Is Religion Outdated?

[Fr3nzY]

Your thoughts about this question anyone? And i mean religion as a whole, not just a specific religion. I myself think that while religions do become outdated, religion itself would never be outdated.

[mgrace]

Is your question outdated???

[Chamcham Trigger]

Yikes harsh mgrace :laugh
As for the question. That depends on your outlook towards religion, and the religion that you're looking at (whether in general or as a whole). I'm not gonna say much on the subject until I see how this subject develops, but I WILL say that if you look at religion as a way to keep the masses in check under the idea of a god that will punish them out of line, then no Religion isn't outdated. Not only that, but people are constantly developing on existing religions as to keep up with the times, so it's really hard to say whethere it is even outdated from looking at it from other viewpoints (unless again, you're looking at a specific religion).

Whether or not I see religion as a way to keep the masses in order is not something I wish to disclose at this point since it's a very sensitive subject to many people and I don't wanna push for or against this idea due to my passive position towards life ^^

[The Space Cowboy]

As a group of philosophies and worldviews, religion seems to be doing quite nicely from a strictly numerical standpoint.

[neko-sennin]

From a *realistic* standpoint, we've reached a technological level where religion is become more of danger to humanity than a help, regardless of what they believe. Religion is just a form of mind control, and the masses will have to take it to the next level, what some call sprituality, or else organized Religion will be a major player in bringing this world down.

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b180/scoot_the_koan/osaka_power_sig_02.jpg

[Chamcham Trigger]

From a *realistic* standpoint, we've reached a technological level where religion is become more of danger to humanity than a help, regardless of what they believe. Religion is just a form of mind control, and the masses will have to take it to the next level, what some call sprituality, or else organized Religion will be a major player in bringing this world down.

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b180/scoot_the_koan/osaka_power_sig_02.jpg
The problem though is how religion has developed into an anti science. Was that the original purpose of religion? It actually wasn't in certain ancient civilizations. They were just ways of keeping people organized. It eventually turned into the anti science much much later due to misconceptions and twisted words.

[diglossiablues]

Seems to me that the more recent religious frevor is a direct backlash of sorts against the assault on meaning and truth that was post-modernism in philosophy and social science through the latter half of the 20th century and that's why it carries an anti-science, anti-philosophy flavor.

[Danny Lilithborne]

The reason religion has had a resurgence as of late is because science is not in a position yet to provide all the answers that the common man requires. Science demands too much sacrifice for progress. New treatments have to be tested, and test involves the risk of failure.

There's a problem with throwing out religion, though. Religion is what defines societies, and it is what brings people together in singular units. Think about it - during the time of Jesus Christ, it was basically the Roman Empire trying to take over the world; after Jesus, it converted from a military monopoly to a religious monopoly. Moses brought an entire ethnic group out of slavery; Muhammed ended commerce posing as polytheism in the Middle East. (Of course, it was replaced with commerce posing as monotheism, but I digress.)

The issue, as always, is balance. Humans need to find the proper balance, or they'll fall on the wayside.

[Fireglo]

How can theological beliefs be rendered "dated?"

I thought the basis of religion was to serve as a doctrine to be passed to each generation.

While we may be advancing as a society and as a species, the very foundation of religion is in being as stagnant as possible, in particular about your belief.

Hence why I choose not to believe in such a thing.

[diglossiablues]

How can theological beliefs be rendered "dated?"

I thought the basis of religion was to serve as a doctrine to be passed to each generation.

While we may be advancing as a society and as a species, the very foundation of religion is in being as stagnant as possible, in particular about your belief.

Hence why I choose not to believe in such a thing.

Nah. Nothing's static. Christianity now is very different from Christianity 100 years ago. And so with all worldviews... culture is a moving process, and there's always nostalgia for "the good 'ole days."

[organizedcrime]

I wouldn't say it's outdated. It hasn't been proven right or wrong, but it still helps keep things from going to Hell, no pun intended.
Think about it - during the time of Jesus Christ, it was basically the Roman Empire trying to take over the world; after Jesus, it converted from a military monopoly to a religious monopoly.

Yeesh, Jesus destroyed the Roman Empire.

[martryn]

Here's a question: why would someone think that religion is outdated? What would make it outdated?

[Danny Lilithborne]

Yeesh, Jesus destroyed the Roman Empire.

It wasn't destroyed, it just rebooted into the Catholic Church.

[rimpelcut]

yeh man, last fall christianity was in, now it's buddhism. Islam is so 90's.

[Fireglo]

Nah. Nothing's static. Christianity now is very different from Christianity 100 years ago. And so with all worldviews... culture is a moving process, and there's always nostalgia for "the good 'ole days."

Good point, but for the most part, the basis of society has always been derived (or so they say) from the 10 commandments, which really are intrinsic to any culture IMO...

[diglossiablues]

Good point, but for the most part, the basis of society has always been derived (or so they say) from the 10 commandments, which really are intrinsic to any culture IMO...

Well... culturally speaking less than half of them are relevant, but those that are also things that are good advice for keeping a stable society. They're phrased much differently, or are left unphrased but a matter of convention.

Numbers 1-3 aren't even close to being 'universal'. Adultery is another one that's variable, though most cultures to profess 'marital' [that kind of relationship is defined differently across the board] fidelity to be an ideal. Jealousy is not always thought of as bad either, so that throws out coveting as a universal principle.

The leftovers would be more properly stated in this tone for a most :

"You will respect the opinions of your elders because they have experience in life you can learn from."

[that's just a given.]

"You shall not murder a fellow member of your social group."

[murder and killing are two very different terms. it's ok to kill, in cultural view, so long as it fits convention for doing so... and is tolerated moreso if it's someone outside of your social group]

"You shall not steal from a fellow member of your social group."

[again, how a culture might define taking something unjustly [stealing] varies]

"You shall not falsely accuse a fellow member of your social group of behaving/acting in a manner that is considered reprehensible to our social group."

[that's basic for keeping social cohesion]

There's probably a few exceptions to this, but none that come to mind off hand. But in general some things we take for granted as a principle of logic, or a principle of behaviour seems to be basic human behavior and the accepted principles are merely a codification of that... but that's my opinion having been/being an anthropologist.

[Fireglo]

Well... culturally speaking less than half of them are relevant, but those that are also things that are good advice for keeping a stable society. They're phrased much differently, or are left unphrased but a matter of convention.

Numbers 1-3 aren't even close to being 'universal'. Adultery is another one that's variable, though most cultures to profess 'marital' [that kind of relationship is defined differently across the board] fidelity to be an ideal. Jealousy is not always thought of as bad either, so that throws out coveting as a universal principle.

The leftovers would be more properly stated in this tone for a most :

"You will respect the opinions of your elders because they have experience in life you can learn from."

[that's just a given.]

"You shall not murder a fellow member of your social group."

[murder and killing are two very different terms. it's ok to kill, in cultural view, so long as it fits convention for doing so... and is tolerated moreso if it's someone outside of your social group]

"You shall not steal from a fellow member of your social group."

[again, how a culture might define taking something unjustly [stealing] varies]

"You shall not falsely accuse a fellow member of your social group of behaving/acting in a manner that is considered reprehensible to our social group."

[that's basic for keeping social cohesion]

There's probably a few exceptions to this, but none that come to mind off hand. But in general some things we take for granted as a principle of logic, or a principle of behaviour seems to be basic human behavior and the accepted principles are merely a codification of that... but that's my opinion having been/being an anthropologist.

Interesting read. If I knew how to give people positive rep, you'd be gettin' it right about now.

I'm actually majoring in sociology, which I happen to enjoy immensely because of its depth of focus, as it really is the amalgam of all the social sciences.

I agree for the most part with the aforementioned and should have certainly phrased that the majority of commandments are not as intrinsic as the more overt such as not killing, stealing and so forth.

However, I tend to believe (and this is a sweeping generalization) that while religion has "adapted" with each century or however long ago you may wish to believe the religion in question has existed, it for the most part has remained the same... hence the devotion, which I find frightening, given the time period we currently exist in.

[diglossiablues]

Interesting read. If I knew how to give people positive rep, you'd be gettin' it right about now.

I'm actually majoring in sociology, which I happen to enjoy immensely because of its depth of focus, as it really is the amalgam of all the social sciences.

I agree for the most part with the aforementioned and should have certainly phrased that the majority of commandments are not as intrinsic as the more overt such as not killing, stealing and so forth.

However, I tend to believe (and this is a sweeping generalization) that while religion has "adapted" with each century or however long ago you may wish to believe the religion in question has existed, it for the most part has remained the same... hence the devotion, which I find frightening, given the time period we currently exist in.

Thanks man. Hey -- if you want to read some interesting stuff (anthro, and not soc) sometime... check out books on theory by Clifford Geertz.

[mgrace]

I'm sick of the same questions.... I am a christian.. Christianity is not outdated...

Even though the bible was written thousands of years ago. What was written down applies to me today..... You may say that I am Narrow minded for thinking Homosexuality is wrong and you may call me crazy when I say that Sex before marriage is a Sin.... You may think it bizarre that I think that Sin is the cause of death.. But the bible speaks to us today as it did in the days of Old.....

[skunkworks]

Well... culturally speaking less than half of them are relevant, but those that are also things that are good advice for keeping a stable society. They're phrased much differently, or are left unphrased but a matter of convention.

Numbers 1-3 aren't even close to being 'universal'. Adultery is another one that's variable, though most cultures to profess 'marital' [that kind of relationship is defined differently across the board] fidelity to be an ideal. Jealousy is not always thought of as bad either, so that throws out coveting as a universal principle.

The leftovers would be more properly stated in this tone for a most :

"You will respect the opinions of your elders because they have experience in life you can learn from."

[that's just a given.]

"You shall not murder a fellow member of your social group."

[murder and killing are two very different terms. it's ok to kill, in cultural view, so long as it fits convention for doing so... and is tolerated moreso if it's someone outside of your social group]

"You shall not steal from a fellow member of your social group."

[again, how a culture might define taking something unjustly [stealing] varies]

"You shall not falsely accuse a fellow member of your social group of behaving/acting in a manner that is considered reprehensible to our social group."

[that's basic for keeping social cohesion]

There's probably a few exceptions to this, but none that come to mind off hand. But in general some things we take for granted as a principle of logic, or a principle of behaviour seems to be basic human behavior and the accepted principles are merely a codification of that... but that's my opinion having been/being an anthropologist.

But the way most religions look at it is that you have to believe in the first commandment in order to truly make the remaining 9 even applicable.

[neko-sennin]

But the way most religions look at it is that you have to believe in the first commandment in order to truly make the remaining 9 even applicable.

That's just mind-control. It's the same foundation as a thousand cults. Personal morality is a completely different creature. Few things terrify a narrow mind more than someone deriving the same thing from another source. This applies not only to religious monopoly, but economic ones, as well.

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b180/scoot_the_koan/osaka_power_sig_02.jpg

[skunkworks]

That's just mind-control. It's the same foundation as a thousand cults. Personal morality is a completely different creature. Few things terrify a narrow mind more than someone deriving the same thing from another source. This applies not only to religious monopoly, but economic ones, as well.

I don't think it's mind control if you have a genuine belief in god. Most religious people don't go around breaking the commandments because that's a part of their personal morality. They believe a moral life revolves around the 10 commandments, and I'm kind of in agreement with that.

Edit: Yes, one can be moral without abiding by the 10 commandments.

[Danny Lilithborne]

Even though the bible was written thousands of years ago. What was written down applies to me today..... You may say that I am Narrow minded for thinking Homosexuality is wrong and you may call me crazy when I say that Sex before marriage is a Sin.... You may think it bizarre that I think that Sin is the cause of death.. But the bible speaks to us today as it did in the days of Old.....

I'm not going to call you narrow minded. But answer me this; if the wages of sin are death, why are there so many rampant sinners living long and bountiful lives?

[Aldredian_Sahn]

I'm not going to call you narrow minded. But answer me this; if the wages of sin are death, why are there so many rampant sinners living long and bountiful lives?
And they will eventually come to death. In a religion that believes in an afterlife, there will be none for them.

[Madara]

Until science can explain why there is something rather than nothing, religion will be necessary.

Those who abandon themselves to science also abandon their quest for transcendental truth.

Science can answer far more how's than religion. But science cannot answer why's.

[SaitouBatch]

Until science can explain why there is something rather than nothing, religion will be necessary.

Those who abandon themselves to science also abandon their quest for transcendental truth.

Science can answer far more how's than religion. But science cannot answer why's.

And what is religion's answer for why there is something rather than nothing? Because god did it? Then what is the answer for why there is god? Surely, its that god doesnt need a "how" or "why" because god just always existed. If this is a viable answer for why and how god exists, then why is it not viable as an answer for how or why the universe exists? Once people accept a "higher power" they believe they can just stop thinking, without even trying to apply the logic that led to their acceptance to that higher power itself.

[rimpelcut]

reading further in thread...
Religion is obviously outdated because we have something better now, sciencebooks and internet about the same things that are useful information in relgions only explained to a higher extent. they can actually explain things, rather than saying it is a no no. ofcourse I am not talking about buddhism

[Feri]

yeah its outdated... we need some new religions.

[mgrace]

I'm not going to call you narrow minded. But answer me this; if the wages of sin are death, why are there so many rampant sinners living long and bountiful lives?

Yeah it seems wrong when the Unjust live Long ages... but they can't escape death nor can they escape the wrath of GOD...

I mean the life we live on earth is a blink compared eternity with God or eternity away from God......

The world is unjust, Man is destroying man kind... but in the End one must face Judgement...

Hebrews 9:11

Man is destined to die once then face Judgement...

[Miss CCV]

This question will vary depending on who you ask. Religious fanatics would extremely disagree while atheists would agree. Even if there are scientific advancements, there are still some individuals who will remain to be faithful to their religion and God.

One of the main reasons why many people are consumed by religion is because they feel they need some form of "control" and "stability" over them, rather than living as an anarchic individual (similar to what Chamy-kun said). Many of them wouldn't easily consider their religions as being "outdated" if they have been practicing it for many years (unless there was concrete proof of why their religion is considered outdated).

[Cthulhu-versailles]

...Serious Miss CCV killed any further responses that could be made on both sides... Miss CCV you PWN!

The problem with the question in the first place is: how can one ask a question, that demands an subjective response, and atempt to gain an objective answer....:amazed

[Madara]

You have a responsibility to yourself to seek the truth of your existence.

Science does not provide a path to this truth, neither does it pretend to.

The scientific method was designed to prove with absolute certainty. But the scientific method is inherently flawed in its quest for transcendental truth. Why?

Because it needs quanta. To have quanta you need measurements. To have measurements you need tools. Now, what if the greatest tool on earth could probe into existential questions but had no way of printing out neat little measurements? Then there would be no proof. Even though it would have answers.

It just so happens that this tool exist. It's the human brain. Nothing rivals it.

So use it, see for yourself what is the truth. Probe reality as you preceive it and if you find something you can't prove but you feel is right, that is fine.

Religion is the most personal activity. You don't have to be accountable to anyone. Only to yourself. Your inside religion will grow slowly but you need to feed it.

Spiritiual communities like the Church or the Sangha are only there to help you with your research.

Religion is not outdated because Science does not have a tool at its service that rivals the brain.

People who reject their duties as human beings to grow spiritually, commit half of a suicide.

[neko-sennin]

Very good points, Tarakahn.

Science has gotten an inflated ego from all it has discovered (to the point of ignoring much of what it has not), and Organized Religion suffers from inferiority complex after watchings all of Science's achievements while most of their congregations stagnated.

Yet the one thing that trips both of them up is that *neither* has the Answer.

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b180/scoot_the_koan/osaka_power_sig_02.jpg

[Madara]

Very good points, Tarakahn.

Science has gotten an inflated ego from all it has discovered (to the point of ignoring much of what it has not), and Organized Religion suffers from inferiority complex after watchings all of Science's achievements while most of their congregations stagnated.

Yet the one thing that trips both of them up is that *neither* has the Answer.

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b180/scoot_the_koan/osaka_power_sig_02.jpg


An answer would need proof. Maybe one day we will build an artifact that is as powerful as the brain and also able to feedback measurements. Then we will have the answer with the necessary proof.

Until then, you have to rely on what you have. Don't bother with the proof. Again I must emphasize, religion is a personal thing.

Someone who goes to church or synaguoge or mosque every day isn't necessiraly a good Christian, Jew, Muslim. You could be going there just for show and stealing and killing people at the same time. Everyone would think ooh he is such a good person, he comes here everyday.

You will see that the most compassionate beings don't need witnesses with their acts of compassion.

So again, until science can address existential questions, religion is your best lead.

Hey, I am a guy that used to despise religion. Look at all the blood that's been wasted for religious causes, it's atrocious. But those were exactly sanctimonious people who were too busy being the 'best christian there ever was.' They saw religious communities as an opportunity to gain power.

It's shameful because alot of people have left their communities because of this with a bitter taste. Saying that religion is outdated. In fact, in these days in times I think we long for the truth even more.

So, I went looking for the religion or philosophy that would make me grow spiritually. And I plead, I beg you to do the same. You won't regret it.

I'm a Vajrayana Buddhist.

[neko-sennin]

I don't know if there is a word for what I am.

The way I see it, a person has three options in life:

1- Let others brainwash you to believe something

2- Brainwash yourself to believe something

3- Walk with your eyes open and put one foot in front of the other.

Few people's sanity holds up long against #3, but I've been traveling that path for a few years, and so far I've learned many useful things. Then again, I never made any claim to sanity in the first place, so perhaps that is why I feel so at home back in the Twilight Zone.

Still, I respect you for going the #2 route. Almost as few people choose that one as choose my experiment.

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b180/scoot_the_koan/osaka_power_sig_02.jpg

[Madara]

I don't know if there is a word for what I am.

The way I see it, a person has three options in life:

1- Let others brainwash you to believe something

2- Brainwash yourself to believe something

3- Walk with your eyes open and put one foot in front of the other.

Few people's sanity holds up long against #3, but I've been traveling that path for a few years, and so far I've learned many useful things. Then again, I never made any claim to sanity in the first place, so perhaps that is why I feel so at home back in the Twilight Zone.

Still, I respect you for going the #2 route. Almost as few people choose that one as choose my experiment.


I don't think I'm brainwashing myself, unless you mean I agree with something. I have never coerced myself to adhere.

Agreeing with a philosophy doesn't mean you are brainwashing yourself, it just means that other people have been thinking about the same questions as you for thousands of years. Perhaps it is not so farfetched to find inspiration in what they've found out.

What makes you so special, after all? You are not different from them. You're just another human being. Nothing's changed. You might think that but look again.
Maybe some people find that hard to accept and want a religion that revolves around them. To make them feel special.

I hope you are not that kind of person.

[neko-sennin]

What makes you so special, after all? You are not different from them. You're just another human being.

No, not special, just different. You're right in that, in the end I'm no different than the next. We all die. All I'm trying to do is *live* in the meantime.

I don't think I'm brainwashing myself, unless you mean I agree with something. I have never coerced myself to adhere.

Perhaps "brainwash" was a harsh choice of words, but what I mean is that I respect you for *choosing* what you believe, rather than the #1 option, which is letting other people/entities choose it for you.

Maybe some people find that hard to accept and want a religion that revolves around them. To make them feel special. I hope you are not that kind of person.

I find it strange that with 99% of "religious" folks, "God's will" somehow always coincides with whatever it was they wanted to do in the first place. I guess a few of us have learned the difference.

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b180/scoot_the_koan/osaka_power_sig_02.jpg

[diglossiablues]

I don't know if there is a word for what I am.

The way I see it, a person has three options in life:

1- Let others brainwash you to believe something

2- Brainwash yourself to believe something

3- Walk with your eyes open and put one foot in front of the other.

Few people's sanity holds up long against #3, but I've been traveling that path for a few years, and so far I've learned many useful things. Then again, I never made any claim to sanity in the first place, so perhaps that is why I feel so at home back in the Twilight Zone.

Still, I respect you for going the #2 route. Almost as few people choose that one as choose my experiment.

I'm right there with you on this one man. I've toyed with both #2 and #3, and for a while the whole goal was to be able to pick up and shed #2s like tools as the situation dictated.

[Madara]

Guys, as long as you're happy, I'm happy. If whatever you do or believe brings you stability and harmony with yourself and others, perfect.

Live and let live.

I think we both agree that people who recruit others into their religions like predators are not genuinely trying to improve others' lives. They are just looking to strengthen their faction.

Perhaps where we don't agree is the fact that I think people who say religion is outdated just try to do the same.

Leave them be and respect them. Don't denigrate their ways even if it doesn't make sense to you.

Their beliefs do not need to be submitted under the scrutiny of the scientific method or any other method.

As long as it makes them better and happier people.

[neko-sennin]

I don't convert people. I subvert them.

But only those who are curious enough to try their own experiments. I don't force myself on anyone, a useful approach I picked up from most Buddhist philosophies. I only discuss talk with people who are also interested in such matters.

The only reason why I'm talking so much about my theories is because this is a debate about religion, so I'm just putting in my two cents. I left the evangelical thing behind over a decade ago.

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b180/scoot_the_koan/osaka_power_sig_02.jpg

[Noobified69]

Your thoughts about this question anyone? And i mean religion as a whole, not just a specific religion. I myself think that while religions do become outdated, religion itself would never be outdated.

mmm... please rephrase i suck at english