Is religion about to die out?

[Tatetopa]

A good predictor of future conditions is to observe the past. Things that last tend to continue into the future. Not always true but, probability is good. Religion has been around for more than four thousand years, it is likely to continue in the foreseeable future. Consider that it is an idea that seems to be wound up in our genetic nature. Thoughts change and shape it, but I believe a sense of spirituality is part of brain architecture and perhaps arises from logic processing; looking for causal links.

[psyche101]

I want to interject something here, but I'm not speaking for Doug when I say this....

No Worries, thanks for your point of view

It's not a defeatist attitude, Psyche, it's just generally knowing how people, especially groups of people, are in the world and the way people think. People are predictable. They tend to do the same ol' things time after time throughout history. Just like when - People kill one another and people save one another, people rape and pillage, people conquer one another, people form nations with governments, people marry one another, people have families and raise children, and they will always have beliefs in things no matter what is scientific fact or not scientific fact. It's just the way we as a human species are. It's just one of those things that is a will of human nature that's just there and you can't purge it from everybody's minds. But of course I'm not saying we shouldn't try, but then again...we shouldn't get our hopes up either. Because much like in the case of people murdering each other, I would love to see that completely stopped, but I know better, because that can only happen in perfect world.

I have to say I find it terribly defeatist to say "it;s all too hard, people don't use logic, forget it".

We didn't get to the moon like that!

Slavery was once considered normal too, people could not imagine a world without it, the gay community has been seen as an abomination for so long, now we give people awards for being gay! Religious people who let their Children die because modern medicine offends God go to court. People who drown a baby in the Bathtub because "God told them to" now go to a mental institution. I feel the world is changing, and for the better. As an Atheist, I feel it is our duty to learn as much as we can, and make sure we leave this world a better place than we found it. As we learn, God moves from Omnipotent to Impotent. We know better about the how's, and what really brought this Universe into existence. I do not feel religion can continue to thrive in the face of defeat.

But to deny all that with a "it's too hard" or "people are too diverse" does strike me as a defeatist attitude. There is a better way, and the evidence to support that is overwhelming. It is staring us in the face, but so many still turn away because the power relgion has over people, but that power is like God because it comes from God, and it is a facade.

People do not have to change. What we do need is to give real iknowledge a level playing field. I really think it would take no more than that, as it is, religion has the upper hand with thousands of years of brainwashing. Some have risen above that, and I honestly see no reasons that the rest of the planet is not capable of the same. As far as evidence goes, there is no competition, Lawrence Krauss put it well I thought when he said that "Science and Religion are rivals like Bambi and Godzilla are rivals" religion has held the upper hand through fear, threat false promises and emotion. Like any facade it will be exposed in the right light, we just need to make sure some of us are carrying the torch.

[psyche101]

A good predictor of future conditions is to observe the past. Things that last tend to continue into the future. Not always true but, probability is good. Religion has been around for more than four thousand years, it is likely to continue in the foreseeable future. Consider that it is an idea that seems to be wound up in our genetic nature. Thoughts change and shape it, but I believe a sense of spirituality is part of brain architecture and perhaps arises from logic processing; looking for causal links.

I would propose that the Abrahamic Gods are destined to reside alongside the Greek and Roman Gods. Humanity has created over a thousand gods in our written history, it is ludicrous top think "this one will be the right one" it strikes me as much more likely that the penny will finally drop for a great many thanks to the availability of knowledge these days. Because communications are more advanced than ever conceived this is a different world to any in antiquity. And time for change. Information demands it. Whether the Church can continue to hide knowledge is what will determine if we move forward as a species, or backwards again.

[Rlyeh]

Nope, they are not going anywhere anytime soon. There are things that science can't prove. And there are things that science is just proving 50 years ago but religious books have mentioned them like a thousand years ago. So I think religions are like way ahead of science.

Tell me when science finally discovers that the earth is the centre of the universe. Edited May 11, 2016 by Rlyeh

[Rlyeh]

Getting people to Mars is some kind of priority matter, in your mind ? You have fallen into the trap of thinking science and religion must be in opposition to one another, which is not the case. They are the external mainifestations of two different aspects of the mind, and it strikes me as decidedly unlikely that evolution would have preserved one that is "wrong" or useless. Your error is to neglect one in favour of the other, where a fundamentalist religious fanatic does the reverse. Both failing to find a suitable, sensible balance.

Well one is founded upon the study of verifiable facts, the other as you put it is founded upon an irrational answer. They are definitely opposites.

[barbco196]

I would propose that the Abrahamic Gods are destined to reside alongside the Greek and Roman Gods. Humanity has created over a thousand gods in our written history, it is ludicrous top think "this one will be the right one" it strikes me as much more likely that the penny will finally drop for a great many thanks to the availability of knowledge these days. Because communications are more advanced than ever conceived this is a different world to any in antiquity. And time for change. Information demands it. Whether the Church can continue to hide knowledge is what will determine if we move forward as a species, or backwards again.

No, what will determine if we move forward is an attitude that harnesses open mindedness. You can not say with certainty God doesn't exist and science proves that. If that were the case, this conversation would not be happening. Nor would any debate between Ham and Nye. The fact is, there are a multitude of brilliant scientific minds that believe God exists or say they just don't know. Just because you can't reconcile the two in your head, doesn't mean others can't. As a matter of fact, and probably much to your chagrin, I see a future where science and religion learn to work side by side in harmony.

[barbco196]

Well one is founded upon the study of verifiable facts, the other as you put it is founded upon an irrational answer. They are definitely opposites.

And one has been around since the dawn of man and the other, just in its infancy.

[psyche101]

Well one is founded upon the study of verifiable facts, the other as you put it is founded upon an irrational answer. They are definitely opposites.

LOL!!

external mainifestations of two different aspects of the mind

Yeah, aspect of the mind alright....... lol, one is entirely imaginary!!

Funny how some seem to think if one makes a phrase emotional, or romantic enough, it will pass as if plausible!!

[Rlyeh]

And one has been around since the dawn of man and the other, just in its infancy.

You'd think humans would've learned from the mistakes of unquestionable dogma.

[Habitat]

You'd think humans would've learned from the mistakes of unquestionable dogma.

There's your conundrum, evolution should have purged from the gene pool "useless" or negative traits, should it not ? So what went wrong, that this "error" has survived ? Maybe it is not an error ?

[Rlyeh]

There's your conundrum, evolution should have purged from the gene pool "useless" or negative traits, should it not ? So what went wrong, that this "error" has survived ? Maybe it is not an error ?

How do you figure that? Natural selection would've removed traits that were deadly to a populations survival. Many errors exist that do not affect survival in favourable environments, this is why you can survival with a non-functional vitamin C synthesis enzyme.

[psyche101]

Barb, I just honestly hope you are not starting something you are going to refuse to finish again, when I show how science erodes relgion, and why they are polar opposites. Ever time I do that, I go to some effort to present my thoughts, and get stood up!!

No, what will determine if we move forward is an attitude that harnesses open mindedness.

You have no idea how much I agree with that. I honestly feel that when placed on a level field, religion pales into nothingness next to science. It is an adult fairy tale. If we all had equal opportunities from day one, relgion would not be in the position it is in to influence others. It would be akin to Santa and the Easter Bunny. I'd really like to see that honesty get out amongst the masses.

You can not say with certainty God doesn't exist and science proves that.

Because the door remains open for such evidence to present itself. One cannot prove a negative, what we can do is prove that each and every claim attributed to God with regards to creation is indeed bunkum. You cannot prove that Golden Unicorns live in the deepest crater on the dark side of the moon and only present themselves to a person every 500 years. You canot prove to me that a Leprechaun cannot exist. Same goes for God. He is as likely as the Tooth Fairy, but until you can scour every corner of the Universe and say "The Tooth Fairy DEFINITELY Does not exist" then you have to allow for the Tooth Fairy to present evidence, or be discovered.

That "door" does not mean God exists, nor does it mean we just have not found him yet, it is a scientific courtesy, sure, if there is evidence we are happy to re-evaluate as we did with the periodic table, science will go back to the drawing board, what most do not seem to know is that science has many fundamentals down. New discoveries will not change what we know, they will enhance and add to what we know. And sure, we do not know what dark matter is, or even what is in a black hole for that matter, there is plenty of work to be done, don't get me wrong, but that does not mean God is hiding in one of those gaps.

If that were the case, this conversation would not be happening. Nor would any debate between Ham and Nye.

Actually Barb, I beg to differ. People still believe in Fairies and Mermaids. Ken Hams creation model is just not viable. That is why he lost the debate so badly. When push comes to shove, religion has nothing. Some people are just not rational. That does not mean we must entertain irrationality.

And to be fair, although the term "debate" is used, it's not really a debate as it is not what is ongoing in the professional cosmology community. As I have mentioned if you go to a lecture on Cosmology of Physics, we see equations and models, we do not see God as so much as a proposal.

The fact is, there are a multitude of brilliant scientific minds that believe God exists or say they just don't know.

And yet when it comes to the aforementioned lectures, they remain silent. They do not speak up about their belief system in a professional arena, because they know better. They can know that every claim attributed to God has indeed been debunked, they can know that the overall view of God has changed dramatically as new evidence comes to light, they MUST know that science eroded relgion just as Darwin's theory of evolution entirely discredited the story of Adam and Eve.

As I have stated many times, those people are the ones with a problem. They have two answers to one question, reality just does not work that way though. They have to lie to themselves to be true to themselves, there is no other way I can see that, and despite many invitations to posters, and any academic that even might hear of these requests, I hear nothing. You were the closest I had come to someone discussing how one manages to serve two different things with one answer, but as soon as I got into it, you declined to support your position and moved on. I have a strong feeling you will let me down like that again.

Yet people keep making this claim that science and religion are buddies, but cannot back up that claim. Nobody ever has been able to answer that question, so why does it have validity with anyone at all? Is that not a much bigger question? Why do people refuse to support that which they insist is fact??

There can only be one answer, people do not have the faith in their faith that they claim they do. They know deep down a rational mundane explanation exists, but it seems to me that it appeals to people more to be the centre of the most important being in the Universe's attention. Which is entirely the wrong reason for supporting the wrong thing.

Just because you can't reconcile the two in your head, doesn't mean others can't.

More than that, nobody can explain it. It is like relgion - "It just is and do not question it"

Well, I dont play well like that, I will and do question, and that is where relgion falls apart entirely. Nobody can give me straight answers, but fumbled one's shrouded in smoke and mirrors. One discipline states that the Universe is the product of nature, one says a God designed it. Both are simply not right, and everyone knows it, but so many refuse to admit it. All I see is long winded emotional appeals full of appeals to authority. Religion actually has nothing at all to back its claims, which have been largely debunked, and when they are - religious people call it a metaphor! That is not reconciliation. That is underhanded lying. Science can back it claims, the only reason I can think of for so many avoiding science for "the easy answer" is that far too many people consider that level of learning "too hard"

As a matter of fact, and probably much to your chagrin, I see a future where science and religion learn to work side by side in harmony.

I really and honestly doubt that, I think you have a romantic notion of such, but no real world model of how the two reconcile major differences. And to be fair, that you have never backed such a claim further than making it seems to confirm that conclusion.

Heck, you still have not even explained how "Evolution" and "Creationism" are reconcilable. To the best of my knowledge, they simply are not.

[Mr Walker]

No Worries, thanks for your point of view

I have to say I find it terribly defeatist to say "it;s all too hard, people don't use logic, forget it".

We didn't get to the moon like that!

Slavery was once considered normal too, people could not imagine a world without it, the gay community has been seen as an abomination for so long, now we give people awards for being gay! Religious people who let their Children die because modern medicine offends God go to court. People who drown a baby in the Bathtub because "God told them to" now go to a mental institution. I feel the world is changing, and for the better. As an Atheist, I feel it is our duty to learn as much as we can, and make sure we leave this world a better place than we found it. As we learn, God moves from Omnipotent to Impotent. We know better about the how's, and what really brought this Universe into existence. I do not feel religion can continue to thrive in the face of defeat.

But to deny all that with a "it's too hard" or "people are too diverse" does strike me as a defeatist attitude. There is a better way, and the evidence to support that is overwhelming. It is staring us in the face, but so many still turn away because the power relgion has over people, but that power is like God because it comes from God, and it is a facade.

People do not have to change. What we do need is to give real iknowledge a level playing field. I really think it would take no more than that, as it is, religion has the upper hand with thousands of years of brainwashing. Some have risen above that, and I honestly see no reasons that the rest of the planet is not capable of the same. As far as evidence goes, there is no competition, Lawrence Krauss put it well I thought when he said that "Science and Religion are rivals like Bambi and Godzilla are rivals" religion has held the upper hand through fear, threat false promises and emotion. Like any facade it will be exposed in the right light, we just need to make sure some of us are carrying the torch.

What this says is that modern values and moralities are inherent;y BETTER than ancient ones. They are not. ALL ethics and moralities are constructed to serve social purpose. As societies change,in structure, the ethics and moralities needed also change.

In the past gay people presented a danger to the survival of a community or society because population growth was so small and sometimes negative that whole nations sometimes hang in the balanc eof survival and every [erspn had to reproduce as many times as they physically could.

Survival (and a degree of prosperity) come first THEN other rights and privileges can be extended as a society can afford them.

Slavery was ended as economics meant it was not profitable (and has now grown bigger than ever because it has become profitable again) The rights and equality of women is entirely dependent on the change in their socio economic value from mothers to wage earners and consumers. As health longevity has improved with modern science and technology, women have had less value as mothers and more value as workers. Slavery i not always wrong. The laws against homosexuality were not always wrong, immoral or unethical

Women being dependent on their husbands was not, and is not, inherently wrong just a product of a certain stage of human economic development. I wil be very interested to see how women are regarded as fertility levels fall so low that our populaitons go into rapid decline. A nation like japan could have its population halved in one full generation given In such a scenario women might again be compelled or encouraged to have more children and indeed in austrlalia this is already govt policy,. with huge amounts of money and benefits paid out to mothers.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

I really do not feel it is an outrageous proposal. Religion is declining and knowledge is becoming more freely available, it seems a well overdue inevitability to me. Science erodes religion and science is better distributed than it has ever been.

I honestly do not feel it must remain because a majority have felt that way for a long time. Most had no choice but to conform. And we have indoctrination. That puts religion in a limelight it does not deserve through emotional responses. There is much beyond ourselves, we just seem to reject natural explanations for anthropomorphised ones which I feel is a product of our development as we feel more comfortable being in control.

No, but I do see religion as being seen by all if not most as silly as I see it. 50 years ago, the majority believed in Adam and Eve over evolution. Atheists were akin to or worse than satanists. Gay people were an abomination of God. Times are changing and people will change with them.

I just simply canot explain it, it is indeed a true Unexplained Mystery. What I do notice is those scientists tend to gravitate toward medical fields, and more hardcore sciences such as physics have a great deal less faithful. WHilst that emotional response remains amongst some, they do not publish papers on these beliefs, nor do they entertain them from a serious perspective with tier work. Fringe Science tries to breach the divide with misinterpretation of Physics, but again, when it comes down to recognised serious papers, faith is nonexistent. If you go to a lecture on Cosmology of Physics, not one person in the room ever utter Goddidit or "maybe a creator could explain "X". We see equations and models, no pondering about God. In a serious world where things actually happen, God does not get a look in.

But they like the Heaven's Gate whackos, will become the minority. Westboro level minority I can see a time where people would indeed laugh at what we considered as history, and marvel at how long it managed to remain as a hypothesis when we normally supercede redundant hypotheses. I can see people laughing at once believing we came from an Adam and Eve, or that a creator "made the universe perfect in every way". It's laughable now, many just refuse to let go that security blanket of relgion and step out into the light.

I'd like to see it made redundant. I think it should be preserved as historical record, because I feel it was a very important part of our development, it just overstayed it's welcome by about 1500 years IMHO.

No, I do not think it is a pip dream at all. Yes, there will always be pocket, and they will not matter. They will be steamrolled over with discovery and knowledge. We still have people who believe in Unicorns, Fairies and Mermaids too, but look at how we view them today.

No I do not think it is wishful thinking at all. I feel relgion is an enemy of reason, and will be recognised as such within a generation or two. I feel relgion could easily be made redundant in even one generation with the right approach, but so many refuse to let go and move on that such a task would take more time due to those who refuse to budge. I can tell you right now that much of the Bible has been made redundant, yet some still hang onto those failed claims and now label them as metaphors. Religion has to rely on tradition and the faithful. It simply cannot compete with discovery. Adam and Eve have already proven that. That is how they went form being the Ultimate Grandparents to a metaphor themselves. Who would have believed that could happen 100 years ago? Who would believe gay people would be accepted by Churches? Same with God, he did not make the Universe, he did not let there be light, he did not even fulfill the claims of Adam and Eve. People have swallowed this BS for so long only because the Church directed it. With a huge multicultural world out there, relgion has to compete with real answers. Just like Adam and Eve, relgion itself will be reduced to no more than a chapter in history, John Lennon knew what he was on about.

I see it in my kids. They do not see religion how I did when I was brought up. Neither do their friends. And not though an atheist influence, but personal evaluation with as many resources as anyone else might have, as hard as that might be to believe.

I think there is a plus and a minus, or maybe a ying and a yang to your points here. I guess, that there have a been, during the ages, a lot of dependency of particular religions in the hope, the education, and the comfort of it. I have found in a lot of history of various cultures, it pretty much ran everything. ( that is not to say, that it did it right........ or wrong, ..... I think there were some right, but yes, a lot of wrong. And it times didn't live up to it's 'honorable wish to be selfless' where greed and lust and such they did as well. )

But, as some do point out, there were a lot of aspects of it, that stayed, educated us, and brought other inventions into our culture. But, it wasn't the only thing, as I have seen outside of religious and spiritual thinking has done the same thing as well.

I wonder though, if we can use the ( and I say a pretty good correct way of assuming ) that logical and real live point of existing as inventing things to what we would call fictional. If we use fans and their love for Star Trek ( ) and how so many have become engineers, and such, there are those in NASA and other such career fields because of the influence of Star Trek. I wonder at the flip cell phone, and how it came to be. Isn't the type of hypospray almost becoming a reality. Hell, I keep hearing and reading of some wanting to invent the transporter! In which, for all of it's one hell of an convenience it would be, I wonder of the ethicalness of it and does it really kill the real you upon first time in it?

The point is, Trek is something that is not real and people were into it, and then for some reason, we see things that seemed to be influenced by their creations from the show.

There are those who are extremely logical based, but do they all have a creativity, that the arts, philosophy, and such could also give them? I think, that sometimes, religious, spiritual, philosophical, and other such ideals, give a spark of 'maybe' and or a bit of creativity to further the mind into the unknown and come up with things.

I do think that the religion has had control, will be history, but certain elements and essences of it, no. If anything, it's the positive elements of both Atheistic and spiritual point of views will remain, but the negatives that seem to be a block maybe, will be pushed aside to be a team.

I respect that! We do not all have to have "the answer" or even have it interest us. Those who do have such interests pave the roads we can all walk. Then we can move beyond "belief" into "knowing" at our own paces. Belief is a personal thing, when it remains that way, it is quite respectable.

I love that! Well said.

Purifier:

All good points, Psyche. But I'm afraid you'll never convince me that religion will be reduced to a minority. I just can't see it. Because now we have in this day and age people who are twisting and turning scientific information into science fiction religions or some kind of new age cult following. From UFO cults to worshiping aliens\ancient aliens to Scientology.

No they're not dying out or being reduced to a minority, Psyche, there just changing their religions to roll with the the modern age and the rise in scientific discoveries. And the scary part is they're gaining followers. I just don't see it ever happening from my point view. Not when these type of new age religions are coming out of the woodwork and adapting to science.

I wonder though, if because of the modern age, that it's more of a subjective and personal type groups, as opposed to various things use to be mandated in a way. I'm thinking of how Church and such, are encouraged in the past, and now people will think twice about doing that. There are bible studies, and hangouts and such, that the religious want to go to, and even they don't attend church services on Sunday.

I wonder, if it's best explained, that the 'mandated' aspect of religion will be outdated, but not the influence. I think those who are religious today, ( and I say the good and the bad ) are probably more honestly religious, as opposed to the past, where half of them were 'religious' because society would cut them a new one if they weren't. So, in a sense, I think the reason that church and other religious services are not filled up as much as it was in the past, is that those, who were always not as religious now see it as more accepted to not go.

So, I think it's more now of a matter of relativity of who is religious, and who weren't but hid it.

psyche:

he has been banned in several countries due to his liberal views on underage sex.

Liberal?!? I wouldn't call it that, when it concerns underage sex. I would call it unhealthy. I'm sorry, I felt I had to express my outlook on that, and feel that the concept of the subject as wrong. But that's me. *shrugs*

GmG:

Pew research, sometimes I don't understand what their premise is in their research. What do they mean when they say moral religion. It like they mean people didn't have morals in prehistory. They had morals, they just didn't have writing. If you look modern tribal cultures they have moral structure in their culture. Moral structure can differ from culture to culture and change doesn't mean there is no moral structure. This study they did seems to me to be very ethnocentric as a lot of their studies are.

8bits:

Pew's OK. Don't shoot the bean counter. "Moralizing" as a category of religion is from here:

https://www.newscien...l-ask-evolution

Once Baumard defined what religions he has in mind, then we can go to Pew for estimates of how many adherents of those there are compared with how many there used to be.

Inevitably, it is easier to survey representative samples of people in some places than in others, and easier for an organization located in North America to survey English speakers, and if anybody else, then Spanish-speakers. That doesn't make Pew's work culpably "ethnocentric." Some emphasis on the United States (by name) is in its mission profile, which is the basis on which it gets its money.

Although, I would think, that multiples of groups do the same research with the same goal in answer, and see how they compare to each other. I think it's probably better to see a similarity with that then.

Doug:

Religion about to die out? Really?

We've had religion since forever. Religion is very good at morphing into something new as times change. I doubt we'll ever be without it.

Doug

In a sense, I would agree with you. I for one, feel how something that lasted the last few millennia, has to have some form of impact to last as long as it did, and would be able to last longer and into the future.

I think though, it can be seen how it's vastly different today, ( less practicing, more varying religious groups, and Atheists coming out, including feeling less fear in being intimated and conversions from religion due to education and betrayal in the surmons and such ) than it was in the past, ( where it was pretty much forced, almost mandatory attendance at religious services, and more believing it, with less information of the world around them and such ) and I can see how that a decline of religion exists.

third eye:

Organised Religion ... now that's a whole different sack of beans ...

In which is a good point to think about. Is it organised religion on the decline, or actually spiritual belief?

Habitat:

Xeno:

So does religion have a cure for cancer or maybe aids? Wow ! Perhaps religion can get people to mars because of some mystical magical technology? Maybe religion can create world peace, create a powerful clean energy source? I guess people need to pray really really hard to fix the world. I'm sure 'god' will make everything just peachy.

{"Getting people to Mars is some kind of priority matter, in your mind ?"} You have fallen into the trap of thinking science and religion must be in opposition to one another, which is not the case. They are the external mainifestations of two different aspects of the mind, and it strikes me as decidedly unlikely that evolution would have preserved one that is "wrong" or useless. Your error is to neglect one in favour of the other, where a fundamentalist religious fanatic does the reverse. Both failing to find a suitable, sensible balance.

You seemed surprise that something like going to Mars should be seen as something we should probably work towards for a betterment for society. Things like that, is in essence, a way of learning and exploring and seeing how we can improve our lives. I would think it should be a priority.

I would tend to agree with you, that both ways should go hand in hand, but there should be a particular line in what actually does good, and what actually hinders and stagnates.

psyche:

With seeing people like Ken Ham being taken down by the likes of Bill Nye in public arenas, it is only a matter of time. The great minds are starting to weigh in on the debate. They are dumbing down things like Quantum Mechanics so even I can understand it. They are bringing knowledge to the people, which is how relgion managed to remain in power for so long, it curbed that with indoctrination and threats to the ignorant. As I say, ask anyone who still believes that Adam and Eve were actually the first man and woman, only the minority of creationists will agree with you. Look at all the people on this board not only questioning organised relgion, but coming up with their own versions. This is to be expected. We have had to consider relgion as "fact" for a very long time, and that will take a good couple of generation to scrape of our collective shoes. People are finding their own Gods, they are taking control. We the evidence becomes more widely dispersed inevitably, that will erode relgion away to what it is - myth. We still have small pockets of people who are deliberately ignorant who still believe in Fairies and Unicorns, but we do not have AFairisists or AUnicornists today. The day will come when the term "Atheist: too will be redundant.

Because the big names are weighing in, I have more hope than ever. IT is another way of disseminating knowledge, and as I say, knowledge does erode relgion. Eventually something will have to give, we can either leap forward, or step back into darkness, and I think too many people are aware and knowledgeable to allow the latter to happen again. I guess you could say if I have faith, it is in humanity. I'd like to hope others can see the value in that.

I like this, I find it a very good post. And it makes me wonder, if I reflect on the OP title, it talks about religion, not about belief or spirituality. And I think a majority here will agree, most of the time, one doesn't not necessarily mean the other.

I love your line about those creating their own Gods and 'taking control'. I think that's a big clue, that more than likely, certain forms of organized religion would be declining, and even more so. I feel, people are seeing it as a control function, and they want to escape that understandingly.

I guess, I would be a good example. I never had the controlled organized religious upbringing, but I have a personal belief sytem and a spiritual way or way of practicing it. I delight in it, because I have control. Although, I never had the day to day experience of being controlled in it. All I have, is the desire of those within it to desire it for me. I sometimes see them, of all of their 'self conformity' within it, seem to be out of control and helpless within it.

Psyche:

Slavery was once considered normal too, people could not imagine a world without it, the gay community has been seen as an abomination for so long, now we give people awards for being gay! Religious people who let their Children die because modern medicine offends God go to court. People who drown a baby in the Bathtub because "God told them to" now go to a mental institution. I feel the world is changing, and for the better. As an Atheist, I feel it is our duty to learn as much as we can, and make sure we leave this world a better place than we found it. As we learn, God moves from Omnipotent to Impotent. We know better about the how's, and what really brought this Universe into existence. I do not feel religion can continue to thrive in the face of defeat.

And yes, I think we have very good examples here. I have seen religion, focus on things, that do seem to be outdated or that it's telling you to do something, because it says so, but in the end, it oftens suffocates the individual.

I have found that those who have done harm to others, that they are told to create and or told to join with, (when they don't have it in their heart to ) tend to be the ones causing the damage.

I think that the great thing of today, and it's education and concern for those who don't believe and don't want to follow tenets that don't apply to them, is allowing them to be true to themselves. There is less child abuse and domestic abuse and bad marriages ( within the spectrum of how I see it and observed it ) that I can tell, as opposed to the past. I read a lot of those who fear the decline in marriage and see the stats of unmarried. But what they don't realize, we're having more stable unmarried people, and the marriages that stay are more than likely to be stable, because it's the desire of the couples, and not because it's what they are suppose to do, and end up married to someone they never really wanted to marry in the first place. Same goes to parenthood. I have found those stats of those abusing and killing their children are more likely never really wanted to be parents, but are told to. ( it's not an excuse to kill and abuse, it's just I noticed the statistics of those that do to their religion )

I'm not saying this doesn't happen to unreligious marriages and parenthood, I know I have seen examples of it. I just noticed the ration though of these things in religious to non-religious seems to be more to the first and less to the second.

But to deny all that with a "it's too hard" or "people are too diverse" does strike me as a defeatist attitude. There is a better way, and the evidence to support that is overwhelming. It is staring us in the face, but so many still turn away because the power relgion has over people, but that power is like God because it comes from God, and it is a facade.

I'm sorry pysche, I disagree here. There are so many people, and the personalities are so diverse, that I don't think one can say that everyone who are religious, are also lazy or cannot commit to stop believing in God, or that they can't think for themselves. I think there are quite a few on these boards, I have noticed, who see the blend of both and have no problem with it.

Diversity in thought is always going to be a strong element, so I don't think one can say they should dismiss it.

{"People do not have to change. What we do need is to give real iknowledge a level playing field."} I really think it would take no more than that, as it is, religion has the upper hand with thousands of years of brainwashing. Some have risen above that, and I honestly see no reasons that the rest of the planet is not capable of the same. As far as evidence goes, there is no competition, Lawrence Krauss put it well I thought when he said that "Science and Religion are rivals like Bambi and Godzilla are rivals" religion has held the upper hand through fear, threat false promises and emotion. Like any facade it will be exposed in the right light, we just need to make sure some of us are carrying the torch.

And this is where I agree whole heartily. I strongly believe that knowledge is very important and that everyone should be educated to know and see the difference and grow.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

psyche:

I would propose that the Abrahamic Gods are destined to reside alongside the Greek and Roman Gods. Humanity has created over a thousand gods in our written history, it is ludicrous top think "this one will be the right one"

I agree with this. And because of the lack of proof to a point, and that there have been so many, and not just one, shows how that wouldn't make sense.

I would think though, that it could or should be looked upon as "this one will be the right one, .... for me." That's why, as a subjective situation, I don't think it will go away.

But as an objective goal, no, that would be wrong, because of it's subjectiveness.

it strikes me as much more likely that the penny will finally drop for a great many thanks to the availability of knowledge these days. Because communications are more advanced than ever conceived this is a different world to any in antiquity. And time for change. Information demands it. Whether the Church can continue to hide knowledge is what will determine if we move forward as a species, or backwards again.

And I will agree with this too, because yes, communication, knowledge, access, and such have proven that....... well to me at the least.

barbco:

No, what will determine if we move forward is an attitude that harnesses open mindedness. You can not say with certainty God doesn't exist and science proves that. If that were the case, this conversation would not be happening. Nor would any debate between Ham and Nye. The fact is, there are a multitude of brilliant scientific minds that believe God exists or say they just don't know. Just because you can't reconcile the two in your head, doesn't mean others can't. As a matter of fact, and probably much to your chagrin, I see a future where science and religion learn to work side by side in harmony.

I feel this post is a

There are certain sentences here, that I think psyche can strongly disagree with and show evidence of, I think it would be the thought of science proving that you cannot prove God doesn't exist. I think that can go into a whole subcontext of that, ( end it ends up being a big thing, that I have noticed in other threads. ) but yes, there seems to be a pattern that I have noticed where spirituality and it's various aspects and science can go hand in hand with spirituality. And I have seen varous examples of that in my observations. I think that there are creative elements of both, that help it go along with them together.

barbco:

Rlyeh:

Well one is founded upon the study of verifiable facts, the other as you put it is founded upon an irrational answer. They are definitely opposites.

And one has been around since the dawn of man and the other, just in its infancy.

Which to me, wouldn't mean that because one is right and the other is wrong. I think it's been said here in this thread, the level of control of both and what at the time it was prioritised as important and the other as not so important.

Habitat:

Rlyeh:

You'd think humans would've learned from the mistakes of unquestionable dogma.

There's your conundrum, evolution should have purged from the gene pool "useless" or negative traits, should it not ? So what went wrong, that this "error" has survived ? Maybe it is not an error ?

Maybe you can do some research for the answer and show it here. ?

psyche:

barbco:

You can not say with certainty God doesn't exist and science proves that.

Because the door remains open for such evidence to present itself. One cannot prove a negative, what we can do is prove that each and every claim attributed to God with regards to creation is indeed bunkum. You cannot prove that Golden Unicorns live in the deepest crater on the dark side of the moon and only present themselves to a person every 500 years. You canot prove to me that a Leprechaun cannot exist. Same goes for God. He is as likely as the Tooth Fairy, but until you can scour every corner of the Universe and say "The Tooth Fairy DEFINITELY Does not exist" then you have to allow for the Tooth Fairy to present evidence, or be discovered.

That "door" does not mean God exists, nor does it mean we just have not found him yet, it is a scientific courtesy, sure, if there is evidence we are happy to re-evaluate as we did with the periodic table, science will go back to the drawing board, what most do not seem to know is that science has many fundamentals down. New discoveries will not change what we know, they will enhance and add to what we know. And sure, we do not know what dark matter is, or even what is in a black hole for that matter, there is plenty of work to be done, don't get me wrong, but that does not mean God is hiding in one of those gaps.

And that's what I meant when he would show some forms of going into a very good subgroup of thought or reply to that.

( warning: my wording will be subjected to understandible reflection of 'what they Hell?!')

[barbco196]

Psyche, have you ever asked yourself why you feel the need to discuss the subject of God? Would it bother you to find out God does exist? Would that somehow make you feel inferior? I look at all the time and energy people spend debating God's existence and how those brilliant minds could be tackling things that really matter. How much time do you think people like Mr.Dawkins have spent researching The Bible and God, and for what? What does he gain at the end of the day besides an ego boost?

I have said before why I won't engage in a debate: I don't feel the need to convince anyone God exists and how I came to that conclusion. This isn't a debate forum. I come here to learn and engage in discussions. I've been in a few threads where I actually have anxiety, waiting to read a response, or how I should reply. I think that's foolish.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Psyche, have you ever asked yourself why you feel the need to discuss the subject of God? Would it bother you to find out God does exist? Would that somehow make you feel inferior? I look at all the time and energy people spend debating God's existence and how those brilliant minds could be tackling things that really matter. How much time do you think people like Mr.Dawkins have spent researching The Bible and God, and for what? What does he gain at the end of the day besides an ego boost?

Besides the obvious, fame and fortune? Do you spend 100% of your time doing things that 'really matter'? You don't watch tv or do anything purely for entertainment? This isn't an inconsequential belief, it drives a lot of actions by theists; lots of them good, some very bad. What exactly is the criteria for something to 'really matter'?

This isn't a debate forum.

Actually I think it kinda is, informally; ergo the name, 'Spirituality vs Skepticism'. Furthermore, from the main page from this forum:

The Spirituality vs Skepticism board is primarily aimed at discussing the very nature of spirituality themed topics and as such skeptic vs believer style debates are to be expected, for general discussion on topics pertaining to religion and spirituality please visit the Spirituality, Religion and Beliefs board.

[barbco196]

Besides the obvious, fame and fortune? Do you spend 100% of your time doing things that 'really matter'? You don't watch tv or do anything purely for entertainment? This isn't an inconsequential belief, it drives a lot of actions by theists; lots of them good, some very bad. What exactly is the criteria for something to 'really matter'?

Actually I think it kinda is, informally; ergo the name, 'Spirituality vs Skepticism'. Furthermore, from the main page from this forum:

The Spirituality vs Skepticism board is primarily aimed at discussing the very nature of spirituality themed topics and as such skeptic vs believer style debates are to be expected, for general discussion on topics pertaining to religion and spirituality please visit the Spirituality, Religion and Beliefs board.

I do spend time doing things I enjoy. I can't think of a less beneficial way to spend my time than proving someone wrong. Which seems to be the MO of people like Dawkins. Instead, I want to find out what can bring us together. What can we agree on, not what can separate us. What benefit does a debate have? When Nye and Ham had their moment, do you think there was a single person that witnessed the debate that walked away believing something different than they did prior? Of course not.

When I said this isn't a debate forum, it was in regards to the entire forum, not this particular topic.

[psyche101]

Have to look at this one first, Ms Mustards reply deserves some time I do not have this morning.

Psyche, have you ever asked yourself why you feel the need to discuss the subject of God?

Not really, as I have mentioned before it is in my nature to be methodical. I can see the bad relgion does and have the blinders lifted from my eyes. Becoming Atheist was an epiphany, that realisation brought me to a point where real truths matter to me. If I see a ET story, Cryptid or other I respond in the very same manner. Cryptozoology was what originally brought me to the forum.

Would it bother you to find out God does exist?

Barb, honestly, I would be over the moon. To know there is an entire new field to understand, and the hope I would see long lost loved ones again is a powerful aphrodisiac, but not enough to seduce me from the real knowledge and evidence.

Would that somehow make you feel inferior?

Not at all. I am inferior to the people I quote. As I mentioned before, my detractors are entirely correct when they state "this is not my work, I did not come up with anything" and that is entirely correct. All I can hope to do is understand it in it's entirety. A "God" would only expand that field for me.

I look at all the time and energy people spend debating God's existence and how those brilliant minds could be tackling things that really matter.

Truth does matter Barb, frankly, that is my motivation. It is why I can answer to certain people with pure data. Religion is an assault on logic, knowledge and common sense. I see Religion as the aggressor here. A fair system would admit when evidence shows when it is wrong. Religion will never do that, and religious people say that themselves. While science does leave a door open for evidence of the supernatural, religion does not return that courtesy to science. Religion allows for science when it can fit within the confines of religious doctrine.

How much time do you think people like Mr.Dawkins have spent researching The Bible and God, and for what? What does he gain at the end of the day besides an ego boost?

Not a great deal on the personal aspects of the Bible itself, but many here who subscribe to religious outlooks or spirituality say the very same. I do not really care who begat who, enough of the factual claims have been debunked to prove the Bible is flawed and heavily. A personal outlook is a good way to begin to break away form the tyranny of organised religion. I find the question Jeanne asked on the Historicity quite interesting, but overall, the bigger picture I find is what really matters in the real world.

I mentioned to another poster, science took pictures of Pluto, cured Polio, built supercomputers that can calculate well beyond our abilities. Religion has given us conflict, false superiority complexes, has been the direct cause of death, allowed children to die for "the will of god" as well as the average everyday nuisances like tearing up families over faith clashes. Science flies us to the moon, religion flies us into buildings. Why does that not deserve more limelight than religion?

Have you seen the insults and tirades Mr Dawkins has to wade through as well as any accolades? I can't see ego being the goal.

I have said before why I won't engage in a debate: I don't feel the need to convince anyone God exists and how I came to that conclusion. This isn't a debate forum. I come here to learn and engage in discussions. I've been in a few threads where I actually have anxiety, waiting to read a response, or how I should reply. I think that's foolish.

Yes, you have, but you also make claims that you should be prepared to support if you make them, that is only fair in a discussion forum, as it is supposed to be two way as far as I know. Spirituality, Religion and Beliefs is for fawning over belief systems, and I do not hassle the people there with their belief, I have read some posts form posters like Mark Dhole and crikey Moses. I could tear them to pieces, but that is not what that section exists for. It exists to allow people to express their religiosity in peace, and I respect that space. In this space, discussion of skepticism is warranted as that is reflected in the title. If a religious claim is made, this is the section to ask about that, and I do, and I think politely, but remain in the dark as to how you resolve the situation as you claim to. You know I think a lot of you, and would love for you to help me see your point of view, because as far as I can see, your proposals are unworkable for the reasons I have detailed. I think if you make such a claim in this section, we deserve more than the claim, we deserve to know why it is considered valid. Like saying science and religion can walk hand in hand. Pointing out the minority that adopt that conundrum in no way explains or supports the notion. Written out, they two conclusions heavily conflict.

As I say, I am methodical, I am driven to seek out knowledge. As such, a stonewall like that is terribly frustrating.

[psyche101]

What this says is that modern values and moralities are inherent;y BETTER than ancient ones. They are not. ALL ethics and moralities are constructed to serve social purpose. As societies change,in structure, the ethics and moralities needed also change.

Of course values are far better today, what a downright ridiculous and bigoted thing to say, you feel people deserved to be slaves, or persecuted because "times demanded it"? Nonsense. Realisation of barbaric ideals were recognised and abolished by enlightened people. Cannibalism was also allowed by relgion as the Ancient Aztecs felt that it took them to the afterlife, which meant many were blindly lead to their deaths over a religious belief.

In the past gay people presented a danger to the survival of a community or society because population growth was so small and sometimes negative that whole nations sometimes hang in the balanc eof survival and every [erspn had to reproduce as many times as they physically could.

What absolute bigoted nonsense. Do you think the gay community just did not exist? They existed and created no danger to survival at all. The proof is here and now. What a ridiculous fallacy!! Gay people are a threat to society now!! That is the very ignorance we had to overcome, that religion both created and proliferated! What you have expressed here is one of the inherent evils relgion has forced upon mankind and how the ignorance associated with it validated those heinous acts.

Survival (and a degree of prosperity) come first THEN other rights and privileges can be extended as a society can afford them.

No - that is Darwinism at it's fundamental core, and that is the sort of thinking that led to Eugenics. Darwinism shows us how brutal nature is with selection. That is how nature did it, we break those rules and modify them to offer us a better existence. That is how and why we have societies, science and laws.

Slavery was ended as economics meant it was not profitable (and has now grown bigger than ever because it has become profitable again)

Again, wrong, although economics were bettered by the Industrial Revolution, Lincoln always had a personal dislike of slavery, but he was able to tolerate it in the states in which it was well established - Only if it could preserve the Union, and did not spread to other states in future. When introduced in the South, Lincoln decided that they’d had their chance and all bets were off and he drew up the Emancipation Proclamation. In Britain, they had not choice as revolts made slavery unworkable. In Britain, the French Revolution brought ideas of liberty and equality, which inspired those seeking an end to slavery - for example, Toussaint L'Ouverture led a successful slave revolt in Haiti. Major slave revolts followed in Barbados in 1816, then in Demerara 1822 and Jamaica between 1831-1832, they reduced profitability and gave a strong indication that, regardless of political opinion, the enslaved people were not going to tolerate such treatment.

Economics crumbled because people didn't want to be treated badly anymore.

The rights and equality of women is entirely dependent on the change in their socio economic value from mothers to wage earners and consumers. As health longevity has improved with modern science and technology, women have had less value as mothers and more value as workers.

And how do the many wives and daughters slaughtered barbarically with things like stoning for so much as speaking to a non-family male? What do you think they might think of equality? How did religion help them?

Slavery i not always wrong. The laws against homosexuality were not always wrong, immoral or unethical

What is wrong is you here on both counts. Religion has not given you morals has it now.

Slavery has alway been wrong, persecution of the Gay community, or any minority is wrong That is the false superiority complex relgion has given you coming out.

How about we ask all the posters reading this hey? Who thinks Slavery and killing Gay people, or any minority group is acceptable at any time?

Women being dependent on their husbands was not, and is not, inherently wrong just a product of a certain stage of human economic development. I wil be very interested to see how women are regarded as fertility levels fall so low that our populaitons go into rapid decline. A nation like japan could have its population halved in one full generation given In such a scenario women might again be compelled or encouraged to have more children and indeed in austrlalia this is already govt policy,. with huge amounts of money and benefits paid out to mothers.

That is an individual's choice based on their lifestyle that I never touched upon. What is the relevance?

I have to say though, that thinking fertility levels gauges the value of a person is plain ridiculous and something to be ashamed of.

Never heard of the good arguments for a small Australia policy? Some very good positive points there.

[psyche101]

I do spend time doing things I enjoy. I can't think of a less beneficial way to spend my time than proving someone wrong. Which seems to be the MO of people like Dawkins. Instead, I want to find out what can bring us together. What can we agree on, not what can separate us. What benefit does a debate have? When Nye and Ham had their moment, do you think there was a single person that witnessed the debate that walked away believing something different than they did prior? Of course not.

When I said this isn't a debate forum, it was in regards to the entire forum, not this particular topic.

I do not understand, religion does separate humanity, it gives false superiority complexes and divides us into groups that are faithful to a certain doctrine. Science is what brings mankind together with discoveries that benefit us all from medicines to sanitation to simple pleasures. Religion brings groups of people together and gives them something to argue about. Look at Fundamental Islam, like Wahhabism and Shariah. Look at the Catholics covering up Pedophiles. Look at the JW's letting children die for God.

Science creates opposition to religion, and religion is a sore loser.

[Hawken]

How many here come from a religious family and what do your parents/grandparents think of your change?

Do they even know at all?

[Mr Walker]

Of course values are far better today, what a downright ridiculous and bigoted thing to say, you feel people deserved to be slaves, or persecuted because "times demanded it"? Nonsense. Realisation of barbaric ideals were recognised and abolished by enlightened people. Cannibalism was also allowed by relgion as the Ancient Aztecs felt that it took them to the afterlife, which meant many were blindly lead to their deaths over a religious belief.

What absolute bigoted nonsense. Do you think the gay community just did not exist? They existed and created no danger to survival at all. The proof is here and now. What a ridiculous fallacy!! Gay people are a threat to society now!! That is the very ignorance we had to overcome, that religion both created and proliferated! What you have expressed here is one of the inherent evils relgion has forced upon mankind and how the ignorance associated with it validated those heinous acts.

No - that is Darwinism at it's fundamental core, and that is the sort of thinking that led to Eugenics. Darwinism shows us how brutal nature is with selection. That is how nature did it, we break those rules and modify them to offer us a better existence. That is how and why we have societies, science and laws.

Again, wrong, although economics were bettered by the Industrial Revolution, Lincoln always had a personal dislike of slavery, but he was able to tolerate it in the states in which it was well established - Only if it could preserve the Union, and did not spread to other states in future. When introduced in the South, Lincoln decided that they’d had their chance and all bets were off and he drew up the Emancipation Proclamation. In Britain, they had not choice as revolts made slavery unworkable. In Britain, the French Revolution brought ideas of liberty and equality, which inspired those seeking an end to slavery - for example, Toussaint L'Ouverture led a successful slave revolt in Haiti. Major slave revolts followed in Barbados in 1816, then in Demerara 1822 and Jamaica between 1831-1832, they reduced profitability and gave a strong indication that, regardless of political opinion, the enslaved people were not going to tolerate such treatment.

Economics crumbled because people didn't want to be treated badly anymore.

And how do the many wives and daughters slaughtered barbarically with things like stoning for so much as speaking to a non-family male? What do you think they might think of equality? How did religion help them?

What is wrong is you here on both counts. Religion has not given you morals has it now.

Slavery has alway been wrong, persecution of the Gay community, or any minority is wrong That is the false superiority complex relgion has given you coming out.

How about we ask all the posters reading this hey? Who thinks Slavery and killing Gay people, or any minority group is acceptable at any time?

That is an individual's choice based on their lifestyle that I never touched upon. What is the relevance?

I have to say though, that thinking fertility levels gauges the value of a person is plain ridiculous and something to be ashamed of.

Never heard of the good arguments for a small Australia policy? Some very good positive points there.

It is a pity you don't understand history, economics or reality. Given your desire to be realistic, factual, and logical regarding religion, it is hard to see why you are so illogical about this There ARE no absolute human moralities or ethics. We build or construct every belief/morality or ethical standard to fit our current circumstances. Basically it is about human survival and maintaining a safe strong society to preserve the lives of all people.

. Slavery is acceptable when it is the economic force allowing for the survival of many, and where the alternative is simply killing off non economically supportable people or having the entire society starve . Many societies had to let children and the elderly die in times of famine, etc to preserve the breeding population.

Moralities are not philosophically right or wrong, they are practical- based responses to reality. Are your ethics and moralities better than a plains indian from the early 1800s or someone from a different culture? Is it immoral to eat a dog or kill a whale just because our culture now frowns on these things? ?

To take an example, eating meat is presently generally acceptable but quite likely, in the future it will be considered barbaric and evil.

Does that make YOU an evil person for eating meat today?

Another example. In the future it is possible no human will be allowed to own or control another animal, as animal rights evolve and become enshrined in law. Does that make you an evil person today because otu have a pet? if you have an abortion today, and in 20 years time this again becomes immoral and unethical behaviour and illegal, according to your society, are you NOW ( or then) an evil person.

No of course not. We cant judge others from the past, or other cultures, by our own contemporary standards without running the risk of great hypocrisy, and a lack of logic. WHY are my morals better than yours why are westerners moralities better than easterners etc.

And no. gays were only in part discriminated against because the y were different from others. Historically it is due to demographics Societies simply could not afford to have people not marrying and reproducing (and yes there were illogical excetions such as some priest hoods although by the time christianity evolved the worst danger of humanity dying out was over )

Look at women ofn the same era. They were expected (compelled) to marry young, have 14 or more children and statistically they were likely to die in childbirth or soon after. About 70% of all children born, died before reaching reproductive age, again mostly when very young. Refusing to get married and to produce a lot of kids DID put your family, your clan /tribe and your society at a very real risk, and THAT'S the reason so many societies frowned on gay men. It was different if you got married and had kids despite being gay, and same sex sex was common among many men especially in the military. BUT, these men were ALSO married and producing kids. Christianity and judaism did for homosexaulity as they did with many civil based laws; tied them to religious beliefs to make them stronger and more internalised.

Nothing wrong with eugenics. We use it all the time (albeit still in a somewhat primitive form) to help women conceive, to eliminate genetic flaws in the unborn /not yet conceived Only when the purpose of eugenics is racially based or other wise evil is it bad. Actually using modern science to eliminate genetic diseases, pain and suffering from humans is a noble aim. Why should any chid be born blind with cerebral palsy or spina bifida, if it an be avoided? Why should any one die prematurely from a genetic defect caused by the combined genes of their parents, if this can be prevented?

It is not religion which sets the value of people, including women. it is their socio economic value as determined by their place and role in a society In a modern western society where a woman is a valuable money earner, she is less likely to be stoned for defiling the family's honour than in a poor country where she has no "value" .

Fertility has ALWAYS been one way humans judge another's value (as a form of economic value) and it still is, even in the west. But with overpopulation that value declined. in a time of under population its value will rise again and women will be paid for their fertility as the y are today in australia (a woman earns tens of thousands of dollars in Australia simply by having a baby and caring for it each year. If you have 4 or more children you can earn more than a skilled worker, from govt money and subsidies. ) Fair /unfair? good/bad? it is just human nature to judge people by their value.

Your historical interpretation is incorrect. American slavery was ended because it was no longer economic Yes it took a war to do so but in the north, modern industrialism had made slavery redundant, allowing the emancipation movement to grow. in the south slavery was becoming less significant and most new slaves were house slaves not field workers, as machinery replaced human labour.

But without industrialisation and hence the change in value of slaves in the north, the civil war would never have occurred. There are more humans kept as slaves ( Ie lacking in the basic human freedoms) now, than ever in human history, and the reason for this is because slavery in many parts of the world has again become profitable. Modern salves tend to be children and women.

http://www.freetheslaves.net/about-slavery/slavery-today/

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/there-are-more-slaves-today-any-time-human-history

Edited May 12, 2016 by Mr Walker

[barbco196]

I do not understand, religion does separate humanity, it gives false superiority complexes and divides us into groups that are faithful to a certain doctrine. Science is what brings mankind together with discoveries that benefit us all from medicines to sanitation to simple pleasures. Religion brings groups of people together and gives them something to argue about. Look at Fundamental Islam, like Wahhabism and Shariah. Look at the Catholics covering up Pedophiles. Look at the JW's letting children die for God.

Science creates opposition to religion, and religion is a sore loser.

Well see, here's where we need clarification. You have seen the dark and ugly side to religion. I, on the other hand, have not. I had blinders on for the first 38 years of my life. I knew NOTHING of religion or God. Do you think maybe that's why you dislike the idea of God? I don't have the same paradigm of thought as you or many of the people that post on here. My God is a loving, patient, and merciful God. I dont know this God you keep making reference to. I don't believe in seperation. Not once did Jesus instruct his disciples to go amongst the people and create a thing called Christianity. I don't believe we should have separate denominations. These are all things MAN has created, not God or Jesus.

Edited May 12, 2016 by barbco196

[+Nuclear Wessel]

My God is a loving, patient, and merciful God.

Your God is a loving, patient, and mericful God... interesting.

Is this the same God that allows for parasites to eat outwards from behind the eyes of children, or allowing such atrocities like mass shootings/warfare to happen? To allow things like cancer to exist? To allow a person to rape a toddler? I could go on... but if your God is "loving, patient, and merciful"... I'd like to know where he is in such situations.