalism.  Modern atheists are rationalists.  One can have religious rationalists like the Mu'tazila, and they are equally harmful.  You would have to study history to make this case.  I think Rome mostly suffered from multiculturalism, not rationalism.  But Athens, medieval Christianity, and Islam suffered from rationalism.

Looked up rationalism on Wikipedia:

In an old controversy, rationalism was opposed to empiricism, where the rationalists believed that reality has an intrinsically logical structure. Because of this, the rationalists argued that certain truths exist and that the intellect can directly grasp these truths. That is to say, rationalists asserted that certain rational principles exist in logic, mathematics, ethics, and metaphysics that are so fundamentally true that denying them causes one to fall into contradiction. The rationalists had such a high confidence in reason that empirical proof and physical evidence were regarded as unnecessary to ascertain certain truths – in other words, "there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience".[4]

Wow, they are literally idolators. I will try to think of questions to expose them as idolators, for next time I debate an atheist.

When you say secularism, do you mean liberalism?

Does liberalism in the 21st century mean anything more than sexual liberation from the rules of marriage and good parenting?

Is such a society a matriarchy?

Is a matriarchy a society prioritising the preferences of unmarried parents who casually conceived and parented their illegitimate offspring?

Is a patriarchy a society prioritising the preferences of married parents who want to properly parent their legitimate offspring?

Is the West a degenerate matriarchy?

Is discovering that your society is a matriarchy the equivalent of discovering that it has terminal cancer?

Is Conservatism meaningless without social conservatism?

Is social conservatism meaningless without forbidding and punishing extramarital sex?

Is bastardy the most blatant evidence of having indulged in extramarital sex which should be punishable by http://quran.com/24/2?

Is matriarchy against the Noahide laws?

Were Jews chosen by God to teach gentiles the Noahide laws?

Have Jews been doing this properly or at all?

If not, is the Koran a second and better revelation to humanity because Jews have not been able to do what they were chosen by God to do?

Is the only way to restore social conservatism the adoption of the laws of God in the Koran?

Was the American Republic founded on Islamic principles?

What other scripture protects freedom of belief and speech if not the Koran in http://quran.com/2/256?

Should American social conservatives support a constitutional amendment to make the Commandments of Allah the supreme law of the United States of America?

Or would they be too crippled by their Islamophobia to consider doing such a thing?