• Religion may become extinct in nine nations, study says
    714 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Upgrade123;28778050]Religious variations add diversity to life. I'm not necessarily religious, just really spiritual. But people keep making out religion to be some kind of awful institution of obsolete ideas and antiquated dogmas. But it's more than that, it's a means to find inner peace, and a way to connect to everyone around you.[/QUOTE] That doesn't even make any sense.
My oppinion, - not an 'atheist oppinion', - on the subject is kind of rude, so, [b]if you're sensible believer, skip it (but you still will read, so nevermind).[/b] I'm not happy with this at all. I wonder how it's still out there at all. Humanity is now in space-exploring era. We have space satellites orbiting Mercury and Saturn, let alone Moon, Mars, Venus, Earth itself. We can observe other Galaxies millions of millions of millions of millions miles away, predict lifespan of our Sun, and billions of other suns. We are on our way to desipher DNA code, we find life that is so diffirent to ourself that I just can't have the Earth as origin, we're finding out fundamental laws of our Universe... And still - talking snakes? Magic people living in the sky? Mytholigical places where you go after you die? Soul, that you can't feel or find in any way? Divine creators of all and all? Allah? Jesus? Yahweh? Other deities? Creationism? Torah, Bible, Quaran (that's what I like most - ancient fantasy fairytale story of magic, which just has to be right, yeah, right)? It's just terrible for me. I'm not against orgaized religion, it's stupid to be against pain itself, leaving the source of it alone. I'm against faith without evidence - it's the source of religion. I don't see why religion or faith itself should stay with us now. It's redundant, it doesn't affect our lives anymore. It's not needed. And it should go. Sometime, it will. And there will be no more subject of shitstorms - religion. It should die for the sake of [b]reason[/b].
[QUOTE=rabid duck;28749117]Why be happy that something that shaped how we live today is becoming extinct? I don't mean God making people of shit like that I mean hisotry, for example the Crusades, Aztecs, Indians. Without religion the world would never be how it is now.[/QUOTE] Nazis shaped history as well. [editline]24th March 2011[/editline] Ninjaed by 15 pages.
Yeah, 2012, the religion ends and we find out The Spagetti Monster is our new god.
[QUOTE=bravehat;28765516]Energy That energy (if you accept string hypothesis) came from the clashing of two transuniversal membranes, or perhaps from another universe, or a higher dimension. We're not sure, but we're eagerly hunting the answers. And yeah we see where you were going. How did God get there? :smug:[/QUOTE] But you didn't answer his question, you just added another level. To be honest, I have great trouble agreeing with scientific explanations for the start of the universe and such when science isn't objective. philisophically, science is on the same grounds as religion here.
I think that while religion has done a lot of poor things, it is impossible to study many major works of literature without a religious(mostly christian) background or at least solid knowledge of such.
I find it more ironic that most of these countries are experiencing much more economic growth compared to others..
[QUOTE=Devfrost;28757615]You both are talking about 'manning the fuck up'. Oddly enough, there are some people like myself who need some motivation to do so, unfortunately. In the same way that your teachers change your life with giving you knowledge, God has done the same for me. Plus, I'd like to state that I was never looking for a reason for a greater meaning to life. I went to this retreat purely because the friend who had invited me was my best friend.[/QUOTE] You managed to change your life, all by yourslef (and a little help from a friend if i read your post correctly). Why attribute your sucess to some diety?
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;28782008]But you didn't answer his question, you just added another level. To be honest, I have great trouble agreeing with scientific explanations for the start of the universe and such when science isn't objective. philisophically, science is on the same grounds as religion here.[/QUOTE] except science doesnt fucking claim to know anything that's why they're called hypotheses
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;28782008]But you didn't answer his question, you just added another level. To be honest, I have great trouble agreeing with scientific explanations for the start of the universe and such when science isn't objective. philisophically, science is on the same grounds as religion here.[/QUOTE] except religion is hell of presumptuous and claims that they know that junk while science is like "well man maybe this happened here's some shit i saw in space" which is some evidence but not enough to make anything decisive
Morals and spirituallity are not exclusive to organized religions with outdated superstitions and rituals. Also saying "What came before god?" Or "What came before the big bang?" is a bullshit response because humans will probably never be able to fully comprehend either.
[QUOTE=Canary;28749045]I don't see how this is good just because you guys have a different opinion than most of the world.[/QUOTE] The fact that this guy's got so many dumbs shows how intolerant a lot of you are, I'm actually pretty disgusted.
Keep in mind that existentialism, atheism, and such ideologies are a modern invention. There has been several thousand years for idealistic wars to take place with religion as an excuse. I realize I am bias, being religious, but I am also quite open minded. I don't believe that[I] only [/I]Christians, Jews, Muslims, and people of the various other religions can be [I]morally[/I] good, but where do morals come from? Not necessarily religion, but religion has definitely provided a comprehensive guide and framework to morals. The ideals of nationalism have proved much more violent than those of religion. Within the 20th century alone nationalism has caused much more than 100 million deaths, soldier and civilian, and isn't nationalism the main cause of racism in present times? Holy wars of the past surely caused death, pillaging, and rape, but not to such a horrific scale and were by no means so effective. Economic ventures and imperialism led the enslavement and deaths of millions of Africans and Natives, completely wiping out many South American native groups, such as the Taino, through harsh treatment and the spread of disease. Would the abolishment of nations / national identity and national pride than be good? Or maybe the abolishment of private economic ventures (as was the cause for most slavery in the Americas) Possibly, I'm just simply trying to provide other points of comparison. Whether or not any of what I just wrote is meaningful or intelligent I'm not really in a position to say, and I'm not trying to convert anyone. I am simply confused as why the non-religious population generalizes all religion by the actions of only the most extreme and incorrect religious thinkers (or should I say non-thinkers). This demonstrates an irony in the whole matter. The fact of the matter is that what seem to be the reasons for anti-religious thought among many people here are derived from incidents involving individuals who do not, in fact, seem understand religion. For instance, a Christian who denounces an atheist and proclaims that they are "going to hell" is not following Christian teaching in doing so, whether or not their statement is true (another matter entirely). Take it or leave it, most likely it will be left. That is fine however, as I simply was exploring the subject. I have faith in God, I however have faith in those who do not believe in God as well to be good people. [editline]24th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=gudman;28779551] It's just terrible for me. I'm not against orgaized religion, it's stupid to be against pain itself, leaving the source of it alone. I'm against faith without evidence - it's the source of religion. I don't see why religion or faith itself should stay with us now. It's redundant, it doesn't affect our lives anymore. It's not needed. And it should go. Sometime, it will. And there will be no more subject of shitstorms - religion. It should die for the sake of [b]reason[/b].[/QUOTE] Even though I believe in God, I don't necessarily take everything in the Bible literally, though I realize many people do. I am a relatively liberal Christian, but the way I like to use religion is as a way to focus my love or good nature. Christianity is one way in which, through community, I can practice being a better person. The Bible is only superficially about such things as "talking snakes", after digging into it further meaningful lessons on treating people well, on loving others, and on passive resistance (similar to satyagraha) can be found. I personally don't feel like religion should be given up on, I just feel like it should become more personalized, or maybe evolve with time as we do. Either way, after trying to think about this harder, its easy to realize that there really shouldn't be debates on this, only conversation. Arguments demand specifics and religion is a realm full of ambiguity, the ambiguity that comes with faith, and does not lend it self well to being debated. At the same time, now neither does non-religion as it is often defined by what it is not. tldr; patience is a virtue.
[QUOTE=J!NX;28774726]Considered that for a second, then I was thinking, "Boy, this poster sure is worse than them". You remind me of my former o6er self, a pushy arrogant douche bag 12 year old.[/QUOTE] this is true im working on it :/
[QUOTE=Smeetin;28785867] Even though I believe in God, I don't necessarily take everything in the Bible literally, though I realize many people do. I am a relatively liberal Christian, but the way I like to use religion is as a way to focus my love or good nature. Christianity is one way in which, through community, I can practice being a better person. The Bible is only superficially about such things as "talking snakes", after digging into it further meaningful lessons on treating people well, on loving others, and on passive resistance (similar to satyagraha) can be found. I personally don't feel like religion should be given up on, I just feel like it should become more personalized, or maybe evolve with time as we do. Either way, after trying to think about this harder, its easy to realize that there really shouldn't be debates on this, only conversation. Arguments demand specifics and religion is a realm full of ambiguity, the ambiguity that comes with faith, and does not lend it self well to being debated. At the same time, now neither does non-religion as it is often defined by what it is not. tldr; patience is a virtue.[/QUOTE] If you don't believe in Bible literally, as it' consists of the words of your god, then you are not a Christian, you are a hypicrite. Religion in it's core is a deeply traditionalistic and conservative thing, it can not evolve. When it's 'evolving' we can see a disgusting thing like 'There's a guy in the sky, and it's the Only Truth!', and then humanity opens the air transporting. 'The god is out there, much further, and it's the Only Truth!'. And then humanity goes to space. 'The god is actually inside your Soul! He's everywhere and nowhere at the same time! And it's the Only Truth!'. Etc. Disgusting. Too many 'truths'. Patience is only a virtue when we're talking about science - there it really takes time and work to get something. Religions have it all just now - all of the Truth. Or, should I say, Truths - for anyone, for free, and may no one be forgotten? Diffirent cultures, diffirent times - diffirent lies. Organised religion is a Worlds Biggest №1 Scam of all times. Religious organisations has always been and are now the richest of all, speaking of virtues.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;28782008]But you didn't answer his question, you just added another level. To be honest, I have great trouble agreeing with scientific explanations for the start of the universe and such when science isn't objective. philisophically, science is on the same grounds as religion here.[/QUOTE] you best be joking
[QUOTE=gudman;28786522]If you don't believe in Bible literally, as it' consists of the words of your god, then you are not a Christian, you are a hypicrite. Religion in it's core is a deeply traditionalistic and conservative thing, it can not evolve. When it's 'evolving' we can see a disgusting thing like 'There's a guy in the sky, and it's the Only Truth!', and then humanity opens the air transporting. 'The god is out there, much further, and it's the Only Truth!'. And then humanity goes to space. 'The god is actually inside your Soul! He's everywhere and nowhere at the same time! And it's the Only Truth!'. Etc. Disgusting. Too many 'truths'. Patience is only a virtue when we're talking about science - there it really takes time and work to get something. Religions have it all just now - all of the Truth. Or, should I say, Truths - for anyone, for free, and may no one be forgotten? Diffirent cultures, diffirent times - diffirent lies. Organised religion is a Worlds Biggest №1 Scam of all times. Religious organisations has always been and are now the richest of all, speaking of virtues.[/QUOTE] No where in it does it say that it is a literal book. Much of Jesus' teaching was through parables that would have been irrelevant if taken literally. Also the patience is a virtue thing was not supposed to be part of my opinion, was just there to say that people should read it or not, I wasn't going to summarize. [editline]24th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=sp00ks;28786550]you best be joking[/QUOTE] Post-Modern thought views science as a subjective field. Human observation can change results on a nuclear level and results are inherently subjected to the mind of a human. Objectivity is unobtainable, however I don't believe that science and religion can really be compared. Unfortunately religion is the thesis and science is the antithesis.
[QUOTE=Smeetin;28786646]No where in it does it say that it is a literal book. Much of Jesus' teaching was through parables that would have been irrelevant if taken literally. Also the patience is a virtue thing was not supposed to be part of my opinion, was just there to say that people should read it or not, I wasn't going to summarize.[/QUOTE] But as far as I know the Old Testament (Torah) is a historical part, and it should be taken seriously. Don't you see a Church's hypocricy here? Disregard the first part, it's only truth how we interprete it. I actually absolutely love Bible - it is a mirror, a spotlight. It reveals who you are depending on how you read it and how you understand it. If you see there a good, all loving God-creator, God-teacher, who forgives everyone - it means you are a good person, with strong moral sense (yes, I just said that you are a good person). But it's there also where you can find basis for Inquisition, which represents hate itself. I don't know who someone has to be to see so much hate in this book, disgusting maniac maybe. And on the second part - well, I'm sorry, misunderstood you in that part. Common part with 'tl;dr' deluded me.
[QUOTE=Smeetin;28786646]No where in it does it say that it is a literal book. Much of Jesus' teaching was through parables that would have been irrelevant if taken literally. Also the patience is a virtue thing was not supposed to be part of my opinion, was just there to say that people should read it or not, I wasn't going to summarize. [editline]24th March 2011[/editline] Post-Modern thought views science as a subjective field. Human observation can change results on a nuclear level and results are inherently subjected to the mind of a human. Objectivity is unobtainable, however I don't believe that science and religion can really be compared. Unfortunately religion is the thesis and science is the antithesis.[/QUOTE] Post-modernism can go take a flying fuck for all science cares, those exact reasons are why empirical science exists, to work around human influence. Also, atheism has been around since religion has, it's by no means modern.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28787057]Post-modernism can go take a flying fuck for all science cares, those exact reasons are why empirical science exists, to work around human influence. Also, atheism has been around since religion has, it's by no means modern.[/QUOTE] I agree, post-modernity is screwed up (just wrote a paper on it), but truthfully atheism has not been around since religion. The idea of there really being no power ruling over our lives, but ourselves has only come around in the past few hundred years. Sure there have always been exceptions, certain Roman stoics will definitely have seemed as atheists, but the way atheism itself is not an ancient thing. The term comes from ancient Greek, but it did not represent a lack of belief in ANY gods, simply a different belief than mass society, or a severing of ties with those gods. I think humanity should all worship the sun again. After awhile, we would all be blind, thus racism would end (though people would still find ways to discriminate based on voice), and after we were all blind we would all die. Thus, no problems.
[QUOTE=Smeetin;28787147]I agree, post-modernity is screwed up (just wrote a paper on it), but truthfully atheism has not been around since religion. The idea of there really being no power ruling over our lives, but ourselves has only come around in the past few hundred years. Sure there have always been exceptions, certain Roman stoics will definitely have seemed as atheists, but the way atheism itself is not an ancient thing.[/QUOTE]It goes back to, at the very least, the Greeks. It's fairly damn old.
this is a bit optimistic but religion is really starting to shrink in the face of technological and scientific advancement
[QUOTE=Smeetin;28787147]I agree, post-modernity is screwed up (just wrote a paper on it), but truthfully atheism has not been around since religion. The idea of there really being no power ruling over our lives, but ourselves has only come around in the past few hundred years. Sure there have always been exceptions, certain Roman stoics will definitely have seemed as atheists, but the way atheism itself is not an ancient thing.[/QUOTE] It depends on how you define it. Pure rejection/lack of belief in gods has been around forever, but you're framing it as a sort of secular humanistic philosophy that's not an intrinsic part of atheism, which is a relatively modern development. To be fair, deism was the norm so far as secular worldviews went, and it was only really shifted into pure atheism when such things as The Origin of Species came about which provided a naturalistic framework for the world where a god wasn't needed.
[QUOTE=Smeetin;28787147]I agree, post-modernity is screwed up (just wrote a paper on it), but truthfully atheism has not been around since religion. The idea of there really being no power ruling over our lives, but ourselves has only come around in the past few hundred years. Sure there have always been exceptions, certain Roman stoics will definitely have seemed as atheists, but the way atheism itself is not an ancient thing. The term comes from ancient Greek, but it did not represent a lack of belief in ANY gods, simply a different belief than mass society, or a severing of ties with those gods.[/QUOTE] Atheism is merely a one particular part of skepticism. Scepticism existed as far as we can trace - it's common sense. If there was a statement - there always will be someone to disagree. But atheism as an ideology (for the lack of better word, a world view maybe) stepped to existence the same time as organised religion, a Church. There's always opposition. [QUOTE=Smeetin;28787147] I think humanity should all worship the sun again. After awhile, we would all be blind, thus racism would end (though people would still find ways to discriminate based on voice), and after we were all blind we would all die. Thus, no problems.[/QUOTE] Yeah, the would make sense as we know that the Sun is actually THERE, exists in full it's life-giving glory.
[QUOTE=gudman;28787275] Yeah, the would make sense as we know that the Sun is actually THERE, exists in full it's life-giving glory.[/QUOTE] some people would find a way to block out the reality of the sun's existence
As I've heard from many people on this forum, scientific facts discovered through the work of scientists such as Charles Darwin have been claimed to make no contradictions with religious belief. There's no debate between science and religion, since the two are incompatible (in debate) in the sense that one is based around facts and solid evidence, where the other is based on emotions and faith. For a half-assed analogy, it's like comparing duct tape to paper clips. You obviously wouldn't hold papers together with duct tape, and in the same way you wouldn't use paper clips to fix a frayed wire (unless you have some real ingenuity). Scientific thought can be proven, where religion cannot. What way religion is interpreted, understood, and passed on is all a matter of individuals. The failures of the American Church to spread the the true message of Christianity (IMO) should not be directly pinned on religion itself, when it's simply the conservative Christians who take it upon themselves to twist religious teachings to justify their social injustices.
[QUOTE=gudman;28779551]My oppinion, - not an 'atheist oppinion', - on the subject is kind of rude, so, [b]if you're sensible believer, skip it (but you still will read, so nevermind).[/b] I'm not happy with this at all. I wonder how it's still out there at all. Humanity is now in space-exploring era. We have space satellites orbiting Mercury and Saturn, let alone Moon, Mars, Venus, Earth itself. We can observe other Galaxies millions of millions of millions of millions miles away, predict lifespan of our Sun, and billions of other suns. We are on our way to desipher DNA code, we find life that is so diffirent to ourself that I just can't have the Earth as origin, we're finding out fundamental laws of our Universe... And still - talking snakes? Magic people living in the sky? Mytholigical places where you go after you die? Soul, that you can't feel or find in any way? Divine creators of all and all? Allah? Jesus? Yahweh? Other deities? Creationism? Torah, Bible, Quaran (that's what I like most - ancient fantasy fairytale story of magic, which just has to be right, yeah, right)? It's just terrible for me. I'm not against orgaized religion, it's stupid to be against pain itself, leaving the source of it alone. I'm against faith without evidence - it's the source of religion. I don't see why religion or faith itself should stay with us now. It's redundant, it doesn't affect our lives anymore. It's not needed. And it should go. Sometime, it will. And there will be no more subject of shitstorms - religion. It should die for the sake of [b]reason[/b].[/QUOTE] I didn't read it
how the hell did post-modernism come up
[QUOTE=thisispain;28789481]how the hell did post-modernism come up[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Smeetin;28786646][QUOTE=sp00ks;28786550][QUOTE=Cloak Raider;28782008]But you didn't answer his question, you just added another level. To be honest, I have great trouble agreeing with scientific explanations for the start of the universe and such when science isn't objective. philisophically, science is on the same grounds as religion here. [/QUOTE]you best be joking[/QUOTE]Post-Modern thought views science as a subjective field. Human observation can change results on a nuclear level and results are inherently subjected to the mind of a human. Objectivity is unobtainable, however I don't believe that science and religion can really be compared. Unfortunately religion is the thesis and science is the antithesis.[/QUOTE] Regardless of whether or not you already read it, I just wanted an excuse to make a handy quote pyramid.
[QUOTE=joes33431;28789251]As I've heard from many people on this forum, scientific facts discovered through the work of scientists such as Charles Darwin have been claimed to make no contradictions with religious belief. There's no debate between science and religion, since the two are incompatible (in debate) in the sense that one is based around facts and solid evidence, where the other is based on emotions and faith. For a half-assed analogy, it's like comparing duct tape to paper clips. You obviously wouldn't hold papers together with duct tape, and in the same way you wouldn't use paper clips to fix a frayed wire (unless you have some real ingenuity). Scientific thought can be proven, where religion cannot. What way religion is interpreted, understood, and passed on is all a matter of individuals. The failures of the American Church to spread the the true message of Christianity (IMO) should not be directly pinned on religion itself, when it's simply the conservative Christians who take it upon themselves to twist religious teachings to justify their social injustices.[/QUOTE] What? Science pretty much directly contradicts large portions of the made up(or extremely exaggerated) fairytales in the bible and most other religious texts. Then if you take into account there would be hardly anything left of religion without their various holy books, it's rather easy to say science contradicts religion. I mean seriously, science contradicts it at its very core by suggesting you should observe evidence and logic, while religion suggests you should ignore it. If you are suggesting that "faith" such as religion is even close to the same level of respectability as logic and facts, then I guess I just don't agree. I don't think brainwashing anyone into believing in non existent stuff like god, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and santa is in any way helpful.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.