What has to Happen to end Religion? [Archive]

PsychoticEpisode

06-27-06, 09:05 AM

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?

S.A.M.

06-27-06, 09:19 AM

PsychoticEpisode

06-27-06, 09:29 AM

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.

Adstar

06-27-06, 09:36 AM

S.A.M.

06-27-06, 09:39 AM

PsychoticEpisode

06-27-06, 10:14 AM

: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.

Mosheh Thezion

06-27-06, 10:23 AM

I DONT LIKE ATHEISTS... period

-MT

PsychoticEpisode

06-27-06, 10:25 AM

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.

PsychoticEpisode

06-27-06, 10:26 AM

I DONT LIKE ATHEISTS... period

-MT

Read previous post

the preacher

06-27-06, 10:28 AM

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.

Mosheh Thezion

06-27-06, 10:31 AM

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

the preacher

06-27-06, 10:32 AM

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.

PsychoticEpisode

06-27-06, 10:43 AM

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?

the preacher

06-27-06, 10:55 AM

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.

S.A.M.

06-27-06, 10:56 AM

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."

looking_forward

06-27-06, 11:04 AM

: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.

Crunchy Cat

06-27-06, 11:09 AM

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.

PsychoticEpisode

06-27-06, 11:09 AM

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.

S.A.M.

06-27-06, 11:11 AM

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?

S.A.M.

06-27-06, 11:16 AM

S.A.M.

06-27-06, 11:18 AM

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.

looking_forward

06-27-06, 11:20 AM

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.

S.A.M.

06-27-06, 11:21 AM

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!

looking_forward

06-27-06, 11:24 AM

Good luck!

thanks but i wont need luck, just time

KennyJC

06-27-06, 11:25 AM

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.

PsychoticEpisode

06-27-06, 11:38 AM

.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.

Sarkus

06-27-06, 11:43 AM

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"?

wsionynw

06-27-06, 12:39 PM

I DONT LIKE ATHEISTS... period

-MT

Why don't you like atheists?

S.A.M.

06-27-06, 12:55 PM

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.

Crunchy Cat

06-27-06, 01:07 PM

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.

S.A.M.

06-27-06, 01:14 PM

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?

ggazoo

06-27-06, 01:46 PM

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.

KennyJC

06-27-06, 02:35 PM

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?

ggazoo

06-27-06, 03:01 PM

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.

Crunchy Cat

06-27-06, 03:08 PM

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.

KennyJC

06-27-06, 03:18 PM

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*

S.A.M.

06-27-06, 03:26 PM

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.

Crunchy Cat

06-27-06, 03:28 PM

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.

Crunchy Cat

06-27-06, 03:38 PM

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.

PsychoticEpisode

06-27-06, 07:56 PM

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.

lightgigantic

06-27-06, 08:19 PM

superluminal

06-27-06, 08:35 PM

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.

lightgigantic

06-27-06, 09:24 PM

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.

Cris

06-27-06, 11:13 PM

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.

Adstar

06-27-06, 11:17 PM

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

Cris

06-28-06, 12:53 AM

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.

leopold99

06-28-06, 01:07 AM

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.

ggazoo

06-28-06, 09:44 AM

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.

Lawdog

06-28-06, 09:50 AM

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.

Sarkus

06-28-06, 10:11 AM

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.

Lawdog

06-28-06, 10:25 AM

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

Cris

06-28-06, 11:06 AM

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?

lightgigantic

06-28-06, 03:17 PM

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

leopold99

06-28-06, 03:31 PM

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

PsychoticEpisode

06-28-06, 06:06 PM

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.

Cris

06-28-06, 07:26 PM

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.

leopold99

06-28-06, 09:25 PM

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.

Adstar

06-28-06, 10:26 PM

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

c7ityi_

06-28-06, 10:37 PM

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

wsionynw

06-29-06, 01:49 AM

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:

Sarkus

06-29-06, 03:24 AM

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

06-29-06, 08:56 AM

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.

Lawdog

06-29-06, 08:59 AM

Those who believe shall be saved.

Adstar

06-29-06, 09:24 AM

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

perplexity

06-29-06, 10:19 AM

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.

Lawdog

06-29-06, 10:49 AM

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.

c7ityi_

06-29-06, 02:53 PM

"My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

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

Lawdog

06-29-06, 03:09 PM

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

oxypunk101

06-29-06, 04:35 PM

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?

PsychoticEpisode

06-29-06, 07:23 PM

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.

Cris

06-29-06, 08:51 PM

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.

Cris

06-29-06, 09:03 PM

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.

Cris

06-29-06, 09:07 PM

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?

leopold99

06-29-06, 09:21 PM

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?

LiveInFaith

07-01-06, 11:37 AM

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.

Provita

07-01-06, 12:26 PM

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...

usp8riot

07-01-06, 02:26 PM

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.

Cris

07-01-06, 02:47 PM

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.

KennyJC

07-01-06, 02:51 PM

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.

usp8riot

07-01-06, 03:47 PM

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.

LiveInFaith

07-02-06, 02:40 AM

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.

Lawdog

07-03-06, 01:54 PM

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

07-03-06, 02:00 PM

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.

Eric Fromm

04-21-08, 11:16 AM

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

Fabio4all

04-21-08, 07:24 PM

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.

ggazoo

07-29-08, 02:55 PM

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?.

Because religion is not just a temporary thing to help us adapt to our environment. Rather it is a permanent and central aspect of the human condition. This is a bitter pill for secular nonreligious people to swallow. Everyone wants to think that they are in the mainstream, that they are not extremists. But robust religious beliefs dominate the world. There is no reason to expect that to change. Secularism is growing, but so is Christianity. For example, Africa has gone from 9% to 55% Christian in the last 100 years. Korea has gone from 1% to 40% in the last 100 years. With both Christianity and Secularism on the rise, we're living in a much more polarized society.

Because of the vitality of religious faith in the world, efforts to suppress or control it often serve only to make is stronger. When the Chinese Communists expelled Western missionaries after World War II, they thought they were killing of Christianity in China. Instead, this move only served to make the leadership of the Chinese church more indigenous and therefore to strengthen it.

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.

Take the Anglo-Saxons. We think of them as primitive, but someday others will think of us and our culture's dominant views as primitive. How can we use our time's standard of "progressive? as the plumbline by which we decide which parts of religion are valid and which are not? Many of the beliefs of our grandparents and great-grandparents now seem silly and even embarrassing to us. That process is not going to stop now. Our grandchildren will find many of our views outmoded as well. Wouldn't it be tragic if we threw the Bible away over a belief that will soon look pretty weak or wrong? To stray away from Christianity because part of the Bible's teaching is offensive to you assumes that if there is a God he wouldn't have any views that upset you. Does that belief make sense?

PsychoticEpisode

07-29-08, 03:12 PM

For example, Africa has gone from 9% to 55% Christian in the last 100 years. Korea has gone from 1% to 40% in the last 100 years.

They weren't all atheists. Some religions ended or became one step closer to extinction. The frailty of a religion is evident, if your not doing well and a person of another faith is, then it is only natural to ......

The Evelyonian

07-29-08, 03:24 PM

...Neither side will accomplish much progress as long as each derides the other;
or defends their own...

I agree. As long as the standard response to "I believe X" is "Well, you only believe X because you're an idiot." these discussions on matters of faith aren't really going to accomplish all that much.

Norsefire

07-29-08, 06:00 PM

OP you're incorrect. Religion is just another aspect of Human nature, it won't ever end. It is also a very valuable tool to both the individual and to society as a whole.

The biggest shame is: if you end religion, you're ending so much of culture and tradition. So much history. You're ending an entire aspect of Humanity.

Besides, I have no doubt abrahamic religions will die eventually. But more will sprout. And why not let them? Sometimes, having faith is good. Better than living a life of nihilism, despair, and pessimism.

PsychoticEpisode

07-29-08, 06:57 PM

OP you're incorrect. Religion is just another aspect of Human nature, it won't ever end. It is also a very valuable tool to both the individual and to society as a whole.

Give the human race some credit. Get tired of hearing from those who think we're inherently evil and can't exist without God. It happens every day, people who don't need religion do just fine without it. You may be right, it might not ever end but it can weaken.

Michael

07-29-08, 09:49 PM

Well, I'm atheistic but I don't want religions to end. I think they serve a good social function depending on the occasion. Think of weddings or funerals. Think of holidays. Think of the wonderful temples. Think of the traditions.

There is a problem with religions who have an underlying supposition that if everyone believed their beleif then the world would be a happier place - which is simply wrong. Those religions that teach if you don't believe in their beleif then you will burn in hell are IMO detrimental in a global non-uniform world. Those religions that teach their religions is the end all and be all of beleif are also detrimental in a global multi-beleif world. Those religions that teach each to their own and there are multiple paths to a similar end are probably pretty good in this world.

I personally think fundamental monotheism can fall into the detrimental camp but the liberal brand seems to do OK.

S.A.M.

07-29-08, 11:26 PM

Mass lobotomy should do it. Or communism. Thats a tried and tested method and lasts at least for 50 years.

PsychoticEpisode

07-29-08, 11:30 PM

Mass lobotomy should do it. Or communism. Thats a tried and tested method and lasts at least for 50 years.

God could just kill us all or leave a few atheists standing next time.

Norsefire

07-30-08, 01:14 AM

Michael more or less stated my argument.

Religion plays a valuable social role.

Psychotic, what you want to end is fundamentalism. Not religion.

KennyJC

07-30-08, 02:49 AM

Religion plays a valuable social role.

You mean decline?

I've still to get around to posting that survey on levels of atheism and corelation with better social health.

Norsefire

07-30-08, 02:52 AM

You mean decline?

I've still to get around to posting that survey on levels of atheism and corelation with better social health.

It depends on how you measure health. The establishments of religion are one of the prime reasons why I view it as valuable. It establishes morality, tradition, and conformity.

KennyJC

07-30-08, 03:41 AM

It depends on how you measure health.

Crime rates, poverty, education, war. etc.

In reality, the most secular countries-those with the highest proportion of atheists and agnostics-are among the most stable, peaceful, free, wealthy, and healthy societies. And the most religious nations-wherein worship of God is in abundance-are among the most unstable, violent, oppressive, poor, and destitute.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=pzuckerman_26_5

The establishments of religion are one of the prime reasons why I view it as valuable. It establishes morality, tradition, and conformity.

Clearly, you over-rate the importance of religion.

Norsefire

07-30-08, 03:53 AM

Clearly that is untrue. America is religious yet not any of what you described

PsychoticEpisode

07-30-08, 10:05 AM

Psychotic, what you want to end is fundamentalism. Not religion.

Both would be nice.

Myles

07-30-08, 11:17 AM

It takes a miracle to get people to believe in god and it will take one to stop them doing so.

PsychoticEpisode

07-30-08, 11:46 AM

It takes a miracle to get people to believe in god

That sounds kind of odd at first glance, even oxymoronic, but I get it.

it will take one to stop them doing so.

When you think of all the sins mankind has perpetrated, again I find it strange that disavowing God is the lowest on the list. We have to do better:D

KennyJC

07-30-08, 01:10 PM

Clearly that is untrue. America is religious yet not any of what you described

Oh, it's true of America too. America fails in many social aspects compared with many secular countries. Not to mention it's fondness for war.

Norsefire

07-30-08, 05:27 PM

Both would be nice.
No. If we can end fundamentalism than moderate religion would be a good thing in the cultural aspects that it provides
Oh, it's true of America too. America fails in many social aspects compared with many secular countries. Not to mention it's fondness for war.

Fails? I'm glad America is still rough.

I don't want some soft and pathetic world. That's what you call too civilized.

KennyJC

07-30-08, 05:47 PM

Fails? I'm glad America is still rough.

You want higher rates of poverty, crime, illiteracy, drug use etc?

I don't want some soft and pathetic world. That's what you call too civilized.

Well you may have a point about that. There are some positives to be had with America's inforced identity. It really stops immigrants coming in and trying to change America's identity. This in turn helps immigrants integrate to some extent.

This is where some countries in Europe fail. But never the less Scandinavian countries in particular seem to have the best of both worlds: Reinforced identity, no religion, no wars, good social health.

DeepThought

07-30-08, 06:28 PM

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.

Odd then that these days it seems physics is the discipline retreating into obscurity.

(Q)

07-30-08, 07:09 PM

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

Children should not be forced to accept doctrine, uncritically.

Only a few generations would precede a collapse of organized religion. Children would no longer be indoctrinated into their parents religion, but instead would grow up learning to think critically and to question the doctrines of ALL cults.

At the very least, they would be granted the opportunity to make a choice.

(Q)

07-30-08, 07:18 PM

Sometimes, having faith is good. Better than living a life of nihilism, despair, and pessimism.

I think we have our monthly winner for the most dysfunctional reason to support religion.

Norsefire

07-30-08, 07:23 PM

You want higher rates of poverty, crime, illiteracy, drug use etc?
I don't want absolutely no conflict. A world without conflict would be boring.

This is where some countries in Europe fail. But never the less Scandinavian countries in particular seem to have the best of both worlds: Reinforced identity, no religion, no wars, good social health.
No religion? What world are you living in?
There's a handful of europeon countries that are majority atheist.

More like, they have moderate religion. And they don't have identity, what European country is patriotic? I cant think of one.
Children should not be forced to accept doctrine, uncritically.
They are taught to accept that gravity is real.

Only a few generations would precede a collapse of organized religion. Children would no longer be indoctrinated into their parents religion, but instead would grow up learning to think critically and to question the doctrines of ALL cults.

At the very least, they would be granted the opportunity to make a choice.
Then we shouldn't have schools. They teach children a certain way of thinking, and only one way.

Michael

07-30-08, 10:49 PM

You mean decline?Did Greek Polytheism cause a decline in the Greek ideals, Hellenism?

Did the Shinto religion cause a decline in Japanese society? What about when Buddhism was introduced?

How about Egyptian society? Surely their VERY deep religious beliefs helped sustain their civilization for millennia? And, Ancient Egyptians were deeply religious.

How about Rome? Did their tolerance of multi-version of polytheism cause a decline in their civilization?

I think religions play an important role. And, it may even be that a certain critical number of people that make up the population are pretty much genetically pre-programed to think "religiously" and so THAT must be taken into consideration. I mean, even the Communists worshiped a Dear Leader be he Mao, Staline, Kim Jung Il.

Surely it's not one big coincidence that Egyptians had Pharaohs, Jews have Moses, Xians have Jesus, Scientologists have Ron Hubbard, Muslims have Mohammad, John Frumians have John Frum, Mormons have Joseph Smith, Baha'i have Bahá'u'lláh, Communists in NK have Kim Jung Il, Terrorists have Bin Laden, Republicans have GW Bush Jr, etc...

So, really, it's a matter of which religous beleif is most suitable for modern development - I'm voting Buddhism personally. That one's pretty peaceful in it's modern incarnation and it doesn't seem to be too much of a burden on a modern society like Japan. So it's fine. Perhaps for more primitive people, like people in Pakistan or inner city Detroit, Islam is more suitable? Some people probably NEED a bigger carrot and a harder stick then other, more civil, people? AND is it really all that taboo to say such a thing? I mean, religion has been, for the most part of human history, used primarily utilized as a means to control peoples' actions. Lets not forget that. It does have that use. Just live in an inner Detroit ghetto and you will probably BEG and PRAY that people become religous and follow the though shalt not kill, murder, etc... rule. Then you can see the usefulness religions can play in society.

MII

DeepThought

07-31-08, 01:59 AM

They are taught to accept that gravity is real.

The search for a unified theory is now the only excuse scientists have left for why their view of the cosmos is inconsistent.

Coincidentally, the lack of a G.U.T. is also the only excuse theists have for maintaining their belief system.

Betrayer0fHope

07-31-08, 02:21 AM

one: kill kadark
two: it's slowly dying anyways. Look around you at what people call "Religion," its meaningless. I barely know any christians that follow the bible the way the pope tells us/them to.

Betrayer0fHope

07-31-08, 02:24 AM

I don't want absolutely no conflict. A world without conflict would be boring.

selfish

No religion? What world are you living in?
There's a handful of europeon countries that are majority atheist.

He said that even without religion the world can still kick ass?

More like, they have moderate religion. And they don't have identity, what European country is patriotic? I cant think of one.

They are taught to accept that gravity is real.

Nobody forces you to believe it.

Then we shouldn't have schools. They teach children a certain way of thinking, and only one way.

Hmm? That's not true at all. Schools definitely teach many ways of thinking, and its not like schools force you to believe things you don't want to, just don't, it isn't very hard.

EDIT: don't reply to this, please.

(Q)

07-31-08, 08:53 AM

I don't want absolutely no conflict. A world without conflict would be boring.

So, you're in favor of people killing each other in the name of their gods that you might be entertained?

They are taught to accept that gravity is real.

No, they can do experiments to observe the effects of gravity, hence have an understanding of how things work.

Then we shouldn't have schools. They teach children a certain way of thinking, and only one way.

What way is that, exactly?

Vkothii

07-31-08, 08:58 AM

Is this thread attempting to discuss the reasons that so many people are abandoning religions and the churches have fewer people going?

Why there are so many faithless among us?

Jozen-Bo

07-31-08, 09:01 AM

...

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

If you pray religiously for it to happen, it may just end...;)

Jan Ardena

07-31-08, 11:03 AM

Enmos

07-31-08, 11:23 AM

You will end religion by ending the human race.
Short of that, you can pretend that religion can and will end.
But in reality, religion is part and parcel of the human race.

jan.

You only have to end all the theists and all the references to religion.

KennyJC

07-31-08, 12:11 PM

Did Greek Polytheism cause a decline in the Greek ideals, Hellenism?

Did the Shinto religion cause a decline in Japanese society? What about when Buddhism was introduced?

How about Egyptian society? Surely their VERY deep religious beliefs helped sustain their civilization for millennia? And, Ancient Egyptians were deeply religious.

How about Rome? Did their tolerance of multi-version of polytheism cause a decline in their civilization?

Well the Egyptians went as far as building humungous pyramids for asinine reasons.

Just goes to show what lengths superstitious minded people can go to. It's a big waste of time. Perhaps if people were more rationally minded back then as today, society would have been more productive and more progressive. You can't prove that these religions in anyway expedited civilisation.

Using Isaac Newton as an example: Great scientist... but would have been better if not so ludicrously religious and superstitious.

PsychoticEpisode

07-31-08, 12:11 PM

You will end religion by ending the human race.

How in the world did we go from 1 or 2 persons to a myriad of extinct and active religions? Even when God cut the population to 8, religions grew again. It does sound as if religion is like rabbits. I should have asked why religion is so proliferate.

Short of that, you can pretend that religion can and will end.

People have pretended for many things to end. Does your statement mean were stuck with cancer forever?

But in reality, religion is part and parcel of the human race.

At birth it isn't.

S.A.M.

07-31-08, 12:13 PM

You only have to end all the theists and all the references to religion.

Didn't work in the communist countries; in fact, they had to revert their decision to do so.

KennyJC

07-31-08, 12:23 PM

Didn't work in the communist countries; in fact, they had to revert their decision to do so.

Perhaps things such as YouTube could do more damage to religion than any communism ever did.

At least in countries were YouTube isn't banned by the religious thought police.

Jan Ardena

07-31-08, 12:28 PM

You only have to end all the theists and all the references to religion.

That will just end current theists, and current references to religion, not religion itself.

Jan.

Enmos

07-31-08, 12:31 PM

That will just end theists, and references to religion, not religion itself.

Jan.

Who will have religion then ?

Jan Ardena

07-31-08, 12:36 PM

Who will have religion then ?

I edited my last post, maybe you want to read it.

You imply that religion is an object.
Religion, is, period. That is why it affects every single human in some way.

Jan.

Enmos

07-31-08, 12:39 PM

I'm assuming were are talking about theistic religion..

Jan Ardena

07-31-08, 12:49 PM

PsychoticEpisode,

People have pretended for many things to end. Does your statement mean were stuck with cancer forever?

I don't know about cancer, or "..being stuck" with anything. But religion is part of the life experience, it never came into being, and it won't go out of being.
It is possible to change the parameters of religion to make it seem like there is no religion, no god, no afterlife, but this still requires faith and belief. In short you can pretend there is no religion, like politicians and atheists pretend societies are less violent than before.

At birth it isn't.

Neither is solid food, walking shoes, or a decent paid job. But in time....

jan.

Jan Ardena

07-31-08, 12:51 PM

I'm assuming were are talking about theistic religion..

Religion is religion. Theism and atheism are just titles.

Jan.

Enmos

07-31-08, 01:00 PM

Religion is religion. Theism and atheism are just titles.

Jan.

Then how would there be religion if there were no religious people ?

Medicine*Woman

07-31-08, 02:17 PM

Who will have religion then ?
*************
M*W: Fortunately, no one will.

Medicine*Woman

07-31-08, 02:19 PM

Religion is religion. Theism and atheism are just titles.

Jan.
*************
M*W: That's what I'm saying. It would be a much better place to live without those lies!

ggazoo

07-31-08, 04:24 PM

Well the Egyptians went as far as building humungous pyramids for asinine reasons.

Just goes to show what lengths superstitious minded people can go to. It's a big waste of time.

Correct me in I'm wrong, but did you just call one of the great wonders of the world a waste of time? :confused:

Norsefire

07-31-08, 04:48 PM

So, you're in favor of people killing each other in the name of their gods that you might be entertained?
Not for entertainment, but for development. Conflict is part of who we are as Humans.
If we had a world without anarchy and without conflict, it'd be too civilized and too lame. There is no potential for greatness there.

What way is that, exactly?

I dont know

Cris

07-31-08, 06:56 PM

Psch...,

Nice thread. I started one on a similar vein some years ago.

The religionists are not qualified to answer so we can ignore all their posts. People who cannot distinguish between fantasy and reality aren't likely to offer any intelligible answers on this issue, as we can see above.

So when will religion end?All the time the human race exhibits a vast array of creative imaginative and speculative ideas and with a tendency to confuse such potentials as real then religion in some form will likely always exist. It represents an inherent irrational aspect of the human psyche. It is the downside to one of our greatest strengths, the ability to imagine.

But religions (the major ones anyway) today rest on several fundamental observations.

1. Death appears inevitable and represents the prospect of non-existence which many find distasteful and unacceptable. This single fact is the root basis of every major religion and nearly all the lesser ones, i.e. the concept that somehow death is survivable in some type of mysterious ethereal form.

2. Man appears to be the pinnacle of life on the planet and must be the result of some form of intent.

If one or both of these conditions change in any fundamental manner then the effect on the credibility of religion would be eroded, and the degree would be dependent on the extent of the change.

If solutions are found to stop and/or reverse the aging process then death ceases to become inevitable. Without death being a commonplace event and with the real prospect of open ended life spans then the concept of life after death loses, probably significantly, any relevance. Without the life after death concept pretty much every religion will lose the affect of its primary promise.

The development of AI and machines with intelligence equal and likely greater than man, and with appropriate emotional and self–aware capabilities will also significantly erode the illusion that man is somehow perfect or a pinnacle of some supernatural achievement.

The discovery of alien life, potentially of a very different form to us will also erode the perception that somehow man is special.

And finally, a very long view, and probably an unlikely scenario since I suspect AI will replace mankind, but there is the outside chance that man could simply continue to evolve into something superior. This might well be the result of genetic engineering where we deliberately design in strengths and eliminate weakness. Very much along the same lines where man took the wolf and from that base bred all the vast array of different dogs we see today. But with man, intelligence and creativity would likely be the dominant design features. The result would likely be a human far beyond what we know as human today. The conclusion is that we would have designed our own destiny and the concept of a supernatural cause would just seem a silly idea.

Religions will slowly die, although smoldering embers might continue for a long time.

Norsefire

07-31-08, 07:15 PM

Only fools believe an entire aspect of Human nature will die. Religion won't die. It'll evolve and change, but it won't ever die.

PsychoticEpisode

07-31-08, 09:03 PM

If God showed up on a regular basis then religion just might end.

What possible need would we have for religion if God put on a show, especially in these modern times?

Let's say God removes all weaponry from the face of the Earth then He casts a spell wherein everytime someone even thinks of bringing them back or of killing someone that person drops dead. A few idiots try it and the rest of us become convinced.

Next, during a regular schedule of visitations, He explains every mystery from Creation to Caramilk bars. We end world hunger, disease is vanquished, & the planet is saved.

It turns out that no religion got it right. Would one or many spring up between visits.

Michael

07-31-08, 10:36 PM

Well the Egyptians went as far as building humungous pyramids for asinine reasons.

Just goes to show what lengths superstitious minded people can go to. It's a big waste of time. 5000 years of civilization suggests that, no, it wasn't. Religion was the corner stone and foundation of their civilization. Don't forget this was the DAWN of human civilization . Is a PS3 a "waste of time and resources"? How about TV, Radio, Internet, going on a picnic?

Building pyramids was only conducted a few mounts of the year and it promoted social equality, connected peoples from one area of Egypt with peoples from the other, it taught builders how to build, it kept people from waring with one another, it reinforced their social bonds, it pushed them to become VERY VERY organized and literate. In short, no Pyramids, not Egyptian Civilization. Not to mention all the supporting job that were needed and taxes that were paid which pushed farmers (who paid in grain) to be more productive in their farming. The list goes on and on. Egyptians were very very VERY religous people. It worked for them.

I guess, what I'm getting at, is religion has a place in society. Being atheist I can recognize that there are different needs for different people and some needs only religion meets for some people.

Incidentally, some of the most fervent atheists I know were at one time die hard Xians and as atheist I'd say they are pretty fr*cking fanatically religious in their need for atheism to fill a need they have.

MII

KennyJC

08-01-08, 12:14 AM

Correct me in I'm wrong, but did you just call one of the great wonders of the world a waste of time? :confused:

I imagine that if it was proposed we build one today it would be called a big waste of time, yes.

Kadark

08-01-08, 12:18 AM

I imagine that if it was proposed we build one today it would be called a big waste of time, yes.

The Great Pyramid of Giza was a "waste of time"?

Yes, I suppose that time would have been better spent arguing about religion. :rolleyes:

Kadark the Hittite

KennyJC

08-01-08, 12:19 AM

The Great Pyramid of Giza was a "waste of time"?

Yes, I suppose that time would have been better spent arguing about religion. :rolleyes:

Kadark the Hittite

I'm just saying the difference between building one now and building one back then is rationalism. It would not be tolerated that we build such a pointless structure even if it would be an impressive one.

Jan Ardena

08-01-08, 01:49 AM

Then how would there be religion if there were no religious people ?

The same way air would be air without people to in/exhale it.

jan.

Michael

08-01-08, 01:49 AM

So you agree that religion can have a positive contribution to certain societies?

Jan Ardena

08-01-08, 01:53 AM

Michael

08-01-08, 02:06 AM

I'm just saying the difference between building one now and building one back then is rationalism. It would not be tolerated that we build such a pointless structure even if it would be an impressive one.We still build things and maybe for similar reasons (assuming money now = religious beleif) - just look at massively tall sky scrapers, I just road the MagLev in Shanghai (431 km/hr in 8 min), ever notice how the largest buildings in the CBD are Banks and Insurance companies? Same thing. The little people need to have faith that the system the runs their puny lives is going to take care of them. Now it's 500 floor mega towers - back then in was a big pyramid.

What do you think?

KennyJC

08-01-08, 03:41 AM

We still build things and maybe for similar reasons (assuming money now = religious beleif) - just look at massively tall sky scrapers, I just road the MagLev in Shanghai (431 km/hr in 8 min), ever notice how the largest buildings in the CBD are Banks and Insurance companies? Same thing. The little people need to have faith that the system the runs their puny lives is going to take care of them. Now it's 500 floor mega towers - back then in was a big pyramid.

What do you think?

Money is not a religious belief. I really wish people on this forum would stop calling things religion which are not.

Skyscrapers and office space in general play a huge part in the economy. It's a little different than building a glorified tomb.

Jan Ardena

08-01-08, 05:26 AM

Money is not a religious belief. I really wish people on this forum would stop calling things religion which are not.

Its not "religious belief" in the sense that the object/subject of their worship is god, but is religious in the way they pursue their goals. Ultimately, religion is a way of life, not necessarily belief. For example I could chant and glorify the name of Allah, but would not be accepted into a muslim society if I lived my life contrary to that expected of a muslim.
In the same way one would be rejected from a society of millionares if one was broke. The only difference between the two scenarios is the object of desire.
This is why some things are regarded as religious, despite not having a belief in god.

jan

Medicine*Woman

08-01-08, 08:23 AM

Medicine*Woman

08-01-08, 08:24 AM

I DONT LIKE ATHEISTS... period
-MT
*************
M*W: Then why are you here?

(Q)

08-01-08, 09:36 AM

Not for entertainment, but for development. Conflict is part of who we are as Humans.
If we had a world without anarchy and without conflict, it'd be too civilized and too lame. There is no potential for greatness there.

Conflict is part of religion, not part of who we are as humans.

I dont know

Exactly. Just another absurd and meaningless statement of yours.

Norsefire

08-01-08, 04:01 PM

Conflict is part of religion, not part of who we are as humans.
Conflict can erupt between any difference. Religion, culture, nationality, etc

Exactly. Just another absurd and meaningless statement of yours.

Back at ya

(Q)

08-01-08, 05:01 PM

Conflict can erupt between any difference. Religion, culture, nationality, etc

But, it doesn't erupt because it is part of who we are as humans.

However, religion is steeped in conflict. It shapes culture and nationality. For example:

Pakistan Penal Code:

"295-C. Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet:
Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine."

http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/legislation/1860/actXLVof1860.html

Norsefire

08-01-08, 05:03 PM

But, it doesn't erupt because it is part of who we are as humans.

However, religion is steeped in conflict. It shapes culture and nationality. For example:
And in that it shapes them, it's valuable. Also we Humans will always have differences.

Pakistan Penal Code:

"295-C. Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet:
Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine."

http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/legislation/1860/actXLVof1860.html

That's because Pakistan is a theocracy, pretty much.

In Italy I can mock the pope, and they can't do anything, even though Italy is like 90% Catholic

(Q)

08-01-08, 05:39 PM

And in that it shapes them, it's valuable.

There has been no value religion has added to culture or nationality. Intolerance, bigotry, racism and heaps of conflict come to mind, though.

In Italy I can mock the pope, and they can't do anything, even though Italy is like 90% Catholic

"Can. 1369 A person who in a public show or speech, in published writing, or in other uses of the instruments of social communication utters blasphemy, gravely injures good morals, expresses insults, or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty."

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P52.HTM

Michael

08-01-08, 06:47 PM

Religion does add value. For example, a typical Japanese leads their life and probably doens't spend to much time thinking about an afterlife, yet, one day their loved ones dies and suddenly they faced with a death. They turn to the local Buddhist Temple and speak with the Priest and at the funeral he goes through a ceremony and this restores their peace of mind and they pay for the service and life goes on.

IMO monotheism is inherently intolerant. How can monotheists accept someone else's Gods? They really can't be honest with their belief and also truly accept another persons different belief system if it involves other Gods. Also, if a monotheistic religion has a Last Messiah or Last Prophet they are not going to be able to accept any new ones.

But, I think polytheism and Buddhism are more than capable of adding value and culture and meaning to many people's lives and are able to meet the very real need many people have of overcoming the fear of non existence aka death and can do so without being inherently intolerant of other belief systems.

As long as there is death there will be a need for many people to adopt a superstitious explaination for what happens to "them" after they die, there will be religion for at least another 200 years I'd say..