Thread: Religion losing to apathy?

There are a number of reasons you could throw out there I suppose. Most obvious being the scientific and industrial revolutions of the past four hundred years.

When you said "does all that not mean that religion bends to society" you hit the nail on the head. Most people were illiterate and unlearned four hundred years ago as opposed to now, where the opposite is true. It seems like the simplest thing in the world to me. The massive exposure of varying ideas to different individuals causes, reasonably enough, an almost infinite number of varying viewpoints. The only thing tying religion together at this point is hereditary tradition.

Before, religion was the only reasonable explanation of the natural world and inner psychological states that people could come up with at the time. Seeing as earlier hominids were so unlearned, one could not appeal to their rationality, only their fears. Fear is what drove us to evolve in the first place. Taking it from a historical perspective, we are in the middle of a massive transition period in regards to mankind's social structure and belief systems.

However, I warn, as Nietzsche warned against "pious atheism". This is the "grey cloud of cynicism" you are describing today. I see it all too often, especially on this college campus I am writing from. Religion may be waning, but orthodoxy is as strong as it ever has been. I believe however, you are mistaking a general state for a specific one. This talk of cynicism is only relevant to so called "modern industrialized culture". Take a look at any third world country, and you will see that religion is heavily ingrained into their lifestyle. If it was not so, their society would be in complete chaos and bloodshed would rule the day. So at least a pious atheist can thank religion for that much.

Centralized religion itself was a revolution for the time that it arose, and it is no wonder that it gained so many followers. It was preferable to a life of mere subsistence, and the question of purpose is what led human beings to ask more questions, which in turned developed the scientific method.

To answer your question in summation: It has outlived its usefulness.

1. Religion requires hypocrisy.
2. To be religious is to betray reason, to be secular is to betray faith and to be moderately religious is to betray both.

The reason people don't live according to the books of their religions anymore (except for extremist fundamentalists) is the secular movement. Simple. People pick and chose how their delusion should be shaped.

"God hates fags is a profound theological statement." - Fred Phelps.

This is true, but moderate Christians are simply oblivious to this fact - The Christian God fucking hates fags and that's the way he would put it. And if you are a moderate Christian, then you are a fag-enabler and God hates you as well. This is all true. As I said, religion requires hypocrisy - massive hypocrisy that is.

Taken from reference.com: " Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term describing the uncomfortable tension that may result from having two conflicting thoughts (cognition) at the same time or engaging in behavior that conflicts with one's beliefs.

In simple terms, it can be the filtering of information that conflicts with what one already believes, in an effort to ignore that information and reinforce one's beliefs. In detailed terms, it is the perception of incompatibility between two cognitions, where "cognition" is defined as any element of knowledge, including attitude, emotion, belief, or behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance states that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to reduce the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions. Experiments have attempted to quantify this hypothetical drive. Some of these have examined how beliefs often change to match behavior when beliefs and behavior are in conflict.

Social psychologist Leon Festinger first proposed the theory in 1957 after the publication of his book When Prophecy Fails, observing the counterintuitive belief persistence of members of a UFO doomsday cult and their increased proselytization after the leader's prophecy failed. The failed message of earth's destruction, purportedly sent by aliens to a woman in 1956, became a disconfirmed expectancy that increased dissonance between cognitions, thereby causing most members of the impromptu cult to lessen the dissonance by accepting a new prophecy: that the aliens had instead spared the planet for their sake.

In popular usage, it can be associated with the tendency for people to resist information that they don't want to think about, because if they did it would create cognitive dissonance, and perhaps require them to act in ways that depart from their comfortable habits. They usually have at least partial awareness of the information, without having moved to full acceptance of it, and are thus in a state of denial about it."

What an amusingly candid commentary!!! Very interesting possibilities for discussion. Dexter has studied religion for a long time.

Originally Posted by Serkat

1. Religion requires hypocrisy.
2. To be religious is to betray reason, to be secular is to betray faith and to be moderately religious is to betray both.

The reason people don't live according to the books of their religions anymore (except for extremist fundamentalists) is the secular movement. Simple. People pick and chose how their delusion should be shaped.

"God hates fags is a profound theological statement." - Fred Phelps.

This is true, but moderate Christians are simply oblivious to this fact - The Christian God fucking hates fags and that's the way he would put it. And if you are a moderate Christian, then you are a fag-enabler and God hates you as well. This is all true. As I said, religion requires hypocrisy - massive hypocrisy that is.

'Tis but a paradox. Decryption:

People hate. People Project. Those who loathe, act. Abstaining from homosexuality probably was a good directive back when God was trying to make an entire nation from the seed of one man. Dexter is pretty sure Mankind has no population problems today. Dexter assumes that today God generally doesn't give a shit what homosexual things people do.

The church has been stolen from God as a tool for mind control. The Church was the original Matrix. Today the Matrix is also the media. The Matrix is a metaphor (Read: what was just stated was propaganda).

Hypocrisy stems from internalizing the abuse of a tyrant and their lies. The abused internalize and identify their abuser (Tyrant:Church). This is the hypocrisy that religion creates.

In truth, religion, religious texts, and spiritual leaders are but a finger pointing to the moon, you cannot see the moon if you are looking at the finger.

Religion is an Ego trap designed and enforced by trapped Egos.

If religion is something so all-encompassing and important, governing a religious person's life from ideals and morals to actions and all the way up to death and beyond, why is it changed over the ages of society in the world?

Change in society occurs not because of religion, but despite it. Obviously morals cannot come directly from religion because many people reject some parts of religion. And religion does not teach you to arbitrarily reject parts of it's teachings.

Originally Posted by Traveling_Troubador

There are a number of reasons you could throw out there I suppose. Most obvious being the scientific and industrial revolutions of the past four hundred years.

When you said "does all that not mean that religion bends to society" you hit the nail on the head. Most people were illiterate and unlearned four hundred years ago as opposed to now, where the opposite is true. It seems like the simplest thing in the world to me. The massive exposure of varying ideas to different individuals causes, reasonably enough, an almost infinite number of varying viewpoints. The only thing tying religion together at this point is hereditary tradition.

Before, religion was the only reasonable explanation of the natural world and inner psychological states that people could come up with at the time. Seeing as earlier hominids were so unlearned, one could not appeal to their rationality, only their fears. Fear is what drove us to evolve in the first place. Taking it from a historical perspective, we are in the middle of a massive transition period in regards to mankind's social structure and belief systems.

However, I warn, as Nietzsche warned against "pious atheism". This is the "grey cloud of cynicism" you are describing today. I see it all too often, especially on this college campus I am writing from. Religion may be waning, but orthodoxy is as strong as it ever has been. I believe however, you are mistaking a general state for a specific one. This talk of cynicism is only relevant to so called "modern industrialized culture". Take a look at any third world country, and you will see that religion is heavily ingrained into their lifestyle. If it was not so, their society would be in complete chaos and bloodshed would rule the day. So at least a pious atheist can thank religion for that much.

Centralized religion itself was a revolution for the time that it arose, and it is no wonder that it gained so many followers. It was preferable to a life of mere subsistence, and the question of purpose is what led human beings to ask more questions, which in turned developed the scientific method.

To answer your question in summation: It has outlived its usefulness.

Sorry you are wrong to assume old cultures or humanoids were unintelligent. The masses during the time of the Middle Ages(Dark ages) is the only time you are referring to. Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, may have been more technically advanced than parts of our society today.

I don't really think Serkat understands the religion he's talking about at all...

Anyway, wars over religion are largley political. When the leaders want to go to war and have a blindly zealous religous group, they take advantage of that and make it a 'holy' war.

Granted, most religous people don't make it thier driving force in life. But most of the major religions out there don't have intolerance and combat as a philosphy in thier scriptures.

And I would disagree with what has been said earlier about fundamentalists being the only ones that follow thier bible. Fundamentalists have a tendancey to draw inferences from nothing and impose restrictions not in the texts.

Go back to the actual document, if you accept the New Testament, and you will see many things as not 'compromising' but seeking and understanding to the Bible to a greater extent.

To be scriptoral doesn't mena you must be fundamentalist or intolerant or anti-evolution or any of that jazz...

It comes in patterns, we've had multiple "Awakenings" throughout history that eventually secede back to materialism.

Originally Posted by spockman

I don't really think Serkat understands the religion he's talking about at all...

Anyway, wars over religion are largley political. When the leaders want to go to war and have a blindly zealous religous group, they take advantage of that and make it a 'holy' war.

Granted, most religous people don't make it thier driving force in life. But most of the major religions out there don't have intolerance and combat as a philosphy in thier scriptures.

Actually...all three of them do. There is plenty in the OT and the Torah that can be used to support intolerance and war. Same for the NT....and there is plenty of evidence of both throughout history and in the OT. Surprisingly enough, the Koran contains fewer statements that could be used to incite this without considerable doctrinization and political maneuvering.

Don't get me started on this new-age shit.

And I would disagree with what has been said earlier about fundamentalists being the only ones that follow thier bible. Fundamentalists have a tendancey to draw inferences from nothing and impose restrictions not in the texts.

Especially when the people they preach to are illiterate. ESPECIALLY when the preacher is illiterate too!

Go back to the actual document, if you accept the New Testament, and you will see many things as not 'compromising' but seeking and understanding to the Bible to a greater extent.

To be scriptoral doesn't mena you must be fundamentalist or intolerant or anti-evolution or any of that jazz...

It's a book with 1k+ pages. People are very creative and can pull amazing things out of their ass. I think it's observable that people are beginning to move away from theology and into spirituality. Those left in indoctrination are becoming more and more frightened as their perceived order crumbles about them during a time of frequent wars conducted with a technology far beyond the comprehension of most and done so more often than not in urban settings.

Those moving into spirituality are generally less frightened (Though no less disturbed by) these traumatic events. Something major is definately culminating...2012 or no....there's a bubble gonna burst soon.

Originally Posted by Deathcell

Sorry you are wrong to assume old cultures or humanoids were unintelligent. The masses during the time of the Middle Ages(Dark ages) is the only time you are referring to. Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, may have been more technically advanced than parts of our society today.

And while this is true, it's not something they tell you about in high school. How many high school graduate know who the Ionians were and what happened to them?

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

It comes in patterns, we've had multiple "Awakenings" throughout history that eventually secede back to materialism.

Yes but never has it occurred in the face of so much information travelling around the world so fast. Nor has it happened in spite of weapons nearly as advanced as they are now.

Actually...all three of them do. There is plenty in the OT and the Torah that can be used to support intolerance and war. Same for the NT....and there is plenty of evidence of both throughout history and in the OT. Surprisingly enough, the Koran contains fewer statements that could be used to incite this without considerable doctrinization and political maneuvering.

Judaism does not teach that violence should solve te nations problems. But it does condone war under certain circumctances, but that's only when ordered by God. I can show you where the nation of Israel has fought wars without God commanding it and the nation was hurt by it.

Originally Posted by spockman

Judaism does not teach that violence should solve te nations problems. But it does condone war under certain circumctances, but that's only when ordered by God. I can show you where the nation of Israel has fought wars without God commanding it and the nation was hurt by it.

Same claims of all religion's history. War is justified by God when victory is had. Winner writes the history books. Is this truly condoned by God or post-determination? As always, only the 'priests' know...

Simple answer: religion speaks nothing of any real, objective truths.

It's a pack of lies made up and then changed for several very different reasons. Delusion, politics, and profiteering to name a few.

̔̕̚̕̚҉ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚͡ ͡҉҉ ̵̡̢̛̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇̊̋̌̍̎̏̿̿̿̚ ҉ ҉҉̡̢̡̢̛̛̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑ ̒̓̔̕̚ ̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̕̚̕̚ ̡̢̛̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠̊̋̌̍̎̏̚ ̡̢̡̢̛̛̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔ ̕̚̕̚ ̔̕̚̕̚҉ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚͡ ͡҉҉th̔̕̚̕̚҉

it changes with the time. its a reflection.

̕̚̕̚ ̔̕̚̕̚҉ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚͡ ͡҉҉ ̵̡̢̛̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇̊̋̌̍̎̏̿̿̿̚ ҉ ҉҉̡̢̡̢̛̛̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑ ̒̓̔̕̚ ̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̕̚̕̚ ̡̢̛̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠̊̋̌̍̎̏̚ ̡̢̡̢̛̛̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔ ̕̚̕̚ ̔̕̚̕̚҉ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚͡ ͡҉҉th̔̕̚̕̚҉ ̕̚̕̚ ̔̕̚̕̚҉ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚͡ ͡҉҉ ̵̡̢̛̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇̊̋̌̍̎̏̿̿̿̚ ҉ ҉҉̡̢̡̢̛̛̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑ ̒̓̔̕̚ ̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̕̚̕̚ ̡̢̛̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠̊̋̌̍̎̏̚ ̡̢̡̢̛̛̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔ ̕̚̕̚ ̔̕̚̕̚҉ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚͡ ͡҉҉th̔̕̚̕̚҉

Originally Posted by Xei

Simple answer: religion speaks nothing of any real, objective truths.

It's a pack of lies made up and then changed for several very different reasons. Delusion, politics, and profiteering to name a few.

I would disagree. I think religion speaks of many objective truths. However I also think that it does so with subjective perspective, language and motivation.

In other words, to find the spirituality, you have to filter the lies and bullshit out.

If holy books speak truths, they are either coincedences, or self-evident truths such as some of the basic moral ideas in Christianity, in my view.

I just refuse to accept the idea that the primitive and superstitious people who lived in the desert thousands of years ago are wiser than us sceptical and enlightened beings today. The whole concept is just hilarious, in a way.

Originally Posted by Xei

If holy books speak truths, they are either coincedences, or self-evident truths such as some of the basic moral ideas in Christianity, in my view.

I just refuse to accept the idea that the primitive and superstitious people who lived in the desert thousands of years ago are wiser than us sceptical and enlightened beings today. The whole concept is just hilarious, in a way.

Maybe they jacked the wisdom from another culture...like Egypt. Who of course in turn may have jacked their wisdom from yet another culture. And to consider Egypt a primitive culture is just ridiculous. They had batteries some 5 Millennia ago. They knew some shit. To say the ancient cultures were just a bunch of primitive idiots reflect only your own lack of education really.

I think we are no more intelligent than people of many millennia ago, we simply have more knowledge.

Maybe they jacked the wisdom from another culture...like Egypt. Who of course in turn may have jacked their wisdom from yet another culture. And to consider Egypt a primitive culture is just ridiculous. They had batteries some 5 Millennia ago. They knew some shit. To say the ancient cultures were just a bunch of primitive idiots reflect only your own lack of education really.

...no. What the hell; batteries? Batteries can be tubs of chemicals.

You see the huge advancements our modern civilization has made in science and technology, and you think that the ancient Egyptians with their sodding batteries and crazy eagle head Gods might have had more knowledge or rationale than us?

Originally Posted by Xei

...no. What the hell; batteries? Batteries can be tubs of chemicals.

You see the huge advancements our modern civilization has made in science and technology, and you think that the ancient Egyptians with their sodding batteries and crazy eagle head Gods might have had more knowledge or rationale than us?

In some ways yes. Some ideas and thoughts may have completely been lost to us in the shuffle of thousands and thousands of years. I highly doubt you remember the time very well since you wouldn't believe in re-incarnation or the soul or anything like that even though their is no proof against it only a lack of proof for it. Old cultures formed the foundations for many studies of science, medicine, masonry, etc.. Without our collective past we are nothing today. You seem to have no respect for these people and their accomplishments.

You think believing in anything is ridiculous, you worship science. And unless science proves it then it is an impossibility in your eyes. Am I right?

That's the complete opposite of an overly religious nut, opposite ends of a spectrum but oh so alike.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

You think believing in anything is ridiculous, you worship science. And unless science proves it then it is an impossibility in your eyes. Am I right?

That's the complete opposite of an overly religious nut, opposite ends of a spectrum but oh so alike.

Quoted for truth.

Quoted for truth.

Quoted for ignorance.

You think believing in anything is ridiculous, you worship science. And unless science proves it then it is an impossibility in your eyes. Am I right?

Yes, this whole cult of 'only believe in something if there is evidence for it' is truly a detriment to all knowledge and humanity, isn't it? And it's barely one iota away from 'only believe in some nonsense ancient idea because everybody else tells you to'.

Don't be so bloody dense.

No you are not right, science does not say that what has not been discovered or proved does not exist. Speculation is inherent to science. Feel free to speculate about the nature of consciousness, but understand that you must give reasons or evidence before somebody believes you.

I love how some people think scientists just pull theories out of their asses. Do you people seriously not understand the scientific method? Seriously?

Originally Posted by DeathCell

That's the complete opposite of an overly religious nut, opposite ends of a spectrum but oh so alike.

Originally Posted by Xei

Quoted for ignorance.

Ah, the irony...

You're being too defensive. I don't know about others but it's not like I'm saying science is wrong. It obviously isn't. Everything science proves is either true exactly the way it's proven or the proof on the level of existence it was discovered suffices for the needs regarding whatever was proven.

But that isn't the point. The point is that in always seeking logical proof and always following the scientific method, you're throwing yourself onto one side of the scales, much like those who drown in what religions teach.

It pays far more to be completely open-minded. To be able to trust and follow endeavours that require "belief" too. Not just those that require cold hard evidence and can be tested using scientific equipment or observations by others than yourself.

The mind is only half of you; the half that reasons on and on without looking back.
But you have a heart/soul too that feels but is snuffed out by endless reasoning.
Though I figure you're not likely to agree with that, if you're a scentific physicalist and all.

I love how this works.

If someone takes their conclusions from logic and evidence, thus being open to changing their view if proof is provided, they're closed minded.

Now if someone holds a belief without anything to back it up (i.e. no proof can change his mind), he's open minded.


I'll just quote Carl Sagan, like I always do lately:

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion.