Adam and his wife died physically after eating the Forbidden Fruit. Genesis 2:17 is Literal.

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Yes the the future of humanity as severe problems as in the past with ancient tribal religions fighting wars with each other on brutal ancient moral standards. including Hinduism, Unfortunately humanity will have to deal with this violence as in the past.

I agree with you that humanity will have to deal with this violence. But my point of departure is that this violence is rooted in or fueled by theological understandings. So, we have to bring the theological understandings in concordance so that the theological basis of violence is reduced or removed. That may not get us pure peace, but that is not the point. Even if there is a reduction in violence, I think it is to be welcomed.

 

[shunyadragon]

Meantime, there is something like gravity as well as poetic usage of language. I'm quite certain that men looking into the heavens did not see literal pillars supporting anything.

Bible clearly describes -pillars under the earth supporting the earth. You would not see the looking up in the heavens. Biblically the earth id not held up by suspenders from above.

I Samuel 2:8.

"He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them."

Job 9:6, but let's add verses 4 and 5 to our consideration as well.

"He is wise in heart, and mighty in strength: who hath hardened himself against him, and hath prospered? Which removeth the mountains, and they know not: which overturneth them in his anger. Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble."

 

[shunyadragon]

My point of departure is that the scriptures are talking about the same historical events. I would like to share a paper that gives more details about this, about tracing the parallel narratives in different religions. Please share your contact details because file is too large to share.

"Talking about historical events" needs clarification, because even though they are narratives set in the history of the Levant and Egypt. compiled in what we call the Pentateuch. It is not a reliable historical record of events before 600 BCE when it was compiled The Genesis Creation and Noah's Flood account is mythology, Exodus and most of the Pentateuch are set in history but Created from traditional beliefs and loosely on some facts of history, but the accounts of Exodus and Joshua and the invasion of the Levant has no historical basis as described in the Pentateuch

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

"Talking about historical events" needs clarification, because even though they are narratives set in the history of the Levant and Egypt. compiled in what we call the Pentateuch. It is not a reliable historical record of events before 600 BCE when it was compiled The Genesis Creation and Noah's Flood account is mythology, Exodus and most of the Pentateuch are set in history but Created from traditional beliefs and loosely on some facts of history, but the accounts of Exodus and Joshua and the invasion of the Levant has no historical basis as described in the Pentateuch

I think this thread has come to a dead end between you and me, because I am not able to post all the evidence here and I am not able to share my paper with you. So, if you are inclined to continue this discussion, I request you to share your WhatsApp number or email or any other way that I can share my paper with you. For the present, I am trying to put this paper on Google Drive and send the link to you. If it works, please see the paper.

five persons archaeo jasi 210800 (1).pdf

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The future — the near future — is that the political element existing now as the United Nations, will turn on religion, all forms of it, and succeed in destroying almost all of it.
(Such an event would bring a lot of peace to this world…. governments will get religion’s money, and pay a few bills!)

That’s what the Bible foretells, @ Revelation chaps.17 & 18

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Bible clearly describes -pillars under the earth supporting the earth.

But the Earth does have pillars: the roots discovered underneath the mountains.

Beneath the mountains

However, the Biblical authors used poetic & symbolic language many times. Something to keep in mind.

Biblically the earth id not held up by suspenders from above.

And the Bible doesn’t say that. It says at Job 26/7….

“God stretches the northern sky over empty space and hangs the earth on nothing.”


That’s actually quite accurate!


But “Earth” sometimes can mean ‘people’ or ‘society’, as in Genesis 11:1, Psalm 66:4, Psalm 96:1, 1 Chronicles 16:23, et. al.

Something else to keep in mind.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Adam and his wife died *physically* after partaking of the Forbidden Fruit. Moreover, it was on that very day...

Genesis 2:17
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

• Day means Day, as in twenty-four hours or less.
• Surely Die means Surely Die, as in physical death.

As far as I know, I am the only person on the planet that believes the above verse.

Both Christians and Non-Christians alike will take away and add words to the verse to make it state something it does not.

Some examples include...

• Spiritual Death: Adam and his wife 'died Spiritually'.
• Begin to Age: The 'aging process' for Adam and his wife 'began ticking'.
• Day is a Thousand Years: Adam and his wife 'died within a thousand-year timeframe'.

Note that taking away and adding to the Word of God is of course a very big no-no, yet everyone does it with Genesis 2:17.

There is no need however, to alter the verse. Genesis 2:17 agrees with the entire Bible when taken literally.

In fact, it is the *only* way in which it does!

Death existed for billions of years before homo sapiens. There was never a time that homo sapiens did not die. The Adam and Eve stories in Genesis 2-3 are not historical. But as with most forms of fiction, we learn important lessons from them, such as the nature of humankind. It's what makes Genesis such a powerful book that has withstood the test of time.

 

[shunyadragon]

But the Earth does have pillars: the roots discovered underneath the mountains.

Beneath the mountains

However, the Biblical authors used poetic & symbolic language many times. Something to keep in mind.

You have a creative imagination to dishonestly justify your agenda. No such pillars exist under mountains, Those that compiled and wrote the Bible believed literally, no symbolic language, what they wrote. The Bible says the pillars support the earth, not the mountains.



The problem continues you selectively consider citations to dishonestly justify the what you believe. The Bible is what it is as they wrote it or it is not,

And the Bible doesn’t say that. It says at Job 26/7….

“God stretches the northern sky over empty space and hangs the earth on nothing.”

The Bible literally states in a number of places it is fixed in space and supported by pillars. Well yes in places it frequently contradicts itself.

That’s actually quite accurate!

Not really. So are the citations that it is supported by pillars and fixed in space. Contradictions abound when you selectively and dishonestly cite the Bible to justify your agenda.

But “Earth” sometimes can mean ‘people’ or ‘society’, as in Genesis 11:1, Psalm 66:4, Psalm 96:1, 1 Chronicles 16:23, et. al.

Something else to keep in mind.

In the citations provided the earth is the earth specifically as intended as those who wrote it,

 

[shunyadragon]

I think this thread has come to a dead end between you and me, because I am not able to post all the evidence here and I am not able to share my paper with you. So, if you are inclined to continue this discussion, I request you to share your WhatsApp number or email or any other way that I can share my paper with you. For the present, I am trying to put this paper on Google Drive and send the link to you. If it works, please see the paper.

five persons archaeo jasi 210800 (1).pdf

I have read your paper, and yes you make many extreme biased assumptions based on mythology, vague comparison of linguistics and your bias Indus Valley cultural agenda, and stoically ignore the overwhelming archeological, historical, ancient Egyptian text, and genetic evidence that the Exodus and the entire Pentateuch is grounded in the ancient history of the Levant, Mesopotamia and Egypt.

Any more evidence you can cite here if you choose, but repeating mythical and ancient cultural Indus Valley assumptions do not remotely support your agenda..

 

[wellwisher]

Adam and his wife died *physically* after partaking of the Forbidden Fruit. Moreover, it was on that very day...

Genesis 2:17
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

• Day means Day, as in twenty-four hours or less.
• Surely Die means Surely Die, as in physical death.

As far as I know, I am the only person on the planet that believes the above verse.

Both Christians and Non-Christians alike will take away and add words to the verse to make it state something it does not.

Some examples include...

• Spiritual Death: Adam and his wife 'died Spiritually'.
• Begin to Age: The 'aging process' for Adam and his wife 'began ticking'.
• Day is a Thousand Years: Adam and his wife 'died within a thousand-year timeframe'.

Note that taking away and adding to the Word of God is of course a very big no-no, yet everyone does it with Genesis 2:17.

There is no need however, to alter the verse. Genesis 2:17 agrees with the entire Bible when taken literally.

In fact, it is the *only* way in which it does!

What died was their innocence. After they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they covered themselves, because they saw they were naked. Before they ate they were like natural human animals in paradise. Animals do not have any need to cover up with clothes. But when they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, all of a sudden naked had been defined as evil, so to obey the law, they quickly covered up. This was a tell they had lost their innocence and ate of the tree.

It is common for small children to enjoy running around naked, after their diaper is changed, but before the new one is put on. It is funny and cute so the parents and older children often reinforce this, for cute laughs. But as they get older, mother and/or father teaches them the knowledge of good and evil that naked is not good, and eventually that joyful innocence is lost or dies. From then on, they start to rely on cultural rules of good and evil; proper behavior at school and at home, and avoid that spontaneous carefree nature of the toddler, that was allowed when they were innocent. With Adam and Eve their innocence died, and they could no longer remain in the childhood of humanity; paradise, but had to face the struggles of the adolescence and then the adulthood of humanity.

The Angel standing guard is in the brain; inner self, that regulates the hormones that cause irreversible cell differentiation toward adulthood. We lose the childhood connection to the inner self, and have to depend more on the ego and the cultural superego; tree of external social knowledge of good and evil. The symbolism was also about the appearance of the first human ego of the modern human, who now had two centers of consciousness. The inner self was sealed; unconscious, so the ego could willfully develop; law, until it was ready to return home and merge with the inner self; second Adam. Less you be as children or a return to age of innocence; faith in the inner voice; spontaneity of the child.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

But as with most forms of fiction [Genesis], we learn important lessons from them, such as the nature of humankind

I've read some variation of that on RF dozens of times, and it always leaves me slack-jawed. What valuable lessons are they talking about?

Naive kids are left in a garden with a malicious snake, eat a forbidden apple, and suffer undesirable consequences including the loss of paradise and immortality. What important lesson is a child old enough to understand that story going to learn that he doesn't already know? He already knows about orders, temptations, and that there can be consequences for indulging in them.

Or the flood story. Or the Tower of Babel story. Do you see important lessons there as well? I don't see any lessons in the flood story beyond the same "if you don't obey, there are consequences" or in the tower story other than to not strive to build higher.

The lessons the Genesis myths teach is that man is bad and repeatedly deserves severe punishment, and I find no value there. The humanist equivalent is that man has the potential for nobility and needs education and opportunity to develop that potential. The two messages generate tangible differences in how we view and treat people.

the Earth does have pillars: the roots discovered underneath the mountains.

You're stretching. The value of words is to read them and get an idea, not get an idea and then try to make the words fit them. If one takes the liberty to change the meanings of words like that, then the Bible can be said to say whatever one chooses that it should say. How about we do the same for God and resurrection. Let's just say that God refers to man's potential to achieve greatness and resurrection was not about a person but about Greco-Roman culture, which disappeared from the west for "three days," which means the Middle Ages when the Arabs kept it until it was resurrected in the West.

“God stretches the northern sky over empty space and hangs the earth on nothing.” That’s actually quite accurate!

You're doing it again. Hanging means suspended from above. It is inaccurate. The earth is neither hanging from above nor resting on pillars. The Bible writers' world was limited to one in which gravity pulls everything downward, and so things were either held up or fell down. They had no concept of the force that pulls down puling from the side (from the sun), so they had it pulling the earth downward, hence the need for pillars below or suspension from above.

It so much easier for the unbeliever, who doesn't need to do what the believer does to reconcile scripture with reality. He can just do as I did here, and say that they were unknowing, speculated, and got it wrong.

Earth” sometimes can mean ‘people’ or ‘society’, as in Genesis 11:1, Psalm 66:4, Psalm 96:1, 1 Chronicles 16:23, et. al. Something else to keep in mind.

You're trying to reconcile the error again with another maybe/what if. What if it was referring to people and not the planet. Maybe it was referring to soil. If you allow yourself that much latitude, the words have no meaning but what you choose to give them. Like I said, we get should get meaning from the words, not assign meaning to them not intended by their authors.

What if you did the same with the words you are reading now? 'Maybe by meaning he meant spirit and by author's intention he meant their hidden thoughts.' If you start doing that, my message to you will evaporate for you, and what you will see instead is your own message in my words.

 

[shunyadragon]

What died was their innocence. After they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they covered themselves, because they saw they were naked. Before they ate they were like natural human animals in paradise. Animals do not have any need to cover up with clothes. But when they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, all of a sudden naked had been defined as evil, so to obey the law, they quickly covered up. This was a tell they had lost their innocence and ate of the tree.

It is common for small children to enjoy running around naked, after their diaper is changed, but before the new one is put on. It is funny and cute so the parents and older children often reinforce this, for cute laughs. But as they get older, mother and/or father teaches them the knowledge of good and evil that naked is not good, and eventually that joyful innocence is lost or dies. From then on, they start to rely on cultural rules of good and evil; proper behavior at school and at home, and avoid that spontaneous carefree nature of the toddler, that was allowed when they were innocent. With Adam and Eve their innocence died, and they could no longer remain in the childhood of humanity; paradise, but had to face the struggles of the adolescence and then the adulthood of humanity.

The Angel standing guard is in the brain; inner self, that regulates the hormones that cause irreversible cell differentiation toward adulthood. We lose the childhood connection to the inner self, and have to depend more on the ego and the cultural superego; tree of external social knowledge of good and evil. The symbolism was also about the appearance of the first human ego of the modern human, who now had two centers of consciousness. The inner self was sealed; unconscious, so the ego could willfully develop; law, until it was ready to return home and merge with the inner self; second Adam. Less you be as children or a return to age of innocence; faith in the inner voice; spontaneity of the child.

OK, this reflects your interpretation today, but that is not what those who originally wrote and believed what they wrote.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I've read some variation of that on RF dozens of times, and it always leaves me slack-jawed. What valuable lessons are they talking about?

Naive kids are left in a garden with a malicious snake, eat a forbidden apple, and suffer undesirable consequences including the loss of paradise and immortality. What important lesson is a child old enough to understand that story going to learn that he doesn't already know? He already knows about orders, temptations, and that there can be consequences for indulging in them.

When I say lessons learned, I'm referring to the reader.

With regards to the Garden of Eden story, I can think of two major lessons. The first is the importance of obeying God. The second is what it teaches about human nature -- that we have evolved a conscience, and this conscience can be at odds with our animal instincts. This destroys the harmony with others, with nature, with ourselves, and with God.

Or the flood story.

Teaches us of the depth of human corruption, how much God hates sin, and the importance of human responsibility and stewardship.

Or the Tower of Babel story.

Teaches us caution when we make advances. So often humans do things because we can, and don't think about whether we should. Mary Shelly dealt with this in her book, Frankenstein. We are on the cusp of many advances in science that are morally dubious, from cloning to creating chimera with animals, to genetic manipulation of embryos. Very few people are drawing attention to the moral implications.

 

[Questioning]

Adam and his wife died *physically* after partaking of the Forbidden Fruit. Moreover, it was on that very day...

Genesis 2:17
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

• Day means Day, as in twenty-four hours or less.
• Surely Die means Surely Die, as in physical death.

As far as I know, I am the only person on the planet that believes the above verse.

Both Christians and Non-Christians alike will take away and add words to the verse to make it state something it does not.

Some examples include...

• Spiritual Death: Adam and his wife 'died Spiritually'.
• Begin to Age: The 'aging process' for Adam and his wife 'began ticking'.
• Day is a Thousand Years: Adam and his wife 'died within a thousand-year timeframe'.

Note that taking away and adding to the Word of God is of course a very big no-no, yet everyone does it with Genesis 2:17.

There is no need however, to alter the verse. Genesis 2:17 agrees with the entire Bible when taken literally.

In fact, it is the *only* way in which it does!

We were NOT in Adam's day.....

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

With regards to the Garden of Eden story, I can think of two major lessons. The first is the importance of obeying God.

We have very different ideas of what is a valuable lesson. You make multiple references to obeying what the Bible teaches are the commandments of its god. That's fairly meaningless to an unbeliever, and not good advice in my opinion.

The Garden story seems to me to be an explanation for why man's life was so difficult in the light of belief in a tri-omni deity. Why if their god had the power to give them immortality, paradise, and freedom from sickness did so many die before two years of age, in childbirth, in war, from infection, from poisoning, and from accidents? Why did they have to toil the land rather than just pick apples from a tree? The answer as usual: punishment for disobedience. It's an effort to justify the choice to give man such a life.

The second is what it teaches about human nature -- that we have evolved a conscience, and this conscience can be at odds with our animal instincts. This destroys the harmony with others, with nature, with ourselves, and with God.

Again, how is common knowledge a valuable lesson? Sociopaths wouldn't understand that, and people who grow a conscience are acutely aware of their dual natures and their inner battle.

I think you much more value there than I do.

Teaches us of the depth of human corruption, how much God hates sin, and the importance of human responsibility and stewardship.

The flood story teaches human responsibility and stewardship? I don't think it teaches anything constructive. The myth is extremely unflattering to the deity, who is depicted as cruel, unjust, and incompetent. Incompetent for creating mankind defective by its own standards and incompetent for using the same defective stock to repopulate the world, unjust for blaming and punishing man for its failures, and cruel for choosing to drown them virtually all other terrestrial species. What's the valuable lesson there? Where's the human responsibility and stewardship lesson there?

In my opinion, the flood story which is so unflattering to this god was an answer to why their god flooded the earth, which they presumed happened from finding marine fossils and seashells on the highest mountain tops. There's no great message there in my opinion.

I'm not trying to pee in anybody's Corn Flakes. I'm challenging words I keep hearing from believers praising these myths and saying that they hold profound truths. I'm saying that I don't see them and telling you what I see instead.

Teaches us caution when we make advances. So often humans do things because we can, and don't think about whether we should. Mary Shelly dealt with this in her book, Frankenstein. We are on the cusp of many advances in science that are morally dubious, from cloning to creating chimera with animals, to genetic manipulation of embryos. Very few people are drawing attention to the moral implications.

What technological advances or other advances do you suppose the ancient Hebrews were being warned to be careful about?

You're talking about modern problems. The ideas that you say the story teaches would be meaningless for millennia to come. They couldn't conceive of that kind of power except from their god.

Once again, I think you're giving the story too much credit and are overlooking the practical reason like the two I just gave you for writing these stories. If all of mankind descended from a pair of people with a language, why did they find people all around them that they could not understand? What happened? It must have been something their god did, but why if it loves them? Once again, the answer is man's bad behavior needing punishing.

It's difficult to reconcile reality with a tri-omni deity. In my opinion, these stories all attempted to do just that, not teach lessons. They're answers for children who ask their parents why the word is as it is if a powerful god knows and loves them.

Anyway, that's how this unbeliever views all of this. I don't see valuable truths, but I do see explanations for why the world is how it appeared to them in the light of their belief in an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful god.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

The future — the near future — is that the political element existing now as the United Nations, will turn on religion, all forms of it, and succeed in destroying almost all of it.
(Such an event would bring a lot of peace to this world…. governments will get religion’s money, and pay a few bills!)

That’s what the Bible foretells, @ Revelation chaps.17 & 18

I am willing to accept that the government will destroy religion. But the question remains with what will they substitute it? If it is substituted by spiritualism then it would be good for this world. But if it is substituted with hedonism then it will be negative for the world. So, I am not worried about whether religion survives or not. I am more worried about what it gets transformed into.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

I have read your paper, and yes you make many extreme biased assumptions based on mythology, vague comparison of linguistics and your bias Indus Valley cultural agenda, and stoically ignore the overwhelming archeological, historical, ancient Egyptian text, and genetic evidence that the Exodus and the entire Pentateuch is grounded in the ancient history of the Levant, Mesopotamia and Egypt.

Any more evidence you can cite here if you choose, but repeating mythical and ancient cultural Indus Valley assumptions do not remotely support your agenda..

I am honoured that you read the paper. I am willing to accept your criticism but if you just say that I am biased, then it does not take me forward. May I request you to take some paragraphs or sentences out of my paper and show me how they are biased. Then I am willing to engage and see how it can be modified and please rest assured that I have no Indus Valley cultural agenda. I am only looking for truth. Maybe I am wrong but if I belong to India and I do believe that Indus Valley was the origin then it would be false for me to not acknowledge it and not support it. So, I repeat, please provide your comments on specific paras or sentences that can help me move forward. I really appreciate the fact that you read the paper. Thank you.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am honoured that you read the paper. I am willing to accept your criticism but if you just say that I am biased, then it does not take me forward. May I request you to take some paragraphs or sentences out of my paper and show me how they are biased. Then I am willing to engage and see how it can be modified and please rest assured that I have no Indus Valley cultural agenda. I am only looking for truth. Maybe I am wrong but if I belong to India and I do believe that Indus Valley was the origin then it would be false for me to not acknowledge it and not support it. So, I repeat, please provide your comments on specific paras or sentences that can help me move forward. I really appreciate the fact that you read the paper. Thank you.

I have already done that in detail and specifics, I may respond with more but at present you have have failed to respond to problem I described.

One point you describe the Hebrew tribes as coming to the Levant in ~1500 BCE. from the Indus Valley. There is overwhelming archeological, historical, genetic linguistic, and cultural evidence that the Hebrews have been Canaanite tribes older than 3000 BCE, and their language, culture and religion evolved from Canaanite language, culture and beliefs. Even the Pentateuch contains Canaanite/Ugarit, Sumerian direct influence.

There is also a very close relationship between the Canaanite tribes including Hebrews with Egypt going back to before 3000 BCE.

 

[shunyadragon]

The future — the near future — is that the political element existing now as the United Nations, will turn on religion, all forms of it, and succeed in destroying almost all of it.
(Such an event would bring a lot of peace to this world…. governments will get religion’s money, and pay a few bills!)

That’s what the Bible foretells, @ Revelation chaps.17 & 18

Citing a vague interpretation of scripture does not support your paranoid conclusions about government turning on all forms of religion.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I am willing to accept that the government will destroy religion.

Are you referring to oppressive regies like the Communists of the 20th century, who tried to outlaw religion? If so, they didn't succeed in eliminating it. They just drove it underground.

But if you're talking about something more like America, the government is not the enemy of religion, although the theocratic Christians see it in those terms. Refusal to support their religion is understood as being its enemy by that faction.

But it is evaporating away as the religious surveys of the last 35 years show us. Every year, fewer people identify as religious or Christians and more as nones, which includes an assortment of types including the "I'm spiritual, not religious" types

But the question remains with what will they substitute it?

In America, they substituted humanism for religion in government in 1789. It's worked well, but is now under siege from both the theocratic conservatives and MAGA, who between them have little regard for church-state separation, egalitarianism, the rule of law, and democracy itself.

If it is substituted by spiritualism then it would be good for this world. But if it is substituted with hedonism then it will be negative for the world.

I don't know what you mean by spiritualism, especially when you posture it as the or an alternative to hedonism. In my estimation, what I define as spirituality is not the business of government. For me, spirituality is an attitude toward nature and life. It is a warm sense of connection and belonging (opposite: alienation) generally associated with some degree and combination of a sense of awe, mystery, and gratitude.

Sometimes, hedonism means the pursuit of pleasure, and sometimes, it means the pursuit of selfish pleasure and perhaps a dissolute and destructive lifestyle. If you mean the latter, religion (I'm focusing on American Christianity, because that's what I know best and what religion in America generally refers to) doesn't prevent that.

You seem to be influenced by such religious ideas, although your name suggests that you are neither American nor Christian (does "from India" mean you mostly have lived there, or that you began life there?). If you have assimilated Christianity as I am used to it from experience a as Christian in my youth, from following the news thereafter, and from posting on RF and a now defunct competitor for a decade before joining this site in 2017, then pleasure and the pursuit of same are considered selfish.

I understand that as a message that you are not to think about what you want or enjoy and turn your attention to obedience to the church and to devote your life and resources to promoting its agenda to spread and accrue wealth and societal hegemony. So, forget that vacation and give more to the church, and if you don't, you're being an immoral hedonist.

But I believe in the pursuit of pleasure, which doesn't exclude moral and charitable behavior. It is not selfish hedonism, although the religious might disagree.

One consequence of that attitude is that we didn't have children (my wife and I met after I left Christianity), which made it possible to travel to exotic locations twice a year, take weekends out of town in hotels to see three Grateful Dead shows on Fri/Sat/Sun every other month, frequently perform musically with my wife at night after work on an average of three times a month, eat out every day, and retire early.

My pastor before I left his religion would have disapproved for the reasons I just gave. He would have rather seen me turn those hours to religious pursuits and those dollars to his church, and to create more children, the company of which I don't care for.

Anyway, replacing religion in my life with atheistic humanism was a big improvement, and if I extrapolate that across a nation, I see a net benefit. I prefer humanist thought and moral values, which have made me a little better person than I was as a Christian. I see no loss there, but I do see a net societal gain.