The next evolutionary leap for the human race will be where it grows up and relegates religion to the pages of history*. When it can focus it's energies on life, here and now, rather than wasting so much of it on some mythical "after-life". When it decides that baseless mythologies are really stupid things to fight about. When it stops pondering what came before, and what an unknowable future may bring, and starts focusing it's energies on now. Then, the race will move forward, accomplishing even greater things. Or it can continue it's petty religious and ideological conflicts until it has destroyed itself utterly.

If I were asked to bet on the question, I'd have to go with destruction.



* This won't happen over night. It may take a few centuries for the race's thought-patterns to re-work themselves. Perhaps it's already starting.

This post has been edited by MattV: Sep 23 2007, 09:42 AM

Substitute "Evolution" for "Religion" and you can make the same statement.

Not to change this thread to a discussion about religion vs. science, but I cannot agree that the theory of evolution has the same status as does, for example, the dogma of transubstantiation. It may be that everything resolves itself into interpretation or perspective or (in a very wide sense) belief, but to argue from that that all belief is therefore the "same" seems to me to ignore the differences in the grounds for various "beliefs."
Perhaps a new topic?
Z

It's easy to get sidetracked... the only way to carry on a conversation is to agree to discus after stating certain assumptions and carrying the conversion on from that point onwards.

1) Either exist supernatural being(s) or they do not. (Both possibilities can not be true).. Evolution theory departs this discussion here.
2) Either these beings (assumption: they exist) have an interest in human affairs or not.
3) Either these beings have left for us instructions on why they made us or they didn't (assumption: they do have an interest in us)
4) ...

So... "One right, or all wrong?"

Assuming the 3 assumptions I make above... with all the conflicting views on God... All religions can NOT all be right. In fact it would be impossible for two conflicting views to be right since there can only be one truth about God. Therefore at most... only one can be right.

I guess that I agree with your statement... and after 20+ years I'm comfortable that I've found the one.

It is, at least for me, an open question (perhaps not practically but certainly theoretically) about the extent to which logical thought processes (A or not-A, for example) is applicable to Being.

"All religions can NOT all be right. In fact it would be impossible for two conflicting views to be right since there can only be one truth about God. Therefore at most... only one can be right."

Well, all religions could be wrong. And why could there be only one truth about God (supernatural beings), and how does one determine what that truth is? What if the assumptions are in themselves in dispute?

Z

Either there exists a supernatural being(s) or not... is there a third option?

And you can't go onto the next one until you agree not to go back on this point. It would take some self examination and honesty to answer each one and go from there.

The use of the word "exists" can be multivocal, for example. One could also argue that "to exist" can only apply to any supernatural being analogically. Or one could challenge the assumption that logic can be applied to a discussion of supernatural entities; in that case, the either/or would be completely inappropriate to the discussion and it would not be a case of there being the possibility of eliminating a third option. All of this would, it seems, be prior to the discussion of the first assumption.
Thus questions Zarathustra

What is all this guff about god?
Supernatural beings?
Someones been eating too many mushrooms to my mind.
Heart stops, the lights go out, that's it.

Multivocal?
Analogically?
Where on earth do you get these snappy phrases Zara?

The simple matter of things is that people want to believe in a belief otherwise they fear eternal damnation in the firey pits of hell.
What a load of old hogwash.
I'd ban all forms of religion tomorrow as it is the prime factor in global warfare and always will be.
You can all ruminate about religion till nelson gets his eye back but it's all meaningless.
So sayeth the Wolf

Here, Here Wolfey!!!

I agree with you, except I would have to say that we have a energy or spirit or soul, as some people put it. I feel that it exists and continues on after the body gives up.

I also think that the majority of the population are to afraid to look at their own mortality and really ponder just how short our life is, and have we as individuals feel satisfied that we have done some good while we existed.
Have we made a difference?
Does it really matter if future generations don't remember us?
Is this really what we are put on this Earth for?
How do we leave our imprint on this Earth?
Why do the people who so vehemently preach love not war, are also the ones who cause the pain and destruction?
If everyone was intent to live their own lives, truly live their own lives, would our world be a better place?

What about, instead of following a religion/s that is based on a person/s....what about turning to nature. Respecting nature, the energies from nature, being in harmony with the very planet that sustains us all??

Guys? What about???

We leave it by caring or not caring for our kids, they in turn pass our caring, or lack of, on to their kids.
The world turns.

That is the true value of why we are here and not some bull%&@!#! about a man with a beard or supernatural beings.

No one knows the scale or why of things and it is even beyond Hawking to explain the myriad of what, if any, the ultimate end game is.

Oh very young
What will you leave us this time
You're only dancing on this earth for a short while
Oh very young
What will you leave us this time

(Oh very young - Cat Stevens)

To compliment that post by John

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_eUnxDE8YY

Then you would have two completely bogus statements.

Religion is based on a belief in the supernatural, for which there isn't and can not be any hard supporting evidence - *poof*, magic. Evolutionary science has enough factual evidence supporting it that I don't understand why it's still called a theory. And before anyone starts throwing around meaningless phrases like "it can't explain everything", neither can the sciences of cosmology, or quantum physics, or molecular biology. We still don't really understand anything about gravity, except that it can ruin your day if you misstep. So how come it isn't the "Theory of Gravity"?

Play all of the silly semantic games, if you wish, but what it comes down to is really quite simple:

The existence of a "supreme" supernatural being can't be proven.

The science of evolution has been.

Simple, irrefutable facts. Rail against them if you wish, but that will not change them.

This post has been edited by MattV: Sep 25 2007, 10:07 AM

In total agreement with you on this one 'MattV'
To read in a previous post that a member was prepared to die for their Blind Faith,to me Borders on insanity IMHO.
I am not directing my opinion to that person in particular,with no intention to flame.All who would be prepared to sacrafice their life for an absolute Fantasy that cant be supported by a single Fact.I personally value my life too much.I live a clean life and be compassioate to my fellow man. Amazing how so many people waste the best part of their life banking on a promise of heaven, and eternal salvation.I enjoy this life to the fullest and Not greedy enough to want another one.

Ah, but herein lies the rub -

at this point in our scientific knowledge,

the existence of a "supreme" supernatural being can not be disproved, either.