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

[Total Power]

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

Wherever you see religious ideologies at the core, there are problems. Turkey became secular on the back of separation between the church and the state a major exception amongst most Muslim countries. I love Turkey, i go to Turkey every year, most turkish people i know couldnt give a stuff about religion, but i fear the government is leading turkey in the the wrong direction, a civil war in turkey will be devastating for EU and the rest of the world. * religion

 

[Procrastinator35]

100 infidels.....Well I never.

 

[Lethality]

#proudtohaveleftislam (in Arabic) is trending. Complete with the usual death threats, Jewish conspiracy theories, and other hateful responses.

 

[T2B_]

Interesting discussion in this thread, not that I've read the whole thing.

I was raised in a Christian family with the whole church going thing and was a Bible reader myself for a time in my younger years. Somewhere along the line though, I rejected the entire idea of organised religion and went about trying to find myself and what I'd ultimately believe in.

Fast forward today I'd identify as a spiritual optimistic nihilist. Sounds possibly like a contradiction or a bit odd, but I don't care. I have some personal belief in the ability to go Out Of Body and potential for ghosts to exist but when you think of the universe being basically made up of energy and vibrations etc I don't find some of that stuff even scientifically too far fetched. Doesn't mean there's any great specific meaning to life though. I've been far happier since coming to that sort of view, that's just me though.

 

[Total Power]

Interesting discussion in this thread, not that I've read the whole thing.

I was raised in a Christian family with the whole church going thing and was a Bible reader myself for a time in my younger years. Somewhere along the line though, I rejected the entire idea of organised religion and went about trying to find myself and what I'd ultimately believe in.

Fast forward today I'd identify as a spiritual optimistic nihilist. Sounds possibly like a contradiction or a bit odd, but I don't care. I have some personal belief in the ability to go Out Of Body and potential for ghosts to exist but when you think of the universe being basically made up of energy and vibrations etc I don't find some of that stuff even scientifically too far fetched. Doesn't mean there's any great specific meaning to life though. I've been far happier since coming to that sort of view, that's just me though.

This is the most rational position to take, both atheism and so called "know it all" types are other sides of the same coin (both extreme). You cannot know what has happened and people claiming to have all the answers and pure fraud/liars. I still believe Einstein's pantheism is a very rational position indeed.

 

[HARKER]

Interesting discussion in this thread, not that I've read the whole thing.
I was raised in a Christian family with the whole church going thing and was a Bible reader myself for a time in my younger years. Somewhere along the line though, I rejected the entire idea of organised religion and went about trying to find myself and what I'd ultimately believe in.
Fast forward today I'd identify as a spiritual optimistic nihilist. Sounds possibly like a contradiction or a bit odd, but I don't care. I have some personal belief in the ability to go Out Of Body and potential for ghosts to exist but when you think of the universe being basically made up of energy and vibrations etc I don't find some of that stuff even scientifically too far fetched. Doesn't mean there's any great specific meaning to life though. I've been far happier since coming to that sort of view, that's just me though.

I love it.

I think what you may be saying is that you're not prepared to swallow what others have told you you should, but are open to all the possibilities that may not have presented, as yet.

Sounds somewhat rational to me.

 

[Chief]

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 read about a practical example of change in an ape community. Alpha males were wiped out by disease, after this any new males trying to reinstate the hierarchy of alpha males were resisted and I think excluded? It was an interesting read.

We can get by in myriad ways. Nothing special about rules in a book of fairy tales.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The thing I'm wondering is this - most humans have this overwhelming social need to 'belong' to a group greater than themselves. Even beyond their immediate family and circle of relatives. Friends, sporting clubs, community interest groups, political parties, etc.

As an intelligent species we categorise and compartmentalise almost every bloody thing we lay a hand or a thought to. If we did away with gods entirely as a source of conflict between us, would our categorical need just mean a new source would arise as a brother from another 'other'?

Not to defend religion as a 'necessary', but would nationalism rise further in its place? Would sporting parochialism rise?

 

[Mofra]

Not to defend religion as a 'necessary', but would nationalism rise further in its place? Would sporting parochialism rise?

Amartya Sen has studied and theorized on (amongst many other things) how human beings define their own sense of 'belonging' by an internal hierarchy of self-identification.

Some people may identify themselves as (in a primitive example) a Queenslander first, then Australian, then a plumber, then a Broncos fan, then a member of the local bowls club, then a Holden owner, etc etc
For others they might define themselves first as a father, then a Christian, then a runner, etc

Religion's place as a prime category of self-identification has been diminishing slowly over a number of years in secular society however remains a more important hierarchical identifier in other societies, most notably those that have a strong sense of national religion or lower standards of education.

Long story short - as religious identification reduces, another form of social identification takes its place.

 

[Sinjin Smith]

The thing I'm wondering is this - most humans have this overwhelming social need to 'belong' to a group greater than themselves. Even beyond their immediate family and circle of relatives. Friends, sporting clubs, community interest groups, political parties, etc.

As an intelligent species we categorise and compartmentalise almost every bloody thing we lay a hand or a thought to. If we did away with gods entirely as a source of conflict between us, would our categorical need just mean a new source would arise as a brother from another 'other'?

Not to defend religion as a 'necessary', but would nationalism rise further in its place? Would sporting parochialism rise?

What a great post!! And questions I have no idea on the answer for. The one thing I question is plenty want to do away with religion altogether because of the one percenters who use it as a vehicle for power and intimidation. Remember this is what we are told regarding Islam, it's only a small non reflective percentage who are terrorist extremists.

I then ask what would the impact be if the 99% had their right to practice ( any religion) taken away?? These are the people that use their respective holy books and religious guidelines and beliefs as a source of comfort and direction. How on earth could this be viewed as a constructive idea?

 

[Boston tiger]

The thing I'm wondering is this - most humans have this overwhelming social need to 'belong' to a group greater than themselves. Even beyond their immediate family and circle of relatives. Friends, sporting clubs, community interest groups, political parties, etc.

As an intelligent species we categorise and compartmentalise almost every bloody thing we lay a hand or a thought to. If we did away with gods entirely as a source of conflict between us, would our categorical need just mean a new source would arise as a brother from another 'other'?

Not to defend religion as a 'necessary', but would nationalism rise further in its place? Would sporting parochialism rise?

They rekon the only way we will all band together is if aliens are discovered on other planets. Then it will be us(earth) v Martians etc

 

[Procrastinator35]

They rekon the only way we will all band together is if aliens are discovered on other planets. Then it will be us(earth) v Martians etc

Hard one to pick that.....Nil all draw.

 

[Boston tiger]

Hard one to pick that.....Nil all draw.

Even harder to find a neutral umpire

 

[Procrastinator35]

Even harder to find a neutral umpire

Helios.... he sees everything.

Or We could always ask Stevic...#freekickhumans

 

[Chief]

Amartya Sen has studied and theorized on (amongst many other things) how human beings define their own sense of 'belonging' by an internal hierarchy of self-identification.

Some people may identify themselves as (in a primitive example) a Queenslander first, then Australian, then a plumber, then a Broncos fan, then a member of the local bowls club, then a Holden owner, etc etc
For others they might define themselves first as a father, then a Christian, then a runner, etc

Religion's place as a prime category of self-identification has been diminishing slowly over a number of years in secular society however remains a more important hierarchical identifier in other societies, most notably those that have a strong sense of national religion or lower standards of education.

Long story short - as religious identification reduces, another form of social identification takes its place.

That old furphy that religion is the prerequisite for survival through social cohesion.

It's easier to sell something that is not falsifiable to ignorant people. The more education and critical thinking skills, the less it tends to take hold.

Now I must finish fixing Chief's computer.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

That old furphy that religion is the prerequisite for survival through social cohesion.

It's not a prerequisite though - it's a symptom of Man's need for social inclusion. Of course its all too often then corrupted by Man's other need - to dominate.

That's how I read into it anyway.

 

[Lethality]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...n/news-story/adc78606b40e02dc285b28131c067368

Opinion: Bookies bet we’re losing our religion

Brian Morris, The Courier-Mail
19 minutes ago
Subscriber only

WHEN a top bookmaker makes a groundbreaking move to lay odds on the upcoming census you know something is about to happen – particularly when those odds centre on the seemingly innocuous question of religious affiliation.

A seismic shift will certainly occur on August 9 when the question on religion is finally brought into line with other Western countries.

The “No Religion” box has moved to become the first option to the question “What is the person’s religion?”, up from last place in each previous census.

Odds are being given by the betting agency that “No Religion” will now have the highest score and dethrone the Catholics as traditional winners.

They topped the pool in the 2011 Census with 25.3 per cent. Anglicans followed with 17.1 per cent, the Uniting Church 5 per cent, Eastern Orthodox 2.6 per cent and Islam at just 2.2 per cent. Consistently, despite being buried at the end, “No Religion” still ran second with 22.3 per cent.

But in August this figure is predicted to rise to more that 40 per cent due to the change by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

The trend by progressive nations to become more “secular” has advanced more rapidly over recent decades. Australia is fully expected to now record similar figures to these countries. England is now 48 per cent religion-neutral; Scotland stands at 52 per cent, and New Zealand is 42 per cent non-religious.

This question on religion is not compulsory but there is a campaign to encourage people to answer honestly so the ABS has a clearer understanding of how our nation stands – and the broad range of religions and denominations that we have in our multicultural society.

It is well known that many mark the religious affiliation question purely as a reflex action, a force of habit. The great majority of the population are brought up in households where there is a traditional or family religion. But, later in life, through a variety of reasons and circumstance, they drift away from those traditions and practice no religion at all.

 

[Total Power]

Turning our backs from the spaghetti monster, how dare we... p35 gonna blow his lid again

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Do people still draw boxes and put 'Jedi' as an extra option on censuses? I remember when that was a thing - Star Wars geeks were thinking that if enough did it, 'Jedi' would have to be considered an actual religion.

I don't think it worked.

 

[Mofra]

Do people still draw boxes and put 'Jedi' as an extra option on censuses? I remember when that was a thing - Star Wars geeks were thinking that if enough did it, 'Jedi' would have to be considered an actual religion.

I don't think it worked.

Who would have thought, Star Wars nerds thinking they could change a question on religion by - Force

 

[fleabitten]

Do people still draw boxes and put 'Jedi' as an extra option on censuses? I remember when that was a thing - Star Wars geeks were thinking that if enough did it, 'Jedi' would have to be considered an actual religion.

I don't think it worked.

There's a campaign underway to discourage people from doing that.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Who would have thought, Star Wars nerds thinking they could change a question on religion by - Force

 

[fleabitten]

If a person wanted to raise their child in the place with the least religious interference, what country should they emigrate to? Czech Republic?

 

[Procrastinator35]

If a person wanted to raise their child in the place with the least religious interference, what country should they emigrate to? Czech Republic?

Queensland.

 

[Chief]

Queensland.

Lol!