Timeline for when religion will be obsolete.

[zapatos]

 

Religious texts are written in stone. They include numerous contradictions or things which can be read several ways depending on what you want. Would you suggest a scrapping or simplification of the texts, if so how the hell would this be accomplished if blind belief in something that is wrong or at least is questionable is insisted on in religion.

 

Religious texts may be written in stone, but the way a given religion functions and what it believes can change over time. In addition, there are tens of thousands of Christian denominations, all based on the same religious text. Not to mention that members within a denomination often have different views from each other.

 

I think people, both supporters are opponents of religion, are barking up the wrong tree when make their arguments based solely on a religious text. There are simply too many interpretations.

[Handy andy]

 

Blanket statements like that might be accurate if everyone thought alike. At last check I found there were 7.5 billion of us, though. I guess there aren't 7.5 billion different coherent ways of thinking (we tend to "group" ourselves), but I feel quite sure that many people who've lived and are living found that religion brought them a great sense of meaning. Your mileage may vary - that's ok.

 

I'm not really in that group, but I support their right to feel as they wish. For us to sit back and behave as though we can rationally decide which of those attitudes are meaningful and which are not is the height of arrogance.

 

If 7.5 billion people require religious leadership, it does not bode well for the concept of there being an end to religious belief.

 

What is your religion, I am assuming you are Christian. Which group do you align your views with, Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist, C of E, Creationist, Mormon, etc. I know there are a lot more religious groups in America than we have in Europe, and religious tolerance is arguably out of control. Religion has a massive impact on the education and political systems in the USA. Creationism is taught as scientific fact by law, in a huge percentage of the states. I was shocked to find that trained biologists are forbidden to speak about evolution, in creationist states.

 

Do you think religious freedom has gone too far in the USA when it hinders childrens education.?

[zapatos]

Religion has a massive impact on the education and political systems in the USA. Creationism is taught as scientific fact by law, in a huge percentage of the states.

I'm afraid I'm going to require a citation on that one.

 

I was shocked to find that trained biologists are forbidden to speak about evolution, in creationist states.

And while you're at it...

[Handy andy]

Religious texts may be written in stone, but the way a given religion functions and what it believes can change over time. In addition, there are tens of thousands of Christian denominations, all based on the same religious text. Not to mention that members within a denomination often have different views from each other.

 

I think people, both supporters are opponents of religion, are barking up the wrong tree when make their arguments based solely on a religious text. There are simply too many interpretations.

 

Perhaps a normalization, taking what is considered to be good from religion without incorporating insane or contradictory beliefs might be away forward.

I'm afraid I'm going to require a citation on that one.

 

And while you're at it...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

 

My wife wanted to visit Chatanuga for an exhibition I wandered into the aquarium and was discussing the different types of sharks in a tank with a marine biologist when a crowd walked in, and the guy told me he could not speak any more or he would lose his job for talking about evolution. I have no documentary evidence that I was there, so you will just have to take my word for it. The man was in fear of his job for talking about evolution.

Edited June 12, 2017 by Handy andy

[zapatos]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

Your first link is a complete contradiction of your first assertion. I have no idea why you think this was a good link to post in support of what you said.

 

Your second and third links simply tell us what creationism is, and that people believe in in. Again, I have no idea why you think this supports your assertion.

 

My wife wanted to visit Chatanuga for an exhibition I wandered into the aquarium and was discussing the different types of sharks in a tank with a marine biologist when a crowd walked in, and the guy told me he could not speak any more or he would lose his job for talking about evolution. I have no documentary evidence that I was there, so you will just have to take my word for it. The man was in fear of his job for talking about evolution.

And hitting for the cycle, your amusing anecdote does nothing to support your final assertion.

[Handy andy]

Your first link is a complete contradiction of your first assertion. I have no idea why you think this was a good link to post in support of what you said.

 

Your second and third links simply tell us what creationism is, and that people believe in in. Again, I have no idea why you think this supports your assertion.

 

 

And hitting for the cycle, your amusing anecdote does nothing to support your final assertion.

 

Its religion you can believe what you like. Did you try googling the subject? The anecdote amusing as it wasn't, does supportthe anecdote, regardless of your belief system, so there

 

It is amusing religion is discussed on a science forum, under anything other than psychology.

[zapatos]

Its religion you can believe what you like. Did you try googling the subject?

No, the assertion you made was not about religion. It was about the Law. And yes, I did Google it.

 

In 1968, the US Supreme Court ruled on Epperson v. Arkansas, another challenge to these laws, and the court ruled that allowing the teaching of creation, while disallowing the teaching of evolution, advanced a religion, and therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the constitution. Creationists then starting lobbying to have laws passed that required teachers to Teach the Controversy, but this was also struck down by the Supreme Court in 1987 in Edwards v. Aguillard. Creationists then moved to frame the issue as one of intelligent design but this too was ruled against in a District Court in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District in 2005.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education_in_the_United_States

 

Perhaps you too should Google it before you make assertions like "Creationism is taught as scientific fact by law, in a huge percentage of the states."

 

The anecdote amusing as it wasn't, does support the anecdote...

The anecdote supports the anecdote? Well, you got me there.

[OldChemE]

Time line when religion will be obsolete?? About the same time that people stop believing in magic, weight loss miracles, and winning money in the lottery

[Prometheus]

 

I would have no problem with doing away with any form of political or religious dictatorship, I do not need a leader to tell me how to behave or what to do...

 

Let's say, then, that any form of dictatorship is to be avoided regardless of it's source.

 

 

What say you?

 

I answered that question in post 108. I won't add more detail because then i would just be bleating on about how i would make the world a better place. Kind of like dictators do. Engaging in a dialogue is more important than any great unifying scheme.

[DrP]

"...and winning money on the lottery"

 

At least that is a statistical possibility.

[Handy andy]

 

Let's say, then, that any form of dictatorship is to be avoided regardless of it's source.

 

 

 

I answered that question in post 108. I won't add more detail because then i would just be bleating on about how i would make the world a better place. Kind of like dictators do. Engaging in a dialogue is more important than any great unifying scheme.

 

​from post 106 : In terms of modifying religion the first thing i would try to do is explain why even though religion used to make statements about the physical universe, its speculations are no longer needed as we have the scientific method which has proved an excellent process for discovering physical workings. I would then explain that religion can still have a roll to play if it sticks to seeking and bringing meaning to people's lives. That's probably a few more centuries work, so it's enough for now.

 

I did read your post 106 and came to the idea that you, like many others are looking for something to believe in.

 

Some substitute scientific theories for actual facts. Some substitute religious theories for actual facts.

 

Science and religion are both belief systems, which offer various versions of the truth to believers.

Neither are definitely correct, but to a fanatic or amusingly perhaps an undergraduate, they believe what they are taught.

 

Facts are facts which can not be questioned. Theories and belief systems must be questioned, but the people in charge high priests or those claiming to be peers, dissuade people from questioning their theories or belief systems.

 

You mentioned dictatorships above as being a bad thing. Would you agree guidance and teaching people that their religions do not teach the actual truth may be a way forward.

 

In Buddhism I understand there is no requirement for a god figure to tell people what to do or believe in. So for some religious folk who believe in a god figure Buddhism is not a religion. Buddhists however do believe in an afterlife and in reincarnation or transmigration of the soul, which is kind of occult based, is this something you believe in.? What would it take for you to think there is no after life.?

Edited June 13, 2017 by Handy andy

[Prometheus]

Science and religion are both belief systems, which offer various versions of the truth to believers.

Neither are definitely correct, but to a fanatic or amusingly perhaps an undergraduate, they believe what they are taught.

 

I agree both are belief systems, but they are very different.

 

We believe in science based on evidence and the balance of probabilities. The belief is never absolute, but always on the condition that it may change with new evidence. It is by far the best method of discovering the physical world.

 

Religious belief (and this is my own take, i know it does not reflect the majority of religious belief), creates human truths, but not physical truths. Human truths are those ethereal threads we use to weave meaning in our lives. It's less that i'm looking for something to believe in, more trying to find meaning. Buddhism helps me, but to be honest i find literature a broader and deeper well in which to delve into the human condition.

 

Am i making sense? I find it very difficult to communicate these ideas is a few sentences.

 

 

Facts are facts which can not be questioned. Theories and belief systems must be questioned, but the people in charge high priests or those claiming to be peers, dissuade people from questioning their theories or belief systems.

 

Facts should always be questioned. They should be answered with evidence on the balance of probabilities. This most definitely includes scientific facts.

 

 

You mentioned dictatorships above as being a bad thing. Would you agree guidance and teaching people that their religions do not teach the actual truth may be a way forward.

 

I sort of agree. Religion teaches nothing about the universe we find ourselves, but can help impose meaning upon that universe.

 

 

In Buddhism I understand there is no requirement for a god figure to tell people what to do or believe in. So for some religious folk who believe in a god figure Buddhism is not a religion. Buddhists however do believe in an afterlife and in reincarnation or transmigration of the soul, which is kind of occult based, is this something you believe in.? What would it take for you to think there is no after life.?

 

Buddhism teaches rebirth not reincarnation, the difference being there is no soul which transmigrates; rather our Karma continues after our death. Many Buddhists interpret this to mean that ones Karma finds a new host body and so continues. I interpret to mean that my actions in life continue to reverberate long after my death. Think of a ripple in a pond: my life is a stone thrown in the pond, my Karma is the ensuing ripples, which then join numerous other ripples to make patterns i could never anticipate. I derive meaning from life in enjoying the patterns that emerge. That is as close to an afterlife as i believe in.

 

I'd be happy to explore Buddhism and my interpretation of it with you, but maybe it is off topic here.

[Handy andy]

 

I agree both are belief systems, but they are very different.

 

We believe in science based on evidence and the balance of probabilities. The belief is never absolute, but always on the condition that it may change with new evidence. It is by far the best method of discovering the physical world.

 

Religious belief (and this is my own take, i know it does not reflect the majority of religious belief), creates human truths, but not physical truths. Human truths are those ethereal threads we use to weave meaning in our lives. It's less that i'm looking for something to believe in, more trying to find meaning. Buddhism helps me, but to be honest i find literature a broader and deeper well in which to delve into the human condition.

 

Am i making sense? I find it very difficult to communicate these ideas is a few sentences.

 

 

 

Facts should always be questioned. They should be answered with evidence on the balance of probabilities. This most definitely includes scientific facts.

 

 

 

I sort of agree. Religion teaches nothing about the universe we find ourselves, but can help impose meaning upon that universe.

 

 

 

Buddhism teaches rebirth not reincarnation, the difference being there is no soul which transmigrates; rather our Karma continues after our death. Many Buddhists interpret this to mean that ones Karma finds a new host body and so continues. I interpret to mean that my actions in life continue to reverberate long after my death. Think of a ripple in a pond: my life is a stone thrown in the pond, my Karma is the ensuing ripples, which then join numerous other ripples to make patterns i could never anticipate. I derive meaning from life in enjoying the patterns that emerge. That is as close to an afterlife as i believe in.

 

I'd be happy to explore Buddhism and my interpretation of it with you, but maybe it is off topic here.

 

Yes you are making sense and I agree with most of what you wrote. Your view of Buddhism is slightly different to the versions I have come across on my travels.

 

The interpretation many people derive from their religions is very different to your own. With no god or afterlife, many would argue that you are already an atheist.

 

Do you consider your version of Buddhism to be the way ahead for religion.?

 

Perhaps you should start another thread on your version of Buddhism. It would be interesting to see how many religious folk agree with you, perhaps you might get a few atheists interested as well.

[Prometheus]

I do consider myself an atheist.

 

I'm reluctant to offer my version of Buddhism as a way forward. Everyone will have their own ideas. The most important thing for religion is to be able to adapt, after that we can reassess.

 

Not sure anybody else would be interested hearing about Buddhism, perhaps best to PM?

[Handy andy]

I do consider myself an atheist.

 

I'm reluctant to offer my version of Buddhism as a way forward. Everyone will have their own ideas. The most important thing for religion is to be able to adapt, after that we can reassess.

 

Not sure anybody else would be interested hearing about Buddhism, perhaps best to PM?

 

My Athiest views are not that far from Buddhist already.

 

Perhaps people can give you a +1 if they want you to start a thread on your version of Buddhism. If you get 10 points you start a thread.

Edited June 13, 2017 by Handy andy

[seriously disabled]

With all of the cruelty, economic inequality, poverty and misery which is going on on this planet it is impossible for any religion to be have any basis in reality in my opinion.

 

At least this is my opinion.

 

Lets face it. This planet is a shithole and we can't even get off of it.

 

Humanity should have been off this planet by now and inhabiting the galaxy and instead we are stuck on this planet, probably forever and competing over scarce resources.

 

Religion sucks and so is this planet.

 

The way I see it religion is the biggest delusion in the history of mankind.

Edited June 16, 2017 by seriously disabled

[KipIngram]

With all of the cruelty, economic inequality, poverty and misery which is going on on this planet it is impossible for any religion to be have any basis in reality in my opinion.

 

At least this is my opinion.

 

Lets face it. This planet is a shithole and we can't even get off of it.

 

Humanity should have been off this planet by now and inhabiting the galaxy and instead we are stuck on this planet, probably forever and competing over scarce resources.

 

Religion sucks and so is this planet.

 

If you expect your life to suck, it probably will. If you have an optimistic outlook, though, you can find a lot about life to enjoy. You get out what you put in.

 

I'm curious - how do you figure we should be inhabiting the galaxy now? We're only 150 years or so into what you could call "real" industrialization, and only developed the technology to reach space at all in the last century. Given the severe limits placed on travel speed by special relativity, exactly what could we have done differently such that we'd be spreading out over the galaxy at this point?

 

I do admit that we could be further along than we are - some Presidential administrations chose to have NASA turn rather strongly away from its "outward facing" mission. If we'd maintained the aggressive mission laid out during the Kennedy administration we could have made more progress.

[seriously disabled]

If you expect your life to suck, it probably will. If you have an optimistic outlook, though, you can find a lot about life to enjoy. You get out what you put in.

My point is that humanity is still very primitive.

 

We are fighting and competing over scarce resources and if we don't find a way off this planet then we are in serious trouble.

 

Many people are seriously suffering on this planet and if any religion was actually true or had any merit then there wouldn't be so much pain, misery and extreme poverty on this planet.

Edited June 16, 2017 by seriously disabled

[dimreepr]

My point is that humanity is still very primitive.

 

Compared to what?

 

and if any religion was actually true then there wouldn't be so much pain and misery on this planet.

 

 

Why not?

[KipIngram]

My point is that humanity is still very primitive.

 

We are fighting and competing over scarce resources and if we don't find a way off this planet then we are in serious trouble.

 

Many people are seriously suffering on this planet and if any religion was actually true or had any merit then there wouldn't be so much pain, misery and extreme poverty on this planet.

 

That's a common perspective - the "Given that evil exists then God must be either evil or non-existent." The counter-argument you hear from "believers" is that God gave us free will and does not interfere with how we use it (at least these days). Both of those are pretty much non-falsifiable arguments, so there's not a whole lot of point to arguing over it.

 

I think the tendency to compete over resources (whether they're scarce or not) is just part of human nature. It's really hard for me to understand how even for the very wealthy "there's just never enough" - I feel like I'd get to a point where I sat back and thought "I've got plenty - no need to hustle for more." But then again I've never been tested on that front, so who knows? For all I know I'd fall victim to the greed disease just like the rest of 'em.

[dimreepr]

 

That's a common perspective - the "Given that evil exists then God must be either evil or non-existent." The counter-argument you hear from "believers" is that God gave us free will and does not interfere with how we use it (at least these days). Both of those are pretty much non-falsifiable arguments, so there's not a whole lot of point to arguing over it.

 

I think the tendency to compete over resources (whether they're scarce or not) is just part of human nature. It's really hard for me to understand how even for the very wealthy "there's just never enough" - I feel like I'd get to a point where I sat back and thought "I've got plenty - no need to hustle for more." But then again I've never been tested on that front, so who knows? For all I know I'd fall victim to the greed disease just like the rest of 'em.

 

He is richest who is content with the least, for content is the wealth of nature - Socrates

[KipIngram]

 

He is richest who is content with the least, for content is the wealth of nature - Socrates

 

I like that. I actually figure I'm going to do ok after my kids are grown - I make a pretty decent salary, but things can still seem tight because we've tried to give the kids every opportunity. So when they're grown and on their own it should seem easy enough to maintain the "me" lifestyle I've tended to live.

[zapatos]

Many people are seriously suffering on this planet and if any religion was actually true or had any merit then there wouldn't be so much pain, misery and extreme poverty on this planet.

 

You pretty consistently argue that religion must not be true because there is suffering on Earth, yet no religion I know of has ever said they can eliminate suffering on Earth.

 

That is like saying the FIFA doesn't work because players sometimes get sprained ankles.

[seriously disabled]

It doesn't take a genius to realize that all religion is bullshit.

 

Knowledge of evolutionary biology, mathematics and some physics is enough to know thatreligion cannot be true.

 

We have enough evidence at our disposal that life evolved through the mechanisms of evolutionary biology, therefore religion has no basis in reality and is in fact bullshit.

Edited June 16, 2017 by seriously disabled

[zapatos]

Catholicism for one fully embraces evolutionary biology, mathematics, and physics. So I guess you are wrong about them.