How religion is becoming like the dodo

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Religion was a brilliant concept when it was created, gave people a way to explain all the miraculous phenomena they saw everyday (ranging from sun rising to lighting to life itself). But I believe that in the modern world and near future it will become a concept/practice left to erode away.

The reason being is that it gives no good input into our society or way of life in this era of humanity. Now a lot of people will say it gives us morals, a guiding light, hope etc but we have them so ingrained in our society that religion doesn't need to be there to remind of these. Also in all honesty my opinion of religion is that it was a precursor to what we call science, a similar relationship is alchemy and chemistry, alchemy was widespread and survived for a long while but as people adopted chemistry, alchemy eventually died out; so I believe this will eventually occur with religion.

As evidence the 2009 census in UK showed that 50.7% of the people currently living in the UK have no religion, this from a country that for 100s of years was deeply christian to the point that the monarchy is still in service to god (old tradition etc).

Technology and science are far outpacing religion in adapting to the modern world and so eventually if a practice/concept cannot conform to our way of life it must decease for our society to grow and prosper without hinder. Its just due to the fact that all religions are based on literature that never changes and was written thousands of years ago, and remains rigid/stagnant when faced with change.

No, it isn't.

First of all--I'm not a Christian. I'm an eclectic mystic.

HOWEVER, I happen to live in America's Bible Belt (the southeast) and I can assure you that while the number of people identifying themselves as 'not-religious' both here and abroad has skyrocketed in the past few decades "religion" isn't in the least bit of danger of becoming extinct.

I have relatives who are quite devout--nothing political or anything--but they are quite devout and got to church regularly, etc. Their children have been reared the same way and the kids are church goers.

Also there is a tendency here for people to pay to put their kids through religious schools--often not caring if the religious school isn't the same denomination as their own. We have Protestants putting their kids into Catholic schools and Catholics swearing "I went to Catholic school and NO child of MINE will EVER attend one!!!"[1] which explains why Catholics send their kids to Protestant religious schools.

We also have quite a few atheists/agnostics sending their children to religious schools. The reason being that they want their kids to grow up attending a school where morals and ethics ARE a part of the kids' educations.

No matter how many people stop being religious there will always be a large percentage of the world's population that are religious in one way or another.

Heck, look at me--I'm an Animist.

[1] One of my mother's coworkers said this to her. He hated and despised Catholic schools.

Religion might be losing influence in the UK, that's not to saying it's disappearing, or that this is happenign everywhere.

lawrie001:
Religion was a brilliant concept when it was created, gave people a way to explain all the miraculous phenomena they saw everyday (ranging from sun rising to lighting to life itself). But I believe that in the modern world and near future it will become a concept/practice left to erode away.

The reason being is that it gives no good input into our society or way of life in this era of humanity. Now a lot of people will say it gives us morals, a guiding light, hope etc but we have them so ingrained in our society that religion doesn't need to be there to remind of these. Also in all honesty my opinion of religion is that it was a precursor to what we call science, a similar relationship is alchemy and chemistry, alchemy was widespread and survived for a long while but as people adopted chemistry, alchemy eventually died out; so I believe this will eventually occur with religion.

You seem to completely ignore the community aspect of religion and the sense of security it can bring to people, which is something that chemistry/physics/geology/ect. doesn't necessarily provide.

lawrie001:

As evidence the 2009 census in UK showed that 50.7% of the people currently living in the UK have no religion, this from a country that for 100s of years was deeply christian to the point that the monarchy is still in service to god (old tradition etc).

*Looks at the UK's population and looks India's population, and see's that most people in India are religious*

I don't think the UK represents the entire world, nor does Western Europe for that matter.

lawrie001:

Technology and science are far outpacing religion in adapting to the modern world and so eventually if a practice/concept cannot conform to our way of life it must decease for our society to grow and prosper without hinder. Its just due to the fact that all religions are based on literature that never changes and was written thousands of years ago, and remains rigid/stagnant when faced with change.

I long for the day when science can tell me if people really have souls, if there is definitive proof that no form of a divine being[1] exist, and what really happens when we die. However, until that day happens, technology and science will still be "outpaced" by religion in those regards.

[1] in the theistic or deistic sense

I agree with your general point, but not with the detail.

1) Religion can "adapt" just as fast as any other area of culture. While people don't tend to rethink their ideas on religion very often over their own lifetimes, there are enormous shifts in religious behaviour over time.
2) The real conflict here isn't between "science" and "religion", I don't think. Religious people aren't generally burning iPods to cleanse them of the foul music playing demons that dwell within. The conflict is between "culture" and "religion".

The persistence of religion is directly linked to how separate it is from "mainstream" culture. Thus, in America where far more people are religious, where material culture is often closely tied with religion and where there is extensive religious TV programming, religious film, religious music, religious news and greater social interconnectedness within churches, religion is proving much more persistent and certainly much more politically influential. Religious conservatives in America have managed to entrench themselves by effectively cutting themselves off from any kind of secular culture. It's going to take a long time to break that down, and while it's pretty unique it's likely that other conservative religious circles elsewhere in the world, however small they might now be, will at least attempt the same tactic.

But overall, I agree that this tactic indicates that religious conservatism has already lost the debate. I think, outside of America where that critical mass exists that a child can be raised in a completely religious environment it's going to be very hard for religious people to reverse the trend of increasing secularization. It is not nearly as possible for people to cut themselves off from anything non-religious in the UK, for example, without basically becoming a hermit.

But religion will certainly change. It's not just going to keel over and die on its feet. It may survive by entrenching harder and harder and by engaging less and less with the world, but I don't think long term that's going to work out. However, there are religious progressives and modernists, and while they have been relatively quiet that's because they're actually pretty well adapted and just don't show up on the cultural radar, so to speak. Will organized religion survive? I don't know. But I bet some form of religion will.

I'd say it would take a couple of centuries for religion to die out and even then people will find something to replace it with, probably something relating to technology. Of course as Science progresses it seems like it pushes people away from mystic explanations, when the creation of the universe is finally explained it will either prove or disprove religion. Unless your religion is more philosophical doesn't that get rid of the basic tenants of most religions?

I find it o very unlikely that it will disappear with the vast number of people on the planet that believe in a religion, pass it on in their communities, and converting outsiders all the while.

Also, you seem to think that religion cant evolve with the times. The one instance where I've seen beliefs and modern science in conflict on a major scale is ...those people that live in the woods. Fuck. Forgot the name of it, but it will come to me sooner or later.

I don't think that religion will ever disappear so long as humans exist, at least for a very long time from now. However I can see it probably mutating into something a little different in the future in order to survive as religion is definitely becoming pretty redundant in modern society, at least in the 'better off' places of the world. There is nothing wrong with religion essentially, when it is not taken too far and I can see it having a place in society far into the future but some changes need to be made, particularly that it needs to embrace science and logic rather than defy it, create teachings designed for our current society, not taken from a 2000 year old book. I'm sure the bible was great in its time but for fucks sake you need to update your software to suit new operating systems people, debug the shit out of that thing.

Shadowstar38:
The one instance where I've seen beliefs and modern science in conflict on a major scale is ...those people that live in the woods. Fuck. Forgot the name of it, but it will come to me sooner or later.

You mean Amish? Robin Hood and his merry men?

SlaveNumber23:
I don't think that religion will ever disappear so long as humans exist, at least for a very long time from now. However I can see it probably mutating into something a little different in the future in order to survive as religion is definitely becoming pretty redundant in modern society, at least in the 'better off' places of the world. There is nothing wrong with religion essentially, when it is not taken too far and I can see it having a place in society far into the future but some changes need to be made, particularly that it needs to embrace science and logic rather than defy it, create teachings designed for our current society, not taken from a 2000 year old book. I'm sure the bible was great in its time but for fucks sake you need to update your software to suit new operating systems people, debug the shit out of that thing.

Shadowstar38:
The one instance where I've seen beliefs and modern science in conflict on a major scale is ...those people that live in the woods. Fuck. Forgot the name of it, but it will come to me sooner or later.

You mean Amish? Robin Hood and his merry men?

Amish. That was the one I meant to say.

Helmholtz Watson:
I long for the day when science can tell me if people really have souls, if there is definitive proof that no form of a divine being[1] exist, and what really happens when we die. However, until that day happens, technology and science will still be "outpaced" by religion in those regards.

The mighty watermelon gave you your soul! How dare you defy him!
There's a difference between knowing something, and making shit up to make yourself and others feel better.
Science has has already told everyone this:
1. No "souls" have been found
2. You rot in the ground.

I should totally make some sort of nursery rhyme out of that.

[1] in the theistic or deistic sense

CpT_x_Killsteal:

Helmholtz Watson:
I long for the day when science can tell me if people really have souls, if there is definitive proof that no form of a divine being[1] exist, and what really happens when we die. However, until that day happens, technology and science will still be "outpaced" by religion in those regards.

The mighty watermelon gave you your soul! How dare you defy him!
There's a difference between knowing something, and making shit up to make yourself and others feel better.
Science has has already told everyone this:
1. No "souls" have been found
2. You rot in the ground.

I should totally make some sort of nursery rhyme out of that.

.
No 'Chi' had been detected yet in the human body yet people using this term masquerading as doctors still get paid.

Light was considered to be a straight line two centuries ago. I'm sure we'll think of something better in the future as there's no way Einstein is right. There has to be an irregularity that he can't explain, and we're back to the drawing board.

[1] in the theistic or deistic sense

CpT_x_Killsteal:

1. No "souls" have been found

That sounds inconclusive. Like, it could be there, but we don't know how to find it if it exists. Religion at the very least provides a definative answer. And most have what they believe to be a valid basis for that answer.

Pitirim Sorokin, a leading 20th century sociologist, takes the opposite view. He argues that its are modern science/technology based society thats in decline and its the spiritual/religious elements in society that are on the ascendence.

http://satyagraha.wordpress.com/2010/08/19/pitirim-sorkin-crisis-of-modernity/

Fact is, a cultural dependance on pure science leads to moral and existential nihilism, which is an anathema to the human psyche. People want meaning in their life, they want to feel connected to nature, to the greater cosmos, to be a part of the vastness of space-time beyond themselves. Science is incapable of delivering that meaning, that connection. While it is true that traditional religions are in decline there has been a rise in alternative mysticism. People are still looking for answers, answers that science can never give. While people are increasingly rejecting the old religious ideas they have not nor will they ever abandon the notion that there is meaning and purpose to existence.

Whats next, as Sorokin predicts, is a new Integral culture, one which blends our modern scientific discoveries with our innate spirituality, a new religion, perhaps, certainly a Neo-Renaissance of human growth and achievement.

TheIronRuler:

CpT_x_Killsteal:

Helmholtz Watson:
I long for the day when science can tell me if people really have souls, if there is definitive proof that no form of a divine being[1] exist, and what really happens when we die. However, until that day happens, technology and science will still be "outpaced" by religion in those regards.

The mighty watermelon gave you your soul! How dare you defy him!
There's a difference between knowing something, and making shit up to make yourself and others feel better.
Science has has already told everyone this:
1. No "souls" have been found
2. You rot in the ground.

I should totally make some sort of nursery rhyme out of that.

.
No 'Chi' had been detected yet in the human body yet people using this term masquerading as doctors still get paid.

Light was considered to be a straight line two centuries ago. I'm sure we'll think of something better in the future as there's no way Einstein is right. There has to be an irregularity that he can't explain, and we're back to the drawing board.

Masquerading is just another word for bullshitting. And if I heard my doctor say that I'd inject him with his own meds.

Yeah we might think of something better in the future. But as of now, it's the best thing we have to go on. Although light does bend in the atmosphere and such.

[1] in the theistic or deistic sense

Shadowstar38:

CpT_x_Killsteal:

1. No "souls" have been found

That sounds inconclusive. Like, it could be there, but we don't know how to find it if it exists. Religion at the very least provides a definative answer. And most have what they believe to be a valid basis for that answer.

You can't prove a negative. When someone makes a claim, it's up to them to bring the proof. Also, most people used to believe the earth was flat because they weren't, y'know, falling off of it

If we went with your logic, then I'm god and you have way to disprove it, and I don't have to prove anything.

CpT_x_Killsteal:

Shadowstar38:

CpT_x_Killsteal:

1. No "souls" have been found

That sounds inconclusive. Like, it could be there, but we don't know how to find it if it exists. Religion at the very least provides a definative answer. And most have what they believe to be a valid basis for that answer.

You can't prove a negative. When someone makes a claim, it's up to them to bring the proof. Also, most people used to believe the earth was flat because they weren't, y'know, falling off of it

If we went with your logic, then I'm god and you have way to disprove it, and I don't have to prove anything.

I wouldn't bother disputing that because, teh fuq. To many, religion provides the answers to what science doesn't. Until someone starts disproving things, I don't see an end to religion in 1000 years, or even as long as humans are around.

Shadowstar38:

CpT_x_Killsteal:

Shadowstar38:

That sounds inconclusive. Like, it could be there, but we don't know how to find it if it exists. Religion at the very least provides a definative answer. And most have what they believe to be a valid basis for that answer.

You can't prove a negative. When someone makes a claim, it's up to them to bring the proof. Also, most people used to believe the earth was flat because they weren't, y'know, falling off of it

If we went with your logic, then I'm god and you have way to disprove it, and I don't have to prove anything.

I wouldn't bother disputing that because, teh fuq. To many, religion provides the answers to what science doesn't. Until someone starts disproving things, I don't see an end to religion in 1000 years, or even as long as humans are around.

Ok do you want to know the main reason why religion (particularly Christianity as I know the most about it), its because its a arrogant childish way of looking at the universe. It dumb's down all the complexity we see in the natural world to saying that one all mighty being created it all and is responsible for all the fantastic phenomena around us, and to make it so were the most important piece in this universe we were created in the image of this all powerful creator. That is arrogant beyond comparison, even beyond when we believed the Earth was the centre of the universe.

Also with the whole souls, afterlife, ghosts thing; I find it quite surprising that humans and some domestic animals seem to be the only creatures with souls/ghosts on this planet. You never hear stories of sightings of dinosaur, cow or fish ghosts/souls do you? Again arrogance presuming were the only organism worthy of an afterlife, considering that there are many animals self aware and intelligent its hard to support the idea that human beings are the only ones that are "worthy" to have an afterlife if one exists (which I believe there isn't).

Next the whole community, ethics and morals reasoning for religion; I am an atheist, I have had no religious upbringing yet I do not go around killing or stealing, also I have community of friends and family who are for the most part either atheist or agnostic. Reason being is that morals, ethics and community are not of religious origin, they are ingrained into our DNA, we evolved into a social species who use to form groups for hunting and protection, if one of those individuals stole or killed other members he would wind up alone and soon dead so we have evolved to know they are wrong to do and to keep friends and family close.

Finally just because science cannot explain everything and a book written 1000s of years ago by for all you know a madman proposes a idea of what happened, does not automatically make it correct. That is a stupid way to argue because I could say that at the center of the universe there is a giant teapot the size of 60,000 suns, now the bible doesn't say that's wrong so it must be true but any rational person would go "wait no that's a stupid theory because teapots are a manmade invention so how could one so large be millions of light years away?" And I never said it would be quick extinction, would take a long time but do not think as long as 1000 years, to give a bit of perspective the new computer age which has taken over the world completely has happened in just over/under half a century.

thaluikhain:
Religion might be losing influence in the UK, that's not to saying it's disappearing, or that this is happenign everywhere.

IIRC, it's on the rise globally, or at least more extreme versions are. In times of trouble, flee to a holy book :-P

My personal opinion is that the majority of those who identify as religious on a census or somesuch are likely atheist or agnostic, if they ever thought about it, but having been raised in a certain tradition or been told "You're from country X, and country X is a Christian country, so you're a Christian". It's really, really hard to get a number on how many non-believers there may be in the world when so many of them associate culturally with a certain religion and never think about whether they actually believe it or not.

SonicWaffle:

thaluikhain:
Religion might be losing influence in the UK, that's not to saying it's disappearing, or that this is happenign everywhere.

IIRC, it's on the rise globally, or at least more extreme versions are. In times of trouble, flee to a holy book :-P

My personal opinion is that the majority of those who identify as religious on a census or somesuch are likely atheist or agnostic, if they ever thought about it, but having been raised in a certain tradition or been told "You're from country X, and country X is a Christian country, so you're a Christian". It's really, really hard to get a number on how many non-believers there may be in the world when so many of them associate culturally with a certain religion and never think about whether they actually believe it or not.

I'm a bit wary of going down that route, but I do remember that it used to be that "atheist" wasn't a box you could tick on certain official forms in some places, you had to choose a religion.

Shadowstar38:
Also, you seem to think that religion cant evolve with the times. The one instance where I've seen beliefs and modern science in conflict on a major scale is ...those people that live in the woods. Fuck. Forgot the name of it, but it will come to me sooner or later.

Bears?

Also, if that's the only time you've seen science and religious belief at loggerheads, you've never clicked into a pro- or anti-evolution thread. Hell, a certain American religious website disputes the theory of relativity, because they think it is somehow tied to moral relativism.

Science and religion can co-exist perfectly well, with one adapting to the other, except in the minds of idiots. Unfortunately, those tend to be the most vocal.

lawrie001:
Next the whole community, ethics and morals reasoning for religion; I am an atheist, I have had no religious upbringing yet I do not go around killing or stealing, also I have community of friends and family who are for the most part either atheist or agnostic.

Of course, the easy counter to that one is that you were raised in a world or society which has been shaped by the moral guidelines of the dominant religion, and therefore have been raised by the ethics of that religion whether you were aware of it or not. "All our laws are based on the Ten Commandments!" etc etc.

lawrie001:
Reason being is that morals, ethics and community are not of religious origin, they are ingrained into our DNA, we evolved into a social species who use to form groups for hunting and protection, if one of those individuals stole or killed other members he would wind up alone and soon dead so we have evolved to know they are wrong to do and to keep friends and family close.

You're confusing social evolution with biological. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure we aren't hardwired at a genetic level to act like Sesame Street characters. Our society has evolved in a certain direction, and we are indoctrinated with those morals from the day we're born. If these things were "in our DNA", we'd probably have a lot less crime, because people would be far less capable of breaking the moral and ethical guidelines of society.

thaluikhain:

SonicWaffle:

thaluikhain:
Religion might be losing influence in the UK, that's not to saying it's disappearing, or that this is happenign everywhere.

IIRC, it's on the rise globally, or at least more extreme versions are. In times of trouble, flee to a holy book :-P

My personal opinion is that the majority of those who identify as religious on a census or somesuch are likely atheist or agnostic, if they ever thought about it, but having been raised in a certain tradition or been told "You're from country X, and country X is a Christian country, so you're a Christian". It's really, really hard to get a number on how many non-believers there may be in the world when so many of them associate culturally with a certain religion and never think about whether they actually believe it or not.

I'm a bit wary of going down that route, but I do remember that it used to be that "atheist" wasn't a box you could tick on certain official forms in some places, you had to choose a religion.

Perhaps one day our culture will have evolved far enough that we don't feel the need to ask people what their religion is on unrelated forms. We can but hope.

lawrie001:

Shadowstar38:

CpT_x_Killsteal:

You can't prove a negative. When someone makes a claim, it's up to them to bring the proof. Also, most people used to believe the earth was flat because they weren't, y'know, falling off of it

If we went with your logic, then I'm god and you have way to disprove it, and I don't have to prove anything.

I wouldn't bother disputing that because, teh fuq. To many, religion provides the answers to what science doesn't. Until someone starts disproving things, I don't see an end to religion in 1000 years, or even as long as humans are around.

-snip-

.
I have to stop you at some point because even though you've said some valid things you've also said some things which aren't true.

Ok do you want to know the main reason why religion (particularly Christianity as I know the most about it), its because its a arrogant childish way of looking at the universe. It dumb's down all the complexity we see in the natural world to saying that one all mighty being created it all and is responsible for all the fantastic phenomena around us, and to make it so were the most important piece in this universe we were created in the image of this all powerful creator. That is arrogant beyond comparison, even beyond when we believed the Earth was the centre of the universe.

First off the bat, "the main reason why religion..." you didn't finish that sentence. You just bashed religion.

I continued reading your post and it was all religion-bashing. I'm astounded you can use such harsh and hurtful language here and not be penalized.

I see that you've read and watched some atheist content online with the teapot in space and whatnot, but I don't think you've developed your own opinion on the matter. Trying to think at this objectively will net you the result that you were overly aggressive and dismissive of others. Your arguments were weak at best, often met with hyperbole and outright untrue claims (That morality is somehow engraved in our DNA).

I am disappointed this keeps going on. People bash religion freely on this forum, not caring about how they hurt other people or how their words translate into actual facts. I'm disappointed this kind of thread keeps popping up with every new atheist-gamer. Hell, I think I had a similar opinion not too long ago.

SonicWaffle:
You're confusing social evolution with biological. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure we aren't hardwired at a genetic level to act like Sesame Street characters. Our society has evolved in a certain direction, and we are indoctrinated with those morals from the day we're born. If these things were "in our DNA", we'd probably have a lot less crime, because people would be far less capable of breaking the moral and ethical guidelines of society.

More to the point, all cultures across the world and throughout time would have agreed on issues of morality.

I cannot fathom why so many people automatically assume that because something exists in the society they happen to live in, there must be a simple genetic basis that humans have evolved that accounts for it.

TheIronRuler:

lawrie001:

Shadowstar38:

I wouldn't bother disputing that because, teh fuq. To many, religion provides the answers to what science doesn't. Until someone starts disproving things, I don't see an end to religion in 1000 years, or even as long as humans are around.

-snip-

.
I have to stop you at some point because even though you've said some valid things you've also said some things which aren't true.

Ok do you want to know the main reason why religion (particularly Christianity as I know the most about it), its because its a arrogant childish way of looking at the universe. It dumb's down all the complexity we see in the natural world to saying that one all mighty being created it all and is responsible for all the fantastic phenomena around us, and to make it so were the most important piece in this universe we were created in the image of this all powerful creator. That is arrogant beyond comparison, even beyond when we believed the Earth was the centre of the universe.

First off the bat, "the main reason why religion..." you didn't finish that sentence. You just bashed religion.

I continued reading your post and it was all religion-bashing. I'm astounded you can use such harsh and hurtful language here and not be penalized.

I see that you've read and watched some atheist content online with the teapot in space and whatnot, but I don't think you've developed your own opinion on the matter. Trying to think at this objectively will net you the result that you were overly aggressive and dismissive of others. Your arguments were weak at best, often met with hyperbole and outright untrue claims (That morality is somehow engraved in our DNA).

I am disappointed this keeps going on. People bash religion freely on this forum, not caring about how they hurt other people or how their words translate into actual facts. I'm disappointed this kind of thread keeps popping up with every new atheist-gamer. Hell, I think I had a similar opinion not too long ago.

Sorry I did become aggressive and did resort to religion bashing, I just have seen many smart brilliant people (some of whom I was close to) become twisted by predominantly Christianity so kinda a sore spot for me.

Social evolution is closely linked with biological, many scientists believe that the reason for many apes increased brain to body ratio (including us) is because we had to deal with more complex social behaviors. Also whilst a lot of morality is linked with upbringing, there are specific genetic links to why some people more aggressive then others and exhibit more harmful behavior towards other people. Also if you take the extreme condition psychopath which simplified is limited or loss of emotions they tend to use every means necessary to achieve there own benefit, whereas "normal" individuals tend to help other people via altruism and altruism is shown to be increased in relationships that are linked genetically ie your family due to the fact that if they share 0.25-0.5 of your genetic data so if they survive some of your genes will be carried on (its why bees and ants large colonies ruled by one reproducing queen work) but you still help other people who are not related (friends or co-workers) because you can foresee when you might need there help so if you help them now they will more likely aid you in your time of need.

So whilst I might of been quite simplistic saying morality is ingrained in our DNA, it is a human trait that has existed for all of our evolutionary history (just homo sapiens im talking about not like way way back when our ancestor were an offshoot of fish). I honestly do believe that religion is a arrogant way to look upon the universe because in the whole of reality we are small and unimportant, telling ourselves otherwise is just pathetic, I would rather look at this magnificent universe for all the complexity, mystery and awe inspiring glory that it is, rather then saying some guy up above made it with a click of his fingers. This is why I think religion will go because the more we see of the universe and the more various religious literature has to be twisted and shaped to form round these discoveries the more people will realise that the answers to life and death won't be found in some book but by exploring the vast cosmos laid out in front of us.

My last point in this comment is whilst I see religions bad points I do see its good, when we needed explanations for the unknown and something to give us hope in the dark it was there to comfort us in those dark times. But we do not have those times now, we understand so much about our world to the point where we can predict where natural disasters will go and thus avoid them rather then praying for a deity to save us. We have grown so much as a species and society that in my opinion we have out grown the need for religion in our lives.

For as long as people fear death, there will be religions. In my opinion, no more succinct way of putting it.

Shadowstar38:

CpT_x_Killsteal:

Shadowstar38:

That sounds inconclusive. Like, it could be there, but we don't know how to find it if it exists. Religion at the very least provides a definative answer. And most have what they believe to be a valid basis for that answer.

You can't prove a negative. When someone makes a claim, it's up to them to bring the proof. Also, most people used to believe the earth was flat because they weren't, y'know, falling off of it

If we went with your logic, then I'm god and you have way to disprove it, and I don't have to prove anything.

I wouldn't bother disputing that because, teh fuq. To many, religion provides the answers to what science doesn't. Until someone starts disproving things, I don't see an end to religion in 1000 years, or even as long as humans are around.

Gargledfg

Ok. I shall repeat myself in a different way this time.

Religion gives answers to various questions.
BUT it hasn't given any evidence that the answers are true.
It's just random bullshit from a really old book written by long dead people.

Whereas science doesn't give random bullshit answers.
If evidence is found that leads to a conclusion, then it is accepted.
The scientific method isn't a religion.
It's not meant to "provide" you with answers.
It's meant to provide you with a MEANS to FIND the answers.

thaluikhain:

SonicWaffle:
You're confusing social evolution with biological. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure we aren't hardwired at a genetic level to act like Sesame Street characters. Our society has evolved in a certain direction, and we are indoctrinated with those morals from the day we're born. If these things were "in our DNA", we'd probably have a lot less crime, because people would be far less capable of breaking the moral and ethical guidelines of society.

More to the point, all cultures across the world and throughout time would have agreed on issues of morality.

I cannot fathom why so many people automatically assume that because something exists in the society they happen to live in, there must be a simple genetic basis that humans have evolved that accounts for it.

I've never heard the genetic argument before, but I've heard plenty around the theme of a "natural law" which underpins every human society and contributes to their ethical nature. Of course, every person expounding this theory seems convinced that their religion is the originator rather than imitator, and can only dismiss variations in other cultures as "they must have gotten it wrong"

Though the OP does have a point in that certain rules (no killing, no stealing, don't rape people in your own tribe etc) clearly arose because breaking them has negative consequences for your social/family group, that doesn't really reflect the idea of any shared moral system. Just that humans as a species aren't total morons and can at least agree that doing harmful things is usually bad :-P

TheIronRuler:
I continued reading your post and it was all religion-bashing. I'm astounded you can use such harsh and hurtful language here and not be penalized.

inB4 "Hurr, it's the Escapist, all they do is bash religion"

TheIronRuler:
I am disappointed this keeps going on. People bash religion freely on this forum, not caring about how they hurt other people or how their words translate into actual facts.

...oh :-(

CpT_x_Killsteal:

Shadowstar38:

CpT_x_Killsteal:

You can't prove a negative. When someone makes a claim, it's up to them to bring the proof. Also, most people used to believe the earth was flat because they weren't, y'know, falling off of it

If we went with your logic, then I'm god and you have way to disprove it, and I don't have to prove anything.

I wouldn't bother disputing that because, teh fuq. To many, religion provides the answers to what science doesn't. Until someone starts disproving things, I don't see an end to religion in 1000 years, or even as long as humans are around.

Gargledfg

Ok. I shall repeat myself in a different way this time.

Religion gives answers to various questions.
BUT it hasn't given any evidence that the answers are true.
It's just random bullshit from a really old book written by long dead people.

Whereas science doesn't give random bullshit answers.
If evidence is found that leads to a conclusion, then it is accepted.
The scientific method isn't a religion.
It's not meant to "provide" you with answers.
It's meant to provide you with a MEANS to FIND the answers.

.
'Random answers'? Do you know how often times physicists need to jump hoops and think outside of the box to get to a mathematical equation which will make sense of their dribble?

I can say the same, that science is random bullshit from a really old book written by long dead people. This was a proper science a few centuries ago. People from two centuries in the future could laugh at our pitiful attempts of understanding gravity the same way we laugh at those people 300 years ago who knew less than us.

I know that you will think otherwise - you will claim that science changes itself and adapts to new evidence. Science operates based on the rules it set itself.

Same can be said about religion. Even though there are certain key elements of a religion, a faith itself can evolve over time in response to the outside world. Same as we acknowledge arabic numerals, the zero, base ten, etc. as some basis for mathematics, Christians will acknowledge the existence of god as the basis for their religion.

Worship might eventually die off, but the traditions will live on just as they did when other religions entered the realm of obscurity. Easter is a pretty good example of this.

lawrie001:
I honestly do believe that religion is a arrogant way to look upon the universe because in the whole of reality we are small and unimportant, telling ourselves otherwise is just pathetic

That's a pretty bleak way to look at it.

Most people exist within a version of reality that exists inside their own heads. We filter outside data and interpret it. We may be small and unimportant on a universal scale, but most people consider themselves pretty important on a personal scale, and in the same way most of us have other people who consider us important. Since we are so small, universally speaking, then our cosmic significance as indivuals is a worthless concept and our individual importance can only be measured on a local level. This applies equally to religious people as it does to anyone else; just because the Bible teaches that mankind is the reason for the existence of the universe doesn't mean the average theist thinks in these terms. They define the universe by the people around them and their beliefs just like everyone else.

lawrie001:
This is why I think religion will go because the more we see of the universe and the more various religious literature has to be twisted and shaped to form round these discoveries the more people will realise that the answers to life and death won't be found in some book but by exploring the vast cosmos laid out in front of us.

It's pretty ironic, then, that the majority of people will not actually be doing the exploring. Most of us will learn about these amazing scientific discoveries and what they mean by...reading them in a book.

lawrie001:
My last point in this comment is whilst I see religions bad points I do see its good, when we needed explanations for the unknown and something to give us hope in the dark it was there to comfort us in those dark times.

Very well, then. Tell me, where do I (that is to say, my mind, all the things that make me who I am) go when I die? I'm aware that my body goes into the ground, but have we got any proof of what happens to what we'll call - for lack of a better term - my soul?

Death is the constant human preoccupation. It makes sense that we fear it, and tell ourselves that it isn't the end, becase (see above re personally defined universes) in a way the universe ends when we die and that's scary. You're claiming that people shouldn't have that hope but not offering them some comfort to replace the hope with? It will never work. People need stories to cling on to.

TheIronRuler:

CpT_x_Killsteal:

Shadowstar38:

I wouldn't bother disputing that because, teh fuq. To many, religion provides the answers to what science doesn't. Until someone starts disproving things, I don't see an end to religion in 1000 years, or even as long as humans are around.

Gargledfg

Ok. I shall repeat myself in a different way this time.

Religion gives answers to various questions.
BUT it hasn't given any evidence that the answers are true.
It's just random bullshit from a really old book written by long dead people.

Whereas science doesn't give random bullshit answers.
If evidence is found that leads to a conclusion, then it is accepted.
The scientific method isn't a religion.
It's not meant to "provide" you with answers.
It's meant to provide you with a MEANS to FIND the answers.

.

'Random answers'? Do you know how often times physicists need to jump hoops and think outside of the box to get to a mathematical equation which will make sense of their dribble?

Yeah, and if it ends up making sense and WORKING when put to a practical test then it is accepted, if it is not, then we try something new. No one said pioneering is science was easy.

I can say the same, that science is random bullshit from a really old book written by long dead people. This was a proper science a few centuries ago. People from two centuries in the future could laugh at our pitiful attempts of understanding gravity the same way we laugh at those people 300 years ago who knew less than us.

And they have all been disproven and now changed. Has the bible changed? No.

I know that you will think otherwise - you will claim that science changes itself and adapts to new evidence. Science operates based on the rules it set itself.

Yes, and you know what these rules are? What we can PROVE. What we can observe under a microscope, through a telescope, using all kinds of different technology and machinery to figure out what everything is and how it works.

[quote]Same can be said about religion. Even though there are certain key elements of a religion, a faith itself can evolve over time in response to the outside world. Same as we acknowledge arabic numerals, the zero, base ten, etc. as some basis for mathematics, Christians will acknowledge the existence of god as the basis for their religion.

Your faith hasn't evolved, it's just been gagged by common sense. You wanna show me that your faith is evolved, then throw away bible. Oh wait, you can't do that because that is the only thing that sets your religion apart from any other, not "god", it's your book bullshit.

CpT_x_Killsteal:

Helmholtz Watson:
I long for the day when science can tell me if people really have souls, if there is definitive proof that no form of a divine being[1] exist, and what really happens when we die. However, until that day happens, technology and science will still be "outpaced" by religion in those regards.

The mighty watermelon gave you your soul! How dare you defy him!
There's a difference between knowing something, and making shit up to make yourself and others feel better.
Science has has already told everyone this:
1. No "souls" have been found
2. You rot in the ground.

I should totally make some sort of nursery rhyme out of that.

1. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
2. Cite the study that proves this.

[1] in the theistic or deistic sense

Helmholtz Watson:

CpT_x_Killsteal:

Helmholtz Watson:
I long for the day when science can tell me if people really have souls, if there is definitive proof that no form of a divine being[1] exist, and what really happens when we die. However, until that day happens, technology and science will still be "outpaced" by religion in those regards.

The mighty watermelon gave you your soul! How dare you defy him!
There's a difference between knowing something, and making shit up to make yourself and others feel better.
Science has has already told everyone this:
1. No "souls" have been found
2. You rot in the ground.

I should totally make some sort of nursery rhyme out of that.

1. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
2. Cite the study that proves this.

1. True, but existence still HASN'T BEEN PROVEN. There's no "evidence" that Santa Claus doesn't exist either. So I guess they exist at the same level.
2. Bodies rot and decompose when they die... did you not know this?

[1] in the theistic or deistic sense

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked