• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

The end of Religion is inevitable?

I wasn't here a generation ago, but I think so, yes?
In my British experience it's very locale-dependent. And depending on what the local crowd thinks "religion" is (it all is, but, you know).

For example I'm in a place that's had a church since forever. It's used so much it's a part of the local events scene even if you're not religious. They still teach Christian lessons and parables at the primary (elementary) school.

It's very much going nowhere given the dynamics of how relatively secluded this place is. Meanwhile the city down the road I spent nearly a decade in is very much less so overtly one religion, despite housing a lot of religious communities.
 
And depending on what the local crowd thinks "religion" is (it all is, but, you know).
Yes, that's what I was talking about in my first reply to Aiken Drumm. Because I differentiate between religion-as-faith and religion-as-identity, and for me the former's numbers are more or less the same, but the latter's have increased
 
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.)
Taking people's churches from them, through brute force or through taxation backed by brute force, hurts them. It's flat malicious. They are an end. Unless of course, only things that help ME are a legitimate end. ME.
 
You have parents, you're aware of people older than you.. Or do you exist purely in your own bubble?
I know you asked Bonyduck, but here's my £0.02. My parents are skeptics, they're probably closer to agnostic but on the atheist side. They raised me to make my own choices. I chose to be an atheist, after some deliberation.

How do we extrapolate that out to any kind what the concentration of religion was like when my parents were at a similar age? I'm old enough now to remember my parents being this old. So do I go further back? They moved three times in 5 years before settling down in the place they've pretty much stayed in ever since. Which one do I pick?

Kinda feels like working backwards from a conclusion here, instead of gathering data.
 
Taking people's churches from them, through brute force or through taxation backed by brute force, hurts them. It's flat malicious. They are an end. Unless of course, only things that help ME are a legitimate end. ME.
Dude, you need to get over your persecution complex. I never said anything about taking people churches from them. Get a grip.
 
Taxing them would. Which you know. Which is why you suggest it? I guess if you haven't dealt with real estate taxes much, I'd forgive the oversight. But paying taxes does not relate neatly to providing public good. McMansions in the burbs pay taxes that would break Southside Chicago churches in locations people that live in Chicago can actually be part of.

But you want a use do you. Alright, they're the only people I know that willing spend time with the old, alone, and dying, for free. At least that's how it's played out around here. I'm sure there are people that do it for money.
 
Taxing them would. Which you know. Which is why you suggest it? I guess if you haven't dealt with real estate taxes much, I'd forgive the oversight. But paying taxes does not relate neatly to providing public good. McMansions in the burbs pay taxes that would break Southside Chicago churches in locations people that live in Chicago can actually be part of.

But you want a use do you. Alright, they're the only people I know that willing spend time with the old, alone, and dying, for free. At least that's how it's played out around here. I'm sure there are people that do it for money.
cut it out. You don't know horsehocky [and I didn't write 'horsehockey' this time, I wrote the other thing] about me. this conversation, such as it was, is over.
 
It was a question, but alright. You and I have already covered that we don't understand each other. I cannot conceive of another motivation for that political stance, but enlighten me?
 
Moderator Action: Chill guys; please don't get personal.
 
What people identify, and what they do, are very different things. Regular religious service attendance here is sub 20% and weekly is like 10%, but the people saying they have a religion on the census is a bit over half (44% Christian and 10% other religions).

So with about 45% saying no religion or leaving it blank (7%), that's the majority of people who are identifying with a religion not regularly attending religious services. I'm assuming some other religions don't require it and don't build around an exact "church" analogue (Hinduism and Buddhism are 5% of the country together) but that's only a small part of the picture.
 
Last edited:
I know you asked Bonyduck, but here's my £0.02. My parents are skeptics, they're probably closer to agnostic but on the atheist side. They raised me to make my own choices. I chose to be an atheist, after some deliberation.

How do we extrapolate that out to any kind what the concentration of religion was like when my parents were at a similar age? I'm old enough now to remember my parents being this old. So do I go further back? They moved three times in 5 years before settling down in the place they've pretty much stayed in ever since. Which one do I pick?

Kinda feels like working backwards from a conclusion here, instead of gathering data.

In the UK I know that a lot of religious practices, for example being wed in a church, are vanishing in a few generations. That is easily observable. It's not overly complex. I know this not because I was at my grandparents wedding.. But that I have been told.

Its anecdotal of course...but I see this trend across all my peers.

It would have been quite scandalous a few generations back, is now the norm.

But really, I was just trying to make the poster I was responding to, to think a little before replying.
 
should probably read the thread idk

necessary preface: i'm an atheist.

i don't see religion in itself ending any time soon. religion as an explanatory model is definitely on the back foot.

people often forget there's more going on for faith than explaining lightning and volcanos. religion has the power of purpose wrapped in a nice package of poetry and ritual. people mention weddings being religiously ordained. it's stuff like that.
 
I hope that Islam will become more humane.
I do not care much about other religions.
 
Top Bottom