Would you like to see the death of religion.

JimiTime

I asked this on another thread in response to another hivemind rant:) Basically, would you like to see the death of religion? I know that there are alot of you who don't mind it, once it stays away from the classroom etc, but even the moderate atheist, would you actually be happy to see it die?

-Edit- If any atheist answers no, could you explain why?

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

JimiTime wrote: »

I asked this on another thread in response to another hivemind rant:) Basically, would you like to see the death of religion? I know that there are alot of you who don't mind it, once it stays away from the classroom etc, but even the moderate atheist, would you actually be happy to see it die?

See my response in the other post.

And I was taking the micky Jimi.

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

JimiTime wrote: »

would you like to see the death of religion?

Not at all, which is just as well as it will never happen either.

Sleepy

I have to admit I think it would be a good thing. One less excuse for mankind to wage war on each other and it could only help further our understanding of the universe we live in.

JimiTime

Yes - through proactive secularism

Dades wrote: »

Not at all, which is just as well as it will never happen either.

I assume you are an atheist? if so, why wouldn't you like to see it die?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I assume you are an atheist? if so, why wouldn't you like to see it die?

Dude, he's not a atheist .. he is the atheist

(see his sig)

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I know that there are alot of you who don't mind it, once it stays away from the classroom etc, but even the moderate atheist, would you actually be happy to see it die?

Yes, so long as that isn't a trick question and you aren't going to infer much from that (ie I'm not going to support any law that outlaws or bans religion)

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Honestly, I can just think of millions of things it would be better to spend all that energy and resources on.

Yes - with the exception of personal beliefs.

No, I wouldn't. Though churches with far too much money should be strongly encouraged to do more charity, I suppose.

5uspect

Yes - through proactive secularism

I would be happy to see religion to run its course and become about as important to people as the plot of Eastenders, and then maybe Glenroe. I wouldn't be interested in seeing this happen through any kind of legislation or force just rational debate.

Ultimately tho I'd imagine its here to stay.

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

JimiTime wrote: »

I asked this on another thread in response to another hivemind rant:) Basically, would you like to see the death of religion? I know that there are alot of you who don't mind it, once it stays away from the classroom etc, but even the moderate atheist, would you actually be happy to see it die?

The original response to this question

Hivemind187 wrote:

I would be extatic with the global realisation that we, as a species, have progressed beyond the point of needing the grotesque cabaret of religion.

In a sense, I suppose yes, I would. But you'll obviously take this out of context and claim that I am looking to begin an atheistic pogrom agaisnt theists.

The fact is that if religion were to dissapear tomorow Atheists wouldnt really be affected since we have already divested ourselves of that particular accoutrement ... it would only mean that we have come full circle to the default position of no theological beliefs.

Clear enough?

Edit: oh ... and I was clearly making fun in the quoted post ... for the most part.

Sleepy

bluewolf wrote: »

No, I wouldn't. Though churches with far too much money should be strongly encouraged to do more charity, I suppose.

Well, given that one of the primary (if not the primary source) of the Catholic Church espoused charity and they didn't listen to him, I'd like to see how anyone else could encourage them to adhere to their own supposed principles! lol

JimiTime

Yes - through proactive secularism

If any atheist answers no, could you explain why?

JimiTime

Yes - through proactive secularism

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, so long as that isn't a trick question and you aren't going to infer much from that (ie I'm not going to support any law that outlaws or bans religion)

:D No, its not so that I can set up a conspiracy theory that atheists are planning to feed us to Lions.:D

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

JimiTime wrote: »

If any atheist answers no, could you explain why?

I would assume that many atheists are not as "passionate" as others and can happily live in smirking tolerance of the religions viewing them, perhaps, as an amusing anachronism or pantomime.

Thus the continuance or dissipation of the the church is of little consequence to them as they have no vested interest.

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

JimiTime wrote: »

:D No, its not so that I can set up a conspiracy theory that atheists are planning to feed us to Lions.:D

HA! Shows what you know

Yes - with the exception of personal beliefs.

Different things work for different people, I suppose. And while there's bad things to say about religion, they do charity stuff etc, and many people do seem happier for it.
Basically I think blaming a lot of problems on religion itself is a bit simplistic since the people behind it are still the same.
If you mean say... trying to legislate against it being practised anywhere or something, I'm sure the reasons for saying no to that are obvious enough. If it dies out... well then it dies out. I suppose it would be interesting to see what people do without it.

I'm not an atheist though

JimiTime

Yes - through proactive secularism

Hivemind187 wrote: »

HA! Shows what you know

While yer at it, can ye get rid of chavs, oh and steve staunton:)

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

JimiTime wrote: »

While yer at it, can ye get rid of chavs, oh and steve staunton:)

Drawing up the pogrom plans as we speak ...

... how many BeeGees are left?

JimiTime

Yes - through proactive secularism

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Drawing up the pogrom plans as we speak ...

... how many BeeGees are left?

Can't forget Paris Hilton neither, though there wouldn't be much meat there for the lions. Maybe, a Paris Hilton Soup:)

Anyway back on topic, before i end up making a list:)

robindch

Yes - through natural causes

JT wrote:

would you like to see the death of religion?

Referring to the "death" of religion is over-dramatic. But having said that, I'd certainly be first down the bar for a beer if the pope and the rest of them suddenly upped one day and announced that it was all a load of cobblers and couldn't yiz all just get out and be nice to each other for a change?

More seriously, I'd certainly like to see religion change into the mutually beneficial and supportive social glue that it claims to be, but that's unlikely ever to happen as that's certainly not what religions are "for", any more than the principal interest of trade unions is the jobs of their members.

Religions won't die, but they'll certainly continue to evolve socially and culturally. In the future, they'll be doing and saying things which are as different to today's carry-on, as today's is different to the Middle Ages. The only thing that will remain the same is religion's unyielding, not to say savage, interest in itself.

Incidentally, that letter from the Islamic community to the pope last week is a good example -- and I'd expect, perhaps a few centuries from now -- that religions will have dwindled to the point that they've more to lose by remaining in conflict than they do by making common cause. And perhaps a few centuries after that, people will look back on Jesus and the other guy in the same way that the members of both religions now look back on Zeus, Jupiter and the rest. And will scratch their chins and wonder what actually went on in all those big buildings and did people really think that you would live forever if only you believed you would.

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

Wicknight wrote: »

Dude, he's not a atheist .. he is the atheist

Actually now I'm just an atheist. Kinda like when superman became mortal - except I keep my superpowers.

JimiTime wrote: »

If any atheist answers no, could you explain why?

I can see first hand the comfort religion offers on a personal level. In fact I'm off to a removal tonight and will no doubt witness it there. But once it moves out of the personal realm and into public life/policy I lose my fluffy feelings toward it. Beliefs are personal and shouldn't be impressed on those that don't share them.

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

I can see first hand the comfort religion offers on a personal level. In fact I'm off to a removal tonight and will no doubt witness it there. But once it moves out of the personal realm and into public life/policy I lose my fluffy feelings toward it. Beliefs are personal and shouldn't be impressed on those that don't share them.

Your response if kinda why I wanted to be careful about how I answered the question.

If religion dies a natural death that would imply, at least to me, that people have found a way to find this comfort in a non-supernatural fashion. Therefore the death of religion doesn't mean that people who used religion for comfort are now miserable, or left without a crutch. It actually means they are happy, because otherwise they would still use religion.

Religion dies when no one feels the need for it any more. If no one feels the need for it any more then there isn't really a down side to this death.

ScumLord

I'd like to see religion upgraded rather than eradicated. I see God as the answer to 2 question; Where did the universe come from and how does it work. Religion can be a great tool for social interaction, meditation and making the most out of the only tool capable of working out the mystery of God, the human brain. I'd like to see a new religion that centres around mind and sole well being and compassion for your fellow man. I think to ignore something that's been ingrained into our minds for 10s of thousands of years can't just be thrown aside without repercussions.

I don't see "God" at all, like the all powerful king as set out by people 1000s of years ago that didn't know any better. It could be anything from an equation to a normal occurrence. Just incase I come across all holy in what I said.

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

Wicknight wrote: »

Religion dies when no one feels the need for it any more. If no one feels the need for it any more then there isn't really a down side to this death.

You'd wonder how that could ever be, given the "attachments" we make to people during our lives, and the loss we feel at their passing. Though I guess that's only one aspect of it.

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

You'd wonder how that could ever be, given the "attachments" we make to people during our lives, and the loss we feel at their passing. Though I guess that's only one aspect of it.

Well that was going to be my next point, I don't see this ever happening for a very long time, and even then with will probably be the the shifting of what we understand by orgnised religion to a more personal "I've an friendly spirit on my shoulder" type new age stuff.

Personally I would be happy with the shift from "This happens when you die" to "I don't know what happens when you die, but I hope its nice" Certainty of life after death causes a lot of the problems I associate with religion. But it is also the most powerful aspect of it.

Son Goku

No to be honest, I wouldn't. I'm actually fond of churches and a lot of religious thought, probably because of my interest in medieval history. Besides if it makes people happy, it doesn't really matter.

What I would like to see an end to is:
1. An unyielding opposition to plain facts.
2. Opposition to things which only help people's lives such as contraception.*

Religion isn't the only source of these things; however I think it is the main contributor to number 2. However even then it is only the very religious.

*I particularly don't like objection to contraception as it is one of the foundations of the liberation of women.

JimiTime

Yes - through proactive secularism

Wicknight wrote: »

Dude, he's not a atheist .. he is the atheist

(see his sig)

Aha! Just seen that now:)

Tigrrrr

Sleepy wrote: »

I have to admit I think it would be a good thing. One less excuse for mankind to wage war on each other

Firstly, I'd just like to mention that I don't adhere to any religion whatsoever.

Secondly, no offence, beacuse that is a common opinion, it's just that it's completely daft. Look, religion is weird. Sometimes to the point that it's comical. But would removing it make the world more peaceful?

No, of course not. Nor does keeping it make the world more peaceful, despite what believers say.

People are people. They use any excuse in the book to kill, maim, rape, steal and make corrupt. They use video games to do it, skin colour, ethnicity, they even use democracy to do it! Need we ban democracy? Video games?

Lets not kid ourselves here. Getting rid of religion isn't getting rid of one less excuse, another equally bizarre "excuse" would be crafted in its place. Religion isn't the problem. People are the problem.

and it could only help further our understanding of the universe we live in.

You think that religion is currently obstructing the advancement of scientific knowledge at its frontiers in any realistic way? I mean, sure some crazies want to teach creationism in some incest-riddled Florida backwater, but it hardly amounts to some crazed nun pushing Stephen Hawking's wheelchair-slash-voice synthesizer down a stairs.

robindch

Yes - through natural causes

Son Goku wrote:

Besides if it makes people happy, it doesn't really matter.

You're forgetting -- or omitting -- what happens when lots of people get together who think that they all believe the same thing. And that it would be great if everybody else thought the same as they did. The mass-effects of individual belief giving rise to the emergent phenomenon of religion...

I'm in Jakarta at the moment where ten days or so ago, there were a spate of attacks in the south of the city by muslim gangs on bars, restaurants and nightclubs where "immoral" activities of one kind or another were rumored to be taking place. I'm sure these attacks made the individual gang members feel great, an adrenaline-fuelled moral crusade; what could be more fun! But I'm afraid to say that their beliefs and the grossly anti-social tendencies that are legitimized and encouraged by them, most certainly do matter in a civil society.

.

Son Goku

robindch wrote: »

You're forgetting -- or omitting -- what happens when lots of people get together who think that they all believe the same thing. And that it would be great if everybody else thought the same as they did. The mass-effects of individual belief giving rise to the emergent phenomenon of religion...

I'm excluding people like this. What I mean is, a priori, before you factor in people with a tendency to think like the ones you describe above, there is nothing inherently wrong with thinking something incorrect which makes you happy.

JimiTime

Yes - through proactive secularism

Son Goku wrote: »

No to be honest, I wouldn't. I'm actually fond of churches and a lot of religious thought, probably because of my interest in medieval history. Besides if it makes people happy, it doesn't really matter.

What I would like to see an end to is:
1. An unyielding opposition to plain facts.
2. Opposition to things which only help people's lives such as contraception.*

Religion isn't the only source of these things; however I think it is the main contributor to number 2. However even then it is only the very religious.

*I particularly don't like objection to contraception as it is one of the foundations of the liberation of women.

So you wouldn't be happy. ok. Would you actually be sad at its demise? Or is it a case of, its not that I'd be happy or sad??

Son Goku

JimiTime wrote: »

So you wouldn't be happy. ok. Would you actually be sad at its demise? Or is it a case of, its not that I'd be happy or sad??

A bit sad, it is the basis of a lot of imagery and big part of our history.

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

robindch wrote: »

I'm in Jakarta at the moment...

Okay now I'm convinced you work for the CIA... Middle East one week, Indonesia the next...

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

Dades (The artist formally known as the Atheist) has a point Son Goku, do you work for the CIA? And if so ... can I have a job?

5uspect

Yes - through proactive secularism

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Dades (The artist formally known as the Atheist)...

Don't you mean Daisy?;)

karen3212

Yes - through natural causes

I would like religions to stop thinking that their God or rules are right and all the others are wrong. I really don't like it when they look down on each other's beliefs, each religion that needs changing has to be changed from within. Sometimes I see people outside of one religion critisize another religion's teachings and imo it never works. I don't think religion will disappear, I think it will evolve though, and hopefully most religions will say 'who knows' more.

Religion itself doesn't bother me, the arrogance or divisiveness of some within religions really annoy me.

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

karen3212 wrote: »

Sometimes I see people outside of one religion critisize another religion's teachings and imo it never works.

That pretty well describes this forum doesn't it?

Atheists believe that they are right and that all the religions are wrong. Therefore they are just as arrogant as any theist who thinks he/she is right and all other religions are wrong. Agnostics, of course, are able to say, "Who knows?".

So, if I read you correct, Karen, you are saying that we all need to be a bit more agnostic and that religious certainty (including atheism) is arrogance?

I certainly agree with you that criticising another religion's teachings doesn't work - in fact it almost invariably puts people on the defensive and makes them more entrenched in their opinions. This whole thing came up on another thread here on the A&A forum recently (the one on respecting people's beliefs). Some posters were arguing that you should have no respect for other's beliefs. Indeed religious people were accused of being too respectful to one another.

Hivemind187

Yes, except for my religion.

PDN wrote: »

That pretty well describes this forum doesn't it?

Atheists believe that they are right and that all the religions are wrong. Therefore they are just as arrogant as any theist who thinks he/she is right and all other religions are wrong. Agnostics, of course, are able to say, "Who knows?".

.

It amazes me how you flip flop PDN, one minute sayng that Christianty is right and the next critising Atheists for judging religions to be wrong based on evidence and reason. tut tut.

Any excuse to say "Atheism bad" eh?

Conar

Yes - through natural causes

I'd certainly not pore out a little liquer for my dead religions.

PDN I think the difference between most Atheists and most devoutly religious is that if a God did appear tomorrow and give us all the proof neccessary that he/she existed than we'd be willing to admit we had been wrong..... if the opposite happened (not sure how to quanify or put it) and the definitive proof of no existence of God were discovered then most devoutly religious would simply call it a test of faith.

That is what makes us appear arrogant.
We believe in science and evidence, not tales of yore and the like.

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

It amazes me how you flip flop PDN, one minute sayng that Christianty is right and the next critising Atheists for judging religions to be wrong based on evidence and reason. tut tut.

Any excuse to say "Atheism bad" eh?

Maybe you should try reading my posts a bit more carefully. I'm simply pointing out that Christians and atheists should be judged by similar standards. If Christians are arrogant for believing that they are right and others are wrong then so are atheists.

I'm sorry if that concept upsets you. Fairness often does that to people.

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

Conar wrote: »

I'd certainly not pore out a little liquer for my dead religions.

PDN I think the difference between most Atheists and most devoutly religious is that if a God did appear tomorrow and give us all the proof neccessary that he/she existed than we'd be willing to admit we had been wrong..... if the opposite happened (not sure how to quanify or put it) and the definitive proof of no existence of God were discovered then most devoutly religious would simply call it a test of faith.

That is what makes us appear arrogant.
We believe in science and evidence, not tales of yore and the like.

So you are basing an argument on 2 hypothetical sets of situations and your imagined outcomes in those situations.

OK, if that works for you.

It sounds more to me like you're saying that Christians are arrogant because they think they are right, but that atheists aren't arrogant because you know you are right.

Conar

Yes - through natural causes

PDN wrote: »

So you are basing an argument on 2 hypothetical sets of situations and your imagined outcomes in those situations.

OK, if that works for you.

It sounds more to me like you're saying that Christians are arrogant because they think they are right, but that atheists aren't arrogant because you know you are right.

Not at all.
Christians admit that their religion requires faith.
Faith implies a lack of evidence.

There are some elements of science, theoretical sciences that would require faith if you were to believe in them fully, yet people generally don't and continue to call them theories.

There is no realy evidence of a God, so Atheists see no reason to believe in one.
This is why religious people continuously call atheists arrogant.

You'll probably have issues with me paraphrasing Richard Dawkins but to use his celestial teapot argument.
No one can disprove that there isn't a celestial teapot in orbit around our planet.
It would simply be too small to detect and therefore to disprove.
Would you call me arrigant for dismissing the theory of a celestial teapot?

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

PDN wrote: »

That pretty well describes this forum doesn't it?

Atheists believe that they are right and that all the religions are wrong. Therefore they are just as arrogant as any theist who thinks he/she is right and all other religions are wrong.

The difference is the basis on which both theists and atheists claim other religions are wrong. Atheists believe they are all man-made due to, amongst other things, a consistent lack of any evidence for their truth. Every brand of theist rejects all other religions as wrong on the basis that their ancient scriptures hold more weight. If I had to label one process of thought as arrogant it would be the latter.

Atheists don't claim to have the answers to the big questions, just that nobody else does either.

JimiTime

Yes - through proactive secularism

karen3212 wrote:

I would like religions to stop thinking that their God or rules are right and all the others are wrong. I really don't like it when they look down on each other's beliefs, each religion that needs changing has to be changed from within. Sometimes I see people outside of one religion critisize another religion's teachings and imo it never works. I don't think religion will disappear, I think it will evolve though, and hopefully most religions will say 'who knows' more.

Religion itself doesn't bother me, the arrogance or divisiveness of some within religions really annoy me.

Ok. So if the above does not change, and religion continues thinking its right and you're wrong. Would you like to see it fade away?

JimiTime

Yes - through proactive secularism

Son Goku wrote: »

A bit sad, it is the basis of a lot of imagery and big part of our history.

I have to say, I do find this strange. You'd like people to continue being deluded? Believing in a being that doesn't exist? I'm surprised you wouldn't want them to finally realise that science is our best chance.

Conar

Yes - through natural causes

JimiTime wrote: »

I have to say, I do find this strange. You'd like people to continue being deluded? Believing in a being that doesn't exist? I'm surprised you wouldn't want them to finally realise that science is our best chance.

Exactly, the demise of the Egyptians didn't exactly stop us from appreciating the pyramids and their culture etc.
Religion has played a large enough part in our history to not be completely forgotten.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

That pretty well describes this forum doesn't it?

Atheists believe that they are right and that all the religions are wrong. Therefore they are just as arrogant as any theist who thinks he/she is right and all other religions are wrong. Agnostics, of course, are able to say, "Who knows?".

So, if I read you correct, Karen, you are saying that we all need to be a bit more agnostic and that religious certainty (including atheism) is arrogance?

I think there's word play going on here, PDN.
I believe I am right. However, I don't know if I am right therefore I am not arrogant.
Arrogant Christians believe they are right, act like they know they are right as they say "I know the truth".
They do not differentiate between belief and knowledge.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

That pretty well describes this forum doesn't it?

Atheists believe that they are right and that all the religions are wrong. Therefore they are just as arrogant as any theist who thinks he/she is right and all other religions are wrong. Agnostics, of course, are able to say, "Who knows?".

Well that is kinda like saying the person who thinks Kennedy was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald is just as arrogant as the person who thinks Kennedy was shot by a rouge secret government agency that works out of Area 51 and uses alien technology.

The difference between an theist and an atheist is that the theist believes in fantastical supernatural entities and events.

I wouldn't call it equally arrogant to not believe in fantastical supernatural entities and events. For example believing that someone didn't walk on water is not as arrogant as believing he did, since everything we know about humans, water and gravity tells us that people can't walk on water.

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

You only have to watch the documentary Baraka to see how our world and peoples have been shaped by religion and superstition. For those who haven't it's an incredible look at different cultures from every part of the globe. You would have to be pretty cold not be moved by some of the scenes played out.

So yes, superstition and ritual would be missed on many levels, but the reality is this doesn't validate any of them.

queenlex

Sleepy wrote: »

I have to admit I think it would be a good thing. One less excuse for mankind to wage war on each other and it could only help further our understanding of the universe we live in.

It doesnt seem to do anything else but give excuses for this kind of terrible stuff. I believe everyone can have morals and know what is right and wrong without needing a religion despite what some religious people would have you think