Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 7:06 am

Poll: Do you agree or disagree with the statement
This poll is closed.
Strongly Agree
7.14%
2 7.14%
Agree
17.86%
5 17.86%
indifferent
10.71%
3 10.71%
Disagree
28.57%
8 28.57%
Strongly Disagree
35.71%
10 35.71%
Total 28 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
An intresting statement
#11
RE: An intresting statement
(February 16, 2012 at 2:09 pm)Napoleon Wrote:
(February 16, 2012 at 9:51 am)Gooders1002 Wrote: 'Religion must die for humanity to progress'

If this was the statement I would agree.

I would still disagree, since it is not required for progress. My take: Religion's death would probably allow more rapid 'progress'.
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
Reply
#12
RE: An intresting statement



I voted disagree. I suspect that the religious impulse is a disconnected segment of a capacity of the human brain which has important adaptive advantages. At best, it might be a biological spandrel. I imagine there will always be a distribution wherein a percentage of the species will be compelled to conceptualizing religiously, and those less inclined. Whether it is necessary to live or progress needs to first ask the question of why we have cognitions and mental machinery which seems to fit hand and glove with fanciful metaphysical, ontological, religious ideas. I rather suspect it is far from accidental, and implies the eternity of religion.

This is not to say we can't fulfill the religious impulse in better ways, perhaps by some sort of praxis. I suspect the root of the religious impulse can never be made rational, so it likely will remain a nemesis when the impulse becomes political. But perhaps it can be transformed into an apolitical pragma. I don't know. Just typing this, the idea seems far-fetched. The religious impulse dwells in the unknown; in a sense, the host doesn't control it, so much as it controls the host. On that line, I suspect it will likely be perpetually at odds with the goal of a harmonious, rational secularism, or any worldview which dwells in the known.


[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]
Reply
#13
RE: An intresting statement
(February 16, 2012 at 3:14 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: I voted "Strongly Disagree" because it's not religion in general that is a problem. It's only certain religions that cause problems. Mainly the Abrahamic religions created by the ancient Hebrews with their jealous-God, that evolved into Judaism, Islam, Catholicism, and the myriad of protesting Protestantisms.

There are religions and spiritual philosophies that are actually based on wisdom and true compassion (not hateful jealousy).

It's not spirituality in general that is detrimental to humanity. It's just hateful jealousy being held out in the name of a wrathful God that is so dangerous and degrading to humanity.

As far as spirituality goes, there is absolutely no reason at all that humanity cannot evolved in a very healthy and productive way being highly successful in terms of scientific technologies whilst simultaneously becoming a very spiritual species supporting genuine love and compassion.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that science and knowledge cannot be in complete harmony with spiritual beliefs and inspiration.

I'm certainly an example of both. My entire life's work has been in the sciences, yet, I have always been a spiritual person. I don't support hateful religions like Christianity and Islam, but thankfully those aren't the only choices for a spiritual view of life.

Clearly many scientists also held a similar view as mine. In fact, I can claim great company in Albert Einstein for one.

"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism." - Albert Einstein

Although, in truth, there are many different views and sects of "Buddhism".

I personally feel that a far better way of describing this is to say that there exist mystical philosophies that are indeed compatible with modern scientific knowledge. Maybe not necessarily "Buddhism" per say. But the basic fundamental believe in a spiritual essence of reality is not incompatible with scientific knowledge. Even though it may not qualify as becoming "scientific knowledge". That's totally irrelevant. It doesn't need to become "scientific knowledge" to be compatible with everything that is known by science. This is the thing that so many atheists seem to be missing.

So, no. Religion in general is not a detrimental to either humanity or science. Humanity can successfully be both, highly scientific and highly spiritual without conflict or detriment.

The only place that negativity comes into play is when specific religious myths demand the existence of jealous hateful Gods who will hate anyone who refuses to believe in them and worship the myths that gave rise to them.

Don't confuse spirituality with hateful myths. They are entirely different things.

Just because someone can stab someone with a knife doesn't mean that all knifes must be removed from humanity because all knives are detrimental to humanity.

The same is true of religion. Just because the Hebrews created a back-stabbing God doesn't mean that all concepts of religion or spirituality must carry that same hatred.

It just doesn't follow.

Address each religion on it's own merit. Don't toss the baby out with the bath water.

There do indeed exist genuinely wise, intelligent, loving, and truly compassionate forms of spiritual philosophies.

Murdering them just to kill an unrighteous hateful angry ficticious God is over-kill.

Just dump the Hebrew male-chauvinistic pigs and their false God.

That's all.

Why kill loving spiritual philosophies in the process?

It's just over-kill based on the paranoid fear that any given spiritual philosophy might become as hateful and ignorant as the Hebrew's jealous God fables.

That's just unnecessary paranoia.

Religion is not the problem. Ancient Hebrew fables are the problem.

The spiritual philosophies you propose are incompatible with the very existence of science and the only way one can believe in both is by having some major cognitive dissonance. This is detrimental to humans. Which is why all of the major religions belong in the same garbage pile for pretty much the same reasons.
Reply
#14
RE: An intresting statement
The only way to answer this question with the predefined answers is to take it in its most literal sense, rather than applying personal subjective interpretations of 'live'.

I chose Disagree on this basis, since forms of religion has been around for at least 12,000 years now and my currently, taking a quick empirical look around, we're still here. Big Grin

I do agree that religion is to the detriment of human social development, no doubt, however we can and will survive (and doubt we have much of a choice to be honest).

The only reason I chose not to strongly disagree is that there is a probability that religion will eventually be the factor that initiates the extinction of our race. Its certainly easy to imagine.
Self-authenticating private evidence is useless, because it is indistinguishable from the illusion of it. ― Kel, Kelosophy Blog

If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic.
― Tim Minchin, Storm
Reply
#15
RE: An intresting statement
I strongly disagreed. Religious members of humanity will continue to exist forever. They have for thousands of years, and they will continue to do so, most likely.

A better statement, one that I would have agreed with, would have been, "For human morality to survive, religion must die."
What falls away is always, and is near.

Also, I am not pretending to be female, this profile picture is my wonderful girlfriend. XD
Reply
#16
RE: An intresting statement
"An interesting question"? Not to me. It is however,glib and provocative,like a tabloid newspaper headline.


Reply
#17
RE: An intresting statement
The only Reason with I ask is, the only reason why we still here is not having WMDs until now.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" - Edward Gibbon (Offen misattributed to Lucius Annaeus Seneca or Seneca the Younger) (Thanks to apophenia for the correction)
'I am driven by two main philosophies:
Know more about the world than I knew yesterday and lessen the suffering of others. You'd be surprised how far that gets you' - Neil deGrasse Tyson
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain
Reply
#18
RE: An intresting statement
(February 16, 2012 at 9:51 am)Gooders1002 Wrote: 'Religion must die for humanity to live'
Do you or do you not agree with this statement?

Religion will die and humanity will live. (not necessarily linked)

unless religion interjects and kills us all. (still possible)
Reply
#19
RE: An intresting statement
(February 17, 2012 at 6:01 am)genkaus Wrote: The spiritual philosophies you propose are incompatible with the very existence of science and the only way one can believe in both is by having some major cognitive dissonance. This is detrimental to humans. Which is why all of the major religions belong in the same garbage pile for pretty much the same reasons.

All you've done here is demonstrate a gross ignorance of my spiritual philosophies.

For you to even claim that they are incompatible with science is nothing more than your own delusions.

There is nothing in my spiritual philosophies that conflicts with known science.

As as matter of fact, if any part of my spiritual philosophy could be shown to be in conflict with scientific knowledge, I would toss out that part of my spiritual philosophy.

As it stands right now, I have no reason to do so.

Your totally unwarranted assumption that any possible spiritual philosophy must be in direct conflict with known science is your own personal delusion that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with reality.

The mere fact that you spread such lies so passionately only goes to show that you are the one who is dire desperation to renounce any imaginable spiritual essence to reality.

It seriously makes me wonder if perhaps you had committed some horrific offense to humanity that you feel is so unforgivable that your only prayer for salvation would be a purely secular existence. Because it sure appears that even the slightest mention that someone has an open-mind to the possibility of a spiritual essence to reality sends you into extreme denial that any such thing could ever possible be remotely plausible.

I don't think I've ever met anyone yet who has displayed such a terrified reaction to being open-minded about a spiritual essence to reality as you apparently are.

I've never seen anyone take such a closed-minded approach to it. Not merely just for themselves, but to so passionately demand that everyone else must also be equally closed-minded is just beyond surreal.

Such a passionate reaction can only be driven by some sort of deeply emotional fear.

It's not even a remotely reasonable response to considering these things.

Thank God, there aren't too many people around that take your extreme approach to philosophical questions. Truly, you are every bit as bad as a Christian Fundamentalist Extremist. They demand that God exists, you demand with equal passion that no spiritual essence to reality can possibly exist in any possible imaginable way.

You're just at the extreme other end of the rainbow. And equally unjustified in your outrageous demands.

I guess it's inevitable that there will always be unrealistic extremists in everything, even in atheism.
Christian - A moron who believes that an all-benevolent God can simultaneously be a hateful jealous male-chauvinistic pig.
Wiccan - The epitome of cerebral evolution having mastered the magical powers of the universe and is in eternal harmony with the mind of God.
Atheist - An ill-defined term that means something different to everyone who uses it.
~~~~~
Luke 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
Clearly Jesus (a fictitious character or otherwise) will forgive people if they merely know not what they do
For the Bible Tells us so!
Reply
#20
RE: An intresting statement
Would the world really be better with out any
religion ? Well not if the negative psychological
characteristics of human nature were retained it
would not : as religion is not the problem here and
never has been rather the imposition of religion upon
those who do not want it which is a totally different thing
altogether : and although religion itself may be abolished it
would only be replaced by other religions in all but name : take
Fascism under Hitler and Communism under Stalin : the worship of
the leader whose authority can not be questioned and who is supreme
ruler : sound familiar ? There are many other examples from history going
all the way back : so no the world would not be a better place without religion
But it would be a better place without greed and envy and jealousy and hate and
fear and anything else that causes us to reference our fellow man in a negative light
Religion is the symptom here and not the cause : could have a perfect world where every
one had a different belief system as long as there was only a positive aspect to human nature
So the issue here is psychology not religion : fix that and problem solved [ a tad difficult though ]
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  General statement to theists who read this. Brian37 24 3337 April 11, 2017 at 12:44 pm
Last Post: Jeanne
  Your opinion on the following statement: Mudhammam 42 9179 January 13, 2015 at 8:13 pm
Last Post: Mudhammam
Question Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Mudhammam 29 5386 August 22, 2014 at 9:50 pm
Last Post: Goosebump
  How do you respond to this statement? taylor93112 59 21507 August 4, 2013 at 9:49 am
Last Post: The Meritocrat



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)