Will religion ever disappear?

by eddie Tue May 03, 2016 8:25 pm

Will religion ever disappear?

A growing number of people, millions worldwide, say they believe that life definitively ends at death – that there is no God, no afterlife and no divine plan. And it’s an outlook that could be gaining momentum – despite its lack of cheer. In some countries, openly acknowledged atheism has never been more popular.

“There’s absolutely more atheists around today than ever before, both in sheer numbers and as a percentage of humanity,” says Phil Zuckerman, a professor of sociology and secular studies at Pitzer College in Claremont, California, and author of Living the Secular Life. According to a Gallup International survey of more than 50,000 people in 57 countries, the number of individuals claiming to be religious fell from 77% to 68% between 2005 and 2011, while those who self-identified as atheist rose by 3% – bringing the world’s estimated proportion of adamant non-believers to 13%.

While atheists certainly are not the majority, could it be that these figures are a harbinger of things to come? Assuming global trends continue might religion someday disappear entirely?

It’s impossible to predict the future, but examining what we know about religion – including why it evolved in the first place, and why some people chose to believe in it and others abandon it – can hint at how our relationship with the divine might play out in decades or centuries to come.

Scholars are still trying to tease out the complex factors that drive an individual or a nation toward atheism, but there are a few commonalities. Part of religion’s appeal is that it offers security in an uncertain world. So not surprisingly, nations that report the highest rates of atheism tend to be those that provide their citizens with relatively high economic, political and existential stability. “Security in society seems to diminish religious belief,” Zuckerman says. Capitalism, access to technology and education also seems to correlate with a corrosion of religiosity in some populations, he adds.

Crisis of faith

Japan, the UK, Canada, South Korea, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, France and Uruguay (where the majority of citizens have European roots) are all places where religion was important just a century or so ago, but that now report some of the lowest belief rates in the world. These countries feature strong educational and social security systems, low inequality and are all relatively wealthy. “Basically, people are less scared about what might befall them,” says Quentin Atkinson, a psychologist at the University of Auckland, New Zealand.

Decline, however, does not mean disappearance, says Ara Norenzayan, a social psychologist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, and author of Big Gods. Existential security is more fallible than it seems. In a moment, everything can change: a drunk driver can kill a loved one; a tornado can destroy a town; a doctor can issue a terminal diagnosis. As climate change wreaks havoc on the world in coming years and natural resources potentially grow scarce, then suffering and hardship could fuel religiosity. “People want to escape suffering, but if they can’t get out of it, they want to find meaning,” Norenzayan says. “For some reason, religion seems to give meaning to suffering – much more so than any secular ideal or belief that we know of.”

Lots more here: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20141219-will-religion-ever-disappear

by veya_victaous Tue May 03, 2016 11:38 pm

nuh the sheeple that make the majority of atheist will change as they are told to
Will religion ever disappear? 2981866455

even now new atheism is for all intents and purposes is a religion, even prints it's own dogmatic literature.

the problem is, this places the assumption that we, homo sapiens, will never find anything powerful enough to define as a god.
Really they are just choosing to abandon the term god because so many 'atheist' cannot get over the concept of the Abrahamic god. Because we have already found plenty on entities in the universe that are god like in their raw power (literally measured in how many times 'earth total power') and importance to us and all life on earth. existence, everything we know, is due to some fricken huge celestial bodies. Some literally are individually larger than the Entire universe as defined in the bible, so how can they not be powerful enough to call a god?
Will religion ever disappear? 2190311264

Will religion ever disappear? 2190311264

current religions institutions will fade an disappear eventually, but as long as man pursues knowledge beyond his current comprehension there will be the base element of 'religious faith'. I know many atheists proclaim we have the answers but they are fools, no different than those with blind faith in the church in the past. Because Science acknowledges it is no sure what the question even is.. let alone the answer
Will religion ever disappear? 2187004795

Will religion ever disappear? 2187004795

by Guest Wed May 04, 2016 12:04 am

Really, so Atheism is now a religion? That has no doctrine, has no belief system, no deity etc. The belief again from religious people to call Athiests a religion, is just another fine example of religious quackery, as its simply non-belief. They are under no obligation to follow anything. It has nothing to do with getting over Abrahamic religions, as it the very fact many have come to see these religions contradict and are the views of men written in order to control people through fear. You can continue to of course "believe" its a religion, just as you continue to believe the "sun" absurdly is a deity. There is zero evidence the Sun or any of the Stars have a concience or any form of intelligence, let alone the fact they are not immortal. You are of course welcome to believe such quackery, but, don't then use that to be bitter about atheists and invent unfounded claims that have zero evidence.

by veya_victaous Wed May 04, 2016 1:12 am

it clearly is a religion otherwise you would not be so quick to defend it with the vigour of a fundamentalist
you have shown that it clearly does have dogma that it's adherents will attack you for if you don't have blind faith in it.

And THANKS for proving my point exactly.. for anyone else... as can be seen by didge's response.
EXACTY my point, on why this current atheist revival (remembering it is actually older than Christianity) is just another instance of dogmatic adherence by less intelligent individuals that due to an primitive desire for 'security' need to insist they have an answer. Ironically like Buddhism that Actual teachings state that we do not have the answers and they we pursue the question, but that is a 'state of flux' that most animals find undesirable and they seek safety and security in constants.

the perseverance of the Abrahamic dogma in new atheists is clearly visible in the very strict definition for a god, which is odd, you'd think they would have seen one to be so sure of what it is Will religion ever disappear? 2190311264

Gods don’t have to have intelligence Thor was noted to be particular Dumb and easy to fool, gods don't have to be immortal either, gods die all the time in MOST religions.
IT is the Complete 100% adherence to the Christian Dogma that renders the New atheist not even a true atheist, they are merely an Anti-Abrahamist and see that science has proven Abrahamism wrong. So vainly cling to Sciences skirts screaming that she has the answers while science looks on them with distain…. that they would free themself from a shackle just to shackle themselves to a new 'wall of unthinking'.

Indeed IF one actually listens and understands Science we can see that Didge behaves just as he is evolutionary programed to, mindlessly defending that which gives him security, even if is a false security, and we know that he did they exact same for Christianity when it was Christianity that was giving him the security his primate brain so deeply craves.

this is not a commentary of didge alone but he is a perfect example of an individual so full of fundamentalist religious tendency that when they convert to 'atheist' they don't actually cease being religiously fundamentalist... for that they would have to admit they don't know and that nothing they have ever or could ever read will give them the answers that they will pass through this life NOT KNOWING. it is an 'insecure state' which sentient life finds instinctively undesirable.

by veya_victaous Wed May 04, 2016 1:21 am

I mean the dumb ass doesn't even understand the point of the sun god.. he thinks i beleive that a god is some pathetic being with the limtied capacity of ourselves.
that i think a god would be so insignifcant to feel the need to make their existance know to us.
I don't tell the ants about my life. I don't care how much they praise veya. So why do you expect a god to?

if you want to be so Anti Science as to reference something that is clearly factually inaccurate for a defintion you wish to apply to reality. You need to stop insisiting you have even the slightest clue as the potential of divinity in the universe.

I cant beleive that one can understand the universe and how completely unimportant homo sapiens is to it AND Still reference a dumb ass concept that included idiocy like the sun revoles around the earth.

by Raggamuffin Wed May 04, 2016 2:03 am

I don't know who's worse - Didge for saying that religious people claim that atheism is a religion when it was actually Veya who did that, or Veya who slags off religion one minute and is almost defending it the next just because he's talking to Didge.

by veya_victaous Wed May 04, 2016 2:39 am

No Raggs I slag off Incorrect religions. Cool

crucial difference. there is no reason religion has to incorrect. Religion can and really should be based in Science. didges opposition to it has nothing to do with reality and more his personal journey of escaping Abrahamism which has left such serve mental scaring that he cannot accept that Atheism is still a religion it is Still Stating a proposal based on Faith (faith there is nothing).
there are plenty of plausible beliefs just they are not contained in the bible. Science does not equate to atheism.

If one does not address each unknown with the scientific method and does very unscientific things like unrelated causation and correlation, based on reference already proven incorrect, Then there is no change. They may as well just be going 'cause god said so' or 'the bible says'. it is not the 'fact' but the understanding of how the fact fits into the universe that is important.

Mankind did not invent our tech by simply Not Believing Like Didge seems to think. We invented it by ASKING QUESTIONS and the Answers not actually that important. cause for heaps of stuff, if you were to ask if it is impossible just 50 years ago the answer would have been yes, now it not, and even more has moved into the realm of 'Possible' because we now understand the limit of our understanding and the fact there is still vast amounts to be uncovered so much that nothing truly finite can be assured at this point in time.

So New Atheists like Didge that say silly things like Darwinian evolution is correct (even though we already replaced several times with increasingly accurate theories) they are no different than the guys that wrote the bible using the information they had available to them at the time. the fact they he cannot see it shows that fundamentally he is the same animal as they were and he is repeating the same mistake.

Enlightenment whether spiritual or intellectual does not come from being sure something is true, it comes from Being Unsure enough to question what is true.

Will religion ever disappear? 3893789544

Will religion ever disappear? 3893789544

by veya_victaous Wed May 04, 2016 5:28 am

@Didge

Praise the Sun sunny

by Guest Wed May 04, 2016 6:43 am

So lets recap at what Veya was able to prove in regards to his claims

I shall point them out

No doctrine
No belief
No evidence
Just hatred

by Guest Wed May 04, 2016 6:48 am

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't know who's worse - Didge for saying that religious people claim that atheism is a religion when it was actually Veya who did that, or Veya who slags off religion one minute and is almost defending it the next just because he's talking to Didge.

Veya is religious
He believes in a pantheon of Gods, tha has zero evidence.
So it was to Veya I was replying to
He failed after going on to point out with evidence what doctrine I follow
What I worship
Wht belief system I follow that is uniquely religious to atheism
Many religious people of hate do claims such nonsense, because they believe i myths, they wish to paint atheists the same, which is the funniest double standard.

Frankly, it just proves, that out of all the worst fudementalists and extremists

Veya is about the worst as he actually defends terrorists

He is just gutless and a coward behind his position

A keyboard warrior

by veya_victaous Wed May 04, 2016 6:49 am

the Point

didge's head

You Saying you have an answer to a Queastion No one knows

by veya_victaous Wed May 04, 2016 6:50 am

Paul Ettinger wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I don't know who's worse - Didge for saying that religious people claim that atheism is a religion when it was actually Veya who did that, or Veya who slags off religion one minute and is almost defending it the next just because he's talking to Didge.

Veya is religious
He believes in a pantheon of Gods, tha has zero evidence.
So it was to Veya I was replying to
He failed after going on to point out with evidence what doctrine I follow
What I worship
Wht belief system I follow that is uniquely religious
Many religious people of hate do claims such nonsense, because they believe i myths, they ish to paint atheists the same, which is the funniest double standard.

Frankly, it just proves, that out of all the worst fudementalists and extremists

Veya is about the worst as he actually defends terrorists

He is just gutless and a coward behind his position

A keyboard warrior

None of that is right

I dont beleive in any i just say they are possible

Again the Point and Your capacity for understanding are Worlds a part Wink

by Guest Wed May 04, 2016 6:51 am

Yes I do havean answer

Its simple, you made unfounded claims, you cannot back up

There is no evidence of any deities

Simple

by Guest Wed May 04, 2016 6:52 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Paul Ettinger wrote:

Veya is religious
He believes in a pantheon of Gods, tha has zero evidence.
So it was to Veya I was replying to
He failed after going on to point out with evidence what doctrine I follow
What I worship
Wht belief system I follow that is uniquely religious
Many religious people of hate do claims such nonsense, because they believe i myths, they ish to paint atheists the same, which is the funniest double standard.

Frankly, it just proves, that out of all the worst fudementalists and extremists

Veya is about the worst as he actually defends terrorists

He is just gutless and a coward behind his position

A keyboard warrior

None of that is right

I dont beleive in any i just say they are possible

Again the Point and Your capacity for understanding are Worlds a part

Coming from your lack of intellligece is funny
You want to believe in nonsense thatis your right to do so

You are though more hateful than the Far right

by veya_victaous Wed May 04, 2016 6:53 am

And You are a fundamentalist AS YOU ARE THE ONE CLAIMING to KNOW something is fact
with ZERO evidence.

I am Agnostic Because I ACKNOWLEDGE that NO HUMAN in the history of humans has known for sure..

You are just a fundamentalist Sheeple YOU are basically a terrorist in waiting, you just need the right demagogue to light you up

by veya_victaous Wed May 04, 2016 6:55 am

Paul Ettinger wrote:Yes I do havean answer

Its simple, you made unfounded claims, you cannot back up

There is no evidence of any deities

Simple

LOL

AGNOSTIC means the ONLY claim I made is the fact "I don't know"

Athiest CLAIMING AS FACT that their is no possible god(s)

Like Tommy you need to get a dictionary cause words don;t mean what YOU want them to they have SPECIFIC meanings

by Guest Wed May 04, 2016 6:56 am

veya_victaous wrote:And You are a fundamentalist AS YOU ARE THE ONE CLAIMING to KNOW something is fact
with ZERO evidence.

I am Agnostic Because I ACKNOWLEDGE that NO HUMAN in the history of humans has known for sure..

You are just a fundamentalist Sheeple YOU are basically a terrorist in waiting, you just need the right demagogue to light you up

1) Again I follow no doctrine to even make me fundementalist

2) You are relgiious as you believe in deities and gibberish

3) You are a left wing extremist who can never in a debate and then abuses his power by doing so everytime with pathetuc threats.

4) You simply are an idiot that knows very little about life

5) Its about living life that is important, not spouting hate as you do to people

As I say, you are worst than the Far Right and ISIS in the hate you spout

by Guest Wed May 04, 2016 6:58 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Paul Ettinger wrote:Yes I do havean answer

Its simple, you made unfounded claims, you cannot back up

There is no evidence of any deities

Simple

LOL

AGNOSTIC means the ONLY claim I made is the fact "I don't know"

Athiest CLAIMING AS FACT that their is no possible god(s)

Like Tommy you need to get a dictionary cause words don;t mean what YOU want them to they have SPECIFIC meanings

You are a religious wackadoodle that believes the sun is a god lol

I do not need to get anything or take advice from someoe as ignorang and hateful as you

Tommy maybe be an idiot but clearly has more itelligence than you

by Guest Wed May 04, 2016 6:59 am

I mean all Eddie asked was if religion would disappear and Veya use this instead as a platform of hate to make false lies about athiests.

That says to me issues

by veya_victaous Wed May 04, 2016 8:54 am

And Thank you for proving my point to eddies OP..

Religion will not cease to be because the animal that is homo sapiens has a primal coding that renders individuals to cling to the notion they have the answer or are following someone with the answer. thus the current institutions may fall but they are already being replaced by the 'new atheist' which behaves so similar to a Abrahamist that for all intents and purposes they are the same. it is merely updating the 'world view' to the science of a couple of decades ago, which is the best information they currently have. Which is exactly what the authors of the bible did when they wrote it.

the posts from didge prove my point.
He felt the need to defend his new atheist doctrine with greater vehemence than a christian like raggs defends the bible.

He cannot prove the sun is not a god, at no point has he raised any relevant counter, his only arguments against classifying the giant ball of energy that holds the solar system together and provides the bottom layer of the food chain and sustains all life on earth, is that is doesn't meet the definition of the single god defined by the abrahamist religion.

Again I am not sure that it is, but for all intents and purposes it exceeds the minimum requirements for godhood. and because there are billions of stars a monotheist definition would be illogical and can be seen to be false, we can see with our naked eyes more Giant balls of energy that are just further away than our sun. And we actually define the 'Goldilocks' zone where life as we know it is possible specifically by it distance from one of these giant balls of energy, so even science openly acknowledges that these entities are a requirement for the existence of life(as we know it)

I hold no specific dogma to be true, so take the average definition for the requirements of godhood, I am perfectly satisfied that these giant balls of energy are suitable to define as gods. My Hypothesis is that these giant balls of energy are what gods actually are and the 'sky giant' style gods are like dragons, just make believe.

I have never seen any real entity like the 'sky giant' definition didge and raggs use ... But I can see these giant balls of energy and if you where to ask me, 'what would a god look like?' my answer, even not taking into consideration the sun, would be that they are most probably beings of pure energy they look like giant glowing balls of pure energy... which coincidentally is what the sun and stars are.

If we ask questions and think we can come up with plenty of workings options. the universe is immense and we are very tiny, there are so many entities we know exist in the universe that are of a magnitude so much greater than not only us but our entire planet, that we really are being pretty narcissistic to even think we could understand it, let alone be a key reason for it.

I Don't have the Answer, because I Acknowledge I don't even know the Question...

by Guest Wed May 04, 2016 8:59 am

So again we see zero evidence

At no point have I even said religion will disappear

So immediately Veya starts off with a lie, which is then expanded off and invented further

So where and what is this Atheist Doctrine?

The onus is not to disprove something not proven.

This is the same religiousidocy seen countless times, that people have to disprove something the claimant have failed to prove exist

Its not down to me to disprove the Sun is a deity

That means the claims is from you and that its down to you to prove your claim.

If your are so sure of your hypothesis, why have you not presented this to scientists, so we can see you become the laughing stock of the whole scientific community?

So you see the methodology of Veya is flawed and built on lies

by Major Wed May 04, 2016 10:05 am

Paul Ettinger wrote:So lets recap at what Veya was able to prove in regards to his claims

I shall point them out

.
Will it disappear? I do not know but do believe it will continue to dwindle

Just before Pat Roach the wrestler/actor died he stated if he could have one wish twould be for there to be ONLY ONE, THE SAME RELIGION FOR EVERYONE as it is involved in most wars/friction.

No doctrine
No belief
No evidence
Just hatred

by Raggamuffin Wed May 04, 2016 11:23 am

veya_victaous wrote:No Raggs I slag off Incorrect religions.

So how are you any better than Didge? That's exactly what he does. You both say these religions are "incorrect", even though it's not actually your business what people believe.

by Guest Wed May 04, 2016 11:26 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:No Raggs I slag off Incorrect religions.

So how are you any better than Didge? That's exactly what he does. You both say these religions are "incorrect", even though it's not actually your business what people believe.

Really, when beliefs effect the well being and equality of others and are in conflict with our laws, then it is very much our business.
Religion should only be a personal belief.
keep it that way, then people would have no cause to speak about it.
The reality is religious people hardly keep it personal as they hold prejudice views against groups

by Raggamuffin Wed May 04, 2016 11:37 am

Paul Ettinger wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

So how are you any better than Didge? That's exactly what he does. You both say these religions are "incorrect", even though it's not actually your business what people believe.

Really, when beliefs effect the well being and equality of others and are in conflict with our laws, then it is very much our business.
Religion should only be a personal belief.
keep it that way, then people would have no cause to speak about it.
The reality is religious people hardly keep it personal as they hold prejudice views against groups

We're not talking about beliefs affecting others, we're talking about belief itself. You and Veya both judge others merely for having religious faith.

by Guest Wed May 04, 2016 11:40 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Paul Ettinger wrote:

Really, when beliefs effect the well being and equality of others and are in conflict with our laws, then it is very much our business.
Religion should only be a personal belief.
keep it that way, then people would have no cause to speak about it.
The reality is religious people hardly keep it personal as they hold prejudice views against groups

We're not talking about beliefs affecting others, we're talking about belief itself. You and Veya both judge others merely for having religious faith.

But that belief does effect others.
You judge people as well, for the views they hold.
Making you no different, you just think religions should be protected from criticism.
Sorry, but tough, if anything more people should speak out on the idiocy of religions, especially when they teach absolute beliefs that deny equality

by Raggamuffin Wed May 04, 2016 11:49 am

Paul Ettinger wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

We're not talking about beliefs affecting others, we're talking about belief itself. You and Veya both judge others merely for having religious faith.

But that belief does effect others.
You judge people as well, for the views they hold.
Making you no different, you just think religions should be protected from criticism.
Sorry, but tough, if anything more people should speak out on the idiocy of religions, especially when they teach absolute beliefs that deny equality

I don't judge them for merely being atheists - each to their own. You and Veya judge religious people simply for believing something you don't believe.

I defend those with faith from the likes of you and Veya - nosy people who are bitter.

by eddie Wed May 04, 2016 11:52 am

I'm with veya in the whole "God" department; I beleive in something, call it energy if you will, but what it is I truly don't know.

Atheism, to pick up on a point above, seems to be almost religion-like in that it is a belief in nothing, and some atheists do get quite zealous about it, much like a religious zealot.

Will religion ever disappear?
Not as long as there are humans...looking for answers.

by Guest Wed May 04, 2016 12:00 pm

eddie wrote:I'm with veya in the whole "God" department; I beleive in something, call it energy if you will, but what it is I truly don't know.

Atheism, to pick up on a point above, seems to be almost religion-like in that it is a belief in nothing, and some atheists do get quite zealous about it, much like a religious zealot.

Will religion ever disappear?
Not as long as there are humans...looking for answers.

And the above shows why religious people are over sensitive and cannot take criticism.
Which makes them poor students
You do not need any supernatural belief to search for the answers, science has and is continuing to find them.
What is obvious though and is replicated throughout history is the more hateful those that buy into myths act when challenged

by eddie Wed May 04, 2016 12:02 pm

I don't think it's that they become hateful, it's more a frustration. It's very hard to prove your belief in something..?

by Guest Wed May 04, 2016 12:05 pm

eddie wrote:I don't think it's that they become hateful, it's more a frustration. It's very hard to prove your belief in something..?

But the stand point of someone religious is they cannot be wrong.
As to admit they could be wrong is to lack faith and is the road to either a different faith or atheism
Hence why many do in fact become very hateful if at all challenged.

by Guest Wed May 04, 2016 12:06 pm

veya_victaous wrote:And Thank you for proving my point to eddies OP..

Religion will not cease to be because the animal that is homo sapiens has a primal coding that renders individuals to cling to the notion they have the answer or are following someone with the answer. thus the current institutions may fall but they are already being replaced by the 'new atheist' which behaves so similar to a Abrahamist that for all intents and purposes they are the same. it is merely updating the 'world view' to the science of a couple of decades ago, which is the best information they currently have. Which is exactly what the authors of the bible did when they wrote it.

the posts from didge prove my point.
He felt the need to defend his new atheist doctrine with greater vehemence than a christian like raggs defends the bible.

He cannot prove the sun is not a god, at no point has he raised any relevant counter, his only arguments against classifying the giant ball of energy that holds the solar system together and provides the bottom layer of the food chain and sustains all life on earth, is that is doesn't meet the definition of the single god defined by the abrahamist religion.

Again I am not sure that it is, but for all intents and purposes it exceeds the minimum requirements for godhood. and because there are billions of stars a monotheist definition would be illogical and can be seen to be false, we can see with our naked eyes more Giant balls of energy that are just further away than our sun. And we actually define the 'Goldilocks' zone where life as we know it is possible specifically by it distance from one of these giant balls of energy, so even science openly acknowledges that these entities are a requirement for the existence of life(as we know it)

I hold no specific dogma to be true, so take the average definition for the requirements of godhood, I am perfectly satisfied that these giant balls of energy are suitable to define as gods. My Hypothesis is that these giant balls of energy are what gods actually are and the 'sky giant' style gods are like dragons, just make believe.

I have never seen any real entity like the 'sky giant' definition didge and raggs use ... But I can see these giant balls of energy and if you where to ask me, 'what would a god look like?' my answer, even not taking into consideration the sun, would be that they are most probably beings of pure energy they look like giant glowing balls of pure energy... which coincidentally is what the sun and stars are.

If we ask questions and think we can come up with plenty of workings options. the universe is immense and we are very tiny, there are so many entities we know exist in the universe that are of a magnitude so much greater than not only us but our entire planet, that we really are being pretty narcissistic to even think we could understand it, let alone be a key reason for it.

I Don't have the Answer, because I Acknowledge I don't even know the Question...

Absolutely agree. It's not calling the sun a God, but recognising that it meets the definition of what a god is supposed to be.

And your final sentence completely sums up the human dilemma, so many say 'we know the truth' when they don't even know what truth they are looking for, or why.

The Meaning of Life isn't something we can answer, because we don't even know how much life there is, or where.

by Raggamuffin Wed May 04, 2016 12:08 pm

Paul Ettinger wrote:
eddie wrote:I'm with veya in the whole "God" department; I beleive in something, call it energy if you will, but what it is I truly don't know.

Atheism, to pick up on a point above, seems to be almost religion-like in that it is a belief in nothing, and some atheists do get quite zealous about it, much like a religious zealot.

Will religion ever disappear?
Not as long as there are humans...looking for answers.

And the above shows why religious people are over sensitive and cannot take criticism.
Which makes them poor students
You do not need any supernatural belief to search for the answers, science has and is continuing to find them.
What is obvious though and is replicated throughout history is the more hateful those that buy into myths act when challenged

Students? They're not likely to want to be your students anyway.

If you mean students in general, I don't think having religious faith is going to make someone fail all their exams.

by Raggamuffin Wed May 04, 2016 12:09 pm

eddie wrote:I don't think it's that they become hateful, it's more a frustration. It's very hard to prove your belief in something..?

They don't need to prove anything anyway.

by Guest Wed May 04, 2016 12:09 pm

So basically we can just decide if we feel like it to call something a God.
If anything if this energy is alive, it does not make it as if a deity, as this energy is unstable and can be very destructive, especially in its death, when it goes supernova.
Just assigning something and claiming it is a God, when there is no evidence of cognitive intelligence known, is baseless to say it then is a being.
Again the onus would require proof, not belief, which is being offered

by Guest Wed May 04, 2016 12:11 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Paul Ettinger wrote:

And the above shows why religious people are over sensitive and cannot take criticism.
Which makes them poor students
You do not need any supernatural belief to search for the answers, science has and is continuing to find them.
What is obvious though and is replicated throughout history is the more hateful those that buy into myths act when challenged

Students? They're not likely to want to be your students anyway.

If you mean students in general, I don't think having religious faith is going to make someone fail all their exams.

We are all students in life, as we continually learn, as do you think you know everything?

No, nobody does.

Again the problem with literal belief as it does not allow for being wrong.

I could be wrong that a deity may exist, I except that this is possible.

Whereas a religious person cannot or will not say its possible they could be wrong in their faith

by Raggamuffin Wed May 04, 2016 12:13 pm

Paul Ettinger wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Students? They're not likely to want to be your students anyway.

If you mean students in general, I don't think having religious faith is going to make someone fail all their exams.

We are all students in life, as we continually learn, as do you think you know everything?

No, nobody does.

Again the problem with literal belief as it does not allow for being wrong.

I could be wrong that a deity may exist, I except that this is possible.

Whereas a religious person cannot or will not say its possible they could be wrong in their faith

Religious people can actually think about other things you know. They can learn about all kinds of things as they're not stupid. To say they're "poor students" is just absurd.

by Guest Wed May 04, 2016 12:15 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Paul Ettinger wrote:

We are all students in life, as we continually learn, as do you think you know everything?

No, nobody does.

Again the problem with literal belief as it does not allow for being wrong.

I could be wrong that a deity may exist, I except that this is possible.

Whereas a religious person cannot or will not say its possible they could be wrong in their faith

Religious people can actually think about other things you know. They can learn about all kinds of things as they're not stupid. To say they're "poor students" is just absurd.

They are poor students, if they cannot allow for the possibility of being wrong.
It makes them dogmatic, they are right, where there is no evidence to even back their claim.
Its a very poor way to learn in life, as we learn best from when we recognise we have made a mistake and look to correct that from happening again.

by Raggamuffin Wed May 04, 2016 12:18 pm

Paul Ettinger wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Religious people can actually think about other things you know. They can learn about all kinds of things as they're not stupid. To say they're "poor students" is just absurd.

They are poor students, if they cannot allow for the possibility of being wrong.
It makes them dogmatic, they are right, where there is no evidence to even back their claim.
Its a very poor way to learn in life, as we learn best from when we recognise we have made a mistake and look to correct that from happening again.

Why should they allow for that? It's not your business. As I said, they don't necessarily spend every waking hour thinking about their religious faith. It's just a pity that you spend every waking hour thinking about other people's religious faith.

by Guest Wed May 04, 2016 12:22 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Paul Ettinger wrote:

They are poor students, if they cannot allow for the possibility of being wrong.
It makes them dogmatic, they are right, where there is no evidence to even back their claim.
Its a very poor way to learn in life, as we learn best from when we recognise we have made a mistake and look to correct that from happening again.

Why should they allow for that? It's not your business. As I said, they don't necessarily spend every waking hour thinking about their religious faith. It's just a pity that you spend every waking hour thinking about other people's religious faith.

See you are doing it again, getting very defensive.
Again this is the problem with literal belief.
If a person admits to the possibility they can be wrong, they then lack faith.
Again, we learn best from admitting our mistakes
As I say to deny you could be wrong is defensive to your own beliefs.
It is a poor way to learn

by Raggamuffin Wed May 04, 2016 12:25 pm

Paul Ettinger wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Why should they allow for that? It's not your business. As I said, they don't necessarily spend every waking hour thinking about their religious faith. It's just a pity that you spend every waking hour thinking about other people's religious faith.

See you are doing it again, getting very defensive.
Again this is the problem with literal belief.
If a person admits to the possibility they can be wrong, they then lack faith.
Again, we learn best from admitting our mistakes
As I say to deny you could be wrong is defensive to your own beliefs.
It is a poor way to learn

I'm not getting defensive, I'm criticising your nosiness and your bigoted attitude. People with religious faith don't need to "admit" anything to you, and they're entitled to tell you to mind your own business when you start calling them "poor students". They probably have more intelligence than you do.

by Guest Wed May 04, 2016 12:28 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Paul Ettinger wrote:

See you are doing it again, getting very defensive.
Again this is the problem with literal belief.
If a person admits to the possibility they can be wrong, they then lack faith.
Again, we learn best from admitting our mistakes
As I say to deny you could be wrong is defensive to your own beliefs.
It is a poor way to learn

I'm not getting defensive, I'm criticising your nosiness and your bigoted attitude. People with religious faith don't need to "admit" anything to you, and they're entitled to tell you to mind your own business when you start calling them "poor students". They probably have more intelligence than you do.

See now the name calling starst, thus being even more defensive, because you know my points are correct, hence why you are getting more and more defensive with each answer. If nothing is my business to speak about, then based on your reasoning, you have then no right to judge a single other person ever you do not know in person. That means you cannot comment on articles in the news etc.
So again the point is and as you are proving religious people are way over sensitive to criticism, making them very poor students

by Raggamuffin Wed May 04, 2016 12:30 pm

Paul Ettinger wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm not getting defensive, I'm criticising your nosiness and your bigoted attitude. People with religious faith don't need to "admit" anything to you, and they're entitled to tell you to mind your own business when you start calling them "poor students". They probably have more intelligence than you do.

See now the names start, thus being even more defensive, because you no my points are correct, hence why you are getting more and more defensive with each answer. If nothing is my business to speak about, then based on your reasoning, you have then no right to judge a single other person ever you do not know in person. That means you cannot comment on articles in the news etc.
So again the point is and as you are proving religious people are way over sensitive to criticism, making them very poor students

You have this sense of entitlement whereby you think that you "know best" on behalf of other people, and that you can go around telling them what to think. You don't, so why do you want to try to make them "admit" anything to you? If I have to call you names to get through to you, I will.

by Guest Wed May 04, 2016 12:33 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Paul Ettinger wrote:

See now the names start, thus being even more defensive, because you no my points are correct, hence why you are getting more and more defensive with each answer. If nothing is my business to speak about, then based on your reasoning, you have then no right to judge a single other person ever you do not know in person. That means you cannot comment on articles in the news etc.
So again the point is and as you are proving religious people are way over sensitive to criticism, making them very poor students

You have this sense of entitlement whereby you think that you "know best" on behalf of other people, and that you can go around telling them what to think. You don't, so why do you want to try to make them "admit" anything to you? If I have to call you names to get through to you, I will.

Never claimed I know best, where in fact I learn from people, as I have for example from people like Victor.
I could not have done that, if I did not hold the belief I could be wrong on things, or look at both sides of an issue.
You tell people daily what you think, which you have a right to do so, yet contradict this by claiming others cannot, when its too sensitive for you.
Hence the problem with religion.
If the stand point is that someone cannot allow for being wrong they always are very over sensitive
You are proving that

by Raggamuffin Wed May 04, 2016 12:37 pm

Paul Ettinger wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You have this sense of entitlement whereby you think that you "know best" on behalf of other people, and that you can go around telling them what to think. You don't, so why do you want to try to make them "admit" anything to you? If I have to call you names to get through to you, I will.

Never claimed I know best, where in fact I learn from people, as I have for example from people like Victor.
I could not have done that, if I did not hold the belief I could be wrong on things, or look at both sides of an issue.
You tell people daily what you think, which you have a right to do so, yet contradict this by claiming others cannot, when its too sensitive for you.
Hence the problem with religion.
If the stand point is that someone cannot allow for being wrong they always are very over sensitive
You are proving that

Telling people what I think is different to telling them what they should think and believe. You sit here day after day after day claiming that you want people with religious to stop having that faith just because you don't share their faith. Do you see the difference?

Your problem is that you're bitter because you lost your own faith and now you can't bear anyone to have something you don't have.

by Guest Wed May 04, 2016 12:39 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Paul Ettinger wrote:

Never claimed I know best, where in fact I learn from people, as I have for example from people like Victor.
I could not have done that, if I did not hold the belief I could be wrong on things, or look at both sides of an issue.
You tell people daily what you think, which you have a right to do so, yet contradict this by claiming others cannot, when its too sensitive for you.
Hence the problem with religion.
If the stand point is that someone cannot allow for being wrong they always are very over sensitive
You are proving that

Telling people what I think is different to telling them what they should think and believe. You sit here day after day after day claiming that you want people with religious to stop having that faith just because you don't share their faith. Do you see the difference?

Your problem is that you're bitter because you lost your own faith and now you can't bear anyone to have something you don't have.

The first point makes no sense at all and contradicts.
The second point is inaccurate also, I just wish religious people to allow themselves to be able to look at their own religion as they would do with the same critical eye of another faith or no faith at all. They do not allow for this, because such critical thinking would be in direct conflict with their own faith and why?
Because again, a literal religious person cannot allow for being wrong in their own religion.
See again more views about me, proving again you are way over sensitive on the subject.

by Raggamuffin Wed May 04, 2016 12:42 pm

Paul Ettinger wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Telling people what I think is different to telling them what they should think and believe. You sit here day after day after day claiming that you want people with religious to stop having that faith just because you don't share their faith. Do you see the difference?

Your problem is that you're bitter because you lost your own faith and now you can't bear anyone to have something you don't have.

The first point makes no sense at all and contradicts.
The second point is inaccurate also, I just wish religious people to allow themselves to be able to look at their own religion as they would do with the same critical eye of another faith or no faith at all. They do not allow for this, because such critical thinking would be in direct conflict with their own faith and why?
Because again, a literal religious person cannot allow for being wrong in their own religion.
See again more views about me, proving again you are way over sensitive on the subject.

What you wish is up to you, but your way of expressing it makes you come across as bossy, arrogant, and a know-it-all. Try to chill out about what other believe - it's really not your concern. Concentrate on your own life.

by Guest Wed May 04, 2016 12:45 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Paul Ettinger wrote:

The first point makes no sense at all and contradicts.
The second point is inaccurate also, I just wish religious people to allow themselves to be able to look at their own religion as they would do with the same critical eye of another faith or no faith at all. They do not allow for this, because such critical thinking would be in direct conflict with their own faith and why?
Because again, a literal religious person cannot allow for being wrong in their own religion.
See again more views about me, proving again you are way over sensitive on the subject.

What you wish is up to you, but your way of expressing it makes you come across as bossy, arrogant, and a know-it-all. Try to chill out about what other believe - it's really not your concern. Concentrate on your own life.

Again if its not my concern to make my views, then its never your concern to ever comment on anything yourself, making your view a contradiction again and a double standard. All that is being shown is that you are happy with comments, unless they bring into question religions. Which as i stated you want to protect religions from criticism, which is being against free speech

by Raggamuffin Wed May 04, 2016 12:55 pm

Paul Ettinger wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

What you wish is up to you, but your way of expressing it makes you come across as bossy, arrogant, and a know-it-all. Try to chill out about what other believe - it's really not your concern. Concentrate on your own life.

Again if its not my concern to make my views, then its never your concern to ever comment on anything yourself, making your view a contradiction again and a double standard. All that is being shown is that you are happy with comments, unless they bring into question religions. Which as i stated you want to protect religions from criticism, which is being against free speech

It's not up to me to pussyfoot around you and indulge your bossiness, arrogance, and nosiness. If you don't want to be seen that way, stop being that way.

You're not criticising religion, you're patronising and slating those who have religious faith. Again, it's not your business what they believe in.

by Guest Wed May 04, 2016 1:02 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Paul Ettinger wrote:

Again if its not my concern to make my views, then its never your concern to ever comment on anything yourself, making your view a contradiction again and a double standard. All that is being shown is that you are happy with comments, unless they bring into question religions. Which as i stated you want to protect religions from criticism, which is being against free speech

It's not up to me to pussyfoot around you and indulge your bossiness, arrogance, and nosiness. If you don't want to be seen that way, stop being that way.

You're not criticising religion, you're patronising and slating those who have religious faith. Again, it's not your business what they believe in.

See again even more defensive, rude, nasty in all aspects about me and not the points made.
Again, you are clearly against Free Speech, which means you defend against bad beliefs being criticized.
Instead you invent lies as seen above to deflect from discussing the problems I am talking about.
Hence with every post you prove what is wrong with literal belief.
It takes the stand point of the inability of being wrong, to the extent, as you are doing now, and have continued to do so in this debate, but thrown poor insults and accusations.

I rest my case

by Sponsored content