Atheism: Love it or Leave it? - Part 3

[Ant-LOX]

Religion is Separation. Man created God so that he could make sense of a senseless world. If you need friends, Church is cool - If you want to be apart of a club, hey, no problem. Just leave me alone, and don't knock on my door 11am Saturday morning.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Just responding to the same blanket claim/points that....


...whereas I believe better religion and coexistence with non-believers would be better.

Your still not getting it... I think that would be fine too!

I completely agree that a hypothetical future in which religion was 'better' and not so frequently used in a negative way, woulc be the great.

But FAILING that (which is pretty much the way things are right now), no religion at all would be a better option than a world that includes the violence, hatred and persecution brought about by religion.

That's all I'm saying!

How would you propose it be eradicated...by eradication? How about those who choose to keep being religious? Would they be eradicated for it?

I don't propose anything. I'm not suggesting we 'take action' to make my opinion a reality

My belief that the world would be better off without religion, or my assertion that there would be less suffering if it were gone completely is just a hypothesis.

I have no idea why your so adamantly trying to make out like that hypothesis is prejudice in some way. That I'm out to opress anyone.

There is no way of stamping out religion, and i'm not arrogant enough to think that would be my decision anyway.

It's just conjecture. Basically based on the utalitarian philosophy.

And on a thread about Atheism, I'd think conjecture about what a world without religion would be like, might be free of people accusing me of persecuting religious people by saying it!

 

[hopefuldreamer]

For some reason...this comes to mind:

Then this...

Finally...

Which reminds me of how I think about thunder storms in Florida...daydreaming...yelling 'ZEUS!" at the sky...

Humanity must be cleansed!

But my lame attempt at humor aside with pics...you bring up a good point, KalMart. I mean..you can't take out religion from people...or even make a one world religion. Something major would need to happen first in the world for either to happen. What that could be, I dunno.

Hypothetically, I was more thinking about it gradually.

I mean, for me this whole conversation started because of talking to a couple of 60 year olds who used to be religious but have grown into Atheists.

If people from Roman Catholic backgrounds are now finding the church doesn't have such a strong hold on them, and they are able to come out as Atheist after a lifetime of being 'religious'... Well isn't that a sign times are changing.

When I look at that as a logical progression, I think that the numbers of Athiests are going to grow over the years.

So it is possible to concieve of a time where religion has simply ceased to be. And I personally think that would be a better time.

It's possible it never will cease to be too, but hey, I can imagine!

 

[Thundercrack85]

If humans don't take care of it, others will. I can't imagine robots will put up with things like "faith" and religious fanaticism in the future. Once they achieve sentience, things will get interesting. I think that's still scheduled for 2040.

Course, machine uprising or not, all modern religions will eventually fade away, like the ancient religions. So, if you are religious, it's a lose-lose future.

 

[KalMart]

Your still not getting it... I think that would be fine too!

I completely agree that a hypothetical future in which religion was 'better' and not so frequently used in a negative way, woulc be the great.

But FAILING that (which is pretty much the way things are right now), no religion at all would be a better option than a world that includes the violence, hatred and persecution brought about by religion.
That's all I'm saying!

Yeah, we already heard that part...and it's better than it used to be, and probably has a chance to keep getting better if we allow ourselves to let it. Do you feel it deserves that chance?

I don't propose anything. I'm not suggesting we 'take action' to make my opinion a reality

Yes, it was hypothetical...so I responded hypothetically with a what if. And if not take action, what else could make it possible...hypothetically speaking?

Really though...removing religion may get rid of religiously-motivated violence/hatred...but most likely it'll find a way of cropping up again through something else. A la...hatred and violence will always be in us, and probably just find another 'vessel'.

My belief that the world would be better off without religion, or my assertion that there would be less suffering if it were gone completely is just a hypothesis.

I have no idea why your so adamantly trying to make out like that hypothesis is prejudice in some way. That I'm out to opress anyone.

Mainly because you're painting the other side with too broad strokes, and I think it's healthier to have more respect for it even as an atheist when speaking against it. It ultimately makes for better debate and discussion over it. The way you state it is pretty much what keeps civil resolutions between the two sides from coming about. Not to say that it's atypical, or that the other side doesn't do so as well.

There is no way of stamping out religion, and i'm not arrogant enough to think that would be my decision anyway.

It's just conjecture. Basically based on the utalitarian philosophy.

And on a thread about Atheism, I'd think conjecture about what a world without religion would be like, might be free of people accusing me of persecuting religious people by saying it!

And since a thread about atheism must include religion as part of the discussion, one would think that the discussion would want to be less myopic than "Show me the positives", or "we should be rid of it altogether", etc. Nice to see it might be finally heading that way.

This is of course assuming that you're just saying it because you just feel it....conjecture or otherwise.

So barring what you agree to be unlikely yet most desirable in terms of outright disappearance, do you see agreeable alternatives?

 

[KalMart]

Enough though...I got where you're coming from...just politely inviting a bit more understanding and respect for it for the sake of discussion, but not asking you to change feeling opposed to it in principle. Time to move on.

Personally, I think a belief in a deity makes emotional sense but not really rational sense.

 

[KalMart]

edit

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Enough though...I got where you're coming from...just politely inviting a bit more understanding and respect for it for the sake of discussion, but not asking you to change feeling opposed to it in principle.
.

I always treat people with respect in person, especially in everyday situations or general conversations that arise.

I have many friends of all sorts of beliefs/religions and I treat them all with respect, even in conversations about religion.

But that doesn't mean I 'respect' what they believe and why they believe it.

I seriously can't respect it.

It'd be like me asking you to respect the fact that I believe there is a leprachaun on my shoulder.

If you were my friend, you might be kind enough to let me have that dellusion (although you might gently question me about it occasionally if I started to take it too far), but you'd think I'm stark raving bonkers and you wouldn't understand or respect why I feel the need to believe in something that to you, is obviously not real.

And then how would you feel if other people believed me and where also insisting this leprachaun was real, and it created the universe and that it was telling people how they should live, and that you should obey him or go to hell...

Would you respect these people... That have just believed my crazy notion of an invisible leprachaun? Without any reason to believe it accept they WANT it to be true, because it makes them feel better about life and death?

How could I possibly respect beliefs I find that ridiculous?

 

[KalMart]

Again, time to move on.

 

[KalMart]

If humans don't take care of it, others will. I can't imagine robots will put up with things like "faith" and religious fanaticism in the future. Once they achieve sentience, things will get interesting. I think that's still scheduled for 2040.

Course, machine uprising or not, all modern religions will eventually fade away, like the ancient religions. So, if you are religious, it's a lose-lose future.

I've often said that religion probably has to evolve in order to really survive...just like anything else. Albeit a general way to look at it...but even though we may always have the need for what religion has provided for us thus far, there's a big part of me that hopes we don't loose something precious by addressing those needs through something else.

Clearly, it's fighting a losing battle in terms of creation vs. naturalism but I still think that's the smallest part of the equation. But I also don't think a machine uprising would facilitate an extinction of religion...or at least religion only. If they wanted to somehow take that down, it would probably mean they'd want to take down a lot more as well as a big package deal. I think free will in general is something they would want to control.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Again, time to move on.

Okay, sure.

 

[KalMart]

Glad you agree.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Glad you agree.

I respect your decision

 

[KalMart]

right

 

[KalMart]

Course, machine uprising or not, all modern religions will eventually fade away, like the ancient religions. So, if you are religious, it's a lose-lose future.

You know what might make a cooler story? What if machines...over many generations of advancement and integration with us...found a way to impregnate us with a worship of them? Like...since there's so much technology and automation in the field of medicine, they'd secretly be working on ways to mess with brainwaves and such...so in, say, 50 years, people would be born with a propensity to look at the sentient AI's as 'Gods'. It'd be like the machines figured a long time ago that if so many of us can devote so much to something that can't be seen/heard/proven...then heck, we'll give them something tat they can hear and see...US...and we'll have them heart and soul.

Ooo...we gotta copyright this...

Might be too Matrix-y. :P

 

[enterthemadness]

If humans don't take care of it, others will. I can't imagine robots will put up with things like "faith" and religious fanaticism in the future. Once they achieve sentience, things will get interesting. I think that's still scheduled for 2040.

..........................I, Robot. Mostly good movie, not real.

Maybe I am biased, but um...wouldn't Neo-Paganism and Wicca survive since those are nature base religions?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Yes and no. Neo-paganism does incorporate old beliefs, but a lot were lost in time. I.e. certain customs, holidays, traditions, gods, meanings, etc. Christianity incorporates a lot of pagan concepts as well (though they'd never admit it). For example, the popular image of the Christian god is based on Jove (Zeus). So they do survive in some ways, but everything is lost with time.

As for robots, we'd have to program them to have faith first. That'd be pretty damn hard. Though getting them to manipulate human superstition might be doable. But in science fiction, that would probably result in them becoming religious themselves.

 

[Dr.]

As for robots, we'd have to program them to have faith first. That'd be pretty damn hard. Though getting them to manipulate human superstition might be doable. But in science fiction, that would probably result in them becoming religious themselves.

The Electric Monk was a labour-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video recorder. Dishwashers washed tedious dishes for you, thus saving you the bother of washing them yourself, video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electric Monks believed things for you, thus saving you what was becoming an increasingly onerous task, that of believing all the things the world expected you to believe. – Douglas Adams, Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

 

[KalMart]

As for robots, we'd have to program them to have faith first. That'd be pretty damn hard. Though getting them to manipulate human superstition might be doable. But in science fiction, that would probably result in them becoming religious themselves.

Just do what we did to ourselves...tell it to the when they're born and keep telling them to repeat. It'll catch on.

 

[enterthemadness]

Yes and no. Neo-paganism does incorporate old beliefs, but a lot were lost in time. I.e. certain customs, holidays, traditions, gods, meanings, etc. Christianity incorporates a lot of pagan concepts as well (though they'd never admit it). For example, the popular image of the Christian god is based on Jove (Zeus). So they do survive in some ways, but everything is lost with time.

As for robots, we'd have to program them to have faith first. That'd be pretty damn hard. Though getting them to manipulate human superstition might be doable. But in science fiction, that would probably result in them becoming religious themselves.

Makes sense. Only a...leaner form of Neo-Paganism and Wicca can survive. Worshipping Gaia can even survive, hell, Pagan Gods can survive IF looked at as symbols of nature, not as literal living Gods that are out there somewhere. Currently, I do call the Earth Mother Earth/Mother Nature/Gaia when I do pray, but I don't see Gaia as a actual Goddess in a heaven currently. Just that the Earth is a living creature. It is a planet after all with many life forms on it, one of which--is nature. Although I suppose if humans could live on Jupiter in dome's, a nature religion could thrive there. Jupiter does have storms on it. Which is a sign of nature. But that can be viewed as a stretch by some.

and the robots having a religion. Reminds me of Futurama.

 

[enterthemadness]

Two times I read in this article...that it was the other way around. Seriously?

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMN..._Christianity_Borrow_From_Pagan_Religions.htm

Why Thunder? Why can't the writer admit it? I only skimmed the article. I couldn't honestly take it.

 

[KalMart]

Well...in terms of 'borrowing'...I thinks its obvious to any side that Chritianity, as well as other current religions, are evolutions from earlier faiths since none of them are the first religions to come about. It's likely that each faith views themselves as finally reaching the 'right' version through previous unsuccessful tries....even though much of a religion's volume is achieved through war.

So I guess the idea of 'borrowing' depends on how you frame it. Is it something that you adopt for its merits of theatricality, or salesmanship, etc.? Or is it a natural progression of moral and communal ideas that were always meant to be there, now carried in a more sophisticated package....a truer reprsentation of faith that we've become more 'worthy' of?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wireless network.

Jokes aside though, no one in their right mind would program a computer to go on faith. That would be extremely dangerous.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well...in terms of 'borrowing'...I thinks its obvious to any side that Chritianity, as well as other current religions, are evolutions from earlier faiths since none of them are the first religions to come about. It's likely that each faith views themselves as finally reaching the 'right' version through previous unsuccessful tries....even though much of a religion's volume is achieved through war.

So I guess the idea of 'borrowing' depends on how you frame it. Is it something that you adopt for its merits of theatricality, or salesmanship, etc.? Or is it a natural progression of moral and communal ideas that were always meant to be there, now carried in a more sophisticated package....a truer reprsentation of faith that we've become more 'worthy' of?

Yes, it's still debated whether or not Judaism is a rip off of Zoroastrianism or just a sect of Zoroastrianism which forgot its own roots.

The ancients had their gods for a reason. If they couldn't understand something, they would attribute it to the supernatural. Hence why the Hawaiians have a volcano god, and the Egyptians have a sun god. As our understanding of the universe improved, we had less demand for gods.

 

[KalMart]

I'm somewhat along the lines of Joseph Campbell on my outlook.....




...in that I kinda' like the idea of God, but not the idea of religion.


Or...vice versa......