Religion Irreligion - the world's fastest growing 'religion'

[CM86]

 

[Lester Burnham]

have just started reading a book "the lucifer principle" by howard bloom. my early broad overview of its premise- we as a society evolve in a pattern not dis similar to every other species group on the planet, and cruelty and "evil" (perceived morality) are a massive part of it. humanities history is littered with barbarism (our definition of it) and continues to be, bloom argues this is a natural and needed process for our evolution as a society.

highly recommended read if you are interested in societal evolution, morality and the human condition.

I might try to get hold of a copy. I would be interested in how he sees morality evolving as society changes. Things that can appear normal in one society - infanticide, slavery, pederasty, child marriage, witch trials, torture etc. are viewed as abhorrent in others. But it could be argued that the most dramatic changes in human society have occurred in the last 40 years. What effect is that having on our morality?

A couple of books I would recommend -

The Moral Animal, by Robert Wright. A really good explanation of evolutionary psychology, cleverly inter-laid with examples from the life and times of Charles Darwin.

Lila. An Inquiry into Morals, by Robert Pirsig. The bloke goes into first principles with the pre-Socratic's ideas of value and quality, is heavily influenced by William James, then comes up with his own theory that 'morality' is the building block of the universe based on an alternate metaphysics. The sort of book you have to read a few times and still end up with a headache.

 

[M Malice]

yep, this so called creator didn't do too good a job, although most believers believe we were created in his image.

mother nature is the great equalizer. you can't get away from it.

 

[Walt Kowalski]

Can't you see how that is a bit of a problem though? Having neutrality as the starting point and asking for evidence of either existence or non-existence? I mean, the greatest evidence for the non-existence of something is... lack of evidence.

Abstract from the question of 'is there a God?' to more specific Gods. Does Zeus exist? If you said no, why did you say no? What evidence could you have of his non-existence? Do unicorns exist? Again, ask the same question as to why you wouldn't need contrary and conclusive evidence to answer that question.

Answering any question as to the existence of anything can't require conclusive evidence of its absence. Usually when this sort of question arrives you start on the default of non-existence. Then evidence is presented and depending on how compelling it is, your answer may range from 'unlikely that it exists' to 'it's highly probably that it exists.' A rock, for example would be an atheist. It doesn't think that there is a divine creator. It doesn't think at all. But that rock isn't claiming to have conclusive evidence of some claim. This is the nature of questions of existence and why a neutral view cannot be a logical starting point. Evidence only goes one way, so you would never be able to claim that something is absent.

In my view, people who say that agnosticism is the only logical choice are doing one of two things:

1 Claiming that there is clearly some, although disputable, evidence for the existence of a creator,

or

2 Using absolute knowledge as the standard to be able to make any sort of positive or negative claim, when this would rarely if ever happen otherwise. I mean what can we really claim to know anyway? We might just be tripping balls in an institution or we might just be some lines of code in some very elaborate game akin to the Sims.

I think most 'agnostics' are in the second camp, although some are genuinely in the first. I know that when I was younger and just starting to realise that I didn't believe in any sort of creator I started there. Agnosticism felt comfortable. It was like I wasn't bound to believing all the silly things but at the same time, saying that the principles that so many people base their lives by are... well horse s**t, felt disrespectful. But then I realised that I was already an atheist when it came to the Roman Gods, the Greek Gods, Vishnu, the Jewish and Muslim versions of God. Why was I carving out some arbitrary exemption for a broader idea of any nondescript divine being?

TBH for me, I grew up in religion and it wasn't all bad. I loved the community I was in and it was overall a good thing for me. I just grew out of the belief in God. You make good points. I definitely err on the side that God probably doesn't exist, and if he does I don't think he's much like what's portrayed in the bible or koran. I'd like to believe a God exists, but I have no idea if one does or doesn't.

 

[Shane Hird]

The interesting question is are we really more civilised than the gorillas? the pain we are inflicting on our fellow humans, other creatures and above all on this planet is proof enough that at the very least its debatable

Howard Bloom points out many times in his book how it's been studied that gorillas and other apes will instinctively act in violent ways against their own kind if needed.

Social pecking orders are a big part of ape life too and being cruel and unkind to others below their status level is part of every day life.

Morals are an invented thing by humans that suggest some rules to go by so we get along in big groups without killing each other.

 

[Lethality]

The sharp jump from 2005 onwards is probably the rise of New Atheism and internet becoming mainstream.

 

[Total Power]

Howard Bloom points out many times in his book how it's been studied that gorillas and other apes will instinctively act in violent ways against their own kind if needed.

Social pecking orders are a big part of ape life too and being cruel and unkind to others below their status level is part of every day life.

Morals are an invented thing by humans that suggest some rules to go by so we get along in big groups without killing each other.

I totally agree but the last part is vital, it definitely has an evolutionary advantage.

 

[Crankyhawk]

They had someone from the ABS promoting the census religion question on ABC radio yesterday. She then was talking about the "no religion " box as opposed to atheism. And then stated that anyone who put Jedi was a donkey vote.

Surely putting Jedi is as valid as ticking some other "acceptable" box, particularly if you don't want a given religion to claim your support, by putting Jedi you can diminish the standing of the other religion.

 

[Procrastinator35]

They had someone from the ABS promoting the census religion question on ABC radio yesterday. She then was talking about the "no religion " box as opposed to atheism. And then stated that anyone who put Jedi was a donkey vote.

Surely putting Jedi is as valid as ticking some other "acceptable" box, particularly if you don't want a given religion to claim your support, by putting Jedi you can diminish the standing of the other religion.

Only in that person's own warped imagination.

 

[Procrastinator35]

The sharp jump from 2005 onwards is probably the rise of New Atheism and internet becoming mainstream.

Only 2 choices?

What % of the 'Unaffiliated' believe or adhere to other alternate religions?

Way too generalized & narrow in scope.

 

[Lethality]

Only 2 choices?

What % of the 'Unaffiliated' believe or adhere to other alternate religions?

Way too generalized & narrow in scope.

Unaffiliated means unaffiliated, no religion.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Unaffiliated means unaffiliated, no religion.

Then the poll doesn't make sense.

 

[Lethality]

Then the poll doesn't make sense.

Let me try and summarise it then: Christianity is at record lows, non-religion at record highs.

 

[M Malice]

we only need one question. do you believe in a creator? A) yes B) no.

 

[Lester Burnham]

we only need one question. do you believe in a creator? A) yes B) no.

I reject that. There is a vast range of potentially unknowable possibilities between a) and b).

 

[Total Power]

we only need one question. do you believe in a creator? A) yes B) no.

I think its not quite simple as that, I like Dawkins think the god of Abrahamic religion is an absolutely ridiculous god. From genocidal to homophobic to sexual slavery he had it all. I wouldnt mind spinozas god, cause that seems more practical. God if he exists is unknowable, people who claim to know god from bible or the quran are so full of it and the texts are proof enough. Hence i dont concern myself in trying to know something which might exist outside of space time, cause we will never know anything outside our human senses anyway

 

[Procrastinator35]

Let me try and summarize it then: Christianity is at record lows, non-religion at record highs.

Yes, but....Where are all the other religions?

 

[Procrastinator35]

I reject that. There is a vast range of potentially unknowable possibilities between a) and b).

jason isn't exactly renowned for his religious/theological dexterity.

 

[M Malice]

I reject that. There is a vast range of potentially unknowable possibilities between a) and b).

the basic question i was trying to get at is- are we humans the result of the natural world or was there a higher force that created us human beings? whether that be an abrahamic deity or any other currently unknowable method is open to a persons interpretation.

jason isn't exactly renowned for his religious/theological dexterity.

i have explained and been very open re my history on the creator concept before on this and other threads i am surprised you see me as being so narrow minded if you have read those posts. i can not attest with any degree of certainty to the existence or otherwise of a creator/god/higher power as i have not seen external evidence or had personal experience of such.

 

[M Malice]

"man will cling to religions fantasy of control as long as science fails to give him actual power over his destiny." Sigmund Freud.

 

[Pie eyed]

They had someone from the ABS promoting the census religion question on ABC radio yesterday. She then was talking about the "no religion " box as opposed to atheism. And then stated that anyone who put Jedi was a donkey vote.

Surely putting Jedi is as valid as ticking some other "acceptable" box, particularly if you don't want a given religion to claim your support, by putting Jedi you can diminish the standing of the other religion.

Surely by selecting any religion, mainstream or fringe, you go in the "religious" box.
That's the only figure the religious will ever bandy about.

Polling peoples religious affiliations is notoriously inaccurate, you only have to quickly look at the poll in this thread.
Many identify with a specific religion "traditionally" with absolutely no real commitment, and others, such as the Jedi, do so as a pisstake, ironically.
The poll in this forum is bound to be skewed by the general make-up of the posters and even the title.

 

[Lethality]

For the first time ever, the largest religious group of registered voters in a US election year are the non-religious.

People who self-identify as non-religious are now the largest bloc of registered voters in America for the first time in a presidential election year, according to data from the Pew Research Center.

Since 2008, the group who identify as having "no religion" has gone from 14 to 21 percent, putting it just past Catholics and white evangelicals, which both at 20 percent.

Of the non-religious, about 54 percent are Democrats or lean Democratic, compared to only 23 percent who lean Republican.


Read more at http://www.relevantmagazine.com/sli...ggest-voting-bloc-america#ggkDoHmbm74ALciO.99

 

[Total Power]

There's hope for mankind! hope the trend continues

 

[M Malice]

There's hope for mankind! hope the trend continues

this quote seems to be playing out on BF/SRP and on a global scale.

"The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off!"

 

[M Malice]

Turkey, (the country that is) isn't it strange to see religious ideologies at the heart of another global hot spot.