Could religion ever die?

condra · 10-12-2007 7:05am

I think if we were living in America or the Middle East, the concept of religion dying would be hilarious.

The universe was created by an enormous chocolate doughnut drizzled with monkey cum

What came first? The earth monkey or the cosmic monkey?

Ugh, I'm a genious, it works on so many levels.

Scofflaw · 10-12-2007 9:22am

pH wrote: »

Only a select few understand what Scofflaw is saying! think of him as a highly educated uncle who's come to Christmas dinner and has had a little too much too drink - you're sure what he's saying is terribly clever if only you could fathom it ... wait isn't that Chitty Chitty Bang Bang on TV?

That's harsh....although I admit I am often obscure, and sometimes gnomic. Still, you can't please all of the people all of the time.

TheThing! wrote:

Believing that your existence has importance and being an atheist are not incompatable, if thats what you're saying

Fortunately, it isn't. Aside from anything else, I am myself an atheist, and evidently convinced of my own importance.

I'm saying that if you consider yourself the most (or really the only) important thing in the universe, and are unwilling to face the fact that you're going to die, it won't be long before you make up or accept some kind of comforting lie or evasion. Since most people's intellectual honesty can be measured on a very short stick, religion is inevitable.

After all, the world's death rate continues to hold steady at 100%.

cordially,
and perhaps less obscurely,
Scofflaw

Pompey Magnus · 10-12-2007 10:59am

I think that eventually it will die out, but it will be in the far, far future. I mean we are now in the 21st Century, we have an elegant explanation for how Humans evolved gradually from lesser forms of life and we have discovered that far from being the centre of the Universe the Earth is an inconsequential speck in even just our own Galaxy, yet the vast majority of Humans still believe that God created us especially and the entire Cosmos was created for our own enjoyment.

pH · 10-12-2007 11:20am

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I think that eventually it will die out, but it will be in the far, far future.

Have a look at UK figures here : http://www.vexen.co.uk/UK/religion.html#Sunday%20Attendance

I'm using Sunday worship as an expression of the level of religion at it takes a small effort on the part of the person as opposed to what they'll scribble on a census form if pushed.

At the current rate of change there doesn't seem to be much more than 30/40 years left, and that's in the current climate where the clergy and Anglican church are in positions of power and influence, it will soon reach a breaking point both financially and culturally where it will be ludicrous for these organisations to be involved in state activities like education.

The overall picture is of a Church that has lost most its membership and is losing the rest. Its financial situation is poor and getting worse, with a top-heavy organisation with less and less income for more and more pensioners. This is a bleak picture, and I do not know that anything will reverse it. The Churches financial hope is that all the pensioners die before the Church Commissioners' funds dry up completely. Drastic measures yet to be introduced, but which I expect, is a culling of bishops and staff. I do not forsee much building-selling as there are not many buyers who can do anything with old, semi-derelict Churches or huge Cathedrals! The government, in the future, will need to step in and take ownership or control of decaying Church buildings (for demolition & conversion to useful buildings?) as the Heritage Fund cannot cope (and wouldn't be justified) in paying the costs associated with maintaining these anachronistic structures.
(from the above link)

TheThing! · 10-12-2007 11:26am

SubjectSean wrote: »

I do not believe that Athiests do see the reality of the situation. I think they belittle the phenomenon of sentient consciousness and are so set against the many stupidities of organised religion that they fail to see that the First Cause has to exist. Most of the progress made by humanity would not have happened without our belief in God.

Atheists do accept that a first cause had to exist, they just dont accept the ridiculous notion that this was a divine creator. Believing that creates more questions than it answers. And your second statement, I dont know how you could believe that most of the progress made by humanity would not have happended without our belief in god. I would argue that a lot of it happened in spite of our belief in god.

PDN · 10-12-2007 11:29am

TheThing! wrote: »

I see what you are saying but it could be argued that atheism holds all the card because it is actually correct

And it could equally be argued that Christianity (or Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Scientology, Mormonism etc ad nauseam) holds all the cards because it is actually correct.

robindch · 10-12-2007 11:41am

PDN wrote:

And it could equally be argued that Christianity (or Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Scientology, Mormonism etc ad nauseam) holds all the cards because it is actually correct.

Indeed -- the large number of incompatible religions around means that the chances of somebody believing the right one are tiny.

Much better to reject them all and take your chances, no?

PDN · 10-12-2007 12:04pm

robindch wrote: »

Indeed -- the large number of incompatible religions around means that the chances of somebody believing the right one are tiny.

Only if you hold that all claims are equally valid. Since I believe Christianity to be the correct one then it would appear, from the number of Christian adherents and the world's population, that the chances of someone believing the right one are about one in three and improving every day.

Much better to reject them all and take your chances, no?

You are on a journey to Dublin and you reach a crossroads. Three of the possible routes are dirt tracks with handwritten signs saying "This way to Dublin". The fourth choice is a proper road with a proper signpost indicating that it leads to Dublin. Since there is only a 1 in 4 chance of picking the right road much better to reject them all and sit on your backside at the crossroads for the rest of your life, no?

TheThing! · 10-12-2007 12:06pm

PDN wrote: »

Only if you hold that all claims are equally valid. Since I believe Christianity to be the correct one then it would appear, from the number of Christian adherents and the world's population, that the chances of someone believing the right one are about one in three and improving every day.

You are on a journey to Dublin and you reach a crossroads. Three of the possible routes are dirt tracks with handwritten signs saying "This way to Dublin". The fourth choice is a proper road with a proper signpost indicating that it leads to Dublin. Since there is only a 1 in 4 chance of picking the right road much better to reject them all and sit on your backside at the crossroads for the rest of your life, no?

That is a logical fallacy, a straw man argument

Scofflaw · 10-12-2007 12:10pm

PDN wrote: »

Only if you hold that all claims are equally valid. Since I believe Christianity to be the correct one then it would appear, from the number of Christian adherents and the world's population, that the chances of someone believing the right one are about one in three and improving every day.

You are on a journey to Dublin and you reach a crossroads. Three of the possible routes are dirt tracks with handwritten signs saying "This way to Dublin". The fourth choice is a proper road with a proper signpost indicating that it leads to Dublin. Since there is only a 1 in 4 chance of picking the right road much better to reject them all and sit on your backside at the crossroads for the rest of your life, no?

You appear to be confusing subjective and objective truth. A Muslim, a Buddhist, an atheist, and a Christian reaching that crossroads will disagree about which one of the roads is the "proper road" - and all you are doing is claiming that your subjective opinion is objectively right.

Personally I suspect it depends what you're driving/riding. As a pedestrian, I'm usually going to favour one of the dirt tracks anyway.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN · 10-12-2007 12:14pm

TheThing! wrote: »

That is a logical fallacy, a straw man argument

Do you understand what a straw man argument is?

TheThing! · 10-12-2007 12:16pm

PDN wrote: »

Do you understand what a straw man argument is?

Yes I do you just used one

PDN · 10-12-2007 12:16pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

You appear to be confusing subjective and objective truth. A Muslim, a Buddhist, an atheist, and a Christian reaching that crossroads will disagree about which one of the roads is the "proper road" - and all you are doing is claiming that your subjective opinion is objectively right.

Indeed I am, because my post was in response to The Thing's subjective opinion opinion that atheism is objectively right.

Sauce. Goose. Gander

5uspect · 10-12-2007 12:22pm

PDN wrote: »

You are on a journey to Dublin and you reach a crossroads. Three of the possible routes are dirt tracks with handwritten signs saying "This way to Dublin". The fourth choice is a proper road with a proper signpost indicating that it leads to Dublin.

What in Ireland? Proper signposts? This analogy is getting off to a bad start.;)
I think a roundabout would make a better analogy. All exits go to Dublin, eventually, some have tolls, but the roads are smooth to drive, some are bumpy but fun to drive (for some) and some have bandits lying in wait.

The Atheists took the train.

Scofflaw · 10-12-2007 12:22pm

PDN wrote: »

Indeed I am, because my post was in response to The Thing's subjective opinion opinion that atheism is objectively right.

Sauce. Goose. Gander

Of course - I tend to forget that you're a rhetorician rather than a scientist.

cordially,
Scofflaw

TheThing! · 10-12-2007 12:23pm

PDN wrote: »

Indeed I am, because my post was in response to The Thing's subjective opinion opinion that atheism is objectively right.

Sauce. Goose. Gander

I just looking objectively at the fact that there is no evidence and therefore no reason to believe in god.

Right I am doing some study now

seamus · 10-12-2007 12:36pm

PDN wrote: »

You are on a journey to Dublin and you reach a crossroads. Three of the possible routes are dirt tracks with handwritten signs saying "This way to Dublin". The fourth choice is a proper road with a proper signpost indicating that it leads to Dublin. Since there is only a 1 in 4 chance of picking the right road much better to reject them all and sit on your backside at the crossroads for the rest of your life, no?

To you, one road is a nice sign with a good road, but to an atheist all they see are 4 dirt tracks with hand-written signs.

Other people may see the nice road with the good sign, but consider that to be the wrong choice purely because it's too obvious.

In my opinion, it's not a matter of "choosing the correct religion". Although there are X religions in the world, there are infinite permutations of belief, so it's not a matter of "one in three chance". You have an infinite number of chances of being right and wrong. To me, there is no crossroads. Just a large expanse of fields with a single sign in the middle saying, "All directions lead to Dublin".

robindch · 10-12-2007 12:56pm

PDN wrote:

Since there is only a 1 in 4 chance of picking the right road much better to reject them all and sit on your backside at the crossroads for the rest of your life, no?

You pick metaphors that are so inappropriate, that I'm beginning to think that it may be intentional

Perhaps a better metaphor might involve a wall covered with hundreds of ads, all saying "believe me and you can get what you want". An atheist will say something like "Nope, that's rubbish!" and go on to point out how irresponsible and dishonest the advertising industry is. Whereas you might pick and believe the biggest and most well-funded one.

PDN wrote:

Since I believe Christianity to be the correct one then it would appear, from the number of Christian adherents and the world's population, that the chances of someone believing the right one are about one in three and improving every day.

So religious truth is something that's decided by majority vote?

Dades · 10-12-2007 1:39pm

5uspect wrote: »

What in Ireland? Proper signposts? This analogy is getting off to a bad start.;)
I think a roundabout would make a better analogy. All exits go to Dublin, eventually, some have tolls, but the roads are smooth to drive, some are bumpy but fun to drive (for some) and some have bandits lying in wait.

The Atheists took the train.

A good atheist should use Sat Nav I would have thought!

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 10-12-2007 6:37pm

why would an atheist even bother travelling? the journey is pointless and meaningless.

5uspect · 10-12-2007 6:40pm

They have cake in Dublin...

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 10-12-2007 6:41pm

the cake is a lie

5uspect · 10-12-2007 7:00pm

But the companion cube is forever!

One Cold Hand · 10-12-2007 7:37pm

I reckon the current religions will die out, but the question is what, if anything will they be replaced by. The Greeks and Romans believed in all types of crazy gods, that we laugh at / dismiss now. Meanwhile Christians were ridiculed. I wonder in 500 years time will we be all be Scientologists and be laughing at the Christians (or whoever). Or (hopefully) maybe Atheism will have risen in popularity, and become more acceptable in more extreme countries than this.

DublinWriter · 10-12-2007 8:02pm

5uspect wrote: »

Apparetly its hardwired into us to some degree.

I think so too. The part of the brain that deals with figuring out relationships in a human is bigger and more advanced than that of a chimp.

A chimp can only figure out it's relationship in relation to individual members of it's clan.

A human can figure out and think in the abstract about how his/her actions to someone may effect a third-party, or a number of third-parties.

I wouldn't link faith directly to intelligence, I know several academics and doctors who are devout Catholics.

I believe faith is largely genetic. I think some of us are born genetically with a predeliction to faith, others are not.

My theory is that those with faith will out-breed those without faith, due to the inherent family-centric values that most faiths have.

Fanny Cradock · 10-12-2007 8:11pm

TheThing! wrote: »

You believing otherwise, or a billion christians believing otherwise, doesn't invalidate the fact that there is not evidence for god or any of the claims of all the various religions that subcribe to these views. I may think that 8 and 8 is not 16, and I may go to a building each sunday and pray to the big 8 and 8 is 19 god, but it doesn't change the facts

There is evidence for God. Whether you choose to believe that evidence or not is an entirely personal matter.

TheThing! · 10-12-2007 8:14pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There is evidence for God. Whether you choose to believe that evidence or not is an entirely personal matter.

What is it then, because you would be the first to find any

robindch · 10-12-2007 8:15pm

Fanny Craddock wrote:

There is evidence for God.

A red rag in an atheist forum, but, please, pray tell?

5uspect · 10-12-2007 8:22pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There is evidence for God. Whether you choose to believe that evidence or not is an entirely personal matter.

But which god? (this better be good :rolleyes:)

DublinWriter · 10-12-2007 8:29pm

5uspect wrote: »

But which god? (this better be good :rolleyes:)

*crosses fingers* Ganesh! Ganesh! Ganesh!

Could religion ever die?

Comments