God does not exist

Prove me wrong.

>>79
Eternity would be enough time to get used to torture, and on the flip-side, heaven would get pretty boring after while. Also, think about all the religious nut-jobs and hypocrites like Fred Phelps, Ted Haggard and Jerry Falwell. I don't think heaven would be all that enjoyable in the first place with fundies like them there. Yuck. Give me hell any day of the week. And how much fun could kissing the arse of a megalomaniacal tyrant for eternity be?

Actually, you wouldn't even be able to feel pain without a nervous system, and in hell you'd be without a body, and therefore without nerves, so you wouldn't feel pain from the supposed torture. This is a fact that the authors of the Bible were obviously unaware of.

Anyway, to answer your first question, personally I like experiencing pleasure, and if I'm dead I may not get to anymore. I never chose to have life, but I have it now, and it's the only one I'm guaranteed, so I might as well just accept it and make the most of it. Personally I choose to have fun with it -- within reason, of course. And, actually, there's no way to truly know what criteria by which God would let us into heaven. He may reward skepticism, and punish blind faith -- think about it, he gives each of us a brain capable of such great intelligence... maybe he is real, and is testing us to see if we use his gift to us properly. Believing he exists just on blind faith is not really using it at all, as it requires no thought. That may hurt his feelings. :P

>>80
i'm asking questions to explore the topic.  i've yet to express any of my beliefs.  you can go on making shit up though.

>>81
i'd think eternal torture and eternal bliss would account for a developed tolerance and adapt to keep you on your toes, else neither would actually be eternal.  also, if god hooks you up with some complete utter bliss, i don't think you'd care who your neighbors were.  i mean, if heaven and hell really exist, i'm sure you'd care which you were in.

on the body thing... if there's a god and a hell, i'm sure god could arrange for you to feel tortured without a body, if you didn't have one, or if that torture even involves physical pain.  if you'll assume for a second that these supernatural reward and punishment realms exist: do you really think you could be relaxing in hell saying "hey, its alright, i dont have a physical body."

i agree with your entire last paragraph.  i'm just pushing you to say whether or not you think your life is ultimately meaningless.  and yeah, you seem to have a preference for life, but why?  is it just instinctive?  just because youre human?  i don't think youre 100% sure that what you do doesn't matter from what you say.

>>82
Regardless of what you believe, your questions are what I would expect from a middle school student who is "totally deep." Not believing them makes you less of an idiot, but you are an idiot of some note either way.

>>70
Sorry for offending you.  The "drinking vodka" was totally unnecessary, but somehow seemed to fit with the sentence.  Alcohol is not relevant to the discussion at hand.  Apologies.

Just because there are more important things to learn/test than philosophy doesn't make it completely baseless.  Given your sentiments, it won't be possible to convince you otherwise, so this is a moot point.  Btw, I did not trivialize science in any way.  Science is critical to our understanding of physical reality (though string theory rides the line of what you would consider bullshit).

I obviously didn't word my question regarding religion correctly.  It is obvious that for those high in the religious hierarchy, religion is a way to impose and maintain their power.  Such people are probably smart enough to understand that this is all unfalsifiable.  The commoner isn't so smart.  They are willing to believe in religion because they are not smart enough to imagine any other alternative, yet at the same time, wonder about their existance.  Why/how are we here?  Religion offers a crappy, unfalsifiable answer.  You have no answer, other than "it just is".

>>81
You mention a good point: most religious nuts haven't thought about what living in heaven for eternity will really be like.  I think most of humanity will not like heaven too much.

If God exists, I think he'd want us to use our heads.

>>82
Can it really adapt infinitely, or does it reach some sort of limit like a logistic curve?

>>83
Why would you expect his questions to come from a middle schooler?  Just because he neglects to capitalize words?

>>84
82 here.  i don't personally know if heaven or hell exists, or what they're like if they do.  i mean, who knows if theyre actually eternally anything anyway.  i just think it's a bit odd to say you'd "get used to it" if you're talking about an eternally bad or eternally good thing.  if after a while it just didn't matter, then eh, really its not that eternal.

>>84
I expect his questions to come from a middle schooler because it is exactly the rubbish spouted by middle schoolers (and high schoolers sometimes, to be fair) who want to sound deep. Arguing - or "questioning," since the middle schooler is apparently unwilling to state his actual beliefs/opinions - that someone who does not believe in an afterlife should kill themselves (or has no reason to live, to put it less bluntly) is naive in the extreme. At its basis is the assumption that anything impermanent is irrelevant, but few people in the world - if any - can make an argument based on such an assumption without being hypocritical. As I pointed out in >>80, why eat good tasting food when the taste is going to be gone soon after you finish the meal? Why post on this forum espousing your ideas, when the thread will be deleted eventually? Why pay money for an air conditioner? Eventually you will die, either going to an afterlife or ceasing to exist. In either case, the comfort or discomfort you experienced due to inclement weather during your life is quite insignificant.

>>86
I haven't had recent contact with middle/high schoolers, so I'll assume you provide an accurate portrayal of such children.

Soo... atheism wins?

>>82
Certainly it is partly instinctual, but also, like I said before this is the only life I'm guaranteed, and although I never asked to be born, I'm here now, so I might as well make the best of it. That's good enough for me. I'm not going to waste the only life I have going to church, praying to a god who probably doesn't exist, reading the Bible or the Koran, or whatever, and restricting myself from so many things that I would enjoy "just in case." Religious claims are pretty far-fetched, and I find that what sounds too good to be true generally is. I'm not worried.

Besides, you'd think that the amazing, all-powerful God would be capable of simply changing homosexuals to heterosexuals, and non-believers to believers all by merely thinking it, you know, since he supposedly doesn't approve of gays or non-theists. Yet, there are gays and non-theists. With an omnipotent being running the show, who doesn't approve of these things, what the heck are they doing here? Would you stand for that if you were him? Yeah, yeah, "God works in mysterious ways, I'm not God so I can't say, yadda yadda," but... what would be difference between there being a mysterious, evasive God working behind the scenes, and no such thing at all?

People are being annoyingly christian in this thread.

>>75
>>70 here. The other guy in the thread is doing a decent job of tearing you up, but I want to add that it goes far beyond personal gain.

For atheists, this life is all we have. Once we die, that's it, so we make the most of our lives here on Earth. The point of life for us is very simple: to be happy. Your "why don't you just kill yourself" attitude is incredibly naive, and shows that you haven't even considered the other side of the argument.

With science and technology, we can improve the standard of living for everyone on Earth. We have the potential to make everyone happy; to end world hunger, to end poverty, to end suffering. This is why science is so important.

Your posts make you sound like a tremendously selfish person, doing everything simply to gain grace with your God to earn an afterlife of bliss. You don't seem to care a hoot about anyone else.

Who am I? I don't believe in God because he doesn't come down and do magic tricks for me. I'm all you atheists.

Mother Teresa hung a copy of this poem on a wall of the orphanage she founded in Calcutta. Its source is unknown.

People are often unreasonable,
illogical and self-centered;
Forgive them anyway.

If you are kind,
People may accuse you
of selfish, ulterior motives;
Be Kind anyway.

If you are successful,
you will win some false friends and
some true enemies;
Succeed anyway.

If you are honest and frank,
people may cheat you;
Be honest and frank anyway.

What you spend years building,
someone could destroy overnight;
Build anyway

If you find serenity and happiness,
they may be jealous;
Be happy anyway.

The good you do today,
people will often forget tomorrow;
Do good anyway.

Give the world the best you have,
and it may never be enough;
Give the world the best you've got anyway.

You see, in the final analysis.
it is between you and God;
It is never between you and them anyway.

--------

as an atheist, (or a weak atheist if you prefer), I love this poem. It shows exactly how I feel about the world.

Well except that last part which shows what selfish jerks Christians really are. Fascinating, truly, fascinating.

>>90

i have considered the "other side of the argument" quite a bit.  i'm agnostic, and i think morals, meaning of life, etc can all be derived in the absence of god or an afterlife, or if god/afterlife exists then you have morals and meaning trivially.

>>86

i didn't want to state my beliefs because i'm asking questions "from the other side"; i'm interested in the responses, and i don't want people to just say "we agree anyway, why bother."  we might not agree perfectly either, because i think what you could derive in the absence of god would have to be something much lesser because of its ephemeral nature.  the best you've got, though.

i don't think people who don't believe in an afterlife should kill themselves.  however, in my opinion to not question your own beliefs is naive.

"At its basis is the assumption that anything impermanent is irrelevant, but few people in the world - if any - can make an argument based on such an assumption without being hypocritical."
human action doesn't necessarily have to coincide with a logical conclusion.  i'm not sure that's the assumption that was shining in those questions anyway.  if, for instance, your temporary earthly life mattered in affecting your eternal afterlife, then it would be very relevant.  what i'm asking is more like, "if there's no afterlife, does what happens in your life matter".  does it matter whether you choose things randomly or after careful consideration?  does it matter whether you steal or kill or commit suicide?  if you died today, would anything matter tomorrow? essentially, i'm not even asking if you can have morals in the absence of god, but if those morals actually matter.  do you have a reason not to do bad things?

i'd say no, if there's no afterlife, it wouldn't matter, apart from what you physically experience and your reputation if thats important (why).  there would be no real meaning to it.  eventually you wouldn't be around to care.  maybe it would upset the people you left behind.  so?  they'll get over it or die sooner or later.  now, personally, i'm not going to go do that, because i think it's unfair and mean.  i don't know if i have any reason not to do unfair and mean things though, especially if i won't be around for their outcomes.

apart from that, while you accuse me of being a middle schooler, you haven't argued any of your points, nor answered any questions.  you've just made claims both about me and about life and dismissed questions as naive.  apparently you also think you can argue against a question, rather than a statement, by asking similar questions, like that's some clever trick.

here's my beliefs if you want them so badly btw:

i've been wondering about this because atheists generally tend to get pissed off when religious people say that an atheist can't have morals because they don't believe in god.  as an agnostic, i've tried to think of why i should have any adherence to some morality, you know, in case there's no god. so first i need a basis of morality, and second i need a reason to follow it.

if i assume there is no god, i don't want to permit some supernatural laws of good and evil here, because imo thats not much different from the idea of god.  stuff like karma might as well be an automated vending machine god that judges you and deals your rewards and punishments.  in the euthyphro, plato tries to establish that good and evil are above the gods, but imo again if it matters whether you adhere to these supernatural laws (if doing good or evil has an actual effect on you at some point during or after life), i think that's pretty close to the idea of god in a different, less personalized form.

so the only place i could think to look to is human nature.  as in, maybe morality is derived from survival of the individual and communities.  maybe its evolutionary.  i mean, it makes sense that murder would be bad, because it doesn't help the community survive.  you can explore all of that and wonder why certain things should be bad or good in consideration of this, but eventually you have to address part two of this problem. 

why should i adhere to this morality?  as a human, am i obligated to increase the survivability of humanity?  why?  nothing really adverse happens to me if i don't always do that.  sometimes, i could benefit more from "bad" things.  this might be a shortsighted view, i mean, i don't know the exact implications economically of stealing sunglasses.  but in this model, if you know youre not going to get caught, and maybe you know they won't even notice, why not do it?  you've got some moral code, but there are scenarios where theres no negative effects for breaking it.

I am a firm believer that God does not exist. How could God exist in a world full of *chans?

>>95
that's because god is one of us, just a *channer on a bus.

infinitieschan.org

>>94

Morality is relative; there is no good nor bad, just perspective.

Through evolution, we have gained a degree of altruism, which can and is labeled as the source of our morality. This altruism is the reason why we help people and why we are nice to people- so that the help and niceness is reciprocated when we need it. The Golden Rule, basically. However, this is not to say that we have an ingrained sense of right and wrong, a conscience, as we like to call it. Rather we are equipped with these basic principles of altruism so that community and cooperation fostered. Such qualities were crucial back in ancient times when our ancestors fought for survival in their little groups.

Realizing this, no, murder is not bad. Simply, it is just harmful to the group, and anything that is harmful to the group is shunned in place of more productive actions.

To answer some more of your questions (you had quite a few), no, you do not have to adhere to this morality or any other form of morality. Problem is, government and laws and asinine old/dying/dead farts in suits get to decide what you can be punished for.

You are also not obligated to increase the survivability of humanity. We have evolved beyond the point were instinct completely dominates our actions.

I like how you asked so many questions. Don't stop. Question authority. Question everything, and that includes what I have just told you.

Here's what I like to think about:  if no one ever told you about god, religion, whatever... then would you even come up with the idea of god on your own?  I would say no.

But some people say yes.  Then what?  Would you be able to know what this god wanted from you?  No.  You'd have to just think, there's some power that created everything/looking over us/whatever and that's all that you can believe. 

But then other people fucked everything up.  They invented all these rules and traditions and bullshit... spoiled everything. 

Believe whatever you want, but stop letting it run your lives... sheep.

God does not exist...

100GET

Judeo-Christian religious history, in a nutshell:

Man #1:  A giant alien space monster made us all!
Man #2:  Yes, and he has all sorts of rules for us to follow!
Man #3:  Well, is there any proof for the existence of this giant alien space monster and his rules?
Man #4:  None of that sounds like the details of my OWN giant alien space monster, anyway.  I disagree.
{Man #1 and #2 bomb the hell out of Man #3 and #4.}
Man #1 and #2:  Our giant alien space monster is superior and will bless us for this great victory!

*THE*END*

protip: god is not religion

>>98
To answer some more of your questions (you had quite a few), no, you do not have to adhere to this morality or any other form of morality. Problem is, government and laws and asinine old/dying/dead farts in suits get to decide what you can be punished for.
So if some greasy pedo gets ahold of a little girl and molests her, he shouldn't be punished for that? What if it was YOUR little girl? Would you still be calling these people "asinine" for deciding that the child molester should be punished?

>>103
ask the mother of jesus and panthera

#102:  Here's another protip:

Religion relies upon the existence of this "god" character.

Therefore:

No god = no religion.

Thanks for playing, Sparky.  Note well that no matter how much I deride the "holy rollers", there is STILL no evidence for their silly god whatsoever.  Key point, Chum.  {snaps fingers}  Just seeing if you're awake, you unwarrantedly arrogant prick.

Tooth decay, arthritis, bad knees, bad backs, birth defects, Spina Bifida, diabeetis, Cystic Fibrosis, Muscular Dystrophy, cancer...

Intelligent Design indeed!

Why does everyone assume that "God" has to be the Christian God?

You can not prove that God exists or doesn't exist. Its all a matter of opinion. But its better to be safe than sorry! SO DON'T FUCK UP!

>>107
Because that's how the word "God" (with a capital "G") is commonly used.

I'm sick of people making God out to be like a hundred different things. Might as well say God is their friggin' bed sheets, for cryin' out loud. Honestly. "God" (note the capital "G") refers to the [alleged] omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent creator of the universe. If people want to refer to a god other than the Christian one, they ought to use a different name.

>>103

Sorry, I didn't mean to instigate an ad hominem attack with some of my harsher comments (the /b/ in  me kicking in). It is, however, still a logical fallacy and I will it ignore because so.

>>105

That's utterly false. Religion does NOT necessitate a God or some other higher power. Ever heard of Buddhism or Satanism?

>>108

Pascal's Wager fails miserably. If you don't see why then you are absolutely retarded.

#108 went all stupid on us:  «You can not prove that God exists or doesn't exist. Its all a matter of opinion.»

No, it's not just 'a matter of opinion'.  The assertion of a universe-spanning being who has allegedly dipped into Human affairs readily and frequently is at the very least an INVITATION FOR PROOF.

The final fact of the issue is that when you make any such assertion, you have to prove it.  The more outrageous the assertion, the stronger the need for proof.  The assertions of the existence of this 'god' continue to go 100% unproved.  Hence, they are WRONG.

After all, if you assert that some sort of deity exists, you must have detected it somehow, right?  Either that, or you're deranged and you should stop speaking in public forums and instead obtain profession help.  It's what happens when people experience hallucinations and other mental afflictions.

#110 wept at the slaughter of his inane sacred cows:  «Religion does NOT necessitate a God or some other higher power. Ever heard of Buddhism or Satanism?»

Religion by definition defines itself from something divine.  That divinity can be iconic or just some sort of force.  Regardless, the assertion of the existence of anything like that REQUIRES the demonstration of proof.  If the divinity is an icon, then that icon must be shown via photographs, etc.  If the divinity is a force, then other instruments should record it.

AFTER ALL ... when people (usually very, very stupid ones) assert that their godhead exists, they must have detected it somehow.  I mean, it's either that, or they're mentally addled and should be locked up for their own protection.  People with "imaginary friends" (among other delusions) are dangerous to society.

redcream, go the fuck home.  you're an idiot who adds either obvious or retarded incorrect points to any argument, and you're an arrogant jackass.  i'd thank you for using a name as a warning, but i can't seem to help but waste my time reading your mental train wrecks when i see it.

>>113
just adding that i'm an atheist, so don't try to write me off as some whacky christian, as it seems you're wont to do.

#113, it may be arrogant to be right, but we should try to be right instead of just joining the "Crusade of the Wrong".

At any rate, I'm never going away.  Get used to my postings.  I may as well just continue repeating my points since you fail to address them (since they're right, so perhaps I shouldn't blame you for being too cowardly to even debate).

>>115
i'll take the time to quickly address them, but i sincerely doubt you'd give what i say any critical consideration, because you've come off as someone with either an agenda or a large set of preconceived unwavering beliefs.

1) you've intentionally misrepresented the notion of the abrahamic God as a fabricated giant space monster.  regardless of the validity of your misrepresentation, our discussion was about the existence of a god, with emphasis on the current christian notion, or at least something with omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence.

2) i don't know where you got your ideas on what proof is and what requires proof.  you can make any assertion you want and you don't have to prove shit.  you can claim youre the spaceking ixxkeput of nebulon 48-r and you don't have to prove it.  i just won't believe you until i see proof.  if you want to convince me, then there has to be proof.  you yourself don't even have to provide it.  i just have to see it at some point, then i'll be convinced.

3) for some reason, regarding the one possibly sarcastic guy who claimed that god is unprovable, you called him stupid.  i'm not sure why, since i doubt you have proof that god is provable, and you certainly didn't provide it if you do.  so, until we know that god is provable or disprovable, and you have a proof for or against god, you can only have an opinion on it.

4) "The assertions of the existence of this 'god' continue to go 100% unproved.  Hence, they are WRONG."
this thread and others like it have already addressed several times why this is a retarded thing to say.  i'll invite you to read through the thread, and as a bonus, i'll tell you to inspect a list of logical fallacies.

5) "After all, if you assert that some sort of deity exists, you must have detected it somehow, right?"
The following are two possibilities, there are more:
It's been detected by means of the human body not readily repeatable in a scientific setting with a body or other instruments.
Someone made it up.
In any case, it doesn't follow from an assertion that there was any good reason for that assertion other than an imagination and what caused that person to write/speak.  Now, you personally have made up some retarded arguments, so I guess by your own logic, you should be strapped to a table in a padded room for having an imagination.

6) many definitions of religion do not necessitate a higher power of any form, though many emphasize it, and some require it.  go look it up in a couple different sources, such as the ones that don't conform to your convenience.

7)you're not right.  you're just an arrogant jackass.  if you were arrogant and right, i wouldn't care.  even if you were arrogant and wrong but you justified what you said, i wouldn't mind much.  the same things that allow people to be wrong: a lack of critical examination, belief without proof, etc, are things you seem to be familiar with yourself.  i just happen to think you're guessing in favor of a better side.  unfortunately, i think you're a terrible representative of this side in any sort of argument, because you're an idiot, and you argue like an idiot.

8) i didn't expect you to leave.  i just wanted to express my disapproval of you.  though i doubt that means anything to you either.  for all i know, you could have some sort of social disorder where the views of others are completely meaningless to you as far as determining your own behavior.

9) you've already repeated your points, which i guess you've already acknowledged, since you said "continue repeating" rather than just "repeating".

10) cocks.

ok your turn :D

Wow, #116.  WOW!  You're actually trying to GET AROUND THE HARD REQUIREMENT OF PROOF.  Jesus, you're demented!

The truth is, your "Abrahamic God" doesn't seem to be around when people bring out the cameras, microphones and plaster casts.  Generally we call things that don't leave valid evidence to be "imaginary" -- hence the phrase "your imaginary friend" when we speak derisively of your mental affliction.

You can utterly destroy my arguments by quite simply producing EVIDENCE.  Show us a photograph of this space monster, or whatever the hell it is.  Got any audio of 'He That Is Him' giving out commandments?  Do you have any REAL EVIDENCE?

I really don't have to do ANYTHING more to prove my point.  It's YOU religitards who have made the outrageous assertion that this space monster exists.  When you assert the existence of something, it's surely not up to ME to somehow disprove it, and that goes DOUBLE for making such a farcical assertion (as is the case for any giant alien space monster or whatever the heck such an exotic creature is).  Roll it on out here, guy!

JUST PROVE IT.  After all, YOU somehow detected it, didn't you?  I mean, if it's not a MENTAL AFFLICTION, then you can demonstrate the existence that you apparently sensed.

... and by "sense" I can ONLY mean:  sight, sound, touch.  Just having a "feeling" is invalid evidence, since "feelings" are never evidence of anything concrete.  Humans are great composers of fiction, so feelings don't constitute evidence.

I eagerly await your proof.  (Of course, YOU DON'T FUCKING HAVE ANY, but from the Human mind hope doth spring eternal!)

P.S.  I have a giant alien space monster that comes out of my ass when nobody is looking.  Hey, you can't disprove it; if you say it doesn't exist, that's only your opinion, fella!  Believe me, when a giant alien space monster comes out of your anus, you get this "feeling", and that's more than enough evidence ... well, that, and huge bills from my proctologist.  Har!

>>116
I take it you're not in Canada or the U.S., or you are but you've been living under a rock this whole time. Anyway, American Christians are imposing their beliefs upon others' lives, making it so that they, regardless of THEIR beliefs or lack thereof, have to live by the Christians' rules. In some states, people who don't believe in old Goddie-boy aren't allowed to hold public office or be in boy scouts. Many orphanages don't allow gay couples to adopt, on the basis of, "homosexuality is against our religion," and gays aren't allowed in the Army, again because Christians believe homosexuality is "wrong". You have non-theists being fired from their jobs and dumped by their girlfriends because these Christians don't want someone who doesn't share their "love of God". And in some states, you can't buy alcohol on Sundays, because it's "God's day of rest."

Then there's Ken Ham and his Creationism museum, which over 20 million dollars went into, and Creationism is silly; it says just because we create complex things, we too must have been created because we are even more complex than our creations. I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way; that's speculation; it's no different than if one were to say, "Dog poop is brown, and, hey! Chocolate is brown, too! So this dog poop here should taste like chocolate! Nom nom nom." That's right, Creationists, eat up! If this is the sort of thing that passes for "sound reasoning", then what are you waiting for? Go get your hot, fresh dog shit!

And they tried to push for Creationism to be taught as science. Such audacity. Oh, and we can't forget the mandatory Lord's Prayer in certain schools. Hellooo, not everyone is Chrisssssstian. How about some respect for the non-religious people and people of other religions.

And in many places, non-believers are shunned and ridiculed simply for lacking belief.

Now, the situation isn't quite as bad here in Canada, however it is still bad. We have both a public and Catholic school board, and Creationism is taught in the Catholic schools. So, our tax dollars are being wasted on this nonsense.

So it's high time the religious prove their beliefs true, or kindly keep it the fuck out of government and education, because it doesn't belong there. That's what your churches are for.

>>117

i don't understand why you put "abrahamic god" in quotes.  i'm not sure what your implication is.
http://www.google.com/search?q=define+abrahamic
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define+god

also, as i've stated several times now, it's not my god.  again, you've resorted to ostricizing me and calling me out as some whacky believer in imaginary things, when i've specifically pointed out that i am not a theist.  now i think you're just making yourself look stupid on purpose.

i'm not saying there's evidence.  i'm just saying you're a stupid person who makes poor arguments.  i am not currently arguing for god, i am arguing against the idea that you are an intelligent person.  as such, we are very much in the same boat, both awaiting proof contrary to our ideas.  except i'm not an idiot about it.

in conclusion, i agree, i don't have any proof of god.  coincidentally, this is a large part of why i am an atheist.  however, i now have substantially more evidence that you are, in fact, a complete retard.  please continue to read everything incorrectly, and insert your own assumptions into other people's words.  i can only hope that you realize how much you are currently embarassing yourself.

>>118
i'm an american, and i'm not pretending i don't see religious influence in my daily life.  however, that is distinct from the question of whether or not god actually exists.  this would have to do with human rights, what freedom actually is, the legal system, the validity of a particular religion, and our system of government in general.  yes, it might be related, but it's not the same discussion.  as a side note though, i agree, government and religion should be strictly seperated.  however, if government continues to rule on the legality of certain practices which have implications related to morality/values, there will necessarily be an influence on government by religion, and so on the population at large.  also, as long as you have a representative government in which a majority or significant power can influence elected officials, i think you're likely to see a strong mix of religion and state.