What will win atheism or religion?

[QUOTE="clembo1990"]

Religion is anything but rational by today's standards. If it was fully rational today there would be complete ommissions from Genesis and up.

Theokhoth

That would be antithetical to reason. Just changing these documents around for the sake of modern popularity is not rational, by today's standards or yesterday's. That would be like changing parts of Plato's works because they reference gods and things we know not to be true today.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]But Plato's work are appreciated as literature/philosophy etc, not as a way of life. ;)

Anyway I too think that the Bible shouldn't be altered, but there should be an alteration to the way we perceive it and receive it and as to what place it holds in todays society.

Teenaged

Entire justice systems have been founded based on the works of Plato. Some believe Hegel got his ideas from the Republic, though that's probably not true.

You can't support ideas by saying "Well, Plato said it", just as much you can't say "Because the Bible says so".

People support ideas in the Bible because they think it makes sense; just as with Plato.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Entire justice systems have been founded based on the works of Plato. Some believe Hegel got his ideas from the Republic, though that's probably not true.

Theokhoth

You can't support ideas by saying "Well, Plato said it", just as much you can't say "Because the Bible says so".

People support ideas in the Bible because they think it makes sense; just as with Plato.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Entire justice systems have been founded based on the works of Plato. Some believe Hegel got his ideas from the Republic, though that's probably not true.

Theokhoth

You can't support ideas by saying "Well, Plato said it", just as much you can't say "Because the Bible says so".

People support ideas in the Bible because they think it makes sense; just as with Plato.

But you should know about that considering your pseudo-mythological sig.clembo1990

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="clembo1990"]

Religion is anything but rational by today's standards. If it was fully rational today there would be complete ommissions from Genesis and up.

clembo1990

That would be antithetical to reason. Just changing these documents around for the sake of modern popularity is not rational, by today's standards or yesterday's. That would be like changing parts of Plato's works because they reference gods and things we know not to be true today.

Changing the works of people simply because they refer to dead religions doesn't strike me as rational. A truly rational person should be able to read these works and understand that they were wrong, or metaphor, or what-have-you, without the need to change the works to fit his own society. If you're talking about interpretations--simply changing what you personally think it means, rather than changing the documents themselves--then that is fine.

Rationality doesn't change. A person believes xyz because he has reason(s) to believe xyz; that is rational in and of itself. It becomes irrational when that person believes despite thinking that his reason(s) are no longer sufficient.

religion. more specifically Islamswiftkillz0

Not targeting any one religion i'm targeting them all

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]But not because they were written by Plato. But because they were found to have a merit in logic and they were found to be successful in practice.

You can't support ideas by saying "Well, Plato said it", just as much you can't say "Because the Bible says so".

Teenaged

People support ideas in the Bible because they think it makes sense; just as with Plato.

Scripture is philosophy. Religion is just like government in that it's all applied philosophy and ethics. If God doesn't exist, then what is the Bible? It would have to be a book. Perhaps they (the authors) wanted to better the world with their ideas? If that's the case, what is the difference between the Bible and Plato? The Republic refers to gods several times; Socrates' Republic makes gods a fundamental part of his system.

[QUOTE="duncancameron23"]

No facts to show! I did say "it seems to me" don't think any government is going to do a survey every 10 years on who's religious and who's not. Don't think in a free secular society there will ever be a law banning religion. The only case i could think of for that would be something like banning Sharia law where religious intolerance goes against human rights.

Hungry_bunny

To true!

[QUOTE="campbell1874"]

[QUOTE="mindstorm"] What is your basis that the morality has actually progressed in a positive manner? For example, has not the suicide rate increased?mindstorm

Look at ages where the bible and religion dominated everyday life to see if today morals is any better.

The morals of some Catholic or Protestant leaders in the UK history didn't stop them from murdering thousands or million of people just because they support a different religion. Same goes with the Vatican. How many people have they killed in the name of power.

Woman used to be burned or hurt for minor thing like showing a little bit of flesh or talking to a man thats not her husband. Plus woman were basically classed as second class citizens.

The church no longer hand out religious pardons to criminals including murders just because these people could afford to pay the church enough money. Thats a massive moral difference.

Priest represent their religions. So tell me where the morals are when a priest rapes a kidin his care then when he gets caught he gets no punishment and just moved to a different church.

The pope recently said people shouldn't use condoms. This was in regard to using condoms to stop the fight of Aids. He would rather follow some obscure beleif than facing up to reality that people are not going to stop having sex before marriage and to save lifes people have to use condoms.

After saying all that i still think the basic moral messages in the bible area good thingbut religions have abused these morals over the years toa point that there morals can be no where near positive.

My points was to prove that todays world with the increase of atheism has better morals or the same moral level of people in the past.

This is not the teaching of Christianity but that doesn't stop the the horrible thing happening in the name of Christianity causing untold suffering. Plus like alot of horrible thing that happen to people in the name of religion they start by people using thereligous bookown word to justify committing horrible act. Some people say they are twisting the words butthey would say they are interpreting them correctly and other people are getting them wrong.

Follow the scriptures of Christianity that was decided by a group of Romans in the past and gets altered by the Vatican? That still just sounds like humans pushing their infulancein scriptures for their own goals.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

People support ideas in the Bible because they think it makes sense; just as with Plato.

Theokhoth

Scripture is philosophy. Religion is just like government in that it's all applied philosophy and ethics. If God doesn't exist, then what is the Bible? It would have to be a book. Perhaps they (the authors) wanted to better the world with their ideas? If that's the case, what is the difference between the Bible and Plato?

Plato had no back up for his philosophy of the type "what I say was dictated by god", thus his work was by definition work which would have been tested before practiced.

Scripture is heavily based on its divine inspiration. When you have that claim it is sure that the first people who will practice it will try to adjust reality to the reality of the Bible and not test the reality of the Bible to their reality as it should have happened. Luckily this happens in the last few centuries. The legacy of "the Bible is holy" passes on and that makes it difficult to be scrutinized properly. Of course that is not to say that the Bible is irrational but that it was taken at face-value and going away from a strict interpretation would take a lotof time and effort, because you have to go against societal norms it created and general prejudices.

Scripture is philosophy but of a different kind. For example DesCartes' philosophy was nothing like Plato's. Plato's philosophy was practical, never related to something like an accepted diety. It was more of a scientific philosophy. Even if Plato refers to the deificated symbols of the objects of this life "which inhabit the skies" (I don't remember how some words are in English :x), nevertheless, he was not creating philosophy with them in mind, but they were part of his philosophy.

But god of scripture is supposed to be the source of it and not just partof it and that makes it even more difficult to refute or even think to scrutinize.

The differences are these and I am afraid you won't agree with some of them:

Plato had no back up for his philosophy of the type "what I say was dictated by god", thus his work was by definition work which would have been tested before practiced.

A person who makes up God (or, God Himself) would probably not recommend a system that wasn't tested or at least thought through.

Scripture is heavily based on its divine inspiration.

True, but the Greeks believed philosophical reasoning was a divine phenomenon, did they not?

When you have that claim it is sure that the first people who will practice it will try to adjust reality to the reality of the Bible and not test the reality of the Bible to their reality as it should have happened.

So what you're saying is that, rather than seeing if the Bible works for the world, they would see if the world works with the Bible. While that could happen, wouldn't the guys who wrote the Bible have to write it based on the reality of the world? And if it would be used in the way you described, wouldn't the outcome be the same? If the Bible cannot be applied to the world, the world cannot be applied to the bible, and vice versa.

Luckily this happens in the last few centuries. The legacy of "the Bible is holy" passes on and that makes it difficult to be scrutinized properly.

Define "properly."

Of course that is not to say that the Bible is irrational but that it was taken at face-value and going away from a strict interpretation would take a lotof time and effort, because you have to go against societal norms it created and general prejudices.

Did the Bible create these norms and prejudices or did the interpretations of the Bible create them?

Scripture is philosophy but of a different kind.

All philosophies are unique.

For example DesCartes' philosophy was nothing like Plato's. Plato's philosophy was practical, never related to something like an accepted diety. It was more of a scientific philosophy.

Not scientific inasmuch as secular.

Even if Plato refers to the deificated symbols of the objects of this life "which inhabit the skies" (I don't remember how some words are in English :x), nevertheless, he was not creating philosophy with them in mind, but they were part of his philosophy.

But god of scripture is supposed to be the source of it and not just partof it and that makes it even more difficult to refute or even think to scrutinize.

The same is true of many philosophies. Westernization, for example.

Teenaged

I find it sad that people can find philosophy and faith in terms of winning and losing. nirvana563

Don't take it to seriously, i didn't when i posted it.

[QUOTE="nirvana563"]I find it sad that people can find philosophy and faith in terms of winning and losing. duncancameron23

Don't take it to seriously, i didn't when i posted it.

EDIT: Besides roughly 85% of world identifies with some kind of religious/spiritual/philosophical idea. Only roughly 15% are secular, nonreligious, agonic, atheist or something of that sort.

[QUOTE="duncancameron23"]

[QUOTE="nirvana563"]I find it sad that people can find philosophy and faith in terms of winning and losing. nirvana563

Don't take it to seriously, i didn't when i posted it.

EDIT: Besides roughly 85% of world identifies with some kind of religious/spiritual/philosophical idea. Only roughly 15% are secular, nonreligious, agonic, atheist or something of that sort.

And atheism/secularism is in itself a philosophical idea.

Changing the works of people simply because they refer to dead religions doesn't strike me as rational. A truly rational person should be able to read these works and understand that they were wrong, or metaphor, or what-have-you, without the need to change the works to fit his own society. If you're talking about interpretations--simply changing what you personally think it means, rather than changing the documents themselves--then that is fine.

Rationality doesn't change. A person believes xyz because he has reason(s) to believe xyz; that is rational in and of itself. It becomes irrational when that person believes despite thinking that his reason(s) are no longer sufficient.

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="clembo1990"] But you should know about that considering your pseudo-mythological sig.Stumpt25

For example DesCartes' philosophy was nothing like Plato's. Plato's philosophy was practical, never related to something like an accepted diety. It was more of a scientific philosophy. Teenaged

We I heard some Stats that more and more people are becoming Atheist, and it's really starting with this latest generation.

And atheism/secularism is in itself a philosophical idea.Theokhoth

[QUOTE="nirvana563"]

[QUOTE="duncancameron23"]

Don't take it to seriously, i didn't when i posted it.

Theokhoth

EDIT: Besides roughly 85% of world identifies with some kind of religious/spiritual/philosophical idea. Only roughly 15% are secular, nonreligious, agonic, atheist or something of that sort.

And atheism/secularism is in itself a philosophical idea.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"] For example DesCartes' philosophy was nothing like Plato's. Plato's philosophy was practical, never related to something like an accepted diety. It was more of a scientific philosophy. Vandalvideo

Descartes himself was very religious, but for his radical skepticism theories he assumed that God is an evil prankster that played with reality at a whim.

The bastard also mixed algebra and geometry, giving us the Coordinate Plane system. For that I think Descartes was a demon.:|

[QUOTE="duncancameron23"]

[QUOTE="nirvana563"]I find it sad that people can find philosophy and faith in terms of winning and losing. nirvana563

Don't take it to seriously, i didn't when i posted it.

That's not what i said at all, the question was only about will there be more Atheists or People who believe in religion in the future. I think the tendency at the moment is people are more rational and because of that the idea of God becomes less plausible. Philosophy isn't a challenge to religion anyway science is.

Neither will ultimately win, but the current trend is a slow reduction in religious influence.Bourbons3

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="nirvana563"] When you say something stupid I'm going to point that out.

The idea that philosophy and religion after 1,000's of years is going to end or become less relevant or whatever is a childish thought.

EDIT: Besides roughly 85% of world identifies with some kind of religious/spiritual/philosophical idea. Only roughly 15% are secular, nonreligious, agonic, atheist or something of that sort.

nirvana563

And atheism/secularism is in itself a philosophical idea.

Secularism is the philosophy that religion should not influence things like governments and so on. While that is a very popular philosophy that's taken for common sense by most people nowadays, it's still a philosophy, and even theists can be secularists.

Atheism is secularism applied to personal life.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]And atheism/secularism is in itself a philosophical idea.Vandalvideo

Locke's social contract ideas were pure genius, but something tells me he didn't have a lot of friends. :P

Philosophy isn't a challenge to religion anyway science is.

duncancameron23

You have it backwards. Science isn't a challenge to religion because science can't say "yea" or "nay" about religion. Philosophy is where the challenge is.

[QUOTE="nirvana563"][QUOTE="duncancameron23"]

Don't take it to seriously, i didn't when i posted it.

duncancameron23

That's not what i said at all, the question was only about will there be more Atheists or People who believe in religion in the future. I think the tendency at the moment is people are more rational and because of that the idea of God becomes less plausible. Philosophy isn't a challenge to religion anyway science is.

The differences are these and I am afraid you won't agree with some of them:

Plato had no back up for his philosophy of the type "what I say was dictated by god", thus his work was by definition work which would have been tested before practiced.

A person who makes up God (or, God Himself) would probably not recommend a system that wasn't tested or at least thought through.

You are talking about Plato's "Divine Forms"? Anyway I don't get exactly what you are saying here. :? So you must be saying that the Bible cannot be so irrational as to not be possible to be practiced in life. I never said it cannot be practiced, or that it has no basis on reality.

Scripture is heavily based on its divine inspiration.

True, but the Greeks believed philosophical reasoning was a divine phenomenon, did they not?

I never heard that Plato said "Thank the gods for the gift of philosophy". The ancient Greek gods were acting like spoiled children, and that's why to my best of knowledge Plato never tried to "bless" his work through divine approval.

When you have that claim it is sure that the first people who will practice it will try to adjust reality to the reality of the Bible and not test the reality of the Bible to their reality as it should have happened.

So what you're saying is that, rather than seeing if the Bible works for the world, they would see if the world works with the Bible. While that could happen, wouldn't the guys who wrote the Bible have to write it based on the reality of the world? And if it would be used in the way you described, wouldn't the outcome be the same? If the Bible cannot be applied to the world, the world cannot be applied to the bible, and vice versa.

This has turned into an entire different conversation here. I never meant to go there. I am just telling you what the differences are. As you yourself must think the Bible need not be tested, since it was inspired by god and it is reasonable that we don't understand everything. Isn't the difference obvious? Plato didn't profess to speak the word of any god. He was just speaking his own views. A person was entitled to think about it, see if it is rational and then embrace it or reject it. Simple as that. The Bible will always have the "back up": if you see something you don't like... "well, it's your fault that you can't see the truth behind".....

Luckily this happens in the last few centuries. The legacy of "the Bible is holy" passes on and that makes it difficult to be scrutinized properly.

Define "properly."

I will. Lately I have seen people say that the Bible is not to be checked because it "deserves respect". That the properly I am talking about. A check without prejudices, without the will to keep it untouched for the sake of what he hold sacred and for the sake of not devastating our emotional world when we define core elements of it that have become parts of our lives..

Of course that is not to say that the Bible is irrational but that it was taken at face-value and going away from a strict interpretation would take a lotof time and effort, because you have to go against societal norms it created and general prejudices.

Did the Bible create these norms and prejudices or did the interpretations of the Bible create them?

Do you think there is a correct interpretation to be found? Do you think we can have anything more from the Bible than different interpretations? That's the only thing we can make out of it as of now. Any persons interpretation is frowned upon by others with arguments and such. This is not about validity.

The prejudice I am talking about are the "holinessof the Bible", that people have no say on what the Bible tells us, the prejudice that the Bible could have never been influenced by culture etc...

Scripture is philosophy but of a different kind.

All philosophies are unique.

That proves that Plato cannot be compared to the Bible. Let alone invoke this as an argument as to why people are justified to follow the Bible. There are other better and more respectable (by me of course)

For example DesCartes' philosophy was nothing like Plato's. Plato's philosophy was practical, never related to something like an accepted diety. It was more of a scientific philosophy.

Not scientific inasmuch as secular.

????

Even if Plato refers to the deificated symbols of the objects of this life "which inhabit the skies" (I don't remember how some words are in English :x), nevertheless, he was not creating philosophy with them in mind, but they were part of his philosophy.

But god of scripture is supposed to be the source of it and not just partof it and that makes it even more difficult to refute or even think to scrutinize.

The same is true of many philosophies. Westernization, for example.

Again.. ???

edit: My argument is not that we are more entitled to believe in what Plato said, and not reasonable to follow the Bible. Not at all. I am just stating that they are different and cannot be compared in such a way.

Teenaged

You have it backwards. Science isn't a challenge to religion because science can't say "yea" or "nay" about religion. Philosophy is where the challenge is.Theokhoth

[QUOTE="nirvana563"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

And atheism/secularism is in itself a philosophical idea.

Theokhoth

Secularism is the philosophy that religion should not influence things like governments and so on. While that is a very popular philosophy that's taken for common sense by most people nowadays, it's still a philosophy, and even theists can be secularists.

Atheism is secularism applied to personal life.

imo 2000 years from now humans will look back at what humans believed now and say "what the hell were those guys thinking??!?"comp_atkins

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]You have it backwards. Science isn't a challenge to religion because science can't say "yea" or "nay" about religion. Philosophy is where the challenge is.Vandalvideo

I love that quote. It's just so. . . well, if I say the word "true" then I'll ignite a flame war, so I'll say it's "cool" and walk away. >_>

Are you religious? I never can tell.

imo 2000 years from now humans will look back at what humans believed now and say "what the hell were those guys thinking??!?"comp_atkins

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]imo 2000 years from now humans will look back at what humans believed now and say "what the hell were those guys thinking??!?"nirvana563

I love that quote. It's just so. . . well, if I say the word "true" then I'll ignite a flame war, so I'll say it's "cool" and walk away. >_> Are you religious? I never can tell.Theokhoth

[QUOTE="duncancameron23"]

[QUOTE="nirvana563"] When you say something stupid I'm going to point that out. The idea that philosophy and religion after 1,000's of years is going to end or become less relevant or whatever is a childish thought.nirvana563

That's not what i said at all, the question was only about will there be more Atheists or People who believe in religion in the future. I think the tendency at the moment is people are more rational and because of that the idea of God becomes less plausible. Philosophy isn't a challenge to religion anyway science is.

Way to miss read, science has nothing against religion, i said it was a challenge to it. look at old Darwin and the theory of evolution and you get the point. And what do you expect people to do when they are more rational believe in one all powerful being? Or seek a more educated answer.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]I love that quote. It's just so. . . well, if I say the word "true" then I'll ignite a flame war, so I'll say it's "cool" and walk away. >_> Are you religious? I never can tell.Vandalvideo

But those arguments attempt to prove that a god exists, right? How can you be atheist if you accepted them? :?Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]But those arguments attempt to prove that a god exists, right? How can you be atheist if you accepted them? :?Vandalvideo

But then you are not an atheist, you are a deist or just a theist but an anti-religious one.

[QUOTE="nirvana563"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"]imo 2000 years from now humans will look back at what humans believed now and say "what the hell were those guys thinking??!?"comp_atkins

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]You have it backwards. Science isn't a challenge to religion because science can't say "yea" or "nay" about religion. Philosophy is where the challenge is.Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="nirvana563"]

[QUOTE="duncancameron23"]

That's not what i said at all, the question was only about will there be more Atheists or People who believe in religion in the future. I think the tendency at the moment is people are more rational and because of that the idea of God becomes less plausible. Philosophy isn't a challenge to religion anyway science is.

duncancameron23

Way to miss read, science has nothing against religion, i said it was a challenge to it. look at old Darwin and the theory of evolution and you get the point. And what do you expect people to do when they are more rational believe in one all powerful being? Or seek a more educated answer.

I know that... But then you are not an atheist, you are a deist or just a theist but an anti-religious one.Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]But those arguments attempt to prove that a god exists, right? How can you be atheist if you accepted them? :?Vandalvideo

You're spiritual, but not really religious. You believe God exists in some form but don't follow a set of rules based around him (religion). It's actually fairly common.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]I know that... But then you are not an atheist, you are a deist or just a theist but an anti-religious one.Vandalvideo

I'd say indifference or acceptance will win out.

Religious people will keep trying to prove there is a God and will get tired of it. In their hearts they will believe, but that is where it will stay...in their hearts

Atheists will do the opposite, and will get tired of it too.

Eventually there will be a pope that'll be like "You know, its all good...everyone goes to heaven except jerks and villains"

I see good things in the future for both sides of the coin