• Will The Internet Kill Religion?
    34 replies, posted
[video=youtube;04jjBv6QR8k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04jjBv6QR8k[/video]
Free access to information generally kills a limited source of information.
Breasts. [sp]Also there will be religion forever. If the internet "kills" traditional religion we will see some form of singularity internet religion.[/sp]
I've long thought this would happen to some extent. If you're constantly exposed to information contradicting your beliefs you will start to become disillusioned (and you [I]do[/I], almost any online discussion that runs past 9 pages unmoderated turns to discussing either religion or Hitler), and I don't think that's something any amount of childhood indoctrination can combat.
[QUOTE=Wolverunder;44535870]Breasts. [sp]Also there will be religion forever. If the internet "kills" traditional religion we will see some form of singularity internet religion.[/sp][/QUOTE] Fandoms will replace religion. Did you pray to your mlp rule34 provider today?
[QUOTE=Strike 86;44536159]I've long thought this would happen to some extent. If you're constantly exposed to information contradicting your beliefs you will start to become disillusioned (and you [I]do[/I], almost any online discussion that runs past 9 pages unmoderated turns to discussing either religion or Hitler), and I don't think that's something any amount of childhood indoctrination can combat.[/QUOTE] uh no they don't
Nah, there's always going to be people who find a sense of direction and safety in religion.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;44534272]Free access to information generally kills a limited source of information.[/QUOTE] But the access to religious information is also free... Except the quality of information on the internet is doubtful, extremely resumed, or out of context most of the time and when it isn't, most people don't like to be arsed reading thousands of pages while there are other flashing buttons to be pressed (facebook, twitter, video games, work, etc etc...). Reading through information is one thing, assimilating and digesting it requires your undivided attention which you barely have on the internet. I'd rather go to the library and read a couple of well educated authors there rather than read a wikipedia article that I'll probably read diagonally and save the rest for later because I'm being bombarded by thousands of other information. Not saying that information on the internet is necessarily bad, but it isn't necessarily good either, it lacks indepth and substance most of the times, and as far fetched as this "internet is killing religion" may be, it has a point when compared to how the internet trivializes information in general.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;44536335]Nah, there's always going to be people who find a sense of direction and safety in religion.[/QUOTE] People find sense of direction and safety by following something. It doesn't have to be religion. Many modernized countries are dropping religion fast or at least following it very loosely. Religion is losing influence rather fast I'd say. In the future it should only drop more.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;44536335]Nah, there's always going to be people who find a sense of direction and safety in religion.[/QUOTE] I think this is why people chose religion anyway. Religion fills in some questions people may have about things, but then again so does science. You can't blame people for being religious. I think that in life, there are many 'truths', although one truth is more 'truthy' than the other. When the 'truthiness' of subjects is equal, it just boils down to what you feel most comfortable with.
She had the most obnoxious personality.
I love how round her face is. That's it, the video was fucking shit. Does she really think she's providing news to people? No she's just throwing a ton of: oh maybe this has to do with so and so. Like there is nothing to learn from this, it's just bullshit facts which they coat in 5 minutes of Google research which they've written so that they can drag out as much information as possible. Why the fuck do channel's like this exist? She also sounds like she's trying to become exactly like John Green from mental floss, just the way he forms sentences and how he poses questions, that was really irritating.
Wait isn't that Laci Green girl? Last time I saw her in a video she was skinny, what the fuck she has gotten fat.
[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;44538250]Wait isn't that Laci Green girl? Last time I saw her in a video she was skinny, what the fuck she has gotten fat.[/QUOTE] When the fuck was she skinny?, also she's not fat wtf?
I've been browsing the Internet for almost a decade but I am no less religious than I was before I began.
[QUOTE=Fayez;44538762]I've been browsing the Internet for almost a decade but I am no less religious than I was before I began.[/QUOTE] Is that something to be proud of? Assuming you believe in a mainstream religion, then with so much exposure to Atheism and other religions, you should have at least thought about what you believe in. Unless you're an Atheist, in which case carry on.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;44538800]Is that something to be proud of? Assuming you believe in a mainstream religion, then with so much exposure to Atheism and other religions, you should have at least thought about what you believe in. Unless you're an Atheist, in which case carry on.[/QUOTE] I'm a Muslim, and yea, exposure to the Internet has made me question my beliefs sometimes, but they never made me stop believing in them.
[QUOTE=Fayez;44538893]I'm a Muslim, and yea, exposure to the Internet has made me question my beliefs sometimes, but they never made me stop believing in them.[/QUOTE] Soon.
[QUOTE=Shreddinger;44539114]Soon.[/QUOTE] It's normal for religious people to question their beliefs occasionally.
no, im at a catholic college, tons of people still have faith, the internet doesn't kill religion at all, communications have only made the church better [editline]13th April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Fayez;44540061]It's normal for religious people to question their beliefs occasionally.[/QUOTE] id say its abnormal for someone to believe in something unquestionably but that still happens alot
[QUOTE=Fayez;44538893]I'm a Muslim, and yea, exposure to the Internet has made me question my beliefs sometimes, but they never made me stop believing in them.[/QUOTE] Well Muhammed was a pedo, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#Aisha"](Source)[/URL]. Sure it won't question your faith, but atleast spark to question the morality of the religion you follow and his prophet.
[QUOTE=Thugaim;44542099]Well Muhammed was a pedo, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#Aisha"](Source)[/URL]. Sure it won't question your faith, but atleast spark to question the morality of the religion you follow and his prophet.[/QUOTE] [quote]The primary argument is that she was a child hence the marriage was immoral. People who make this argument don't take into account the fact that at age of maturity varies from culture to culture, and the concept of childhood itself is a fairly recent invention. They don't realize that they are using contemporary definitions of childhood. In all societies, the lowest common denominator for adulthood is physical maturity, and we know from Aisha's (RA) own testimony that she had reached it by the time of consummation of the marriage. Realizing this point, some people try to show that she didn't reach physical maturity (despite explicit evidence otherwise) using the most bizarre arguments (at least those that I've come across) One of them is that she couldn't have been mature as the average age of menarche is much higher so it's not possible to have happened at the age of 9. This is like arguing that my 6'8" friend can't be 6'8" because The average height of Indians is 5'7"...while he's standing in front of you. Another one is to bring up some obscure Hadith where she mentions playing with dolls after marriage or another where someone calls her "immature" because she used to fall asleep during her chores. These are even more fallacious than the first one (actually I can't decide). Neither of these Hadiths can conclusively prove that she was not considered mature according to that time. My mom calls my sister immature sometimes, and she's married with kids.[/quote] [quote]First up is the fact that Aisha's age was not considered controversial (at that time) among even the Prophets enemies. Second it was not considered controversial among western scholars up until the last 80 years or so. There are probably two reasons for this, one being that people educated about the classical age would have seen similar marriages in classical history (Mary was estimated to be 13 when she gave birth for example, Juliet in Shakesphere's play was a similar age, etc). The other reason being that such ages where common place among their own societies too. That was true for the upper classes aswell, Lavoisser and Edgar Alan Poe both married 13 year olds for example. A quick look here reveals the ages in law from 1880: [URL]http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/primary-sources/24[/URL][1] The list also reveals that the age of consent in Spain is still 13 (it was raised from 12 around a decade ago). Even in the US a female can still marry at 13 in New Hampshire with parental consent. Now if one is to condemn historical figures from 1400 years ago in the deserts of Arabia, it would seem only fair to condemn these historical societies and these current ones too. Certainly professional historians and anthropologists have no time for such charges. Lastly, pedophilia is a condition, the identification of which was formulated in the 20th Century, and relates to a very specific condition present in a certain environment when certain criteria are met in the modern age. Such diagnoses are done by professionals when certain indicators are identified, and they certainly are not applied carte blanche across across human history or across culture. One definition even characterizes it as an exclusive attraction to the young, which creates another obstacle for the mud throwers. In addition, the institution of marriage in western modern societies has recently evolved. In the past other factors beyond just love or lust where considered as part of the marriage, yet for the mud throwers that is all they seem to see. Given all that, you won't see professional historians, clinicians or anthropologists make such attacks either. One question to pose to critics, is what would you consider to be the acceptable age for all people and all time. If you suggest 18, well that can put a great strain on a small society especially if average life expectancy is less than double that. Furthermore just using someone's age has it's own pitfalls, as it is a crude measure of maturity, and in some socities people may not even be aware of their exact age. The average age for life expectancy for men and women was about 30-35 in those days. So if a women got married at age 18 in those days, which is considered the norm by today's standards she had lived more than half her life already (on average).[/quote] from /r/islam, I think this explains it excellently.
[QUOTE=Thugaim;44542099]Well Muhammed was a pedo, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#Aisha"](Source)[/URL]. Sure it won't question your faith, but atleast spark to question the morality of the religion you follow and his prophet.[/QUOTE] Even assuming that he was a paedo, how does that immediately negate everything else he taught? Literally all that says about Islam is that Mohammed married a young girl.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;44542144]Even assuming that he was a paedo, how does that immediately negate everything else he taught? Literally all that says about Islam is that Mohammed married a young girl.[/QUOTE] Also that Muhammad flew to the moon on some unknown creature and that he split the moon Also the fact that something was accepted long ago is a very stupid excuse, it's a holy book it's truths should always be relevant, but obviously they're not (because they were forced to change over time)
[QUOTE=Shreddinger;44542313]Also that Muhammad flew to the moon on some unknown creature and that he split the moon Also the fact that something was accepted long ago is a very stupid excuse, it's a holy book it's truths should always be relevant, but obviously they're not (because they were forced to change over time)[/QUOTE] Okay, let me rephrase that: "Literally all that the fact that Mohammed married a young girl says about Islam is that Mohammed married a young girl." Plus, just because one aspect of a teaching is rendered irrelevant, doesn't mean the entire thing is. Should people stop paying heed to "Thou shalt not kill" because we've changed our minds about stoning adulterers?
[QUOTE=Thugaim;44542099]Well Muhammed was a pedo, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#Aisha"](Source)[/URL]. Sure it won't question your faith, but atleast spark to question the morality of the religion you follow and his prophet.[/QUOTE] I've seen pictures comparing him to Hitler, and basically stating that Hitler was a better and more moral human. I've seen videos claiming that if Islam was never formed Science would be 500 years ahead, and that there would be no such thing as terrorism, or suicide bombing. And they, of course, we backed up by no reputable historians/theologists.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;44542752]Okay, let me rephrase that: "Literally all that the fact that Mohammed married a young girl says about Islam is that Mohammed married a young girl." Plus, just because one aspect of a teaching is rendered irrelevant, doesn't mean the entire thing is. Should people stop paying heed to "Thou shalt not kill" because we've changed our minds about stoning adulterers?[/QUOTE] What I meant was, is that there's a much better alternative to the holy books. One of the things that should've stayed special about the books is that they didn't change Their truth is absolute (obviously it isn't) but most people think that they're reading the bible that was never changed, when in reality it was changed many times, they were all polytheists in the beginning. Their holy monotheism didn't even exist before 600 BCE, the bible was later changed to look as if it was always monotheistic. One of the major "appeals" of the holy monotheistic books is fading away, and people are realizing it.
[quote]Will The Internet Kill Religion?[/quote] [sp]no[/sp]
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;44542897][sp]no[/sp][/QUOTE] Praise be to Betteridge.
Without the internet I would have never discovered, [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-6kDtJjLmA[/media] rAmen!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.