Will religion eventually collapse?

[Nylan]

@ Nylan. Sorry . It was lost in the quoting.

Ah, well that makes sense

Because God (the invisible Pink flamingo under some people's belief) created the Human nature ?

While I'm still not sure exactly what you mean, I guess I can clarify. Assuming religion is worship of God and obedience to His gospel (as a rough definition), I don't see any reason why God would just up and say "okay, stop now". Even after the world ends and judgment has occurred there would still be people doing as God asks and interacting with Him.

Does that make more sense, or have I put my foot in my mouth (so to speak...er...type)?

 

[LightFang]

Since I believe that God exists, I will go with "no".

 

[scy12]

Assuming religion is worship of God and obedience to His gospel

Maybe Religion is not that.

I don't see any reason why God would just up and say "okay, stop now". Even after the world ends and judgment has occurred there would still be people doing as God asks and interacting with Him.

Yes but why will they be doing it ? Assume God thinks all Religions are wrong and bad. Would you expect him to do anything about it ? Maybe in his silence he expects us to change our old ways on our own free will...

 

[Nylan]

Maybe Religion is not that.

Mayhap. I just threw together a definition to establish some common ground.

Yes but why will they be doing it ? Assume God thinks all Religions are wrong and bad. Would you expect him to do anything about it ? Maybe in his silence he expects us to change our old ways on our own free will...

Assuming God thinks all religions have fallen away from the truth, I think He would act to restore the truth when people were ready to receive it again. In fact I believe that's exactly what has happened throughout history.

 

[scy12]

Assuming God thinks all religions have fallen away from the truth, I think He would act to restore the truth when people were ready to receive it again. In fact I believe that's exactly what has happened throughout history.

We have not seen a deity doing anything but assuming we use the "All powerfull definition" (And assume it exists) , then we have observed Humanity into becoming less and less superstitious , changing it's morality and using it's culture and ideas more and more on a less superstitious background , it seems to me that by our nature we make Religion more and more , less superstitious and dangerous for our well being.

So assuming a God exists that is the way he chooses to restore the truth it seems to me. Infact if he existed he would most likely agree with the soft , Epicurean like Atheists more than with any religious group. (It may or may not exist but it certainly never interfere)

 

[kulade]

Assuming God thinks all religions have fallen away from the truth, I think He would act to restore the truth when people were ready to receive it again. In fact I believe that's exactly what has happened throughout history.

So howsabout we fall away one more time, and all together, and see what words come from the sky, eh?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Mayhap. I just threw together a definition to establish some common ground.

But not all religions are structured that way.

Assuming God thinks all religions have fallen away from the truth, I think He would act to restore the truth when people were ready to receive it again. In fact I believe that's exactly what has happened throughout history.

Unless Muhammad was right, and he IS the last prophet. Maybe we're on our own, to see how we react to not having prophets contantly reminding us that God is there?

 

[Nylan]

We have not seen a deity doing anything but assuming we use the "All powerfull definition" (And assume it exists) , then we have observed Humanity into becoming less and less superstitious , changing it's morality and using it's culture and ideas more and more on a less superstitious background , it seems to me that by our nature we make Religion more and more , less superstitious and dangerous for our well being.

Less intolerance? Intolerance was never a good thing, no, and those Christians who employed it were certainly not following their own religion's teachings. Perhaps to some extent religion becomes less and less superstitious because we become more and more knowledgeable? Seems to make sense to me that the way we discuss religion changes as the ways we speek and understand ideas changes. I don't see why it would be odd.

 

[Perfection]

Well that entirely depends on your definition of religion, o artistic one

Not really, I don't think religion is defined as the existance of God, rather as a human institution (or at least human characteristic), so you have to man up and say why you think God wants religion to continue forever.

 

[warpus]

I predict an evolution and splintering off of religions, as has been happening for the past 4,000 years.

Why should we expect anything else? New religions will arise and existing ones will evolve..

I predict less and less people to be members of organized religions, especially in the West, as time goes on, but I don't think religion will ever die out.

We already have a couple religions without a God (ie. Buddhism).. We'll probably get a couple that have totally taken the supernatural out of the equation.

All in all I expect world religions to be entirely different a couple thousand years from now.

 

[Nylan]

So howsabout we fall away one more time, and all together, and see what words come from the sky, eh?

Well as I said He would only restore the truth when mankind was again ready to accept it. A deliberate group falling away and "OK, NOW SHOW ME A SIGN" might postpone such a restoration a few generations

But not all religions are structured that way.

Which is why I said my definition was rough and I only used it for the means of that certain discussion.

Unless Muhammad was right, and he IS the last prophet. Maybe we're on our own, to see how we react to not having prophets contantly reminding us that God is there?

Well since the OP asks what I think and I don't believe Muhammad was right in that respect, that's kinda a moot point.

Of course if Muhammad was right then there are no more prophets. That's just not what I believe. Just like if the Hindus are right I'll be reincarnated as a squirrel or something.

 

[Nylan]

Not really, I don't think religion is defined as the existance of God, rather as a human institution (or at least human characteristic), so you have to man up and say why you think God wants religion to continue forever.

Because He created it in the first place?

I'm not sure what you're getting at, so I can only say why not? because I don't see why He would. Especially since a God-imposed end of religion would contradict a lot of prophecies about the end of the world.

 

[warpus]

And that is all kinda moot, since the Mormons are right.. of course.

 

[Nylan]

And that is all kinda moot, since the Mormons are right.. of course.

Well that's what I believe, and that's what the OP asks, so yes that's my opinion.

Better discussion (and probably what the OP intended) would take place among atheists and agnostics, since the thread seems to be geared towards them and their thoughts. I'm sure it would be more fun to read at least.

 

[scy12]

Less intolerance? Intolerance was never a good thing, no, and those Christians who employed it were certainly not following their own religion's teachings. Perhaps to some extent religion becomes less and less superstitious because we become more and more knowledgeable? Seems to make sense to me that the way we discuss religion changes as the ways we speek and understand ideas changes. I don't see why it would be odd.

Less intolerance? Intolerance was never a good thing, no, and those Christians who employed it were certainly not following their own religion's teachings.

Exactly my point . The interpretation of what are the real religion's teachings , to each group changes over the time.

Perhaps to some extent religion becomes less and less superstitious because we become more and more knowledgeable?

Exactly. It also seems to me as it has less control over our culture and daily life than it usedLess intolerance? Intolerance was never a good thing, no, and those Christians who employed it were certainly not following their own religion's teachings. Perhaps to some extent religion becomes less and less superstitious because we become more and more knowledgeable? Seems to make sense to me that the way we discuss religion changes as the ways we speek and understand ideas changes. I don't see why it would be odd.

Less intolerance? Intolerance was never a good thing, no, and those Christians who employed it were certainly not following their own religion's teachings.

Exactly my point . The interpretation of what are the real religion's teachings , to each group changes over the time.

Perhaps to some extent religion becomes less and less superstitious because we become more and more knowledgeable?

Exactly. It also seems to me as it has less control over our culture and daily life than it used to.

Seems to make sense to me that the way we discuss religion changes as the ways we speek and understand ideas changes. I don't see why it would be odd.

We are in agreement. It is not odd it is the natural progression of things.

 

[warpus]

Well that's what I believe, and that's what the OP asks, so yes that's my opinion.

Better discussion (and probably what the OP intended) would take place among atheists and agnostics, since the thread seems to be geared towards them and their thoughts. I'm sure it would be more fun to read at least.

The thread, I believe, asks the question of what will happen to organized religion, irregardless of whether it is "true" or not.

You can approach this topic without assuming that your religion could only "collapse" if it was "wrong"... which you have failed to consider.

Can only religious people discuss whether the scientific community could "collapse"? No, such a discussion could be open to anyone, even those who believe in alchemy.

 

[Nylan]

@scy12: Well good

@warpus: Well I could of course discuss this under the premise that my religion wasn't true. I just haven't because the OP asked for what I honestly thought would happen. But I'm done mucking things up

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Which is why I said my definition was rough and I only used it for the means of that certain discussion.



Well since the OP asks what I think and I don't believe Muhammad was right in that respect, that's kinda a moot point.

Of course if Muhammad was right then there are no more prophets. That's just not what I believe. Just like if the Hindus are right I'll be reincarnated as a squirrel or something.

I find your knowledge and understanding of non-Abrahamic religions amusing.

 

[Nylan]

I find your knowledge and understanding of non-Abrahamic religions amusing.

Oversimplification is an art Of course I couldn't do a non-Abrahamic religion justice in half a sentence. Do you really think you can make a judgment based on so little data?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Oversimplification is an art Of course I couldn't do a non-Abrahamic religion justice in half a sentence. Do you really think you can make a judgment based on so little data?

Well you made a positive statement based on it.