Will Atheism Replace Religion?

[stahrwe]

From the letter Tat posted:

"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?"

Unless you are Jewish this is not a problem. Additionally footballs have not been made of actual pigs for decades.

That's 3

[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.

Excuse me, you cross posted in the Morality of the Bible discussion. Its relevance is not the issue, the problem is that cross posting leads to confusion in the discussion

[johnson1010]

That is true, Star.

I would recommend a statement like "Lets discuss this topic here:http://www.booktalk.org/post71267.html#p71267"

Which makes sense specifically in this case as it is the opening post of that thread, so it would lead me to think that discussion of that issue would be done there.

[tat tvam asi]

Whimsical Wonder, let me introduce you to our book talk forums token Christian Fundamentalist, Staaaaaaaaaaaaahrwe!

Yes ladies and gentlemen you've seen him in threads such as "Young Earth Creationism Put to Rest!" and "The Mythicist Position" carry the flaming sword of his imaginary lord and master, "Jesus - ElSaviorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr - Christ!"

He's back with a vengeance to make straight the way of the lord. Now what better representation of the folly of trying to extend out dated ancient religion into modern times could I ask for?

[johnson1010]

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 was not trying to imply that athiests did not do the same. The point being, we all do that, to an extent. Whether it is a big thing like breaking a law, or a small thing like taking the last slice of pizza.

The difference being that the religious are quick to claim the moral high ground on many issues attempting to use their religion as the backing of that claim, when in actuality, they themselves are using no more accurate an instrument than anyone else to judge morality. That is, of course, their own brain. Subject to predjudice, persuasion, snap judgement, and bais. Everyone comes to their own conclusions, but when you feel as though you hold a judgement based on some sublime insight, or revelation from a supreme moral authority there is no avenue for even the possibility that you might be wrong to find its way to you.

I hold my positions because i have a level of confidence that they are correct. That is not to say that i think they are correct absolutely. With the proper evidence i can and have changed my mind on many things because i realize that i came to my own conclusions, and they very well could be wrong. I used to have a much more close minded view on homosexuality. I was never a gay-basher, but i did think of it as a kind of mental disease, or handi-cap. I held those views because i was mis-informed.

The noisiest religious people hold that view, still, based on mis-information. including the mis-information that the bible is full of anti-gay rhetoric. Despite ample opportunity to change their minds based on cold facts and open, honest communication with real-life gays (rather than the marauding throng of rapists depicted here:

Genesis 19:4-5 describes what followed, which confirms its end (RSV):

But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of
Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them (KJV: know them, RSV: know them, NIV: can have sex with them , NJB: can have intercourse with them)."

They stubbornly hold onto their anti-gay attitudes because they have post-dated their predjudice to belong to God.

The same with the pathetic young earth creationism stance, intelligent design, and "god causes natural dissasters to punish moral issues.

Realizing that you came to your own conclusions allows you the lattitude to realize you may be wrong, or that others can be right. Here's a quote i enjoy.

"When i was young i was absolutely sure that i had all the right answers. When i grew older, i realized that i was right about all of those things, but i also realized that there are many OTHER ways to be right."

So, while i may like my beer because it tastes great. Someone else is not wrong to like it because it is less filling.

[stahrwe]

That is true, Star.

I would recommend a statement like "Lets discuss this topic here:http://www.booktalk.org/post71267.html#p71267"

Which makes sense specifically in this case as it is the opening post of that thread, so it would lead me to think that discussion of that issue would be done there.

I agree.

[tat tvam asi]

http://www.booktalk.org/blogs/biblecont ... e-dilemma/

This sort of thing is gaining speed in any case. The bible has a horrible amount of contradiction and there's many a down right immoral teaching to be found therein as well. Christianity is a good peace loving family oriented based religion right? A religion founded on the teachings of Jesus Christ "The Prince of Peace". Well that assertion would involve turning a blind eye to the more contradictive verses of the bible such as:

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me."

Jesus Christ, Mt. 10:34-37

"If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."

Jesus Christ, Lk. 14:26

"I came to cast fire upon the earth; and would that it were already kindled!... Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division; for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three; they will be divided, father against son, and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."

Jesus Christ, Lk. 12:49-53

In order to promote the bible as a great moral book of teaching one has to flat out turn a blind eye to a good portion of its content. It's archaic literature based on primitive mindsets where human thought and emotion is projected outward towards personified Gods who coincidentally think and act very much like people do. Some times they're kind and loving and other times they're having rant oriented tantrums like Jesus is having in the above verses. And Jesus is merely following in his Fathers foot steps with these rants. Yahweh's throwing ego fits throughout the entire Old Testament. The rants, as we can see here, cross over into the New Testament as well and are not limited to the old as some would like to assert. Is this really something that deserves clinging on to for dear life in this day and age? As it turns out more and more people are saying no!

[WhimsicalWonder]

Tat, My person experience with my own loss of rligion has come in a a variety of forms. The details are long and sticky and wouldn't really serve any purpose on display. It's difficult to compare an individual experience with the experience of a society let alone the entire world. When I made the comparison it was a light hearted attempt at something of a poetic nature.

Religion is still present in Europe. So I suppose I am confused, mis-informed, or under-educated. I can name no place where religion has been completely erradicated. Even in China there are underground churches. I have spoken directly to someone who has been involved in their creation and perpetuation.

I say nothing with absolute certainty except those things that pertain to my own perception and emotion. I do not believe that in my life time I will see the day when the United States (or the world for that matter) is free from religion or religious influence. It COULD happen. Anything COULD happen. The realm of possiblity is unlimited.

Johnson, I know you weren't implying that atheists were above Christians in straying from their morality. I was simply trying to convey my agreement with you when you said something about ideals being the thing all too often left behind.

For me honor is a matter of remaining true to yourself and your words (and your thoughts, ideas, subjective morality, etc). My only point was that believers and non-believers harbor within themselves an equal opportunity for dishonor.

There is nothing that you've said that I've been in disagreement with. My own foundations are loosely woven and open to change. It's the best way to be, if you ask me.

I would only like to add that we all draw our own conclusions, including the Christian. None of us are anything more than a mosaic of our experience.

[tat tvam asi]

Religion is still present in Europe. So I suppose I am confused, mis-informed, or under-educated. I can name no place where religion has been completely erradicated. Even in China there are underground churches. I have spoken directly to someone who has been involved in their creation and perpetuation.

From the top of the thread:

Looking over the data, evolutionary psychologist Dr. Nigel Barber attempts to argue that atheism will actually replace religion sooner rather than later: "Atheists are heavily concentrated in economically developed countries, particularly the social democracies of Europe. In underdeveloped countries, there are virtually no atheists," he recently wrote in Psychology Today. "Atheism is thus a peculiarly modern phenomenon."

This really isn't about any one claiming that religion has been eradicated anywhere at the present moment, and I'm not sure that's an accurate portrayal of any claims that have been made so far. If it seems odd to you it's probably because the claim was never made to begin with. There is religion existing in Europe, but there's also a heavier concentration of atheists in the more developed European countries according to the claim. And, the point is made that atheist numbers are rising in the states while still only a minority of the total population. But it would seem that the US is likewise moving in the direction of these older, more developed European nations where there are higher concentrations of atheists.

Then the projection is made that atheism will replace religion sooner than later at this rate. Who knows? There's no absolute certainty that it will or won't, either way is still possible. It's just one of those 'time will tell' things.

[WhimsicalWonder]

Good point. I do that often. Go off on my own lil' thing. I'll work on it, or you'll get used to it. Or both. Or neither. We'll see. Have a lovely day!