Religion may become extinct

[Trader]

Not before time IMO

 

Should be about tolerance, but as we all know is too often the opposite.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12811197

 

Thoughts?

[bridge too far]

Yes I read that article too. Very interesting, especially the readers' comments.

 

It can't come soon enough IMO.

[Jimmy_D]

[Trader]

I think most people in this country don't have any relgious affiliation, but in the current census a lot of people will tick the 'C of E' box out of habit.

 

Edit: Just had a look at census form - 'Christian' box - same applies

Edited 22 March, 2011 by Trader

[Colinjb]

I think most people in this country don't have any relgious affiliation, but in the current census a lot of people will tick the 'C of E' box out of habit.

 

Or put 'Jedi.'

[JonnyLove]

Religion is based on a system of beliefs exactly how are beliefs meant to become extinct. They may change and alter slightly over time but they would not become extinct.

[Sheaf Saint]

Religion is based on a system of beliefs exactly how are beliefs meant to become extinct. They may change and alter slightly over time but they would not become extinct.

 

Maybe it was badly worded. Perhaps the article should refer to theistic or organised religion.

[Verbal]

Not before time IMO

 

Should be about tolerance, but as we all know is too often the opposite.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12811197

 

Thoughts?

 

Just waiting for the closet god botherers on here to flap by and claim there are no morals without religion.

[Atticus Finch of Maycomb]

Now now, we all know that there are no morals without religion

[Verbal]

Thanks. I can get on with my work now.

[pap]

It's not exactly a surprise, is it?

 

All of the religious books are quite limited in scope compared to what humanity has discovered in the interim ( things like dinosaurs, other stars and planets, etc ). To me, that says these books are the words of men who didn't understand the world, not a God who is supposed to have created it. Yet there are still believers who, for example, believe that the Bible is the literal word of God.

[Window Cleaner]

that will be handy then.

[pap]

It's handy to justify killing in the name of, but not much else.

 

It annoys me that these beliefs sometimes come at the cost of innocent lives, though. One of the worst examples would be someone denying easily performable surgery to their kid, just because they believe that God will step into save them. I've worked with someone whose parents did just that.

[Smirking_Saint]

For me they never really updated their image, and never give any sort of joining offers.

 

If they start doing that I may become interested.

[Alanh]

They could easily become extinct over many generations if fewer and fewer new believers are brought into the religion and existing believers die. It's not going to be the mainstream religions that are at risk but the smaller ones with fewer current members / believers.

[Sheaf Saint]

All of the religious books are quite limited in scope compared to what humanity has discovered in the interim ( things like dinosaurs, other stars and planets, etc ). To me, that says these books are the words of men who didn't understand the world, not a God who is supposed to have created it. Yet there are still believers who, for example, believe that the Bible is the literal word of God.

 

This is precisely the way I see it. Millennia ago, people used to worship the god of the sun or the god of rain or the god of thunder because they hadn't the slightest comprehension of the nature of the earth, weather etc.. Then some Jewish tribesmen came up with the old testament as a means of justification for their continued wars with other tribes and it somehow took a hold and people accepted it as truth.

 

It really shocks me that people still cling to this crap despite the fact that science has disproved an awful lot of the claims made in the OT. Classic example - the book of Genesis states that 'God made two great lights: one to light up the days and one to provide light at night' (not the exact words but you get the gist) obviously referring to the sun and the moon. Modern science has shown us that the sun has existed for a great deal longer than the Earth, so there was no concept of night and day before the Earth existed because they are created by the rotation of the planet. We have also proved that the moon is not actually a 'great light', rather a useless lump of rock caught in the gravitational pull of the earth, which just happens to reflect the light of the sun towards the surface area of the Earth. You have to ask: if the very first book of the bible managed to get this so catastrophically wrong, how can you possibly take any of the rest of it with any seriousness? But nooooooo, there are still plenty of people who genuinely do believe that the bible is the literal word of god. I'm afraid there is no hope for these people if they are so utterly incapable of any critical thinking.

 

The worst one for me is the Q'uran. As I understand it, most muslims believe that this is also the literal word of Allah. This being the case, why did Allah choose to 'reveal' the Q'uran to an illiterate nomad who had no means to write it down? Muhammed allegedly kept the contents of his revelation in his head for many years before passing it on to some soldiers so it could be shared with the wider world, so unless he had a spectacularly good photographic memory, I would wager that the contents had changed an awful lot before it was committed to scroll. The other crazy thing about this is that many muslims believe that the Q'uran loses all meaning if it translated inot any language other than Arabic. So if God really does want the whole world to convert to Islam, why would he/she/it exclude the vast majority of the world's population from understanding his revealed truth?