Will Religion Ever Die?

None of those writers have EVER argued for the extermination of religious believers; only religion.

How the hell is that different? Religious believers and religion go hand in hand.

The difference is huge; it's the difference between voting against a political party and planting bombs at the party's headquarters.

No, it would be more like trying to eliminate a political party altogether, not voting against one.

 

Perhaps they mean they want everyone to think just as they do. Give up their silly religions and embrace scientific materialism.

 

Very different, I think the precedent here which may be somewhat extreme by comparison but fairly apt is to do away with slavery without exterminating slave owners.

 

But you automatically ARE in the long run getting rid of slave owners by getting rid of slavery.

You automatically are attempting to get rid of religious believers by attempting to get rid of religion. Luckily, that will never succeed anyway. Sounds like a covered-up form of the next Holocaust. Just less violent.

No wonder Writer is in to that. His Taurus dictator nature shining once again.

Religion needs a transmutation, not an extermination.

 

You must misunderstand how it was being used, Writer mentioned "extermination" as in people doing acute attacks in the name of their religion, a la last weekend.

 

Which is why I said "just less violent". It's still an extermination to attempt to get rid of religion altogether.

 

Not of the people, that's the crucial part I was trying to clarify for you.

 

I understand that. But you're still trying to wipe out belief structures that you don't agree with.

 

Agreed. Okie gave a clear and intellectual response and Writer is huffing and puffing like a Taurus Bull

 

By the way...I will say once again, whether you agree with Astrology or not, that these discussions BLEED Saturn in Sagittarius. Sagittarius rules Religion, and Saturn is the "get your shit together" planet. Saturn will be the planet to actually crystallize an idea into fruition by causing a lot of restriction, limitation, and friction. So it makes absolute sense that even outside of this forum I am encountering a lot of Religion vs. Atheism discussions, articles, etc. more than usual. Saturn in Sagittarius will be happening until 2017, so I would expect things to only heat up even more from here in regards to Religion and belief structures.

 

I don't believe for a minute that any of the atheist "Horsemen" are advocating violence against the religious, but I do believe that by identifying religion (at least of the Abrahamic sort, and Hitchens throws in the rest) as the root of evil and engaging in misleading agitprop against it, they--and you--are risking promoting sentiments that lead to distorted and uncharitable treatment of others.

The Marxist-Leninist regimes killed pursuant to a "scientific socialist" atheist ideology of dialectical materialism. Atheism was an intrinsic part of the ideology. So I don't know that the crimes exactly had "Nothing to Do" with atheism. It is interesting that wherever this ideology has been practiced, the results seem to be the same. No, I don't think the killing was typical of atheism per se (since most atheists aren't Communists), any more than killing by Crusaders was typical of Christianity. Look at the Quakers who get lumped into sweeping generalizations about Abrahamic or Christian violence. I think you're correct that dialectical materialism and scientific socialism were secular religions, which tend to fill the void left when spiritual ones are destroyed. Most atheists aren't ideologues, but neither are most Christians fundamentalists.

Yes, any fundamentalism (Buddhist included) has something to do with religious doctrines. Jihad, martyrdom, and paradise don't necessarily lead to violent aggression. Jihad is the duty to struggle for a worthy cause, martyrdom is the willingness to die for a cause, and paradise is place of timeless harmony. These concepts have an historic context, and do not necessarily mean violent offensive aggression. Many Muslims don't give them that interpretation. Buddhists who engage in violence also have scriptural justifications. Your efforts to condemn some spiritual traditions while whitewashing your own aren't convincing.

 

If I have any religion, it's a respect for people's personal philosophies. If there is a religion of the future, that's the only one I want to be a part of. As a believer in astrology, I would think Chinacat would feel the same way. We are all born different. We all have to do different things in order to have our own peace of mind, whether it be conducting trains or preaching. If the idea of religion is that we all have to be grouped together under the same banner, instead of being free individuals, then I will always be opposed to it.

But again, I think science will dictate how we should lead our lives. It will tell us where we are and what we are made of, and we will change accordingly. There isn't a name or a label for how we're supposed to behave. There is only the undeniable truth that science reveals. And I don't think science precludes mystical experience. It just doesn't say anything about what we cannot know, and that's the world we're left with and have to adjust to.

 

I like this a lot but the only thing I want to elaborate is that the more that Science comes to terms with how much the Observer plays a role in the outcome, the more that the Alchemcial post-2012 Renaissance can unravel. Then man can realize that he doesn't have to adjust to his circumstances. He can take dominion.

 

I'm all for respecting people's personal philosophies, so long as they're willing to reciprocate. But I think it's highly unlikely that science will dictate how we should lead our lives. At least I hope it won't, because science, wonderful as it is, can't give us meaning or morality. Science can be helpful in giving us useful data about improving our lives and the consequences of our actions, but the values themselves have to come from elsewhere.

 

Science already dictates how we live our lives. Just think of the discovery that the Earth revolves around the Sun. You don't think that completely revolutionized people's perspectives of their place in the universe? Whether or not science can give us meaning or morality has yet to be seen. It's really hard to say what knowing our place in the universe does to our psyche, how it effects us morally. I personally think it's humbling, and I think it does a lot of good as far as morality goes. The values may come from elsewhere, but that elsewhere may be our true place in the cosmos itself. Not to mention how consciousness relates to it all as well, as Chinacat said. My hunch is that consciousness plays a much bigger role than we immediately perceive, and I think this too will become a matter of scientific fact and will change our morality, how we look at ourselves and the people around us.

 

every thousand years, give or take a few hundred, a new revealer brings us a new update. earlier versions fade and become overshadowed, but it takes many thousands of years for any of them to go away entirely, if they ever do.

 

It's an unstoppable human contagion that will infect us until we all die of it.

 

Asmo: take note, not said by me. :daisy:

 

Duly noted

But as already pointed out i didn't perceive you to be a fanatic antireligious person in the first place. I recalled that line about faith based thinking and used it as an example of idealism. Nothing more I even went out of my way to make clear i understood it wasn't ment in any weird extremist way. So im kinda disappointed i in return got called biased, a hypocrite and apparently blamed you for something and i don't see how, what or why
Still am eager to learn what/who you perceive me to be biased against!

edit: oh yeah i saw you mentioned you assumed i saw that remark of you that i used in my example in this thread. If that was so i would have looked it up. Unfortunately it was an older one...

 

You claimed I said something that was important enough to remember by the "wordchoice" yet you cannot pull it up, so I'm going to assume you're blowing smoke. You laid down the hypocrite criteria yourself regarding lumping me in with a group's ideas. I am saying you have done exactly that by attributing someone else's position to me and you have provided zero evidence to the contrary.