posted
BTW, Karl, when I was referring to "those kids eaten by bears," I wasn't making a broad reference to all the children ever eaten by bears, whom we can safely assume to have been eaten by bears of their own free will. I should have been more specific, and mentioned that I was addressing directly an instance of God's interference (in which He sent a she-bear, violating HER free will, to eat some teenagers bugging one of His prophets, thus violating THEIR free will. Unless the bear just happened to drop by and got included in the myth by lucky accident, which I suppose is always possible.)
-----
BTW, camus, your explanation -- that God is exposing us to suffering as a dare, or on our request, so that we can experimentally see what the world would be like if we had free will -- makes sense only in a few limited cases:
1) if there are no eternal implications in this life (i.e. people who sin today will not suffer for that sin after the experiment is over).
2) that God's occasional interventions (assuming you believe God intervenes) are essential to keeping the test project going, or at least more essential than they would have been at times He didn't intervene.
3) that somehow all the natural disasters and inhuman suffering in the world is also a consequence of free will, and not simply a consequence of removing God's grace from the world. (Otherwise it's not a fair test, as indeed it might be considerably easier to have free will in Eden. In other words, we have to assume that free will causes volcanoes, or else the Earth and other natural systems have free wills of their own.)
Worse, though, is the implication of what you've said: that the purpose of existence is to prove to our immortal souls that free will is unnecessary and potentially dangerous. If that's the case, though, why would God bother giving us free will at all, especially if He would know the result of all possible tests of this sort (and especially if He's still meddling in the test by interfering with it, anyway)? Heck, why would He bother even creating us, much less with free will, if the whole point of mortal existence is to prove to us that we should submit to Him?
Heck, I can make little men out of clay to dance at my bidding. And if they disobey, I can do all kinds of horrible things to them, and at the end of the day I'll be content in my knowledge that they're will-less creatures of clay and I'm not. But I don't need that kind of validation.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: BTW, camus, your explanation -- that God is exposing us to suffering as a dare, or on our request, so that we can experimentally see what the world would be like if we had free will -- makes sense only in a few limited cases:
Let me clarify my hypothetical situation. God's original purpose for mankind was for us to exercise free will, but with God's guidance (so that we don't cause harm to ourselves and others). God's omniscience (an ability that he doesn't have to always use) would allow him to know how certain actions would turn out, so then his omnipotence allows Him to direct things so that we would be able to understand as well, and his omnibenevolence would allow us to make the decision ourself (free will) but he would step in if that decision caused damage to ourself or others. (though this is not the world we live in now)
Now what if people didn't want God's guidance at all, or His intervention of natural disasters? (kind of like the Worthing Saga) Thus, we were ushered into the world we know now.
In the future, God will restore the universe to its original state according to God's original plan.
The idea of free will doesn't change in my pre-modern, modern, and post-modern scenarios. The only thing that changes is God's involvement. So natural disasters are not a consequence of free will, however, the consequences of natural disasters show (subject to interpretation)that we do need God.
quote:that the purpose of existence is to prove to our immortal souls that free will is unnecessary and potentially dangerous.
I was not trying to imply that free will is dangerous, just that life without God can be dangerous [edit]if this scenario were true, and this scenario was created to explain the possibility of an all-powerful God while also having free will. This is not meant to imply that God is necessary for our existence or happiness, since we don't really know for certain if he exists. Similarly, this is not meant to try to prove that God exists either.
Of course, all of this relies on one's definition of omniscience. My scenario is based on the assumption that God can know all things, he just doesn't do so for the sake of giving us free will. In handling matters that way, he is saying that the Rightness of the universe depends on our having free will, but it also depends on His guidance.
quote: Now what if people didn't want God's guidance at all, or His intervention of natural disasters?
Then this is a terrible test, unless you believe that no religion on Earth possesses God's guidance and/or that God never intervenes in natural disasters.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Then this is a terrible test, unless you believe that no religion on Earth possesses God's guidance and/or that God never intervenes in natural disasters.
God guides religions to the extent that it allows for people to know His existence and His Will. God does not intervene in natural disasters unless it is necessary for His Will to be accomplished. I do not think it is a terrible test if that is what non-human creation required of Him. (remember that according to Biblical account, God allowed the suffering of Job to prove to Satan that Job would not curse God or blame Him for his suffering) And it is not as much of a test as it is a chance for mankind to show what they are capable of.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: OK, right at the moment I haven't time to go more deeply into the free will issue, but I want to take issue with something BlackBlade said :
quote:Again just because 1 christian believes that there are 3 in 1 does not mean thats what christianity really says.
Ridiculous. Christianity, by definition, is what Christians believe. Besides, I don't have to show that some ideal fantasy version of Christianity has contradictions; I just need to show that some particular version of some religion, not necessarily Christianity, actually held by real people does. And really, I don't care whether you call them Christians or not; certainly they are religious, and they call themselves Christian, that's good enough for me.
Dont try to make it seem as though I am judging what is or what is not christianity. Christianity is NOT contingent on what its followers say it is. Last time I checked the bible was the word of God. Not man saying if God were here this is what he would say.
Regardless of what I say, Christianity has true interpretations of its philosophy and false ones. Just because somebody says they are a christian and believe it so does NOT mean what they says christianity is, is in fact so.
If it WAS in fact that way, then Christianity would be a philosophy of polytheism where men are gods, the prophets pretend to speak for our one desciple Jesus. Backwards to the core.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not going to go deep into the concept of "If God knows all why does he allow bad things to happen" 2nd guessing an omniscient being in my opinion is often fruitless at best and confusing at worst. I only plan to mention one principle often left out of the conversation.
If there was a God, and man has an afterlife. Then death loses MOST of its terror, and significance. If God feels his purposes are better served by bringing groups of people into the afterlife than we cant really be mad at him any more than we can curse him for letting us be born in the first place.
Birth and Death according to that are both merely transitory things, and both positive experiences. Now yes to an Atheist death is the end of existance. And the worst thing that may happen to a person, so when theists and atheists discuss the matter of death, we are both disadvantaged by our views on death, because neither side has empathy for the other sides beliefs.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade's post reminded me of one of the Ender books about where (if I remember correctly) the Piggies needed to die before reaching the second stage of their life. Thus, death isn't necessarily a bad thing depending on what you believe. However, that does not explain pain and suffering. But consider this example:
A butterfly while in a cocoon must struggle very hard in order to break free from the cocoon. Now if you were to free the butterfly so that he could avoid the struggle, his wings would not gain the necessary strength to fly. The struggle is what enables him to survive in his second stage of life. - just some food for thought.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I should have been more specific, and mentioned that I was addressing directly an instance of God's interference (in which He sent a she-bear, violating HER free will, to eat some teenagers bugging one of His prophets, thus violating THEIR free will. Unless the bear just happened to drop by and got included in the myth by lucky accident, which I suppose is always possible.)
What makes you think bears have free will? And I don't see how being eaten by a bear violates someone's free will.
It merely ends it, as I don't believe it is something the dead possess.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Now yes to an Atheist death is the end of existance.
And yet the religious ALSO have laws against murder.
-------
quote: What makes you think bears have free will? And I don't see how being eaten by a bear violates someone's free will.
Unless animals are just props for this hypothetical morality play, it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that the suffering THEY experience is also intended to be instructive to them. Otherwise, what kind of sadistic jerk would create a universe in which creatures capable of feeling but not reasoning must suffer because some higher order of animal needs to be taught a lesson?
And the BEAR didn't rob the youths of their free will; neither did being eaten. Being eaten because God sent the bear to eat them, rather than as a consequence of their actual behavior, robbed them of their free will.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's an interesting idea I heard somewhere before, relating to commiting the crime of murder through a religious and non-religious perspective.
If you do not believe in God, or an afterlife, and you kill someone, that's the end. That person's life is over, there's nothing more after that, period. You will (hopefully) be punished for your crime, go to jail or whatever. You have to live with the thought for the rest of your life that you ended someone's existence absolutely.
If you believe in an afterlife (which to some extent means God), then when you kill someone, your punishment is greater, because not only do you go to jail and have to live with yourself, but then when you die, you go to hell or its equivalent for eternity. However, the person you killed might not be so bad off. Provided they lived their life according to the will of "God", then they will be granted eternal paradise.
I'm not sure if I personally agree with the implications of this idea (it's not mine), so I was wondering what you guys thought.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: Here's an interesting idea I heard somewhere before, relating to commiting the crime of murder through a religious and non-religious perspective.
If you do not believe in God, or an afterlife, and you kill someone, that's the end. That person's life is over, there's nothing more after that, period. You will (hopefully) be punished for your crime, go to jail or whatever. You have to live with the thought for the rest of your life that you ended someone's existence absolutely.
If you believe in an afterlife (which to some extent means God), then when you kill someone, your punishment is greater, because not only do you go to jail and have to live with yourself, but then when you die, you go to hell or its equivalent for eternity. However, the person you killed might not be so bad off. Provided they lived their life according to the will of "God", then they will be granted eternal paradise.
I'm not sure if I personally agree with the implications of this idea (it's not mine), so I was wondering what you guys thought.
If there is no after-life of any sort, then yes you have to live with the thought of permanently exterminating someone's life. However, their life was going to end anyway at some point, so you could try to rationalize what you did as being not that bad. (Disclaimer: Not suggesting that such a trivial attitude should be adopted by anyone)
Regarding an after-life, if eternal torment in a fiery hell does exist (which I don't personally believe) then yeah, you're kinda screwed for all eternity. But if you are reincarnated to another plane of existence, then it may not be so bad becuase you'll have a chance to redeem yourself and hopefully progress upwards in existence. Personally, I believe that judgment for sinners is death without the hope of a resurrection. Is that fair? I can't really say, but it seems more in line with the idea of a comassionate God instead of a vengeful God that exacts eternal punishment.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't you mean, "Please don't respond with the glib 'turn the other cheek' nonsense"? It sounds from the first paragraph like you are implying "eye for an eye".
quote: Now yes to an Atheist death is the end of existance. And the worst thing that may happen to a person, . . .
I've explained at length how God is not necessary for belief in or hope for an afterlife, in this very thread. Additionally, I imagine there are many athiests (myself included) who can imagine that there are many things far worse than death.
So, not accepting your premise, I can hardly accept your conclusion. In fact, I think this thread has shown a lot of empathy of each side for the beliefs of the other (with a couple of notable exceptions).
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must have missed the post where you articulate the possibilities of an afterlife in a universe without a God.
My comments about murder and the lack of preparation for an afterlife are not conclusive AT ALL. I was merely bringing out a point that anybody can think about.
Again I did not say this thread specifically is lacking in empathy merely that this topic of discussion is often crippled by this fact. Dont get a big head, but you are the first atheist I have ever met who believed in an afterlife. I'd look for the post where you explain it but it woudl take a LONG time to find it as skimming often does not work out for me. I will look for it but feel free to A: paste it again B: write out a summary. I do not intend to respond to it however as I do not want to make the conversation go in circles if that is something you would like to avoid.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Dont get a big head, but you are the first atheist I have ever met who believed in an afterlife.
Technically, many Buddhists are atheists.
(And why the heck would Karl go to the trouble of repeating himself if you don't intend to respond and don't think it's worth YOUR time to properly read the thread? Extend him a little courtesy, man.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure so many of them are atheists so much as unconcerned with the question, which was a large part of buddha's point.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I too agree with KarlEd that the possibility of an afterlife does not require the existence of God. One way of looking at it is with the example of the Piggies in the Ender series. Death created a rebirth into another stage without a god to facilitate the process. There are also scientific (and by scientific I mean theoretical) possibilities that suggest that the life that we recognize in our human form is not the only part of our existence. Our consciousness, identity, will, or whatever you may call it, remains after our physical bodies decay. Just as when a caterpillar transforms into another body, its identity still remains the same. It's possible that the same could be true of humans in such a way that we cannot possibly understand with our current knowledge. I'm not sure if this is what KarlEd had in mind, and it's not something I personally believe since I do believe in God, but I think it's good to be open to possibilities regardless of your current beliefs.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's not a lot about the future that I specifically believe. However, there are many things I believe are possible regardless of whether or not there is a God of any kind.
I think it is possible that we ourselves will develop the technology to either extend our lives indefinitely, or to perhaps even re-claim the essence of those who have passed (weird as that sounds, I know). I believe it is possible that there is something beyond the known particles that make us up physically that continues on in this universe or exists in some other dimension. I don't think that such a substance or dimension or existence requires a divine creator any more than our mortal, physical existence here and now does.
All of this is such speculation that I can't say any of it is what I believe, but I also don't dismiss the possibilities out of hand.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: There's not a lot about the future that I specifically believe. However, there are many things I believe are possible regardless of whether or not there is a God of any kind.
I think it is possible that we ourselves will develop the technology to either extend our lives indefinitely, or to perhaps even re-claim the essence of those who have passed (weird as that sounds, I know). I believe it is possible that there is something beyond the known particles that make us up physically that continues on in this universe or exists in some other dimension. I don't think that such a substance or dimension or existence requires a divine creator any more than our mortal, physical existence here and now does.
All of this is such speculation that I can't say any of it is what I believe, but I also don't dismiss the possibilities out of hand.
No No I find that concept quite intriguing. I have never attempted to think of an afterlife bereft of the influece of God, but the way you describe it I can at least say that it seems like a plausible idea. I may not agree with it now but I can at least entertain it. <clap> <clap>
Though one would have to wonder if there is an afterlife and it has nothing to do with God why do we have no indication of such a place/existance.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Though one would have to wonder if there is an afterlife and it has nothing to do with God why do we have no indication of such a place/existance.
Then you understand why atheists wonder why, if there is a god, we have no indication of this god's existence. It really is exactly the same sort of thing. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Science certainly posits the existence of things we can't interact with and so which essentially aren't "there" even as they exist.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to Google, that's only one meaning :
quote:situate: put (something somewhere) firmly; "She posited her hand on his shoulder"; "deposit the suitcase on the bench"; "fix your eyes on this spot" submit: put before; "I submit to you that the accused is guilty" postulate: (logic) a proposition that is accepted as true in order to provide a basis for logical reasoning postulate: take as a given; assume as a postulate or axiom; "He posited three basic laws of nature"
Answers.com and the free dictionary both give 'postulate' as the primary meaning (in fact one of them is likely copying from the other) :
quote:To assume the existence of; postulate. See synonyms at presume. To put forward, as for consideration or study; suggest: “If a book is hard going, it ought to be good. If it posits a complex moral situation, it ought to be even better” (Anthony Burgess). To place firmly in position.
In any case, I don't see why another universe should be unreachable in principle.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was just thinking about the idea (I don't really think it's a thoery or religion) of Gaia - the idea that the earth is a living creature. At first the idea seems quite ridiculous, but interesting because the earth does have a lot of processes and cycles that are similar to other living organisms (the ability to reproduce not being one of them, although it's funny to try to picture it, okay maybe that's only funny to me). So if people have theorized about the possibility of the earth being alive, what about if the universe is alive? What if the universe in it's entirety is what some of us consider to be God?
If the universe were to be self-aware, it could satisfy some of the problems with an all-powerful God and the notion of free will. It would be omnibenevolent because it's going to do what is best for itself (survival). It would be omnipotent because it would have the power to, within the bounds of logic, alter any aspect of itself. And it could be omniscient in the sense that it knows everything there is to know about itself. We would still have free will because our choices don't really affect the big picture of what is best for the universe (unless we find a way to blow up galaxies and become, in effect, a cancer to the universe). So instead of being created by a spirit-like god, we were actually created by means of the Universe creating the conditions that made it possible for life to be created.
Obviously this idea is not the least bit provable, so Angio, if you want to talk about irrational beliefs, I would agree this is one of them. So I guess I was just wondering if there is any existing thought about this type of idea. I'm not sure what the implications of such an idea would be, but it's kind of fun to think about these abstract ideas.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Though one would have to wonder if there is an afterlife and it has nothing to do with God why do we have no indication of such a place/existance.
Then you understand why atheists wonder why, if there is a god, we have no indication of this god's existence. It really is exactly the same sort of thing.
Hoo boy back to square one. You could say that all existance hints at the existance of a GOD, and you will likely say no it doesnt. But then again disproving gods existance is even more difficult to prove. I'm afraid seeing as how it is it seems to me to be impossible to use science to either prove or disprove God's existance, perhaps a different method is required.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think it is possible that we ourselves will develop the technology to either extend our lives indefinitely, or to perhaps even re-claim the essence of those who have passed (weird as that sounds, I know).
What an incredible idea! This'll be fun to think on. You just made my day. Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amanecer, read The Light of Other Days by Arthur C. Clarke. I warn you, though, that like several of Clarke's books, the ideas in this one far outstrip the story or writing. The plot is clearly only barely there to give him a vehicle to explore the consequences of a new technology in his fictional world. But he does make the technology seem plausible, and his ideas are fascinating.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hoo boy back to square one. You could say that all existance hints at the existance of a GOD, and you will likely say no it doesnt. But then again disproving gods existance is even more difficult to prove.
But I haven't said anything about proving or disproving. I also said nothing about science. You said:
quote:Though one would have to wonder if there is an afterlife and it has nothing to do with God why do we have no indication of such a place/existance.
But this statement is equally valid:
quote:Though one would have to wonder if there is an afterlife why do we have no indication of such a place/existance.
Or:
quote:Though one would have to wonder if there is a god why do we have no indication of such a being.
Many individuals, through personal spiritual experiences, claim to have such indications. Collectively, however, we as a human race do not. This is not a proof or disproof of the idea itself. But if you're going to be skeptical of Karl's idea of a godless afterlife, surely you can see that it's equally valid to be skeptical of god's existence for precisely the same reason.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Capitalised is the correct spelling. It's not my fault if you colonials can't do the simplest things right.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can see the dual application of the skepticism.
But then again the majority of the human race has believed in a God of some fashion. Why is it that people have some sort of inate desire to worship something.
You could explain it away as the greatest hoax in history. Yet is there any other lie that has sustained itself through so much time and so much skepticism? Typically Lies are rooted out as time goes by, yet here we are a world composed of a majority of believers. There has to be a better explaination that, they are all idiots and led along by the lies of their ancestors.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Slavery is based on a lie, namely that some humans are worth less than others. It isn't quite dead yet. Racism keeps showing up even in the West, too, despite the best efforts of the media to stamp it out. Finally, it's kind of disingenuous to claim Hindus, pagans, Shinto, and Buddhists all under the umbrella of people who 'believe in a god of some fashion'.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think both perspectives make sense depending on what you believe.
If I was an atheist I would probably say that we evolved a religious desire that complemented our survivial instincts while also serving as a uniting factor that added even more likelihood of survivial. People eventually found a way to exploit that and thus religion was born.
As a believer, I would say that the desire stems from the fact that we were created and God wants us to at least acknowledge His existence through belief. Just as we have a conscience, so too we have a religious voice deep down in our subconscious self.
Once again, I think that the desire to worship is not conclusive and should not be used as an argument for or against the existence of God.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Slavery is based on a lie, namely that some humans are worth less than others. It isn't quite dead yet. Racism keeps showing up even in the West, too, despite the best efforts of the media to stamp it out. Finally, it's kind of disingenuous to claim Hindus, pagans, Shinto, and Buddhists all under the umbrella of people who 'believe in a god of some fashion'.
But slavery used to be WORLDWIDE, and now it is becoming extinct. And yes I am putting christians, muslims, hindus, pagans, shinto, buddhist, because they all have a desire to worship something they feel will effect their lives for good.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And religion used to be worldwide, and is now becoming much, much weaker - I believe it is the first shudders of extinction we are seeing, though obviously you won't agree. I do note that slavery started to weaken in a similar way : Around 1600, for example, Europeans - although they had no objection to taking slaves from Africa - would have considered it repugnant to enslave white people. Likewise, although Westerners still believe in gods, they consider it repugnant to torture others for failure to do so.
Further, I do not think hindus would understand the word 'worship' in the same way you do, and assuredly a buddhist wouldn't, they aren't theists at all. The various ancestor-venerating cults aren't worshipping as a Christian would understand it, either, and anyway they can point to the bones of their ancestors, and in some cases have actual memories of them. The original pagans, who are admittedly few in number these days but who dominated the world for a long time, did not seek to become better people, but to become richer and dominate their enemies; as late as the Romans we find a highly mercenary approach to worship : I sing a praise-song or sacrifice a bull, you get me a new house. Indeed, early Protestants believed that material success was a sign of their god's favour, and the concept of Heaven as a reward for good behaviour has many of the same overtones.
Finally, I think there are few people today, especially in the West, who would continue to go to church if it actually cost them something. Charge the price of a movie ticket to go to Mass, and we'll see how many 'desire to worship something they feel will effect their lives for good'.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And religion used to be worldwide, and is now becoming much, much weaker - I believe it is the first shudders of extinction we are seeing, though obviously you won't agree. I do note that slavery started to weaken in a similar way : Around 1600, for example, Europeans - although they had no objection to taking slaves from Africa - would have considered it repugnant to enslave white people. Likewise, although Westerners still believe in gods, they consider it repugnant to torture others for failure to do so.
Further, I do not think hindus would understand the word 'worship' in the same way you do, and assuredly a buddhist wouldn't, they aren't theists at all. The various ancestor-venerating cults aren't worshipping as a Christian would understand it, either, and anyway they can point to the bones of their ancestors, and in some cases have actual memories of them. The original pagans, who are admittedly few in number these days but who dominated the world for a long time, did not seek to become better people, but to become richer and dominate their enemies; as late as the Romans we find a highly mercenary approach to worship : I sing a praise-song or sacrifice a bull, you get me a new house. Indeed, early Protestants believed that material success was a sign of their god's favour, and the concept of Heaven as a reward for good behaviour has many of the same overtones.
Finally, I think there are few people today, especially in the West, who would continue to go to church if it actually cost them something. Charge the price of a movie ticket to go to Mass, and we'll see how many 'desire to worship something they feel will effect their lives for good'.
You seem to take alot of liberties with telling ME what I understand. For one I grew up in China and Malaysia. So understanding buddhism, taoism, and Islam is something I feel I do.
In the 1600's they did not have white slaves per say but they DID have indentured servants.
To say they do not worship dieties in hinduism to me is almost intentionally ignorant. They worship hundreds upon thousands of Gods, and it is up to the family to decide how. Yes it is a bit more non intrusive of a religion, but You are correct in your guess that I would disagree with you about the current state of religion. I do believe that people now more than ever before are forsaking religion, but I also know that at least in my religion our numbers are growing fast.
I guess something worth mentioning is that even according to my own religion towards the end of the world religion will all but disappear as MOST people will be evil and seek the blood of one another. So if religion was in its first shudders of exinction it is not something I care to debate as I believe it is inevitable. BUT if religion was going to go extinct I think it would have done so by now, and if not right now, we would be seeing a more dramatic erradication of it. Thus far we only have 3 examples of religion being forced out of a society. Soviet Union, France (french revolution), and China. Soviet Union couldnt really TOTALLY remove religion so it ignored it. China IMO is on the revolution fast track again, seeing as how its atheist government is possibly the most oppresive government ever formed, and france during its revolution utterly failed at accomplishing anything positive in its little atheistical experiment.
Religion may be dying, but its not because of some enlightenment such as the one that has driven out slavery. It is because people are beginning to trust in their own inteligence exclusively, and at least to me mankind does not have the most inteligent track record.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:BUT if religion was going to go extinct I think it would have done so by now, and if not right now, we would be seeing a more dramatic erradication of it. Thus far we only have 3 examples of religion being forced out of a society.
Why do you think religion would only go extinct if forced out of a society?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Further, I do not think hindus would understand the word 'worship' in the same way you do, and assuredly a buddhist wouldn't, they aren't theists at all.
Yes, because to them gods are different things, and to some Buddhists-definitely not all, as you have said-there are no deities at all.
As for the notion that people wouldn't go to church if it didn't cost them anything...ummmm...what the hell are you talking about, man? Costs time, at the very least, even on a minimal level. Weekend-time, no less. Weekend MORNING time, more so.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I spoke inexactly; I should have said, 'cost them more than an hour's socialising is worth.' Also, people tend not to notice that kind of cost; if even a small sum of money was involved, I suspect we'd see a right drastic drop.
And BB, I suggest you visit a church in Norway on an average Sunday, count the people there, and divide by the size of the community. You might get some interesting information on how religions die, and repression has nothing to do with it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many people who attend church put in considerably more than merely an 'hour's socializing' (although nicely done! Another insult ).
Frankly I suspect that if money were involved, we'd see a rise in attendance, because people could link their piety to how much money they spent.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Church is free but often people donate a great deal of money to their church. People are supposed to give 10% of their income to the church. I dont think this is enforced but this is what is supposed to happen. Although I did recently read an article about how the majority of church goers dont tithe anywhere near 10%.
I would be curious to see how getting charged a ticket fee would alter church attendance. I guess this post didnt really add much, but I just wanted to point out that people do pay some money to attend church.
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
