Myself and a lot of others here spout off against religion on a regular basis. Why do we dislike it so? First let me say that I don't hate anybody for being religious. I'm sure that sentiment is shared by practically every atheist on this forum.

I dislike it because I care about the human race. I feel an empathy for my fellow man as I witness them live life in fear. Will religion ever not be a part of our society? It is encouraging to see so many atheists coming to the fore these days but are we increasing our numbers or just maintaining a ratio as population increases? I hope its the former.

So when will religion end? I believe religion will one day become a thing of the past but it won't happen overnite. Atheistic philosophy taught in schools along with theistic, child laws protecting kids from any religion until they are old enough, and so on and so on, will aid the evolution of society towards the atheistic. What I'm getting at is this.... the main requirement for the elimination of religion is time. If we can keep ourselves from destroying the planet and just get along for a significant amount of time then religion will slowly disappear.

Hopefully time also allows us to evolve intelligently. Increasing our knowledge of the world and the universe will certainly elevate our awareness to what's really happening. There is the possibility of new religions taking over but I think that in each succeeding era or epoch religion will gradually mellow.

Current religion will also help the cause when their day of reckoning comes, when they have to put up or shut up. (ie: messiahs not showing up) They could also help by rewriting their doctrine to include women as intellectual equals and instantly double the amount of grey matter available to push progress.

So what will it take? What has to happen to rid the Earth of this nonsense?

Myself and a lot of others here spout off against religion on a regular basis. Why do we dislike it so? First let me say that I don't hate anybody for being religious. I'm sure that sentiment is shared by practically every atheist on this forum.

I dislike it because I care about the human race. I feel an empathy for my fellow man as I witness them live life in fear. Will religion ever not be a part of our society? It is encouraging to see so many atheists coming to the fore these days but are we increasing our numbers or just maintaining a ratio as population increases? I hope its the former.

So when will religion end? I believe religion will one day become a thing of the past but it won't happen overnite. Atheistic philosophy taught in schools along with theistic, child laws protecting kids from any religion until they are old enough, and so on and so on, will aid the evolution of society towards the atheistic. What I'm getting at is this.... the main requirement for the elimination of religion is time. If we can keep ourselves from destroying the planet and just get along for a significant amount of time then religion will slowly disappear.

Hopefully time also allows us to evolve intelligently. Increasing our knowledge of the world and the universe will certainly elevate our awareness to what's really happening. There is the possibility of new religions taking over but I think that in each succeeding era or epoch religion will gradually mellow.

Current religion will also help the cause when their day of reckoning comes, when they have to put up or shut up. (ie: messiahs not showing up) They could also help by rewriting their doctrine to include women as intellectual equals and instantly double the amount of grey matter available to push progress.

So what will it take? What has to happen to rid the Earth of this nonsense?

Sounds like anti-theism is the new religion

I suppose it would have to be called something. Part of our fascination of putting labels on things, I guess. Getting rid of religion means no churches, no bibles, no worship, no praying, no genuflecting, no fasting, no nailing guys on a cross, no beheading infidels, no waste of life etc. etc. but a better understanding of your place in the universe and unlimited roadblock free potential to do your bit as an intelligent being.

:D Belief in God will never end in this world, Your dream is self delusion. Belief in God is not going away, it is being taken more and more seriously by more and more theists.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

I suppose it would have to be called something. Part of our fascination of putting labels on things, I guess. Getting rid of religion means no churches, no bibles, no worship, no praying, no genuflecting, no fasting, no nailing guys on a cross, no beheading infidels, no waste of life etc. etc. but a better understanding of your place in the universe and unlimited roadblock free potential to do your bit as an intelligent being.


Assuming of course that every one in the world has the same non-experience with spirituality as you do?

:D Belief in God will never end in this world, Your dream is self delusion. Belief in God is not going away, it is being taken more and more seriously by more and more theists.

Whew, you had me worried for a bit. I thought maybe all atheists had recanted for a moment.

I DONT LIKE ATHEISTS... period

-MT

Assuming of course that every one in the world has the same non-experience with spirituality as you do?

I feel a great deal of sympathy for you which as it seems is a lot more than you feel for me. I really hope that comment doesn't place any adverse affects on you when you stand before your maker.

If you don't think religion will ever end then just say so, personal comments aside. Did my list of things you don't have to do when religion ends get taken personal? Do you feel those things currently done in the name of religion are silly and you were just expressing your frustration because you know not why you do?

Even a religious person has to admit that religions do end. History has proven that. Why don't you think religion will someday be gone forever? Instead of a personal psycho-analysis of myself you might offer an opinion.

I DONT LIKE ATHEISTS... period

-MT

Read previous post

Assuming of course that every one in the world has the same non-experience with spirituality as you do?in time, this is what is hoped will happen. what PsychoticEpisode said"Atheistic philosophy taught in schools along with theistic, child laws protecting kids from any religion until they are old enough, and so on and so on, will aid the evolution of society towards the atheistic. What I'm getting at is this.... the main requirement for the elimination of religion is time."indoctrination of children, is nothing more than child abuse.

religion... will never end... it is speculation of the unknown possibilities.

it will only be obsorbed by the sciences... as the sciences begin to shed light on what was the mysteries of the heavens and life itself.

it can never go away... to do so, would mean that mans curiosity goes away.

thats not going to happen.

-MT

I DONT LIKE ATHEISTS... period

-MT
is that because intelligent people fighten you, as you feel inferior.
or is it you just want to kill your fellow man, because they believe differently to you.

in time, this is what is hoped will happen. what PsychoticEpisode said"Atheistic philosophy taught in schools along with theistic, child laws protecting kids from any religion until they are old enough, and so on and so on, will aid the evolution of society towards the atheistic. What I'm getting at is this.... the main requirement for the elimination of religion is time."indoctrination of children, is nothing more than child abuse.

The result of either choice is unknown, so I don't understand why the religious get so upset about it. It could backfire into atheist's faces. So there must be some lingering doubt as to the influence of atheism. Why not give it a shot? What's to fear?

perhaps the fact that their wrong and we are right.
their fear of death, is their main worry.
we dont like it too, but we accept the inevitable.

I feel a great deal of sympathy for you which as it seems is a lot more than you feel for me. I really hope that comment doesn't place any adverse affects on you when you stand before your maker.

If you don't think religion will ever end then just say so, personal comments aside. Did my list of things you don't have to do when religion ends get taken personal? Do you feel those things currently done in the name of religion are silly and you were just expressing your frustration because you know not why you do?

Even a religious person has to admit that religions do end. History has proven that. Why don't you think religion will someday be gone forever? Instead of a personal psycho-analysis of myself you might offer an opinion.


Actually I find it amusing how atheists are so quick to consider their point of view as the sole right view, same as fundamentalists in any religions and their arguments are basically attempts to cast aspersions on the mental stability, intelligence, personality and values of theists.

I was not being personal; the one thing I see in common among all atheists is their dislike of the word "spiritual"; they seem to think spiritual equals what? imagination/imaginary? So do you believe that you have a soul? And how do you explain the phenomenon of consciousness? Can you examine a brain and "see" a personality? Not everything in the world can be measured or even sensed. We cannot see all light in all the ranges nor hear sounds that are above or below the threhold that is our perception. But we did not know that until we had a way to measure it. So just not being able to perceive or measure something does not indicate its presence or absence. But claiming that it is absent limits your exploration of it. You decide that it does not exist. This is firmly established in your mind. Will you then look for it or even recognize it for what it is if it appears before you ?

As for history, at no point in time has society existed without a religion of some kind.

As Hamlet said, " There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

:D Belief in God will never end in this world, Your dream is self delusion. Belief in God is not going away, it is being taken more and more seriously by more and more theists.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

does taking religion more seriously involve strapping bombs to yourself? If all theists took their belief as seriously as the radical fundamentalist muslim suicide bombers or the radical christians who bomb abortion clinics, that sounds pretty much like the end of the world to me--every theist on the planet using all means necessary to enforce their opinion.

So when will religion end?

When there is a better method of human relationships that meets individual and group needs and doesn't have a foundation of fiction. IMO, the advancements of science and the synthesis of science and psychology might be your huckleberry.

Actually I find it amusing how atheists are so quick to consider their point of view as the sole right view, same as fundamentalists in any religions and their arguments are basically attempts to cast aspersions on the mental stability, intelligence, personality and values of theists.

I was not being personal; the one thing I see in common among all atheists is their dislike of the word "spiritual";

No one is personal when they use the words "as you do' ...... how could I be so prejudicial in my thinking?

Why does every theist assume atheists believe they have no souls? I can neither prove the existence of god or souls. The last time I looked at the definition of atheist was that they didn't believe in a God. If god is my soul then I suppose you are right.

No one is personal when they use the words "as you do' ...... how could I be so prejudicial in my thinking?

Why does every theist assume atheists believe they have no souls? I can neither prove the existence of god or souls. The last time I looked at the definition of atheist was that they didn't believe in a God. If god is my soul then I suppose you are right.


Well you is both for one person and for a group ( as in you atheists?); if it was ambiguous, it was unintentional.

And I did not assume you did not believe in a soul; see the question mark?

does taking religion more seriously involve strapping bombs to yourself? If all theists took their belief as seriously as the radical fundamentalist muslim suicide bombers or the radical christians who bomb abortion clinics, that sounds pretty much like the end of the world to me--every theist on the planet using all means necessary to enforce their opinion.


Well I think the suicide bombs themselves indicate that the individual is obviously disturbed in ways that have little or nothing to do with religion; sort of like hard core racists who "believe" in the superiority of their race.

When there is a better method of human relationships that meets individual and group needs and doesn't have a foundation of fiction. IMO, the advancements of science and the synthesis of science and psychology might be your huckleberry.

Seems to me that science is not linked to morality; all it can do is provide us with the means: good or bad.

The decisions still rest with us and the trend is towards greater individualism and personal luxury, both of which are incompatible with long term survival of relationships.

Even a religious person has to admit that religions do end. History has proven that. Why don't you think religion will someday be gone forever?

Bravo!! Since ancient times, religion has been used as an explanation for things we did not understand. As science has gained more knowledge, it has disproven these religions and turned them into "myths" or "legends." The rising of the sun used to be attributed to the sun god driving a flaming chariot across the sky. Today, even the most religious person will laugh at how silly of an idea that was, and wonder how could people actually believe that that was true, however, the people who believed that were just as convinced they were right as the theists today are. Now, only a few questions remain that science has not answered (questions about our beginning, consciousness, purpose, and death) hence, these form the backbone of modern religion, for religion is always forced to retreat to the shadowy mysteries of our existence that science has not yet shed light on. I always learned that to understand the future, we must look to the past, and the pattern i see is a steady disproval of gods. There used to be belief in hundreds of thousands of gods, but now there exists really only the different interpretations of a "Creator" god, which will either eventually be disproven like all of his predecessors, or maybe he will retreat further into a realm so abstract that science will not be able to prove or disprove it and the theists will look out with some smug satisfaction that they have protected their god from the onslaught of logic.

Bravo!! Since ancient times, religion has been used as an explanation for things we did not understand. As science has gained more knowledge, it has disproven these religions and turned them into "myths" or "legends." The rising of the sun used to be attributed to the sun god driving a flaming chariot across the sky. Today, even the most religious person will laugh at how silly of an idea that was, and wonder how could people actually believe that that was true, however, the people who believed that were just as convinced they were right as the theists today are. Now, only a few questions remain that science has not answered (questions about our beginning, consciousness, purpose, and death) hence, these form the backbone of modern religion, for religion is always forced to retreat to the shadowy mysteries of our existence that science has not yet shed light on. I always learned that to understand the future, we must look to the past, and the pattern i see is a steady disproval of gods. There used to be belief in hundreds of thousands of gods, but now there exists really only the different interpretations of a "Creator" god, which will either eventually be disproven like all of his predecessors, or maybe he will retreat further into a realm so abstract that science will not be able to prove or disprove it and the theists will look out with some smug satisfaction that they have protected their god from the onslaught of logic.

Good luck!

Good luck!

thanks but i wont need luck, just time

child laws protecting kids from any religion until they are old enough

Speaking from personal experience, this is a must.

So when will religion end?

I think it is innevitable that it will feature less and less in our lives as the generations go by. However, it will take a long time before the world and the majority of human beings could be called 'secular'.

As for total irradication... I suppose this could only come about if our brain sizes dramatically increased and gave the human race that ability to spot superstitious bullshit a mile off. We are capable of that today, but we are intellectually far too lazy for this.

.As for total irradication... I suppose this could only come about if our brain sizes dramatically increased and gave the human race that ability to spot superstitious bullshit a mile off. We are capable of that today, but we are intellectually far too lazy for this.

Maybe that's why it's easier to recruit children as suicide bombers, they can't separate the fact from fiction.

Actually I find it amusing how atheists are so quick to consider their point of view as the sole right view.And what exactly is this "point of view"? Most atheists, in my experience, have NO point of view on the existence of God - they choose NOT TO BELIEVE in God.
I choose to believe in neither the existence nor the non-existence of God.
So what is MY point of view?
I have a lack of belief? Is this sticking my flag in a camp? Or is it me pulling my flag out of all camps?


...the one thing I see in common among all atheists is their dislike of the word "spiritual"; they seem to think spiritual equals what?It is used in many ways, but is often used to describe something that is not entirely understood and the user is either too lazy to try and understand, or gains comfort from the implied "mysticism" and "mystery" behind it.

So do you believe that you have a soul?No - I do not have a belief that I have a soul.

And how do you explain the phenomenon of consciousness?At the moment I can't. My understanding is limited but it is most likely a by-product of the complexity of the neural connections in our brain.

Can you examine a brain and "see" a personality?"Personality" is nothing more than the word we use to define the sum of the activity within a brain - to explain why the same stimuli from our senses result in different reactions from person to person.

Not everything in the world can be measured or even sensed.Do you mean by us, as humans, or by machines, or are you talking in absolute terms?

We cannot see all light in all the ranges nor hear sounds that are above or below the threhold that is our perception. But we did not know that until we had a way to measure it. So just not being able to perceive or measure something does not indicate its presence or absence.Correct. But they ARE measurable, in the absolute sense.

But claiming that it is absent limits your exploration of it. You decide that it does not exist. This is firmly established in your mind. Will you then look for it or even recognize it for what it is if it appears before you?But why do you see what you are looking for, and not what scientists explain to you is the more probable, and evidence-based version?
You might see a ghost - and the more probable, evidence-based version is that what you saw is a fleeting reflection of light from a shard of mirror. Why would you continue to claim "ghost" in the presence of more reasoned, more evidence-based conclusions?

But if you want us to look for God, please define this God and then provide a test for me such that I may go and look for it. I will make no claims either way as to the existence of this God until I can either logically conclude that it does not exist, or find evidence to support its existence.
But why would I "believe" in its existence?

As for history, at no point in time has society existed without a religion of some kind.I'm fairly sure that the Dinosaurs didn't have a religion. No evidence though, either way, on that.
Or are you only talking about human societies?
And where is your evidence for this?
Or do you need to qualify your assertion to "recorded history"?

I DONT LIKE ATHEISTS... period

-MT

Why don't you like atheists?

And what exactly is this "point of view"? Most atheists, in my experience, have NO point of view on the existence of God - they choose NOT TO BELIEVE in God.
I choose to believe in neither the existence nor the non-existence of God.
So what is MY point of view?
I have a lack of belief? Is this sticking my flag in a camp? Or is it me pulling my flag out of all camps?

That makes you agnostic not atheist


It is used in many ways, but is often used to describe something that is not entirely understood and the user is either too lazy to try and understand, or gains comfort from the implied "mysticism" and "mystery" behind it.

You proved my point.

No - I do not have a belief that I have a soul.

And yet many atheists believe in a soul.

At the moment I can't. My understanding is limited but it is most likely a by-product of the complexity of the neural connections in our brain.

OK.

"Personality" is nothing more than the word we use to define the sum of the activity within a brain - to explain why the same stimuli from our senses result in different reactions from person to person.


Read my question again.

Do you mean by us, as humans, or by machines, or are you talking in absolute terms?


You can take it as you like


Correct. But they ARE measurable, in the absolute sense.



Which can only be claimed after the fact.

But why do you see what you are looking for, and not what scientists explain to you is the more probable, and evidence-based version?
You might see a ghost - and the more probable, evidence-based version is that what you saw is a fleeting reflection of light from a shard of mirror. Why would you continue to claim "ghost" in the presence of more reasoned, more evidence-based conclusions?

science is not all encompassing; as I have explained elsewhere it is limited by available knowledge and the reliability and validity of its tools.

But if you want us to look for God, please define this God and then provide a test for me such that I may go and look for it. I will make no claims either way as to the existence of this God until I can either logically conclude that it does not exist, or find evidence to support its existence.
But why would I "believe" in its existence?

I believe in God as an entity which we are not yet capable of discerning, due to our limitations and perhaps lack of knowledge.

I'm fairly sure that the Dinosaurs didn't have a religion. No evidence though, either way, on that.
Or are you only talking about human societies?
And where is your evidence for this?
Or do you need to qualify your assertion to "recorded history"?

I did not realise that your view of the future is based on prehistoric society; I naturally assumed we were still going to be human in the future.

Seems to me that science is not linked to morality; all it can do is provide us with the means: good or bad.

The decisions still rest with us and the trend is towards greater individualism and personal luxury, both of which are incompatible with long term survival of relationships.

Science can help us understand the biological reasons for morality and human relationships. I am sure that such understanding can result in useful applications.

I fully agree that individualism is incompatible with long term relationships. Counter-dependency is a disaster zone.

Science can help us understand the biological reasons for morality and human relationships. I am sure that such understanding can result in useful applications.



Maybe but there is too much emphasis on science and it is not universally applicable to human conditions. Even when conducting an experiment you control a lot of variables so as to be able to accurately observe the effect of a single variable; if you are in human sciences you must know that we are now beginning to realise that nature does not actually function that way. Knowing the effect of a single variable is not always equivalent to knowing the effect of that variable in the presence of other, changing variables. So the observed effect which you obtain under a set of experimental conditions (which are unnatural) may only be seen under those conditions and hence may actually never occur in nature! So how far are we certain of the knowledge we obtain from science?

And how far can we extrapolate the results of our experiments with confidence?

But if you want us to look for God, please define this God and then provide a test for me such that I may go and look for it. I will make no claims either way as to the existence of this God until I can either logically conclude that it does not exist, or find evidence to support its existence.


Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Which is why theists and atheists can never have a complete understanding of one another.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Which is why theists and atheists can never have a complete understanding of one another.

It's funny how the same could be said about Astrology, isn't it?

It's funny how the same could be said about Astrology, isn't it?

Astrology isn't religion, so no, it's not funny.

But that make me wonder why can't we all just accept that some believe and have faith and some do not? Why do we need to convince one and other all the time? Is it better not to believe than to believe? Who can tell? Is it converting theists to atheists your after? Why?

This is a science site. Why religious subforums when Theism cannot be proved scientifically to begin with? No-one can prove God, so why make it available to discuss whether or not He exists? Just to mock theists? If so, that's just childish.

The above was also posted elsewhere on this site by someone else, although I can'trecall who. Please step forward for credit.

Maybe but there is too much emphasis on science and it is not universally applicable to human conditions. Even when conducting an experiment you control a lot of variables so as to be able to accurately observe the effect of a single variable; if you are in human sciences you must know that we are now beginning to realise that nature does not actually function that way. Knowing the effect of a single variable is not always equivalent to knowing the effect of that variable in the presence of other, changing variables. So the observed effect which you obtain under a set of experimental conditions (which are unnatural) may only be seen under those conditions and hence may actually never occur in nature! So how far are we certain of the knowledge we obtain from science?

And how far can we extrapolate the results of our experiments with confidence?

The human condition is a complex cookie. You are very correct in that the dynamics of variables to human behavior is a challenge and IMO it's going to take alot of time to explore and get it right. It certainly doesn't make it impossible or non-applicable. Our certainty and confidence of knowledge obtained from science is a function of how much reality agrees.

Astrology isn't religion, so no, it's not funny.

Then how come a believer in Astrology would reply in the exact same way you did regarding religion? ... "Unfortunately it doesn't work that way"... Copout! You believe for the emotional benefits (which you practically admitted in a post) which is the only possible reason someone could also believe in Astrology, ghosts, heaven etc.

But that make me wonder why can't we all just accept that some believe and have faith and some do not? Why do we need to convince one and other all the time? Is it better not to believe than to believe? Who can tell? Is it converting theists to atheists your after? Why?

Well most superstition is just laughed off, except for religion in large part. So people with crazy beliefs (like yourself) still have a huge say on how society is run then you must be ridiculed at every possible moment until politics, education and law can all be deemed secular.

History shows the the further secularism is pushed, all the better for society, and long may it continue. If everyone simply respected religious beliefs then we'd end up like the USA. By that I mean, take a look at the horrible Christian right in America and the people they elect to run their country *shudder*

The human condition is a complex cookie. You are very correct in that the dynamics of variables to human behavior is a challenge and IMO it's going to take alot of time to explore and get it right. It certainly doesn't make it impossible or non-applicable. Our certainty and confidence of knowledge obtained from science is a function of how much reality agrees.


Is it? Or do we see the reality as it is dictated by our knowledge? One of the important concepts underlying scientific exploration is not to become so blinded by your idea of what should be that you become unable to see what is.

If the results you get are not what you had expected based on previous observations, do you think:
1. I must've done something wrong here?
2. What did I do different?
3. What other explanation is possible?

You'll find that most people get stuck on 1 and 2 for quite sometime and may never even reach the possibility of 3.

Whether it is religion or science, questioning and doubt is GOOD; it maintains integrity and also allows you to get to the truth.

But that make me wonder why can't we all just accept that some believe and have faith and some do not?

Because believers are trying to convert me at my doorstep. Because believers are trying to blow me up. Because believers are invading foreign countries because 'God' says to do so. Because believers are trying to pass off theology as science.


Why do we need to convince one and other all the time?

For theists, it's because their religion tells them to do so. For others it might not be so much an effort to convince as it is to bring the voice of reason to the public forum eye.


Is it better not to believe than to believe? Who can tell?

IMO, it's better to do both and have a dominant 'defualt' that reflects your core values (e.x. if you value truth then belief would not be the dominant default).


Is it converting theists to atheists your after? Why?

For now (and for me) it's just to be a voice of reason.


This is a science site. Why religious subforums when Theism cannot be proved scientifically to begin with? No-one can prove God, so why make it available to discuss whether or not He exists? Just to mock theists? If so, that's just childish.

I've heard rumors that the intention of the sub-forum was to discuss religion from a scientific point of view. The reality is quite different and has actually served as a great place to study the psychology of belief, non-belief, anti-non-belief, and anti-belif as well as host experiments with folks whom will participate for free.

Is it? Or do we see the reality as it is dictated by our knowledge? One of the important concepts underlying scientific exploration is not to become so blinded by your idea of what should be that you become unable to see what is.

If the results you get are not what you had expected based on previous observations, do you think:
1. I must've done something wrong here?
2. What did I do different?
3. What other explanation is possible?

You'll find that most people get stuck on 1 and 2 for quite sometime and may never even reach the possibility of 3.

Whether it is religion or science, questioning and doubt is GOOD; it maintains integrity and also allows you to get to the truth.

It is and we do get caught up in ideas of reality dictated by our knowledge sometimes, yet we still manage to prevail. You are quite correct that people get stuck on 1) and 2). I know I do all the time. There might be a good reason for that though. In my case 1) and 2) turn out to be the right questions the vast majority of the time and sometimes I do have to search for 3) if 1) and 2) turn up empty (usually after some heroics on my part).

Science is a process and it's effectiveness will always be subject to the strengths and weakenesses of the people wielding it.

One thing I can't see stopping religion is war. I think the religious would see it as a fulfillment of prophesy. I figure they haven't had enough fulfillment yet so get ready.

To end religion it would take the wholesale adoption of mallicious activities based on having no rightful conception of "mine" and "his" - in such an environment there could be no distinction between higher and lower and the very basis of religion would be lost

Frankly I am very surprised that people can still attribute war to religion, particularly after seeing a century of ideology with more civilian casualties than any other. Religion causes war? At least the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would disagree.
Even einstein said that he sure exactly what weapons the third world war would be fought with but he was sure that the fourth one would be fought with rocks and sticks - war will not cause the end of religion but on the bright side it might cause the end of stupidity that goes on in the name of science :)

To end religion it would take the wholesale adoption of mallicious activities based on having no rightful conception of "mine" and "his" - in such an environment there could be no distinction between higher and lower and the very basis of religion would be lost

Frankly I am very surprised that people can still attribute war to religion, particularly after seeing a century of ideology with more civilian casualties than any other. Religion causes war? At least the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would disagree.
Even einstein said that he sure exactly what weapons the third world war would be fought with but he was sure that the fourth one would be fought with rocks and sticks - war will not cause the end of religion but on the bright side it might cause the end of stupidity that goes on in the name of science :)
Hooo boy. Can everyone say "polar extremes of fanaticism"?

Look, the real reasons for war are that human beings, when they fall in with a mob, are shits. Religion makes mobs. Nationalism makes mobs. Ideologies of most kinds make mobs.

Mass murder has been done in the name of honor, religion, political gain, racism, disputed soccor games, etc. But would someone please give me an example of a war fought in the name of science?

Light,

Your claim is absurd on the face of it. Science is just a way of knowing. Cripes! It is neutral. People use science to fight wars because of all of the afore mentioned. People use atomic bombs, guns, spears, and rocks if nothing else is available.

Frankly I am very surprised that people can still attribute war to religion,
Ha! Come on! People attribute war to religion because so many religious wars have been fought! No one says that wars aren't fought for other reasons, but, sheesh! Religion is way up there as a motivator.

Hooo boy. Can everyone say "polar extremes of fanaticism"?

Look, the real reasons for war are that human beings, when they fall in with a mob, are shits. Religion makes mobs. Nationalism makes mobs. Ideologies of most kinds make mobs.

Mass murder has been done in the name of honor, religion, political gain, racism, disputed soccor games, etc. But would someone please give me an example of a war fought in the name of science?

Light,

Your claim is absurd on the face of it. Science is just a way of knowing. Cripes! It is neutral. People use science to fight wars because of all of the afore mentioned. People use atomic bombs, guns, spears, and rocks if nothing else is available.


Ha! Come on! People attribute war to religion because so many religious wars have been fought! No one says that wars aren't fought for other reasons, but, sheesh! Religion is way up there as a motivator.

Lol -okay i admit it was a bit tongue in cheek, but hey, with a thread title like this I just couldn't resist :p

To begin with I agree with what you say about mobs - but then mob consciousness can even be found in academic circles of science too - my point is actually that science, because it is considered bereft of values (which is based on an impersonal concept of the universe) creates a greater margin for error - for instance it is practically impossible to seperate science from its number one customer - the military (at least in terms of $$$ invested). Science is a way of knowing but more often than not it turns into a way of knowing how to kill people you don't like.

But to get back to this thread, I think better than people wracking their brains to create the means to destroy religion, they would be better off working at ways to introduce values into science since valueless science seems like more of a global threat than religion.

Adstar, etc,

Belief in God will never end in this world, Your dream is self delusion. Belief in God is not going away, The end of religion as we know it is inevitable, and likely within the next few decades. There will be the exceptional few nutters, but they will become marginalized and irrelevant.

The key to the end is knowledge and specifically the complete reverse engineering of the human brain.

Every religion has at its core the concept or variations of the concept of a spirit or soul. This notion of duality arose in ancient times from the complete ignorance concerning the existence and the functioning of the human brain. Once it can be shown unambiguously that every aspect of human nature is entirely the result of brain function then the soul concept will be finally and totally discredited.

The emergence of AI at around the same time where self –awareness and all would-be human mental and emotional functions are reproduced in a non-biological form, will further hammer-home the redundant and misguided idea of a soul.

What then of Gods? Who cares? Without souls the whole supernatural nonsense of an afterlife, reincarnation, heavens, hells, nirvana, umpteen virgins, and the whole crap load of similar religious gobbledygook is meaningless and leaves any would-be gods impotent without their weapons of fear punishment and reward gibberish.

Roll-on science – us atheists need do nothing but sit back and enjoy watching as knowledge replaces the ignorance of religious gibberish as has been happening these past few hundred years.

does taking religion more seriously involve strapping bombs to yourself? If all theists took their belief as seriously as the radical fundamentalist muslim suicide bombers or the radical christians who bomb abortion clinics, that sounds pretty much like the end of the world to me--every theist on the planet using all means necessary to enforce their opinion.

Yes that is a part of the seriousness that misguided believers in God are expressing their stand for their beliefs. But the reality of this situation just proves the first post of this thread to be an expression of a delusion. That religion is just going to die.

i suppose the most powerful form of brain washing is self brain washing and the original poster in this thread just showed to all how deluded they really are.

And yes we are near to the end of the world as it is now. Soon the people of this world will bring themselves to the point of extinction. Only the intervention of God will bring to and end the way of this world as it is a present. Unfortunately most people are proud and need to be brought low to the point of destruction even to make them realise they are as not as smart as they delude themselves into thinking they are.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Adstar,

Only the intervention of God will bring to and end the way of this world as it is a present.Nonsense, a fantasy can’t do anything like that. However, the belief that such a fantasy is true and a few atomics bombs in the hands of Islamic lunatics will very likely end the world as we know it.

Note that Islam was fractured into squabbling tribes and would have likely disintegrated had not the Christian barbarians brutally attacked them forcing them to unite in a way that would never have happened otherwise. The power of Islam today is totally due to the stupidity and brutality of Christian arrogance 1000 years ago.

And both these idiotic religions grew out of Judaism – the father of idiocy. Oh if only there was a god, someone who could save us from the lunacy of religion.

Unfortunately most people are proud and need to be brought low to the point of destruction even to make them realise they are as not as smart as they delude themselves into thinking they are.It is the theists who suffer from pride – with their arrogance that they think they are important enough to be singled out as favorites of an almighty supernatural creator. And you dare call others deluded?

The quicker we rid ourselves of religion the quicker we can generate a rational society of peace and tolerance.

The end of religion as we know it is inevitable, and likely within the next few decades.

this was also said about the origins of life when the miller-urey experiment was conducted in '53. but alas it's been a lot more complicated than they imagined.
they are hardly any closer now than they were then.

Then how come a believer in Astrology would reply in the exact same way you did regarding religion? ... "Unfortunately it doesn't work that way"... Copout!

It's not a copout at all. Sounds Sarkus wants to put God and a labratory and run a bunch of tests to prove his existense. I said that "it doesn't work that way" because yes, people have to connect to with God on a spiritual level, not a scientific one (which is why I was questioning having religious subforums on this site to begin with). That doesn't mean that God and science don't go hand in hand, but if you're truly looking to find God, you're searching in all the wrong places.

What will have to happen to end religion?

You cant, God will not allow it. But you will try. Just as so many have tried in the past: The Romans, the Communists, The Nazis, the American left. Now soon you will try again, perhaps this time under the supervision of Antichrist himself.

You cant, God will not allow it. But you will try. Just as so many have tried in the past: The Romans, the Communists, The Nazis, the American left. Now soon you will try again, perhaps this time under the supervision of Antichrist himself. :rolleyes:
None of those people have tried to "end religion". They may have tried to restrict religious freedoms, but not end religion outright!

One thing that has to happen to "end religion" is there to be an alternative crutch that people can use in their lives that is as effective as religion undeniably is.

There are so many positives to religion that some people rely on, some people merely use, and others can happily do without. But to end religion one has to offer an alternative solution to many of the people's reasons for holding on to it.

Religions that function merely as social tools should be avoided. Either a faith is from God or it is from Man.

Lawdog,

Religions that function merely as social tools should be avoided. Either a faith is from God or it is from Man. How would you demonstrate that religions are anything OTHER than a social tool developed by man?

Since you cannot show that gods have, could or might exist, you have no basis for your claim, do you?

Adstar, etc,

The end of religion as we know it is inevitable, and likely within the next few decades. There will be the exceptional few nutters, but they will become marginalized and irrelevant.

The key to the end is knowledge and specifically the complete reverse engineering of the human brain.

Every religion has at its core the concept or variations of the concept of a spirit or soul. This notion of duality arose in ancient times from the complete ignorance concerning the existence and the functioning of the human brain. Once it can be shown unambiguously that every aspect of human nature is entirely the result of brain function then the soul concept will be finally and totally discredited.

The emergence of AI at around the same time where self –awareness and all would-be human mental and emotional functions are reproduced in a non-biological form, will further hammer-home the redundant and misguided idea of a soul.

What then of Gods? Who cares? Without souls the whole supernatural nonsense of an afterlife, reincarnation, heavens, hells, nirvana, umpteen virgins, and the whole crap load of similar religious gobbledygook is meaningless and leaves any would-be gods impotent without their weapons of fear punishment and reward gibberish.

Roll-on science – us atheists need do nothing but sit back and enjoy watching as knowledge replaces the ignorance of religious gibberish as has been happening these past few hundred years.


Its such futuristic imagination in the guise of scientific advancement that inspired Walt Disney to have his head frozen when he died so he could be "revived" somewhere in future - lol

Since you cannot show that gods have, could or might exist, you have no basis for your claim, do you?
science has been unable to create life from the elements.
science has no basis to make such claims.

and also this:
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980807041233data_trunc_sys.shtml

i suppose the most powerful form of brain washing is self brain washing and the original poster in this thread just showed to all how deluded they really are.

I'd have to say a theist's biggest fear could be that atheists are correct. An atheists biggest fear could very well be the theist. My delusional mind also feels that theists are less respectful of life and incredibly more dangerous.

When logic and reason begin to erode the foundations of something you've dedicated your life to it is damn near impossible to admit you're wrong. So far religion has not delivered anything that I would consider worthwhile and convincing enough to change my delusional mind.

Adstar: the biggest difference between me and you is that you need religion. You are consumed by it. You're time might be better spent wondering how you ever got into this position.

Delusion being one of those words anybody can use to describe a person with an opinion that differs from yours is really a cheap insult not even worthy of a counter punch. Speaking of words I think there is a case right now for Faith becoming synonymous with Hope in a religious context. That's about all you have left. You don't have to tell us that you're secretly hoping science proves God exists.

How long can an progressively intelligent population believe in something so ancient? Gods of thunder, gods of fertility, gods of the sea, gods for just about anything ..... science has pretty much caused their demise. All that's left is your god, reduced from a regular frequenter of the Earth to a mysterious being existing on a plane of existence that we can't comprehend except those who hope He's there. God is on the way out, his stature diminishing daily. Stick a fork in Him, He's done.

Leopold,

science has been unable to create life from the elements.
science has no basis to make such claims.I have said nothing about creating life from the elements, neither am I particularly interested in such activities. My interests lie in understanding neural networks and how the brain operates and being able to recreate the same functions in an artificial media that would be more durable and more advanced than the fragility of biology. That goal is the desire of many scientists and a goal that I see as a technologist is inevitable.

and also this:
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19...trunc_sys.shtml Did you read it? That we may have evolved with irrational traits that may have aided or hindered our survival says nothing about whether gods or the supernatural have any basis in reality. That we have a propensity for irrational behavior as evidenced by the billions who follow religion is a good indication that it may be a genetic abnormality in many people.

Leopold,
I have said nothing about creating life from the elements, neither am I particularly interested in such activities. My interests lie in understanding neural networks and how the brain operates and being able to recreate the same functions in an artificial media that would be more durable and more advanced than the fragility of biology. That goal is the desire of many scientists and a goal that I see as a technologist is inevitable.

you are missing the point.
the point is that the very first thing that is requested of a theist is proof.
they stumble and hum haul around but in the end they are hard pressed to come up with any.
i am merely pointing out that science is in the same boat when it comes to the origins of life on this planet

about the link
you requested some kind of evidence that theology was more that something constructed by man, that link was my attempt at proof.

and about your artificial intelligence, let's not forget it took inelligence to create and build it. it did not evolve from the elements nor is it alive.

I'd have to say a theist's biggest fear could be that atheists are correct. An atheists biggest fear could very well be the theist. My delusional mind also feels that theists are less respectful of life and incredibly more dangerous.

In what possible way would i be full of fear if atheism was right and God did not exist? If atheism is right then i will never even find out about it because when i die i will simply cease to be. Why should i fear non-existence. :D

Of course the reverse is very different indeed. If i am right ( And I AM) Your rejection of the Love of the truth will see you in a state of eternal torment in a lake of fire. Imagine always burning but never being consumed.. So the only possible fear must rest with the atheist not with the theist. Once again your logic is faulty and you show all your delusion.



When logic and reason begin to erode the foundations of something you've dedicated your life to it is damn near impossible to admit you're wrong. So far religion has not delivered anything that I would consider worthwhile and convincing enough to change my delusional mind.

:) Your logic and reason is patently dubious, and your pride in your faulty thinking is the key to your own destruction. I no longer consider that you will change your mind, your a dead man walking.



Adstar: the biggest difference between me and you is that you need religion. You are consumed by it. You're time might be better spent wondering how you ever got into this position.

The biggest difference between you and me is that you need to be your own God.



Delusion being one of those words anybody can use to describe a person with an opinion that differs from yours is really a cheap insult not even worthy of a counter punch. Speaking of words I think there is a case right now for Faith becoming synonymous with Hope in a religious context. That's about all you have left. You don't have to tell us that you're secretly hoping science proves God exists.

Hypocrite. Most of your anti-Christian posts are filled with references to Christians being delusional. You have just judged yourself to be cheap.



How long can an progressively intelligent population believe in something so ancient? Gods of thunder, gods of fertility, gods of the sea, gods for just about anything ..... science has pretty much caused their demise. All that's left is your god, reduced from a regular frequenter of the Earth to a mysterious being existing on a plane of existence that we can't comprehend except those who hope He's there. God is on the way out, his stature diminishing daily. Stick a fork in Him, He's done.


Because the truth never changes and God is. What was true then is true now. Your pride and rebellion will be judged.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

religions will dissapear when people evolve and discover the wisdom in ancient religious myths.

In what possible way would i be full of fear if atheism was right and God did not exist? If atheism is right then i will never even find out about it because when i die i will simply cease to be. Why should i fear non-existence. :D

Of course the reverse is very different indeed. If i am right ( And I AM) Your rejection of the Love of the truth will see you in a state of eternal torment in a lake of fire. Imagine always burning but never being consumed.. So the only possible fear must rest with the atheist not with the theist. Once again your logic is faulty and you show all your delusion.


Exactly! Why should you fear non-existence? It's only the religious that harbour the optimistic view that when they die God will welcome them into heaven for all eternity! Wishful thinking to the extreme!
So you're RIGHT are you? How about some evidence to back up your claims? Lake of fire.....talk sense man!! Where is this lake of fire??
:rolleyes:

you are missing the point.
the point is that the very first thing that is requested of a theist is proof.
they stumble and hum haul around but in the end they are hard pressed to come up with any.
i am merely pointing out that science is in the same boat when it comes to the origins of life on this planet.The fundamental difference, that YOU are missing, is that SCIENCE makes NO CLAIMS about the veracity of anything concerning the origin of life. All claims science makes about the origins of life are mere hypothesis - subject to scrutiny, testing and evidence - the same as anything else within science.

RELIGION has no evidence and the subject of GOD is NOT open to scrutiny or testing - and yet each religion CLAIMS that their religion, and the tenets thereof, are the UNDENIABLE TRUTH.

That is the difference.

Religion makes absolute claims without evidence.
Science, on the matter of the origins of life, recognises there is no evidence and makes hypotheses.

I hope that you can see the difference?



Science is also not afraid to say "I don't know" - and in fact welcomes it as a response as it shows gaps.
Religion already thinks it has an answer to everything - but an answer that just doesn't progress our understanding. "God did it!"

Lawdog,

How would you demonstrate that religions are anything OTHER than a social tool developed by man?

Since you cannot show that gods have, could or might exist, you have no basis for your claim, do you?

Why do you always require proof from that which by nature and definition admits no claim of proof. Faith is certainty in that which is unproven.
This power can only be given by God. If you were to see God with your own eyes it would destroy you.

God himself walked among men.
He performed miracles that only the divine creator could do.
He also arose from the dead.
This is the closest to "proof" that you will ever be offered. God has made his statement to Man, he has come in the flesh and given his entire self on Man's behalf.

God does not need to repeat himself. Man must listen.

Those who believe shall be saved.

Exactly! Why should you fear non-existence?

Yep. I am glad you agree with my "logic" :) We theists have absolutely nothing to fear from non-existence.. So when atheists say that we are full of the fear that God does not exists are they not talking rubbish?



It's only the religious that harbour the optimistic view that when they die God will welcome them into heaven for all eternity! Wishful thinking to the extreme!

And what a wonderful hope to live with. :D vs the athiest view... nothing.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Those who believe shall be saved.

Is that a tautology, true by definition, or is there another test of belief?

I have a big problem with this, knowing what has to happen to begin religion, to know for sure if I really believe something or am I just kidding myself or fond of an idea.

I have the same problem with trust for instance. I think I trust somebody to do their best for me and then they do something unexpectedly unpleasant so instead of maintaining the trust I abandon the trust in order to maintain my own idea of what they should have done for me.

"My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"..... etc.

--- Ron.

To know for sure, Ron?

This is a difficulty for some. To know anything for a certainty is impossible.
Descartes the philosopher could not even trust his own senses.
Certain knowledge is avaliable, in mathematics and logic.
But Knowledge of God reaches into every level of human experience and emotion.
it involves intimacy with the Creator.
One might as well ask "Can I know for sure that I love my wife?"
It is, at bottom, an absurd question.
Descartes was not even sure, according to his philosophy, that his wife existed.
if such a philosopher had a wife, all his philosophy would be unable to aid
him in discerning whether his experience of intimacy with his wife was real.
He would have to believe on faith that it was real.

Christ trusted his Apostles. They abandoned him. Peter denied Christ three times on the eve of his trial. Nevertheless Christ still took them back afterwards. You know that to love involves risk.

In return, to let him make up for what he had done, Jesus appeared to Peter after his resurrection and asked him three times: Peter, do you love me? Yes Lord you know that I do. Peter, do you love me? yes Lord, you know I do. Peter do you love me, ....Yes Lord, I do love you.

...then Feed my sheep.

Ron: you also are called to be another Peter, even another Christ.

"My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

I heard that this should actually be: "My God, my God, how thou dost glorify me!""

no, i believe that would be Satan's line.

Just wondering, in general are more womenor guys theist. I was talking with some friends, and 3 out of 4 guys were athiest and 4/4 women thiest. Is the trend that more woemn than guys are thiest to be expected, and if so by about how much so do you think?

Hypocrite. Most of your anti-Christian posts are filled with references to Christians being delusional. You have just judged yourself to be cheap.

Calling a person who believes in God delusional at least has some value even though it may be cheap. Calling a person who doesn't believe in God delusional is worthless. Besides, us arguing about who is delusional is like a world with more than one religion.

Lawdog,

Why do you always require proof from that which by nature and definition admits no claim of proof.It is from you that I request proof. If you wish your fantastic and incredulous claims to be believed then you must offer something that will make them believable. As it stands there is no reason to believe anything you say.

Faith is certainty in that which is unproven.No. Faith is the irrational mistaken belief that a fantasy is true.

This power can only be given by God.A convenient escape argument for someone who knows they have no rational meaningful answers.

If you were to see God with your own eyes it would destroy you.And this fantasy is relevant to this discussion because……?

God himself walked among men. I believe similar claims were made for most of the Greek and Roman gods. Why is your fantasy claim any different?

He performed miracles that only the divine creator could do. According to Q research the very early texts about Jesus didn’t have any miracle stories so they were deliberately invented and written into the mythology around 50CE as the concept of this hero being a god was being developed. In those ancient times the primary distinction between a mere man and a god was that one of them could perform miracles. This was clearly a need that that those mythmakers would understand.

He also arose from the dead. So goes the myth, plagiarized from dozens of earlier myths.

This is the closest to "proof" that you will ever be offered.A bunch of fantasy claims. Well what a surprise.

God has made his statement to Man, he has come in the flesh and given his entire self on Man's behalf.And your assertion is believable because….?

God does not need to repeat himself. Man must listen.Perhaps he should try speaking a little more clearly since at least 2/3rds of the world can’t hear him. If an omniscient god were to really exist then there could be no doubt of his existence if he so desired.

leopold,

and about your artificial intelligence, let's not forget it took inelligence to create and build it. it did not evolve from the elements nor is it alive. Not quite. Computers and AI are evolving like everything else. Man and his intelligence are merely components within the evolutionary matrix that surrounds us.

What do you mean by being alive? The term is very ellusive if you give it some thought. If you merely limit yourself to biology then you will erroenously miss many alternative definitions. My constraint would be a self-aware sentient being. The construction material would be irrelevant.

Lawdog,

Those who believe shall be saved. Why would a perfect omniscient god create a scenario where his creations needed to be saved. Sounds like he made a mistake and hence he can't be perfect, and hence he can't exist, right?

leopold,

Not quite. Computers and AI are evolving like everything else. Man and his intelligence are merely components within the evolutionary matrix that surrounds us.

What do you mean by being alive? The term is very ellusive if you give it some thought. If you merely limit yourself to biology then you will erroenously miss many alternative definitions. My constraint would be a self-aware sentient being. The construction material would be irrelevant.
while i agree with computers are 'evolving' i disagree that it is by nature.
they are doing so at the hands of man, an intelligent creature.

as to the 'alive' bit
is that one reason science has been unable to create life? they are unable to define what life is?

So what will it take? What has to happen to rid the Earth of this nonsense?

It takes science become a "God".
Unveil every bit of universe until it is left nothing, TOTALLY, in mistery; meaning: science discovered any bits and pieces of the laws of universe, then any beliefs, hopes, and faiths in human, will be presented scientifically; and welldone!
no more spiritual nonsense, no more delusional morons, no more personal issues which could not be reproducible, no more nothing.

Those who believe in that prediction, may be requested to present a scientific evidence. Me, simply not believe, by faith.

Whatever happened to the times when Religion was a personal subject in which you didnt share with others. You allowed others to believe what they believed. You believed what you believed, and were accepted. I understand even making small groups of people to come together, and share their faith, a group of Christians doing good. a Group of Muslims praising Allah. But the moment these groups grow to enormous number, require initiations (sp?), call all other groups opposers, competition for recruits, or, God forbid, Enemies of God, and wage gang and cult wars against eachother, or even worse, when they appoint leaders, and lead millions of people, and atthe moments notice, command all fit followers to storm a city of some importance, maybe a "holy city" (which ironically has absolutely NO OIL :p ) and kill millions, hell, kill one person is enough, is the moment religion becomes BAD. The moment religion is used as a tool is BAD. The moment religion doesnt become personal but becomes public isnt bad... but isnt good.

Thats why I still like how Jews keep their religion personal. The only problem is, i feel sorry for the younglings of the Family who dont agree, and for the Father, who is heartbroken. But that isnt the point.

If you wanted to end religion, you couldnt use logic, you couldnt force. Many people are too ignorant and hard-headed. mass genocide and cover it up so the next generation doesnt know about it and research this thing called "religion"

Thats the only way I see you could do it...

To me, morals are the business end of religion. Whether we believe in anything unprovable or not can seem irrelevant. But as long as there is a will to know what is best for all and a strive to end immorality and the anguish that goes on from people doing bad things, there will be religion. There is no need to get rid of religion, only the evil that people do in fighting for it and inflicting hatred upon others. And it is then ignorant to assume morality and immorality will go away. As long as man has the freedom to make a right and wrong decision and another man is there to question if it is right and hurting one or the other, there will always be relgion birthed from morality. To me, any group that has a moral principle is a religion, even if it is to do away with religious people oppressing others. I don't feel it wrong to be against a moral order that promotes with immoral behaviour, just as long as it doesn't impose a supposed moral idea through immoral actions. I see good in groups looking to find peace, even the atheist groups but as long as it's executed in a peaceful manner.

leopold,

while i agree with computers are 'evolving' i disagree that it is by nature.
they are doing so at the hands of man, an intelligent creature.So is man not part of nature then? And is man's intelligence unnatural then? You are making the mistake of thinking of man as being outside of evolution. Think of man as simply a catalyst within an evolutionary process.

I don't think religion can boast about morals. History and the present day show that religion does not make for a pleasant group of people. For example, the United States is a developed country with dense religious beliefs. I can sincerely state I do not share the morals of the Christian right or George Bush.

Secularism doesn't get enough credit for having good morals.

Yes, it's regretful when people try to use unpeaceful methods to try to endorse a religion of peace. Sometime people believe too strongly with emotion rather than reason and take it overboard. And religion of good and peace can not be rightfully endorsed through irrational emotion. It's sad to say that a lot of people who try to do right by promoting a religion too strongly only hurt it and God's view of them and others. I don't believe a true man of God can be a right winger or left winger. The truth takes no one's side. The truth is neither an extreme of anything nor a lack of anything, it is a peaceful balance. Not a strong hate or an overbearing love.

When religion is blamed as the cause of violences, is only partly true; ending religion will not cause the end of violence. Take for example the case of US christian right. THEY USE RELIGION for fullfilling desire of power. I think the problem is not fully lied in religion, but most likely in "THEY". As long as there is "THEY" who have desire of controlling power, THEY would use anything. This time they use religion, next time they will use "any reliable tools". Orderly society; always has 2 sides; ordering power is required to avoid anarchy, on the other side, there will always be game of gaining power to excercise the so called "orderly society".

What you have to end is not religion, it is the 'evils' in human: greed, misuse of power, corruption, unjust behaviour, etc. Ending religion, doesn't end those 'evils'.

Religions, in fact, on the other side of what you keep pointing, teach people to counter against those 'evils'. People who excercise 'evil behaviours', most likely don't follow their religion teachings.

Cris,

of the Greek and Roman gods. Why is your fantasy claim any different?
No one claimed Greek and Roman gods were walking with men during the office of Pontius Pilate.

According to Q research the very early texts about Jesus didn’t have any miracle stories so they were deliberately invented and written into the mythology around 50CE as the concept of this hero being a god was being developed. In those ancient times the primary distinction between a mere man and a god was that one of them could perform miracles. This was clearly a need that that those mythmakers would understand.

TRASH SCHOLARSHIP. The cart is placed before the horse. There is no way to prove that that was how it was done. Jesus is often called the son of man, but he still then preforms miracles. The theology trumps the intrusion of mythographers: Jesus' main point was that he is both man and God. Empty-minded scholars need to justify their university chairs somehow.

Lawdog,

Why would a perfect omniscient god create a scenario where his creations needed to be saved. Sounds like he made a mistake and hence he can't be perfect, and hence he can't exist, right?

God gave man the ability to choose his own destiny. Man chose Sin...but you know all that already I think.

hello.. new member here.

The discussion of ending religion seems to be approaching derision and defensiveness of one another's opinion.
Neither side will accomplish much progress as long as each derides the other;
or defends their own.
Atheism needs no defense. It is not even an argument 'against' religion. It is an observation about religion's existence and role in the world today. So spare each other the grief of argument whether God exits or not. Several generations of men and women have been arguing this point since before written history. The argument comes out of our species process of becoming aware of ourselves and our universe. There have been many many religions; before Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddahism, etc. Those early religions were precursors to the ones I mentioned above. They were on a track to organize their thoughts about themselves and make a life effort to understand why life and death even exist. We are contantly searching for that understanding, while we fight with each other and kill each other about what we think and learn.
Take the 21st century as an example; climate change, famine, war and pestilence have taken center stage... All of us, regardless of religious or non-religious perspectives are asking ourselves "What will be the outcome?"
We can't get over ourselves long enough to think and act together... even if it means that we won't live to see the results of our efforts.
What if scientists have discovered that when we die, our energy (soul) travels to another dimension or another universe and starts life again? Possible? Maybe. Our understanding of our universe is growing... but at a rate we can't seem to accept.
I've read books by the real Erich Fromm, that discussed such things; "Psychoanalysis and Religion", "To Have or To Be?", "The Revolution of Hope", etc. These thoughts, along with the writings of D.M. Murdock (Acharya S.)
have inspired me to think of things that I will never live to realize. But I think of them anyway..because that's what hope really is to me. Theism or Atheism
discussions will continue past my lifetime. I hope that we can advance in our awareness of our existence enough to end those discussions because they become moot.
John Lennon said: "You may say that I'm a dreamer, well I'm not the only one"
George Harrison's 'Brainwashed':
The Soul does not exist... it is Existence itself
It does not love... it is Love itself
It does not know... it is Knowledge itself. How to know God, page 130"

Eric

I think that atheism spun off from the need to be different, and rebellious to common ways. Once doubting people hear about many science definitions, they blindly believe in those, instead. Why do those make any more sense then my (theists in general)'s beliefs? I see atheists telling theists a lot that they are foolish and are complete idiots in believing in something that's OBVIOUSLY not there. If there is no proof to back up god, but no proof to disprove his existance then why does that make him not real? If there's no solid evidence either way, that means you can choose for yourself.