What has to Happen to end Religion?

[S.A.M.]

When there is a better method of human relationships that meets individual and group needs and doesn't have a foundation of fiction. IMO, the advancements of science and the synthesis of science and psychology might be your huckleberry.

Seems to me that science is not linked to morality; all it can do is provide us with the means: good or bad.

The decisions still rest with us and the trend is towards greater individualism and personal luxury, both of which are incompatible with long term survival of relationships.

 

[looking_forward]

Even a religious person has to admit that religions do end. History has proven that. Why don't you think religion will someday be gone forever?

Bravo!! Since ancient times, religion has been used as an explanation for things we did not understand. As science has gained more knowledge, it has disproven these religions and turned them into "myths" or "legends." The rising of the sun used to be attributed to the sun god driving a flaming chariot across the sky. Today, even the most religious person will laugh at how silly of an idea that was, and wonder how could people actually believe that that was true, however, the people who believed that were just as convinced they were right as the theists today are. Now, only a few questions remain that science has not answered (questions about our beginning, consciousness, purpose, and death) hence, these form the backbone of modern religion, for religion is always forced to retreat to the shadowy mysteries of our existence that science has not yet shed light on. I always learned that to understand the future, we must look to the past, and the pattern i see is a steady disproval of gods. There used to be belief in hundreds of thousands of gods, but now there exists really only the different interpretations of a "Creator" god, which will either eventually be disproven like all of his predecessors, or maybe he will retreat further into a realm so abstract that science will not be able to prove or disprove it and the theists will look out with some smug satisfaction that they have protected their god from the onslaught of logic.

 

[S.A.M.]

Bravo!! Since ancient times, religion has been used as an explanation for things we did not understand. As science has gained more knowledge, it has disproven these religions and turned them into "myths" or "legends." The rising of the sun used to be attributed to the sun god driving a flaming chariot across the sky. Today, even the most religious person will laugh at how silly of an idea that was, and wonder how could people actually believe that that was true, however, the people who believed that were just as convinced they were right as the theists today are. Now, only a few questions remain that science has not answered (questions about our beginning, consciousness, purpose, and death) hence, these form the backbone of modern religion, for religion is always forced to retreat to the shadowy mysteries of our existence that science has not yet shed light on. I always learned that to understand the future, we must look to the past, and the pattern i see is a steady disproval of gods. There used to be belief in hundreds of thousands of gods, but now there exists really only the different interpretations of a "Creator" god, which will either eventually be disproven like all of his predecessors, or maybe he will retreat further into a realm so abstract that science will not be able to prove or disprove it and the theists will look out with some smug satisfaction that they have protected their god from the onslaught of logic.

Good luck!

 

[looking_forward]

Good luck!

thanks but i wont need luck, just time

 

[KennyJC]

child laws protecting kids from any religion until they are old enough

Speaking from personal experience, this is a must.

So when will religion end?

I think it is innevitable that it will feature less and less in our lives as the generations go by. However, it will take a long time before the world and the majority of human beings could be called 'secular'.

As for total irradication... I suppose this could only come about if our brain sizes dramatically increased and gave the human race that ability to spot superstitious bullshit a mile off. We are capable of that today, but we are intellectually far too lazy for this.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

.As for total irradication... I suppose this could only come about if our brain sizes dramatically increased and gave the human race that ability to spot superstitious bullshit a mile off. We are capable of that today, but we are intellectually far too lazy for this.

Maybe that's why it's easier to recruit children as suicide bombers, they can't separate the fact from fiction.

 

[Sarkus]

Actually I find it amusing how atheists are so quick to consider their point of view as the sole right view.

And what exactly is this "point of view"? Most atheists, in my experience, have NO point of view on the existence of God - they choose NOT TO BELIEVE in God.
I choose to believe in neither the existence nor the non-existence of God.
So what is MY point of view?
I have a lack of belief? Is this sticking my flag in a camp? Or is it me pulling my flag out of all camps?

...the one thing I see in common among all atheists is their dislike of the word "spiritual"; they seem to think spiritual equals what?

It is used in many ways, but is often used to describe something that is not entirely understood and the user is either too lazy to try and understand, or gains comfort from the implied "mysticism" and "mystery" behind it.

So do you believe that you have a soul?

No - I do not have a belief that I have a soul.

And how do you explain the phenomenon of consciousness?

At the moment I can't. My understanding is limited but it is most likely a by-product of the complexity of the neural connections in our brain.

Can you examine a brain and "see" a personality?

"Personality" is nothing more than the word we use to define the sum of the activity within a brain - to explain why the same stimuli from our senses result in different reactions from person to person.

Not everything in the world can be measured or even sensed.

Do you mean by us, as humans, or by machines, or are you talking in absolute terms?

We cannot see all light in all the ranges nor hear sounds that are above or below the threhold that is our perception. But we did not know that until we had a way to measure it. So just not being able to perceive or measure something does not indicate its presence or absence.

Correct. But they ARE measurable, in the absolute sense.

But claiming that it is absent limits your exploration of it. You decide that it does not exist. This is firmly established in your mind. Will you then look for it or even recognize it for what it is if it appears before you?

But why do you see what you are looking for, and not what scientists explain to you is the more probable, and evidence-based version?
You might see a ghost - and the more probable, evidence-based version is that what you saw is a fleeting reflection of light from a shard of mirror. Why would you continue to claim "ghost" in the presence of more reasoned, more evidence-based conclusions?

But if you want us to look for God, please define this God and then provide a test for me such that I may go and look for it. I will make no claims either way as to the existence of this God until I can either logically conclude that it does not exist, or find evidence to support its existence.
But why would I "believe" in its existence?

As for history, at no point in time has society existed without a religion of some kind.

I'm fairly sure that the Dinosaurs didn't have a religion. No evidence though, either way, on that.
Or are you only talking about human societies?
And where is your evidence for this?
Or do you need to qualify your assertion to "recorded history"?

 

[wsionynw]

I DONT LIKE ATHEISTS... period

-MT

Why don't you like atheists?

 

[S.A.M.]

And what exactly is this "point of view"? Most atheists, in my experience, have NO point of view on the existence of God - they choose NOT TO BELIEVE in God.
I choose to believe in neither the existence nor the non-existence of God.
So what is MY point of view?
I have a lack of belief? Is this sticking my flag in a camp? Or is it me pulling my flag out of all camps?

That makes you agnostic not atheist

It is used in many ways, but is often used to describe something that is not entirely understood and the user is either too lazy to try and understand, or gains comfort from the implied "mysticism" and "mystery" behind it.

You proved my point.

No - I do not have a belief that I have a soul.

And yet many atheists believe in a soul.

At the moment I can't. My understanding is limited but it is most likely a by-product of the complexity of the neural connections in our brain.

OK.

"Personality" is nothing more than the word we use to define the sum of the activity within a brain - to explain why the same stimuli from our senses result in different reactions from person to person.

Read my question again.

Do you mean by us, as humans, or by machines, or are you talking in absolute terms?

You can take it as you like

Correct. But they ARE measurable, in the absolute sense.

Which can only be claimed after the fact.

But why do you see what you are looking for, and not what scientists explain to you is the more probable, and evidence-based version?
You might see a ghost - and the more probable, evidence-based version is that what you saw is a fleeting reflection of light from a shard of mirror. Why would you continue to claim "ghost" in the presence of more reasoned, more evidence-based conclusions?

science is not all encompassing; as I have explained elsewhere it is limited by available knowledge and the reliability and validity of its tools.

But if you want us to look for God, please define this God and then provide a test for me such that I may go and look for it. I will make no claims either way as to the existence of this God until I can either logically conclude that it does not exist, or find evidence to support its existence.
But why would I "believe" in its existence?

I believe in God as an entity which we are not yet capable of discerning, due to our limitations and perhaps lack of knowledge.

I'm fairly sure that the Dinosaurs didn't have a religion. No evidence though, either way, on that.
Or are you only talking about human societies?
And where is your evidence for this?
Or do you need to qualify your assertion to "recorded history"?

I did not realise that your view of the future is based on prehistoric society; I naturally assumed we were still going to be human in the future.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Seems to me that science is not linked to morality; all it can do is provide us with the means: good or bad.

The decisions still rest with us and the trend is towards greater individualism and personal luxury, both of which are incompatible with long term survival of relationships.

Science can help us understand the biological reasons for morality and human relationships. I am sure that such understanding can result in useful applications.

I fully agree that individualism is incompatible with long term relationships. Counter-dependency is a disaster zone.

 

[S.A.M.]

Science can help us understand the biological reasons for morality and human relationships. I am sure that such understanding can result in useful applications.

Maybe but there is too much emphasis on science and it is not universally applicable to human conditions. Even when conducting an experiment you control a lot of variables so as to be able to accurately observe the effect of a single variable; if you are in human sciences you must know that we are now beginning to realise that nature does not actually function that way. Knowing the effect of a single variable is not always equivalent to knowing the effect of that variable in the presence of other, changing variables. So the observed effect which you obtain under a set of experimental conditions (which are unnatural) may only be seen under those conditions and hence may actually never occur in nature! So how far are we certain of the knowledge we obtain from science?

And how far can we extrapolate the results of our experiments with confidence?

 

[ggazoo]

But if you want us to look for God, please define this God and then provide a test for me such that I may go and look for it. I will make no claims either way as to the existence of this God until I can either logically conclude that it does not exist, or find evidence to support its existence.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Which is why theists and atheists can never have a complete understanding of one another.

 

[KennyJC]

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Which is why theists and atheists can never have a complete understanding of one another.

It's funny how the same could be said about Astrology, isn't it?

 

[ggazoo]

It's funny how the same could be said about Astrology, isn't it?

Astrology isn't religion, so no, it's not funny.

But that make me wonder why can't we all just accept that some believe and have faith and some do not? Why do we need to convince one and other all the time? Is it better not to believe than to believe? Who can tell? Is it converting theists to atheists your after? Why?

This is a science site. Why religious subforums when Theism cannot be proved scientifically to begin with? No-one can prove God, so why make it available to discuss whether or not He exists? Just to mock theists? If so, that's just childish.

The above was also posted elsewhere on this site by someone else, although I can'trecall who. Please step forward for credit.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Maybe but there is too much emphasis on science and it is not universally applicable to human conditions. Even when conducting an experiment you control a lot of variables so as to be able to accurately observe the effect of a single variable; if you are in human sciences you must know that we are now beginning to realise that nature does not actually function that way. Knowing the effect of a single variable is not always equivalent to knowing the effect of that variable in the presence of other, changing variables. So the observed effect which you obtain under a set of experimental conditions (which are unnatural) may only be seen under those conditions and hence may actually never occur in nature! So how far are we certain of the knowledge we obtain from science?

And how far can we extrapolate the results of our experiments with confidence?

The human condition is a complex cookie. You are very correct in that the dynamics of variables to human behavior is a challenge and IMO it's going to take alot of time to explore and get it right. It certainly doesn't make it impossible or non-applicable. Our certainty and confidence of knowledge obtained from science is a function of how much reality agrees.

 

[KennyJC]

Astrology isn't religion, so no, it's not funny.

Then how come a believer in Astrology would reply in the exact same way you did regarding religion? ... "Unfortunately it doesn't work that way"... Copout! You believe for the emotional benefits (which you practically admitted in a post) which is the only possible reason someone could also believe in Astrology, ghosts, heaven etc.

But that make me wonder why can't we all just accept that some believe and have faith and some do not? Why do we need to convince one and other all the time? Is it better not to believe than to believe? Who can tell? Is it converting theists to atheists your after? Why?

Well most superstition is just laughed off, except for religion in large part. So people with crazy beliefs (like yourself) still have a huge say on how society is run then you must be ridiculed at every possible moment until politics, education and law can all be deemed secular.

History shows the the further secularism is pushed, all the better for society, and long may it continue. If everyone simply respected religious beliefs then we'd end up like the USA. By that I mean, take a look at the horrible Christian right in America and the people they elect to run their country *shudder*

 

[S.A.M.]

The human condition is a complex cookie. You are very correct in that the dynamics of variables to human behavior is a challenge and IMO it's going to take alot of time to explore and get it right. It certainly doesn't make it impossible or non-applicable. Our certainty and confidence of knowledge obtained from science is a function of how much reality agrees.

Is it? Or do we see the reality as it is dictated by our knowledge? One of the important concepts underlying scientific exploration is not to become so blinded by your idea of what should be that you become unable to see what is.

If the results you get are not what you had expected based on previous observations, do you think:
1. I must've done something wrong here?
2. What did I do different?
3. What other explanation is possible?

You'll find that most people get stuck on 1 and 2 for quite sometime and may never even reach the possibility of 3.

Whether it is religion or science, questioning and doubt is GOOD; it maintains integrity and also allows you to get to the truth.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

But that make me wonder why can't we all just accept that some believe and have faith and some do not?

Because believers are trying to convert me at my doorstep. Because believers are trying to blow me up. Because believers are invading foreign countries because 'God' says to do so. Because believers are trying to pass off theology as science.

Why do we need to convince one and other all the time?

For theists, it's because their religion tells them to do so. For others it might not be so much an effort to convince as it is to bring the voice of reason to the public forum eye.

Is it better not to believe than to believe? Who can tell?

IMO, it's better to do both and have a dominant 'defualt' that reflects your core values (e.x. if you value truth then belief would not be the dominant default).

Is it converting theists to atheists your after? Why?

For now (and for me) it's just to be a voice of reason.

This is a science site. Why religious subforums when Theism cannot be proved scientifically to begin with? No-one can prove God, so why make it available to discuss whether or not He exists? Just to mock theists? If so, that's just childish.

I've heard rumors that the intention of the sub-forum was to discuss religion from a scientific point of view. The reality is quite different and has actually served as a great place to study the psychology of belief, non-belief, anti-non-belief, and anti-belif as well as host experiments with folks whom will participate for free.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Is it? Or do we see the reality as it is dictated by our knowledge? One of the important concepts underlying scientific exploration is not to become so blinded by your idea of what should be that you become unable to see what is.

If the results you get are not what you had expected based on previous observations, do you think:
1. I must've done something wrong here?
2. What did I do different?
3. What other explanation is possible?

You'll find that most people get stuck on 1 and 2 for quite sometime and may never even reach the possibility of 3.

Whether it is religion or science, questioning and doubt is GOOD; it maintains integrity and also allows you to get to the truth.

It is and we do get caught up in ideas of reality dictated by our knowledge sometimes, yet we still manage to prevail. You are quite correct that people get stuck on 1) and 2). I know I do all the time. There might be a good reason for that though. In my case 1) and 2) turn out to be the right questions the vast majority of the time and sometimes I do have to search for 3) if 1) and 2) turn up empty (usually after some heroics on my part).

Science is a process and it's effectiveness will always be subject to the strengths and weakenesses of the people wielding it.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

One thing I can't see stopping religion is war. I think the religious would see it as a fulfillment of prophesy. I figure they haven't had enough fulfillment yet so get ready.