What will replace Christianity?

[opebo]

The Internet.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Jesus Christ himself will replace Christianity.  He is coming very soon.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Define "very soon".  I remember hearing "He's coming, very soon" back in the 70s.  They told me the end times would begin with lots of wars and natural disastors and they would list a bunch of wars and natural disastors that were occuring at the time and say "see? He's coming!".  Same thing in the 80s.  When I stopped going to church in the early 90s they were still saying the exact same things.  I'm pretty sure it goes back long before the 70s too.

What the hell does "very soon" mean?

It means sooner and sooner today.

There has always been a lot of huge catastrophes for humanity, but today we live in an epoch in which all of them are being thrown in our faces through tubes. All the natural disasters, wars, diseases, etc, happening on the planet constantly thrown in the face, and this with a very fast pace, which doesn't help to take distance, all of this thanks to new technologies, so it's not hard for people to think today 'The End of the World is coming! Look! There has never been so much problems on Earth!'. Nah, it's just that we have more the possibility to be aware of the problems that's all.

Add to this that the technological development we have today permits to make things bigger than before, then when something fails/crashes, the damages are bigger than before.

I mean, I think all of this helps to give credibility to apocalyptic thoughts, and I think it actually does, but well, all of these thoughts would only be the results of a bad psychological, and technical in some cases, handling of new technological possibilities.

[opebo]

Did someone say 'the Internet' earlier in this thread?  Because I only just noticed the horrible thing and there's no way I'm going back and reading it.

Or is there a way to search a specific thread?

[k-onmmunist]

I hope .. *hope* .. that you are not implying that the census map actually records the percentage of actual Christians in each country?

I really doubt it's that high in Russia, Belarus, Britain, France...and a whole host of the European ones actually.

Britain is probably about 50-60% really. Much nearer to the first figure too.

[afleitch]

Britain is probably about 50-60% really. Much nearer to the first figure too.

It is based on Census data. Many people identify as Christian 'culturally' and indeed formally when pushed in the setting of a formal census. The 2007 Social Attitudes Survey ( probably a better 'barometer') had Christians at 48% and No Religion at 46% Even back in the early 80's 'No Religion' scored into the 30's.

[LBJ Revivalist]

I hope the world doesn't ever become a majority of Atheists, or Fundamentalists of any religion. Both are incredibly bleak futures.
I don't see what people's problem with Catholicism or Christianity in general is. It's like it's hip to hate Christianity.

[John Dibble]

I hope the world doesn't ever become a majority of Atheists, or Fundamentalists of any religion. Both are incredibly bleak futures.

What exactly would make a world of majority atheists bleak?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The people who have problems with it have varying different reasons. I don't hate Christianity or Christians - heck, some of my favorite people are Christians - but I do think that Christianity and religion in general should be abandoned. My primary reason for thinking that is that belief informs actions. For example, if you believe that there are such things as witches and you also believe that your god has commanded that they must die then you're far more likely to go on a witch hunt. Though belief in witches has decreased in developed nations, this practice still goes on in others. Of course the typical response I expect when giving this example is "well that's not real Christianity", but considering that what constitutes "real Christianity" has been debated among Christians since Christianity came onto the scene almost two millenia ago I don't find that response particularly relevant.

But as I said, belief informs actions. If you believe something that is false and it causes you to act, the results of your actions are more likely to be harmful. Therefore I would prefer to believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible. The best means available for that is not religious faith, but rather empirical evidence.

[LBJ Revivalist]

I hope the world doesn't ever become a majority of Atheists, or Fundamentalists of any religion. Both are incredibly bleak futures.

What exactly would make a world of majority atheists bleak?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The people who have problems with it have varying different reasons. I don't hate Christianity or Christians - heck, some of my favorite people are Christians - but I do think that Christianity and religion in general should be abandoned. My primary reason for thinking that is that belief informs actions. For example, if you believe that there are such things as witches and you also believe that your god has commanded that they must die then you're far more likely to go on a witch hunt. Though belief in witches has decreased in developed nations, this practice still goes on in others. Of course the typical response I expect when giving this example is "well that's not real Christianity", but considering that what constitutes "real Christianity" has been debated among Christians since Christianity came onto the scene almost two millenia ago I don't find that response particularly relevant.

But as I said, belief informs actions. If you believe something that is false and it causes you to act, the results of your actions are more likely to be harmful. Therefore I would prefer to believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible. The best means available for that is not religious faith, but rather empirical evidence.

A world of majority atheists would be bleak because Atheism, imo, is a very depressing and bleak worldview. Everything is an accident, we're all here for no reason at all. It makes life utterly worthless and meaningless. And also, it would be bleak because I don't think with Atheism will come rationality, they'll just be belief in something else, something worse. Also, since Atheism says there is no god, there is no foundation for morals in it. Nor ethics. Everything is nothing, right, so why be moral? I find as someone who was raised a Christian the whole moral relativism mindset which I've only seen Atheists espouse to be repugnant.

I'd take Agnosticism over Atheism any day. Atheists tend to be just as dogmatic and loud in their non-belief as Evangelical Christians are.

I don't believe religion in general should be abandoned. Yes, witch burnings still do happen in some areas and did. And they were wrong. When I was a Christian, I didn't ever think going around burning witches would be cool. I guess it's just the idea of sanity vs. insanity. One could stoop to blame the horrors of Communism on Atheism; I won't, but others have.
And since you said ''religion in general'' should be abandoned, what about all of the religions that have a much less bloody track record? Deism? Hinduism? Buddhism? Neo-Paganism (which is actually a rising set of beliefs)?

What of the good things religion does, and has done throughout history for the world? Are they to be overlooked for witch burnings and the like?

The idea that this universe, and you, and I, and everyone we love are all just accidents with no meaning or purpose is again, a bleak and depressing way of looking at things. And to proclaim with absolute certainty that there is NO God, is the same thing to me as a Fundie saying, "The Bible is 100% correct because it is 100% correct." There's no real proof on either side. You can rely on empirical evidence for whatever you believe in, but no one has ever proved with total, scientific certainty that God does, or does not exist. That is my main issue with Atheism, beyond it's mindset: It's just as arrogant as Fundamentalism is.

If we're going for a ''non-Christian or non (insert religion here) world", I'd like it if it was an Agnostic world. At least they don't pretend to know if God exists or not. It's probably the most humble path of them all.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Having-a-religious-belief-but-only-praticing-it-on-holidays-ism.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I hope the world doesn't ever become a majority of Atheists, or Fundamentalists of any religion. Both are incredibly bleak futures.

What exactly would make a world of majority atheists bleak?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The people who have problems with it have varying different reasons. I don't hate Christianity or Christians - heck, some of my favorite people are Christians - but I do think that Christianity and religion in general should be abandoned. My primary reason for thinking that is that belief informs actions. For example, if you believe that there are such things as witches and you also believe that your god has commanded that they must die then you're far more likely to go on a witch hunt. Though belief in witches has decreased in developed nations, this practice still goes on in others. Of course the typical response I expect when giving this example is "well that's not real Christianity", but considering that what constitutes "real Christianity" has been debated among Christians since Christianity came onto the scene almost two millenia ago I don't find that response particularly relevant.

But as I said, belief informs actions. If you believe something that is false and it causes you to act, the results of your actions are more likely to be harmful. Therefore I would prefer to believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible. The best means available for that is not religious faith, but rather empirical evidence.

A world of majority atheists would be bleak because Atheism, imo, is a very depressing and bleak worldview. Everything is an accident, we're all here for no reason at all. It makes life utterly worthless and meaningless. And also, it would be bleak because I don't think with Atheism will come rationality, they'll just be belief in something else, something worse. Also, since Atheism says there is no god, there is no foundation for morals in it. Nor ethics. Everything is nothing, right, so why be moral? I find as someone who was raised a Christian the whole moral relativism mindset which I've only seen Atheists espouse to be repugnant.

I'd take Agnosticism over Atheism any day. Atheists tend to be just as dogmatic and loud in their non-belief as Evangelical Christians are.

I don't believe religion in general should be abandoned. Yes, witch burnings still do happen in some areas and did. And they were wrong. When I was a Christian, I didn't ever think going around burning witches would be cool. I guess it's just the idea of sanity vs. insanity. One could stoop to blame the horrors of Communism on Atheism; I won't, but others have.
And since you said ''religion in general'' should be abandoned, what about all of the religions that have a much less bloody track record? Deism? Hinduism? Buddhism? Neo-Paganism (which is actually a rising set of beliefs)?

What of the good things religion does, and has done throughout history for the world? Are they to be overlooked for witch burnings and the like?

The idea that this universe, and you, and I, and everyone we love are all just accidents with no meaning or purpose is again, a bleak and depressing way of looking at things. And to proclaim with absolute certainty that there is NO God, is the same thing to me as a Fundie saying, "The Bible is 100% correct because it is 100% correct." There's no real proof on either side. You can rely on empirical evidence for whatever you believe in, but no one has ever proved with total, scientific certainty that God does, or does not exist. That is my main issue with Atheism, beyond it's mindset: It's just as arrogant as Fundamentalism is.

If we're going for a ''non-Christian or non (insert religion here) world", I'd like it if it was an Agnostic world. At least they don't pretend to know if God exists or not. It's probably the most humble path of them all.

     Nevermind that there are many, many atheists who do not possess even the remotest shred of religious arrogance, eh? There are of course folks like Richard Dawkins who do, but judging all atheists by him is about as fair as judging all Christians by Fred Phelps.

[LBJ Revivalist]

Personally I think the 'future' of religion is a form of Deism, something like Jefferson believed in. You can accept the good ideals of Christ and other wise men as good philosophies for life and believe in an utterly separate, impersonal Supreme Being.

I think that sort of Deism is religion at it's best.

[John Dibble]

A world of majority atheists would be bleak because Atheism, imo, is a very depressing and bleak worldview. Everything is an accident, we're all here for no reason at all. It makes life utterly worthless and meaningless.

You know most atheists don't think "everything is an accident", right? That's a gross oversimplification. Random chance may have been involved, but if our universe truly came from naturalistic forces alone then given enough time something like our universe coming into being may well have been inevitable - give infinite monkeys infinite typewriters and infinite time and you'll eventually get Shakespeare.

And as far as meaning, we can assign our own meaning to our existence. I mean something to myself, as to the people who are important to me. I don't need some outside person telling me what my meaning is. I can decide that on my own.

Also, if you want to talk about bleak worldviews, how about the one where all of humanity is wretched, evil, and unworthy and need to be saved from eternal hellfire because we fail to live up to a standard of perfection that we could never possibly reach but are held to anyways? It's called Christianity, and frankly it's pretty damn bleak if you ask me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Atheism doesn't necessarily lead to rationality, that's true, but religion inherently requires believing something fantastical without evidence, which is pretty irrational when it comes down to it. Between the two, atheism is more likely to lead down the rational path IMO.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First off, moral relativism is a fact - people have different morals. You can see this in your own community as well as across the world. There is no one set of moral rules people follow.

Second, nobody said everything is nothing. Existence is existence. In this world behaving badly can have very bad consequences. I don't need an invisible man in the sky to tell me that murdering someone is going to potentially piss a lot of people off and make them come after me. We are social animals by nature, and some of our morality is hardwired. If you've got a spare hour you should listen to this lecture on the subject.

Third, from the perspective of someone who doesn't believe in the Bible I find much of it's contents that are espoused as just and moral to be morally repugnant. That doesn't mean I don't think there's anything good there, but there's a lot of horrible stuff in there such as justifying the mass murder of women and children, slavery, stoning people for various reasons I don't find justified at all, the treatment of women as a kind of property, etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You do realize that most people who call themselves agnostics are actually atheists, right? All that is required to be an atheist is to not have a belief in any gods. Atheism is about what you believe, agnosticism is about what you know. I'm an agnostic atheist - I don't believe in a god, but I don't claim to have knowledge about whether such a thing does or does not exist, at least in the general sense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe the more vocal ones are, but did you ever think that maybe you just don't notice the non-vocal ones because they aren't vocal about it?

Also, there is no atheist dogma, so I don't know how they could be dogmatic about it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here's the thing - you can't blame the horrors of communism on atheism because atheism wasn't the driving factor behind that. Atheism only requires not believing in a god, and there's nothing directly linking that belief to deciding to create a tyrannical regime that kills and oppresses people. You have to add additional beliefs to that line of thought to get there.

On the other hand I can blame Christianity for many of the horrors done in the name of Christianity such as witch hunts. As I stated, belief informs action. Part of the Christian Bible states quite clearly that witches should be put to death. Therefore if you are a Christian and you believe someone is a witch then your Christian beliefs dictate that you must put that witch to death. It's part and parcel of the belief set - to say it isn't when it's clearly written in your most important holy text is intellectual dishonesty.

Also, you can't blame it on insanity - these actions were not performed by insane individuals. If they were those individuals wouldn't have made such a large mark on history. These actions were done by large groups of normal people with perfectly functioning minds.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, they should be abandoned too.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can't think of one religious good that actually requires religion to do it. For instance I don't have to be a Christian to give to charity.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, many atheists do not actually say there is absolute certainty that there are no gods. Atheism is only not believing in any gods. Not believing and not acknowledging possibilities are entirely different things.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even those who claim absolute certainty are probably less arrogant that fundamentalists are. The reason I say that is simply that they are rejecting a fantastical claim. I mean seriously, would you say someone was arrogant for saying that they were absolutely, 100% certain that leprechauns didn't exist?

[afleitch]

I find the world less 'bleak' as an athiest than I did as a Christian. Even then I had a fairly upbeat view of the world anyway. Same with life.

I was probably too upbeat to remain religious

[Torie]

I find the world less 'bleak' as an athiest than I did as a Christian. Even then I had a fairly upbeat view of the world anyway. Same with life.

I was probably too upbeat to remain religious

Yes, the thought that non-theism leads to personal depression, seems a very odd concept to me. That certainly has not been my experience, either within my family, or those whom I know, or for that matter, the posters in general on this forum who are non-theists. Moreover, the suggestion that non-theists are also rudderless when it comes to a workable and ethical value system is also quite silly in my view. Ethics are derived from how our species is wired, combined with what based on experience seems to more or less work. It is interesting however to follow the literature about how perhaps evolution made our brain, as a chemical and physical matter, open to the transcendental because it conferred survival benefits.

[opebo]

I find the world less 'bleak' as an athiest than I did as a Christian. Even then I had a fairly upbeat view of the world anyway. Same with life.

I was probably too upbeat to remain religious

Yes, the thought that non-theism leads to personal depression, seems a very odd concept to me. That certainly has not been my experience, either within my family, or those whom I know, or for that matter, the posters in general on this forum who are non-theists. Moreover, the suggestion that non-theists are also rudderless when it comes to a workable and ethical value system is also quite silly in my view. Ethics are derived from how our species is wired, combined with what based on experience seems to more or less work. It is interesting however to follow the literature about how perhaps evolution made our brain, as a chemical and physical matter, open to the transcendental because it conferred survival benefits.

Actually 'depression' is caused entirely by chemicals, and religion has nothing to do with it.

In fact its a lot more tenable position to say that religion is caused by chemicals in the brain than that depression is caused by religion (or lack thereof).

For example, why - I ask you gentlemen - why am I so overwhelmingly, unstoppably happy?  And I've never believed in anything.  You know sometimes people have remarked to me 'we saw you driving by on your motorbike, and you were smiling like a retard'.   Yes, I am overwhelmingly happy as I ride down the road on my motorbike.  I don't know why, but I guess its just good chemicals (probably caused by having sex a lot or by eating spicy food).

[Gustaf]

I find the world less 'bleak' as an athiest than I did as a Christian. Even then I had a fairly upbeat view of the world anyway. Same with life.

I was probably too upbeat to remain religious

Yes, the thought that non-theism leads to personal depression, seems a very odd concept to me. That certainly has not been my experience, either within my family, or those whom I know, or for that matter, the posters in general on this forum who are non-theists. Moreover, the suggestion that non-theists are also rudderless when it comes to a workable and ethical value system is also quite silly in my view. Ethics are derived from how our species is wired, combined with what based on experience seems to more or less work. It is interesting however to follow the literature about how perhaps evolution made our brain, as a chemical and physical matter, open to the transcendental because it conferred survival benefits.

I believe empirical studies usually find that religious people are happier than non-religious people.

[Torie]

That is probably true Gustaf, but I am not sure that is due to religion qua religion, as opposed to other factors correlated with religion, and second, what I was focused on was the concept that lack of religion is a generator of unhappiness. It may be that non-theists also tend on average to be more socially anomic than the norm, and to that extent, and largely solely due to that as a correlated factor, may be less happy on average than the norm.

Just my random thoughts on the matter.

[John Dibble]

That is probably true Gustaf, but I am not sure that is due to religion qua religion, as opposed to other factors correlated with religion, and second, what I was focused on was the concept that lack of religion is a generator of unhappiness. It may be that non-theists also tend on average to be more socially anomic than the norm, and to that extent, and largely solely due to that as a correlated factor, may be less happy on average than the norm.

Just my random thoughts on the matter.

Quite. IIRC one of the studies showed greater happiness in church goers than non-church goers, so I'd be my money on it being to having a larger supporting social network or something of the sort.

[phk]

So religious people have better social skills?

[afleitch]

There should always be great care taken when looking at such studies. I would agree with Dibble that the 'link' has more to do with the social side of religion rather than the belief system and using it in any way to justify a net benefit of religion over non religion is tenuous. Likewise studies have shown that if you are elderly, disabled, house-bound, depressed, anti-social etc your level of hapiness can improve by getting a dog. That does not mean dog owners are happier overall than non dog owners (or indeed that there is any 'rightness' in owning a dog as a result)

Faith can be a 'crutch' for people. It can also be something that gives them comfort. Nothing wrong in that. Painting, dancing, singing, teaching, gardening and so on can also give people comfort and strength and a sense of purpose. Because I don't dance I shouldn't be told I would be happier pwith it. The same is true of faith. I take my comfort, strength and inspiration from other things.

[Gustaf]

There should always be great care taken when looking at such studies. I would agree with Dibble that the 'link' has more to do with the social side of religion rather than the belief system and using it in any way to justify a net benefit of religion over non religion is tenuous. Likewise studies have shown that if you are elderly, disabled, house-bound, depressed, anti-social etc your level of hapiness can improve by getting a dog. That does not mean dog owners are happier overall than non dog owners (or indeed that there is any 'rightness' in owning a dog as a result)

Faith can be a 'crutch' for people. It can also be something that gives them comfort. Nothing wrong in that. Painting, dancing, singing, teaching, gardening and so on can also give people comfort and strength and a sense of purpose. Because I don't dance I shouldn't be told I would be happier pwith it. The same is true of faith. I take my comfort, strength and inspiration from other things.

I never said that all people would be happier if they turned religious. That isn't the implication of studies showing such a correlation either.

[afleitch]

I never said that all people would be happier if they turned religious. That isn't the implication of studies showing such a correlation either.

But that's exactly what I'm getting that; there is no net benefit implication of such studies, because other studies show that other 'past-times' can generate a feeling of happiness in those who undertake them. Likewise religion can make you deeply unhappy, as can say dancing, if it's not what you want to do but you are either forced or there is some expectation or burden placed upon you.

That's why I don't understand why you cited the study in the first place and what relevance it had.

[Gustaf]

I never said that all people would be happier if they turned religious. That isn't the implication of studies showing such a correlation either.

But that's exactly what I'm getting that; there is no net benefit implication of such studies, because other studies show that other 'past-times' can generate a feeling of happiness in those who undertake them. Likewise religion can make you deeply unhappy, as can say dancing, if it's not what you want to do but you are either forced or there is some expectation or burden placed upon you.

That's why I don't understand why you cited the study in the first place and what relevance it had.

You seemed to argue that religious people would be depressed and unhappy and it is evidence against that notion.

[afleitch]

I never said that all people would be happier if they turned religious. That isn't the implication of studies showing such a correlation either.

But that's exactly what I'm getting that; there is no net benefit implication of such studies, because other studies show that other 'past-times' can generate a feeling of happiness in those who undertake them. Likewise religion can make you deeply unhappy, as can say dancing, if it's not what you want to do but you are either forced or there is some expectation or burden placed upon you.

That's why I don't understand why you cited the study in the first place and what relevance it had.

You seemed to argue that religious people would be depressed and unhappy and it is evidence against that notion.

I never argued such a thing. I said that I felt happier as an example, but what I argued is that such studies do not conclusively mean that someone is happier with or without faith over other possible variables that may induce happiness.

[Gustaf]

I never said that all people would be happier if they turned religious. That isn't the implication of studies showing such a correlation either.

But that's exactly what I'm getting that; there is no net benefit implication of such studies, because other studies show that other 'past-times' can generate a feeling of happiness in those who undertake them. Likewise religion can make you deeply unhappy, as can say dancing, if it's not what you want to do but you are either forced or there is some expectation or burden placed upon you.

That's why I don't understand why you cited the study in the first place and what relevance it had.

You seemed to argue that religious people would be depressed and unhappy and it is evidence against that notion.

I never argued such a thing. I said that I felt happier as an example, but what I argued is that such studies do not conclusively mean that someone is happier with or without faith over other possible variables that may induce happiness.

You said something along the lines of you were too happy to be religious which seemed to indicate that you thought there would be a negative correlation between religion and happiness. I offered that there is a positive correlation.