Calling it a 'belief system' makes it sound like any other religion.Kmar wrote:
Atheism is the fastest growing belief system in the United States.
well it's all a "belief" system. That one just happens to be anti-theism.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Calling it a 'belief system' makes it sound like any other religion.Kmar wrote:
Atheism is the fastest growing belief system in the United States.
well, I guess Agnosticism could be considered an (un)belief or (un)knowing system.
Anyways, the point wasn't to say Atheism is or isn't a religion. It was merely a relative statement of fact.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
even agnosticism could be described as a belief system. The belief that knowing gods existence is unknowable.
There'll always be people looking for a belief system for various reasons, as a crutch, as a means of achieving power over others, whatever.
Fuck Israel
I don't really like all those belief systems (-ism's) But then again, there's probably a belief system for that too.
id expect less from fat chair force pukesJay wrote:
They're marines. Why would you expect better from jarheads?
I doubt religion is "going extinct". The numbers are dwindling, certainly, but that can be a number of things.
I'd say the most obvious factor is the death of devout religion. Devout people still exist, but it's not what it used to be. When you say a "devout Christian" it conjures less images of places akin to soup houses and more images of fanatical dogma with people screaming "Jesus!" and calling the passerby sinners. After all, it's no longer the church who holds the position of moral authority, but rather a position of resistance to skepticism. It seems all religions do now (At least that's unique to them), is defend their faith from such skepticism, and since matter of faith can't be defended inductively, it makes atheism seem more palpable.
Besides this, one cannot ignore that our moral foundation as a society is quite heavily similar to what most of these religions teach to begin with. The morals these religions teach that are not based within society's morality tend to be unpopular, and cause more friction and make the religions even less palpable.
So, if you take away a moral code and lifestyle from religion, what do you have? You have a believe in something that could not be proven or disproven and a lot of skepticism and criticism thrown at you. This makes religion less applicable to begin with, much less the social aversion to it in the first place. What we'll most likely see is a steady decline as more and more people who are only "casually religious" just don't bother with it anymore and we'll be left with the radical ones.
This isn't a new trend. I don't understand why it's even news:
Gallup, Religion in America 1948 - 2008
(Notice that "no religion" and "other" are the only two with actual increase, all others dropping.)
I'd say the most obvious factor is the death of devout religion. Devout people still exist, but it's not what it used to be. When you say a "devout Christian" it conjures less images of places akin to soup houses and more images of fanatical dogma with people screaming "Jesus!" and calling the passerby sinners. After all, it's no longer the church who holds the position of moral authority, but rather a position of resistance to skepticism. It seems all religions do now (At least that's unique to them), is defend their faith from such skepticism, and since matter of faith can't be defended inductively, it makes atheism seem more palpable.
Besides this, one cannot ignore that our moral foundation as a society is quite heavily similar to what most of these religions teach to begin with. The morals these religions teach that are not based within society's morality tend to be unpopular, and cause more friction and make the religions even less palpable.
So, if you take away a moral code and lifestyle from religion, what do you have? You have a believe in something that could not be proven or disproven and a lot of skepticism and criticism thrown at you. This makes religion less applicable to begin with, much less the social aversion to it in the first place. What we'll most likely see is a steady decline as more and more people who are only "casually religious" just don't bother with it anymore and we'll be left with the radical ones.
This isn't a new trend. I don't understand why it's even news:
Gallup, Religion in America 1948 - 2008
(Notice that "no religion" and "other" are the only two with actual increase, all others dropping.)
lolKmar wrote:
Atheism is the fastest growing belief system in the United States.
I was just observing from the numbers - wow, New Zealand is becoming less religious...that will definitely impact the total numbers, especially when you take into consideration the booming pop growths of places like Africa and Latin America - places where religion is flourishing. I tend to think the belief in a 'god' is a bit antiquated, but that doesn't mean religion is dying off anytime soon. And there will always be the philosophical/metaphysical questions related to our existence that won't be answered by science any time soon.
It would be interesting to see if there is any correlation between standard of living and religiosity.
Yeah, a better question than "is religion becoming extinct?" might be "how long can an 'educated' society maintain religion in the face of science?"KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I was just observing from the numbers - wow, New Zealand is becoming less religious...that will definitely impact the total numbers, especially when you take into consideration the booming pop growths of places like Africa and Latin America - places where religion is flourishing. I tend to think the belief in a 'god' is a bit antiquated, but that doesn't mean religion is dying off anytime soon. And there will always be the philosophical/metaphysical questions related to our existence that won't be answered by science any time soon.
It would be interesting to see if there is any correlation between standard of living and religiosity.
As the "civilized" countries move forward on the shoulders of scientists and engineers (not to sound completely Randian here...), we obviously move away from trusting to faith and instead trust in science.
However, as noted, religion flourishes in developing countries, and honestly I'm sure that religion is very beneficial in some ways to countries at those stages of development. It provides some sort of framework and unifying set of principles for the largely uneducated populace to follow, and well as providing very tangible assistance to those in need (e.g. - pretty much everyone....).
religion will never go extinct
by our very nature (i.e. sapient and conscious beings) we have a spiritual and transcendent element
which will always organize itself into social structures and hierarchies, i.e. religion
by our very nature (i.e. sapient and conscious beings) we have a spiritual and transcendent element
which will always organize itself into social structures and hierarchies, i.e. religion
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Yay I'm in that 40% group.
In short, the religious outbreed the nonreligious, but the descendants of the religious gradually move away from religion when they live in a prosperous and educated society.-CARNIFEX-[LOC] wrote:
Yeah, a better question than "is religion becoming extinct?" might be "how long can an 'educated' society maintain religion in the face of science?"KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I was just observing from the numbers - wow, New Zealand is becoming less religious...that will definitely impact the total numbers, especially when you take into consideration the booming pop growths of places like Africa and Latin America - places where religion is flourishing. I tend to think the belief in a 'god' is a bit antiquated, but that doesn't mean religion is dying off anytime soon. And there will always be the philosophical/metaphysical questions related to our existence that won't be answered by science any time soon.
It would be interesting to see if there is any correlation between standard of living and religiosity.
As the "civilized" countries move forward on the shoulders of scientists and engineers (not to sound completely Randian here...), we obviously move away from trusting to faith and instead trust in science.
However, as noted, religion flourishes in developing countries, and honestly I'm sure that religion is very beneficial in some ways to countries at those stages of development. It provides some sort of framework and unifying set of principles for the largely uneducated populace to follow, and well as providing very tangible assistance to those in need (e.g. - pretty much everyone....).
This isn't always the case, but a lot of the time, children of immigrants from developing nations tend to be less religious than their parents, and their children are often less religious than they are.
Forever, since science isn't in conflict with religion. The issues are skewed to be in conflict, both by people who want to discredit scientists and by people who want to discredit religious people. No religion has ever died from having aspects of its beliefs changed or removed due to new discoveries or realizations. The whole "Nope, evolution can't be true 'cause the bible says so" isn't an issue with religion, it's an issue with people with an agenda and the people who follow them.-CARNIFEX-[LOC] wrote:
Yeah, a better question than "is religion becoming extinct?" might be "how long can an 'educated' society maintain religion in the face of science?"
That's true for the most part, and not in any way a bad thing. Pragmatic and universal sources are certainly great things to base a society on. The only thing I question is people's ability to get away from zealousness. The whole science = reality thing, for example, won't go over well for anyone if it become prominent.As the "civilized" countries move forward on the shoulders of scientists and engineers (not to sound completely Randian here...), we obviously move away from trusting to faith and instead trust in science.
Well, yes, and mainly because morality is difficult to frame. Religion has the amazing ability to get people to do what's best for themselves and society even if they don't fully understand why it's necessary.However, as noted, religion flourishes in developing countries, and honestly I'm sure that religion is very beneficial in some ways to countries at those stages of development. It provides some sort of framework and unifying set of principles for the largely uneducated populace to follow, and well as providing very tangible assistance to those in need (e.g. - pretty much everyone....).
Last edited by Blue Herring (2011-03-24 15:49:02)
wat?Blue Herring wrote:
No religion has ever had aspects of it's believes that were later changed or removed due to new discoveries or realizations. The whole "Nope, evolution can't be true 'cause the bible says so" isn't an issue with religion, it's an issue with people with an agenda and the people who follow them.-CARNIFEX-[LOC] wrote:
Yeah, a better question than "is religion becoming extinct?" might be "how long can an 'educated' society maintain religion in the face of science?"
I heard the church gave Galileo a pretty hard time back in the day. Then again he recanted when threatened with death, for no such knowledge is worth dying over (or so says Camus anyway).
Dunno if he did, but it sure as hell didn't help him.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Then again he recanted when threatened with death,
inane little opines
How about proper car maintenance, or learning how to drive in the rain?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
[...]for no such knowledge is worth dying over (or so says Camus anyway).
How's Camus feel about that kinda knowledge?
(Yes, I'm being a sarcastic ass with that)
Edit: IIRC, Camus died in a single-car accident, on a rainy day.
Either mechanical failure of the car, or rainy conditions.
Last edited by rdx-fx (2011-03-24 16:25:08)
it saved him from being burned at the stake. I'd say that's pretty significant...Shocking wrote:
Dunno if he did, but it sure as hell didn't help him.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Then again he recanted when threatened with death,
Oh, I somehow had the idea the catholic church killed him. Did he continue his research?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
it saved him from being burned at the stake. I'd say that's pretty significant...Shocking wrote:
Dunno if he did, but it sure as hell didn't help him.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Then again he recanted when threatened with death,
inane little opines
Why would you say "what?" then give an exact example of what I was talking about? Not only was that people in a position of authority(the church) imposing an agenda, his theory was later accepted by the church and Catholicism still exists. I don't get your point at all.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
wat?Blue Herring wrote:
No religion has ever had aspects of it's believes that were later changed or removed due to new discoveries or realizations. The whole "Nope, evolution can't be true 'cause the bible says so" isn't an issue with religion, it's an issue with people with an agenda and the people who follow them.-CARNIFEX-[LOC] wrote:
Yeah, a better question than "is religion becoming extinct?" might be "how long can an 'educated' society maintain religion in the face of science?"
I heard the church gave Galileo a pretty hard time back in the day. Then again he recanted when threatened with death, for no such knowledge is worth dying over (or so says Camus anyway).
"No religion has ever had aspects of it's believes that were later changed or removed due to new discoveries or realizations."
I took that ^^ to mean "no religion has ever had aspects of its beliefs changed due to new discoveries or realizations." Didn't realize you were actually trying to say the opposite.
I took that ^^ to mean "no religion has ever had aspects of its beliefs changed due to new discoveries or realizations." Didn't realize you were actually trying to say the opposite.
Sorry, typo. I'll fix that. My brain read right past that. I also spelled "Beliefs" as "believes".KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
"No religion has ever had aspects of it's believes that were later changed or removed due to new discoveries or realizations."
I took that ^^ to mean "no religion has ever had aspects of its beliefs changed due to new discoveries or realizations." Didn't realize you were actually trying to say the opposite.
good good
Praise God
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
taking camus way out of context thereKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
wat?Blue Herring wrote:
No religion has ever had aspects of it's believes that were later changed or removed due to new discoveries or realizations. The whole "Nope, evolution can't be true 'cause the bible says so" isn't an issue with religion, it's an issue with people with an agenda and the people who follow them.-CARNIFEX-[LOC] wrote:
Yeah, a better question than "is religion becoming extinct?" might be "how long can an 'educated' society maintain religion in the face of science?"
I heard the church gave Galileo a pretty hard time back in the day. Then again he recanted when threatened with death, for no such knowledge is worth dying over (or so says Camus anyway).
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/