Your argument is contradictory. You're asking me, for the utopian world that secularists have envisioned, yet you cannot provide your own version. Your claim or belief in an afterlife is not substantial. Just because we have yet to achieve this social state, does not mean that we should give up, so to speak, and seek solace in your idea of religion. Just because we have yet to achieve this state, doesn't mean that your 'transcendental' mode should be resorted to. We fight on the basis of rationalism, not false hopes. Our concerns should be entrenched in the present.
There are many individuals globally, who act out of compassion, irrespective of religious and governmental institutions. People who do not believe in God, can lead equally moral lives and contribute to society in profound ways. I do not need to list these individuals; they may be prominent Nobel Peace laureates, or people who shy from the lens of the media. Ordinary people. They aren't full of theological rhetoric, their actions affect change and help others.
To address your passing reference to modern dictators. People like Mao, Stalin and Hitler, alleged atheists, on the otherhand, really screwed up. This however, does not necessarily mean they are representative of all atheists and secularists, nor is evil the causation of atheism. They were responsible for a lot of recent bloodshed which has been impressed in our modern psyche, but what of the Crusades? What of the cultural imperialism in Africa and the Christian mission camps that were set up to convert the indigenous population at large? What of the civil warfare in Beirut? What of the sexual abuse revelations that scandalised the Church? Regardless of what denomination these people pertained to, they were capable of evil intention.
Your visions are grandiose, and although we have grand challenges threatening our future, we should not evade the problem by seeking solace in 'happy thoughts' of promised paradise. This is extremely egocentric, if not purely naive. The anecdote to the existing condition is recognition of secular truth, self discipline and an altruistic drive. This does not derive from any said 'transcendental' literature, in the form of religion. The basic tenets of any world religion, is common to all 'human morality' anyway.
This being said, I don't see how your worldview is superior. The only trial that we face is our mind; the only redemption, ourselves.
If anything, I’m becoming increasingly interested in how you would fix the world’s current situation. I’m not sure proselyting to Catholicism, perusal of the Bible, lack of contraception, denial of homosexuality and utterance of “Christ is our Saviour!” will alleviate the state of society, realistically. To be precise, Christ has become a literary metonym for “rainbows and awesomely divine happiness promised in the afterlife” in theological debates. This has been established as a theological axiom for all debates of this nature, but is simultaneously one of the predominant, logical flaws undermining your argument.
Although I am admittedly an atheist, I am contented to say that I have many religiously devout friends, and hold them in very high regard. They are not quite as restrictive as you are, and by restrictive, I am saying that you have pseudo-Puritanical ambitions. I do respect you, but I believe you to be quite misinformed about many pragmatic issues facing human civilisation today.
