The end of Religion is inevitable?

[Bonyduck Campersang]

A few outliers is not evidence. There were a lot more gravitating to religion a generation ago.

What?

You don't think the Iranian Revolution, or the Arab spring was to do with Religion?

No. It was not a major factor, at least

"Cynical recruitment program that preys on vulnerable young people with confused ideas." is how I would describe religions.

So you've not really progressed beyond your early forum days? 'Cynical recruitment program' is how it can be used and manipulated, but it not something unique or inherent to religion. Any belief or ideology can become just that, your conception of a cynical recruitment program

I'll need some evidence warfare pre-dates religion. Most ancient wars were because of religion.

??? Which ancient wars?

 

[Narz]

In the first world it's dying but the religious have more babies

 

[Narz]

This religion-as-identity thing is happening in the Christian and Muslim worlds as well. While there are some people who genuinely believe in those faiths, they're balanced out by the those who fall out of them. But there is a not insignificant inflow of people who don't seem to enter into Christianity or Islam out of a genuine regard for the truth or genuine faith but simply because they identify with it, or in most cases with a warped version of it.

I love how whenever religious nutjobs do anything it's also a "warped version".

Jihad isn't "a warped version" of Islam, it is a central tenant.

Christians and Muslims who believe in all the lovey dovey aspects and distant themselves from the stoning and genocide and the ones believing a warped version.

Which is good as the unadulterated version is some sick **** but better to grow up and find a better way to define oneself

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I love how whenever religious nutjobs do anything it's also a "warped version".

yes, it is in fact a warped version, because how much of the Muslim or the Christian world practices these 'central tenants'? Why should a religiously illiterate minority have a monopoly on the religion's interpretation

 

[Narz]

A multiplicity of religions, each accepting of all the others, may be the only viable path for our species in the long term (or even in the medium term).

I wouldn't mind a world where religion was like smoking. Gone from socially acceptable to an embarrassing crutch you partake in outdoors in a designated area away from others, especially children.

 

[Narz]

yes, it is in fact a warped version, because how much of the Muslim or the Christian world practices these 'central tenants'?

Most religious people don't really bother to read or follow the letter of the law. Which is good. Better to actually examine it critically and reject it tho.

 

[EgonSpengler]

One possible solution to the Fermi Paradox* is that intelligent species have a tendency to destroy themselves before making contact with other intelligence species, because they achieve the means to destroy their civilization** before they achieve the means of interstellar communication, and before they achieve the social & cultural traits that would stop them from destroying themselves. I think there's a term for this, the window within which humanity could destroy itself.

So the question would be whether religion promotes our survival through that window or not. It might depend on which religions thrive. One can imagine that some religion might prove adaptive to human civilization, and help us progress. I don't know if any existing religions are strong candidates, but that doesn't mean it's not possible.

Well, I still haven't found the term for this, if there is one, but I found an entry in NASA's "Many Worlds" blog.

NASA Astrobiology

Do Intelligent Civilizations Across the Galaxies Self-Destruct? For Better and Worse, We’re the Test Case

astrobiology.nasa.gov

Many answers [to the Fermi Paradox] have been offered in the following decades — that we are alone in the universe, that the distances between solar systems are too great to travel, that Earth became home to life early in the galaxy’s history and other planets are only now catching up, that life might be common in the universe but intelligent life is not.

I would like to focus on another response, however, one that came to mind often while reading a new book by the former Astrobiology Chair at the Library of Congress, planetary scientist David Grinspoon.

This potential explanation is among the most unsettling: that intelligent and technologically advanced beings are likely to ultimately destroy themselves.

I'm not sure Grinspoon even focuses on civilization-threatening acts of violence. I looks like he focuses on climate change as the greatest challenge facing us, rather than nuclear war. Again, in the context of this thread, a proliferation of religions that emphasize living better with Mother Nature may prove adaptive to human survival.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I wouldn't mind a world where religion was like smoking. Gone from socially acceptable to an embarrassing crutch you partake in outdoors in a designated area away from others, especially children.

We've had to legally ban smoking from public spaces, though. It's not just something people decided to stop doing. We also had to slap tobacco's "proselytizers" - tobacco companies - to the tune of $200 billion, and make their proselytizing - advertising - illegal. I don't think that's a good model for mitigating the negative aspects of religion. Here in the US, it would violate the 1st Amendment of our Constitution.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

I wouldn't mind a world where religion was like smoking. Gone from socially acceptable to an embarrassing crutch you partake in outdoors in a designated area away from others, especially children.

Dude, you're in the UK.. look around!

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'm not sure Grinspoon even focuses on civilization-threatening acts of violence. I looks like he focuses on climate change as the greatest challenge facing us, rather than nuclear war. Again, in the context of this thread, a proliferation of religions that emphasize living better with Mother Nature may prove adaptive to human survival.

Inteligent life is not limited to humans. I wonder how more evolved octopus life might rule a world.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

What?

Do you honestly believe Religion is more prevalent in your local community now, than a generation ago?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Do you honestly believe Religion is more prevalent in your local community now, than a generation ago?

I'm guessing it is moreso.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Inteligent life is not limited to humans. I wonder how more evolved octopus life might rule a world.

Yeah, at present, humans are the only species capable of functionally destroying its own biome, that we know of. (I think. I wonder if there are animals who could be taken out of their natural habitat - by humans, presumably - who would then proceed to destroy their new habitat? I've heard, for example, that the SE Asian lionfish is wreaking havoc in the Caribbean because it has no natural predators there. Could the lionfish unthinkingly destroy its own hunting grounds in the Caribbean and starve itself? I have no idea.)

 

[Narz]

Dude, you're in the UK.. look around!

You mean more people smoke here? Yeah it's gross.

Just spent all day traveling thru England (to Heathrow to catch a flight only to discover it was cancelled because I missed my trip here six months ago, really pissed)

Spoiler :

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yeah, at present, humans are the only species capable of functionally destroying its own biome. (I think. I wonder if there are animals who could be taken out of their natural habitat - by humans, presumably - who would then proceed to destroy their new habitat? I've heard, for example, that the SE Asian lionfish is wreaking havoc in the Caribbean because it has no natural predators there. Could the lionfish unthinkingly destroy its own hunting grounds in the Caribbean and starve itself? I have no idea.)

An interesting question. One solution to that problem has been to create a market for Lionfish as food for people. Canadian Lynx and snowshoe hares live in a ever changing balance between feat and famine. Too many hares are followed by many more lynx which leqds to too few hares and a crash in the number of lynx followed by more hares, more lynx, too few hares, etc. That is a cyle that has been ongoing. I suspect that without people around lionfish and its ecosystem would follow something similar.

 

[Narz]

We've had to legally ban smoking from public spaces, though. It's not just something people decided to stop doing. We also had to slap tobacco's "proselytizers" - tobacco companies - to the tune of $200 billion, and make their proselytizing - advertising - illegal. I don't think that's a good model for mitigating the negative aspects of religion. Here in the US, it would violate the 1st Amendment of our Constitution.

Yeah but there's also social stigma to smoking whereas it used to be 'sexy'

We don't have to repeal freedom of religion but we can stop giving them tax breaks at least

 

[Birdjaguar]

Just spent all day traveling thru England (to Heathrow to catch a flight only to discover it was cancelled because I missed my trip here six months ago,

Yes, airlines are cracking down on people who only use part of a purchased ticket. Things like buying a ticket from LA to NY with a stop in Chicago and then getting off in Chicago will get you into trouble.
Using only half of a round trip ticket will get you in trouble too.

Examples:

Is there a penalty for using only part of a round-trip ticket?

While it may seem like an easy way to save a few bucks on airfare, flying one part of a round-trip itinerary can get you into trouble with your airline.

www.smartertravel.com

Is it okay to board only the second flight of a return ticket? The return ticket is much cheaper than buying one way

I was browsing flight price at Singapore Airlines website, and a one-way flight from SIN to SFO cost this much: That's quite expensive. I tried browsing around and found that a return flight from ...

travel.stackexchange.com

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Do you honestly believe Religion is more prevalent in your local community now, than a generation ago?

I wasn't here a generation ago, but I think so, yes?

 

[EgonSpengler]

We don't have to repeal freedom of religion but we can stop giving them tax breaks at least

Yeah, when I'm GodKingEmperor, I'll remove the 'religious organization' qualification for 501(c)(3) status. A lot of religious organizations would still quality, by being qualified educational institutions, or charitable organizations, or whatever. According to one website about 501(c)(3) exemptions, this chart outlines who's eligible:

Spoiler :

We can see that, currently, a religious organization doesn't need to do anything else to be eligible, but a lot of existing religious organizations would also, or still, be eligible under one of the other categories. BYU, for example, is one of our top research universities. So, if I were in charge, any place that was just a church and nothing else would either have to set up some kind of charity or pay taxes like everybody else.

(Are the Jesuit schools still formally religious? I have no idea. But I think they're all regarded to be good schools. Boston College, Holy Cross, Loyola, Gonzaga, Fordham. I think there's a couple-dozen.)

 

[Narz]

Yes, airlines are cracking down on people who only use part of a purchased ticket. Things like buying a ticket from LA to NY with a stop in Chicago and then getting off in Chicago will get you into trouble.
Using only half of a round trip ticket will get you in trouble too.

Examples:

Is there a penalty for using only part of a round-trip ticket?

While it may seem like an easy way to save a few bucks on airfare, flying one part of a round-trip itinerary can get you into trouble with your airline.

www.smartertravel.com

Is it okay to board only the second flight of a return ticket? The return ticket is much cheaper than buying one way

I was browsing flight price at Singapore Airlines website, and a one-way flight from SIN to SFO cost this much: That's quite expensive. I tried browsing around and found that a return flight from ...

travel.stackexchange.com

Thing that infuriated me is not even emailing me and informing me to just check in at the airport which is when I found out (and Virgin said they could do nothing because I bought it from a 3rd party who was unreachable by phone). Oh well live & learn, I despise overnight flights anyway