The consequenses are kind of hidden in plain sight but i havent seen anything about the REAL consequenses. Ill make an analogy to the time line of the united states because we are a prime example of this, ok. First we kicked the natives out , whatever its not relevant to my point, ok , we colonize and have people living there happy content people go their for refuge whatever theyre there now the important part their governing body ,britain or whoever and that governing body represents religion. Theyre causing us problems with all the taxes and shit bam we independificaterzz we have our government free of corruption low taxes then there are more taxes corruption less freedom federal reserve the huac the patriot act worse than where we started the people who were against this cause are now the cause v2, in the case of religion atheist / people who encourage scientific knowledge would with out a doubt eventually use their acquired positions to lie and cheat everyone into making these scientists/whatever, god figures so we now see this neverending circle and now im starting to think were need a god to fix this

What? Giving men authority is a bad idea? I wonder what book first espoused that idea...

Nice logic you got there.

What good is a logic system when it comes to managing illogical subsystems? Man is not a logic oriented animal; we can utilize it, but we certainly don't behave in a rigid, set manner based upon demonstrated utility. If we did, power structures would be absolute and inerrant. Man tends to simply do what he thinks is most likely to feel good at any given moment, occasionally breaking past this with something called courage (or perhaps recklessness).

Putting someone susceptible to the same mistakes and imperfections as I into a position of authority over me or anyone else is asking for abuse. Man cannot humbly rule: Corruption is inevitable.

Welcome to the ever present flaw of human leadership; be it secular or theocratic.

The OP expressed this with minimal clarity, but at least they are aware of it.

What good is a logic system when it comes to managing illogical subsystems? Man is not a logic oriented animal; we can utilize it, but we certainly don't behave in a rigid, set manner based upon demonstrated utility. If we did, power structures would be absolute and inerrant. Man tends to simply do what he thinks is most likely to feel good at any given moment, occasionally breaking past this with something called courage (or perhaps recklessness).

Putting someone susceptible to the same mistakes and imperfections as I into a position of authority over me or anyone else is asking for abuse. Man cannot humbly rule: Corruption is inevitable.

Welcome to the ever present flaw of human leadership; be it secular or theocratic.

The OP expressed this with minimal clarity, but at least they are aware of it.

That really doesn't have to pertain to a god or religion at all.

Reading that was harder than understanding 15th century texts for my English assignement.

That really doesn't have to pertain to a god or religion at all.

It pertains heavily to my God, but I suppose I'll try and explain this in secular terminology so religious prejudices don't interfere with the message I'm trying to convey:

Certain states of mind we humans are capable of coming across have rather rigid requirements, which have more fluid secondary requirements.

Happiness, for example, results from loving and being loved.
Misery results from being cut off from loving and being loved.

Expressions of love, and what makes one feel loved tend to differ from person to person - my foremost expressions tend to be in acceptance, romance and art, but I like to spend money on others as well, compliment them, etc. I also very much enjoy sharing my past travels, how I got through them, etc.

Now, say for example, man has no authority: No man telling him what to think of divinity, no man teaching him morality, no man effectively controlling him. He is, essentially, the decision maker of whether or not he is happy or miserable. Nothing controls whether he loves or not, except for himself.

Now then, we'd have seven billion folks each free to choose on an individual basis whether they love or withhold love. Essentially, at this point, they get to decide whether they are the most important thing in their life, or if love is. Mind you, it's not love if you're doing it for you, or for any ulterior motive...the only love is love for the sake of love itself.

So now then, we have this higher ideal of love, versus the material ideal of self. If we choose self, we can easily horde material wealth for ourself...temporarily this brings us pleasure, but at the cost of our love for others. We become concerned with how to accumulate for self rather than how to assist others, how to get folks to smile, how to inspire, and so on.

If we choose love, something neat happens; when we spend our money it tends to be for the benefit of others...often our family and friends. When we accumulate something, it is so we can have our small portion and share the rest. When we create something, we like to share our inspiration for it with others so they can understand, and so that we can understand them better. When something makes us smile, we like to tell others so that they too might smile. We do this at the cost of excess...we don't get to hoard our materials, we get to share them instead.

This isn't the total view of it all, but it's a basic outlining of love vs. self, both practiced to their extremes.

For one to practice love, one must essentially treat the ideal of love as their purpose, their master...their god.

For one to practice self, all they need to do is place any human, be it an authority, a woman, a man, or the individual as their purpose, their master, their god. (Admittedly, the closer you get from human authority to your own authority, the more selfish and destructive you tend to be).

Treating a member of humanity as authority leads to human ideals being the benchmark of perfection: fears, angers, lusts. We tend to lose sight of the superhuman ideals: trust, love, compassion, tolerance, understanding.

It doesn't quite matter what you call your god; what matters much more to the happiness of yourself and man kind as a whole is whether your purpose carries with it the spirits of love, trust, and so on.

If we abandoned religion and government, and let society as a whole go through the throws of anarchy, I believe we would most definitely need something higher than humanity to look to. Whether you see it as a divine being or a moral of perfection (trust, sincerity, love), without it, humanity wouldn't survive.

As it stands right now...our current society...what we have IS anarchy. Current religion and government...it's more a show than anything. We have the majority of the world living by principles of self rather than love. We tend not to trust, love, be sincere...even though we know deep down that it works. As a result, we won't survive. Take a look at the world.

I'm looking forward to your reply. I'm off to a meeting though, I'll probably be back in an hour.