The future of religion?

[Vekin]

If you're a bleeding heart, then so am I. I still maintain that it's morally wrong to enforce any religion or lack thereof on anyone, as long as the observance of that religion is their free and informed choice and doesn't materially harm anyone outside their religion.

The only area of moral uncertainty is the situation of children. Just as a child can't, due to lack of maturity, make an informed choice to drink alcohol, take drugs, have elective surgery or consent to sex, a child can't make an informed choice to be a member of a religion. The problem is that if a person is cloistered throughout childhood and effectively brainwashed into thinking that their coreligionists are right and outsiders are wrong and out to get you, then it's next to impossible to convince them they've been lied to all their lives once they do reach an age to make an informed choice. Any attempt to counter this will be met by resistance, not only from the religious extremists who don't want their children to be exposed to reality before it's too late, but also by their "useful idiot" liberal/multiculturalist apologists. If you doubt this, try discussing the possibility of banning medically unnecessary irreversible surgical procedures on children too young to talk, let alone make an informed choice on the decision to have such a procedure. Try to see if you can get your interlocutor to decry foot binding or female genital mutilation as immoral before shifting on to infant circumcision. If people are willing to allow people to physically mutilate their children for "religious" or "cultural" reasons, think how much harder it would be to have them support a ban on the much less tangible harm of indoctrination.

I see where you're coming from. But I don't think the problem is so much religion as people trying to push one groups beliefs into schools and such.

 

[Marcus]

I see where you're coming from. But I don't think the problem is so much religion as people trying to push one groups beliefs into schools and such.

It's all part of the same problem - that's why I stressed the importance of removing religious bias from state funded schooling in my earlier post. The more we can expose children from an early age to the ideas of critical thought and to the fact that whatever their parents may believe is not universally accepted (including atheism!), the more likely they are to be able to make that informed choice when they reach majority. Clearly, the children of followers of any one religion will still disproportionately choose to follow that religion, but even those are more likely to do so whilst understanding that they can't morally impose their religious choices on others, so only secular reasoning can be used in making legal and governmental decisions. The danger is in those children who have been withdrawn from contact with people of differing beliefs, they're the extremists and theocrats of tomorrow.

 

[theatheistguy]

I think it will go out with a painful, muffled scream under the pillow of reason and free thought.

 

[TheOtherSide100]

I've put some thought into this and what if instead of making religion outlawed altogether, we should make it that you have to be 18+ (or something similar) before you can start studying and practicing religion (or something similar) so that we can protect children from being exposed and indoctrinated from a young age? This would surely lower their numbers....

Definitely! Making it an educated adult choice instead of a fear/guilt-driven obligation would lower the numbers.

 

[Gimble]

Life is getting too easy for humans. We take from the wealthy/hardworking and give to those who just want it easy. We do not train people to think and we ridicule anyone who doesn't follow what is popular.

Do you really think things are going to get better any time soon?

If reasoning was all we needed and EVERYONE made an effort, I'd say in 100 years, 99% population would be atheist. The'd be educated and reasonable. We'd all have the same purpose - to learn truth and better the human race and all life.

But just look how nutty and delusional the average person is. Then, like Carlin said, realize that half of the people are worse than that.

You have to keep in mind that there are places on this planet that live FAR from reality. In Africa, there still are the witch doctors, rain dances, and all sorts of crazy bullshit that people live their lives by! To them, that is truth.

How the hell do we wake up the whole world?

What we really need is a mass extinction of the human race.

 

[IrBubble]

Life is getting too easy for humans. We take from the wealthy/hardworking and give to those who just want it easy.

:geek:
Having a steady society where everyone can get along is beneficial to our society as a whole, not just to the ones who aren't as strong.

Do you really think things are going to get better any time soon?

Consider this.

If reasoning was all we needed and EVERYONE made an effort, I'd say in 100 years, 99% population would be atheist. The'd be educated and reasonable. We'd all have the same purpose - to learn truth and better the human race and all life.

I don't know why this necessarily would be a goal.

But just look how nutty and delusional the average person is. Then, like Carlin said, realize that half of the people are worse than that.

You have to keep in mind that there are places on this planet that live FAR from reality. In Africa, there still are the witch doctors, rain dances, and all sorts of crazy bullshit that people live their lives by! To them, that is truth.

How the hell do we wake up the whole world?

Education,

Education

Education.

What we really need is a mass extinction of the human race.

How do you arrive at this conclusion?

 

[ladiesman391]

But just look how nutty and delusional the average person is. Then, like Carlin said, realize that half of the people are worse than that.

From a business and political viewpoint, the dumber the average person is, the more the easily the average person "workers" can be taken advantage of, there's not much impetus for those in positions of power (and the top 5% of those holding the world's wealth) to see an increase in education, intelligence and standard of living and funnily enough they are the ones who could really make a huge difference in these areas. There's an insane amount of greed and selfishness out there.

Like "Charlotte" from "Sex and the City" says "What's the point in having all this money if I can't help out the one's that I love?"

 

[nasher168]

Amanda Donaldson has been in treatment for breast cancer and, just to add to her burdens, she's allegedly been fired from her job at El Dorado Chiropractic because Dr. Scott Dawson doesn't approve of the fact that Donaldson and her husband Brant are Christians. Dr. Dawson has denied the story and tried to defend his actions as owner of El Dorado Chiropractic, but his story doesn't quite ring true to me.
The Donaldson's claim that on March 26th "Dr. Dawson somehow found the site and blog and immediately began threatening her over her job" because of Brant Donaldson religious opinions posted on 'The Cancer Chronicles' blog. Brant goes on to say in his blog that Dr. Dawson ""¦threatened to fire her if I did not remove the religious part of the entries"¦". For fear of consequences towards his wife, Mr. Donaldson removed his personal religious opinions from previously posted entries.

Brant also stated that Dr. Dawson ""¦would still pressure his anti- religious viewpoint on her and threaten to fire her if she continued to be a christian." And that his wife ""¦has been told that she is being punished for her faith."

Source: ChristosToday
Can you imagine the outcry from Atheist organizations if the doctor were a Christian who fired an Atheist and told her that she is "being punished for her lack of faith"? Can you imagine how such an incident would be used by Atheist organizations to "prove" that there is anti-Atheist conspiracy and that Atheists must suffer oppression in America?

Yet here we have what appears to be a clear, unambiguous example of anti-christian bigotry and anti-christian discrimination. What's more, it's an incident that creates a significant amount of harm because not only did Amanda Donaldson lose a job in a bad economy, but she lost her health insurance as well , insurance which she needs more than the average person given her cancer. How likely do you think she is to get a decent job given how much time she has to keep taking off right now for treatment, and how likely do you think it is that a new insurance policy will do anything for her given all the exemptions for "pre-existing conditions" which they impose?

I don't think it would be to unreasonable to ask whether a case of discrimination like what this appears to be is ultimately also a case of trying to hasten a person's death simply because they don't share your religion.

In an interview with Kacey Cornell, Amanda Donaldson has further explained what happened:

What exactly happened the day you were terminated?

5/4/09-" The day I was fired I was busy trying to straighten up the stuff he had just let pile up while I was recovering from my mastectomy. This included the front office/desk work, patient care and back office work as well as cleaning the office up (which I was not supposed to do due to the limitations in effect after the surgery. I needed to vacuum because he said, "Well you know I am not going to do it.") He had hardly spoken a word to me and I was all into getting things back in order for the afternoon. When he did start the casual how are you feeling conversation I told him I was hurting a little but I had some medicine in my purse I could take if it got too bad. He asked me about Brant, my husband, and I told him the good news about him finding a good job, 8-5, M-F with benefits.

He walked away and came back a short while later, approached me and said, "I cannot have negativity toward Atheism associated with this place (indicating his office), it's all I have."

He pressured me once again to attend his Atheist meetings, which I had previously done as a requirement for my job (I did get paid for it) and I said thanks for the invite but I think I am ok. I then told him I was never negative nor did I have an outspoken attitude about my beliefs within his office to which he replied, "There is no place for your thoughts, opinions and beliefs on God in my office, please give me your key and leave."

I then told him that no one but him even knew how I believed; I didn't talk to the patients about it and never brought it up when the patients asked if they could pray for me. I told him that I had been very tolerant of his beliefs and those of the patients and asked why this was a problem. To this he replied, "You're never here anyway!" (referring to my being gone for surgery.)

He then proceeded to scream and yell at me, while I was trying to get the key to his office off my keychain and gather my belongings, demanding that if I would accept that God is a fairy tale I would be ok and telling me there was no point in my being there anyway, since I was never there. I then proceeded to walk the four miles to my house due to the fact that we are a single-car family and my husband had the car.
Kacey also tried to talk to Dr. Dawson to get his side of the story:

He said that Amanda and her husband are just "bitter and angry" and stated that he thinks none of this would be happening if it weren't for her husband's influence. He claimed that he never knew Amanda to be a "woman of God" and that the idea she is a christian was "new" to him. He said, "They were damaged before they met me," because they had "hatred for the world."

...Eventually Dr. Dawson mentioned not being happy with what Amanda's husband was writing. When I asked him what he was referring to he said, "I found a blog 6-8 weeks ago. I wasn't happy about the negativity in it and was afraid patients would be deterred. Amanda said she was keeping it 'out of here' but I didn't want negative stuff associated with the office."

He went on to make two other statements that are very important to Amanda's story. He said, "It's not a Christ-oriented office, they (meaning employees) need to be on the same page I am."

I asked if the orientation of the office meant he only treated certain people and he said, "No, I treat anyone, but I'm a person of reason and science, and I'll hire anyone who is qualified." However, he then immediately added, "but I do not want to hire anyone with a different world view."
The emphasized passages really make it tough to believe Dr. Dawson's story , an employer who insists that they need a "Christ-centered" office, that they don't want "negative stuff" even "associated" with the office, and that they only want to hire people who have the same "world view" is an employer who is basically admitting that their policies are bigoted, discriminatory, and oppressive. This is exacerbated by the fact that Dawson seems to be just blaming christianity and the husband's christianity for all the problems , apparently, he's innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever.

By now I'll bet you're thinking that Amanda Donaldson has a great legal case for illegal religious discrimination and will win a lawsuit , but you'd be wrong. Amanda has already gone to the EEOC and spoken with her state representatives and apparently Dr. Dawson could just state outright "yeah, I fired her because she's a christian and I'd do it again" without having to fear any legal repercussions. Why? Because labor laws in the state of Texas don't entirely protect employees in companies that have 15 or fewer people working there. According to Amanda, any sort of discrimination , religious, racial, gender, disability etc. , is legal for small firms. She's trying to get the law changed, but even if she's successful that can't help her now.

Is it merely a coincidence that the people who perpetuate myths about Atheists being oppressed and who perpetuate bigotry against christians also tend to be the same ones who support the current system of health care and labor laws which are exacerbating the problems here? I don't think so because any effective system of oppression has to be able to exert pressure and create fear at multiple points in a person's life. You won't be as likely to submit to an employer's unseasonable demands, including immoral or illegal religious demands, if you aren't afraid of losing retirement and health care benefits if you are fired for standing up for your rights. Oppression doesn't work if it's easy for people to escape that oppression.

EDIT: Fuck, wrong thread. That's quite an achievement, don't you think?

 

[Neverwhere]

Uhm... ChristosToday?
I can't seem to find the source article you presented Nasher, and the story about Amanda Donaldson was the other way around, she was an atheist and fired for it, we even have a topic about it here in this forum, the story itself can be found here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-...n-atheists-battle-against-discrimination-pt-1

So, I'm forced to assume that the point you're trying to make is Atheism might get too militant in the future?

Well of course, that's a risk you run with every worldview when it gets overly zealous and self-righteous. But as long as we remain reasonable atheists and don't turn over to "faitheism" I think we'll be alright.

EDIT:

EDIT: Fuck, wrong thread. That's quite an achievement, don't you think

Well that would explain it

 

[ladiesman391]

EDIT: Fuck, wrong thread. That's quite an achievement, don't you think?

That's the funniest thing I've ever seen in LoR! :lol:
I have to applaud you for not removing it either and owning up to it and yes that's quite an achievement!

 

[nasher168]

Basically, what I often do if I can't be arsed to finish a post is I just copy it in order to paste it in later. I pasted into the wrong thread...

Anyway, back on topic. My personal feeling is that christianity will almost certainly die out in Europe within 100 years. The US might take perhaps another 50-100 years, but will get there eventually. The Middle East will probably take even longer, maybe up to 300 or 400 years.
I can see militant Atheists becoming more commonplace, since the disappearance of religion won't necessarily mean the disappearance of all far-right-wing nutters.
I would also imagine there would be an explosion in Cults and dodgy new-age crap for a while as they seek to fill the vacuum left in the wake of religion's disappearance.
This is all just speculation, of course. I don't expect much of it to come true as I have said.

 

[Gimble]

Having a steady society where everyone can get along is beneficial to our society as a whole, not just to the ones who aren't as strong.

That's a manipulative statement. You'd fit right in as a politician.

I completely disagree with justifying people to be lazy and be taken care of. Some people need a helping hand, but what we're taking and giving is absolutely rediculous. And it's only getting worse.

 

[WolfAU]

For IrBubble and others who've been focusing on the issue of educaiton, there are a few problems with that, most notably the individuals capacity for reason, capacity to learn, willingness to learn/reason, and willingness to change.

For anyone who has debated with a theist will know these are the main stumbling blocks, as theists have the data, and the access to it, they just have no desire to expand their knowledge. This applies to alot of other groups (political, social etc). Example asking them questions like 'what would it take to convince you that your stance is incorrect?'

Gimble: "I completely disagree with justifying people to be lazy and be taken care of. Some people need a helping hand, but what we're taking and giving is absolutely rdiculous. And it's only getting worse."

The main issue and benefit of a more compassionate society in this regard is that if we are mighty, we can relax knowing that should we fall, we will never die of starvation or never be denied life saving medicines, that we will have access to quality education and that those we care about recieve the same, these help us to relax and make people adopt less of a 'dog eat dog' mentality (ie alot of America's wealthy will admit that the fear of becoming bankrupt is a strong fear of theirs and a powerful motivator, probably contributing greatly to their stress, ie fear of losing girlfriends/wives, friends, their children not getting decent education and suffering for it etc).

I think its important that people feel assured that they will never starve, never have to live on the street and never be denied essential medicine, but to then encourage them through various means to contribute more to society. Lets face it, nobody wants to be unemployed, because its humiliating and you have no chance of picking up decent girls, we all want a job we can be proud of, and as our understanding of psychology increases, I think our ability to reach and inspire alot of these people we catagorically dismiss as simply 'lazy' will improve.

Nasher: "since the disappearance of religion won't necessarily mean the disappearance of all far-right-wing nutters."
Agreed, religion doesn't necessarily create psycho's (it may aggrevate their symptoms and may hinder them getting help though), its mostly just their favourite rallying point, if religion goes they'll still be there, but their ability to justify their thoughts and actions will be greatly diminished.

 

[Marcus]

For IrBubble and others who've been focusing on the issue of educaiton, there are a few problems with that, most notably the individuals capacity for reason, capacity to learn, willingness to learn/reason, and willingness to change.

...which is exactly why nurturing those qualities (along with tolerance and healthy scepticism) through education is important. More important, even, than a bunch of facts, since they're much easier to add later in life.

 

[Vogter2100]

In the end.. facts and reason will kill most religion.

It will be as somone mentioned, like the satanists an obscure superstition no one really pays any attention to except when they commit crimes.

Statistics show that more humans are non believers than ever before. Even in USA the non beievers numbers grow.

My only porblem is that I think that proces is very slow!

But if we dont want the fundies to go ape and wage war that might be the only thing to do, wait it out.

I wish indoctrination and withholding facts from chioldren was illegal and grounds to remove them form their fundie parents. That certainly would speed things up.

 

[henrikrocker]

As several before me have said: Facts and better education will win over blind faith.

 

[Zylstra]

Just as a child can't, due to lack of maturity, make an informed choice to drink alcohol, take drugs, have elective surgery or consent to sex, a child can't make an informed choice to be a member of a religion. The problem is that if a person is cloistered throughout childhood and effectively brainwashed into thinking that their coreligionists are right and outsiders are wrong and out to get you, then it's next to impossible to convince them they've been lied to all their lives once they do reach an age to make an informed choice. Any attempt to counter this will be met by resistance, not only from the religious extremists who don't want their children to be exposed to reality before it's too late, but also by their "useful idiot" liberal/multiculturalist apologists. If you doubt this, try discussing the possibility of banning medically unnecessary irreversible surgical procedures on children too young to talk, let alone make an informed choice on the decision to have such a procedure. Try to see if you can get your interlocutor to decry foot binding or female genital mutilation as immoral before shifting on to infant circumcision. If people are willing to allow people to physically mutilate their children for "religious" or "cultural" reasons, think how much harder it would be to have them support a ban on the much less tangible harm of indoctrination.

+1

 

[katharsis]

Tomorrow's Spirituality (Ken Wilber)

 

[Sarge084]

As long as there are simple people around, and smart people willing to exploit them, there will be religion.

As Marcus stated, the best thing to do is prevent children being indoctrinated, what until they have reach an age of maturity, such that hey can form their own opinion, although enforced religion in these enlightened times is the best method of putting children off religion. In those societies where the masses are starved of knowledge, the governments and religions can fill simple minds with dogma. The internet is a threat to such indoctrination, one of the reasons why China signed a deal with Google to censor searches, as is news media from sources other than domestic propaganda driven output.

Bill Bryson left America to tour Europe, and saw a world that was in stark contrast to that which he'd learned at school, in one of his books he writes about his childhood in Iowa, and the era of the 'Reds under the bed' indoctrination. Now that the cold war has ended, the mind control machine has turned to "Muslims under the bed" or as they prefer to call it, 'The war on terrorism' which is nothing more than a tool to control the masses, just the same as the communist threat that never was.

Think for yourselves, don't let church OR state control your thinking. The government should work for you, not you for the government (Unless you're a civil servant of course.).

Pete

 

[TonyBtheEG]

Religion will have all its books in the "Fiction" section of all bookstores.

The first transition I've seen in B&N is "Religious Fiction" right next to Science.

I took a photo with my phone because it was that pure.
Link to photo -> http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=1202379&albumID=2266705&imageID=52061452