Will Atheism Replace Religion?

[geo]

Please forgive my previous non sequitur relating the movement from religion to consumerism. I have no idea if the two are related.

It is clear that modern societies become more secular and it does seem related to education and affluence. When living conditions improve we have less need for the security blanket of religion. That sounds about right.

But like tat and whim, here in the south, religion is still pretty predominant. Recently the N.C. Secular Association came in and installed a billboard with an American flag and the part of the pledge of allegiance where it says we are "one nation indivisible" and here they removed the "under God" part. The newspapers are having a field day with this one because the local faction of "We Still Pray group, which is funded by many of the local churches, have raised money and are putting their own billboards up, putting the "under God" part back in. It has become a fund-raising war of sorts, but as can be expected the churches are winning big time. I'm sympathetic to the secular group, of course, but I don't think they should continue to waste money in this kind of arms race. On the other hand the "We Still Pray" group looks pretty petty, wasting money on such foolishness. It will be interesting to see what happens.

http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20 ... /307080025

[Robert Tulip]

Religion will always be with us. So, the question becomes how rational freethinkers should influence religious belief.

I'm now reading The Jesus Mysteries by Freke and Gandy. It is a brilliant book by the way, and worth suggesting for Booktalk discussion.

They make a key point that originally Christianity had a distinction between the inner and outer church. The Gospels as we have them were written for the outer church, in an effort to attract the general public. Once in the institution, initiates gained access to learning on the hidden essence of the teachings. What happened with the politics of the church was that orthodox groups saw that by denying the validity of secret teachings they could build a power base among the ignorant. The old 'inner church' could not compete against the mass movement built by this ignorant orthodox method. We can see this dichotomy vividly in the writings of early theologians such as Origen of Alexandria, who said the stories about Jesus were allegories that aimed to encourage deeper dialogue about the true basis of religion. Jesus himself allegedly said much the same at Matthew 13: "

The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?" He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. ...This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

So, there is a need to reconstitute an 'inner church' that respects rational thought, including atheism, while shaping the message delivered to the mass audience. Modern brands have mythical status, and there will always be the need for simplified messages tailored to outsiders. Where the church went wrong was that a clique took power who did not understand the basis of the outer teachings in an inner higher wisdom. This clique established Christian dogma as absolute literal truth, producing the natural skeptical reaction of loss of faith among the general public.

[WhimsicalWonder]

I believe that human beings have the capacity to live harmoniously together and I believe that religion is the number one hindrance to such an endeavor. Perhaps my earlier posts weren't clear, but it's impossible for me to ever be clear when my mind is so unclear so much of the time.

I am able to step outside of my little world, and even still I don't see the world being freed from religion or religious fanaticism. The fact that I'm not sure I'd like to is probably based on the very thing they want me to believe... that the world would collapse without it's blanket... But my world did collapse when the blanket was ripped from me, so perhaps that's another bit of my bias.

China is not religious, but look at what they've done to Tibet. To begin to define a better world we need a solid definition of better. The UK may harbor more freethinkers than the United States, but they also harbor a great number of militant Muslims. Or so says my friend who's life is threatened regularly because he is an outspoken atheist in London. So civilized countries can live without religion and third world countries use it more? Maybe I'm not informed well enough but I thought that third world countries were typically those with primitive beliefs who've all too often been converted to some form of something Christian related because they're evangelical enough to go that far for converts? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely seeking more information.

I believe Mr. Tulip is right on the money here. We will never be free from religion, so the real question is what can we do to influence religious belief? Seems a far more productive line of discussion.

[johnson1010]

I like your avatar Whimsi.

Is that your work?

When i said earlier that things would be the same, i meant it.

There would still be racial tension in the same areas, there would still be border disputes, resource wars, dominence posturing on the national level, fights over sporting events, and "Cops" would still be on the air.

We make our moral decisions RIGHT NOW as though there were no god. It is only after we have decided a course that we justify that action with religion. Terrorists do it just as easily as the salvation army.

How do people get away with doing bad and thinking themselves good christians? Terrorists are an extreme example, but i knew a guy in college who thought of himself as a good christian, and actively studied the bible. We had many discussions about religion. He was also a man-whore. he would try to sleep with any and every girl he could. I asked him how he justified being a slut with his supposed deep connection to religion and he had no good answer for it.
(I have no problem with sluts, btw. God bless them. I wish i would have known more of them.)

He did what he wanted to do and only later, if at all, consulted his religion on the matter. its cognitive dissonance. When our actions dont meet with our expectations one of the two has to go to relieve the stress it causes. For the most part, it is the ideal which is put aside, not the adherance to a moral standard.

[stahrwe]

"Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination … End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I’m confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan.
James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia

(It would be a damn shame if we couldn’t own a Canadian)
http://www.alanlawrencesitomer.com/tag/ ... hlesinger/

Tat,

did you intend to cross post this here and in the Morality of the Bible discussion?

I am not sure what this has to do with the topic.

Let's start with Lev 21:20. It's typical that the author of the alleged letter to Dr. Laura failed to read the verse. The actual reference is to a blemish of the eye and it must be visible to others. Poor eyesight is not an issue. That's 1.

[tat tvam asi]

No and Yes Stahrwe.

No it was not posted in the MP, it was posted as an entirely new thread in the atheist forum.

Yes, I posted it there and then posted it here in this discussion as well because it deals precisely with the topic of modern morality. The bible is not a moral book! It's a mix match of some moral and many more immoral thoughts, actions, and ideas many of which are no longer revelent to modern society. To claim that the bible is necessary for a moral society in this day and age is pure bunk and this letter makes light of the fact.

[WhimsicalWonder]

It is my work if you consider that I spent time and energy into finding it on a database of public domain avatar images.

As to your Christian friend I have known atheists who have been unable to adhere to their own standards of morality. Everyone does it. We are but human. What religion offers is absolution and belonging. True enough these things can be found without religion, but it's often difficult to come by and for those who have already been exposed to it; it may seem impossible. Only one of many reasons that we will never be rid of religion.

I can't tell you how great it feels to find like-mindeds out there. It's a major relief.

[stahrwe]

No and Yes Stahrwe.

No it was not posted in the MP, it was posted as an entirely new thread in the atheist forum.

Yes, I posted it there and then posted it here in this discussion as well because it deals precisely with the topic of modern morality. The bible is not a moral book! It's a mix match of some moral and many more immoral thoughts, actions, and ideas many of which are no longer revelent to modern society. To claim that the bible is necessary for a moral society in this day and age is pure bunk and this letter makes light of the fact.

Well, you might want to check those 'facts' I already pointed out an error in the letter and there are more to come. Will you edit and repost the letter as the errors are explained?

[stahrwe]

From the letter posted by Tat:

"4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

Unless you are in Jerusalem, at the place currently occupied by the Dome of the Rock you should not be sacrificing, therefore I must conclude that it is not a religious observance they are objecting to but your skills at backyard BBQ. In this case, I suggest that you watch The Food Network or give up and cook indoors.

that's 2

Oh, and by the way, to sacrifice you must be a descendant of the tribe of Levi. I doubt you are but I will only charge you with one strike for this.

[tat tvam asi]

I am able to step outside of my little world, and even still I don't see the world being freed from religion or religious fanaticism. The fact that I'm not sure I'd like to is probably based on the very thing they want me to believe... that the world would collapse without it's blanket... But my world did collapse when the blanket was ripped from me, so perhaps that's another bit of my bias.

I think I know what you mean if you're talking about the way you felt when your religious ideas fell apart and you consciously acknowledged it. I'm not sure how the blanket was ripped from you but if you were to expand on it a little more I'm sure that it would help to clarify what you are trying to express here. In my case I was raised devout SDA Christian believing in a six thousand year old earth created over the course of six literal days. My awareness of the folly involved with this religious ideology came very sudden. But the only one who ripped the blanket away was me at around age 15 when I suddenly hit the age of reason oriented thinking. But I was fine. I re-adjusted and got on with things.

But what has happened in the European countries is something a little different I think. It isn't the case of an abrupt change, rather it's the case of countries that were pagan and then later Christianized for the most part gradually growing out of religion altogether over a period of time. It's not like someone came along and ripped religion away from these people, it's that the people eventually grew out of it.

...I believe Mr. Tulip is right on the money here. We will never be free from religion, so the real question is what can we do to influence religious belief? Seems a far more productive line of discussion.

That sounds very probable but would you assert this with absolute certainty? How could you? What if some one were to say back in the early 1800's in Georgia, "We will never be free from Slavery"? I would suggest caution in projecting the future state of this country or the world in any absolute sense. But in terms of the assumption that religion will continue on for centuries into the future I agree with Roberts Christian reformation moment ideas as well.