How should religion be replaced from society?

[Lark]

Its secularism and aggressive adolescent atheism which needs to be eliminated but no ones goinf to admit that while they dont provide as good a bogey for liberals to bitch and whine about in their comfortable borgouise circles

 

[KatharineML]

We have had the new toy for a long time. Science. Our own brains and what they can comprehend.

Yet we are ridiculous. How can we ever fully comprehend that which we did not create and cannot control.

I agree with Ene. Faith is inextinguishable. Faith is, in fact, where all good things grow ... including science! Check your history

I feel you to be somewhat out of place, standing over the human race as if you yourself were not part of it, likening it to a child with a toy and seeking to distract it with a better one. Do you honestly feel yourself to be this close to God?

 

[Little_Sticks]

/rhetorical
So I take it that means you believe religion has no good qualities?
Or maybe that means you believe religion's good qualities can be replaced by other things that have no bad qualities?
Or maybe that means you believe that religion is only about beliefs?

/Either way,
As Tinker pointed out, how is the premise that religion should be replaced not a belief on your part? You never did bother to make a case for this, nor did any of the other jerking buddies who graced you with a comment or answer.

 

[Little_Sticks]

Oh, right, I almost forgot. This is the same forum that advocated getting rid of the constitution with no idea in mind as to what kind of government would result. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Nevermind then; you probably aren't listening to me anyway.

 

[KatharineML]

/rhetorical
So I take it that means you believe religion has no good qualities?
Or maybe that means you believe religion's good qualities can be replaced by other things that have no bad qualities?
Or maybe that means you believe that religion is only about beliefs?

/Either way,
As Tinker pointed out, how is the premise that religion should be replaced not a belief on your part? You never did bother to make a case for this, nor did any of the other jerking buddies who graced you with a comment or answer.

Good point Little Sticks!

 

[TheStarchDefenders]

I think that a good start would be to legitimately separate the church from the state, and not let any religious people be politicians; and not let anything religious go into schools unless it's in a history class or religion class. There are some laws that for sure are only there because of religion. Have religion be something unnecessary to society but optional, and not forced on us in very subtle ways. Then I think it will be all fair and good.

If people stop being raised to be religious, then a lot less people will be this way. And you'll have many, many more people who are religious for their own personal reasons and gains rather than just because they were raised that way. Then the problem will stop somewhat in my opinion. There will always be bigots and extremists.

Here in the bible belt I can't buy alcohol on Sunday.

 

[Nicodemus]

By acknowledging that we don't know what happens after death [...]

But we do. You die. Mind ends. Body decomposes (unless artificially preserved). Body ends.

 

[Ene]

Here in the bible belt I can't buy alcohol on Sunday.

But it seems to me that to want the rid the world of believers, without even atttempting to understand them or see the world through their eyes, places the one who wants to be rid of them into the same category....dare I say? as bigots and extremists." I live in the Bible Belt, too, and yes, religion has bad points, but to want to rid the world of believers...why that's absolute fantatism and very hypocritical. It almost sounds like these "intellectual" people are saying, "I want to rid the world of everyone not like me."

 

[UniqueMixture]

But we do. You die. Mind ends. Body decomposes (unless artificially preserved). Body ends.

A flux of waves dances across the universe like a dervish for the infinitesimally small period of perhaps a hundred years. The last we know these
met was before strong and weak, strange and charm. They decohere never to be seen again in the lifetime of another dervish. The meaning of the dance ambiguous and clouded in space and time at the edges of irrational numerical sequences that have no perceivable end. What does all this signify? Perhaps it is as you say.. nothing. But perhaps we have become all too comfortable with the pain and tragedy that life can often bring our way and so it just becomes easier to believe that the universe is bleak. We lose something very precious when this occurs. Our curiosity and the possibility to see something that defies our expectations in a beautiful way

 

[KDude]

The only way to end religion is to start killing people. Billion of them. The second you made any attempt at a "creative" or intellectual solution, you lost. You're not going to get anything accomplished thinking like a wuss.

 

[Ene]

There is a teaching in some sects of Christianity that says one day all believers will be simultaneously removed from the planet and those who wish for a world without God and without believers will get exactly what they wish for....at least for a while.

 

[Society]

is current religious culture under threat? yes

as i've explained in a past post, in the context of the dichotomy between science and religion:

while at face value i agree that it's a false dichotomy, i don't think you appreciated the degree to which this devalues creationism:
unlike agnostics, for which the mere possibility of god coinciding with current scientific paradigms might suffice, for creationism there is a deep seeded belief that in order to explain the splendor, diversity, complexity and seeming order emerging out of the chaos, which defines life as we know it, as well as it's very existence, god is not merely a side dish, but a major requirement, that a miracle is required to explain all of this.

evolution comes in, the miracle is pushed to the laws of nature
DNA chemistry comes in, the miracle is pushed to biogenesis
the RNA world comes in, the miracle is pushed to the still mysterious emergent of cellular membranes
eventually that will probably be recreated in a lab as well... the miracle would be pushed to the primordial soup.
solar system evolution is already starting to comes in into planetary levels, and the miracle is pushed to the big bang.
now out of quantum physics, the multiverse is testing the waters, which means that the required universe to support life conditions isn't a miracle, it's just an unavoidable result of every physically possible universe existing, and we just happens to be in one of those things with life in them, because where else could we emerge in the first place?

god can coincide on an agnostic level, as a possibility, but the deeper and more through the understanding goes, the less he seems to be needed.

i think believers are NOT a bunch of idiots incapable of healthy self doubt and reason, they include the same vast diversity of levels of intelligence as the rest of the human species, do in fact ask themselves why they believe... and natural science, well, its stripping them of their best answers, and quite a few of the older generations might fear for their children's faith. this might seem irrelevant to an agnostic PoV, after all they should accept their children no matter what, right? but if for a moment you consider a religious parent's PoV, a belief that your children will actually suffer and experience an infinity of torment for not believing, would you want to save your child from that at all cost? for those and probably many other reasons, scientific theories devaluing the role of the miracle pose both a personal and a sociological threat.

it is ironic, that simply believing you believe because it depicts the universe in a more meaningful way to you, is in itself not a very meaningful enough belief for most.

in other words: yes, the prevalence of scientific education is threatening the prevalence of religion.

but there is a larger question: will religion - a large spectrum of entities - itself die out? to answer that, we need to answer a more playful thought experiment:

what new religions might arise?

 

[TheStarchDefenders]

But it seems to me that to want the rid the world of believers, without even atttempting to understand them or see the world through their eyes, places the one who wants to be rid of them into the same category....dare I say? as bigots and extremists." I live in the Bible Belt, too, and yes, religion has bad points, but to want to rid the world of believers...why that's absolute fantatism and very hypocritical. It almost sounds like these "intellectual" people are saying, "I want to rid the world of everyone not like me."

All I was saying was that they can keep that shit to themselves. I'm not trying to teach them anything about religion/philosophy. I never said I wanted to rid the world of believers. So why direct this at me?

 

[Ene]

I wasn't directing it at you, and I'm sorry if it seemed to you that I was. I don't even know you. The only reference to you, personally, is that I said where I lived and was attempting to make a connection.

Now for the whole subject in general. Let me say it plain and clear, "people should play fair."

 

[Evil Otter]

easy, start teaching philosophy in kindergarten. Added bonus is that this way students already have a better base for science when they can understand it.

 

[KDude]

easy, start teaching philosophy in kindergarten.

Easy? And what happens when the children themselves want to embrace religious ideas? Do you enforce your own doctrine? Do you take over parental control (including wiping their asses and paying subsistence)? And if their parents don't like it, what happens to them?

What you're ultimately going to get is conflict. Which is not so "easy". The sooner you have the balls to embrace conflict, instead of relying on some belief that your ideas hold intrinsic worth, you might actually get something done. For a little while at least. If you actually attempted any of this and thought it was going to go over smoothly, you'd find yourself with a bullet in your head sooner or later. Only a few religions would let it happen easily (The Taoists under Mao's cultural revolution nodded their heads and walked into labor camps without much complaint.. but you're not going to get that "welcome" reception 90% of the time).

I wish people to coexist, so don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating any of that. I just think if you're going to do it, don't be naive. Mao was someone who knew what it entailed. "Battling with heaven, the joy is limitless; battling with Earth, the joy is limitless; battling with people, the joy is limitless."

 

[Evil Otter]

Doctrine? This is philosophy we are talking about. If the child chooses to accept religion then he has the liberty to do so (also he can be both like thomas aquinas). And I'm starting with the assumption that this is in a modern liberal democracy such as the United States and therefore this would only be in public schools. Parents can still home school or place their children in private school if they disagree with what is being taught in the public arena. What is so naive? Unreasonable people don't make the answers more complicated; only the implementation of those answers. 2+2=4 no matter how many idiots think it's 3. And the question wasn't about how to implement it was how it would even be possible. easy.

 

[KDude]

And the question wasn't about how to implement it was how it would even be possible. easy.

No, it's all about implementation. Nothing else actually matters. I know you Ne types love airing out thought experiments and possibilities, but it's why it's not so "easy". You're not going to do shit or tackle the problem in any concrete way or consider the real nuances how it'd blow up in your face.

 

[garbage]

There are some things that I'd reply to, but, effort


I'll halfheartedly state that I agree with the assumption that we want to eradicate it, mostly to the extent to which it leads to bullshit such as "your sins cause natural disasters" and other unhelpful teachings/conclusions.

Fully assuming that we'd want to, part of the solution is to allow it to happen naturally. In the process of gathering "really real explanations" for things, we eventually do wind up collectively accepting that those explanations work better than our placeholder explanations. It takes a while for the more workable explanations to be absorbed by the whole, but I trust that we do wind up believing the more workable stuff.

It takes too damn long, though. If you want it to happen faster, and if you don't give a fuck about the means, you can start some wars or something.

 

[Thalassa]

It shouldn't. Soviet Union already tried. Disaster. After 75 years of atheist oppression, there's religious people all over that region.

I think the United States has tried too...with corporatist oligopoly capitalism. And that also doesn't seem to be the answer.

There isn't a replacement for religion. Except for perhaps Transcendental Meditation...and some people would still call that a kind of religious belief.