Eradicating religion.

[Mike S]

I can understand why you wouldn't want to embarass yourself in a public forum. But, if you want an education feel free to PM me.

There has already been much misinformation and propaganda on this subject within this forum. If you want to debate it - start a new thread. Don't derail this one.

Here's from the OP, in case you forgot.

"...what kind of world would you expect if religion/Christianity would stop existing (or never existed before)?"

My comment is right on target. We already know what happens when governments try to eradicate religion, more specifically Christianity.

 

[Aardverk]

I can understand why you wouldn't want to embarass yourself in a public forum. But, if you want an education feel free to PM me.

There has already been much misinformation and propaganda on this subject within this forum. If you want to debate it - start a new thread. Don't derail this one.

Here's from the OP, in case you forgot.

"...what kind of world would you expect if religion/Christianity would stop existing (or never existed before)?"

My comment is right on target. We already know what happens when governments try to eradicate religion, more specifically Christianity.

By raising unsupported historical, 'lethal, vicious attacks by Russia and China', I think you may have missed the point but OK, within the confines of the thread, start with Japan, China and Vietnam - the most irreligious countries that I can think of. What are those irreligious societies like? Not Utopia maybe but by no means bad either. Despite earlier devastation they are each better than the majority of the world in many ways.

If you still want to refer to Russia, which happens to be one of the most Christian countries in the world, don't forget to allow for their revolution and civil war - which killed about the same proportion of the population as the American revolution and civil war did. If you want to consider ethnic cleansing and genocide, don't forget an estimated 100 million native Americans that died plus large numbers of South Americans, Australians, etc. Even polite little Belgium slaughtered millions as part of its colonial expansion but is now a fairly quiet and peaceful example of a largely irreligious country.

The truth is that many (most?) countries have committed atrocities. Countries with a strong religious traditions and those without any such traditions. Wherever you happen to live, your country is likely to have a shameful past whether it is a religious country or not.

So, returning to the OP, what do you think an irreligious society would be like?

 

[Claudya]

Sorry for being so late to come back at you on this.

Excerpts from the Darwin Bible:

James, the term "Darwin Bible" makes me cringe, because it mixes up the categories. The Bible is God's word, and Darwins books are scientific text books with an entirely different scope. You make christians that are okay with Darwinism look like idolaters. Also, by calling any of Darwin's books a "bible" you further confirm your view on Darwin's theory as a religion. But the theory of evolution is not an ideology or a religion, it's a description and interpretation of what Charles Darwin observed when studying nature. Although the theory of evolution has been used for political or ideological worldviews and has for some taken a quasi-religious role, Darwin's theory was originally nothing else but a scientific theory. And it still is for most evolutionary biologists around the world today.
if you believe that your stance on the evolution debate is backed by the eternal God you have no need for getting irrational and polemical. You could win the debate in a clean way. So for the sake of the search for truth, please keep polemics out of it.

An Excerpt on Race:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla (p. 521).

Well there seems to be racism in this text, but speaking about "savage races" was well within the usual terminology of Darwin's time. It's not particularily racist. Also, there as longer version of the quote to be found here (scroll down a bit) which is making clear that the text was not about eradicating "savage species", but about gaps between species, and that Darwin merely describes what he is expecting to happen (the gap between humans and apes to become wider) due to colonialism and destruction of nature. His racist slur is that he seems to think "negros" or "savage races" of humans to be biologically closer to apes. But then, he might also be saying that those races (or actually their culture) are representing an earlier stage of mankinds evolution and so they are closer to the common ancestors humans and apes had.
This quote does NOT call for an active eradictation of those "races", or the anthropomorphous apes he speaks about. He just says it will just happen because of the civilised world's imperialism.
So while this clearly contains things we would call racism it's not a call for a Social Darwinist ideology and world view.

An excerpt on woman:

“[t]he chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.... [T]he average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.... [M]an has ultimately become superior to woman” (pp. 873-874).]

Okay, so he was sexist, too. Like probably all people during that time. It was Victorian England, women just weren't part of science. They weren't allowed to vote or to own property. Women's role was to look pretty while cleaning the house and raising the kids. So is it a surprise that the intellectual elite was made of men who had never seen a female to be their equal, because women just didn't get the chance to get to the point of being equal contributers to science? So of course he thinks men are naturally cleverer than women. That's what the conditions and the mindset of his time and culture were like. If Darwin would return from the dead and look at the women in science now he'd shamefully erase that sentence from his book.

So this is proof he was a sexist... but that's still not Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism wouldn't work on sexes anyway, since you can't procreate without having both, so you can't keep on sex from procreating.

 

[King James]

you further confirm your view on Darwin's theory as a religion. But the theory of evolution is not an ideology or a religion

Is it really taught as a theory to impressionable government school children that believe whatever you tell them?

 

[Claudya]

Is it really taught as a theory to impressionable government school children that believe whatever you tell them?

As far as I remember school it was taught as a theory, and we also discussed some of the questions left unanswered by the theory of evolution. So it wasn't pure indoctrination or so.
And the fact of kids being impressionable is the reason we teach them. What use would there be in teaching them if they disblieved everything you told them?

 

[King James]

I don't know if we can set a standard on what or how it's taught. We are in different countries. Even only in America, it will be different by region and how long ago it was that you went to school.

 

[Christ_empowered]

I've wondered about this. Its hard, you know...I'm born again in the Southeastern US ("Bible Belt" country). I see violence, poverty, crime, misogyny, some racism (I'm white, so I probably don't see as much as I would if I wasn't white). Then I have these acquaintances who have moved over (or back to) Europe, and...it seems better. Social programs, rehabilitation over punishment, environmental regulations, less crime overall, more rights for minorities.

I don't think one can eradicate religion. You abolish religion based on belief in God(s), you get something else--secular religion (patriotism, for instance), New Age-ism, lots of psychobabble masquerading as true religion. Plus, I'm a Christian, so I believe that Jesus=Truth. Then I wonder...if Jesus=Truth, why are so many in the most Christian region of a once Christian nation leading such miserable lives? Jesus saves, sure, but practical, rational government programs help, too.

I'm rambling because...well....this is the internet, and rambling kinda goes along with posting straight out of my brain. I guess I'm saying that religion, in one form or another, will persist. As a Christian, I"m concerned that, for whatever reason, Christianity will die a quiet death in many very comfortable nations, and no one will care :-( .

 

[displayorder]

I am so glad this internet thing works and your article really helped me. Might take you up on that home advice you

 

[Claudya]

I'm rambling because...well....this is the internet, and rambling kinda goes along with posting straight out of my brain. I guess I'm saying that religion, in one form or another, will persist. As a Christian, I"m concerned that, for whatever reason, Christianity will die a quiet death in many very comfortable nations, and no one will care :-( .

That's exactly what is happening in many rural areas of my part of the world: the church is dying. The catholic church is doing a bit better, but the protestant church is in decline and noone outside the church really cares. People here tend to be indifferent agnostics. They aren't strongly convinced aggressive atheists or so. They just don't care about God.
Although spirituality in people will not go away. Christianity will have to face a choice to either evolve or die. Conservative doctrine and literalism will sooner or later make us so stagnant we will be overrun by the world's changes. But christianity has survived 2000 years and it has renewed and transformed itself many times in the past and it will do so now. Maybe the way we worship God and follow Jesus as His disciples will look a lot different in the future, but we will not go quietly into the night. ;)

 

[Classik]

We will not go Nicodemusly?

 

[taikina]

They aren't strongly convinced aggressive atheists or so. They just don't care about God. Although spirituality in people will not go away. Christianity will have to face a choice to either evolve or die. Conservative doctrine and literalism will sooner or later make us so stagnant we will be overrun by the world's changes. But christianity has survived 2000 years and it has renewed and transformed itself many times in the past and it will do so now. Maybe the way we worship God and follow Jesus as His disciples will look a lot different in the future, but we will not go quietly into the night.

this is skandinavia right now, i had one friend from a christian family. he is really ponderous and inquisitive and he became agnostic, saying "who can know what god is for sure". my other christian friend kind of stays away from difficult subjects, atleast outwardly and doesn't like to express clear or heavy opinions, so he's still in, though he and his mom are not in a church(mad props).

so being a sheep on a leash is in decline. i know the sheep symbolizes two different things: trust in christ, but also weakness and surrender of your own fate and thoughts.

edit: and yes, thats my two christian friends. the rest are agnostic or atheist. lol, gotta love this heathen northern land. i think even the atheists, like me, think there might a god but no one has seen or heard that god, maybe not even felt it.

 

[Claudya]

this is skandinavia right now, i had one friend from a christian family. he is really ponderous and inquisitive and he became agnostic, saying "who can know what god is for sure". my other christian friend kind of stays away from difficult subjects, atleast outwardly and doesn't like to express clear or heavy opinions, so he's still in, though he and his mom are not in a church(mad props).

Yeah people are similar here. There are "radical" (not in a dangerous way, but very dedicated and lacking any kind of doubt) christians here, too, but the average christian here knows doubts and agnostic phases in their lives. Or they just ignore and neglect large parts of the Bible they feel uncomfortable with. Or blame the difficult Bible verses on the culture of the place and time they were written. Or understand the Bible as a metaphor altogether.
So maybe even the christians in Europe aren't really christian any more. ;) Though I don't think christianity is dying, it's just people changing their approach to it.
Some people, like that one friend you are speaking about, may notice that the Bible taken literally makes no sense and thus they leave christianity for good. Others just leave the literal view to the Bible behind and move on to a more individual, metaphorical, mystical and spirtual understanding of it so the Bible and their faith will become alive and enjoyable again. Conservative christians usually frown upon those "progressive" christians and consider them to be seduced by the world/ flesh/ devil, but maybe the opposite is true and they will be christianities only hope to make its 3rd millenium. (If I'm wrong and Christ's second comming really happens before my death then I can only hope He loves me enough to understand why I have no choice but to think such rebellious thoughts....)

so being a sheep on a leash is in decline. i know the sheep symbolizes two different things: trust in christ, but also weakness and surrender of your own fate and thoughts.

We're living with a feeling of security and safety here that is unprecedented in humanity's history. Our countries have a strong and stabil economy even in these days, a low crime rate, no real threats of natural disasters (we call it a "tragical disaster" here when after three days of rain the local river floods a few streets and some basements. People living in monsoon areas would laugh their butts off about that), good health care and social security. We have access to all kinds of information and can basically do with our lives what we want and what we are talented to do, if only we agree to invest some effort.
So we have a strong sense of control over our lives. So why would we surrender our fate and follow someone else's doctrines?
Anyway, it's a false sense of security. We will still get hit by things we didn't want and didn't provoke, like accidents, illness, failures, heartbreaks; and even if everything in one's life goes according to plan at the very end they will have to surrender to death. So I'm thinking accepting life's unpredictability and our own limitations and "surrendering" to the higher powers that we refer to as "God", and getting ourselves to trusting in "Him", is not weakness, but is wise and will help us cope and adapt. It'll make us actually stronger, deeper and more peacefull people.
But people don't want to be sheep on the leash of the church or of pastors that want to impose their view on God and their understanding of the Bible on us. That's what the Enlightenment has done: we don't trust those religious authorities any more and prefere having our individual faith or doing our own research. Anything is better than being gullible.

edit: and yes, thats my two christian friends. the rest are agnostic or atheist. lol, gotta love this heathen northern land. i think even the atheists, like me, think there might a god but no one has seen or heard that god, maybe not even felt it.

Oh you probably have. You just didn't know it was Him, because it wasn't quite a bearded guy in heaven or a deep voice out of the skies. ;)

Edit: sorry for writing so much.

 

[taikina]

I don't think christianity is dying, it's just people changing their approach to it.

yeah, it'll become something else, like it has lots of times already. it's evolution, it changes it's form to adapt.

Conservative christians usually frown upon those "progressive" christians and consider them to be seduced by the world/ flesh/ devil, but maybe the opposite is true

i definantly think conservative christians are of the devil.

We will still get hit by things we didn't want and didn't provoke, like accidents, illness, failures, heartbreaks; and even if everything in one's life goes according to plan at the very end they will have to surrender to death. So I'm thinking accepting life's unpredictability and our own limitations and "surrendering" to the higher powers that we refer to as "God", and getting ourselves to trusting in "Him", is not weakness, but is wise and will help us cope and adapt. It'll make us actually stronger, deeper and more peacefull people.
But people don't want to be sheep on the leash of the church or of pastors that want to impose their view on God and their understanding of the Bible on us. That's what the Enlightenment has done: we don't trust those religious authorities any more and prefere having our individual faith or doing our own research.

yeah, i feel you. i also think that you don't need any one specific god. or a god at all, after all these are just thought talismans we build to cope with stuff. in this sense i'm my own god, i've learned to accept that anything can happen and life is not scripted and also pretty horrible at times, even when you're living in this first world capitalist pampered wonderland.

individual thought rules. you can't be intellectually spoonfed.

Oh you probably have. You just didn't know it was Him, because it wasn't quite a bearded guy in heaven or a deep voice out of the skies.

haha, yes, i've felt some #/%&t i know it was something wonderful and terrible. be it some mirthful elder god or just my cognitive system having an existential party.

 

[Mike S]

i definantly think conservative christians are of the devil.

What is it about conservative Christians you don't like?

 

[taikina]

What is it about conservative Christians you don't like?

they hold the white hetero cis male above everyone else, it's inequality. i really don't feel like going to the full details here because you seem kind of aggressive and blunt. if you really want you can pm me, i guess.

 

[Mike S]

What is it about conservative Christians you don't like?

they hold the white hetero cis male above everyone else, it's inequality. i really don't feel like going to the full details here because you seem kind of aggressive and blunt. if you really want you can pm me, i guess.

We can speak openly on this forum, I won't attack you. I'm only aggressive and blunt with those who are aggressive with me first.

 

[taikina]

it has nothing to do with you, but i can't speak openly on this forum. so i can't ask you what i want to know, or point some stuff out i want to point out.

 

[Classik]

I think you can - if you do it the right way.

 

[taikina]

no i can't, my factopinions are too hot for you. i have to censor myself or someone else will.

 

[Classik]

Hotter ones get delivered.