• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Future of Religion in Our Lives

Saying religion is simply one's personal connection with the divine, and one's conscience is supreme, is self-idolization, if religion has no objective authority what's the difference between the cult leader saying he's listening to his divine connection with the ultimate, and that of mother teresa.

What it ends up doing (that theology of the individual), ends up just having people doing whatever they want, whatever they "feel" is right (which often just so happens to match what benefits themselves) and call it "religion" or "spirituality."

Yes - that's the inherent danger of any organized and formatted religion the attempts to dictate what you believe by force, fear or coercion.

Your point does conflict with his point, however. Why can't someone seek out the divine without using one or all three of those qualities to control others?
 
I personally suspect that traditional dogmatic religion will continue to decline, but a personal, non-traditional religious impulse will continue to increase, and that many people will turn toward a more humanistic expression or "social religion", if you will. As humans, we tend to look for answers to the unknowable, and we try to feel some sense of control over mortality, so the need to search for meaning will not go away.

What do you think this 'social religion' will look like? I've heard this said a few times before but it always seems somewhat vague. Does this mean a turn towards meditative and/or philosophical movements like Buddhism, Taoism, etc? The increase of Unitarian Universalists, Quakers, etc? A general shift towards an undefined deism? Or is it something else entirely?

Not trying to press you! I'm just genuinely curious which is why I made this thread. What exactly will our religious/social landscape look like in our futures?
 
What do you think this 'social religion' will look like? I've heard this said a few times before but it always seems somewhat vague. Does this mean a turn towards meditative and/or philosophical movements like Buddhism, Taoism, etc? The increase of Unitarian Universalists, Quakers, etc? A general shift towards an undefined deism? Or is it something else entirely?

I'm essentially referring to humanism as a religious expression. Unitarian universalism would probably be close to the definition, or maybe the "unity" church that we see occasionally in this country may have a little in common, but even Unity has a bit of traditional "God-flavored" taste to it, so I expect that will go by the wayside as well.

I don't expect to see more of a meditative type than we currently have, as many people don't seem to have an introspective urge. I also don't really expect an undefined diesm, as much as a push toward some type of more hedonistic approach.
 
I'm about as atheist as it comes, but I don't want to force my views on anybody. People are free to choose to believe what they want. However, I will still on a personal level oppose religion, especially the christian religion, because they are actively trying to force themselves onto the rest of us. For some reason it's not enough to worship among their own kind, they have to try to have the government enforce it with an iron fist. That is completely unacceptable.

Personally, I'd like to see all religion gone and have people make decisions based on logic and reason and not on a mystical belief in an ancient book. I don't think this irreligious trend will be reversing, only steamrolling.

First, I'm assuming you live in the states under which governmental authority is democratic so not sure how Christians are forcing themselves on you and I guess if you don't like the system of laws here just move.
Secondly, since humans have morality,dignity,responsibility, and many other realities that are not scientifically verifiable, religion isn't going away any time soon. Actually, I find the Christian religion to be the most logical,reasonable, and complete worldview.
 
First, I'm assuming you live in the states under which governmental authority is democratic so not sure how Christians are forcing themselves on you and I guess if you don't like the system of laws here just move.
Secondly, since humans have morality,dignity,responsibility, and many other realities that are not scientifically verifiable, religion isn't going away any time soon. Actually, I find the Christian religion to be the most logical,reasonable, and complete worldview.

"If you don't like it, move!"? Really? Christians make laws enforcing their faith, a violation of the constitution, and when I oppose that, I should move?

You have a right to your religion, not to petition your government to have your religious law enforced.
 
Saying religion is simply one's personal connection with the divine, and one's conscience is supreme, is self-idolization, if religion has no objective authority what's the difference between the cult leader saying he's listening to his divine connection with the ultimate, and that of mother teresa.

What it ends up doing (that theology of the individual), ends up just having people doing whatever they want, whatever they "feel" is right (which often just so happens to match what benefits themselves) and call it "religion" or "spirituality."

Following "authorities" has the some problem, except it's the authorities who do whatever they want.

I'm a bit surprised you would express this notion, given that I think you agree that the gospel is about a new creation, about transformation of the self. It isn't about a code we need to struggle to follow. If the gospel's promise is true, we become loving persons (maybe not perfect persons, but ones who can love others and want to love others). We don't need authorities to tell us what to do. And if the gospel's promise is false and there is no transformation of the self, then it has nothing to offer over any other book of ethics.

Christianity must be existential, it must be about who we are, not what we believe. If it's just the latter, it has little to offer over any other crackpot religion speculating about the afterlife and the hidden essence of God. And that doesn't really matter
 
Last edited:
I believe that anti-thesm is actually going to suffer the biggest backlash in the future. Many atheists now are avoiding calling themselves atheists, because it carries an undesireable undertone of rude elitism due to the atheist personalities in the public eye. I think we're going to see a drastic increase in people moving away from anti-theism, and toward the more liberal and open schools of thought. Personally, it annoys the crap out of me, because these anti-theists lose their minds every time the topic of religion comes up, and they spew the most extreme rhetoric. They're blinded by hatred, and that is guaranteed to drive people away. I'm not the only atheist in the US who views this extreme unhealthy fixation as a borderline mental disability.

As far as religion in the US goes, it will continue to adapt and survive as it always has. It is still an important aspect of human nature.
 
Of course there is. There's the one where it isn't run by a human intelligence. Where human agency isn't the ultimate power. Earthquakes do not happen because of any choice. Sub-atomic particles do not behave in a manner that makes sense to humans on the scale we live in, neither do stars and galaxies and supernovas. Diseases are not a form of justice or punishment, striking the wicked for sinning. Most religious and mythological ideas (same thing, really) are about extrapolating human agency onto natural events. In our species' infancy, we could not understand things outside our own brand of logic. Now, we can. We understand that the world has its own brand, and it doesn't always fit with ours. But we can learn what it is. We do not need to think that hurricanes are a punishment for how people have sex. We do not need to scoff at future discoveries because they do not fit with the human experience. The human experience is unique, but not special. It does not govern anything besides us.

How is this experienced exactly? Religion is dogma, doctrine, and ritual. Whose brand of logic are we understanding? It seems you're lumping all religions into one. It also seems you're using the most primitive forms to make an argument here. What future discoveries are you anticipating exactly that will not fit the experience of humans? Perhaps you're using a special vocabulary, using terms defined in a precise way, but I'm failing to see what you're getting at. If I'm to read you as I understand, breaking it down to its essence, what your saying is that we need to forget all the metaphysical mumbo jumbo of yesteryear's lore but we're at the same time suppose to grasp onto some new unexplained, unknown metaphysical construct which doesn't need us to experience it to exist. Have I mischaracterized your position?
 
It is an interesting question that I've been thinking about for a while. For much of the past 20 years we've seen a steady increase in irreligious, atheistic, or secularist sentiment among citizens of the Western world (Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc though excluding Russia and the post-Soviet space) and it does not seem as though this trend is slowing down. The raw statistics are easy enough to call upon and I don't think it's necessary here--suffice to say that it has risen significantly among youth and young adults and across most every country in the West it is on the rise and religiosity (the importance of traditional religion, attendance of services, etc) is on the decline. What I find more interesting personally is how the narrative has shifted so much in such a short period of time. It was only a few short years ago that this was a much more controversial subject with atheism/irreligion, the Newdow case, that war memorial out in California appearing nightly in the news. Now it seems like no one bats an eye at such lawsuits or polling reports on religion.

It makes me wonder of how different things could be in even 20 years, or 50, or a 100. Do you think your children will be as religious as you are? Your grandchildren? How prominent will traditional churches be and how much will they change? Will it follow current geographical demographics or will it spread evenly? Or will it reverse (I personally think this unlikely)?

It strikes me that so much of the vehemence around the current iteration of 'culture wars' is the sense on one side that they are slowly losing their grip on the future (and their deeply held views on life and society) and those who think they are increasingly winning.

Since most of us on this forum are definitely in the 'West' where this trend is taking place I figured I'd pose some of those questions here and see what you had to say.

The falling away of religion and morals was foretold. This is not a surprise.
 
In twenty years we've seen the collapse of the Soviet Union, the flourishing of the internet, rise of the personal computer, and the emergence of China just to name a few. Things happen faster and faster and I don't think it's unfair to look at 20 years as a period of time where momentous change could occur or to plot the accelerating trajectories of existing trends. Hell look at gay marriage, we've gone from fierce opposition to the verge of acceptance in just about 20 years. So I'd have to disagree that it isn't a worthwhile period of time to consider.

Completely meaningless as a frame of reference .
 
How is this experienced exactly? Religion is dogma, doctrine, and ritual. Whose brand of logic are we understanding? It seems you're lumping all religions into one. It also seems you're using the most primitive forms to make an argument here. What future discoveries are you anticipating exactly that will not fit the experience of humans? Perhaps you're using a special vocabulary, using terms defined in a precise way, but I'm failing to see what you're getting at. If I'm to read you as I understand, breaking it down to its essence, what your saying is that we need to forget all the metaphysical mumbo jumbo of yesteryear's lore but we're at the same time suppose to grasp onto some new unexplained, unknown metaphysical construct which doesn't need us to experience it to exist. Have I mischaracterized your position?

No. We don't need any metaphysical construct. There is no metaphysical. We need to stop making metaphysical stuff up to explain physical things we don't understand. Instead, we have learned how to just understand them. Whether it is about the workings of our bodies and minds, the interactions of subatomic particles, the origins of the universe, germs and diseases, our emotions, morality, history, or basically anything else, we have learned to find the answers to these questions in the physical world that we can observe. We do not need to rely on things we can only imagine.
 
No. We don't need any metaphysical construct. There is no metaphysical. We need to stop making metaphysical stuff up to explain physical things we don't understand. Instead, we have learned how to just understand them. Whether it is about the workings of our bodies and minds, the interactions of subatomic particles, the origins of the universe, germs and diseases, our emotions, morality, history, or basically anything else, we have learned to find the answers to these questions in the physical world that we can observe. We do not need to rely on things we can only imagine.

There is no metaphysical? Demonstrate for me that your thoughts hold any sway over the physical world whatsoever. Not the action which goes into writing down your thoughts, your finger pointing to some object, your voice trying to explain, squiggles on a piece of paper denoting certain meaning, not the electrical impulses going "Zzt Zzt" on monitor in some lab, but your actual thoughts, the images conjured in your mind as they are conjured. Can you do that for me?

You can't. These skin bags of ours are conduits. Our mouths, ears, eyes, hands, tongues are instruments which allow our metaphysical existence to traverse and interact with the physical realm.

A very simplified way of putting this is, metaphysical/physical = thought/action

I think what you're trying to say can be easier summed up in this quote, which make no mistake, should be viewed as a negative.

“Progress is Providence without God. That is, it is a theory that everything has always perpetually gone right by accident. It is a sort of atheistic optimism, based on an everlasting coincidence far more miraculous than a miracle."
-- G.K. Chesterton


As we learn how things are done we must take great care in not assuming, or eschewing the answer to the question of why it was done, by whom or what, and for what reason or purpose. When you remove those questions, you'll find yourself staring face to face -- bare-naked and alone -- deep into the gaping maw of nihilism.

and quite frankly, that's no way to go through life...:)
 
As we learn how things are done we must take great care in not assuming, or eschewing the answer to the question of why it was done, by whom or what, and for what reason or purpose. When you remove those questions, you'll find yourself staring face to face -- bare-naked and alone -- deep into the gaping maw of nihilism.

and quite frankly, that's no way to go through life...:)

You can insist on metaphysical nonsense all you like. That doesn't make it true. Our thoughts are not divorced from our bodies. Reason and purpose are human ideas, through the lens of human agency. The universe does not operate like a person does. It has no need for reason or purpose. It has cause and effect, certainly. But no need for reason or purpose. When people ask "why" like that, it has nothing to do with the world around us, and only our emotional choices.

And no, it's not nihilism. Just because there's no ultimate truth doesn't mean that there aren't human truths. Just because there's no overriding purpose doesn't mean we don't have individual purposes. Just because we don't live forever doesn't mean that our lives are meaningless. On the contrary, our lives only have meaning because we exist in a universe that doesn't care. We are free to do whatever we choose and accomplish whatever we can. Our existence is up to us and us alone. As a species, we no longer need to be the center of the universe in order to cope with it. We do not need to be special in order to find meaning for ourselves.
 
You can insist on metaphysical nonsense all you like. That doesn't make it true. Our thoughts are not divorced from our bodies. Reason and purpose are human ideas, through the lens of human agency. The universe does not operate like a person does. It has no need for reason or purpose. It has cause and effect, certainly. But no need for reason or purpose. When people ask "why" like that, it has nothing to do with the world around us, and only our emotional choices.

And no, it's not nihilism. Just because there's no ultimate truth doesn't mean that there aren't human truths. Just because there's no overriding purpose doesn't mean we don't have individual purposes. Just because we don't live forever doesn't mean that our lives are meaningless. On the contrary, our lives only have meaning because we exist in a universe that doesn't care. We are free to do whatever we choose and accomplish whatever we can. Our existence is up to us and us alone. As a species, we no longer need to be the center of the universe in order to cope with it. We do not need to be special in order to find meaning for ourselves.

I'm not insisting, it is evident. Closing your eyes and plugging your ears doesn't make it true either. No one said it did, but you have it mixed up, our bodies are not divorced from our thoughts. No, it isn't an emotional choice to ask why, it is an inquisitive one. Born of logic, and reason.

Certainly it is, I am certain nihilism isn't the only concept you're not fully grasping. "Because we live in a universe that doesn't care?" Do you see what you've done here? You've defeated your own argument. If there was no grand regency, than the universe wouldn't care is a statement as false as the one you claim to be refuting by it.

As a species? Are you aware that you're speaking in an abstract manner? That you're attempting to put yourself out of yourself, to objectify yourself? to claim that there is some reality outside that which can be experienced by humans in general and by extension you, personally? And you're railing against fairy-tales? All the while knowingly or not creating one of the grandest among them?

Look, you're not completely off the mark here, but I think you need to delve further into it than what you've done, you've got the existential part down as it regards responsibility of choice it seems, but you're way, way off the mark with everything else. Now, if you just said you're a nihilist I'd of called it a day, but you're not saying that, you're saying "Remove from your minds all magic and make believe that the world has shown you and pick up instead, my novus ordo which is very much as much magic and make believe as the others, but it is one that I prefer."

perhaps you're not saying that at all, but what you've written thus far tells me that is precisely what you're getting at...
 
Yes - that's the inherent danger of any organized and formatted religion the attempts to dictate what you believe by force, fear or coercion.

Your point does conflict with his point, however. Why can't someone seek out the divine without using one or all three of those qualities to control others?

If you seek the divine, without accepting some sort of authority, or orthodoxy, which is beyond yourself, then you're just divinizing your own ego, because what is there to measure your "experience" against?
 
Following "authorities" has the some problem, except it's the authorities who do whatever they want.

I'm a bit surprised you would express this notion, given that I think you agree that the gospel is about a new creation, about transformation of the self. It isn't about a code we need to struggle to follow. If the gospel's promise is true, we become loving persons (maybe not perfect persons, but ones who can love others and want to love others). We don't need authorities to tell us what to do. And if the gospel's promise is false and there is no transformation of the self, then it has nothing to offer over any other book of ethics.

Christianity must be existential, it must be about who we are, not what we believe. If it's just the latter, it has little to offer over any other crackpot religion speculating about the afterlife and the hidden essence of God. And that doesn't really matter

My authority is scripture, not an individual, I also understand Orthodox's and Catholics argument that the Church is authority (I have major theological and historical problems with that), but saying "I" am the authority (even if you don't say it outright), is indefensible and reduces spirituallity to nothing more than ego stroking and divination of the self.

I'm talking religion in general ... if you take the gospel as authority, transcendant authority, fine. But for it to be real spirituality (imo) it MUST be transcendant, there must be a case where one's will, one's desire, if it contradicts the transcendant authority, a spiritual man goes with the authority.

If ones will and ones dseire is simply equated with the transcendant authority it's not only logically invalid (you cannot transcend yourself, just like you can't be your own dictator), it's spiritually absurd.

I agree the gospel is transformative, but saying we become "loving" is meaningless if one can define that anyway one wants, there MUST be a standard that isn't just "what I feel."
 
If you seek the divine, without accepting some sort of authority, or orthodoxy, which is beyond yourself, then you're just divinizing your own ego, because what is there to measure your "experience" against?

What orthodoxy and religious authority (as in a formal church) are to me: Someone having written a holy book that tells you what to believe and what to do in life is just pleasing the divinizing interests of someone else.

Belief in anything is done out of personal satisfaction (present day US). People 'seek out a faith that matches what they feel is right' as I've seen in so many threads on religious beliefs.

I was raised by a religious family and told what to believe, and I never 'felt' it like they wanted me to. I never believed, so I eventually rejected the entire conformity of it. . . non-religious, but I'm still serving my own interests.

If you make a choice - it's to appease your own feelings so you can feel settled. Like finding the right sport to play, or the author you like the most.

If someone else makes that choice and insists you follow it - it's to appease them / not anger them / appease the greater deity.

It's all the same, in my view, no matter what you identify with.
 
It makes me wonder of how different things could be in even 20 years, or 50, or a 100. Do you think your children will be as religious as you are? Your grandchildren? How prominent will traditional churches be and how much will they change? Will it follow current geographical demographics or will it spread evenly? Or will it reverse (I personally think this unlikely)?

I'm not religious at all. I never have been. I grew up in a very Catholic family but I never saw the need for religion in my life. I have always felt more complete and safe not following in the footsteps of other people who chose to believe in it. Science, for me, has always been more rational and logical and easier to understand and believe. So will my children be as religious as me? Absolutely. I would never ever think to encourage my children to not believe in what makes them happy, but the odds are, coming from me and my husband, that they will not be religious at all. Same thing with my grandchildren. I believe that in 500 years it is very possible that churches could strictly be museums that help showcase what religion was when it became too uncontrollable and people started feeling uncomfortable believing in it anymore. I do think that the religious south will take longer to change, but the more extreme religious crusaders push their beliefs in others faces, the easier it is for said people to feel less comfortable with being religious all together. I do not believe it will reverse.

It strikes me that so much of the vehemence around the current iteration of 'culture wars' is the sense on one side that they are slowly losing their grip on the future (and their deeply held views on life and society) and those who think they are increasingly winning.

I don't think that atheism is winning either. I think that the more atheists (hardcore atheists anyway) show their arrogance and hatred they become no better than the hardcore Christians who "do the Lord's work by telling you that you're a terrible person because God said so." The "winners" are the people who honestly do not care what someone else does with their lives and what they believe in and are just content with living their lives as best they can. The winners will be the people that choose to be good and do good and keep their religious beliefs to themselves (and their friends and family).

Since most of us on this forum are definitely in the 'West' where this trend is taking place I figured I'd pose some of those questions here and see what you had to say.

Interesting to note that the OP stated he would "pose some of these questions here" and then went on to post no questions whatsoever.

Given the mindless gloating pop culture responses that will be intentionally elicited, shouldn't this thread be in "Philosophical Discussions?"

One wonders what the attraction is in the endless attempts to slip anti-religious threads into the Religious Section.

I thought he did post questions. I answered them in my response anyway. Maybe they just weren't the questions you were wanting? I think this post should be in the religious thread considering he asked where people thought the future of religion was going. :shrug:

If it was in your power, would you take religion out of the lives of everyone in the world?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I thought I'd add my opinion here. I don't think that there is a need to remove religious from people's lives, it just would be nice to see it disappear from the mainstream (where people have personal relationships with their religion of choice and don't run around telling everyone else what they can and cannot do). I know some really great Christian people and they are the ones that do not run around telling anyone they should find a relationship with God or else they'll go to hell.

Some religions need to be curbed, or they will take over the world.

Just out of curiosity which religions are you referring to here? It is always interesting to me to see who thinks what religions are dangerous.

Some religions need to be curbed, or they will take over the world.

I think there is a fear in religious people in discussing these topics and I think that is where the hostility came from. It wasn't necessary but the idea of religion not being powerful in the future probably scares this person.

First, I'm assuming you live in the states under which governmental authority is democratic so not sure how Christians are forcing themselves on you and I guess if you don't like the system of laws here just move.
Secondly, since humans have morality,dignity,responsibility, and many other realities that are not scientifically verifiable, religion isn't going away any time soon. Actually, I find the Christian religion to be the most logical,reasonable, and complete worldview.

I guess you haven't been watching a lot of television lately. Hardcore Christians are forcing their beliefs on this world every day in an extremely hateful and aggressive way. Gay rights, pro-life agendas, which countries we should go and bomb, which people can go to their heaven and which people cannot, and so on. I don't care if these people believe that homosexuality is wrong, and if abortion is murder, and if other religions are threatening, it's just none of their business to force other people to have to live under those same rules. I know, I know... so why is fair the other way around, right? Well legalized abortion allows people who are not against it to do it if that's there choice and allows people who are against it to have their babies or give them up for adoption. No one is forcing someone to have an abortion. By making abortion illegal you're essentially taking ONLY the Christian faith and making that the only way of life, hence... "forcing themselves on you." The same goes for homosexual rights. Allowing homosexuals to marry each other and live their own lives on their own terms would be the most neutral way to handle the situation, yet somehow Christianity has done it again and continues to make it illegal for these people to marry each other... again, essentially "forcing themselves on you." The Christian religion, in my opinion, is the least logical, reasonable, and complete worldview and honestly is becoming more and more dangerous the further we allow it's ruling to govern our laws in this country. I'm sure that is offensive to you and I am honestly sorry (even though stating that Christianity, something I don't believe in and never have agreed with, is the most logical explanation for our existence is extremely offensive to me), but the truth is that science only gives evidence of where we came from and where we're going, while Christianity has been getting into the lives of people that don't want it there and forcing them to live by it's guidelines, as offensive and ignorant as it may be.
 
What orthodoxy and religious authority (as in a formal church) are to me: Someone having written a holy book that tells you what to believe and what to do in life is just pleasing the divinizing interests of someone else.

Belief in anything is done out of personal satisfaction (present day US). People 'seek out a faith that matches what they feel is right' as I've seen in so many threads on religious beliefs.

I was raised by a religious family and told what to believe, and I never 'felt' it like they wanted me to. I never believed, so I eventually rejected the entire conformity of it. . . non-religious, but I'm still serving my own interests.

If you make a choice - it's to appease your own feelings so you can feel settled. Like finding the right sport to play, or the author you like the most.

If someone else makes that choice and insists you follow it - it's to appease them / not anger them / appease the greater deity.

It's all the same, in my view, no matter what you identify with.

Well ... if you don't think the holy book is inspired by God and written by prophets, then yeah, that's all it is, the bible was written by men ... but "God breathed," i.e. inspired directly by God and written by prophets guided by God.

If you divinize your own feelings .... then you're calling yourself a prophet ... That's the difference.
 
I'm not religious at all. I never have been. I grew up in a very Catholic family but I never saw the need for religion in my life. I have always felt more complete and safe not following in the footsteps of other people who chose to believe in it. Science, for me, has always been more rational and logical and easier to understand and believe. So will my children be as religious as me? Absolutely. I would never ever think to encourage my children to not believe in what makes them happy, but the odds are, coming from me and my husband, that they will not be religious at all. Same thing with my grandchildren. I believe that in 500 years it is very possible that churches could strictly be museums that help showcase what religion was when it became too uncontrollable and people started feeling uncomfortable believing in it anymore. I do think that the religious south will take longer to change, but the more extreme religious crusaders push their beliefs in others faces, the easier it is for said people to feel less comfortable with being religious all together. I do not believe it will reverse.



I don't think that atheism is winning either. I think that the more atheists (hardcore atheists anyway) show their arrogance and hatred they become no better than the hardcore Christians who "do the Lord's work by telling you that you're a terrible person because God said so." The "winners" are the people who honestly do not care what someone else does with their lives and what they believe in and are just content with living their lives as best they can. The winners will be the people that choose to be good and do good and keep their religious beliefs to themselves (and their friends and family).





I thought he did post questions. I answered them in my response anyway. Maybe they just weren't the questions you were wanting? I think this post should be in the religious thread considering he asked where people thought the future of religion was going. :shrug:



I know this wasn't directed at me, but I thought I'd add my opinion here. I don't think that there is a need to remove religious from people's lives, it just would be nice to see it disappear from the mainstream (where people have personal relationships with their religion of choice and don't run around telling everyone else what they can and cannot do). I know some really great Christian people and they are the ones that do not run around telling anyone they should find a relationship with God or else they'll go to hell.



Just out of curiosity which religions are you referring to here? It is always interesting to me to see who thinks what religions are dangerous.



I think there is a fear in religious people in discussing these topics and I think that is where the hostility came from. It wasn't necessary but the idea of religion not being powerful in the future probably scares this person.



I guess you haven't been watching a lot of television lately. Hardcore Christians are forcing their beliefs on this world every day in an extremely hateful and aggressive way. Gay rights, pro-life agendas, which countries we should go and bomb, which people can go to their heaven and which people cannot, and so on. I don't care if these people believe that homosexuality is wrong, and if abortion is murder, and if other religions are threatening, it's just none of their business to force other people to have to live under those same rules. I know, I know... so why is fair the other way around, right? Well legalized abortion allows people who are not against it to do it if that's there choice and allows people who are against it to have their babies or give them up for adoption. No one is forcing someone to have an abortion. By making abortion illegal you're essentially taking ONLY the Christian faith and making that the only way of life, hence... "forcing themselves on you." The same goes for homosexual rights. Allowing homosexuals to marry each other and live their own lives on their own terms would be the most neutral way to handle the situation, yet somehow Christianity has done it again and continues to make it illegal for these people to marry each other... again, essentially "forcing themselves on you." The Christian religion, in my opinion, is the least logical, reasonable, and complete worldview and honestly is becoming more and more dangerous the further we allow it's ruling to govern our laws in this country. I'm sure that is offensive to you and I am honestly sorry (even though stating that Christianity, something I don't believe in and never have agreed with, is the most logical explanation for our existence is extremely offensive to me), but the truth is that science only gives evidence of where we came from and where we're going, while Christianity has been getting into the lives of people that don't want it there and forcing them to live by it's guidelines, as offensive and ignorant as it may be.

What tv are you watching anyway?!? Last I checked,abortion is legal, homosexual marriage is legal in some states and gaining traction politically in others, and Obama is the one looking to bomb other countries. I'm sorry but I really don't have a clue what you are talking about.
 
Back
Top Bottom