Religion to become "extinct"

[fetaby]

The sky is falling! Agh!

 

[yummylongsword]

The sky is falling! Agh!

See, this is why I thought you were a troll... you insert sarcastic little comments into an otherwise serious discussion. It confuses me! >:O

 

[fetaby]

All I was saying is that neither you nor I can predict the future. If anarchy was to reign, who's to say we wouldn't be better off as a species...

Using the possibility of anarchy as a deterrent to scrapping religions is shady.

Anyway, this study is nothing but a mile marker in the attitudes of a specific portion of the worlds population. It's not the last nail in the coffin for religions, spiritualism, etc...

I quite agree that a measure of morality is a good thing, I disagree that one needs to fear a fate or strive for a reward to be moral.

 

[yummylongsword]

All I was saying is that neither you nor I can predict the future. If anarchy was to reign, who's to say we wouldn't be better off as a species...

Using the possibility of anarchy as a deterrent to scrapping religions is shady.

Anyway, this study is nothing but a mile marker in the attitudes of a specific portion of the worlds population. It's not the last nail in the coffin for religions, spiritualism, etc...

I quite agree that a measure of morality is a good thing, I disagree that one needs to fear a fate or strive for a reward to be moral.

A person with no morals has no reason to help anyone besides themselves, and possibly those they love. Without mutual trust, people cannot form a system any bigger than a family unit, knowing that others will backstab them at the first possible chance. "Morals" of some sort are necessary for any communal species, humans included.

And of course religion is not NEEDED in order to be moral, as is evident by the multitude of moral atheists. It is, however, a useful tool in achieving that end, and for many weak willed or naturally selfish people, it can help keep them in line.

Not to mention, religion can also inspire great goodness in people.

Of course religion isn't completely necessary for everyone, but it is very helpful for those that need a crutch to stand on, in terms of their moral and mental stability.

 

[fetaby]

people cannot form a system any bigger than a family unit

Well, right now we do have those systems. We do have the complexity. We do have religion. But none of it can compensate for the nature of humanity.

I sense, while reading your posts, that you believe a measure of control can be extended over people. This is a false sense of security. Those people you say need religion to prop up their moral or mental shortcomings are not required to be religious. So there's a cog in the works right there.

I'm not trying to discount the positive aspects of religion, but lets not pretend that it is a cure all either.

 

[yummylongsword]

Well, right now we do have those systems. We do have the complexity. We do have religion. But none of it can compensate for the nature of humanity.

I sense, while reading your posts, that you believe a measure of control can be extended over people. This is a false sense of security. Those people you say need religion to prop up their moral or mental shortcomings are not required to be religious. So there's a cog in the works right there.

I'm not trying to discount the positive aspects of religion, but lets not pretend that it is a cure all either.

I never said religion was a cure all. A measure of control CAN be extended over people, as is evidenced by the fact that there are people being controlled all over the world. When you say people are not "required" to be religious, what do you mean? They believe they are "required" to be religious, or they face going to hell or whatever happens to non-believers of their religion. In the same way, they're required to obey the laws or face incarceration.

The people that follow a religion solely out of fear of hell are far and few between, however, and that's not the main benefit of religion. People are often inspired to do good by religion, and by the idea that there is a higher purpose and an ideal to strive for. Religion can inspire people, not just frighten them into submission.

 

[bankside]

Just because you designate a certain belief as one that "belongs in the dustbin," it doesn't really matter. There are millions of people that maintain that your belief belongs in the dustbin, and you in hell. Honestly, it comes down to basic beliefs that are necessary for a functioning society; you need some system to keep you moral and often to keep you from being depressed and suicidal. Whether that system be religion, independent beliefs, or atheism... no one can claim that they are inherently correct. One can only look at their ethic system and use it to judge the actions of themselves and others.

Not that ethical systems and religions are the same thing, they just often go together.

The correct answer in this regard is not a popularity contest; it's these millions of people who don't matter. Billions actually.

Well, they do matter. But only as a problem of containment. Most religious people are just sort of aping the motions of those they see around them and they do it in spite of their common sense, but they never really lose sight of that common sense. They behave more or less sensibly around others. But sometimes these people, in all of their conflicting divinely inspired "certainty," want to make trouble for each other. Or worse, for me.

None of that changes how absurd it is. Absurd for both sides in a war to go into battle with god on their side. And absurd for us to tolerate it or humour it.

 

[BearBoi]

@ bankside

I’m not trying to say more than I did.

My comments were directed at the drive-by flamers who say, “GOOD!” “All religion is evil!” Blah blah blah.

I think it is rather evident that the study was written from a decidedly Eurocentric/Westernized point of view. I read the use of the word “religion” to be code for Christianity; without giving pause to consider the many faiths that operate under a completely different set of parameters, understandings and teachings.

I’d have had far more respect for the premise of the study had it grown the balls to say, “Traditional Christianity is on the decline”. But of course they’d not do that, because the Fundies would go ape shit.

Again, as for the rest, it implies that all religion is the same and those with tiny minds lash out with all the hatred and bile for the sum without considering its individual parts. As such, the study is a gross disservice to those of faith. I stand by that statement.

 

[fetaby]

We present a new treatment of the competition for adherents between religious and
irreligious segments of modern secular societies and compile a new international data set tracking
the growth of religious non-affiliation.

It's not the study @ issue here. What people are reacting to is the implication of society stepping away from religions. And whether you like it or not, it's happening.

For decades, authors have commented on the surprisingly rapid decline of organized religion in many regions of the world. The work we have presented does not exclude previous models, but provides a new framework for the understanding of different models of human behavior in majority/minority social systems in which groups compete for members

 

[bankside]

@ bankside

I’m not trying to say more than I did.

My comments were directed at the drive-by flamers who say, “GOOD!” “All religion is evil!” Blah blah blah.

I think it is rather evident that the study was written from a decidedly Eurocentric/Westernized point of view. I read the use of the word “religion” to be code for Christianity; without giving pause to consider the many faiths that operate under a completely different set of parameters, understandings and teachings.

I’d have had far more respect for the premise of the study had it grown the balls to say, “Traditional Christianity is on the decline”. But of course they’d not do that, because the Fundies would go ape shit.

Again, as for the rest, it implies that all religion is the same and those with tiny minds lash out with all the hatred and bile for the sum without considering its individual parts. As such, the study is a gross disservice to those of faith. I stand by that statement.

Your answer implies there is a lot of deadwood in the community of self-described believers who are deserving of criticism as long as skeptics don't paint every believer with the same brush.

I could accept that a lot easier if you didn't defend all believers, ludicrous or not, with the same blow. It is a gross disservice to some of those of faith. Many of them, if not most, have it coming.

Anyway, I agree with you about the title of the study; your rewording is helpful. I wonder if that was the study or the article?

 

[BearBoi]

Your answer implies there is a lot of deadwood in the community of self-described believers who are deserving of criticism as long as skeptics don't paint every believer with the same brush.

@ bankside

I’m not trying to say more than I did.

I'm just typing this so my message isn't too short to post.

 

[yummylongsword]

Your answer implies there is a lot of deadwood in the community of self-described believers who are deserving of criticism as long as skeptics don't paint every believer with the same brush.

I could accept that a lot easier if you didn't defend all believers, ludicrous or not, with the same blow. It is a gross disservice to some of those of faith. Many of them, if not most, have it coming.

Anyway, I agree with you about the title of the study; your rewording is helpful. I wonder if that was the study or the article?

I have no way to back up my opinion any more than you do, but I think you severely overestimate the amount of people that would resort to violence or hate in the name of their religion. Even in a militant "convert the non-believers or face hell!" kind of religion like many denominations of Christianity, most of the believers follow the teachings of the New Testament, which is almost entirely anti-violence and anti-hate. The crazies are just the loudest, the ones you see in the news, the ones that get all the attention, because they're just that... crazy. They hardly represent the majority of their religion in their personal beliefs.

Besides, it's really the three monotheistic religions that provoke violence, almost entirely from the whole idea of "there is only one god, and it's mine." Most of the other major world religions are polytheistic or pantheistic, which doesn't promote nearly as much antagonism as the monotheistic religions.