Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3576)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee
moozooh wrote:
adelikat wrote:
Question for those who think religions will die out. Are there any major religions that have ever died out in the past? and why did they?
They did. It was either because their hosts died or because they were overtaken by another religion (usually monotheistic as DeFender pointed out). However, as most of the stuff happened very long ago, it may not seem as "major" by today's ranks.
Good, you made the point I was aluding to. No religion has completely died out without the society itself dying out. Though I didn't consider the conquest by another religion. Though that is still within my point that religions do not evolve away but rather in fast revolvutionary, disasterous way.
One of the premises of the initial prediction is that the said society will still exist. But no religion has ever died out with the society still intact. Yes thing have changes drastically in terms of technology but not enough to completely invalidate this observation.
Should religions in general die out it will be in a more dramatic way as Bob A predicts.
I'd say there's mountains of evidence against it, but there's absolutely no way to explain why without completely overhauling the topic once again.
If I really wanted to get into it, we're talking pages and pages that no one will really have the patience to read, and once again, it's OFF TOPIC.
One of the premises of the initial prediction is that the said society will still exist. But no religion has ever died out with the society still intact. Yes thing have changes drastically in terms of technology but not enough to completely invalidate this observation.
Should religions in general die out it will be in a more dramatic way as Bob A predicts.
Let's see: greek mythology, roman mythology, celtic mythology, germanic mythology, slavic mythology, egyptian polytheism, various other north african and middle eastern folk religions...
I only predicted that for islam. christianity and hinduism aren't that militaristic.
why does evolution have anything to do wth this?
If evolution is true, isn't it possible that G-d built it into the world?
Many, many people have explored that possibility. Current theory of evolution doesn't really jive well with the biblical view of creation, but evolution as a base theory doesn't really contradict the Christian faith. However, a lot of people do dispute the theory of evolution as being scientifically sound. Yes, most of these people are religious (and certain people might argue that they do so from ignorance), but there are a number of scientists who question it as well.
Yes, as thread maker, I ban evolution talk from this thread! Feel free to start your own threads though, if interested enough.
I think it's interesting to note by the way that here in Sweden, christianity has reached the point I'm considering "almost non-existant" already. Which isn't really "almost non-existant" I guess, but it's what I was comparing to when starting this thread.
Among my friends from high school (and earlier in life as well), there have been plenty of religious immigrants, which has mostly meant muslims. I have known exactly one religious Swedish christian in school, and she was made fun of a lot because of it, that's how uncommon we considered it. All in good fun though, because everyone loved her, and she didn't mind bla bla irrelevant. I just think it's interesting how uncommon it is to find christians in my age group here.
why does evolution have anything to do wth this?
If evolution is true, isn't it possible that G-d built it into the world?
Many, many people have explored that possibility. Current theory of evolution doesn't really jive well with the biblical view of creation, but evolution as a base theory doesn't really contradict the Christian faith. However, a lot of people do dispute the theory of evolution as being scientifically sound. Yes, most of these people are religious (and certain people might argue that they do so from ignorance), but there are a number of scientists who question it as well.
In the first chapter of genesis, the hebrew word "yom" is translated as "day" (as in "and it was evening and it was morning and it was the first day") That is a modern translation. The actual translation is "period of time", and evening and morning can be interpreted as the separation between these "periods". If you interpret the story of the original sin in the garden of eden having taken place purely in metaphysical form, and then after the sin, G-d put adam and eve into their physical bodies, evolution fits.
Yes thing have changes drastically in terms of technology but not enough to completely invalidate this observation.
But yet again, this is subject to paradigm shifts. With every step that makes us understand the life and the universe and all that crap a bit better, knowledge eats away at the religion's domain. Then, as those profound bits of knowledge will continue to render some of the religious doctrines useless, the critical mass of such changes will result in a shift that may drastically change the mentality of the believers. Remember the points raised by the sheep cloning? That's what I mean. And nanotechnology is on the rise these days…
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Fabian: what about metadiscussion about evolution though? It's interesting to note how many christians are abandoning creationism.
moozooh's comment: See also: human cloning
In the first chapter of genesis, the hebrew word "yom" is translated as "day" (as in "and it was evening and it was morning and it was the first day") That is a modern translation. The actual translation is "period of time", and evening and morning can be interpreted as the separation between these "periods". If you interpret the story of the original sin in the garden of eden having taken place purely in metaphysical form, and then after the sin, G-d put adam and eve into their physical bodies, evolution fits.
First of all, "modern" translation does not mean inferior. The books are very carefully translated from the original language (for the most part...certain original portions of the Bible may be lost) and a lot of thought is given to meaning and context. If there's a possible discrepency, there's often a footnote. I know some people who are able to read Hebrew and they assure me that it literally translates as an "evening and morning" day.
If you decide to not take the "six days" part literally, and assume that the order is not really important (plants existing thousands of years before the sun?) and that this and that are metaphor, then you have problems with all sorts of passages all throughout the bible that reference this and the whole thing contradicts itself.
In the first chapter of genesis, the hebrew word "yom" is translated as "day" (as in "and it was evening and it was morning and it was the first day") That is a modern translation. The actual translation is "period of time", and evening and morning can be interpreted as the separation between these "periods". If you interpret the story of the original sin in the garden of eden having taken place purely in metaphysical form, and then after the sin, G-d put adam and eve into their physical bodies, evolution fits.
First of all, "modern" translation does not mean inferior. The books are very carefully translated from the original language (for the most part...certain original portions of the Bible may be lost) and a lot of thought is given to meaning and context. If there's a possible discrepency, there's often a footnote. I know some people who are able to read Hebrew and they assure me that it literally translates as an "evening and morning" day.
If you decide to not take the "six days" part literally, and assume that the order is not really important (plants existing thousands of years before the sun?) and that this and that are metaphor, then you have problems with all sorts of passages all throughout the bible that reference this and the whole thing contradicts itself.
you misunderstand me, the translation is days in modern hebrew not biblical hebrew.
I still doubt that people will be able to figure out how to make life.
And what if they will? If an event that is extremely unlikely to happen (by doctrines especially) finally takes place, it always has an impact on those who are concerned, and even on those who are not. Remember the story about heliocentrism (and church's position against it).
andrewg wrote:
you're not actually creating a life by cloning though. the process of cloning is odd.
The process may be as odd as you may wish to think about it, but, well, it works. Besides, the clone is not a perfect copy of the cell donor, which implies that it is a new life.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I'd say there's mountains of evidence against it, but there's absolutely no way to explain why without completely overhauling the topic once again.
If I really wanted to get into it, we're talking pages and pages that no one will really have the patience to read, and once again, it's OFF TOPIC.
Was there already a thread about this? I can't find it.
Are there any major religions that have ever died out in the past? and why did they?
Zoroastrianism is dead (or on its last legs).
DeFender1031 wrote:
yes of course... and all those that died out were polytheistic
Untrue. There have been plenty of monotheistic or nontheistic/atheistic religions that have died out. When Confucius was around in China there was a large monotheistic cult that didn't last more than a few generations past then. Zoroastrianism as I mentioned above is monotheistic. Most of what we think today as polytheism (Greek, Roman, etc) were actually collections of cults that only revered a single regional god, not a unified pantheon.
Hyena wrote:
DeFender1031 wrote:
In the first chapter of genesis, the hebrew word "yom" is translated as "day" (as in "and it was evening and it was morning and it was the first day") That is a modern translation. The actual translation is "period of time", and evening and morning can be interpreted as the separation between these "periods".
First of all, "modern" translation does not mean inferior. The books are very carefully translated from the original language (for the most part...certain original portions of the Bible may be lost) and a lot of thought is given to meaning and context. If there's a possible discrepency, there's often a footnote. I know some people who are able to read Hebrew and they assure me that it literally translates as an "evening and morning" day.
You're correct that "modern" does not always mean "inferior". But when you're looking for the intended meaning you should probably look as close to the writer as possible, for example at commentaries written within a few generations when the culture wouldn't've changed significantly since. It's also rather difficult to take something as poetic as the creation narratives and translate them literally and have it make any sort of sense.
Hyena wrote:
If you decide to not take the "six days" part literally, and assume that the order is not really important (plants existing thousands of years before the sun?) and that this and that are metaphor, then you have problems with all sorts of passages all throughout the bible that reference this and the whole thing contradicts itself.
If we are to take it as six literal days, why did Moses himself differentiate them? (Deuteronomy 32:7 Remember the ancient days; / bear in mind the years of past generations. / Ask your father and he will inform you, / your elders, and they will tell you.) Commentary from 1500+ years ago differentiates them and lcaims the creation narratives are parable.
It's also discounting the use of the word elsewhere to mean an era (the day of person x, the day of our forefathers, etc).
One final thing you may be missing (which is obscured in translation) is the viewpoint of the passage. The days are numbered, but they don't begin with "first day" (implying there are further days) - they begin with "day one" meaning that the first creation narrative is attempting to look FORWARD from God's view, NOT backward from man's.
someone is out there who will like you. take off your mask so they can find you faster.
I support the new Nekketsu Kouha Kunio-kun.
Most of what we think today as polytheism (Greek, Roman, etc) were actually collections of cults that only revered a single regional god, not a unified pantheon.
You mean they all got together and literally decided whose god was bigger than whose?
put yourself in my rocketpack if that poochie is one outrageous dude
Joined: 3/11/2004
Posts: 1058
Location: Reykjavík, Ísland
Religion will never, ever, ever die out completely. As long as there are humans, a number of them will believe nonsense without any evidence. However, in a few thousand years, with extremely good global education, it should be possible to minimize the damage as much as possible.
I figure the human race will have to change itself in some fundamental way to be even capable of freeing itself from religion.
Also, please don't call atheism an organized religion. It is not a religion any more than baldness is a hair color.
Spread the word:
Every set of metaphysical parameters has no more merit to be true than any other set of metaphysical parameters.
E.g. you cannot say that christianity is more "real" than Islam, because there is no logical reason why it should be.
If mankind is to loose the notion of religion. it would mean conquering the fear of death;
Doing this on a personal scale is accomplishable, as per Camus' absurdity. Doing it on a global scale, however, is completely unthinkable to be completed anywhere near the next 75 years.
Or we could in some way distract from the thought of it, which isn't really solving the problem but rather hiding it.
What I do believe (As is already happening) is, that religion will take a more secularised form in Europe, where churches etc. within the christian faith mainly harbour the rituals which perform a meaningful function, such as marriage, burial, confirmation and christening. The moral power of the church has long been faded from the public mind, and I suspect this trend will continue.
In North america, however, they're gearing up the christian arsenals and putting nukes on the end of it. This I don't like.
"We observe the behaviour of simple folk, and derive pleasure from their defects."
-Aristotle - Book of Humour
Religion is on faith. I'm not really faithful that someone up in the sky farted and created earth. The only religious story that I believe is the muslim story, but meh.
I'm agnostic. I don't believe any religion but i do think something is watching us.
