Timeline for when religion will be obsolete.

[dimreepr]

People will hurt and kill each other regardless of religion because of the human condition.

 

Religious beliefs cannot really change the human condition and the eventual demise of humanity.

 

Humanity will, of course, end and with it all human hope, but until then I hope you get better

Edited June 5, 2017 by dimreepr

[Itoero]

Humanity will end because we are no longer the fittest, we will not be able to adapt to whatever the future brings.

[Raider5678]

People will hurt and kill each other regardless of religion and that's because of the human condition.

 

Religious beliefs cannot really change the human condition and the eventual demise of humanity.

Well.

They can at least try to say "Don't murder people."

[iNow]

Well.

They can at least try to say "Don't murder people."

Except for all the parts where they say DO murder people.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill

http://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-home-page/murder-in-the-bible/

[Raider5678]

Except for all the parts where they say DO murder people.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill

http://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-home-page/murder-in-the-bible/

And again.

Tell us what our religion actually means.

 

How about when they tried to uphold the law where you "kill people" and Jesus(mind you, the deity. So what he says goes in this religion) said to forgive rather then to kill.

Apparently.

According to you.

There is no difference here.

That is arrogance.

[iNow]

And again.

Tell us what our religion actually means.

 

How about when they tried to uphold the law where you "kill people" and Jesus(mind you, the deity. So what he says goes in this religion) said to forgive rather then to kill.

Apparently.

According to you.

There is no difference here.

That is arrogance.

“I have been called arrogant myself in my time, and hope to earn the title again, but to claim that I am privy to the secrets of the universe and its creator—that's beyond my conceit." ~Hitch

[Handy andy]

People are drifting off thread but interestingly we have a clear demonstration of how people with a religious belief defend religion and their right to believe in the unbelievable. All religion does exactly the same, people are programmed with a belief that no matter how much they are told otherwise fail to change their mind.

 

The thread was about

"

When will religious belief, or belief in gods become a thing of the past? 100 years? 300 years? Never?

Do you think most of humanity will ever drop superstition and embrace scientific and secular worldviews?

"

 

There is absolutely zero, zip, nadda, diddly squat, evidence that Jesus ever existed, but both Moslems and Christians have been programmed in their formative years that he existed and nothing will change this opinion. Richard Dawkins used the tea pot orbiting the sun analogy. If people believe it exists, for them it exists, everyone else stares in disbelief, but they educate their children and the belief perpetuates. The cargo cult started in the pacific, with dumb people believing the gods delivered boxes from heaven if they were good.

 

If the Pope speaking for god on earth, gave a speech admitting that in 325 AD by emperor Constantine created the New Testament based on the Egyptian religions which predate much of the old testament, in an attempt to create a unifying religion to support a failing Roman Empire. Religious fanatics would either kill him or ignore him. Pope Pious X stated the Jesus Myth served them well, they know its all nonsense and they have admitted it. Religious belief will just carry on, along with all the religious hatred and intolerance for eternity, unless people become less tolerant of this nonsense and stop giving respect to leaders who believe in the fairies.

 

It has come to my notice that some people on this forum are quite prepared to believe in chocolate unicorns in black holes If you tell your kids this or gullible people they might believe you. Most wont unless you get thousands of apparently clever people stood around stating its true and reassuring you that you must believe in the nonsense.

[DrP]

I don't understand your last paragraph about chocolate unicorns.

 

Basically, imo, (I think I said this earlier) - we are going through a global zeitgeist where we are all dropping religion slowly and turning to science based reasoning rather than irrational superstition. Timeline for completion? No-one could possibly know. The New age spin off from religion is something that will take over from religion imo - those lot don't believe in the current religions... but jump onto pretty much any other supernatural sounding clap trap they can using science buzz words to sound like they know what they are talking about... they believe what they say even though they have no evidence or misinterpreted evidence, or evidence that they jump to wrong conclusions from to support their mystical cosmic debris.

[Handy andy]

I don't understand your last paragraph about chocolate unicorns.

 

Basically, imo, (I think I said this earlier) - we are going through a global zeitgeist where we are all dropping religion slowly and turning to science based reasoning rather than irrational superstition. Timeline for completion? No-one could possibly know. The New age spin off from religion is something that will take over from religion imo - those lot don't believe in the current religions... but jump onto pretty much any other supernatural sounding clap trap they can using science buzz words to sound like they know what they are talking about... they believe what they say even though they have no evidence or misinterpreted evidence, or evidence that they jump to wrong conclusions from to support their mystical cosmic debris.

 

IMO That doesn't sound encouraging and is not new, it is more like older religions trying to return to the surface, here is paragraph from the rosicrutian website.

 

As a Rosicrucian member, you will receive many benefits that will all contribute to your physical, mental, emotional and spiritual development, including a spiritual family that has members from many different Wisdom Traditions including Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam who work together harmoniously to bring Light into the world through the recognition that Divinity resides within each one of us and that our work is to actively seek to express that Divinity in everything we do!

 

Here is a link to their claimed development from Europe to America. http://www.brotherhoodoftherosycross.org/history.php

 

They also do a pretty good line on the occult. Belief in the occult comes out of ghost stories or belief in an afterlife, whereby being nice to the ghosties will induce them to help you in some way. St John is the nice side love the spirits and give them presents, and King Solomon is the bad side with human sacrifice etc Here is a wiki link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Mystical_Order_Rosae_Crucis

 

Having many splinter religious off shoots is not encouraging , there are numerous new age groups all with their own ideas, it could become like religion out of control generating all sorts of wacko ideas.

 

So No I do not think that the new age beliefs should be encouraged either.

 

 

Chocolate unicorns are a troll device that we should not be concerned about and was meant as a joke.

 

Edit : Forgot to mention the link with new age and Rosicrutianism. Wicca is the newage version of Rosicrutianism and was promoted by Alistair Crowley a British Freemason around 190? . It started apparently with Fr Kristen Rosencrutz a catholic priest who was never excommunicated from the catholic church, where as Martin Luther was in the same era for trying to instigate reforms around 1500 ish.

Speculating the religion may have been an attempt to create a unifying religion that overlapped common parts of various world religions, dumping some of the worse beliefs.

Edited June 6, 2017 by Handy andy

[Handy andy]

For further support of religions tenacity to survive "read the why we still believe in god thread" Peoples beliefs are being challenged by reasonable people and trolls who are being deliberately offensive, but people still hang onto their belief in a god.

 

On the Previous Post I mentioned Rosicrutianism is a religion, they claim it isn't. You can still be a Rosicrutian and be a Atheist, Christian, Buddhist, Moslem, Hindu etc, and still practice Rosicrutianism etc,

 

Bye

[KipIngram]

I think non-believers are way too "engaged" with the whole business of religion - something they don't even believe in. You'd think they'd view it as just another form of ignorance.

 

Individual people that actually try to hurt you because of their beliefs - those people are a problem and you've every right to be concerned about / try to stop them. People who aren't bothering you? Don't bother them - who cares? Live and let live.

 

I'm not a vegetarian either, but I don't feel any need to ban vegetarianism. The more time I spend minding the business of people that give me no reason to mind their business, the less time I have left to think about things actually worth thinking about.

[DrKrettin]

I think non-believers are way too "engaged" with the whole business of religion - something they don't even believe in. .

 

 

 

I don't. I think the vast majority just ignore it. The minority who discuss it on internet forums are those who are genuinely baffled by how this form of ignorance can affect so many lives in so many ways.

[KipIngram]

Well, good point - I myself have talked in other threads about how easy it is to "mis-perceive" the majorities attitude from looking at various forms of media. There's almost always a small segment that's way more vocal than the rest. So I shouldn't have phrased it so inclusively. How about "some non-believers"?

I'm just not willing to judge (and penalize) literally at least hundreds of millions and possibly billions of people because of the actions of a few hundred / few thousand radical extremists.

[iNow]

Individual people that actually try to hurt you because of their beliefs - those people are a problem and you've every right to be concerned about / try to stop them. People who aren't bothering you? Don't bother them - who cares? Live and let live.

Because we're a democracy and these people vote and help shape our laws. It's not uncommon for them to try legislating their personal beliefs on to the rest of us.

 

If they kept their beliefs personal that'd be one thing, but that's hardly ever the case. It's always more... trying to convert others, get their brand of nonsense introduced in schools, prevent gay people from marrying, women from acquiring safe affordable birth control, and and and.... and hence they introduce and even invite challenge, criticism, and sometimes even dismissal from the rest of us sharing our existence together and choosing how we're governed.

 

More abstractly, true freedom requires knowledge and education, not commands of faith and acceptance of Iron Age fairy tales.

 

 

"An educated, enlightened & informed population is one of the surest ways of promoting the health of a democracy." ~ Nelson Mandela

 

"Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of the day." ~ Thomas Jefferson

 

"Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education." ~ Franklin D. Roosevelt

[DrKrettin]

I'm just not willing to judge (and penalize) literally at least hundreds of millions and possibly billions of people because of the actions of a few hundred / few thousand radical extremists.

 

That's fair enough, but if you are a rational atheist or sceptic and are trying to understand the world and our own species in particular, you have to try to come to terms with the fact that huge numbers of people are fundamentally irrational, and a religious belief is the largest manifestation of it. This means that an atheist will feel himself marginalized, and will feel at a loss realising that he doesn't actually know what makes most of his species tick.

[KipIngram]

That makes great sense - I think that wishing to understand the nature of religious faith and what drives it is the same as wishing to understand anything else about the world. I was responding mostly to those who fret over it and feel that "something needs to be done about it" (other than simple education, of course - I'm referring to "something coercive").

 

Scientific curiosity is not the same thing as feeling the need to force people to hold a certain perspective.

[Prometheus]

I think non-believers are way too "engaged" with the whole business of religion - something they don't even believe in. You'd think they'd view it as just another form of ignorance.

 

But religion isn't necessarily another form of ignorance. We might observe that many forms of religions are ignorant, but saying that religion is ignorant by definition reduces nuanced beliefs to a caricature, and just polarises people in one or another camp.

 

Talking of nuance, on this thread and just about all on this forum, religion is considered a homogenous thing. But that is far from the case: can we really say that Christianity will become obsolete at the same time, or under the same conditions as Confucianism? I'll start a thread on the definition of religion if i ever get time.

 

 

But totally agree about non-believers being too engaged: it's understandable to see theists get worked up about God, but it is funny to see atheists get worked up about something they don't believe in.

[iNow]

If majority of your neighbors believed invisible dragons controlled the financial industry and consequently took steps to slay them, would you not pushback on that irrationality and try to sway them with reason?

 

What you seem to be requesting is that religion be given undue deference, that it get a pass from criticism and counter argument. I cannot support that, even though you're not explicitly advocating it.

[KipIngram]

That "took steps to slay them" part might involve something that is a real problem. But if my neighbors believe in invisible dragons and mind their own business about it, then I have no problem with it whatsoever. I might roll my eyes, but it's not my right to tell them how to think. I think any behavior that does not cross over into problematic actions (violence, terror, etc.) deserves deference.

 

It just amazes me how some people think it's entirely ok for them to control how other people think. That's not a freedom-minded attitude at all.

[DrP]

Isn't education teaching people how to think? Is it OK to think that you can kill people? Shouldn't 'we' try to help people that think killing is morally OK?

 

If someone is walking towards a cliff will you say "It's ok - I don't want to teach him how to think, let him fall"? There is a line somewhere... where it is will be different for different people.

 

If people believe in those dragons I would feel that the education system had let them down... or someone somewhere has told them a pack of lies. I would be happy to discuss it with them.

Edited June 7, 2017 by DrP

[KipIngram]

I am all for any sort of education. It's coercive things like trying to legally ban the behavior you find questionable that I can't sanction. But talking, communicating, educating - bring it on.

[Prometheus]

If majority of your neighbors believed invisible dragons controlled the financial industry and consequently took steps to slay them, would you not pushback on that irrationality and try to sway them with reason?

 

What you seem to be requesting is that religion be given undue deference, that it get a pass from criticism and counter argument. I cannot support that, even though you're not explicitly advocating it.

 

By invisible dragons you are referring to the fact that the majority of religions have supernatural elements. But belief in the supernatural is NOT a defining feature of religion.

 

When a Confucian says something like 'as in heaven so on Earth', they aren't necessarily saying they believe in a literal heaven which we must try to emulate - they may mean there exists some perfect idealisation for humanity which we should try to live up to. Though another Confucian might believe in a literal heaven: it is not a defining feature. You can be an atheist and religious. We cannot characterise the religious beliefs of near 6 billion people as the all the same, which we repeatedly do on this forum.

 

You are saying irrationality is, by definition, part of religion. It it may be an extremely common characteristic of religion, but not defining. I think this distinction is important because it gives religious people the movement they need to cherry pick the better parts of their religion, and discard the crap. As Christianity (at least in Europe) is in the process of doing.

 

So, yes, point out where people are mistaken in their beliefs. And by all means be vociferous if they are being arseholes in return. Just realise that they don't represent all the other 6 billion religious people.

[zapatos]

I think non-believers are way too "engaged" with the whole business of religion - something they don't even believe in. You'd think they'd view it as just another form of ignorance.

Where is this atheistic activism taking place? If it is on this site, then you may have a skewed view of how active atheists are.

 

This is a discussion site, and this is what we do. If a theist talks about or defends religion they should expect to be challenged, just as someone who talks about or defends string theory should expect to be challenged.

 

I cannot think of many times (or any times for that matter) that I or others I've observed have engaged with religious people on religious topics unless all parties were interested in discussing it.

 

Edit: I don't often see atheists yelling at theists outside of churches, but I do see theists yelling at people outside abortion clinics. I think if theists left atheists alone, then atheists would return the favor.

 

I'm not a vegetarian either, but I don't feel any need to ban vegetarianism. The more time I spend minding the business of people that give me no reason to mind their business, the less time I have left to think about things actually worth thinking about.

I don't feel the need to ban vegetarianism either, and I suspect nearly no one does. The problem arises when the vegetarians start telling us to not kill cattle. Those are the ones who draw the ire of the meat eaters (or atheists in the case where theists tell us to not have abortions). Edited June 7, 2017 by zapatos

[Phi for All]

That's fair enough, but if you are a rational atheist or sceptic and are trying to understand the world and our own species in particular, you have to try to come to terms with the fact that huge numbers of people are fundamentally irrational, and a religious belief is the largest manifestation of it. This means that an atheist will feel himself marginalized, and will feel at a loss realising that he doesn't actually know what makes most of his species tick.

 

I treat it the same way I treat drinking alcohol, or stamp collecting, or following sports teams. I'm around people who do these things without me all day long, and we get along just fine as long as they don't try to engage me in those activities. I know those things are important to others, and I know they wouldn't benefit me.

 

Some things I've learned are outright detrimental to me but others can handle them. Other things I've learned take up far more time than they're worth (to me), and still other things that I've done just because it was expected of me. Religion happens to fall into all three categories for me.

[iNow]

By invisible dragons you are referring to the fact that the majority of religions have supernatural elements. But belief in the supernatural is NOT a defining feature of religion.

 

You are saying irrationality is, by definition, part of religion. It it may be an extremely common characteristic of religion, but not defining.

I understand and agree with your point, but find myself marginalizing those others because they are, in fact, limited to the margins.