How religion is becoming like the dodo

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Possibly the only true thing Freud ever said (and I paraphrase) was that humans will be religious as long as they are scared of the dark, and scared of dying.

Even the greater incidence of "atheism" doesn't reduce the incidence of religion, it just changes the names. Do a little thinking, and you'll realize that many groups and parties, political entities, even scientific communities, operate much like a religion and speak to the same human needs. The two great failures of politics in the 20th century, Fascism and Communism, were both religious movements. I'd argue that much of the "green" or environmental movement today has many religious aspects. Even Freud's psychoanalytic community devolved into a sort of cult within a few decades. Hell, much of the rhetoric surrounding the election of Barack Obama in 2008 was borderline messianic. We may not believe in a "god" anymore, but humans still have that basic need to feel as if there is order in the universe, a plan for the world and their lives. In Psych, we call it low Ambiguity Tolerance. And it's definitely the huge bulk of humans. Even atheism itself can become religious, and you'll see this when people claim that if only everyone believed what they do, the world would be a better place. It wouldn't, but they need to think that.

lawrie001:
The reason being is that it gives no good input into our society or way of life in this era of humanity.

Neither do reality shows or pop music, yet those don't seem to be going anywhere.

On a slightly more serious note, it give people a reason to live, something to live for, something to help them get through rough times in their lives, and hope for something after death.

CpT_x_Killsteal:

TheIronRuler:

CpT_x_Killsteal:

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.

.
"Common sense"? Not too long ago Common sense was this.

You're ignoring countless supplementary texts which go hand-in-hand with religion and its beliefs.

TheIronRuler:

CpT_x_Killsteal:

TheIronRuler:

.
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.

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

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.

.
"Common sense"? Not too long ago Common sense was this.

You're ignoring countless supplementary texts which go hand-in-hand with religion and its beliefs.

Common sense has EVOLVED (keyword there) aswell. It's the reason why we don't stone our kids to death for being disobedient.

What supplementary texts?

Tarrou:
Possibly the only true thing Freud ever said (and I paraphrase) was that humans will be religious as long as they are scared of the dark, and scared of dying.

Even the greater incidence of "atheism" doesn't reduce the incidence of religion, it just changes the names. Do a little thinking, and you'll realize that many groups and parties, political entities, even scientific communities, operate much like a religion and speak to the same human needs. The two great failures of politics in the 20th century, Fascism and Communism, were both religious movements. I'd argue that much of the "green" or environmental movement today has many religious aspects. Even Freud's psychoanalytic community devolved into a sort of cult within a few decades. Hell, much of the rhetoric surrounding the election of Barack Obama in 2008 was borderline messianic. We may not believe in a "god" anymore, but humans still have that basic need to feel as if there is order in the universe, a plan for the world and their lives. In Psych, we call it low Ambiguity Tolerance. And it's definitely the huge bulk of humans. Even atheism itself can become religious, and you'll see this when people claim that if only everyone believed what they do, the world would be a better place. It wouldn't, but they need to think that.

Yeah, that sounds reasonable to me. The exact definition of such things are vague enough that they easily blur into each other, and "cult of personality" for example is called that for a reason.

CpT_x_Killsteal:

TheIronRuler:

CpT_x_Killsteal:

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.

.
"Common sense"? Not too long ago Common sense was this.

You're ignoring countless supplementary texts which go hand-in-hand with religion and its beliefs.

Common sense has EVOLVED (keyword there) aswell. It's the reason why we don't stone our kids to death for being disobedient.

What supplementary texts?

.
Do you mind defining common sense as you see it for me?
Is common sense a universal term?

Your understanding of religion is lacking at best if you don't know what kind of other texts there are besides the "book" you keep mentioning with contempt.

Judaism - 1.Talmud
2.Halakha, which was written and constructed by many different authors over centuries, including: Chazal, Genuises, First, Last.
These are just the most prominent and important.

Christianity - Different sects regard different texts as integral to their faith and church. Some may see texts a church views as integral to be non-canon. There are many differences (in the holy texts) between Catholics, Orthodox Greek, Orthodox Oriental(Patriarch of Alexandria), Lutheran, Anglican, and don't get me started on Assyrians or the crap going on in the USA.

Islam - Oh boy, I don't know it that well but I can at least scratch the surface-
Hadiths
Shia Islam can be seen as heretical by some denominations of Islam, like Saudi Wahhabi which is derived from the more prevalent Sunni Islam. Even though they use the Quaran, different sects have differnt supplementary religious writings that are written by past important figures, including theologians, philosophers, etc.

Do you want me to start with Buddhism? too much for me to explain in detail.

Tarrou:
Possibly the only true thing Freud ever said

"Fuck, this cocaine is awesome! Let's go jump dirtbikes over a baby seal! YEEEEEEEEEEAH!"

TheIronRuler:

CpT_x_Killsteal:

TheIronRuler:

.
"Common sense"? Not too long ago Common sense was this.

You're ignoring countless supplementary texts which go hand-in-hand with religion and its beliefs.

Common sense has EVOLVED (keyword there) aswell. It's the reason why we don't stone our kids to death for being disobedient.

What supplementary texts?

.
Do you mind defining common sense as you see it for me?
Is common sense a universal term?

Your understanding of religion is lacking at best if you don't know what kind of other texts there are besides the "book" you keep mentioning with contempt.

Judaism - 1.Talmud
2.Halakha, which was written and constructed by many different authors over centuries, including: Chazal, Genuises, First, Last.
These are just the most prominent and important.

Christianity - Different sects regard different texts as integral to their faith and church. Some may see texts a church views as integral to be non-canon. There are many differences (in the holy texts) between Catholics, Orthodox Greek, Orthodox Oriental(Patriarch of Alexandria), Lutheran, Anglican, and don't get me started on Assyrians or the crap going on in the USA.

Islam - Oh boy, I don't know it that well but I can at least scratch the surface-
Hadiths
Shia Islam can be seen as heretical by some denominations of Islam, like Saudi Wahhabi which is derived from the more prevalent Sunni Islam. Even though they use the Quaran, different sects have differnt supplementary religious writings that are written by past important figures, including theologians, philosophers, etc.

Do you want me to start with Buddhism? too much for me to explain in detail.

Well for one, we don't think we're made of bile anymore.

So these supplementary texts are still written by old people and theologians just they're not as old as the people who wrote the primary texts. The religious still regard the primary texts as the most important. It hasn't evolved, it's just grown.

CpT_x_Killsteal:

TheIronRuler:

CpT_x_Killsteal:

Common sense has EVOLVED (keyword there) aswell. It's the reason why we don't stone our kids to death for being disobedient.

What supplementary texts?

.
Do you mind defining common sense as you see it for me?
Is common sense a universal term?

Your understanding of religion is lacking at best if you don't know what kind of other texts there are besides the "book" you keep mentioning with contempt.

Judaism - 1.Talmud
2.Halakha, which was written and constructed by many different authors over centuries, including: Chazal, Genuises, First, Last.
These are just the most prominent and important.

Christianity - Different sects regard different texts as integral to their faith and church. Some may see texts a church views as integral to be non-canon. There are many differences (in the holy texts) between Catholics, Orthodox Greek, Orthodox Oriental(Patriarch of Alexandria), Lutheran, Anglican, and don't get me started on Assyrians or the crap going on in the USA.

Islam - Oh boy, I don't know it that well but I can at least scratch the surface-
Hadiths
Shia Islam can be seen as heretical by some denominations of Islam, like Saudi Wahhabi which is derived from the more prevalent Sunni Islam. Even though they use the Quaran, different sects have differnt supplementary religious writings that are written by past important figures, including theologians, philosophers, etc.

Do you want me to start with Buddhism? too much for me to explain in detail.

Well for one, we don't think we're made of bile anymore.

So these supplementary texts are still written by old people and theologians just they're not as old as the people who wrote the primary texts. The religious still regard the primary texts as the most important. It hasn't evolved, it's just grown.

.
You didn't answer my first question.

Now where did I say that?

TheIronRuler:

CpT_x_Killsteal:

TheIronRuler:

Well for one, we don't think we're made of bile anymore.

So these supplementary texts are still written by old people and theologians just they're not as old as the people who wrote the primary texts. The religious still regard the primary texts as the most important. It hasn't evolved, it's just grown.

.
You didn't answer my first question.

Now where did I say that?

1. I did but I'll answer it differently this time just for you.
Good sense and sound judgement in practical matters.
2.[quote] Even though there are certain key elements of a religion, a faith itself can evolve over time in response to the outside world.

Read em and weep pally. Well it's late an I'm off to bed, see you in the morning.

Tarrou:
Possibly the only true thing Freud ever said (and I paraphrase) was that humans will be religious as long as they are scared of the dark, and scared of dying.

Even the greater incidence of "atheism" doesn't reduce the incidence of religion, it just changes the names. Do a little thinking, and you'll realize that many groups and parties, political entities, even scientific communities, operate much like a religion and speak to the same human needs. The two great failures of politics in the 20th century, Fascism and Communism, were both religious movements. I'd argue that much of the "green" or environmental movement today has many religious aspects. Even Freud's psychoanalytic community devolved into a sort of cult within a few decades. Hell, much of the rhetoric surrounding the election of Barack Obama in 2008 was borderline messianic. We may not believe in a "god" anymore, but humans still have that basic need to feel as if there is order in the universe, a plan for the world and their lives. In Psych, we call it low Ambiguity Tolerance. And it's definitely the huge bulk of humans. Even atheism itself can become religious, and you'll see this when people claim that if only everyone believed what they do, the world would be a better place. It wouldn't, but they need to think that.

Having deep seated strong beliefs which you might well feel strongly about does not constitute being religious, it just means you have deep seated strong beliefs which you feel strongly about. It can just as easily mean you're a sports fan as it can that you're religious.

CpT_x_Killsteal:

TheIronRuler:

CpT_x_Killsteal:

.
You didn't answer my first question.

Now where did I say that?

1. I did but I'll answer it differently this time just for you.
Good sense and sound judgement in practical matters.
2.[quote] Even though there are certain key elements of a religion, a faith itself can evolve over time in response to the outside world.

Read em and weep pally. Well it's late an I'm off to bed, see you in the morning.

.
"Good sense and sound judgement" is very much subjective.

Where did I say - "So these supplementary texts are still written by old people and theologians just they're not as old as the people who wrote the primary texts."

CpT_x_Killsteal:
snip

Yeah. I'm aware of all that. It doesn't solve the underlying problem though. The vast number of people on the planet are not satisfied with a "we don't know".

Religion provides these answers, and rest them on religious texts and their own personal religious experience as proof of them being real AKA not random bullshit. You think all of this "proof" is invalid, or not proof at all.. I myself think it's all fairly skeptical. But the majority of the population(numbers need checking) take it as enough. Hence why these religions thrive even with today's accumulated knowledge of why they are false.

SonicWaffle:

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.

I tend to leave out fringe groups and extremists on matters like these, as they are the minority, vocal as they are.

lawrie001:
long post

I just find this view completely wrong. "Childish" and "Arrogant" are not where I'd go with this.

Religion isnt dumbing down anything, it's providing an explaination for why it's all their(you agreeing with the explaination isn't relavent right now). I find it equally insane that the universe, which ends up working out so perfectly, isn't made by intellegent design. Religion provides us with something as believable as anything science gives us. Which in the grand scheme of what we're trying to figure out, is next to nothing.

[quote="Overhead" post="528.394995.16027578]Having deep seated strong beliefs which you might well feel strongly about does not constitute being religious, it just means you have deep seated strong beliefs which you feel strongly about. It can just as easily mean you're a sports fan as it can that you're religious.[/quote]

No, it doesn't. But having deep and irrational beliefs in greater forces/power which you believe both explain the world and offer prescriptions for behavior comes pretty close to the definition of religion. Allow me to demonstrate with Communism. Completely materialistic, largely atheistic, denied and in fact often persecuted religious people for years. Not religion right? Think again. The reverance of human leaders, the mummification of Lenin, the persecution of opposing and splinter groups within their own house. The requisite that people not only do the "right" thing, but think the right thoughts.The abject servility of science to the ideology of the Party, the utopian dreams of the perfect society to be obtained are all religious in method and object. I choose this because it is an easy target. There are others more on the line, so to speak, but that's an easy one.

I am not saying that everything like this is a free-standing religion, I'm saying there's no good definition of what a religion is, so it is perfectly reasonable to define as religious those things which satisfy the same human need for structure and meaning. I'm not even going that far, but there are some key giveaways that trigger my "religion" radar.

1: Deification or beatification of humans. Anything which kind of assumes that an important person is somehow above criticism, more than humanly intelligent or perceptive. This can be Freud, Lenin, or Joseph Smith.

2: The recognition of a "higher power" no matter how well disguised. This power is the source of meaning and morality, and is assumed to be more important than human interests.

3: Utopian dreams. Christians look forward to heaven, Muslims too, Buddhists to Nirvana, Communists to the "withering" of capitalism and the "dictatorship of the proletariat", Greens look forward to "sustainability", some political groups to "post scarcity". It's all a fake mental construct which is dangerous precisely because it encourages people to take their eyes off the present and work for the fictional future. A great many atrocities have been committed in the name of producing this perfect human endgame.

CpT_x_Killsteal:

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. I didn't say that anything was proven, just that the lack of evidence isn't proof that something doesn't exist. As for Santa, the guy died on 6 December, 343 AD, in Myra Lcia. So no, the don't "exist on the same level".
2. Allow me to clarify then, rotting in the ground doesn't equate to there not being an afterlife.

TheIronRuler:

CpT_x_Killsteal:

TheIronRuler:

1. I did but I'll answer it differently this time just for you.
Good sense and sound judgement in practical matters.
2.[quote] Even though there are certain key elements of a religion, a faith itself can evolve over time in response to the outside world.

Read em and weep pally. Well it's late an I'm off to bed, see you in the morning.

.
"Good sense and sound judgement" is very much subjective.

Where did I say - "So these supplementary texts are still written by old people and theologians just they're not as old as the people who wrote the primary texts."

1. Stoning disobedient kids to death seems a little lacking in common sense.
2. You didn't and I never said you did. Just making an observation about the supplementary texts that you brought up.

Helmholtz Watson:

CpT_x_Killsteal:

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. I didn't say that anything was proven, just that the lack of evidence isn't proof that something doesn't exist. As for Santa, the guy died on 6 December, 343 AD, in Myra Lcia. So no, the don't "exist on the same level".
2. Allow me to clarify then, rotting in the ground doesn't equate to there not being an afterlife.

Oki doki then, he exists on the same level as the tooth fairy.

Also, Jesus died too.

CpT_x_Killsteal:

Oki doki then, he exists on the same level as the tooth fairy.

Are you even trying to have a serious conversation now? I don't think so, so I'm going to stop wasting my time with you.

Feel free to have the last word.

Helmholtz Watson:

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

1. No, but it's a fairly good reason to doubt something.
2. You're getting at an afterlife, again no evidence for it. Not proof against it, but a good reason to doubt it.

lawrie001:
SNIP

I'm sorry, but let's think realistically here. If human beings ever lose the ability to believe in something greater than themselves, to pursue the idea of a purpose to exist and a state of being in the infinite, the species will stagnate and die. Okay, Atheists don't believe in god, but then Atheists still have something else to occupy their minds, right? Perhaps completely into sciences? I don't know, myself. But basically, not everyone's meant for that. That's why some blokes think they're a god and some blokes don't care. If we all go the same way, WE'LL be the dodo, because first spiritualism will go, then imagination, then caring about the next meal.

CpT_x_Killsteal:

TheIronRuler:

CpT_x_Killsteal:

Read em and weep pally. Well it's late an I'm off to bed, see you in the morning.

.
"Good sense and sound judgement" is very much subjective.

Where did I say - "So these supplementary texts are still written by old people and theologians just they're not as old as the people who wrote the primary texts."

1. Stoning disobedient kids to death seems a little lacking in common sense.
2. You didn't and I never said you did. Just making an observation about the supplementary texts that you brought up.

.
1. You're not using common sense right now. You're using common sense in hindsight, and the common sense of today isn't the same as yesterday's. Today we could be doing some questionable shit and in a century people would go like - "Huh, that makes no sense!", while today we see it as completely valid.
2. Apologies. These laws are still subject to change today.

TheIronRuler:

CpT_x_Killsteal:

TheIronRuler:

.
"Good sense and sound judgement" is very much subjective.

Where did I say - "So these supplementary texts are still written by old people and theologians just they're not as old as the people who wrote the primary texts."

1. Stoning disobedient kids to death seems a little lacking in common sense.
2. You didn't and I never said you did. Just making an observation about the supplementary texts that you brought up.

.
1. You're not using common sense right now. You're using common sense in hindsight, and the common sense of today isn't the same as yesterday's. Today we could be doing some questionable shit and in a century people would go like - "Huh, that makes no sense!", while today we see it as completely valid.
2. Apologies. These laws are still subject to change today.

1. And that my friend is how common sense evolves. We think "hm this is/that was stupid, let's not do it again/let's change that".
I think what you're not grasping is that not everything is concrete. EVERYTHING is subject to change, or dies. This is where the Bible comes in. The bible says it's the word of god and that god is perfect. Yet we don't stone kids to death in this day and age because it's f'ing stupid among other reasons.
2. You mean the laws in the supplementary texts? Because no one has changed the bible as far as I know.

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, 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.

Emphasis mine.

From a purely materialist perspective, which is what you begin with but not what you end up at, there is no such thing as "importance" in the universe. There are no value-judgements at all. Humans are not important nor unimportant, they just are. Equally, the universe is not magnificent, complex, mysterious, or awe-inspiringly glorious in and of itself, that is only what you judge it to be. I'll wager that you actually find much of the beauty of the universe within theoretical expressions of its behavior, not the universe itself, which belies your human perspective-- as objective as you might purport to be.

Taking an anthropocentric view is not pathetic, and it's not false to say that humans are the most important thing that we know about, because humans are the only consciousness we know about. We're the only things that can judge importance. Now, one can speculate about aliens and what not, but they are not documented yet. I myself am quite anthropocentric, but for different reasons to most religions, who take the idea and give it the mandate of a god or gods, as it does with all ideas it wants to spread. Valuing the material over the human is almost universally regarded as morally wrong: you can see it in the reaction to those who kill for stuff or those who say that humanity should be destroyed to save the Earth. The former is wrong and the latter is wrong and stupid.

CpT_x_Killsteal:
1. And that my friend is how common sense evolves. We think "hm this is/that was stupid, let's not do it again/let's change that".
I think what you're not grasping is that not everything is concrete. EVERYTHING is subject to change, or dies. This is where the Bible comes in. The bible says it's the word of god and that god is perfect. Yet we don't stone kids to death in this day and age because it's f'ing stupid among other reasons.

No, you believe that stoning kids is stupid because you've grown up in a society that currently thinks that. Whichever society you happen to live in will almost certainly go back to doing something currently seen as appalling at stome point in the future, and think that's perfectly fine.

thaluikhain:

CpT_x_Killsteal:
1. And that my friend is how common sense evolves. We think "hm this is/that was stupid, let's not do it again/let's change that".
I think what you're not grasping is that not everything is concrete. EVERYTHING is subject to change, or dies. This is where the Bible comes in. The bible says it's the word of god and that god is perfect. Yet we don't stone kids to death in this day and age because it's f'ing stupid among other reasons.

No, you believe that stoning kids is stupid because you've grown up in a society that currently thinks that. Whichever society you happen to live in will almost certainly go back to doing something currently seen as appalling at stome point in the future, and think that's perfectly fine.

Because I've grown up in a society with common sense (Australia).

CpT_x_Killsteal:

thaluikhain:

CpT_x_Killsteal:
1. And that my friend is how common sense evolves. We think "hm this is/that was stupid, let's not do it again/let's change that".
I think what you're not grasping is that not everything is concrete. EVERYTHING is subject to change, or dies. This is where the Bible comes in. The bible says it's the word of god and that god is perfect. Yet we don't stone kids to death in this day and age because it's f'ing stupid among other reasons.

No, you believe that stoning kids is stupid because you've grown up in a society that currently thinks that. Whichever society you happen to live in will almost certainly go back to doing something currently seen as appalling at stome point in the future, and think that's perfectly fine.

Because I've grown up in a society with common sense (Australia).

And it's common sense because you've grown up wit it.

thaluikhain:

CpT_x_Killsteal:

thaluikhain:

No, you believe that stoning kids is stupid because you've grown up in a society that currently thinks that. Whichever society you happen to live in will almost certainly go back to doing something currently seen as appalling at stome point in the future, and think that's perfectly fine.

Because I've grown up in a society with common sense (Australia).

And it's common sense because you've grown up wit it.

Yes but people get smarter and smarter and common sense evolves. Back in the days where they thought child abuse was OK, there were mostly idiots around. Nowadays we're smarter and (most of us) are able to think more broadly. As we started asking questions, common sense changed aswell.

CpT_x_Killsteal:

thaluikhain:

CpT_x_Killsteal:

Because I've grown up in a society with common sense (Australia).

And it's common sense because you've grown up wit it.

Yes but people get smarter and smarter and common sense evolves. Back in the days where they thought child abuse was OK, there were mostly idiots around. Nowadays we're smarter and (most of us) are able to think more broadly. As we started asking questions, common sense changed aswell.

I disagree. People aren't getting smarter. Society has changed over time, so the further back you get, the more different it has been from now. We just assume that we've got it more or less right now, because it's what we're used to.

Of course, I'd agree passionately that it is right (certain exceptions, of course), but if I'd been born at any other time, I would not.

CpT_x_Killsteal:

Yes but people get smarter and smarter and common sense evolves. Back in the days where they thought child abuse was OK, there were mostly idiots around. Nowadays we're smarter and (most of us) are able to think more broadly. As we started asking questions, common sense changed aswell.

You'd have to show me the study that shows human's IQs are higher than 1000 years ago. Also, be that as it may, smarter =/= better morality. What makes sense in any given day in history is a byproduct of its time.

CpT_x_Killsteal:

But hey, feel free to cover your ears and adopt a superiority complex when people show you how stupid your religion is.

You've shown him nothing. All you've really done is talk down to him without really providing anything new to the discussion.

Shadowstar38:

CpT_x_Killsteal:

Yes but people get smarter and smarter and common sense evolves. Back in the days where they thought child abuse was OK, there were mostly idiots around. Nowadays we're smarter and (most of us) are able to think more broadly. As we started asking questions, common sense changed aswell.

You'd have to show me the study that shows human's IQs are higher than 1000 years ago. Also, be that as it may, smarter =/= better morality. What makes sense in any given day in history is a byproduct of its time.

To pre-empt a counter to that, people are scoring higher on IQ tests than in previous generations.

However, this is purely due to the flawed nature of the testing, and not an increase of intelligence.

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.

No unicorns have been found either.

Neither have any yh67utg65trgyyjm/j87yu, which is a thing that I just made up by facerolling on my keyboard. It is just as likely to exist as God, souls or the afterlife because it has the same quantity of evidence supporting its existence.

Do you mean religions or faith?

Religions come and go but people still tend to have faith in things that are not provable. And while their are certainly more openly secular humanist in the world today, the actual population percentage may not be that different; after all it's only in the last, what, 200 years that as a race we've tolerated that attitude being displayed openly. I mean, it's certainly probable that the number of irreligious people has gone up since that period relative to the population, I'm curious as to the numbers before it was tolerated.

Also a majority of the world is still religious on one manner or the other. So there's that.

thaluikhain:

Shadowstar38:

CpT_x_Killsteal:

Yes but people get smarter and smarter and common sense evolves. Back in the days where they thought child abuse was OK, there were mostly idiots around. Nowadays we're smarter and (most of us) are able to think more broadly. As we started asking questions, common sense changed aswell.

You'd have to show me the study that shows human's IQs are higher than 1000 years ago. Also, be that as it may, smarter =/= better morality. What makes sense in any given day in history is a byproduct of its time.

To pre-empt a counter to that, people are scoring higher on IQ tests than in previous generations.

However, this is purely due to the flawed nature of the testing, and not an increase of intelligence.

We aren't entirely sure of that. Massive jumps forward in medical technology as well as generally better food do tend to lead to higher intelligence, and basically the whole world has seen a jump there.

At best, I predict an asymptotic development in that regard, never actually reaching zero:
image
While adherence may decrease further and further, I don't see religion going the way of the dodo anytime soon. It may become more and more irrelevant and more and more a fringe thing, but it won't vanish. Nor does it need to. As I've often pointed out on these forums, it's mostly about Secularism for me. People can think what they want (and I can think of them what I want). as long as their religious beliefs don't unduly affect political and secular issues.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked