How religion is becoming like the dodo

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Skeleon:
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.

And when religion is the cause of political issues like the violence between Sunnis and Shiites, the fighting over Jerusalem, ect. How do you go about tackling those political issues which are rooted in religion?

Helmholtz Watson:
And when religion is the cause of political issues like the violence between Sunnis and Shiites, the fighting over Jerusalem, ect. How do you go about tackling those political issues which are rooted in religion?

By approaching them from a secular perspective. "You have a slightly different interpretation than me" is not a valid reason for people to kill each other, so it's condemnable when they do.

Skeleon:

Helmholtz Watson:
And when religion is the cause of political issues like the violence between Sunnis and Shiites, the fighting over Jerusalem, ect. How do you go about tackling those political issues which are rooted in religion?

By approaching them from a secular perspective. "You have a slightly different interpretation than me" is not a valid reason for people to kill each other, so it's condemnable when they do.

I mean what specifically would you do, because saying that "I don't agree with sectarian violence" doesn't stop people from killing each other.

Helmholtz Watson:
I mean what specifically would you do, because saying that "I don't agree with sectarian violence" doesn't stop people from killing each other.

What would I do as who? Their leaders? A leader of one of their sides? A European leader? A leader of the USA? What?

Skeleon:

Helmholtz Watson:
I mean what specifically would you do, because saying that "I don't agree with sectarian violence" doesn't stop people from killing each other.

What would I do as who? Their leaders? A leader of one of their sides? A European leader? A leader of the USA? What?

Lets say, as the prime minister of Germany trying to stop sectarian violence in places like Iraq.

Da Orky Man:

thaluikhain:

Shadowstar38:

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.

Ah, that's a point, yeah, had forgotten that.

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.

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.

As time goes on we've begun to question things more and more. That helps our common sense evolve.

I show him that god exists in the same way that Santa Claus does. His counter-point was that Santa Claus had already died. So I gave him another character that wasn't dead. He then says that I'm not taking him seriously and runs off and hides.

thaluikhain:

CpT_x_Killsteal:

thaluikhain:

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.

As time goes on, we've begun to question things more and more, this helps our common sense to evolve.

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.

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.

Religion deserves the bashing it gets. It is false and hurtful all throughout history and needs to be shown as such. If people are upset that their religion is bashed, it is because they are playing the hurt feelings card simply because they lack a logical defence card.

Religion has, does and will persist in immense harm. From the subjugation of women, the epic book banning and demonisation of science (and almost all knowledge, in fact), to the wickedness inflicted upon Africa (missionaries spreading Catholicism and then saying that contraception = abortion = murder), to the present evil of Islamic teachings that Apostasy = death.

We need to stand up against this. I'm sorry if you don't like historical fact.

Indecipherable:

Religion deserves the bashing it gets. It is false and hurtful all throughout history and needs to be shown as such. If people are upset that their religion is bashed, it is because they are playing the hurt feelings card simply because they lack a logical defence card.

Religion has, does and will persist in immense harm. From the subjugation of women, the epic book banning and demonisation of science (and almost all knowledge, in fact), to the wickedness inflicted upon Africa (missionaries spreading Catholicism and then saying that contraception = abortion = murder), to the present evil of Islamic teachings that Apostasy = death.

We need to stand up against this. You can't play the hurt feelings card if your God is a spiteful, wicked evil being whose followers suppress and injure others.

Every time I see a post like this it feels like it's breeding the same kind of ignorance that you yourselves accuse religion of. How is what you're doing any different than 2 sects if islam fussing over small details. You're guilty of lacking tolerance.

You think it's false? Well, as said time and time again on these forums, nothing can be proven or disproven, so that might as well not come up as an argument either way. It's also no more harmful than groups of people with political ideologies.

You know what's a better use of the anger you have towards religion? Condemning the individual acts of stupid humans and not labeling the entire institution as harmful.

Third-eye:
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.

(snip)

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.

IMO the most interesting comment on this thread and completely ignored for the usual squabble over the usual things. I couldn't agree more with this idea. I think we're on the backswing of a pendulum and once people get the idea that "religion is this thing and only this thing, conducted in this way, with these elements" out of their collective heads, there will be fairly sizeable number of people who go back to the idea of religion, mysticism, and spirituality and approach it in a different way. Neo-Paganism is a walking, talking example of this-- the number of people who actually see a conflict between science and their spirituality are minuscule. Religion, as a concept, is much more malleable than people who have never been exposed to a non-Abrahamic worldview think it is. Sure, you're always going to have extremist religion as a fallback position for people who are frightened by change, either because change means loss of power, or the perception that change will make them *more* powerless, but I think this idea that there's an on-off switch, either fundamentalism or atheism, is the thing that's going to truly go the way of the dodo.

thaluikhain:

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.

One very encouraging recent trend has been the interest in analyzing exactly what's in the "none/other" category. I recently saw a post discussing some of that which said that the only thing there is broad agreement on between people who tick the "none or other" box is a complete distaste for mixing religion with politics.

lawrie001:
You never hear stories of sightings of dinosaur, cow or fish ghosts/souls do you?

Yes. Next question?

Helmholtz Watson:
1. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

Faith is a belief without evidence and is a very powerful thing.

In the early 1980s I was white water rafting in Nepal and met the Crazy Baba of Singapore on the side of the river.

He sat in his garden by the side of the river and blessed travellers. He was freaked out by my menthol cigarette (and I was equally freaked out when later I smoked his offering, which turned out to be a joint).

To prove his rejection of worldly goods he cut an inch of his left arm each year, when I met him he was 3-4 inches past the elbow. I do not mean he had the inch surgically removed in a hospital, I mean he chopped part of his arm off himself.

Imagine the amount of faith required to do that!

Do you have that much faith that your religion is the 'true' religion?

Could you look him in the eye and tell him he worshiped a false idol and was going to hell?

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
-- Epicurus

Shadowstar38:

Indecipherable:

Religion deserves the bashing it gets. It is false and hurtful all throughout history and needs to be shown as such. If people are upset that their religion is bashed, it is because they are playing the hurt feelings card simply because they lack a logical defence card.

Religion has, does and will persist in immense harm. From the subjugation of women, the epic book banning and demonisation of science (and almost all knowledge, in fact), to the wickedness inflicted upon Africa (missionaries spreading Catholicism and then saying that contraception = abortion = murder), to the present evil of Islamic teachings that Apostasy = death.

We need to stand up against this. You can't play the hurt feelings card if your God is a spiteful, wicked evil being whose followers suppress and injure others.

Every time I see a post like this it feels like it's breeding the same kind of ignorance that you yourselves accuse religion of. How is what you're doing any different than 2 sects if islam fussing over small details. You're guilty of lacking tolerance.

You think it's false? Well, as said time and time again on these forums, nothing can be proven or disproven, so that might as well not come up as an argument either way. It's also no more harmful than groups of people with political ideologies.

You know what's a better use of the anger you have towards religion? Condemning the individual acts of stupid humans and not labeling the entire institution as harmful.

I'd say ignoring the teachings and holy scripture is ignorant. I recognise it, hence I dislike it. I am proudly intolerant of this, but I am also proudly intolerant of many crimes (incidentally, the old testament is a pretty good example for showing just how much evil you can condense into a single book).

Please do not pretend there are not crimes in the name of religion historically or presently. I point out Islam because it is the most radicalised at present. The holy scriptures of this religion call for the death of all apostates. It is not a matter which you trivialise and say they 'fuss over small details'. A religion that calls for the murder of anyone who turns or speaks against them is a religion that preaches pure evil. Failing to recognise this is being tolerant of all the wrong things.

CpT_x_Killsteal:

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 sound like you're using "evolved" to mean some kind of linear progression rather than goodness-of-environment-fit. What, in your view, is "evolution" in this context?

Macomber:

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.

The interesting thing here is that the closest thing to my religion would actually agree very strongly with you about this. Hard-reconstructionist Heathenry will complain at length about "world-rejecting" religious concepts and stress the here and now.

Personally, I think taking one's eyes completely off the future, the idea that we can be better people if we work at it, to be dangerous idiocy. Although I'll concede the point that entirely too many people seem to be more interested in dreaming about a time when we've achieved these goals than pitching in the work here and now to get there.

(Looking at the captcha, what in the world is a hopper?)

Indecipherable:

I'd say ignoring the teachings and holy scripture is ignorant. I recognise it, hence I dislike it. I am proudly intolerant of this, but I am also proudly intolerant of many crimes (incidentally, the old testament is a pretty good example for showing just how much evil you can condense into a single book).

Please do not pretend there are not crimes in the name of religion historically or presently. I point out Islam because it is the most radicalised at present. The holy scriptures of this religion call for the death of all apostates. It is not a matter which you trivialise and say they 'fuss over small details'. A religion that calls for the murder of anyone who turns or speaks against them is a religion that preaches pure evil. Failing to recognise this is being tolerant of all the wrong things.

And to every religious person that doesn't subscribe to the acts you've been detailing, what you've been typing just sounds like vile hate speech. They don't appriate evil being done in their God'd name anymore than you

Shadowstar38:

Indecipherable:

I'd say ignoring the teachings and holy scripture is ignorant. I recognise it, hence I dislike it. I am proudly intolerant of this, but I am also proudly intolerant of many crimes (incidentally, the old testament is a pretty good example for showing just how much evil you can condense into a single book).

Please do not pretend there are not crimes in the name of religion historically or presently. I point out Islam because it is the most radicalised at present. The holy scriptures of this religion call for the death of all apostates. It is not a matter which you trivialise and say they 'fuss over small details'. A religion that calls for the murder of anyone who turns or speaks against them is a religion that preaches pure evil. Failing to recognise this is being tolerant of all the wrong things.

And to every religious person that doesn't subscribe to the acts you've been detailing, what you've been typing just sounds like vile hate speech. They don't appriate evil being done in their God'd name anymore than you

Sadly the various holy scriptures call for rape and murder across a number of texts. If they choose to ignore that, I am pleased, nonetheless they would be ignoring the word of God.

TechNoFear:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
-- Epicurus

I've always liked the Problem of Evil, but there is one part that I always felt was a much weaker point than the others.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

This section strongly implies that inaction/apathy/neutrality is malicious. For a video game example, Mass Effect 2. You're either a Saint or a Dick and the game will actively go out of it's way to punish you for not being one of the extremes. There is a middle ground for both instances, I think.

If there is a Godly being, then I imagine that it's a case of Blue and Orange Morality. Their perception of reality would be so far removed from human understanding that any sort of moral dilemma is rendered moot.

Or maybe God is just an asshole who is like that kid sitting by an anthill with a magnifying glass.

Helmholtz Watson:

Skeleon:

Helmholtz Watson:
I mean what specifically would you do, because saying that "I don't agree with sectarian violence" doesn't stop people from killing each other.

What would I do as who? Their leaders? A leader of one of their sides? A European leader? A leader of the USA? What?

Lets say, as the prime minister of Germany trying to stop sectarian violence in places like Iraq.

I'm not a diplomat, but I'd publicly condemn the violence, call for a ceasefire and try to use economic and political pressure and sanctions to force them to the negotiation-table. The more economic and political power I have behind me, the better. I'd try to isolate the fighting groups from outside support so that the conflict can't be escalated and I'd try to go for UN interventions as neutral observers and buffer troops and to protect civilians.

By the way, Germany doesn't have a Prime Minister. There are the Chancellor and the President, the latter of which mostly holds a ceremonial and representative role. I seriously doubt either of those could do all the things I described above on their own, but one could push for and move others towards going that direction.

Skeleon:

Helmholtz Watson:

Skeleon:

What would I do as who? Their leaders? A leader of one of their sides? A European leader? A leader of the USA? What?

Lets say, as the prime minister of Germany trying to stop sectarian violence in places like Iraq.

I'm not a diplomat, but I'd publicly condemn the violence, call for a ceasefire and try to use economic and political pressure and sanctions to force them to the negotiation-table. The more economic and political power I have behind me, the better. I'd try to isolate the fighting groups from outside support so that the conflict can't be escalated and I'd try to go for UN interventions as neutral observers and buffer troops and to protect civilians.

By the way, Germany doesn't have a Prime Minister. There are the Chancellor and the President, the latter of which mostly holds a ceremonial and representative role. I seriously doubt either of those could do all the things I described above on their own, but one could push for and move others towards going that direction.

Apologies, I thought Chancellor was just a ceremonial title for Prime Minister.

Polarity27:

CpT_x_Killsteal:

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 sound like you're using "evolved" to mean some kind of linear progression rather than goodness-of-environment-fit. What, in your view, is "evolution" in this context?

Improvement. The Bible is outdated and proven to be filled with hypocracies and inconsistencies. It hasn't changed because it can't, otherwise the Bible wouldn't be perfect and neither would god.

Whereas scientific knowledge has improved by correcting itself on things proven false. Hence our scientific knowledge has "evolved".

Kopikatsu:

If there is a Godly being, then I imagine that it's a case of Blue and Orange Morality. Their perception of reality would be so far removed from human understanding that any sort of moral dilemma is rendered moot.

Or maybe God is just an asshole who is like that kid sitting by an anthill with a magnifying glass.

While I don't believe in god - I think your view about such a being's perception of reality and morality are what I would expect if such a being(s) existed.

The Epicurus quote is a good dilema for the numerous religions that see god as a personal deaity and the source of morality. If the being is both all-powerful and all-knowing that means they knew the exact outcome they were setting in motion whether they acted directly or just observed. In otherwords; this God knew all possible realities and selected this one.

Eh....not really. Religion is still alive in thriving. Just because there's been in increase in atheism doesn't mean that religion is anywhere close to dying.

The dodo is not going away fast enough, the water is rising and the shit is about to hit the floor.

CpT_x_Killsteal:

Polarity27:

CpT_x_Killsteal:

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 sound like you're using "evolved" to mean some kind of linear progression rather than goodness-of-environment-fit. What, in your view, is "evolution" in this context?

Improvement. The Bible is outdated and proven to be filled with hypocracies and inconsistencies. It hasn't changed because it can't, otherwise the Bible wouldn't be perfect and neither would god.

Whereas scientific knowledge has improved by correcting itself on things proven false. Hence our scientific knowledge has "evolved".

What do you consider "improvement"? Who decides whether something has improved or not?

This is making me really wish I'd bookmarked the last rant I saw from an evolutionary biologist irritated at this colloquial use of "evolution", since it means nothing of the kind in a scientific sense. In the proper sense, as I understand it (please correct me if I get any of this badly wrong), of changing to better fit its environment, Christianity is probably the most rapidly evolving religion on the planet because it pretty much has to be, considering itself a universal truth for all people.

(I may well have these out of order. Again, correct anything I got wrong, please.)(

At the break with Judaism, Christianity emerges and *boom*, the Bible just about doubled.

Christianity consolidates itself into a state religion, and all of these myriad expressions of Christianity do not fit the state-religion environment, so *boom*, a set canon is developed of which books actually make up The Bible. Some are dumped entirely.

Christianity grows, finds itself unable to market itself in its current state to some Indo-European cultures, so *boom*, Christianity Germanizes and changes considerably (as the text I'm reading currently discusses); or, in the case of Ireland, early Celtic Christianity is a much more permissive thing than the Roman version back home. This is also course-corrected in time.

Wait, Christianity's main expression is corrupt? And the environment resists that? *boom* Protestantism develops, hacks a few books off the Bible.

The King can't get divorced? *boom* Church of England created, King James version of the Bible is developed to meet his specifications.

Christianity is perceived as too focused on the upper class? *boom* Bunch of "low-church" denominations arise, with a very different view of the Bible and an individual's place in Christianity.

Society changes, becomes more permissive. *boom* Mainstream Protestant denominations become more liberal, toss the idea of Hell, adapt to an ever-loving God who doesn't desert anyone. Considers the Bible something written by men, inspired by God but fallible. Also, *boom*, Vatican II, an effort to make Mass more accessible.

This terrifies people who can't change with the times? *boom* Backlash! Dominionism, the Moral Majority, Biblical literalism rise and gain attention and followers.

*boom* Backlash to the backlash! Inspired by counterculture, Christian feminism flourishes, people rediscover the idea of Sophia as Sacred Feminine, people dust off biblical books dumped when canon was, well, canonized, and explore Christian mysticism.

Basically, my *ass* the Bible hasn't changed and Christianity hasn't evolved. Because it depends on being everything to everyone, it's infinitely malleable to its environment. It may not be *your* (or, often, my) idea of "improvement", but it's definitely evolving.

religion is not going to be extinct, the only reason its gained popular support just goes along with the liberal/secular, trend that humanity follows, compared to any point in history before the 20th century, the average lot for the verage person was miserable and death was everywhere, in instances where fear and uncertainty is common, people will cling to their traditions like religion and conservative values, only today in our extravagant spoiled 1st world society, people are becoming arrogant and self absorbed, because of all of our wealth, we see it as evidence to suport our new belief that humanity has outgrown god, but our system cant last forever, sooner or later its bound to come crashingdown, im not talking about the end of the world just that eventully the dark ages will return and with them religion, and cinservatism

FranzVonHoetzendorf:
religion is not going to be extinct, the only reason its gained popular support just goes along with the liberal/secular, trend that humanity follows, compared to any point in history before the 20th century, the average lot for the verage person was miserable and death was everywhere, in instances where fear and uncertainty is common, people will cling to their traditions like religion and conservative values, only today in our extravagant spoiled 1st world society, people are becoming arrogant and self absorbed, because of all of our wealth, we see it as evidence to suport our new belief that humanity has outgrown god, but our system cant last forever, sooner or later its bound to come crashingdown, im not talking about the end of the world just that eventully the dark ages will return and with them religion, and cinservatism

I agree. Civilization has outgrown the natural order and cannot be long sustained. The natural order shall return and with it religiosity.

vonmanstein:

FranzVonHoetzendorf:
religion is not going to be extinct, the only reason its gained popular support just goes along with the liberal/secular, trend that humanity follows, compared to any point in history before the 20th century, the average lot for the average person was miserable and death was everywhere, in instances where fear and uncertainty is common, people will cling to their traditions like religion and conservative values, only today in our extravagant spoiled 1st world society, people are becoming arrogant and self absorbed, because of all of our wealth, we see it as evidence to support our new belief that humanity has outgrown god, but our system cant last forever, sooner or later its bound to come crashing-down, I'm not talking about the end of the world just that eventually the dark ages will return and with them religion, and conservatism

I agree Civilization has outgrown the natural order and cannot be long sustained. The natural order shall return and with it religiosity.

so it seems that a cycle will form for the foreseeable millennium of disaster, rebirth, decadence disaster, but religion isn't necessarily dependent on that alone, even in the 1st world in nations where fear is hard to find people are still religious the best case being the united-states the wealthiest nation in the world yet also incredibly religious, does this make the US an exception

One of the definitions of relgion according to the dictionary is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

I can't recall ever having met a person who didn't have "a set of beliefs concerning the...nature...of the universe", so I'd love to know where these so called non-religious folks are hiding, just so I can go gawp at them for being such an oddity.

Isn't this, like, the 50th thread about how religion is bad/outdated and is/should be dead and gone?

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.

It seems like you do not know what a ''definitive answer'' is. Religion doesn't provide that. It provides a made up answer to a question regarding a made up thing (a soul).

Religion isn't going away anytime soon, it's too deeply ingrained in almost every major culture across the world. Whether it's the redemption and second chances; the communal and social aspect or the spiritual strength and enlightenment it offers, a lot of people still choose to believe in a god and will raise their children in the same ways. I'm not saying it's healthy, but religion provides some very comforting answers for questions we can't answer with science just yet. Sure there will always be people who use religion as an excuse or a crutch, but I'd like to think that they're a very small minority.

FranzVonHoetzendorf:

vonmanstein:

FranzVonHoetzendorf:
religion is not going to be extinct, the only reason its gained popular support just goes along with the liberal/secular, trend that humanity follows, compared to any point in history before the 20th century, the average lot for the average person was miserable and death was everywhere, in instances where fear and uncertainty is common, people will cling to their traditions like religion and conservative values, only today in our extravagant spoiled 1st world society, people are becoming arrogant and self absorbed, because of all of our wealth, we see it as evidence to support our new belief that humanity has outgrown god, but our system cant last forever, sooner or later its bound to come crashing-down, I'm not talking about the end of the world just that eventually the dark ages will return and with them religion, and conservatism

I agree Civilization has outgrown the natural order and cannot be long sustained. The natural order shall return and with it religiosity.

so it seems that a cycle will form for the foreseeable millennium of disaster, rebirth, decadence disaster, but religion isn't necessarily dependent on that alone, even in the 1st world in nations where fear is hard to find people are still religious the best case being the united-states the wealthiest nation in the world yet also incredibly religious, does this make the US an exception

There's a difference between believing one has outgrown God and not believing in God in the first place.

FranzVonHoetzendorf:
so it seems that a cycle will form for the foreseeable millennium of disaster, rebirth, decadence disaster, but religion isn't necessarily dependent on that alone, even in the 1st world in nations where fear is hard to find people are still religious the best case being the united-states the wealthiest nation in the world yet also incredibly religious, does this make the US an exception

Yes, the USA is an exception, but in more than one way, I'd say. There is actually a lot of poverty there, the gap between rich and poor is growing faster than elsewhere in the West, vertical mobility is comparably very low (i.e. people don't have a high chance of being rewarded for hard work) and higher education is hard to come by because of the incredible costs. In those senses, I don't think you can compare, say, Sweden to the USA on the aspect of religiosity if you want to make it dependent on such issues.

I don't see religion disappearing any time soon.

Most nations in the world the vast majorities are religious.

In the western nations it's the usually the religious conservatives who make the greatest effort keeping the average number of children per couple above the critical number of 2.

I wouldn't be surprised to see all social progress reversed when I'm old.

Religion isn't becoming a dodo, it's morphing to something else. Idol worshiping, and consumerism. Your new religion, plus philosophy might take precedence. The old religions might "die" out, but I highly doubt that, unless a power shift occurs. You're silly OP, thinking religion will disappear, and not knowing that religion came about because of a evolutionary trait. I think the term is to walk in another shoe's, it ended up creating imaginary friends, and in term because the way humans are created god. Thanks to humans not changing much since the dawn of our species, shit is staying till we die. Deal with it.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked