is the world ready to reject the idea of god?

ibstar

Not many could probably handle the thought of no light at the end of this life, and that we're a product of random events, which is floating in space.

Would the loss of control structure such as religion,decrease the morality behind people's actions since they would loose meaning to this life?

Will the civilizations stop progressing or working, since there's no goal at the end of ones existence?

How long would it take for people to understand the concept that we exist here by chance and not because of a creator? Are the illiterate the barrier to this change, or is it the refusal to change?

Thank you.

endacl

You do know this forum has a search function, right....?

ibstar

endacl wrote: »

You do know this forum has a search function, right....?

Posted after searching.

Kidchameleon

ibstar wrote: »

How long would it take for people to understand the concept that we exist here by chance and not because of a creator?.

We'll need someone to travel to every corner of the universe to prove that

ASoberThought

Of course not. Not even remotely close.

Look at the Middle East

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

robdonn

ibstar wrote: »

Not many could probably handle the thought of no light at the end of this life, and that we're a product of random events, which is floating in space.

That is somewhat true. My partner is a devout Catholic and simply does not want to hear about how it is all just myth, legend and lies. She has had a rough life, lost some friends and family at a young age and finds comfort in her beliefs. I see no reason to convince her otherwise as it is her coping mechanism, and although I am sure she would adapt eventually to a new (correct?) world view, it's not worth the hassle. It will be the next generations that adapt to the world of random events floating in space, it's getting harder to indoctrinate children with so much free access to information. While I would love it if religion and superstitious beliefs disappeared from the face of the planet tomorrow, I know that it is a fantasy on par with the beliefs that we oppose.

ibstar wrote: »

Would the loss of control structure such as religion,decrease the morality behind people's actions since they would loose meaning to this life?

I don't believe that it would cause a decrease in morality, bad people do bad things despite what their religion teaches them. What we would more than likely see is people using it as an excuse to do the bad things that they already were going to do.

ibstar wrote: »

Will the civilizations stop progressing or working, since there's no goal at the end of ones existence?

The conflicting drives of human self-preservation and self-destruction will definitely come to a head, but I'd hope that knowing that this world is the only one we have and that the whole meaning of our existence is to leave it better off than we found it would take root. But that may be wishful thinking.

ibstar wrote: »

How long would it take for people to understand the concept that we exist here by chance and not because of a creator? Are the illiterate the barrier to this change, or is it the refusal to change?

Thank you.

Illiteracy is not the barrier, it's the overwhelming power of indoctrination. Just look at Ken Miller, one of the most outspoken advocates for evolution, about 10 years ago a video of him destroying creationist arguments was shared by atheists everywhere and he was championed as a great rational thinker. And he is a Catholic.

And atheists are not the epitome of human intelligence, we all share one common trait and it's that we don't believe in one bit of silly nonsense. There are lots of atheists who still believe in all sorts of other nonsense.

Religion is a virus and the best way to get rid of it is through herd immunisation. We need to keep learning how the world works, give gods smaller and smaller holes to hide in and work tirelessly to give everyone in the world equal access to information. You can't force someone to stop believing no more than they can force you to believe, we just need people to have the correct information and hope that enough of them see the truth to swing how the population views reality.

Hotblack Desiato

robdonn wrote: »

I see no reason to convince her otherwise as it is her coping mechanism, and although I am sure she would adapt eventually to a new (correct?) world view, it's not worth the hassle.

If you have (or go on to have) children though, presumably she'd want them to be brought up as Catholics and chances are you'd have to go along with it? I don't suppose it matters really, as one non-believer parent should be enough to undermine any indoctrination :pac:

It will be the next generations that adapt to the world of random events floating in space, it's getting harder to indoctrinate children with so much free access to information. While I would love it if religion and superstitious beliefs disappeared from the face of the planet tomorrow, I know that it is a fantasy on par with the beliefs that we oppose.

There have been enough facts out there for a long time about evolution and cosmology to totally undermine any literalist interpretation of the bible. Many people just don't want to know though.

I don't believe that it would cause a decrease in morality

It's very tired old fallacy at this stage, I can't imagine anyone but the most brainwashed buying it.

Just look at Ken Miller, one of the most outspoken advocates for evolution, about 10 years ago a video of him destroying creationist arguments was shared by atheists everywhere and he was championed as a great rational thinker. And he is a Catholic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution The RC church is accepting of evolution. Although between that and what we know about cosmology there has to be a lot of doublethink going on to accept these facts yet still believe in the god of the bible.
Most scientists who are said to be believers are pretty weak deists, at best (e.g. Einstein.)
As atheism becomes both more common and more socially acceptable I expect the numbers of people clinging onto stuff like 'something is out there' or 'not religious but spiritual' to fall off.

robdonn

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If you have (or go on to have) children though, presumably she'd want them to be brought up as Catholics and chances are you'd have to go along with it? I don't suppose it matters really, as one non-believer parent should be enough to undermine any indoctrination :pac:

When we go on to have children they will probably be made to have the communion and confirmation, but like me I would hope that it's just done to appease their mother and get a little cash on the side.

I am very wary of the line that I will have to walk, on one side I want my children to have a rational view of the world that they grow up in and to think critically about claims made, but at the same time I don't want them to think that their mother is a nutjob for believing in invisible supermen and have my partner think that I've turned the kids against her in any way.

A big difficulty that I can foresee though is the same courtesy not being shown to me. Whenever we have discussed this before I often get hit by the phrase "What does it matter to you, you don't believe in anything." We've had the discussion enough times that I understand what she means by this, but it can be difficult to explain how the lack of a belief in something can be just as important as a belief, especially when trying to raise a human without damaging them too much.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There have been enough facts out there for a long time about evolution and cosmology to totally undermine any literalist interpretation of the bible. Many people just don't want to know though.

The facts have been around for a long time, but equal access to them hasn't. We have already noticed that in the last 20 years access to the internet has shown an explosion in the number of unbelievers in the western world (can't speak for the whole world as I don't know those numbers). The information is useless if nobody knows it is there.

It is difficult to force a revelation on someone, we've seen on these boards how hard it is to change someone's mind. There is even a study showing that the more facts you throw at a person the more entrenched they will become in their own position. (The Backfire Effect).

But allow people to make the discoveries themselves by listening to debates and providing the correct material and they can slowly turn themselves. It's obviously not 100% effective and some people really do require a hard bonk on the noggin, but it so far has had a noticeable effect.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's very tired old fallacy at this stage, I can't imagine anyone but the most brainwashed buying it.

As Steven Weinberg put it, "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution The RC church is accepting of evolution. Although between that and what we know about cosmology there has to be a lot of doublethink going on to accept these facts yet still believe in the god of the bible.
Most scientists who are said to be believers are pretty weak deists, at best (e.g. Einstein.)
As atheism becomes both more common and more socially acceptable I expect the numbers of people clinging onto stuff like 'something is out there' or 'not religious but spiritual' to fall off.

It's small recognitions like this though that allow the world to slowly move forward. The more concessions that religion has to make, the better the world will be. Obviously we should all do what we can to expedite the matter, but we are moving forward albeit at a glacial pace.

MrPudding

ibstar wrote: »

Not many could probably handle the thought of no light at the end of this life, and that we're a product of random events, which is floating in space.

Would the loss of control structure such as religion,decrease the morality behind people's actions since they would loose meaning to this life?

Will the civilizations stop progressing or working, since there's no goal at the end of ones existence?

How long would it take for people to understand the concept that we exist here by chance and not because of a creator? Are the illiterate the barrier to this change, or is it the refusal to change?

Thank you.

No. There is still entirely too much stupid in the world.

MrP

MrPudding

robdonn wrote: »

That is somewhat true. My partner is a devout Catholic and simply does not want to hear about how it is all just myth, legend and lies. She has had a rough life, lost some friends and family at a young age and finds comfort in her beliefs. I see no reason to convince her otherwise as it is her coping mechanism, and although I am sure she would adapt eventually to a new (correct?) world view, it's not worth the hassle. It will be the next generations that adapt to the world of random events floating in space, it's getting harder to indoctrinate children with so much free access to information. While I would love it if religion and superstitious beliefs disappeared from the face of the planet tomorrow, I know that it is a fantasy on par with the beliefs that we oppose.

I know the opinion on Ricky Gervais is somewhat decided on this forum, but if you haven't see it, the concept behind "The Invention of Lying" give a fantastic potential reason for the invention of religion.

Aside from the stupid, the comfort factor will be, I think, the hardest thing to get over. People simply love the idea that their dead relatives and friends are waiting for them. Some people can't deal with the idea that after death there is nothing, these are things that will take a lot of time and effort to overcome.

robdonn wrote: »

I don't believe that it would cause a decrease in morality, bad people do bad things despite what their religion teaches them. What we would more than likely see is people using it as an excuse to do the bad things that they already were going to do.

We have had a number of people on this and the other forum that have categorically stated that if it were not for their belief in god they would be on raping and murdering rampages. This seems to be a reasonably common view in the evangelical christian and/or YEC side. I haven't seen any real "mainstream" religious saying this, but plenty of evangelicals and YECs. If the idea of god disappeared overnight I would be concerned about some people. Really concerned.

Some of the super religious people really are, I think, mentally unstable. Check out the Louis Theroux two parter on the mental health hospital in the states to see what it can do. Religion, for the most part, gets a pass, in terms of mentally ill diagnosis. Except in extreme circumstances behaviour that would normally have one sectioned are excused without comment with a simple "ah sure, that's his religious belief." If I decided to nail myself to a tree once a year I would be quite rightly locked the fcuk up. But, it's your religion? Go right ahead. Why is it less mental to crucify yourself because you believe in a 2000 year old book?

robdonn wrote: »

The conflicting drives of human self-preservation and self-destruction will definitely come to a head, but I'd hope that knowing that this world is the only one we have and that the whole meaning of our existence is to leave it better off than we found it would take root. But that may be wishful thinking.

Hmmm, I am not so sure. I think there is a fairly strong correlation between ultra conservative christians and global warming denial. They don't give a sh1t. This is just a test and their lord game them dominion. That is going to be a hard attitude to change.

robdonn wrote: »

lliteracy is not the barrier, it's the overwhelming power of indoctrination.

Illiteracy is the barrier. You can't fight the indoctrination. If people access the antidote to this poison then what hope to they have. This is the beauty of the missions. It makes the religious look warm and cuddly, but in realty it is a survival mechanism for the religions themselves. The more illiterate they are the easier it is to brainwash them and the harder it is to change that later in life. Very few people, relatively, become devout later in life. Literacy, education and access to information are the antidote to religious infection. This is why they don't want to give up access to children. They know that if they tried to pedal their bulsh1t to an adult their infection rate would drop massively.

MrP

recedite

ibstar wrote: »

Would the loss of control structure such as religion,decrease the morality behind people's actions since they would loose meaning to this life?

I think there would be some people who would behave in a worse way without their religion. On the other hand, in a modern society we also have more important control structures, such as the police and the courts.
Fundamentally IMO most people are "good" though. The idea the people are fundamentally bad or sinful, and need religion to correct them is somewhat medieval.

Will the civilizations stop progressing or working, since there's no goal at the end of ones existence?

No, more likely progress will accelerate. Religion has mostly held back science if anything, and also promoted conflict.

How long would it take for people to understand the concept that we exist here by chance and not because of a creator? Are the illiterate the barrier to this change, or is it the refusal to change?

Its just a matter of providing education as opposed to indoctrination.

Thank you.

Thank you

JJJJNR

religon will be the cause of the next mass extinction. I HATE HUMANS..

NIMAN

A definite NO to the original question.

There are more believers than non-believers in the world, and the conviction that many atheists have that there is nothing after this, is shared equally by those of faith that there is something after this.

The Bishop Basher

NIMAN wrote: »

A definite NO to the original question.

There are more believers than non-believers in the world, and the conviction that many atheists have that there is nothing after this, is shared equally by those of faith that there is something after this.

There is a large body of evidence that strongly suggests some form of consciousness continues after death.

robdonn

Swanner wrote: »

There is a large body of evidence that strongly suggests some form of consciousness continues after death.

Link?

The Bishop Basher

robdonn wrote: »

Link?

Way too many to link here but i'll paste a few..

I would highly recommend the book, "Proof of Heaven" by Eben Alexander if you're interested in the subject...

Quick summary on him here..

What separates him from the countless other experiences is that he's a neurosurgeon so his perspective based on his personal experience of death combined with his medical experience makes him a serious contributor to the discussion. He was atheist before his experience..

http://www.spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com/harvard-neurosurgeon-confirms-the-afterlife-exists/

Another couple below but there really are so many it's not possible to post them all here...

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-evidence-that-there-is-no-afterlife

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/life-after-death-largest-ever-study-provides-evidence-that-out-of-body-and-near-death-experiences-9780195.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11144442/First-hint-of-life-after-death-in-biggest-ever-scientific-study.html

robdonn

Swanner wrote: »

Way too many to link here but i'll paste a few..

I would highly recommend the book, "Proof of Heaven" by Eben Alexander if you're interested in the subject...

Quick summary on him here..

What separates him from the countless other experiences is that he's a neurosurgeon so his perspective based on his personal experience of death combined with his medical experience makes him a serious contributor to the discussion. He was atheist before his experience..

http://www.spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com/harvard-neurosurgeon-confirms-the-afterlife-exists/

Another couple below but there really are so many it's not possible to post them all here...

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-evidence-that-there-is-no-afterlife

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/life-after-death-largest-ever-study-provides-evidence-that-out-of-body-and-near-death-experiences-9780195.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11144442/First-hint-of-life-after-death-in-biggest-ever-scientific-study.html

Hmmmm, I've heard a lot about Eben Alexander and his supposed experiences. He's been shown to alter his accounts of events in a lot of situations, including falsifying evidence in his surgeries.

But most importantly, his personal accounts are simply just that, personal accounts. It can't really be counted as reliable evidence.

As for the other links, I'll check out the study that they're referencing on Science Direct.

wakka12

Certainly not.Religious people are in a minority in Japan and Scandinavia and both places are often used as societal models of living for other countries to follow. The collapse of religion will only be a good thing, for all of man kind, in every aspect of every society on earth.
The sooner it comes the better!
I still like the idea of meditation though, relaxation of the mind. Quiet places, I also love the architecture of churches and their acoustic qualities. So hopefully 'churches' will still be built and cared for post religion

quickbeam

Catholicism doesn't *really* accept evolution though do they?

They accept that we all share common ancestors, but that's not the full understanding of evolution. Evolution is to understand that the changes in biology happen randomly and can be improvements (which then leave an organism with advantages and enough time to pass the change on to their offspring) or has disadvantages (which then die out quickly). Catholics only believe that these changes happen by direction of the hand of their god. To me, that's not a full acceptance of true evolution. Granted, it's closer to true evolution than the Fundamentalists will accept, but it's still not the true meaning.

The Bishop Basher

robdonn wrote: »

Hmmmm, I've heard a lot about Eben Alexander and his supposed experiences. He's been shown to alter his accounts of events in a lot of situations, including falsifying evidence in his surgeries.

But most importantly, his personal accounts are simply just that, personal accounts. It can't really be counted as reliable evidence.

As for the other links, I'll check out the study that they're referencing on Science Direct.

I don't want to drag this thread off topic so i'll start a thread and respond there if that's ok with you..

It's a subject i'm interested in and would like to discuss particularly from an atheist perspective..

Cheers.

MrPudding

Swanner wrote: »

There is a large body of evidence that strongly suggests some form of consciousness continues after death.

MrP