Could religion ever die?

TheThing!

Being an atheist and a skeptic, I am constantly frustrated by the wall of unbreakable belief that I am faced with in day to day life. I often end up wondering if there will ever be a day when the religious are in the minority and atheism and critical thinking prevail. Although I would like to think that it could happen some day in the distant future, I really dont think that it ever really could. Any opinions???

kippy

Nope, Thats never gonna happen.
Theres far too many "good" things that can be gotten from religions and so many people that benefit from that goodness.
Plus the worse off your situation the more need there is for something/someone to believe in. Theres a lot of people in this world in very bad situations on a daily basis.

drdre

No never will happen

pH

TheThing! wrote: »

Being an atheist and a skeptic, I am constantly frustrated by the wall of unbreakable belief that I am faced with in day to day life. I often end up wondering if there will ever be a day when the religious are in the minority and atheism and critical thinking prevail. Although I would like to think that it could happen some day in the distant future, I really dont think that it ever really could. Any opinions???

Many individual religions/cults/belief systems have pretty much died, normally with the civilization that spawned them.

Never happen? It is already happening!

There are a number of countries in Europe with atheists in the majority, with church attendance in single digit percentages of the population and the numbers still declining.

5uspect

I think people, in general, will always believe in something. They will always see agency in the events that shape their lives. Apparetly its hardwired into us to some degree.

Ultimately we evolved to survive, even if our brains need to lie to us to do so.

Fanny Cradock

pH wrote: »

Many individual religions/cults/belief systems have pretty much died, normally with the civilization that spawned them.

There are a number of countries in Europe with atheists in the majority, with church attendance in single digit percentages of the population and the numbers still declining.

True. However that is balanced to a degree by the rise in Christianity in other countries.

TheThing!

pH wrote: »

Many individual religions/cults/belief systems have pretty much died, normally with the civilization that spawned them.

Never happen? It is already happening!

There are a number of countries in Europe with atheists in the majority, with church attendance in single digit percentages of the population and the numbers still declining.

But could those figures ever appear on a global scale?

simu

TheThing! wrote: »

Being an atheist and a skeptic, I am constantly frustrated by the wall of unbreakable belief that I am faced with in day to day life. I often end up wondering if there will ever be a day when the religious are in the minority and atheism and critical thinking prevail. Although I would like to think that it could happen some day in the distant future, I really dont think that it ever really could. Any opinions???

Perhaps such a world is possible (although not with our current set-up) but religion/superstition could easily make a come back if the atheistic civilisation were to decline or be ended abruptly by some disaster.

Fanny Cradock

simu wrote: »

Perhaps such a world is possible (although not with our current set-up) but religion/superstition could easily make a come back if the atheistic civilisation were to decline or be ended abruptly by some disaster.

A curious statement.

Could you explain where this atheistic civilisation is located?

I would argue that there is a rise in the number of people identifying with the 'spiritual' throughout Europe. This is of course to the detriment of various religious institutions. Though from a Christian perspective I would again argue that this isn't a bad thing in the long run as there is a corresponding resurgence in 'grass roots' belief.

simu

Eh, that would be the hypothetical atheistic civilisation.

Fanny Cradock

Double post

TheThing!

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

A curious statement.

Could you explain where this atheistic civilisation is located?

I would argue that there is a rise in the number of people identifying with the 'spiritual' throughout Europe. This is of course to the detriment of various religious institutions. Though from a Christian perspective I would again argue that this isn't a bad thing in the long run as there is a corresponding resurgence in 'grass roots' belief.

The annoyance factor of people going around stating that they are spiritual rather than simply religious would probably be quite high too. In fact I would probably have to crack open the nunchucks

Fanny Cradock

TheThing! wrote: »

The annoyance factor of people going around stating that they are spiritual rather than simply religious would probably be quite high too. In fact I would probably have to crack open the nunchucks

Humm... critical thinking indeed!

SubjectSean

TheThing! wrote: »

Being an atheist and a skeptic, I am constantly frustrated by the wall of unbreakable belief that I am faced with in day to day life. I often end up wondering if there will ever be a day when the religious are in the minority and atheism and critical thinking prevail. Although I would like to think that it could happen some day in the distant future, I really dont think that it ever really could. Any opinions???

I don't think religion will ever dissapear, the belief in God goes hand in hand with consciousness

condra

Humm... critical thinking indeed!

Dude, he was joking.

TheThing!

SubjectSean wrote: »

I don't think religion will ever dissapear, the belief in God goes hand in hand with consciousness

Could you expand on that?

Fanny Cradock

womoma wrote: »

Dude, he was joking.

So was I, Dude!

SubjectSean

TheThing! wrote: »

Could you expand on that?

Ya the belief in God is the inevitable product of having minds like ours. It arises naturally like laughter or music.

TheThing!

SubjectSean wrote: »

Ya the belief in God is the inevitable product of having minds like ours. It arises naturally like laughter or music.

Yeah I have heard something like that before, but surely if people can see the reality of the situation like all those atheist out there then this alone doesn't doom us to a world of religion

Dades

Religion holds all the cards. An afterlife, see all your loved ones again, someone watching over you, a sense of community, answers to where we came from....

As long as people want these, we'll have religion.

TheThing!

Dades wrote: »

Religion holds all the cards. An afterlife, see all your loved ones again, someone watching over you, a sense of community, answers to where we came from....

As long as people want these, we'll have religion.

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

kippy

TheThing! wrote: »

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

Thats a pretty sweeping/groundbreaking statement.....
What's correct about it?
Not saying that there's anything wrong with it but wondering why it is more correct than anything else on this small little speck of dust.
Kippy

TheThing!

kippy wrote: »

Thats a pretty sweeping/groundbreaking statement.....
What's correct about it?
Not saying that there's anything wrong with it but wondering why it is more correct than anything else on this small little speck of dust.
Kippy

It is not a groundbreaking statement, atheists have been saying it forever. It is correct to not believe in something which has as much evidence backing it up as what I am about to write:

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

Religion and god and all that jazz was literally made up like the preceding statement, and therefore not believing in it is the correct path

kippy

TheThing! wrote: »

It is not a groundbreaking statement, atheists have been saying it forever. It is correct to not believe in something which has as much evidence backing it up as what I am about to write:

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

Religion and god and all that jazz was literally made up like the preceding statement, and therefore not believing in it is the correct path

That of course is taken from an Atheists standpoint.
That however, does not make it (atheism) correct - from my standpoint.

TheThing!

kippy wrote: »

That of course is taken from an Atheists standpoint.
That however, does not make it (atheism) correct - from my standpoint.

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

Scofflaw

As long as each ego seems to itself the only important little pool of light in a great dark universe, we will have religion. What monstrous lies will we not tell ourselves, when most of us would rather see the stars dim and fade, than that this one little light should go out?


cordially,
Scofflaw

TheThing!

Scofflaw wrote: »

As long as each ego seems to itself the only important little pool of light in a great dark universe, we will have religion. What monstrous lies will we not tell ourselves, when most of us would rather see the stars dim and fade, than that this one little light should go out?


cordially,
Scofflaw

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

pH

TheThing! wrote: »

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

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?

SubjectSean

TheThing! wrote: »

Yeah I have heard something like that before, but surely if people can see the reality of the situation like all those atheist out there then this alone doesn't doom us to a world of religion

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.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

most of the progress made by humanity would not have happened without the wheel

daveyjoe

Yes, and the religious will be in the minority one day. However, It would be quite optimistic to suggest that it will happen in any of our lifetimes.

condra

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

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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!

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

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

TheThing! wrote: »

That is a logical fallacy, a straw man argument

Do you understand what a straw man argument is?

TheThing!

PDN wrote: »

Do you understand what a straw man argument is?

Yes I do you just used one

PDN

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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

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