The death of all religion...
- Thread starter Aut-postius
- Start date
Aut,
Hi and welcome to sciforums.
If we are seen as openly aggressive towards religions then that will tend to marshal the religious extremists into mounting a counter-offensive. And we don’t want that, since that will polarize the two sides and create even more conflict.
Religion is based entirely on ignorance, emotionalism, mythology, and irrational thinking. The way to combat religion is primarily to promote knowledge, to educate people in how to think clearly, and to demonstrate the baseless nature of religion.
The emotionalism is more difficult to combat since we would need to offer a replacement, something that would give people hope for their future. At the moment religions offer a hope for an afterlife (i.e. immortality), and a fatherly figure (theist religions only) that will protect in times of need. These are powerful irrational beliefs and it will be difficult to offer equally compelling alternatives. Consider current reality – when you die you cease to exist, and in life you’re on your own, there is no one to protect you. Right, really attractive huh? So we have an uphill battle.
Not so very long ago religion and politics were one and the same thing, and religion effectively ruled the world. As we discovered truths about the universe, and increased our education standards, and introduced democracies, religion has tended to whither, or at least loose its controlling influence. This is still continuing.
In the USA, the founding fathers, who were very aware of the enormous conflicts in Europe, that were primarily caused by religion, took the important step of ensuring that the US government would be kept separate from religion, note that the founding fathers were primarily Deists and essentially anti-Christian. Unfortunately this rule has infuriated many religionists who desperately want to see religion taught in schools, and has caused the creation of strong right-wing religious political pressure groups.
In the UK (I am British BTW) religion has been waning for years. I was taught religion at school and had to take part in religious services every day, and it was never really taken very seriously, it just became a chore because it was a legal requirement for all schools to do that. In recent years, although the law is still in force, nearly all state-schools, from what I hear, no longer even bother to hold religious services, and religious teaching tends to be based on healthy comparisons between religions.
In effect atheism now dominates effective British thinking, or so the Archbishop of Canterbury admitted in a speech two years ago. And religion is just an amusing pastime for some, and definitely a target for humor in comedy TV shows.
My point here is that if you highlight religious differences you will tend to mobilize the religious extremists when you really want to simply ignore them.
As science and technology continue their inexorable exponential progress towards the introduction of new knowledge and discoveries then I suspect that that alone will be sufficient to reduce ignorance and enable more people to realize the increasing irrelevance of religion beliefs.
Note that in Islamic countries religion and politics are interlinked, they are several hundred years behind the western world, and until that link is broken then we are not likely to significantly change the opinions of that part of the world. However, Iran is likely to be the first country to dismiss its religious rulers. The Iranian people are strongly pro-western (opposite of the conservative religious leaders) and they are desperate for greater freedoms. Combine that with the fact that the majority of Iranians are aged less than 25, and I suspect we will soon see dramatic changes in that country as the young people find the courage to exert themselves.
So while I would like most people in the world to come to their senses and dismiss religion as the irrelevance that it is, I don’t see that making a big fuss about it will do any good apart from maybe making things worse.
There are two things that might help –
1. The arrival of extra-terrestrials, and I don’t expect that to occur yet.
2. The development of machine based intelligence that will be superior to humans (I expect around 2015).
Once religionists are faced with other intelligences that can out-think them then that will set up a paradox and a realization that humans are not really very special and are really rather primitive. And this should really be another thread.
But for now just fight against local issues. Join and support the ACLU that does a good job protecting freedoms, and the religious right is the most offensive in trying to reduce freedoms – a basic constitutional right of every American.
We currently have a very right wing and very religious administration in power in the US. Probably the most offensive is John Ashcroft who at a recent religious conference announced that he bases his decisions on religious teachings. Unfortunately it should be based on the law and the US constitution. He also holds daily prayer services on government premises where his staff are expected to attend. George Bush is yet another frightening prospect. Ugghhh!
But really just let science and technology proceed as they are and religions will eventually become sufficiently sidelined that their effect will be insignificant.
Cris
Hi and welcome to sciforums.
If we are seen as openly aggressive towards religions then that will tend to marshal the religious extremists into mounting a counter-offensive. And we don’t want that, since that will polarize the two sides and create even more conflict.
Religion is based entirely on ignorance, emotionalism, mythology, and irrational thinking. The way to combat religion is primarily to promote knowledge, to educate people in how to think clearly, and to demonstrate the baseless nature of religion.
The emotionalism is more difficult to combat since we would need to offer a replacement, something that would give people hope for their future. At the moment religions offer a hope for an afterlife (i.e. immortality), and a fatherly figure (theist religions only) that will protect in times of need. These are powerful irrational beliefs and it will be difficult to offer equally compelling alternatives. Consider current reality – when you die you cease to exist, and in life you’re on your own, there is no one to protect you. Right, really attractive huh? So we have an uphill battle.
Not so very long ago religion and politics were one and the same thing, and religion effectively ruled the world. As we discovered truths about the universe, and increased our education standards, and introduced democracies, religion has tended to whither, or at least loose its controlling influence. This is still continuing.
In the USA, the founding fathers, who were very aware of the enormous conflicts in Europe, that were primarily caused by religion, took the important step of ensuring that the US government would be kept separate from religion, note that the founding fathers were primarily Deists and essentially anti-Christian. Unfortunately this rule has infuriated many religionists who desperately want to see religion taught in schools, and has caused the creation of strong right-wing religious political pressure groups.
In the UK (I am British BTW) religion has been waning for years. I was taught religion at school and had to take part in religious services every day, and it was never really taken very seriously, it just became a chore because it was a legal requirement for all schools to do that. In recent years, although the law is still in force, nearly all state-schools, from what I hear, no longer even bother to hold religious services, and religious teaching tends to be based on healthy comparisons between religions.
In effect atheism now dominates effective British thinking, or so the Archbishop of Canterbury admitted in a speech two years ago. And religion is just an amusing pastime for some, and definitely a target for humor in comedy TV shows.
My point here is that if you highlight religious differences you will tend to mobilize the religious extremists when you really want to simply ignore them.
As science and technology continue their inexorable exponential progress towards the introduction of new knowledge and discoveries then I suspect that that alone will be sufficient to reduce ignorance and enable more people to realize the increasing irrelevance of religion beliefs.
Note that in Islamic countries religion and politics are interlinked, they are several hundred years behind the western world, and until that link is broken then we are not likely to significantly change the opinions of that part of the world. However, Iran is likely to be the first country to dismiss its religious rulers. The Iranian people are strongly pro-western (opposite of the conservative religious leaders) and they are desperate for greater freedoms. Combine that with the fact that the majority of Iranians are aged less than 25, and I suspect we will soon see dramatic changes in that country as the young people find the courage to exert themselves.
So while I would like most people in the world to come to their senses and dismiss religion as the irrelevance that it is, I don’t see that making a big fuss about it will do any good apart from maybe making things worse.
There are two things that might help –
1. The arrival of extra-terrestrials, and I don’t expect that to occur yet.
2. The development of machine based intelligence that will be superior to humans (I expect around 2015).
Once religionists are faced with other intelligences that can out-think them then that will set up a paradox and a realization that humans are not really very special and are really rather primitive. And this should really be another thread.
But for now just fight against local issues. Join and support the ACLU that does a good job protecting freedoms, and the religious right is the most offensive in trying to reduce freedoms – a basic constitutional right of every American.
We currently have a very right wing and very religious administration in power in the US. Probably the most offensive is John Ashcroft who at a recent religious conference announced that he bases his decisions on religious teachings. Unfortunately it should be based on the law and the US constitution. He also holds daily prayer services on government premises where his staff are expected to attend. George Bush is yet another frightening prospect. Ugghhh!
But really just let science and technology proceed as they are and religions will eventually become sufficiently sidelined that their effect will be insignificant.
Cris
Aut-postius
Registered Senior Member
Cris:
Wow. Thanks. That was certainly thought-provoking. I agree with you on all levels. And the idea of machine intelligence being a paradigm-shifter, good summation.
Hopefully, this sort of goal will be accomplished sometime in the future. And I think it's a good point that you bring up - that this type of mental shift would take place from subtle information.
BTW: Sorry for posting this in the Free thoughts forum....I realized it should have been under religion - I just figured this was the place to get the most replies....
Wow. Thanks. That was certainly thought-provoking. I agree with you on all levels. And the idea of machine intelligence being a paradigm-shifter, good summation.
Hopefully, this sort of goal will be accomplished sometime in the future. And I think it's a good point that you bring up - that this type of mental shift would take place from subtle information.
BTW: Sorry for posting this in the Free thoughts forum....I realized it should have been under religion - I just figured this was the place to get the most replies....
re
Fundamentalism and holy hate does not sleep. It teaches the young, who naturally wish to emulate their fathers, to seek revenge through martyrdom and destruction.
I do entirely agree with Chris and offer this little picture poem I painted this week:
Best of Friends
They should have feared each other
God knows they had little in common
Was the friendship forged with ancient wisdom ?
Did they instictivly feel a symbiosis ?
No
Their parents taught them so.
Fundamentalism and holy hate does not sleep. It teaches the young, who naturally wish to emulate their fathers, to seek revenge through martyrdom and destruction.
I do entirely agree with Chris and offer this little picture poem I painted this week:
Best of Friends
They should have feared each other
God knows they had little in common
Was the friendship forged with ancient wisdom ?
Did they instictivly feel a symbiosis ?
No
Their parents taught them so.
Aut-postius
Registered Senior Member
Hey, Jan
- looks like we disagree! I don't really think there's any point in argueing about this with you. I hate to say it, but I was looking more for a brainstorming dialogue with like-minded people on this one. I don't think all the disscussion in the world would change yours or my mind on this, so let's not, K?
ah, but I've got to respond to this one though:
" Name one current war, where they are fighting, purely over religious principle."
- UH, the CURRENT JIHAD (which I believe could be called a pure religious principle for muslims) in the middle east? No TV where you're at?
- looks like we disagree! I don't really think there's any point in argueing about this with you. I hate to say it, but I was looking more for a brainstorming dialogue with like-minded people on this one. I don't think all the disscussion in the world would change yours or my mind on this, so let's not, K?
ah, but I've got to respond to this one though:
" Name one current war, where they are fighting, purely over religious principle."
- UH, the CURRENT JIHAD (which I believe could be called a pure religious principle for muslims) in the middle east? No TV where you're at?
'Scuse me, I am the belligerant one around here. You're on my turf, Jan. And you do a poor job of it too. I am at least not a complete arse and a fool.
Okay, what have we been concentrating and inhaling? What has that to do with anything?
As for prostitutes collecting money for church on Sunday (whatever that means), we've never heard of Jim and Tammy Faye, Swaggart, have we?
He didn't claim 'purely'. Perchance you should read before 'flaming'?
Or would that take the fun out of it?
Okaaay, I think Alex Chiu has a better grasp of science than you do....
Tin-Foil Hats! Get 'cher Tin-Foil hats riiiight here folks!
Does the sanitarium know that you are using the internet?
Nutter Alert! Nutter Alert!
Irony.
Do us a favor and slime back under your rock.
Okay, what have we been concentrating and inhaling? What has that to do with anything?
As for prostitutes collecting money for church on Sunday (whatever that means), we've never heard of Jim and Tammy Faye, Swaggart, have we?
He didn't claim 'purely'. Perchance you should read before 'flaming'?
Or would that take the fun out of it?
Okaaay, I think Alex Chiu has a better grasp of science than you do....
Tin-Foil Hats! Get 'cher Tin-Foil hats riiiight here folks!
Does the sanitarium know that you are using the internet?
Nutter Alert! Nutter Alert!
Irony.
Do us a favor and slime back under your rock.
Indeed!I used to lurk at sciforums/religion before registering. At that time, I was still undecided about issues like soul, re-incarnation, afterlife, etc. Then I came across excellent posts on these topics by Boris and others (archives). At the same time, I saw the generally belligerent attitude religionists take. Both these factors combined to completely convince me that all religion is a sham, and based on wishful thinking.
IMO, the complete eradication of religion may never happen. Someone on the forum commented that religion is what happens when one is unable or unwilling to make the effort to understand scientific explanations. IOW, it's a cop-out. No amount of progress or education is going to eradicate that tendency.
Aut-postius
Registered Senior Member
Jan, I think you're just looking for a fight. And you're disrailing this discussion (maybe that's your goal). Kindly piss off.....
The sad thing is, you're probably twice my age, and acting very immature.
The sad thing is, you're probably twice my age, and acting very immature.
It COULD be called a ‘pure religious principle for muslims’ if you watch TV to get your info on religious principles, but in the real world that is not the case.
I’ve got plenty TV where I come from, and if I watched it enough, I could also be convinced that religion is to be blamed for wars, rather than the leaders of the nations involved, who are fighting for non religious principles, such as land, oil, money and power.
Love.
Jan Ardena.
Aut-postius
Registered Senior Member
So Jihad is a religious principle for Muslims only on TV and not in the real world? Interesting. Where is this "real world" you speak of? Oh, wait - it's on TV too! (kidding)
No, seriously, you're a moron. I'll be ignoring your posts from now on....Promise
No, seriously, you're a moron. I'll be ignoring your posts from now on....Promise
Originally posted by Aut-postius
So Jihad is a religious principle for Muslims only on TV and not in the real world?
Do you know what 'Jihad' is?
Sorry! Your ignoring me aren 't you!
Thanks.
Originally posted by Aut-postius
So Jihad is a religious principle for Muslims only on TV and not in the real world? Interesting. Where is this "real world" you speak of? Oh, wait - it's on TV too! (kidding)
No, seriously, you're a moron. I'll be ignoring your posts from now on....Promise
Jihad as religious Principle for muslims??? true somewhat.
It is really only on TV that it looks like religious war. Trsut me if you stay away fron CNN and FOX network for a while. You will see a different world.
Jihad is part of religion but not the main cause of war in Middle east. Palestanians wants freedom from Israel. They rarely use word Jihad for that. I am not sure how close you are following the events but first group who started the infada ( mind my spelling ) was mixture of christians and muslims. I saw that on BBC documentry about 3 years ago.
Last edited:
Aut-postius
Registered Senior Member
Markx:
I don't think I get the jist....I'm not a follower of CNN or Fox...As a journalist, I understand quite well corruption in the American mainstream media.
I don't think I get the jist....I'm not a follower of CNN or Fox...As a journalist, I understand quite well corruption in the American mainstream media.