Do you think there will be no religion in the future?

WeiWuWei wrote:

To touch back on the title of this topic, whether or not the major religions of today will be as prevalent within a century or so, or perhaps longer, is uncertain. What I do think is a safe assertion to make is that a few less mainstream belief systems might fall through the cracks: Jains, Shintos, Taoists, and Confucians particularly, just to name a few examples. And this is not to detract any kind of validity or virtue from these belief systems; it is simply an observation that these communities have grown very small, even within the countries of their origin.

What I think is an interesting point to make is that nations, such as the United States, where religious freedom is permitted and people are not forced to believe in one particular indoctrination of faith often have a larger population of religious people in them. Conversely, I think history has shown that states that have enforced a single belief system have bred distrust in religion. So I think if the major religions wish to survive in a more modernized world, and if they wish to raise their numbers, they must learn to not interfere with the state, make peace with Western culture, and stop trying to indoctrinate people so tenaciously.

Nevertheless, I don't think that there will ever be a time where there is no such thing as religion, unless we reach a time where man no longer wonders if there is anything beyond what he experiences in the corporeal world. New ones may rise, old ones may fall, and some may persist, but I just don't see man moving beyond the idea that there is more out there, because I don't think he'll ever know if there is or, most likely, isn't.

Have you read any Cauang Tzu ?

Have you read any Das Kapital, Grundrisse, Communist Manifesto, or the Critique of the Gotha Program? Excellent literacher

The Communist Manifesto - yes

Des Kapital - Il read it prop when I get time.
I have an idea of what its about.

Im actually reading a book of social sciences published in the USSR in the 1980's, gives a good insight into their perception of the nature of problems they where facing at the time.




Have you ever read a book that isnt about socialism ?

inkus2000 wrote:

WeiWuWei wrote:

To touch back on the title of this topic, whether or not the major religions of today will be as prevalent within a century or so, or perhaps longer, is uncertain. What I do think is a safe assertion to make is that a few less mainstream belief systems might fall through the cracks: Jains, Shintos, Taoists, and Confucians particularly, just to name a few examples. And this is not to detract any kind of validity or virtue from these belief systems; it is simply an observation that these communities have grown very small, even within the countries of their origin.

What I think is an interesting point to make is that nations, such as the United States, where religious freedom is permitted and people are not forced to believe in one particular indoctrination of faith often have a larger population of religious people in them. Conversely, I think history has shown that states that have enforced a single belief system have bred distrust in religion. So I think if the major religions wish to survive in a more modernized world, and if they wish to raise their numbers, they must learn to not interfere with the state, make peace with Western culture, and stop trying to indoctrinate people so tenaciously.

Nevertheless, I don't think that there will ever be a time where there is no such thing as religion, unless we reach a time where man no longer wonders if there is anything beyond what he experiences in the corporeal world. New ones may rise, old ones may fall, and some may persist, but I just don't see man moving beyond the idea that there is more out there, because I don't think he'll ever know if there is or, most likely, isn't.

Have you read any Cauang Tzu ?

I have not, but I'll certainly look him up.

Quote :

Have you ever read a book that isnt about socialism ?

And why would I do that?

Pannekoek wrote:

Quote :

Have you ever read a book that isnt about socialism ?

And why would I do that?

To be secular? You can never truly dismiss something if you dont not become versed in it. Thats why Every atheist should read the bible, I did and now i can actually debate the christians. To automatically dismiss something is childish and promotes ignorance.

mononokifool wrote:

Pannekoek wrote:

Quote :

Have you ever read a book that isnt about socialism ?

And why would I do that?

To be secular? You can never truly dismiss something if you dont not become versed in it. Thats why Every atheist should read the bible, I did and now i can actually debate the christians. To automatically dismiss something is childish and promotes ignorance.

It is always right to learn, even from our enemies - Ancient Greek proverb

WeiWuWei wrote:

inkus2000 wrote:

WeiWuWei wrote:

To touch back on the title of this topic, whether or not the major religions of today will be as prevalent within a century or so, or perhaps longer, is uncertain. What I do think is a safe assertion to make is that a few less mainstream belief systems might fall through the cracks: Jains, Shintos, Taoists, and Confucians particularly, just to name a few examples. And this is not to detract any kind of validity or virtue from these belief systems; it is simply an observation that these communities have grown very small, even within the countries of their origin.

What I think is an interesting point to make is that nations, such as the United States, where religious freedom is permitted and people are not forced to believe in one particular indoctrination of faith often have a larger population of religious people in them. Conversely, I think history has shown that states that have enforced a single belief system have bred distrust in religion. So I think if the major religions wish to survive in a more modernized world, and if they wish to raise their numbers, they must learn to not interfere with the state, make peace with Western culture, and stop trying to indoctrinate people so tenaciously.

Nevertheless, I don't think that there will ever be a time where there is no such thing as religion, unless we reach a time where man no longer wonders if there is anything beyond what he experiences in the corporeal world. New ones may rise, old ones may fall, and some may persist, but I just don't see man moving beyond the idea that there is more out there, because I don't think he'll ever know if there is or, most likely, isn't.

Have you read any Cauang Tzu ?

I have not, but I'll certainly look him up.

He was a follower of lao Tzu he writes more on Taoism

Why write though - ............?

Pannekoek wrote:

Quote :

Have you ever read a book that isnt about socialism ?

And why would I do that?

Becous in order to have any relavent clue on any topic you need information source from oposeing sides of view, researching only one side dosn't give you and insight on pretty much any debatable manner.


And Religion imho is a too crucial filar of power for it to vanish from a Capitalist state. In Communism maybe, but Ibet some people will still practice religious rituals.

The condition for the disappearance of false happiness is the presence of real happiness aka communism.

I've got to say

im not interested in anything that limits peoples freedoms short of harming another human being or exploiting them.

Thats like saying I should pall around with the KKK for a bit since I am for integration cause I might agree with them.

i feel like that is idealist poison

ESPECIALLY considering the majority of you guys haven't read anything EMY and I have yet you demand that we read EVERYTHING else before becoming confident in what we HAVE actually read. Most of you assume that because I am so passionately for marxism, I MUST not have read ANYTHING ELSE from the opposing side.

I still take american politics even though i believe universal suffrage is an illusion in capitalist society. I still read news besides Worker's Vanguard. People give me books of opposing philosophies ALL of the time expecting that I MUST go to their side after i read it and i still stand strong. And most of them were put on me because the person couldn't even explain it well enough.

NOW if someone gives me a reformist paper I KNOW i will disagree because i understand how reforms work. There will NEVER be a reform that says "all fo the property owners fork it over to the workers and police give up your weapons" so...what is the point of wasting my time?

As a marxist, that does not interest me. BEFORE I loved reforms and i thought that was they way. But i have taken information from the MARXIST perspetive that makes me against them. So...haven't I already learned my lesson?

"I used to think 2+2=3 but now that i took a math class i know 2+2=4"
"well read this theorist that says 2+2=17"

no there is ONE reality and to think reality depends on the person is idealist

and I am not an idealist

say that a=1 and b=1
so a=b
also a^2=ab
subtract b^2 from both sides to get
a^2-b^2= ab -b^2
factor both sides to get
(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)
divide both by (a-b) to get
a+b=b
so 2=1
subtract 1 from both sides
1=0
multiply both by 15
15=0
add 2 to both sides
17=2
this can be written as
1+1=17

you can't multiply

0 by 15

nice try

lol you you can't divide it not can't multiply. Don't you know math?

also just because you read nonsocialist books doesnt mean I have to.

Pannekoek wrote:

lol you you can't divide it not can't multiply. Don't you know math?

also just because you read nonsocialist books doesnt mean I have to.

you should

mononokifool wrote:

Pannekoek wrote:

lol you you can't divide it not can't multiply. Don't you know math?

also just because you read nonsocialist books doesnt mean I have to.

you should

does he really need it when he is submerged in a sea of reactionary bullshit?

it isn't as though he is studying it in a vacuum dude...

Word. Life in America is an antisocialist book.

As long as people are willing to be led there will be at least some kind of sudo religion. rather as long as people have the urge to ascend to absolute power. nothing keeps people under control better than "god" and those who control him are the most powerful people on earth.

alek its true to a certain extent, but the problem with people since the beginning of time is as long as people have deep seeded problems, they will always have to take solice in any form deitity.

right, but what I'm saying is while spirituality and personal theological speculation may be be inevitable, organized religion is almost exclusively the product of someone trying to personally benefit from it

well that can be the argument for modern western religion, but what about religion based on personal enlightenment?

the only religions that should be toloerated are those not based on fear of damnation, ie western religion, but those based on self enlightenment. that being said religion is the a perfect example of power how money perverts anything that had anything that even has a hint of morality behind. gotta love it, there is your capitalism in action right there.
but then again i am a nihilist.

but what else is there? polytheism is sorta ridiculous. Buddhism is acceptable in some aspects. and doaism is more of a philosophy

there is jainism, there is taoism, and confucianism.
all of which have their own acceptial aspects and their own faults.
but so does all religion.

fair enough, and i must admit I've never heard any of those religions being associated with genocide, financial corruption or intolerance. all the things we westerners have come to know and love in our religions

but I'm still a happy atheist

yeah well all religions carry their blemishes.
and alek you know me, hooray for nihilism.
even if there is a god, shit where does it say we have to worship his megalomaniac ass