NationStates Jolt Archive

Atheism die out? I don't think so, now that is no longer acceptable to persecute imprison, torture and execute atheists they are more and more coming out into the open. Europe is fast becoming an atheist majority (China long ago) another 20 years and it will be done. Theists are declining in numbers at a rate of 1% per year in the USA, it can't be stopped, education will be the end of ignorance and theism. Any claim you make to the contrary just goes against reality and is in error.

This came from another thread, and its a motion I would want to challenge.

China may be an Athiest majority, but the church in China is the single fastest growing in the world. The authorities have had to regularaly step in to deal with this. The same is true in North Korea, with many Christians being placed in prisons etc for their 'crime' of worship.

While there have been many studies in Europe about secularisation, these do seem to be principally flawed on the grounds that most of them focus upon church attendence and only focus upon sundays for this. More and more churches are setting up more and more home groups, and things like the Alpha course and Christianity explored are definitely thriving in the UK. Secularisation studies do not consider these, and they also do not consider the fact that with more and more alternative and flexable working pracitses, churches often put on services on days other than sunday.

In South America and Africa the church is growing rapidly, as it has done for a very long time. The Cali revival is an excellent example of this.

I really dont think religion is dying, certianly not in the case of the church. Many people have proclaimed the comming about of the death of religion many times, but it hasn't happened for at least the last five thousand years, and there isnt anything especially specific about now that would demonstrate to me why this is going to change.

Religion is definately not dying. The poster is just ignorent.

Oh and btw, most of china only claim to be an atheist due to persecution.

Europe an atheist majority? What Europe are they talking about?

Unfortunately there will always be enough %&$§!! people in the world to keep religions going, tragically most likely the dumber ones.

Europe an atheist majority? What Europe are they talking about?Old Europe...

Unfortunately there will always be enough %&$§!! people in the world to keep religions going, tragically most likely the dumber ones.

Ouch, you better watch your words there. Thats a firestarter for sure.

(wtf why am I talking so strangely)

Religion isn't dead yet. It's a tough bastard, but ever since so many people started trying to kill it, it hired Mr. T as a bodyguard.

Europe an atheist majority? What Europe are they talking about?

Old Europe...

Old Europe surfaced after the U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld used it to refer to European countries that did not support the 2003 invasion of Iraq, most notably France and Germany.
I think that says it all.

Unfortunately there will always be enough %&$§!! people in the world to keep religions going, tragically most likely the dumber ones.

Ease back on the flamebait, we know you think your opinions matters more than everyone else's, but we don't share your thoughts.

As long as people can think religion will not die.

The death of religion is synomynous with the death of thought. We do need to look carefully at our definition of religion though, Religion being an idea not a tradition. Tradition is as much a danger to religion as ignorance. I would have to say that atheism is destroying itself faster than religion. You see athiesm has become so organized, so traditionalized that it itself is being coming a heathenistic religion, almost a hypocracy. I have even heard nexists attacking athiesm as if it were a religion.

Anthropologists describe "religion" as a clutural universal. While individuals, and even a majority of individuals may be atheist, it is generally believed that some form of supernatural belief will be present because humans are phusically built to "sense" something else out there. That it is an illusion doesn't matter, especially to younger human beings, who make up stories to explain those strange sensations all the time. I'm a devout atheist and I had an imaginary friend as a kid:D

SO no. It won't die out. EDIT** IT won't die out. I will, eventually.**

The only religion going down in the world is the Roman Catholic Church. Why? Because in Africa and Asia, it is dying down, considering it was the "white man" religion enforced by the imperialistic nations in the last few centuries.

Also, the RCC has very conservative views, specially on abortion, divorce, condoms and pills. Which means it doesnt fit inside the modern world anymore.

Islam is taking its place. Which means, right now, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Its growing so much that, I´m not sure, it is or will be the biggest religion in the world quite soon.

Buddhism is growing all over the world, specially in the Americas and Europe. I have a buddhist temple not 200 km from here, and I´m brazilian, the biggest Roman Catholic country in the world (USA being the biggest protestant, if I´m not wrong).

Which means the Roman Catholic Church is dying out, and everyone else is growing. There is also a lot of atheists coming out, and in some countries, they are the majority.

Religion isn't dead yet. It's a tough bastard, but ever since so many people started trying to kill it, it hired Mr. T as a bodyguard.

I second that.

Anthropologists describe "religion" as a clutural universal. While individuals, and even a majority of individuals may be atheist, it is generally believed that some form of supernatural belief will be present because humans are phusically built to "sense" something else out there. That it is an illusion doesn't matter, especially to younger human beings, who make up stories to explain those strange sensations all the time. I'm a devout atheist and I had an imaginary friend as a kid:D

SO no. It won't die out. EDIT** IT won't die out. I will, eventually.**

Interesting theory. But how can you explane this "built in sense", I don't see how it can evolve, how any mutation can cause such a thought.

The only religion going down in the world is the Roman Catholic Church. Why? Because in Africa and Asia, it is dying down, considering it was the "white man" religion enforced by the imperialistic nations in the last few centuries.

Also, the RCC has very conservative views, specially on abortion, divorce, condoms and pills. Which means it doesnt fit inside the modern world anymore.

Islam is taking its place. Which means, right now, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Its growing so much that, I´m not sure, it is or will be the biggest religion in the world quite soon.

Buddhism is growing all over the world, specially in the Americas and Europe. I have a buddhist temple not 200 km from here, and I´m brazilian, the biggest Roman Catholic country in the world (USA being the biggest protestant, if I´m not wrong).

Which means the Roman Catholic Church is dying out, and everyone else is growing. There is also a lot of atheists coming out, and in some countries, they are the majority.

The Church has a long time before it dies out, as basically all South American countries and many European nations are by a vast majority Catholic. Islam isn't spreading anywhere beyond its current home turf (the Middle East, North Africa, parts of Asia) because of the negative light they are portrayed in by many other regions of the globe.

The Church has a long time before it dies out, as basically all South American countries and many European nations are by a vast majority Catholic. Islam isn't spreading anywhere beyond its current home turf (the Middle East, North Africa, parts of Asia) because of the negative light they are portrayed in by many other regions of the globe.

Christianism (religions who believe in god/jesus/christ) is not dying out, but the Roman Catholic Church (pope) is. Its slowly losing folowers to other less severe religions, even other christian ones.

Here in Brazil, evangelism is growing in a very fast rate. So much that we believe they would apoint a brazilian or south american pope because of that. I cant talk about other South American countries, but considering all the left governments taking over, I wonder if, in these countries, local religions are not growing, and catholicism fading.

Islam is growing. Specially towards central Africa. And if you think Islam is seen in a bad light everywhere, you´re wrong. Its mainly here in the west. Eastern TV is diferent. Of course, in India and China, islam has no way. China already has roots on confucionism/taoism/buddhism, and India already has hinduism and buddhism. Japan has xantoism, zen-budhism and some catholics, and I doubt Islam can grow there.

Of course catholicism wont die out. But it will lose a lot of power in the next century.

Talking in general, religion will never die. We need it. Atheists are too few and far between, and people sometimes need to believe in something higher. Not to mention that to become an atheist you need a good education and you also need to have a lot of knowledge.

Interesting theory. But how can you explane this "built in sense", I don't see how it can evolve, how any mutation can cause such a thought.

Measuring spirituality and the human brain
By Jim Pinto
A group of neuroscientists at the University of California at San Diego has identified a region of the human brain that appears to be linked to thoughts of spiritual matters and prayer—loosely called "The God spot." Their findings tentatively suggest that humans are genetically programmed to believe in God. This does not in any way negate the validity of religious experience or God; they merely provide an explanation in terms of the brain regions that may be involved.

With the aid of new technology that allows them to watch the brain in action, scientists are becoming interested in "neurotheology," the study of the neurobiology of religion and spirituality. Spiritual experiences reflect peculiarly recurrent events in human brains, and recent imaging techniques allow visual analysis of religious visions and states of consciousness.

Brain-imaging data collected from Tibetan Buddhists lost in meditation and from Franciscan nuns deep in prayer identifies what seems to be the brain's spirituality circuit. And this type of research explains how religious rituals have the power to move many people, how religious practices act on the brain's frontal lobes to inspire optimism and even creativity.

All this new research is uncovering the neurological basis of spiritual and mystical experiences, discovering what happens in our brains when we sense that we encounter a reality different from, or "higher," than the reality of everyday experience.

In neurotheology, psychologists and neurologists try to pinpoint regions of the brain that turn on and turn off during experiences that seem to exist outside time and space. Earlier research found simply that brain waves change when you meditate, but it did not explain why brain waves change, or which specific regions in the brain lie behind the change. The recent studies identify the brain circuits that surge with activity when we think we have encountered the divine, and when we feel transported by intense prayer, uplifting rituals, or sacred music.

It is clear that spiritual experiences are consistent across cultures, across time, and across faiths, and this suggests a common core that is likely a reflection of structures and processes in the human brain.


there is much much more to support this theory. It's pretty much haccepted in Anthropological circles nowdays. THink about when you cencentrate. Or when you droaws and let your mind wander. Or take LSD. Or dance really hard to the chemical brothers. ALL of those feelings are very similar if not exactly similar to what religous folkds are describing. And your brain functions mimic what they are feeling.

Try a google search with
brain spirituality "god node"
as a start.

I think that says it all.

Wikipedia is wrong, Old Europe would be the Europe that existed before world war 2 or maybe world war 1. Either way Europe has changed so much since the end of world war 2 it is without a doubt new europe and the one piror to ww2 old europe. Don't forget the EU and other border changes.

I think there are different definitions of "old Europe" these days. Ask Cheney.

Not to mention that to become an atheist you need a good education and you also need to have a lot of knowledge.
Hardly, I've come across a lot of atheists who were also complete idiots.

I think there are different definitions of "old Europe" these days. Ask Cheney.



Old Europe is a valid term, just like Old Japan and Old America. Just a way of noting huge changes in a countires or regions social and political changes over a period of time. Like Japan..Can you say the current Japan is the same as the one during and piror to WW2? Nope.

I was making a joke dammit:(

I was making a joke dammit:(


Internet dude, I CAN'T SEE OR HEAR YOU! :D < That may have helped.

You would laugh if you knew how many times I made a joke and everyone in the room flamed me for being mean:D

I always forget the damned smilies!;)

I think religion will stay for a little while longer, while its followers become steadily more moderate. However it won't be long until most of the world is unaffiliated (meaning the next century or two...)

Every generation believes in two things:

1.) That the course of the world as they know it will not change, but continue forever.

2.) That they, as a generation will witness the end of the world.

Right now religion is shrinking, but I doubt right now will be the same as now is in 2207....

As long as people can think religion will not die.

The death of religion is synomynous with the death of thought. We do need to look carefully at our definition of religion though, Religion being an idea not a tradition. Tradition is as much a danger to religion as ignorance. I would have to say that atheism is destroying itself faster than religion. You see athiesm has become so organized, so traditionalized that it itself is being coming a heathenistic religion, almost a hypocracy. I have even heard nexists attacking athiesm as if it were a religion.
Huh?

Really, the whole post needs explaining. Why does the death of religion equal the death of thought? I think it's pretty apparent that there are plenty of atheists out there who aren't braindead, if you're taking a literal approach.

By what reckoning do you think atheism is dying? Considering that it's much more socially accepted in recent times, nontheism in general is on the rise, especially atheism's cousin agnosticism, fields of science once untouched due to barriers placed by religious authority are being explored, etc., I'd conclude the opposite.

What's a "nexist", and why does it matter how they treat atheism?

This came from another thread, and its a motion I would want to challenge.

China may be an Athiest majority, but the church in China is the single fastest growing in the world. The authorities have had to regularaly step in to deal with this. The same is true in North Korea, with many Christians being placed in prisons etc for their 'crime' of worship.

While there have been many studies in Europe about secularisation, these do seem to be principally flawed on the grounds that most of them focus upon church attendence and only focus upon sundays for this. More and more churches are setting up more and more home groups, and things like the Alpha course and Christianity explored are definitely thriving in the UK. Secularisation studies do not consider these, and they also do not consider the fact that with more and more alternative and flexable working pracitses, churches often put on services on days other than sunday.

In South America and Africa the church is growing rapidly, as it has done for a very long time. The Cali revival is an excellent example of this.

I really dont think religion is dying, certianly not in the case of the church. Many people have proclaimed the comming about of the death of religion many times, but it hasn't happened for at least the last five thousand years, and there isnt anything especially specific about now that would demonstrate to me why this is going to change.

Well, as long as the fundies are, that's OK with me.

Religion is definately not dying. The poster is just ignorent.

Oh and btw, most of china only claim to be an atheist due to persecution.

correct. traditional chinese religion is often listed as having followers in the millions. religion is not even remotely dying out, and if people think that the decline in popularity of one minor sect/group of sects of christianity indicates such, it only shows how rediculously biased they are. it's extremely annoying that even agnostics and atheists who claim christianity is so evil still function with strong christian biases, assuming their experience with christianity charictorises all religion. religion is not dead, and it is not dying, nor is it even in decline.

Huh?

Really, the whole post needs explaining. Why does the death of religion equal the death of thought? I think it's pretty apparent that there are plenty of atheists out there who aren't braindead, if you're taking a literal approach.

By what reckoning do you think atheism is dying? Considering that it's much more socially accepted in recent times, nontheism in general is on the rise, especially atheism's cousin agnosticism, fields of science once untouched due to barriers placed by religious authority are being explored, etc., I'd conclude the opposite.

What's a "nexist", and why does it matter how they treat atheism?

non-theism and atheism are not equivolent. there are plenty of non-theistic religious people. religion is a natural product of human consciousness - I garentee you that a bunch of atheists with a strong foundation in science would raise children who, in a vacuum, would develope a religion.

there is much much more to support this theory. It's pretty much haccepted in Anthropological circles nowdays. THink about when you cencentrate. Or when you droaws and let your mind wander. Or take LSD. Or dance really hard to the chemical brothers. ALL of those feelings are very similar if not exactly similar to what religous folkds are describing. And your brain functions mimic what they are feeling.

What is particularly interesting is that people who have had religious or spiritual experiences induced by hallucinogenic drugs overwhelmingly consider them real and have a profound effect on their sense of well being and happiness. It has major implications for treating depression and other disorders.

I personally have a feeling that these experiences may actually be opening their minds to something that exists outside of what we perceive everyday, in to the domain of the soul itself. You are leaving the body behind and going somewhere spiritually...and I think that it is real.

intelligent people all around the world are abandoning religion, especially relevant religion, in droves.

The barbarian savagery of middle eastern religions and their asinine and fantastic ideas about reality are being superceded by our growing knowledge of facts.

i work for a traveling youth group and we just moved to peoria il. from little urbana ohio. a town west of columbus of maybe 16000 people.. when we stopped doing our youth group there every wednesday night for for years we started off with 12 kids ages from 6th grade to 12th grade we ended up averaging over 350 kids each night. our church has gorwn exponentionally as well!

My opinion is somewhat hard to explain. I am an atheist, and I look down on religion in general. I see it as a form of mass mind control. I know that religion will never die out. In fact, I hope it never does (<-- the confusing part). People need something to believe in. If there's nothing for anyone to believe in, you get a lot of people that are...well...like me, I guess. I'm cynical, pessimistic, and I have a firm belief that the human species should be annihilated because we're nothing more than a plague upon this planet. According to my beliefs, we weren't created to serve some higher purpose and do good to help our brothers and sisters in Christ, we're simply a cosmic mistake, a disease that destroys all life that we come into contact with. Now, do you really want a world where that's the general idea? I've often thought about it, and the images that come to mind when I think of it makes the one little remaining hard spot in my heart very glad that religion is still around. It keeps these flocks of sheep, for the most part, docile. They have a higher goal to work towards, so it's just something to keep them busy while the rest of us just look on them with annoyance and then continue on with our own agendas. I'm not specifically addressing Christianity either. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists (even though the Buddha never wanted to be worshiped or for Buddhism to become a religion, but his followers apparently failed to realize this), any religion. The problem with religion arises whenever the rams in the flock decide that they want to force their religion onto others, either atheists or people who are practicing the "wrong religion." I have a rule that should be adopted into all religions' doctrines: Keep thy religion to thyself (yes, I took that from George Carlin).

Unfortunately there will always be enough %&$§!! people in the world to keep religions going, tragically most likely the dumber ones.

Ease back on the flamebait, we know you think your opinions matters more than everyone else's, but we don't share your thoughts.Unless he's actually attacking an individual poster, that's not a flame as far as I know.

And is religion dying? I could only hope.

Ease back on the flamebait, we know you think your opinions matters more than everyone else's, but we don't share your thoughts.It is not flamebait to point out that less sophisticated faiths draw more followers than ideas that require some kind of intelligence and open-mindedness.

My opinion is somewhat hard to explain. I am an atheist, and I look down on religion in general. I see it as a form of mass mind control. I know that religion will never die out. In fact, I hope it never does (<-- the confusing part). People need something to believe in. If there's nothing for anyone to believe in, you get a lot of people that are...well...like me, I guess. I'm cynical, pessimistic, and I have a firm belief that the human species should be annihilated because we're nothing more than a plague upon this planet. According to my beliefs, we weren't created to serve some higher purpose and do good to help our brothers and sisters in Christ, we're simply a cosmic mistake, a disease that destroys all life that we come into contact with. Now, do you really want a world where that's the general idea? I've often thought about it, and the images that come to mind when I think of it makes the one little remaining hard spot in my heart very glad that religion is still around. It keeps these flocks of sheep, for the most part, docile. They have a higher goal to work towards, so it's just something to keep them busy while the rest of us just look on them with annoyance and then continue on with our own agendas. I'm not specifically addressing Christianity either. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists (even though the Buddha never wanted to be worshiped or for Buddhism to become a religion, but his followers apparently failed to realize this), any religion. The problem with religion arises whenever the rams in the flock decide that they want to force their religion onto others, either atheists or people who are practicing the "wrong religion." I have a rule that should be adopted into all religions' doctrines: Keep thy religion to thyself (yes, I took that from George Carlin).


I completely agree. Let the average Joe out there keep believing in god. Its usefull, and in fact, its good for him. It makes things simple. Let the sheep keep believing in their imaginary sheperd while the true sheperds rule the world.

I find it quite funny that the church/god is considered the sheperd of believers. Like it was suposed to be a good thing. They live off their sheep, and only keep them around because they are usefull. Meanwhile, the sheep (believers) live eating, craping and being afraid of the wolf outside the gates.

You know, probabily all of us atheists would be hapier if we were ignorant and believe in god, but I take truth over "god" any day. Beter to be a black wolf instead of a sheep.

It is not flamebait to point out that less sophisticated faiths draw more followers than ideas that require some kind of intelligence and open-mindedness.

I can agree with that. Creating a personal spirituality requires a lot more thought and open-mindedness than simply accepting a particular belief system on face value.

However, it does provide a lot stronger basis for your faith and the ability to shape your connection to the divine rather than having other human beings shaping it for you. I think personal spirituality will provide a much stronger and much more rational source of belief than the religions that currently exist. In my opinion, they are more satisfying spiritually and emotionally than the religious systems that exist today.

I see no sign that religion is dying especially among the people I'm around.

I completely agree. Let the average Joe out there keep believing in god. Its usefull, and in fact, its good for him. It makes things simple. Let the sheep keep believing in their imaginary sheperd while the true sheperds rule the world.

I believe in God, and my beliefs are far from simple.

Unfortunately there will always be enough %&$§!! people in the world to keep religions going, tragically most likely the dumber ones.
I have never come across any evidence, either statistical or anecdotal, that demonstrates the average atheist to be any more intelligent than the average Christian/Muslim/Hindu, etc.

I have never come across any evidence, either statistical or anecdotal, that demonstrates the average atheist to be any more intelligent than the average Christian/Muslim/Hindu, etc.

And there have been some very intelligent and rational religious people throughout history. Some of the theological works written by Christian apologists, like Richard Swinburne for example, are absolutely profound in their philosophical scope and defense of Christian religious belief.

I cant talk about other South American countries, but considering all the left governments taking over, I wonder if, in these countries, local religions are not growing, and catholicism fading.

I don't think that the current wave of left-wing governments in South America has much to do with religion, but if it does I would imagine that it signifies not so much the end of Catholicism, but rather the rise of the popularity of liberation theology within it.

And is religion dying? I could only hope.
Why is that particularly something to hope for? So that everyone in the world will be more like you?

I completely agree. Let the average Joe out there keep believing in god. Its usefull, and in fact, its good for him. It makes things simple. Let the sheep keep believing in their imaginary sheperd while the true sheperds rule the world.
Religion is not simple. A lot of us don't just believe because we were told to. I arrived at my faith through much exploration, and apparently so has Vetalia, and a number of other NS posters.

I have never come across any evidence, either statistical or anecdotal, that demonstrates the average atheist to be any more intelligent than the average Christian/Muslim/Hindu, etc.
There have been correlations--and correlations are dangerous things, mind you--between educational level and religiosity. There's a wiki article here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence), but I found the second reference most interesting, the one titled "Religiousness, Spirituality, and IQ: Are They Linked?" The pdf is linked at the end of the wiki article.

Why is that particularly something to hope for? So that everyone in the world will be more like you?

Actualy, I think the end result of a world without religion would be a more diverse world, not a less diverse one. A world of free-thinkers as opposed to a world of followers--what's not to like about that?

Religion, even the moderate ones, gives an air of legitimacy to the extremists.

There have been correlations--and correlations are dangerous things, mind you--between educational level and religiosity. There's a wiki article

Interesting. It suggests to me that there is a huge difference between spirituality and religion, and that spirituality remains constant or even rises along with educational levels while religiosity declines; a person who is more educated might be more comfortable with constructing their own beliefs while a less-educated person would be more comfortable in a structured religious environment.

Even so, measures of intelligence and education are controversial; you run in to repeated problems when you try to construct a correlation between them because there are so many differences between fields and forms of intelligence that can't easily be measured by the indicators we have now.

Actualy, I think the end result of a world without religion would be a more diverse world, not a less diverse one. A world of free-thinkers as opposed to a world of followers--what's not to like about that?

A world without religion is a more stable world in my opinion. Given that a large portion of the worlds troubles has its roots in religion I can't see any downside if we would dump such superstitious nonsense. We could have our wars based on the other factors that we lust after. Land, resources, etc. One less cause for tension would be a relief to me.

I believe in God, and my beliefs are far from simple.If you are a follower of the "abrahamic religions", your beliefs are simple. God commands, you obey. That's pretty one-dimensional.

If you are a follower of the "abrahamic religions", your beliefs are simple. God commands, you obey. That's pretty one-dimensional.

Ahh, come on now that isn't fair.


Say: Verily, the ocean of pre-existence hath branched forth from this most great Ocean. Blessed, therefore, is he who abides upon Its shores, and is of those who are established thereon. Verily, this most sacred temple of Abha - the branch of Holiness - hath branched forth from the Sadratu'l-Muntaha. Blessed is whosoever sought shelter beneath it and is of those who rest therein.

Say: Verily, the branch of command hath sprung forth from this root which God hath firmly planted in the ground of the will, the limb of which has been elevated to a station which encompasses all existence. Therefore, exalted be He for this creation, the lofty, the blessed, the inaccessible, the mighty!

O ye people! Draw nigh unto It, and taste the fruits of its knowledge and wisdom on the part of the mighty, the knowing One. Whosoever will not taste thereof shall be deprived of the bounty, even though he hath partaken of all that is in the earth - were ye of those who know.

(Baha'u'llah, The Tablet of the Branch - from BWF)

Interesting. It suggests to me that there is a huge difference between spirituality and religion, and that spirituality remains constant or even rises along with educational levels while religiosity declines; a person who is more educated might be more comfortable with constructing their own beliefs while a less-educated person would be more comfortable in a structured religious environment.

Even so, measures of intelligence and education are controversial; you run in to repeated problems when you try to construct a correlation between them because there are so many differences between fields and forms of intelligence that can't easily be measured by the indicators we have now.Well, since belief is a lack of understanding/explanations it is obvious that someone who knows more has less reason to believe in anything (or to make up explanations as not to appear stupid).

Interesting. It suggests to me that there is a huge difference between spirituality and religion, and that spirituality remains constant or even rises along with educational levels while religiosity declines; a person who is more educated might be more comfortable with constructing their own beliefs while a less-educated person would be more comfortable in a structured religious environment.

Even so, measures of intelligence and education are controversial; you run in to repeated problems when you try to construct a correlation between them because there are so many differences between fields and forms of intelligence that can't easily be measured by the indicators we have now.

Agreed, which is why I'd never make that argument.

Ahh, come on now that isn't fair.Put that complaint to those who wrote all the "holy books" about the abrahamic religions' assumed god.

Well, since belief is a lack of understanding/explanations it is obvious that someone who knows more has less reason to believe in anything (or to make up explanations as not to appear stupid).

The problem is, I don't believe in God because I don't understand, I believe in God because what I understand suggest to me that he exists. The natural world, from the quantum level to the cosmic level, has a beauty and perfection in it that suggests it to have come from the mind of something far greater than any of us, and that that something has given all living things the ability to share in that creation no matter what they are.

The "God of the Gaps" has been argued against by literate believers in most religious groups since the 19th century or earlier (coinciding with the Enlightenment and the rise of science, which makes perfect sense).

Put that complaint to those who wrote all the "holy books" about the abrahamic religions' assumed god.

I think that what is and what isn't fair must be judged, at least to some extent, against the conditions of the time, place and people. The use of the death penalty at one time was the only option for certain crimes. Today, if we wish, we can keep people in prison for life.

Apparently Islam's the fastest-growing religion. Which I wouldn't have a problem with, except that in many countries where it's practiced, people get harmed/killed based on passages from the Qur'an and based on those whatd'yamacallits that accompany suras (things by so-called religious scholars). So come on Christians, get your skates on and start converting people! Just remember to tell people the Old Testament is no longer valid so people don't read Exodus or Leviticus :)

Apparently Islam's the fastest-growing religion. Which I wouldn't have a problem with, except that in many countries where it's practiced, people get harmed/killed based on passages from the Qur'an and based on those whatd'yamacallits that accompany suras (things by so-called religious scholars). So come on Christians, get your skates on and start converting people! Just remember to tell people the Old Testament is no longer valid so people don't read Exodus or Leviticus :)

Islam is a hollow imitation of what it once was; it has been corrupted by those who seek power and lack spirituality. It is experiencing the same corruption that Christianity has suffered through.

The problem is, I don't believe in God because I don't understand, I believe in God because what I understand suggest to me that he exists. The natural world, from the quantum level to the cosmic level, has a beauty and perfection in it that suggests it to have come from the mind of something far greater than any of us, and that that something has given all living things the ability to share in that creation no matter what they are.What suggests what? You have no explanation ready for beauty and perfection and thus you assume the existence of a god?

Not to mention that to become an atheist you need a good education and you also need to have a lot of knowledge.

*snort* you need to live in a bubble not to believe in the supernatural. belief in spiritual reality is not a cop-out for people who can't otherwise explain material reality. claiming religion is the ignorant man's version of science is a very old and very annoying straw man set up by militant atheism.

Islam is a hollow imitation of what it once was; it has been corrupted by those who seek power and lack spirituality. It is experiencing the same corruption that Christianity has suffered through.... is still suffering...

belief in spiritual reality is not a cop-out for people who can't otherwise explain material reality.Yes it is. Reality requires no spirituality.

... is still suffering...

Yes, no question about it my mind. That is why it is so hard to talk about the purpose of religion with many people today because so many people tend to think only of the negative about religions.

Religion isn't dead yet. It's a tough bastard, but ever since so many people started trying to kill it, it hired Mr. T as a bodyguard.

That's fine. I've watched the A-Team.. just give him some drug-laced milk and he'll be out like a light

What suggests what? You have no explanation ready for beauty and perfection and thus you assume the existence of a god?

You can't explain beauty, that's the problem. It's a subjective experience that simply can't be quantified in objective terms; what I see as beauty others might see as hideous or unremarkable. Because it is so inherently part of my self and undefinable, no one will ever be able to objectively describe my personal sense of the aesthetic.

I see beauty and complexity as signs of something higher than us because only a mind that can conceive of beauty could craft a universe that both reflects it and is capable of producing creatures capable of doing the same.

Yes it is. Reality requires no spirituality.

that doesn't make it a cop-out, or an attempt to explain things without science. to charactorise spirituality and religion as attempts to explain facts in the absense of the scientific method is to project a relatively new mindset onto others. most people DO NOT CARE about the origin of the universe - most religions do not deal with it as central, and most of them that have a story acknowledge it as just that, a story.

Yes, no question about it my mind. That is why it is so hard to talk about the purpose of religion with many people today because so many people tend to think only of the negative about religions.

didn't you get the memo? all religions that have ever existed are ontologically identical to the fundamentalist protestant sects that developed in america over the last 100 years. refute the southern baptists and the entire history of religious thought just topples over...:rolleyes: science also has proven definitively that secular materialism is the only viable and logically coherent worldview. nevermind that most of the greatest contributers to science were theists. matter is matter! except that it's fundamentally constantly shifting energy. no matter how much physics resembles buddhist cosmology all religion has been definitively disproven.:p

Yes it is. Reality requires no spirituality.

We can't say what reality requires...we can't even know for sure what reality is, let alone what it requires.

that doesn't make it a cop-out, or an attempt to explain things without science. to charactorise spirituality and religion as attempts to explain facts in the absense of the scientific method is to project a relatively new mindset onto others. most people DO NOT CARE about the origin of the universe - most religions do not deal with it as central, and most of them that have a story acknowledge it as just that, a story.Most people DO CARE about the origin of the universe, just as well as they do care about the phenomena within it. Explaining these phenomena and speculating about the origin of the universe without any scientific method of research at hand is definitely one (if not the dominating) aspect in the genesis of beliefs and subsequently religions.

Most people DO CARE about the origin of the universe, just as well as they do care about the phenomena within it. Explaining these phenomena and speculating about the origin of the universe without any scientific method of research at hand is definitely one (if not the dominating) aspect in the genesis of beliefs and subsequently religions.

Well, here's a problem: Science can't explain the origin of the universe. Our limit of empirical knowledge is the Big Bang; anything beyond that is a creation belief perhaps one based in a self-defining mathematical system but still a creation belief nonetheless. It's an interesting question, and the basis of much philosophy, but is ultimately unknowable and therefore meaningless to science.

Well, here's a problem: Science can't explain the origin of the universe. Our limit of empirical knowledge is the Big Bang; anything beyond that is a creation belief perhaps one based in a self-defining mathematical system but still a creation belief nonetheless. It's an interesting question, and the basis of much philosophy, but is ultimately unknowable and therefore meaningless to science.Science doesn't say anything beyond the Big Bang, I'm not even sure if it really says anything about the actual Big Bang itself. Nevertheless there is no belief involved and none necessary.

I dont think that the "death of religion" should be measured by the numbers of its followers but by thier conviction. In that respect, religion will never die.

Science doesn't say anything beyond the Big Bang, I'm not even sure if it really says anything about the actual Big Bang itself. There is no belief involved.

There's no belief involved in anything from the cosmic microwave background radiation to the present. That's the limits of our scientific knowledge, and there's no belief involved in anything between those limits. Now, to insist that a particular hypothesis or idea that has not yet achieve theory status is "true" is a belief, but it is not a belief if it is based on evidence and testing.

Of course, this is other than the basic belief that everything requires, but that is an abstraction and is unimportant.

Well, here's a problem: Science can't explain the origin of the universe. Our limit of empirical knowledge is the Big Bang; anything beyond that is a creation belief perhaps one based in a self-defining mathematical system but still a creation belief nonetheless. It's an interesting question, and the basis of much philosophy, but is ultimately unknowable and therefore meaningless to science.

Correction, General Relativity cannot explain events prior to the Big Bang. What science can do is not limited by the predictions and explanation provided by the theories of today.

Correction, General Relativity cannot explain events prior to the Big Bang. What science can do is not limited by the predictions and explanation provided by the theories of today.

Well, here's a problem: How can our scientific instruments, as a physical part of the universe, observe the universe before it existed? And, for that matter, how can we see "before" the Big Bang if time itself is a property of that event?

Barring a major change in our knowledge of the universe, it's not going to happen. That would require a total redefinition of space, time, and matter, and if we redefine those we will completely overturn science as we know it. It would be bigger than any other scientific discovery in history. And even if it does, we just hit a new barrier in the future that will require as much work to overcome. We will never know everything, because every new thing we discover just opens up more questions.

Correction, General Relativity cannot explain events prior to the Big Bang. What science can do is not limited by the predictions and explanation provided by the theories of today.What is "prior to the Big Bang" supposed to mean? Time is a property of the universe that came into existence with the Big Bang. There is no such thing as prior in this respect.

Barring a major change in our knowledge of the universe, it's not going to happen. That would require a total redefinition of space, time, and matter, and if we redefine those we will completely overturn science as we know it. It would be bigger than any other scientific discovery in history. And even if it does, we just hit a new barrier in the future that will require as much work to overcome. We will never know everything, because every new thing we discover just opens up more questions.

I absolutely agree, but even a glance at the history of science demonstrates that major shifts in our knowledge of how the universe works have a habit of being both massive and unexpected.

What is "prior to the Big Bang" supposed to mean? Time is a property of the universe that came into existence with the Big Bang. There is no such thing as prior in this respect.

How do you know that? How do you know that time didn't exist "before" the Big Bang? Answer me that, and you're in line for a Nobel Prize.

I absolutely agree, but even a glance at the history of science demonstrates that major shifts in our knowledge of how the universe works have a habit of being both massive and unexpected.

Well, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt but it is likely impossible.

Indeed, the growing problems with string theory suggest that we're getting farther and farther from a Grand Unified Theory rather than closer, and that's with physics as we know it now.

Well, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt but it is likely impossible.

Indeed, the growing problems with string theory suggest that we're getting farther and farther from a Grand Unified Theory rather than closer, and that's with physics as we know it now.

Well you can go ahead and say things like that, but I for one think that the history of science gives cause for a cautious optimism.

How do you know that? How do you know that time didn't exist "before" the Big Bang? Answer me that, and you're in line for a Nobel Prize.

According to current cosmological theories, time is a property of the physical universe. It can't exist outside of the universe as we perceive it because our conception of time is inherently tied to time as it exists here. If time exists outside of the universe, it will be vastly different than how we experience and measure it now.

According to current cosmological theories, time is a property of the physical universe. It can't exist outside of the universe as we perceive it because our conception of time is inherently tied to time as it exists here. If time exists outside of the universe, it will be vastly different than how we experience and measure it now.

Again, how do you know that? What cosmological theories? How do you know that "before" the Big Bang was not part of this physical universe?

"It is convinient that there be gods and, as it is convinient, Let us believe there are" -Ovid.

Religion will live until there is no need for us to think about it.
Also, it depends what form of religion you refer to. Much of this seems to refer to the christian/catholic/jewish 'god'...

Get off attacking the truth about each others supported systems of thought.

The 'death' of religion, or science for that matter, is what we are discussing. Not who's right and who's wrong.

Now, barring attacks on the 'proof' either side has/doesn't have, try debating on the social/political right and wrongs of religion and science, seeing as arguments here have much more empirical support than talks about things such as the Big Bang and philisophical debates on the probability of Gods' existence.

Well you can go ahead and say things like that, but I for one think that the history of science gives cause for a cautious optimism.

But the history of science has never had a change anywhere near what that would require; it would literally force us to redefine the nature of reality and matter itself to be able to exist both before and after the Big Bang in different states. This would shatter the entire scientific edifice we have built over centuries...and I would love for that to happen.

Needless to say, dualism would be revived rather quickly given that matter is capable of existing in different forms...and it would definitely revitalize the plausibility of paranormal phenomena. And, ironically, God's existence would be no less likely than it was before.

The only religion going down in the world is the Roman Catholic Church. Why? Because in Africa and Asia, it is dying down, considering it was the "white man" religion enforced by the imperialistic nations in the last few centuries.

Also, the RCC has very conservative views, specially on abortion, divorce, condoms and pills. Which means it doesnt fit inside the modern world anymore.

Islam is taking its place. Which means, right now, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Its growing so much that, I´m not sure, it is or will be the biggest religion in the world quite soon.

Buddhism is growing all over the world, specially in the Americas and Europe. I have a buddhist temple not 200 km from here, and I´m brazilian, the biggest Roman Catholic country in the world (USA being the biggest protestant, if I´m not wrong).

Which means the Roman Catholic Church is dying out, and everyone else is growing. There is also a lot of atheists coming out, and in some countries, they are the majority.

With due respect, there is some argument in the demographic/statistical world over which religion, Catholicism or Islam is growing faster.

It's also very interesting that, with the exception of divorce, Islam is even more conservative than Catholicism on the points you mention.

As I see it, not only is religion not dying, the more conservative a religion, the more likely it is to be growing. This is also borne out by the explosive growth of extremely conservative, fundamentalist protestantism throughout the world.

But the history of science has never had a change anywhere near what that would require; it would literally force us to redefine the nature of reality and matter itself to be able to exist both before and after the Big Bang in different states. This would shatter the entire scientific edifice we have built over centuries...and I would love for that to happen.

Needless to say, dualism would be revived rather quickly given that matter is capable of existing in different forms...and it would definitely revitalize the plausibility of paranormal phenomena. And, ironically, God's existence would be no less likely than it was before.

Okay, I get it. You don't think it will happen, I think our odds aren't quite as bad as you do. We're not going to get much further than that.

Again, how do you know that? What cosmological theories? How do you know that "before" the Big Bang was not part of this physical universe?

The fields that comprise physical cosmology and its basis in general relativity both begin time at the start of the Big Bang. That's the theories as we observe and know them now.

Well, by definition it would not be this physical universe, because this universe came in to existence at the Big Bang. It would be a universe, maybe similar to ours, but it wouldn't be our universe.

Perhaps the conservative religions are not being seen as sell-outs to society? After all, a major attack one can launch at several churches is that they changed their doctrine to keep themselves popular. At least we aren't talking about proving anyone wrong now.

Okay, I get it. You don't think it will happen, I think our odds aren't quite as bad as you do. We're not going to get much further than that.

We're speculating about something that is far from even being hypothesized, let alone turned in to a theory. I'm skeptical about it due to the fundamental barrier of the Big Bang, but that doesn't mean I am anywhere near correct. In the future, I may end up being totally wrong.

Get off attacking the truth about each others supported systems of thought.

The 'death' of religion, or science for that matter, is what we are discussing. Not who's right and who's wrong.

Now, barring attacks on the 'proof' either side has/doesn't have, try debating on the social/political right and wrongs of religion and science, seeing as arguments here have much more empirical support than talks about things such as the Big Bang and philisophical debates on the probability of Gods' existence.

Dont tell people what to debate. This is a forum, people are entitled to argue in any way they feel is appropriate, and they will do.

I was just voicing my dispair at EVERY debate on a subject resembling religion vs. science in any way went toward the inevitable debate on what we can/can't prove and what the Bible/Quran/Internet/Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe does/doensn't say. But if you want me to I throw out that they are fighting oranges with apples, and vice versa.

Aw, i was hoping the OP would have said more along the lines of,
"...and its broken, sweaty husk remain aloft SOLELY due the intent grasp i held around its gasping, gurgly throat. Twitch by twitch."

Perhaps the conservative religions are not being seen as sell-outs to society? After all, a major attack one can launch at several churches is that they changed their doctrine to keep themselves popular. At least we aren't talking about proving anyone wrong now.

Lesser,

That is the point I was making! Thanks for reinforcing it.

I don't think traditional religion is dying, it is merely being replaced by the even emptier religion of pop-culture consumerism, which does appeal to the dumber masses. At least traditional religions developed to help man understand the world around him. This new abomination cannot even clam that.

Religious people thrown in jail?!?! That's my sort of country!

If a religion dies, does it get a religious funeral and burial?;)

Da. In Soviet Religion, the Church follows YOU!

Again, how do you know that? What cosmological theories? How do you know that "before" the Big Bang was not part of this physical universe?Because that's our current understanding of the universe, including the Big Bang. Space and Time (Spacetime, i.e. our universe's continuum) "began" with the Big Bang.

Actualy, I think the end result of a world without religion would be a more diverse world, not a less diverse one. A world of free-thinkers as opposed to a world of followers--what's not to like about that?
That argument depends on some ridiculous generalisations.

That argument depends on some ridiculous generalisations.Justified generalizations. After all believers are believers because they follow a belief and make themselves subject to certain teachings and ultimately to an assumed deity. That is a willful self-restriction that makes the(-ir) world less diverse indeed.

Justified generalizations. After all believers are believers because they follow a belief and make themselves subject to certain teachings and ultimately to an assumed deity. That is a willful self-restriction that makes the(-ir) world less diverse indeed.
Some believers do that. Others, think more deeply. Many atheists also chain themselves to ideologies and others chain themselves to nothing more than than their own immediate interests. These are human characteristics that do not depend on religion, or not. Some people simply are deeper thinkers than others.

By science, it would be good to finally see religion gone.

By science, it would be good to finally see religion gone.

It would be, we might get some real work done, but I fear it's a pipe-dream.

It would be, we might get some real work done, but I fear it's a pipe-dream.
Unfortunatly so. Its a damn resiliant monster.

Religion or a variant form of it, will never die. People find life too complicated. Religion simplifies life. It does this by removing questions of 'why' from the equation.

Why shouldn't you steal?
a) because your religion says so
OR
b) some long winded discussion on the concept of property rights and society, which probably takes a life of its own and changes the subject to something about anarchism with someone using the joke 'proper tea is theft' somewhere alone the line.

At least this is my current understanding of many religions.

Religion or a variant form of it, will never die. People find life too complicated. Religion simplifies life. It does this by removing questions of 'why' from the equation.

Why shouldn't you steal?
a) because your religion says so
OR
b) some long winded discussion on the concept of property rights and society, which probably takes a life of its own and changes the subject to something about anarchism with someone using the joke 'proper tea is theft' somewhere alone the line.

At least this is my current understanding of many religions.

That seems to be about it. With maybe a little need for there to be some great purpose or a belief that has all the answers. And a lot of brain-washing. But yeah, thats about it.

Religion or a variant form of it, will never die. People find life too complicated. Religion simplifies life. It does this by removing questions of 'why' from the equation.

And that's a good thing. After all, the simplest explanation that fits all the evidence is the best.

And that's a good thing. After all, the simplest explanation that fits all the evidence is the best.

The simplest explaination is not always correct. The simplest and the most childish are not always the same thing. Especially given many religious arguments do not fit our constantly updated evidence, which is why so many 'true believers' feel the need to deny the existance of the evidence that their idea does not fit.

And that's a good thing. After all, the simplest explanation that fits all the evidence is the best.The problem with religion is that in its explanations it uses unobservable structures. As such much of it cannot be tested and suffers from ivory tower syndrome. In fact religion relies on the use of the 'ivory tower' in that one or many gods being able observe and comment on humanity, yet not be subject to these same constraints as humanity. Unfortunately communications with the divine are not repeatable and cannot be verified by others.

Religion also suffers many of the same problems as socialism, in that there are many competing theories, many of which have viewed a competing theory as the many opponent as opposed what the theory is trying to combat originally.

The simplest explaination is not always correct. The simplest and the most childish are not always the same thing. Especially given many religious arguments do not fit our constantly updated evidence, which is why so many 'true believers' feel the need to deny the existance of the evidence that their idea does not fit.Religious theories, like scientific theories, can be updated. And just because a theory does not hold for one part of reality does not mean it should be completely abandoned. For instance Newtons Three laws of thermodynamics do not hold true at quantum or near lightspeed instances, yet it has not been abandoned as it still holds in the majority of instances.

How if we take the Abrahamic religions as an example we find that their explanation of the origin of life on earth does not seem to hold, but the majority social theory seems to hold. One generally lives a happier life if one does murder others. However the theory that blasphemy adversally affects your soul is untestable as the religion does not state where heaven is, nor what a soul is or where it can be found. As such these sets of religion are incomplete and many of the proponents of such religions avoid such questions as to where the soul can be found or give answers that cannot be tested and are therefore inadequate.

Religion or a variant form of it, will never die. People find life too complicated. Religion simplifies life. It does this by removing questions of 'why' from the equation.

Why shouldn't you steal?
a) because your religion says so
OR
b) some long winded discussion on the concept of property rights and society, which probably takes a life of its own and changes the subject to something about anarchism with someone using the joke 'proper tea is theft' somewhere alone the line.

At least this is my current understanding of many religions.
(a) doesn't exclude (b). My religion says, don't steal, but it doesn't mean that just because someone has huge amounts of property in the eyes of the current law, that they legitimately own it in the eyes of God. There's still a lot to discuss.