Religion is slowy "dying out"

I'm not entirely sure what your stance is here. You say that science will abolish the need for religion, but will not be enough to dispel superstition? General beliefs 'without dogma' would mean that a religion admitted that their rituals and tradition were worthless- ineffectual at best, damaging at worst- but that there was still a god! In my experience, the ritual and community of a faith is more rewarding than the abstract beliefs themselves. I don't see people abandoning the community but retaining their faith in god.

If we got to such a point where "science had disproved dogma" (which is ironically, a very un-scientific phrase) then as a side effect it would also have had evidence that suggested a lack of the Deity. (or Deities) [/B]

Religion might not die out, people may still go to church, but their religion won't be able to tell them much that science can't. God and the afterlife are the only things i don't see science ever being able to explain. But there will be less literal belief in dogma.

So far science has explained many things previously explained by religions. One is the story of Genesis. Since evolution is accepted as fact, science has disproved the way the Bible tells it. Science still can't however tell us how the first form of life was created, so religion is still relied on for that. So now people interpret Genesis as a myth thought up to teach us a lesson.

As for superstitions, they can't survive in a world where everything is explained. Even today most people consider them something you follow just because its tradition.

I of course realize there will always be people who reject science for religion, I'm talking about the majority of people.

k

I haven't found anything I can disagree with yet.

Since a lot of numbers are being batted around without much backing, I found a fairly reliable chart for # of adherents to various religions. There's other similar ones dotted through google searches and such, some from generally-reliable .edu sites or purporting to be backed by various scientific and/or census results. And this particular site backs their numbers with studies and publications at nearly every turn. So it's probably as close to accurate as we'll get:

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

If you scroll down, it breaks down each group into smaller lists, so that we see how many in, say, "nonreligious" are agnostic, atheist, others, etc.

Apparently in the US (2001 study) while about 13% claim to be non-religious, around 0.5% are atheist. So it's not exactly a booming group. Atheists barely outnumber Jews. Highest estimates of the world's non-religious population are at about 20%, but a lot of it depends on where you draw the line for "non-religious." Because a lot of beliefs, including a creator or higher power (just not in the Western sense of the word) can still fall loosely under a non-religious banner.

Originally posted by cococryspies
Religion might not die out, people may still go to church, but their religion won't be able to tell them much that science can't. God and the afterlife are the only things i don't see science ever being able to explain. But there will be less literal belief in dogma.

So far science has explained many things previously explained by religions. One is the story of Genesis. Since evolution is accepted as fact, science has disproved the way the Bible tells it. Science still can't however tell us how the first form of life was created, so religion is still relied on for that. So now people interpret Genesis as a myth thought up to teach us a lesson.

As for superstitions, they can't survive in a world where everything is explained. Even today most people consider them something you follow just because its tradition.

I of course realize there will always be people who reject science for religion, I'm talking about the majority of people.

Have you ever heard of creationism? Evolution isn't exactly widely accepted among the religious crowd. Hey, remember when there was such a fuss in Kansas because they were teaching evolution, and not creationism?

There can be a scientific explanation for everything, but those people who have faith enough to beilieve in whatever religion they believe in, will continue to reject scientific explanations, or at least doubt them.

Further, the "majority" of people [if you think of the whole world], are absolutely immersed in religion/rituals/belief systems, etc. There is no scientific proof whatever that proves that there is an afterlife, for example, and even if there were, Christians would still believe in heaven/hell, Hindus would still believe in reincarnation... etc.

Whether right or wrong, people will cling to their beliefs. Religion is not about fact; religion is about faith.

On another note, that's what makes me so angry about people who try to prove that their religion is the right one - because people aren't supposed to be able to prove their religions... otherwise there would be no point in faith.

this thread is full of such gross misunderstandings about why people believe in religion.

LOL, does anyone REALLY think that any human being has ever sat down, made a flow chart, and weighed the empirical pros and cons of different forms of beliefs in order to discover how they feel about the world?

Or maybe, people are religious because that is the narrative by which they have learned to explain and internalize the experiences they have in life? And as humans, one of the existential truths of our existence is that things that make no intuitive sense will happen to us?

I think the "false religion" in want of a better phrase, ie religions which were tapered to fit into what the powerful wanted to control the minions like the Catholic church are dying out amongst intelligent thinking people who can see the fallacy in them.

But oddly enough lunatic religions like Islam seem to be growing.

Everyone has their own ideas and beliefs and shouldn´t be forced into groups imo.

Taken from the link Digi provided here's a good argument about why even if "religion" dies out religion will always exist (paragraphs added for ease of reading):

Of course, in the absence of traditional religions, society exhibits the same behavioral, social and psychological phenomena associated with religious cultures, but in association with secular, political, ethnic, commercial or other systems.

Marxism and Maoism, for instance, had their scriptures, authority, symbolism, liturgy, clergy, prophets, proselyting, etc. Sports, art, patriotism, music, drugs, mass media and social causes have all been observed to fulfill roles similar to religion in the lives of individuals -- capturing the imagination and serving as a source of values, beliefs and social interaction.

In a broader sense, sociologists point out that there are no truly "secular societies," and that the word "nonreligious" is a misnomer. Sociologically speaking, "nonreligious" people are simply those who derive their worldview and value system primarily from alternative, secular, cultural or otherwise nonrevealed systems ("religions"😉 rather than traditional religious systems.

Like traditional religions, secular systems (such as Communism, Platonism, Freudian psychology, Nazism, pantheism, atheism, nationalism, etc.) typically have favored spokespeople and typically claim to present a universally valid and applicable Truth. Like traditional religions, secular systems are subject to both rapid and gradual changes in popularity, modification, and extinction.

Originally posted by inimalist
LOL, does anyone REALLY think that any human being has ever sat down, made a flow chart, and weighed the empirical pros and cons of different forms of beliefs in order to discover how they feel about the world?

Clearly you haven't seen my "My Documents" folder.

😐

But yeah, co-signed. I also like the quote Sym dug up. It's from the link I provided, so I'll take partial credit for it.

😄

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Since a lot of numbers are being batted around without much backing, I found a fairly reliable chart for # of adherents to various religions. There's other similar ones dotted through google searches and such, some from generally-reliable .edu sites or purporting to be backed by various scientific and/or census results. And this particular site backs their numbers with studies and publications at nearly every turn. So it's probably as close to accurate as we'll get:

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

If you scroll down, it breaks down each group into smaller lists, so that we see how many in, say, "nonreligious" are agnostic, atheist, others, etc.

Apparently in the US (2001 study) while about 13% claim to be non-religious, around 0.5% are atheist. So it's not exactly a booming group. Atheists barely outnumber Jews. Highest estimates of the world's non-religious population are at about 20%, but a lot of it depends on where you draw the line for "non-religious." Because a lot of beliefs, including a creator or higher power (just not in the Western sense of the word) can still fall loosely under a non-religious banner.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Man I've used that link so many times, good to see that it is still going around.

It's a useful tool. Especially in threads like these, where guesses about religious groups are thrown about that have little backing. Glad it made you smile.

😉

I see some religions dying out but the other more fanatical ones will become more obstinate and bold. There will be a huge gap between normal thinking and radical fundamentalist thinking.

Sorry if this is offensive.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
I see some religions dying out but the other more fanatical ones will become more obstinate and bold. There will be a huge gap between normal thinking and radical fundamentalist thinking.

Sorry if this is offensive.

😆

Originally posted by Deja~vu
I see some religions dying out but the other more fanatical ones will become more obstinate and bold. There will be a huge gap between normal thinking and radical fundamentalist thinking.

Sorry if this is offensive.

There already is. And unfortunately you're probably right about the future.

*Looks into the crystal ball*

I see that the more radical fundamentalists will believe that we are living in the last days spoken of by their pastors. They will exploit scriptures to state that others will fall away and that they must hold true to their faith, for this is the "Great Tribulation" of testing....The "End of Days." 📖

Originally posted by Deja~vu
*Looks into the crystal ball*

I see that the more radical fundamentalists will believe that we are living in the last days spoken of by their pastors. They will exploit scriptures to state that others will fall away and that they must hold true to their faith, for this is the "Great Tribulation" of testing....The "End of Days." 📖

I see everything changing... like normal. 😉

Can't you just say, "Deb is right." LOL 😂

Pastor Shaky. 😉

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Can't you just say, "Deb is right." LOL 😂

Pastor Shaky. 😉

Deb? I haven't seen Deb in a long time.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Political power among churches is slowly dying out in the United States. I'd say the existence of religion itself is pretty stable.

I wouldn't go so far as to say religious influence and power is going away. It simply seems to work in cycles. Look at all this Palin hype and the fact that the republicans are already headed to New Hampshire to begin preparing for the next election. In fact, listening to the talking heads in these few days since the election, I'd venture the opinion that this election was apparently lost for the republicans, and they knew it, before a candidate was even picked and that McCain was talked in to picking Palin so she could spend the next four years furthering the very religious influence on politics that so often bring the republicans back into power. Religion will play a big part in elections in the US for a very long time to come, even though it really shouldn't.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Don't you think so? I mean, back in ancient times, we would consult religion for everything. If there's a war, we consult an oracle for what to do. If someone is accused of a murder, then we would use a technique like "I'll stick your hands in fire and if your hands are burnt then you're guilty and if you're innocent then God will protect you".

And before, the church was very powerful. And before, you had to worship X religion. And before, almost none had doubts about the existence of God(s).

Now however, the church no longer has any political power in most major countries. We no longer consult oracles to make decisions. And we use forensics to find criminals, not religious faith. And now there are more Atheists than there are Hindus and Jewish people combined.

What do you think?

QAAAURK!!! What are you doing on your night shift!?

Originally posted by Devil King
In fact, listening to the talking heads in these few days since the election, I'd venture the opinion that this election was apparently lost for the republicans, and they knew it, before a candidate was even picked and that McCain was talked in to picking Palin so she could spend the next four years furthering the very religious influence on politics that so often bring the republicans back into power.

That seems like a likely possibility.

Assuming how well Obama does in the next four years: when it comes to the [likely] Republican candidates in 2012, I might vote for Pawlenty or Jindal but definitely not Palin.