Will religion ever die?

[Mr Rayon]

As we head into the future, will religion ever lose it's grip amongst the people?

 

What are your thoughts about this?

 

And is the Bible guidance for humanity?

 

Would the world be a better place if we were all evangelized?

 

Does anything else teach better ethics than religion?

[Moontanman]

As we head into the future, will religion ever lose it's grip amongst the people?

 

What are your thoughts about this?

 

The over all trend does seem to be in the direction of religion having less influence.

 

And is the Bible guidance for humanity?

 

No, read the bible to see why...

 

Would the world be a better place if we were all evangelized?

 

No, read the bible to see why...

 

Does anything else teach better ethics than religion?

 

yes, secular humanism...

[Phi for All]

It would be great if people wanted to be good because it was right instead of because they'll be punished. I don't think that will ever happen with everyone, but it would also be great if morality wasn't based on a faith that can waver and change as its source gets squeezed out of the gaps in our knowledge.

[akh]

 

 

Does anything else teach better ethics than religion?

 

Probably the worst place to learn about ethics is religion. Both the Bible and the Koran rely on hate, fear, and subjugation for an ethical podium. There is nothing ethical about that!

[John Cuthber]

Religion exists to fill the gaps in human understanding of the real world- especially the "big questions". Those question (where are we from , when did the universe start etc) have now been answered by science (at least as well as religion ever did).

So religion no longer has a purpose and it has effectively died.

It's just that a lot of people have yet to realise that religion is dead.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Please stay on topic. You can have the social Darwinism discussion in some other thread.

[Iota]

Some religious teachings assert that all human life matters. The converse of this is Social Darwinism that considers some lives unsuitable to continue to support. Personally I would prefer living in a society based on religious beliefs that protected human life than an atheistic society that relied on euthanasia to rid itself of the burden of the physically and mentally disabled.

 

Wow. Everything about what you said is stupid. Darwin's theory of evolution is an observation. It doesn't have attached to it, some stupid opinion about the killing of those perceived weaker than others.

 

What religion really did in the past was to kill people who were perceived to be demon possessed, evil, or witches. Nice protection of human life, I see your point.

 

Edit: for the purpose of staying on topic:

 

"As we head into the future, will religion ever lose it's grip amongst the people?"

It is and already has done. But ultimately I guess it depends on whether humanity continues to advance, or if we start going backwards for whatever reason.

 

"Would the world be a better place if we were all evangelized?"

 

 

You could equally ask, would the world be "better" if we were all atheists. To both of those questions, I'd say probably not.

 

"Does anything else teach better ethics than religion? "

 

That's down to opinion/belief. That's why religious beliefs should stay on a personal level, and should *not* be forced on everyone. Bad *typo* for a second there.

Edited August 18, 2012 by Iota

[RVJ]

As we head into the future, will religion ever lose it's grip amongst the people?

I think that it will lose its influence as science takes a stronger grip on people's understanding of the universe, but I don't believe it will ever go away completely.

 

What are your thoughts about this?

I believe religion was a good way of giving people explanations for the meaning of the universe (even if the explanations were false.) It was an attempt at explaining something that no one knew the answer to. This form of thinking, in my opinion, is what helped derive science. That being said, religion also spawned a lot of mindless followers who didn't ponder anything themselves, thus leading to the cause of history's many problems.

 

And is the Bible guidance for humanity?

No. No one needs a piece of text to tell them right from wrong. Those decisions should be made individually, and have benefits and consequences for that individual.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

I'm splitting the relevant posts into a new thread. This one is to stay on topic.

And Moontanman, 'I couldn't let that one go,' is in no way an acceptable excuse for continually ignoring a staff warning in this thread. You do not get a free pass just because your stance happens to agree with the majority of other members.

[sonofapickle]

As we head into the future, will religion ever lose it's grip amongst the people?

 

To me, you'd have to ask the question, "what causes people to believe?"

 

Injustice, powerless, and impoverishment... (people feel that after they die, there will be a better life awaiting them where such things as impoverishment, powerlessness, and injustice don't exist).

 

Universe seems too intricate... (usually belief that because of 'x' and 'y', there must be some hand at play).

 

Parents believed... (what causes many other people to believe, and if you tie in some of the other reasons it merely goes to polarize their views).

 

There are other reasons but those I tend to see as the most common of reasons.

 

So, will it ever lose its grip among people? I don't know, I believe people will justify their faith in many ways and find an alternative route to justify their faith around new evidence about the universe just as they do so now. Their faith acts as more of an illusory life-vest.

 

If I have money in my wallet/bank account and am walking outside, I have no worries about finding my next meal, when I'll eat, and the like, I feel sort of protected in that regard and really don't need to worry about it because I can simply provide it for myself. People generally believe in a god in the same sense, that no matter what the situation they are being protected and provided for. More often times than not, they are not provided for and they attribute this to a learning curve, punishment, or some other ill, and when something good happens, then that was their god rewarding them for some good. This just adds more webs of polarizing viewpoints and clouds their reasoning. It hurts more than it helps because they fail to see what was it of their own doing that caused a 'good' within their life. Had more energy throughout the day? What did you do previously, like what did you eat, what was your thought-life like, did you pray longer than usual (prayer is more like meditation and can be useful in terms of meditating; it is bitter-sweet)?

 

Is the Bible a guidance for humanity?

 

I do like some books from the bible though, but do I think of it as a guidance for humanity? No, I do not.

 

 

Would the world be a better place if we were all evangelized?

 

Hm, basically if everyone were apart of the same religion and followed the same customs, practices, etc...? Not really. Of course when you think about it on the surface it could be reasoned that, yes, it would limit suffering, but that 'faith' is established on ignorance. I remember reading that when disease and death entered the area and was starting to kill the citizens off, some people were labeled 'heretics' even though they did nothing of the sort to establish themselves as heretics so they and the children were killed. The world being a better place (in terms of humanity) is dependent on what we ground our code of what we live by in, if we live by a code of ethics in the belief of a deity, that won't lead us to a better world for ourselves and will hurt us more than it helps.

 

We can make our lives better by establishing a code of ethics and regulation for humanity, but I feel that has a long way to go as many parts of the world reject such an idea of doing away with religion.

 

Does anything else teach better ethics than religion?

Yes, like some people have stated, 'secular ethics'. It grounds its principles based on the act of reasoning and not deriving the ethics from a sketchy way of seeing things. To me it is more objective for rational beings than it is subjective like religion-based ethics.

[immortal]

As we head into the future, will religion ever lose it's grip amongst the people?

 

Religion doesn't exist to control you, religion exists to make you free and in that sense it will never die.

 

"Many would hold that, from the broad philosophical standpoint, the outstanding achievement of twentieth-century physics is not the theory of relativity with its welding together of space and time, or the theory of quanta with its present apparent negation of the laws of causation, or the dissection of the atom with the resultant discovery that things are not what they seem; it is the general recognition that we are not yet in contact with ultimate reality. We are still imprisoned in our cave, with our backs to the light, and can only watch the shadows on the wall".

 

- Sir James Jeans

[Moontanman]

Religion doesn't exist to control you, religion exists to make you free and in that sense it will never die.

 

Interesting that it is easy to show how religion controls people in nearly every aspect of a believers life from the food they can eat the sex they can have, who they can have it with and yet there is no evidence to support any life after death or even that religion is anything but made up myths...

[afungusamongus]

Interesting that it is easy to show how religion controls people in nearly every aspect of a believers life from the food they can eat the sex they can have, who they can have it with and yet there is no evidence to support any life after death or even that religion is anything but made up myths...

 

What a little now it all you are. I would like to see you provide a single piece of evidence for such a claim. Hehehe we are all a bunch of mindless zombies following a herd mentality. At least Christians don't rely on snide remarks to win people over.

 

Secular Humanism is the acknowledgment of the intrinsic worth of human life with the denial of the very sort of deity that makes such a claim possible. Methodological Naturalism tells us nothing of what should be. It only tells us what is. This coupled with a total denial of any consequence of anything we do on earth makes it possible for people to find in it the permission to do whatever they want.

 

The National Socialist only has himself to convince that the life of Gypsies and Jews are worthless. The communist only has himself to convince that the those who criticize the government life is also worthless. The Secular Humanist also has only himself to convince that the unborn fetus life is also worthless. Under a naturalistic world view none of them is any more correct or wrong than the other. It is the very definition of moral relativism.

 

When it comes to atheism and morality it truly is the blind leading the blind.

Edited August 21, 2012 by afungusamongus

[Moontanman]

What a little now it all you are. I would like to see you provide a single piece of evidence for such a claim. Hehehe we are all a bunch of mindless zombies following a herd mentality. At least Christians don't rely on snide remarks to win people over.

 

No they rely on fear mongering

 

Secular Humanism is the acknowledgment of the intrinsic worth of human life with the denial of the very sort of deity that makes such a claim possible. Methodological Naturalism tells us nothing of what should be. It only tells us what is. This coupled with a total denial of any consequence of anything we do on earth makes it possible for people to find in it the permission to do whatever they want.

 

Why is a deity necessary?

 

The National Socialist only has himself to convince that the life of Gypsies and Jews are worthless. The communist only has himself to convince that the those who criticize the government life is also worthless. The Secular Humanist also has only himself to convince that the unborn fetus life is also worthless. Under a naturalistic world view none of them is any more correct or wrong than the other. It is the very definition of moral relativism.

 

This is not true, I am an atheist and I don't think abortion is a good thing, that one example blows your argument out of the water.

 

When it comes to atheism and morality it truly is the blind leading the blind.

 

When it comes to religion it is a monster leading the blind...

[afungusamongus]

You may want to to read up on what Moral relativism means because pointing out that their are other atheist with another type of morality does not make it more absolute.

[ralfy]

Likely not if the future will bring about de-industrialization due to a debt-ridden global economy, the threat of a resource crunch, and long-term effects of environmental damage, including global warming.

[ydoaPs]

Religion doesn't exist to control you, religion exists to make you free and in that sense it will never die.

 

I'm not sure how shackles make one free.

[MattyG]

Pagan here, wanting to jump in with my two cents

As we head into the future, will religion ever lose it's grip amongst the people?

 

I honestly believe that religious fundamentalism might lose its grip in the future, but it's important to distinguish between "religion" and "fundamentalism." IMHO, you don't have to believe myths as literal fact in order to be religious. I personally follow a nature-worshiping religion, so I believe an understanding of science in the natural world to be an important part of that. Historically, some of the first people to look to the stars for answers were considered priests, while now they're considered astronomers. It's not about religion dying, but evolving.

 

What are your thoughts about this?

 

I would personally define religion as the attempt to find patterns that define the world we live in, where myths serve as a way for us to connect with the patterns as human beings. For example, the story of Persephone explains a variety of things from the natural order of the seasons to how, as people, we cope with loss and death. Additionally, religion provides us models which we aspire to emulate. Spartans tried to emulate the war-god Ares, while Athenians tried to emulate Athena. Is that really much different than Nazi Germans committing themselves to the war-machine, or the American Revolutionaries fighting for Democracy and Republics. And, ideally, Christians would be trying to live up to the model of Christ's forgiveness, love, and self-sacrifice, even if many don't. IMHO, as long as people try to find order in the universe, and try to conform themselves to ideals, there will be religion. The only real difference is whether you choose to anthropomorphize those patterns and ideals.

 

And is the Bible guidance for humanity?

 

If the Bible helps explain your place in the universe, then feel free to follow it. Just don't expect it to apply to everyone else as well. The Norse had to follow warrior-gods because they lived in a particular time and place that made raiding necessary to sustain their population. Smiths would worship Vulvan because they needed to strive for perfection in smithing to make a living. Hunter-gather civilizations will tend to deify the animals and natural surroundings that they encounter and rely on. I think there is no Truth that will apply to every person in every place and every situation. Just a bunch of personal truths.

 

Would the world be a better place if we were all evangelized?

 

No, see above

 

Does anything else teach better ethics than religion?

 

This, I can't say. I wasn't around in early human development to tell to what degree our idea of ethics and altruism is influenced by biological evolution, and what is influenced by the developments of religion and civilization. And the question still remains, what makes good ethics? In our modern world, we would frown on warrior societies and raiders. However, as I pointed out in my description of the Norse, their society would not survive if they didn't take up raiding. They lived far in the frozen North where agriculture was very difficult. From a pure Darwinian perspective, it was better for them to commit violence against their fellow man, rather then let their wives and children starve. However, if you look at the earliest Christians, they followed Christ and Paul's teachings and avoided open rebellion against Rome, and they survived and thrived, while Jewish Zealots openly rebelled and were banished from their home and scattered across the globe. Christian ethics provided them the attitude to survive, even if submitting to an oppressive government is not ideal in every case. So yeah, I can't really quantify what makes "better ethics," or what teaches them, but I do think that, to a certain extent, it varies from situation to situation.

 

Hope that helps

Edited September 12, 2012 by MattyG

[too-open-minded]

I'm guessing that eventually religion as it is today, will be a thing of the past.

 

With the majority of people being atheist and the minority being agnostic.

 

What I don't like about the bible is that it implies you shouldn't be bad so you aren't punished and can be awarded if your good. That is stupid.

 

 

You should be good because it makes you feel good and should not do bad because it makes you feel bad. Humanity does not need a religion to teach a person morals. If someone is going to help or hurt others they will do so regardless of their religion, Hitler was a catholic.

 

In fact, I think religion makes people more hostile towards each-other. Jesus is the most quoted prophet in the Koran, these religions have more in common than they do differently and yet religious differences still has a lot to do with why we fight each-other.

[ValenceElectron]

As we head into the future, will religion ever lose it's grip amongst the people?

 

 

Organized religion will lose its grip on the people as the people's economic power grows and western culture spreads. Poverty makes people cling to religion more in order to find purpose in life. Increased wealth and westernization will promote a consumer culture that runs counter to the ethical position of most religions. However, the majority of people will continue to believe in some concept of god. Human's sense of asthetics would lead even the most educated to see conscious power at work in the universe.

 

 

What are your thoughts about this?

 

 

I welcome the decline of religion openly.

 

 

And is the Bible guidance for humanity?

 

The Bible does not teach inner peace or individualism, so it is poor guidance for anyone. Religions like Bhuddism and reformed Hinduism, although their belief in gods is illogical, provide much more guidance for a fullfilling life.

 

 

 

Would the world be a better place if we were all evangelized?

 

 

Theoretically, if all people were christians of the same denomination, there would be no source of reigious conflict. However, since i doubt this is a theoretical question, i will say that i do not support the spread of christianity or any religion.

 

 

Does anything else teach better ethics than religion?

 

 

There are many philosophies that teach ethics. In fact, being raised in a good family bestows most of the ethics needed in a functional society.

 

 

 

[doG]

As long as there are people that will die for religion then religion will not die. There will always be those that can't think for themselves, those that simply believe what they are told. For them, religion will never die.

[Manfromzurich]

No, because the brain is built so that each person has a religion. Even atheist have a religion. Perhaps not God as symbolic figure, but a soccer club, a shopping mall, an idol, a computer game etc.

 

 

Relgions does man that you admire for something that gives a sense in your life!

Edited November 6, 2012 by Manfromzurich

[iNow]

No, because the brain is built so that each person has a religion. Even atheist have a religion. Perhaps not God as symbolic figure, but a soccer club, a shopping mall, an idol, a computer game etc.

This can only be true if you start using a definition of religion that is so broad that it becomes meaningless and useless... a definition completely different than the way it's used by nearly everyone else in everyday parlance. If you have to stretch the meaning of words so profoundly in order for your point to hold then your point is probably flawed in some serious ways.

 

"If I say that the word "fruit" should imply all organic matter, then we can say fruit is not healthy because people are eating tables and chairs made of wood." It's silly in the extreme.

[ydoaPs]

No, because the brain is built so that each person has a religion. Even atheist have a religion.

 

No.

[Manfromzurich]

There is no exklusive definition for the word ''religion''!

 

 

In countries like France, Norway, Switzerland, Netherlands we have more than 20% of the population who are atheistic. Now there is a atheistic person who plays ice-hockey as sport and is very interest in ice-hockey. I has also a lot of Play station games of ice-hockey. this person has a religion which is called ''ice-hockey'', because this kind of sport give sense for his existing.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Manfromzurich