Study: Religion may become extinct in nine nations

[karrie]

I meant it in the totality of my statement. You've seen my point out that 'The Brights', with their conversion campaigns, their iconography, their vision statement etc., hardly differ from a religion.

I don't really mind people asserting that their opinions are right. It's when they start saying "I'm right and if you don't agree you're going to hell," you start to get a little apprehensive and then it becomes "I'm right and if you don't change your ways God has commanded me to send you to hell."

I wouldn't put it past a fanatical atheist to crack down on religious freedom (it's happened before), but one thing atheists don't have is the divine permission that seems to give the religious limitless power to force their views on every aspect of human life. It's the oldest form of totalitarianism.

A divine permission, no. But historical permission, they are HUGE on, and refuse let go of. There are many that feel historical permission supercedes the imperative to treat people as individuals with rights, and that's no different than a religious zealot's 'divine permission'.

 

[Corduroy]

What's historical permission? I've never heard of it before.

 

[karrie]

Well I've never heard the term divine permission before, but could exptrapolate from the discussion how you meant it applied. But, okay, I'll explain further. 'Historical permission' as I've used the term, refers to deciding that history grants you permission to do something. A good example would be using the history of religions, rather than their current state, to attempt to declare what should and shouldn't be allowed. It's a flawed viewpoint often brought up surrounding religion, for example, discussing disbanding churches based on what happened during the spanish inquisition, or witch burning trials, etc. It implies one is granting themselves the permission, based on history, not relevant current situations, to strip someone of their rights.

 

[Corduroy]

Historical permission is harder to imagine because history is an abstract. It doesn't give permission. God supposedly does though. What are some examples of atheists using "historical permission" to declare what religions should and shouldn't do?

 

[Johnnny]

I believe in a higher power (God), but i dont believe in the way religons have portrayed him...... What does that make me? Does that make me religous or not religous?

 

[Corduroy]

I believe in a higher power (God), but i dont believe in the way religons have portrayed him...... What does that make me? Does that make me religous or not religous?

It makes you confused. If you believe in a religion's version of god you can at least draw on their claims to legitimacy. If you don't, you're just making it up for yourself.

 

[Johnnny]

If you believe in a religion's version of god

so since i believe in a higher power i believe in a religons version of him?

but i dont believe in the way religons have portrayed him

 

[Corduroy]

so since i believe in a higher power i believe in a religons version of him?

In a trickle down sort of way, yes.

But that wasn't quite what I said.

 

[Johnnny]

which version then do i believe in? I think the koran is garbage, the bible is garbage, and the torah is garbage...... I believe there is a god but he doesnt interfere with human affairs....

But that wasn't quite what I said.

thats exactly what you said

 

[Avro]

Avro should learn how to read.


In other words, this is about a fantasy world rather than the real world and was a waste of money unless they were just "testing" statistical analysis's.

Where did you read the seriousness of my comment?

Was it the cat jumping or perhaps it was the on looker wondering what all the hoopla was about?

Or, was it just you being a total dick as usual?:lol:

 

[Corduroy]

which version then do i believe in? I think the koran is garbage, the bible is garbage, and the torah is garbage...... I believe there is a god but he doesnt interfere with human affairs....

That's the Greek version.

 

[Johnnny]

That's the Greek version.

can you elaborate?

 

[karrie]

Historical permission is harder to imagine because history is an abstract. It doesn't give permission. God supposedly does though. What are some examples of atheists using "historical permission" to declare what religions should and shouldn't do?

I'm not about to backtrack through every debate on here that I've ever had in which the history of churches has been used as grounds for enacting law to limit them in the present. Needless to say, it's been MANY a debate.

 

[mentalfloss]

Okay okay, you guys win. God exists.

For now.

 

[karrie]

can you elaborate?

What Corduroy is trying to tell you is that to her way of thinking, you can't have your own version/vision/sense of a deity, you have to fit someone else's pigeon hole. She's decided that the way you look at God, from the meager amount you've posted on here, fits with the Greeks' version of gods.

 

[Johnnny]

could this be what i mean?

Someone sent me this in a message

Deism (pronounced /ˈdiːɪzəm/ (

listen), US dict: dē′·ĭzm)[1][2] in the philosophy of religion is the standpoint that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that a supreme being created the universe. Further the term often implies that this supreme being does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending to assert that God (or "The Supreme Architect") has a plan for the universe that is not to be altered by intervention in the affairs of human life. Deists believe in the existence of God without any reliance on revealed religion, religious authority or holy books

Deism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Last i checked though i dont believ in Gods, but a god. Like i posted earlier....

 

[karrie]

Deism is precisely what I would have assumed you were getting at.

 

[Corduroy]

can you elaborate?

Looks like you looked it up yourself

I'm not about to backtrack through every debate on here that I've ever had in which the history of churches has been used as grounds for enacting law to limit them in the present. Needless to say, it's been MANY a debate.

I have never been in a religious discussion and ever heard anyone use the history of religion as an excuse to legally limit religion in the present. At least I don't remember anyone doing that, which is why I find "historical permission" so baffling and alien. I can see someone using the history of religion to justify the separation of church and state. But that principle seems reasonable enough to me, history being an ancillary argument for it. I really don't know what other limits you're thinking of.

But me never having heard this argument before doesn't mean people don't make it. I don't know how atheists on this forum argue. I had never been in a real discussion with someone who believes the Jews secretly run the world until I came to this forum either. I'm learning new things all the time.

What Corduroy is trying to tell you is that to her way of thinking, you can't have your own version/vision/sense of a deity, you have to fit someone else's pigeon hole. She's decided that the way you look at God, from the meager amount you've posted on here, fits with the Greeks' version of gods.

What I said was following religious version of god is better than coming up with your own. The religious versions usually have centuries of theology, tradition and historical legitimacy to hang your hat on.

 

[gerryh]

Where did you read the seriousness of my comment?

Was it the cat jumping or perhaps it was the on looker wondering what all the hoopla was about?

Or, was it just you being a total dick as usual?:lol:

so, in other words, you were trolling. Good to see you admitting it.

What I said was following religious version of god is better than coming up with your own. The religious versions usually have centuries of theology, tradition and historical legitimacy to hang your hat on.

Really, so you believe that the centuries of theology, tradition and historical "legitimacy" gives a "religion" more "legitimacy" than a persons personal beliefs or "epiphany's".

Tell me how you would decide which "religion" is more "legitimate" than others? Strictly on the amount of time that that particular belief has been practiced? If so, would that not mean the Jewish Faith is more legitimate than Islam or Catholicism?

Would this also mean that if a person doesn't follow a particular "religion" as taught by the accepted authorities to the letter that they are then not true followers and could be considered apostate?

 

[Bar Sinister]

I expect the extinction of religion is a natural progression in human thought. Early religions featured many deities, but in most cultures (with the notable exception of India) these were wittled down to a few main gods. By the time of the Roman Empire several cultures had developed the idea of monotheism (Although the Roman Catholic Church cheated on this by incorporating many Mediterranean deities into its cult of saints.) For monotheism it is a relatively easy step to agnosticism and deism. The final step in this progression is to adopt atheism.

I expect that the death of religion in many Western nations has been helped along by public education. Teaching people to read and write and allowing them to think for themselves is always dangerous when it comes to preserving religious thought.