God is dead...

[Geist]

For atheists everywhere and agnostics like me who reject God anyways what will feel our spiritual lives in the future when eventually religious doctrine will hopefully fade away?

I tend to think of science as the new religion, I expect to see an upsurge in philosophical developments aswell.

 

[canadianhorsefan]

If you say: God is dead, that means he was alive, which means he existed. God does not exist would be more appropriate.

canadianhorsefan

 

[Runt]

If you say: God is dead, that means he was alive, which means he existed. God does not exist would be more appropriate.

I think he was using "God is dead" metaphorically to represent how BELIEF IN GOD will gradually die out. NOT to suggest that God once lived and now is dead.

 

[Alaric]

For atheists everywhere and agnostics like me who reject God anyways what will feel our spiritual lives in the future when eventually religious doctrine will hopefully fade away?

Well, there's always Dr. Phil and all the other self-help gurus...

 

[Geist]

As somebody else stated I meant belief in God, to deny God's influence ois to deny history.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

One thing I always find humorous: when religious people say "By denying my beliefs, you are admitting there must be something to them! For how can you deny something that doesn't have any truth to it in the first place?"

By that logic, there must be some truth to Godzilla.

 

[arabian_knight1]

If there is no God then who created earth
who creathed the milkyway ??
who created all the galaxies??
who created humans ?? please don't say science because it's pathetic
who creathed mountains and insects
further more who created germs and bacteria??

there are way too many things that prove that there is a God
there must be a creator for all these


peace upon all of those who seek for guidance

 

[Mr Spinkles]

arabian knight--

That is called a "filling in the gaps" argument. It is when people create a spiritual explaination for things when natural ones aren't available yet (though I would contend very good natural theories are available which explain the things on your list).

Back in the day, people had no idea how lightning sprang out of nowhere, so they concluded there must be a guy named Zeus who throws bolts of lightning from a high place--like Mount Olympus, the tallest mountain around (the ancient Greeks didn't realize that lightning actually travels upwards from the ground).

Here is my point: for any phenomenon, the absence of a natural explaination does not confirm the validity of a spiritual one (especially considering how many spiritual explainations there could be i.e. the universe could be created by a council of many gods, or just one, etc).

 

[arabian_knight1]

Exactly that's just my point it's gotta be someone who does all this greeks thought about it (they know that there must be something that's controling lightnings

lightning actually travels upwards from the ground

lol lightning doesn't travil upwards it's created from the grapple of the charges in the clouds

it does downwards Not upwards


anyway

my point is that there must be something that created all this
you're right it can be more than one (theoratically) but there still must be something.

nature can't creat itself
infact scientists have concluded that an atom need milions and milions of years to come in existence and you're tryin' to tell me that nature created us !!


well thx for the reply anyway


peace upon all those who pray for guidance

 

[Mr Spinkles]

This is what http://wvlightning.com/faqw1.html has to say about lightning:

Does lightning travel upwards or downwards?
The answer is BOTH: For a cloud-to-ground discharge, the stepped leader begins in the lower section of a thunderstorm cloud and travels downward and initiates an upward-moving leader when it gets close to the ground (see animation below). The two meet in midair, usually at a point about 300 feet or less above ground. When the stepped leader and leader meet, they provide a conducting path for charge flow, like a wire connecting the cloud and the ground. There is then a huge flow of current upwards through the channel, brightly illuminating it.

Exactly that's just my point it's gotta be someone who does all this greeks thought about it (they know that there must be something that's controling lightnings

Someone....or something? Are weather patterns and atmospheric charges equivalent to God? Why not just say "nature" instead of "God" then? We humans think so highly of ourselves, we rush to assume that an "us-like" being must be what is controlling everything (after all, everything besides "us" is inferior!)

my point is that there must be something that created all this
you're right it can be more than one (theoratically) but there still must be something.

Right. Now we know that lightning is caused by weather patterns and atmospheric charges....the ancient Greeks were too hasty in assuming that whatever causes lightning must be a sentient being with attitudes towards humanity and also directly affects many other phenomena (and also looks like a Greek!)

nature can't creat itself
infact scientists have concluded that an atom need milions and milions of years to come in existence and you're tryin' to tell me that nature created us !!

There is nothing that is not part of nature....if God exists, and He interacts with nature, then He is still part of nature (though He has properties of which we have little knowledge). In many ways, you and I agree--there have to be 'reasons'. I just don't personify those reasons as a deity (for example, I highly doubt that the natural processes which cause lightning 'want' anything from us, as electrons do not have feelings).

 

[tumble_weed]

...protons do...

If there is no God then who created earth
who creathed the milkyway ??
who created all the galaxies??
who created humans ?? please don't say science because it's pathetic

conversly it's equally as pathetic to suggest that a giant invisible man who lives in the sky who can't be directly (or indirectly) observed created these things....you have to remember how many millions of planets in the universe do not have any life like this and then relaise that the life that we have here could have been started by chance...see if there was a god who created humans here on earth, what was the point of creating x hundred million of other planets with no intelligent life on them?

who creathed mountains and insects
further more who created germs and bacteria??

there are way too many things that prove that there is a God
there must be a creator for all these

things evolve over time, however bacteria and germs do not indicate the presence of god as germs and bacteria are generally bad and harmful and god is supposed to be forgiving and generally good...and creating bacteria and germs seems somewhat evil.

oh and I don't believe in God so he wasn't alive in the first place to be dead

 

[Ceridwen018]

people had no idea how lightning sprang out of nowhere, so they concluded there must be a guy named Zeus who throws bolts of lightning from a high place--like Mount Olympus, the tallest mountain around

Yes...YES! A guy named ZEUS!! A guy named Zeus who throws lightening bolts!! Pure genius Spinkles, I must say! Nobel prize for science coming right up! You've certainly solved a great mystery here...oh...that was the Greeks you say?...And it's been proven as pure fallacy?...damn, it held so much promise.

arabian_knight1,

nature can't creat itself
infact scientists have concluded that an atom need milions and milions of years to come in existence and you're tryin' to tell me that nature created us !!

Nature cannot create itself, but god can?

You would contest that god has 'just been' forever, so how can you not accept the idea that the matter and atoms which were ivolved in the initial creation of this world had always 'just been', as well? It's the exact same concept, only you are putting your faith into a magical being for which there is no evidence, and I am putting mine into tangible and testable theories.

As far as atoms needing millions and millions of years to come into existence, I think you can breathe easy...considering that the universe (or the vacuum surrounding the universe, depending on how you define it) has been around for an infinite number of 'years'.

Are you one of those people who believe the earth is only 6000 years old and all that?

 

[Sunstone]

Geist writes,

“For atheists everywhere and agnostics like me who reject God anyways what will feel our spiritual lives in the future when eventually religious doctrine will hopefully fade away?”

You expect religion to fade away? But religion is too deeply rooted in human nature for it to fade away. Religious behavior will be in the repertoire of human behaviors for as long as there are humans. That is, the ultimate causes of religious behavior in our species is found in the structure and functioning of the brain and central nervous system. Until our brains and central nervous systems change, we will have religions.

Just to give one example of how that works: Consider the experiment of B.F. Skinner with pigeons. Skinner taught the pigeons to press a lever for food. Once they had learned to do that, he programmed the lever to dispense food randomly (rather than every time it was pressed). The pigeons responded by developing “rain dances” that they would execute before pressing the lever. Basically, you see the same behavior in humans.

The world is more random than we care to admit. To deal with that randomness, we develop “rain dances” – rituals that we perform in the expectation that by performing them we are influencing the outcome of what is, after all, a rather chance process. We “cross our fingers”, for instance, hoping that will influence the outcome.

That sort of behavior is ubiquitous: Wherever you go in the world, you will find it.

No doubt, there are other equally intriguing ways in which the brain and central nervous system function to produce what is recognizably religious behavior. The point is that religious behavior is grounded in how our brains and central nervous systems work, and thus, religious behavior will not simply “fade away”. It will be with us for as long as we are human.

Geist writes,

“I tend to think of science as the new religion, I expect to see an upsurge in philosophical developments aswell.”

As you know, Nietzsche made famous the phrase “God is dead”, and he most likely meant by it something along the lines that belief in God was no longer possible for an informed person with an intellectual conscience. Nietzsche believed such people were rare. I could be wrong about this detail, but I don’t think Nietzsche ever expected that the masses of people would agree with the notion that God is dead.

I think Nietzsche may have had a point: science and (formal) philosophy are spiritually significant only for a small minority of people. It’s unlikely that they will get appreciably more popular than they are already – and that’s not very popular. So, no, I don’t see science and philosophy becoming the basis for a new religion – at least not for most people.

But do you think the time is ripe for a new religion? If so, what would that religion look like?

 

[Ceridwen018]

I think it's more complicated than 'a new religion'. Modern day religions are doing all they can to stay in the game by 'growing' with their congregations, aka, dumbing down the rules so they'll be more readily accepted.

Our society's way of evolving through religion is not to create a whole new one, but to change the one they've got already. That's where Protestantism came from Catholocism, Reform from Judaism, etc. The masses are generally going to be satisfied with these step by step changes, and as was mentioned earlier, only a select few will break away entirely and do their own thing.

Not that it's impossible to get a new religion successfully up and running...if our society never changed anything or took the path less travelled we'd certainly be in a bad way, but these things seem to come few and far between.

 

[Sock-Ra-Tease]

arabian_knight1,

Faith (belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence) and knowledge (familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study) are mutually exclusive. If you have faith, you don't have knowledge and visa versa. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are openly and accurately called "faith-based" religions. There is NO knowledge of God. All claims to the contrary are claims of non-empirical knowledge no one can legitimately possess. Differentiating between the non-physical and the non-existent is NOT a human skill.

 

[Sunstone]

Ceridwen,

I think you’ve correctly outlined how religions change. That is, it’s a gradual process; for the most part tiny steps (And, ironically, each tiny step is called a “revolution” by those who take it). Good post.

But have you considered the power of the mass media to mold and shape opinion? What would happen if someone with a huge advertising budget decided to create a new religion? What if they went about it using the marketing techniques that are so successful when launching new consumer products? I wonder….

Just a thought.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Sunstone,

That's definately the truth...as scary as that seems! I think that's what has happened with new religions like Scientology and the like. That is certainly an interesting idea--and you're right, people are very manipulated and easily influenced by the media. If they didn't see it on billboards every day, maybe no one would drink coke. Religion is perhaps becoming just another product to be sold, and it's a lucrative one at that. Just take a look at the Vatican billions and all of those rich televangelists....I think I'm going to brainstorm an idea tonight, apply for a loan in the morning and jumpstart my campaign!

 

[Sunstone]

Somehow, Ceridwen, I don't think you'll be the first person to get into religion more for the money than the spirit! If history is any guide, you'll do well, too.

Out of curiosity, if you were to create a new religion, what would be some of the characteristics of it?

 

[Ceridwen018]

Characteristics of a new religion? Wow...well, I suppose I would have to uncover some ancient text that archeologists have thrown out for some reason. I'll exclaim at how we have been blind all along, but that the Word has finally been found. In order to lure people in, you'd have to make the religion very similar to todays major ones...at least on the surface. As people become more and more indoctrinated, you can have them beleive what you will. I guess I'm talking more strategy here than doctrine...

If I had the power to create my own genuine religion, I think I'd have fun with it. While incorporating my own personal values and ideals, I'd have crazy dieties like the Invisible Pink Unicorn and crap like that. I've never really though about it seriously...pretty much the only problem I have with religions today is the blind belief and illogical concepts that you can't question. I'd eliminate those.

 

[Gorilla]

"For atheists everywhere and agnostics like me who reject God anyways what will feel our spiritual lives in the future when eventually religious doctrine will hopefully fade away?"

This seems like I might be rehashing something, but I just say we bring back Paganism. Or....transcendentalism perhaps. Nature is blatant reality. Our efforts to quantify it show up as science, so if you want to pick something universal worship nature for God's sake

Second thing I want to see is religions with equality for women. The world's screwed right now b/c there have been too many insecure men in power for way too long. I don't say this to indicate all men are insecure, but rather to indicate a lot of insecure men end up being politicians.

Third thing. Have any of you paused to open your minds enough to consider the possibility of some greater force that is purely scientific that we aren't capable of comprehending? Do you honestly think we're it - the end all in the ladder that is evolution and the end all in highly developed conscious organisms that have the ability to evolve?? Take your dog, maybe your dog thinks you're God. Maybe a fish looking up at you thinks you're God because it doesn't have the mental capacity to comprehend your existence. An animals level of "consciousness" and accurate perception of reality, to the best of our scientific knowledge, has evolved and evolved and evolved. How can we be so utterly illogical to think that we are the end-all in evolution. Medicine can only do so much when we can't currently prevent selection for those genes that may have a greater resistance to cancer, AIDS, etc etc. And if we're only a rung on the ladder of evolution there's a very large chance that we cannot possibly have the level of consciousness that is necessary to percieve 100% of pure. scientific. reality.

Therefore, if we define God as something greater and infinitely more powerful than ourselves (a fish vs. a human), the likelihood of this existing and humans not understanding it due to our own LACK OF SUFFICIENT BRAIN POWER is equally as great as the liklihood of it not existing. God can be a way that we quantify something that is purely scientific, we just lack the ability to understand it. Who's to say you're not going toexist after your body dies, who's to say you can POSSIBLY begin to comprehend the implications of your own scientific existence?! We can't even fully explain what a dream is, we have only a small fraction of a full concept of how the human brain works, and quantum physicists are suggesting you don't even fully exist as a particle, but also as a wave!! Wake up and smell the coffee, you are a limited organism! The most fascinating thing you can do is try to learn as much as you can before you kick the bucket, but anyway you look at it if you're saying you know for sure that God either does or does not exist you are being utterly unscientific. People need to realize their own mental limitations, nature is a crapload more significant than we can ever hope to be.