A world without religion

[MrBishop]

Not entirely. Most tool making was originally an accident, or an act of desperation. Science prides itself on methodology, not serendipity.

Desperation is the mother of all invention?

Behold Physics...and the mighty lever, the force of gravity and the pulley.

I would say that the tool exists and is perfected by science (through trial and error) and the new tool is in turn is used to perfect the act of trial and error which is science. You can't have good science without the right tools...everything else is just theory.

***

 

[rrfield]

It occured to me, but, you know, those years I spent at College kind of jaded me to people and the 'cool' factor. I know a few 'atheists', quite a few, actually, that were only atheists because it was cool to be anti-establishment. I think the word for that is hypocrisy, but I could be wrong...

Oh there are those who are athiest because it's "cool", especially in a college atmosphere. On the other hand, there are kids who are Christian because it's "cool", especially in high school. At least it was like that at my high school.

Plus, anyone who is willing to stop believing in God because of peer pressure probably wasn't a very strong Christian to begin with.

 

[Professur]

Y'know, I see a lot of chest beating WRT catholicism. But that's hardly the only religion out there. The first religions came from primitive man trying to explain what he couldn't understand. It was then extended to form community groups. To empower leaders. And before you slight that, look at what those leaders accomplished. Egypt. Babylonia. Sumaria. Rome. The Mayas. Even early Hawaiians used religion to empower their people. And those people would never have progressed further than the sheep they are without that empowerment. You want to talk science. Well, without religion, the society that science needs to support it never would have existed.

Look across the globe. Find me one culture, one land, completely without religion. There aren't any. Even cultures like the greater Adamandese (sp) who weren't even discovered until the late 19th century had religion.


Now stand back for a sec. Think this one through (except for bish). Every culture that has advanced scientifically has imploded. Without exception. We, right now, are rejecting religion more and more. Could that same thing have been the undoing for ancient cultures? I know that there were several upheavals in Egyptian religion, which saw the destruction or abandonment of entire cities. Older cultures didn't leave us as good a record, but could religious upheaval have been the reason for their fall too? Could our lack of faith, in the face of the Muslim renaissance of belief be our downfall?

 

[Winky]

"Primitive man trying to explain what he couldn't understand"

Modern man has science.

Weren’t the dark ages blamed mainly on the Church?

 

[chcr]

Then again, if there was no God, all these athiests would lose something very valuable to them.

If there was no God, they would no longer get to be "different". They would be just like everyone else. They wouldn't get to "stand out from the crowd"...so their primary positive reinforcement for such a stance (attention) would vanish. How totally uncool!

So in a weird, convoluted way, atheists need a God to exist, so they can then decline to believe in said God, and hence garner the attention they get such a charge out of. I mean, you can't very well be different if your belief structure is such that everyone else also believes it.

Sooooo...if there is no God, all of a sudden, atheists would need to start believing a God exists to then receive this attention. Wow. Who'd a-thunk it?

Interesting theory. A little dated (I first heard it in the late seventies, but it was old even then) but interesting. Sorry to disagree, but if in fact there were no god there still wouldn't be one. I could give a shit about being "different" or "special." I spent no small amount of time deciding, and I see no evidence and no reason why I should believe that any religion or any god is not simply a logical extension of the preceding myth (in fact, if you trace them this becomes evident). IMO it's all a myth to explain things you don't comprehend. Well, just because we don't comprehend something doesn't make it incomprehensible or require a supernatural agent. I know that many atheists go out of their way to antagonize the theists, but I know what I know just as you do. We simply don't know the same things. I can promise you that I am just as certain as you are.


Note to Prof: Every society big enough to be remembered has imploded except for the current ones (I think these will too, but that's just an opinion).

 

[Professur]

So were the cursades. Not mentionned were orphanages, monastaries (where most books were written), schools, etc.

Don't mix power grabbing church officials with religion. They are definitely not the same thing.

 

[chcr]

Don't mix power grabbing church officials with religion. They are definitely not the same thing.

The church officials don't define the religion?

 

[BeardofPants]

*echoes what chic said

I am an atheist for my OWN reasons, not because of what I want other people to perceive me as.

 

[Professur]

No. Belief defines religion.

 

[MrBishop]

Y'know, I see a lot of chest beating WRT catholicism. But that's hardly the only religion out there. The first religions came from primitive man trying to explain what he couldn't understand. It was then extended to form community groups. To empower leaders. And before you slight that, look at what those leaders accomplished. Egypt. Babylonia. Sumaria. Rome. The Mayas. Even early Hawaiians used religion to empower their people. And those people would never have progressed further than the sheep they are without that empowerment. You want to talk science. Well, without religion, the society that science needs to support it never would have existed.

Look across the globe. Find me one culture, one land, completely without religion. There aren't any. Even cultures like the greater Adamandese (sp) who weren't even discovered until the late 19th century had religion.


Now stand back for a sec. Think this one through (except for bish). Every culture that has advanced scientifically has imploded. Without exception. We, right now, are rejecting religion more and more. Could that same thing have been the undoing for ancient cultures? I know that there were several upheavals in Egyptian religion, which saw the destruction or abandonment of entire cities. Older cultures didn't leave us as good a record, but could religious upheaval have been the reason for their fall too? Could our lack of faith, in the face of the Muslim renaissance of belief be our downfall?

Ad hoc ergo proctor hoc - the false logic that states that if something occured after something else, that the first caused the second.

Are you saying that advancing scientifically means rejecting religion? Which leads to the breakdown of society, which leads to the death of nations?

A few short months ago, you blamed the acceptance of homosexuality by the society on the desimation of all those civilisations. Now it's lack of religion or rather...advancing scientifically? What's next?

Did you know that all advanced civilizations had women as part of their populace and all of them has imploded, without exception?

 

[chcr]

No. Belief defines religion.

I think yours must be different than ours.
Here they have conferences to decide what they do and don't believe (at least as far as I can tell).

 

[Professur]

Think this one through (except for bish).

And, as usual, he doesn't. Do you even see all the question marks at the end of all those sentences? Get off your soapbox, and try actually reading what I wrote for once.

 

[Professur]

I think yours must be different than ours.
Here they have conferences to decide what they do and don't believe (at least as far as I can tell).

No, they have conferences to decide what to tell you to believe. The belief is all up to you.

I, for one, don't take the Bible as wrote. I read it, and think on what it says. Occaisionally, I'll invite the minister over for supper and discuss some of what I've devined. But my beliefs are my own.

 

[chcr]

No, they have conferences to decide what to tell you to believe. The belief is all up to you.

I, for one, don't take the Bible as wrote. I read it, and think on what it says. Occaisionally, I'll invite the minister over for supper and discuss some of what I've devined. But my beliefs are my own.

As they should be. I'm afraid however, that this makes you the exception rather than the rule.

 

[BeardofPants]

I know that there were several upheavals in Egyptian religion, which saw the destruction or abandonment of entire cities.

Granted, religion acted as a centralising power in the early dynastic periods of Egypt (Pharaoh as the God-Head), but those upheavals were due to a plethora of reasons, not least because of religion. Religion was just a small part. De-centralisation was a problem. Fighting a war on two different fronts was a problem (Nubia, and to the North). Most often the upheavals were caused by invading forces from the north or the south. The Second Intermediate Period was marked by invasions from the Hyksos - invaders from the North. The problem with Egypt was that it existed in a geographical vacuum, protected on all sides by natural geographic phenomena. When these were breached, there were oftentimes disastrous consequences, because the people of Egypt were not prepared. Things like not having the appropriate technologies to fight off invaders (lack of chariot technology until after the Hittite invasion). Due to the geographical isolation, certain aspects of Egyptian technology were lacking. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that there were mitigating reasons why Egypt had so many upheavals, and religion just plays a small part - although the story of Akhenaten is interesting in that the state religion was overthrown by the pharaoh's personal religion... to disastrous consequences...

 

[Winky]

"Belief defines religion"

Therein lies the rub heh heh

Knowledge vs. belief.

Gimme scientific proof of God
and the only problemo I’d have at that point
is which of the myriad religions to believe in! OMG lol

 

[MrBishop]

And, as usual, he doesn't. Do you even see all the question marks at the end of all those sentences? Get off your soapbox, and try actually reading what I wrote for once.

I did read what you wrote. Hypothetical questions leading others to make conclusions which you desire of them.

If you meant them as real questions...the answer to each of those questions would be "no".

History tells us that it's overextending themselves which led to their demise...basically, they tried to control too much land and too many people at once. It got expensive and impossible. Their satellite provinces started pulling away from the central authority becuse of things like taxation without protection. With the satellite provinces pulling away, the more internal ones rebelled against the loss of income, the loss of trade etc... and overturned the central authority. Then these places succomed to internal squabbles and power struggles and eventually got invaded when they were at their weakest and most splintered.

Religion may have some binding power over society, but society can survive quite well without a central and unifying religion. Many societies have multiple religions coexisting quite well.

**Oh...and if you want me off this little soapbox, you could always stop throwing the spotlight on said box and announcing on the loadspeakers "Our next presenter will be MrBishop"

Think this one through (except for bish).

 

[Professur]

As they should be. I'm afraid however, that this makes you the exception rather than the rule.

That's pretty much it in all things. Hence my constant derision of the human herd.

BoP, you watched the same Discovery special I did, eh?

 

[chcr]

loadspeakers???? Truer words... j/k

 

[Professur]

I did read what you wrote. Hypothetical questions leading others to make conclusions which you desire of them.

If you meant them as real questions...the answer to each of those questions would be "no".

History tells us that it's overextending themselves which led to their demise...basically, they tried to control too much land and too many people at once. It got expensive and impossible. Their satellite provinces started pulling away from the central authority becuse of things like taxation without protection. With the satellite provinces pulling away, the more internal ones rebelled against the loss of income, the loss of trade etc... and overturned the central authority. Then these places succomed to internal squabbles and power struggles and eventually got invaded when they were at their weakest and most splintered.

Religion may have some binding power over society, but society can survive quite well without a central and unifying religion. Many societies have multiple religions coexisting quite well.

**Oh...and if you want me off this little soapbox, you could always stop throwing the spotlight on said box and announcing on the loadspeakers "Our next presenter will be MrBishop"

*yawn* I added that bit for one reason. Because you always do the same thing. Attack everything I say like a rabid dog attacking someone wearing steak underwear. No, you haven't read what I wrote. You probably never will.