Will religion lead to the end of mankind?

The next wave of enlightenment will turn many a people to agnosticism. This will probably take place in a few decades, maybe later. The music, the arts, the philosophy and the senses will shift. Then, a couple of hundred years after that when God still can't be proven, there will be the final shift to atheism.

Until then, pray for those who believe. Poor souls.

 

It's going to be a slow process if at all. Or maybe this will come to a head and the religious people will be like, "WTF...let's join together and kill the atheists."

Really you have to take it on faith that everything's going to be all right, because you can't just make such illogical, irrational decisions. I'm not suggesting anything about God, though, because taking God on faith and taking that everything will be all right on faith may not be the same thing. But then again, that may be exactly what people mean by God, really. Everything's going to be all right, one certain reason not to worry...

 

religion, particularly virulently chauvinistic beliefs, plays a roll in what will draw to a close, our current era of advanced technology, but something a good bit short of any kind of real civilization. in all fairness, the self serving shortsightedness of economic hegemony, which sometimes uses these kinds of religions as an apron to hide behind, is playing a much larger roll, and will continue to do so as long as it is able to continue to exist.

 

North Korea recently threatened a preemptive nuclear strike against the U.S. What religion are they? Isn't it atheist?

 

And when I say I'm an atheist all I mean is that I don't believe in anyone's god. I do not hate Christians, Muslims, Jews, or any other religious person. I respect their right to believe whatever irrational nonsense they want. I just don't respect the belief in deities or other magical entities. I think it's silly and kind of pathetic at best and dangerous at worst. Especially so when it's used to whip people up into a righteous, murderous or oppressive frenzy. Most of the atheists I know also don't hate religious people. Of course, the same can be said of religious people. They don't all hate each other and they don't all hate atheists. They don't all want to embark on crusades, start holy wars or declare fatwas.

What I have a problem with is proselytizing and theocratic organizations which aim to shove their particular religion down everyone's throat, forcibly in the latter case. I don't expect Christians or other religious people to respect my non-belief in their deities but I do insist they respect my right to disbelief, and that is something that this type of religion doesn't do. Unfortunately, these groups tend to be the most vocal so they draw a great deal of ire from many atheists. So if someone shoves their religious beliefs in our faces or tries to force it on us, they need to quit being so butt-hurt when we tell them what we think of their beliefs. If that upsets you or anyone else then you need to go believe in private or with your fellow believers and quit hitting everyone with your godstick.

Btw, I mean you in the collective sense, not you personally.

 

Wiki:
Traditionally religion in North Korea primarily consisted of Buddhism and Confucianism and Korean shamanism. Since the arrival of Europeans in the 18th century, there is a Christian minority. New religions have arisen during the last century, the most prominent one being Cheondoism, based on traditional shamanism. North Korea is officially an atheist state in which much of the population is nonreligious.[2][3] North Korea sees organised religious activity as a potential challenge to the leadership.[4]

 

Exactly. Thank You. "North Korea is officially an atheist state in which much of the population is nonreligious.[2][3] North Korea sees organised religious activity as a potential challenge to the leadership.[4]" Regardless of what North Korea was once, it is now officially atheist, and it's threatening nuclear war. Remember the OP's question that started this thread:"Atheists and agnostics, I gather you here today to ask you a vital question: is religion, particularly the Abrahamic religions, a threat to mankind?" Maybe it won't be religion that wipes us out, but rather it's antithesis. Do I believe that atheism is warlike and dangerous? Hell, no. But neither are the Episcopalians, Methodists and Quakers. I'm hoping to illustrate the point that sweeping generalizations and speculations about how the world will end and who will be at fault are ridiculous and a not so subtle form of propaganda.

 

Nice try lol

Two words;

Manifest Destiny

 

How cryptic!

 

Isn't it?
Manifest Destiny — n
(esp in the 19th-century US) the belief that the US was a chosen land that had been allotted the entire North American continent by God

From the slaughter of the american indian to the devastation of Iraq & Afghanistan, the US has continued to maintained the same 'manifest destiny' attitude...When god is on your side everything you do is right, by the will of god, no?

Christians, Muslims, no different....they both believe their prime directives are noble and divine rights under god.

 

As you say, "especially in the nineteenth century US". Some atheists seem to be stuck in the past. Manifest destiny became a minority view after the nineteenth century, although G.W. and his neocons came close to reviving it. Officially, the reasons for the war presented to Congress and the American public, emphasized national security and the alleged "weapons of mass destruction." G.W. actually articulated the view that he was on a mission from God, but the secular Americans who were complicit in the venture didn't take him seriously. Your photo of all those drones raises another question. Were Christians or other religious people the inventors of those things? Did they invent the atomic bomb or other weapons of mass destruction? Some were. Others were Jews. Many were atheists. So your post is not only cryptic but ambiguous. And we still have the fat boy in North Korea to account for.

 

Despite being an atheist and recognizing that much (but not all) of the world's historical and contemporary violence has been committed in the name of one god or another, I have to agree with Okie on this point about it not being exclusive to religion. I don't see much value in speculating about whether religion will culminate in some planet destroying apocalypse...that idea itself has a decidedly Revelations flavor, though to be fair, other religions also have stories about the end of time. I think the human penchant for violent conflict runs deeper than any religious belief and I suspect that if religion disappeared from human cultures entirely, we'd find some other reason to wage war on each other. I think, as a species, we are neither wholly good nor wholly evil. We have the capacity for both extremes and everything in between and most of us fall somewhere within a standard deviation or two of the mean.

 

no. ignorance will.

 

The title of the thread made no mention of a planet destroying apocalypse, but the 'end of mankind'...what-ever. Blaming 'religion' is of course far to broad... however many religious people are waiting for Armageddon/ 'second coming' and some of those people happen to be in the US state department... I'm not sure how many other religions believe in Armageddon, but the US is the biggest super-power with the most nukes, and Christians are bound to side with Israel by biblical decree
or they ain't g'wan to heaben...lol

This in consideration, one could say religious doctrine has the potential to be the catalyst for events that could lead to the end of mankind.

 

Ah yes, my bad...end of civilization then...

Yes, not specific enough

I don't disagree with that at all. The messianic/dispensationalist types have a kind vested interest in encouraging some kind of major conflict there - fulfilling prophecy. As this somewhat long-winded but well written article: On the Road to Armageddon details, they've been busy doing just that since Israel formed as a state.

So to be more clear, I do think there is a potential for this particular bunch of believers to bring us all closer to a potentially civilization destroying situation. I just don't think it can be blamed on religious belief in general and I still think that religion (or biblical prophecy) is just the current excuse for violent conflict. Whether or not such a conflict would end up actually killing everyone is another question that might be debatable.

 

Doubtful. The notion that the United States is controlled by a bunch of religious zealots is seriously at variance with reality. First of all, I suspect that there are more functional secular humanists, atheists and religious moderates in the State Department than there are Christian fundamentalists. The outgoing Secretary, Hillary, isn't noted for her religiosity. Her successor, John Kerry, is a liberal Catholic, attacked by bishops of his church for religious laxity. Second, the State Department doesn't control decisions re whether or not to use military force. That's done by the President, acting on the input of a variety of advisors from the National Security Council, the CIA, the Pentagon, etc. Chuck Hagel, the Secretary of Defense, has been critical of Israel. None of the others have shown much religious orientation at all. Third, the President is Obama, who does not strike me as being exactly a religious fanatic. There was greater danger under his predecessor, G.W., who sometimes claimed to be on a mission from God and was under the sway of the Neocons. But even the Neocons were guided more by secular ideology than by religious dogma. Fourth, a good chunk of Christendom is pacifist, including recently the Roman Catholic Church, and the mainline Protestant Churches and Anabaptists are notoriously so. So once more we have an argument about Christian behavior based on one variant of it--Evangelicals. It is clearly a logical fallacy to say some Christians are war mongers, therefore all are.

As for siding with Israel, there I do think you touch on an area of real danger. The Neocons, in particular, many of whom are Jewish, seemed to think it is the U.S.'s #1 priority to make the world safe for Israel, and there are strong political pressures in Congress to stand by Israel in any conflict. But I think the source of this is mainly political and ethnic: the strength of the Zionist lobby and the Jewish vote, and the skill of Isreael in presenting itself as a plucky outpost of western democracy in the Middle East. And the Neocons are currently out of power. Your notion that Christians believe support of Israel is a pre-condition for salvation is curious. Until recently, Christian fundamentalists tended to be anti-Semitic, and there are still plenty of those in the neo-Nazi hinterland. Some Jewish rabbis have tried to sell Christians on the idea that Christians have a biblical obligation to defend Israel, but so far they don't seem to have many takers. We may be crazy, but we're not stupid. It is true that many Christian Evangelicals tend to be pro-Israel because of their reading of the Bible and the belief in Armageddon. Ironically, some of them believe that Christians must make a temporary alliance with Israel to protect the Holy Land and fulfill prophecy, after which they plan to throw non-converted Jews under the bus. These nut jobs shouldn't be taken lightly, but so far they don't seem to have real power. If Armageddon comes, I'd expect it to be more the result of politics than religion.

 

What ideology where the Neocons guided buy?

 

"Neo-conservatism" (which is what Neo-con stands for) is an ideology. The political theorist Leo Strauss, late professor at the University of Chicago, is often credited with being the founder. A refugee from Nazi Germany and admirer of the Greek classics, Strauss was a strong nationalist and champion of western civilization who believed the United States had a mission in the world as the land of the free and home of the brave. He was rabidly anti-Soviet and a critic of the relativism which he thought had infected western intellectuals. He taught the importance of a national myth to bind us together, and if one didn't exist, it would have to be invented. His followers were foreign policy hawks who drew support from pro-Vietnam War ex-Democrats who became disillusioned with the Peace Movement, Mc Governism, and Jimmie Carter. They believed in an interventionist foreign policy for the United States to advance western values around the globe, especially western-style democracy. Neo-conservative ranks included a number of prominent Jewish intellectuals, like Norman Poderetz of Commentary magazine, Irving Kristol of The Public Interest and his son Bill Kristol, and foreign policy buffs Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. Also, some non-Jewish foreign policy hawks like the late Henry (Scoop) Jackson, Reagan's U.N. Ambassador Jeanmne Kirkpatrick, Donald Rumsfeld and, of course, Dick Cheney. They were good at conjuring up one after another threat to national security which required drastic measures: fist the menace of the Soviet Union, then the menace of Bin Laden and radical Islam. When G.W. Bush became President, Neo-cons became his closest forein policy advisers and the principal architects of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

How did someone thumbs down this?

I started this silly thread and I liked the answer.

 

thanks duck

:2thumbsup: