Maybe it's just me...

[Felixion]

But doesn't the simple fact that in civilizations past, there were massively believed-in, accepted religions considered to be the true nature and meaning of life that have since faded into obscurity and irrelavence prove that religion is nonsense? How can you look back into the past, see that pattern, and then deny that the same is occuring again?

[Thanatos]

Yes and no, to a certain extent.

A religion fades, but there are a few basic moral principles which are nearly held in common (do not murder, do not steal, etc) that remain true nevertheless to this day. Almost all religions will hold these virtues in common.

[Playfishpaste]

In the past, both capitalism and communism have been attempted and failed, yet people still attempt them in their idiocy.

At the same time, in the past people have attempted fair judicial systems, and have consistently failed.

At the same time, people have tried to explain the natural world, and time and again have hilariously been shown to be wrong.

In sum, people get things wrong a lot. Doesn't make anything of less value.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

Yes and no, to a certain extent.

A religion fades, but there are a few basic moral principles which are nearly held in common (do not murder, do not steal, etc) that remain true nevertheless to this day. Almost all religions will hold these virtues in common.

Which supports the hypothesis that religion is derived from our morals and not vice versa..

[Bovril]

But doesn't the simple fact that in civilizations past, there were massively believed-in, accepted religions considered to be the true nature and meaning of life that have since faded into obscurity and irrelavence prove that religion is nonsense? How can you look back into the past, see that pattern, and then deny that the same is occuring again?

That very much depnds on a whole bunch of things. For example, if you replaced the word 'religion' with 'technology' or 'scientific theory' your argument would sound absurd, so for people with a progressive view of spirituality your argument makes no sense. What is more, many people believe that their religion is the culmination of spiritual history, so it makes sense that other religions have faded away. That's fair enough. If the fact people in the past disagree with you makes your views essentially worthless then democracy and human rights should be thrown in the trash. Finally, many people see religion as a way of expressing their understanding of the human existential predicament. This means that because understanding, language and so on change across time and place, and from person to person, it would be absurd to expect all people in all places to have the same religion.

[Maverick]

Why narrowly focus on religion, a symptom and not the disease, pervasive human ignorance?

A religion fades, but there are a few basic moral principles which are nearly held in common (do not murder, do not steal, etc) that remain true nevertheless to this day. Almost all religions will hold these virtues in common.

Almost all religions (or all) that preach against murder and theft don't practice it. Try and name one with no authority figures with blood on their hands (it's not even easy to name one that has not defied a murderer).

Almost all religions (or all, I can't think of any exceptions) are hierarchical.

Back to the disease--people can't think so they obey authorities and organized religion is just another power structure intended to exploit that dynamic.

It's amazing how sheepish people really are, historically and in controlled experiments like Stanley Milgram's or Matrin Orne's experiments on obedience for the CIA.

So basically a decline in religion is meaningless without a rise in collective wisdom.

[Thanatos]

Almost all religions (or all) that preach against murder and theft don't practice it. Try and name one with no authority figures with blood on their hands (it's not even easy to name one that has not defied a murderer).

That's like blaming the Hippocratic Oath for the actions of bad doctors.

[Maverick]

That's like blaming the Hippocratic Oath for the actions of bad doctors.

And like a religious conviction the Hippocratic Oath is only as good as the person who takes it.

Kind of my point...

[Thanatos]

And like a religious conviction the Hippocratic Oath is only as good as the person who takes it.

Kind of my point...

Humanity perverts all that it touches, bar none. Any type of collective organization is going to be more susceptible to corruption and abuse, regardless of the original intent. This alone doesn't mean that the religion itself is bad.

... unless you're trying to say something else about religion.

[Felixion]

I'm not talking about technology, science, or personal spirituality which are all dependent upon the culmination of historical events. Rather, I'm talking about organized, possibly more specifically fundamental religion which relies of scripture. Cold hard words, written thousands of years ago - that people act somehow has more validity than other religions in the past.

[Thanatos]

I'm not talking about technology, science, or personal spirituality which are all dependent upon the culmination of historical events. Rather, I'm talking about organized, possibly more specifically fundamental religion which relies of scripture. Cold hard words, written thousands of years ago - that people act somehow has more validity than other religions in the past.

I would presume that it has to do with "old thing died out, must not have been the right one, but OUR thing is still alive, therefore it is The True Religion (TM)." As for not wanting to look at historical trends, well, people are guilty of that in general, not just in terms of religions alone.

[Playfishpaste]

I'm not talking about technology, science, or personal spirituality which are all dependent upon the culmination of historical events. Rather, I'm talking about organized, possibly more specifically fundamental religion which relies of scripture. Cold hard words, written thousands of years ago - that people act somehow has more validity than other religions in the past.

I'm confused, are you implying that all ancient texts have equal validity? And are you also implying that people only believe in the bible or the koran because they were written 2 thousand/1.4 thousand years ago?

[Bovril]

I'm not talking about technology, science, or personal spirituality which are all dependent upon the culmination of historical events. Rather, I'm talking about organized, possibly more specifically fundamental religion which relies of scripture. Cold hard words, written thousands of years ago - that people act somehow has more validity than other religions in the past.

I agree that this is a massive problem for fundamentalists. Then again everything seems to be a massive problem for fundamentalists. But for religious 'liberals' (including many social and political conservatives) this really is not an intellectual conundrum. Organised religion, for many people, is a group of individuals with the same ultimate concern (to use Tillich's very important term) getting together to organise their spiritual life. I see nothing particularly irrational about that.

[Felixion]

I wouldn't see anything irrational about that either, if that's what religion really was. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people who belong to an organized sect of religion are either far too crazy, or far too stupid to see it as simply a congregation of like-minded people. Rather, they take their dogma and beliefs to the core, and espouse these opinions of life, death, etc... and then expect all others to follow.

See, what you're not mentioning is the fact that these basic rules of morality are rooted in an actual religious text and belief system. Jesus, rebirth, Muhammad, so on so forth. Events and stories and ideas that are said to have taken place and be true, that are no more true than the old mythologies surroudning Zeus and Appollo.

[Felixion]

I guess what I'm saying is - it astounds me that there are people who can look at their present circumstances, look at the past, and actually believe that there is anything more sane, and logical about following a religion based upon the teachings of a robed, virgin birthed, superman who walked on water than say a bearded god who shoots lightning from his dick and lives on Mt. Olympus. There's a level of ignorance and gullibility there that is beyond my imagination.

[Bovril]

I guess what I'm saying is - it astounds me that there are people who can look at their present circumstances, look at the past, and actually believe that there is anything more sane, and logical about following a religion based upon the teachings of a robed, virgin birthed, superman who walked on water than say a bearded god who shoots lightning from his dick and lives on Mt. Olympus. There's a level of ignorance and gullibility there that is beyond my imagination.

I guess I'm the opposite of you in an interesting way. I think its amazing that people wouldn't belive that there's some super-being shooting lightning out of his dick, or walking on water or whatever. But that's because I have an entirely different understanding of what those things mean, and what we can learn from them. I always try to stress that many atheists are more Christian than many people that call themselves Christian, and that I am a person who 'aspires to be a Christian'. I think this demonstrates that religion is not simply holding a set of factual beliefs. It's something very much more profound than that.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

But doesn't the simple fact that in civilizations past, there were massively believed-in, accepted religions considered to be the true nature and meaning of life that have since faded into obscurity and irrelavence prove that religion is nonsense? How can you look back into the past, see that pattern, and then deny that the same is occuring again?

So the fact that the vast majority of people in the past believed in some sort of deity or deities therefore makes them false? You have brilliant logic, my friend. You should join a debate team!

[Felixion]

So the fact that the vast majority of people in the past believed in some sort of deity or deities therefore makes them false? You have brilliant logic, my friend. You should join a debate team!

Um...no. The fact that a vast population of people could at one time hold a complex system of gods and dieties responsible for the existence of humanity and the turning of the earth, should be proved false by the fact that the disappearance of worship to those gods has not effected the existence of humanity, or the turning of the earth.

Understand now?

[Ó Cathasaigh]

If we are to buy into any religion, we almost certainly have to assume all other religions are false. As most religions are rather lacking on the "oh, but Hindu's are right too" section of the faiths. Naturally, it's not surprising other religions that were once strong have died out and been replaced. It would be worrisome if they hadn't.

[S.L.I.G]

But doesn't the simple fact that in civilizations past, there were massively believed-in, accepted religions considered to be the true nature and meaning of life that have since faded into obscurity and irrelavence prove that religion is nonsense? How can you look back into the past, see that pattern, and then deny that the same is occuring again?

Organized religion, certainly. Theism as a whole isn't flawed by that notion, but organized religion certainly is.