How would Religion disband?

As far as Religions go, the Catholic Church so far has been fairly lenient and reasonable when it comes to modern scientific finds.

I'll use them as the religion in question.

Scientists are finding out more and more each day about the origins of life.
Humans specifically.

Were it to be proven how life truly arose, how would the Catholic Church gracefully put down their hands and admit that they simply had it wrong for so long?

Are there protocols that they would follow?
Do they have such plans just in case they have to give up the ghost?
Has a religion ever admitted 'defeat'?

I'm not asking if they would.

I'm asking if they did, how would they go about it?

Usually what happens is a mob of embittered and soulless tyrants seize power, and then, they just line the believers (in God) against a wall, and execute them. Sometimes the tyrants give them a choice to renounce their belief in God in return for a lesser punishment. Look at it as a form of wealth redistribution. The tyrants who are most brutal usually come from a perpetually skint background and suffer from feelings of low self esteem. By drilling holes in heads that are perceived as uppity, it gives them the feeling that they've equalized things, spiritually. But I think looting the evil rich is usually done first, since money talks, and that solves the skint perpetuity. So look for this sign first. And yes, the zionists in charge of world governments are preparing such a looting scheme even as we speak. You can find the articles which were recently sent out as feelers, as to measure how well the (skint) world receives the idea of looting the evil rich. They simply snoop through your mails, computers, homes, minds, and so on, and lawfully, all in the name of security, their security. Because zionism has screwed us to the wall, the architects (government) are in fear for their prestige, power, and lives. The easiest way to transfer blame is to simply redistribute all the wealth. Everybody's happy, and in a few moments the money will flow right back to the 'evil rich'.

Do you recall the flurry of news stories which emerged about a year ago, which were recommending taxing the rich as to make everyone 'more equal'? How about the rich guy with the skeletons who warned his buds of the pitchforks that are coming? These stories were not by accident. Then they simply read our reactions to the stories they put in our papers, TV and so on. They see an out, for themselves, which is evidenced by the stories they printed.

I don't think that 'religion' will ever go away, so long as persons believe in God. It would take an awful lot. I, for one, would need to see that 747 that assembled itself, against all laws of entropy, and fly itself away, while playing all my favorite movies. How amazing! A 747 is so much more magnificent than a mere human, after all. So if this 747 magically creates itself, for all to witness, well, how much simpler it is to understand that we just created ourselves!

Religion will not die, because God will not die. It takes a really sick group of persons to organize such a purge, but these folk are everywhere. You can easily find them, drooling their loathing, as they speak of how much better it will be, when all the believers in the fairy tale man in the sky, are put against a wall.

The only question then, is will you worship their newfound glory and majesty, at the end of gun barrels, or will you take one in the head, now?

This is essentially a large slice of the historical pie of Russia, and China. For some reason, these areas are prone to wall style executions, en masse. I think it's because the ones who hate God, equally love the idea that they simply created themselves, like that 747 did. After being ground into spiritual poverty by the police states, and having little or no freedoms, well, once they get a gun in their hand, it's their turn, at last. Kill everything that the tyrant tells you to kill, or else. A real pity, because you cannot steal heaven. If you could steal it, do you think it would still be heaven?

# 395

Make announcements and reveal the truth, but first expose the other fundamental religions completely.

Because while I don't like religion, out of the 3 Judaic ones, its the best, and shows the way back home if you follow Christ, inner and outer messages. Not so the others. You can only see the old testament in metaphor or its evil for the most part.

So, have noticed a complete attack on Christianity and curious why the Catholics would come out. Are the other very violent and oppressive ones going to be exposed too?

They can go first, since whatever the truth about the story written in the bible, the gnostic and metaphor is true, on many levels of layers of true, from Love/Light and Goodness, to the DNA and hidden stuff there.

a reply to: Unrealised

I'm not asking if they would.

I'm asking if they did, how would they go about it?

I don't think we can dismiss the first question. I don't think they ever would. Entertaining how they would go about it would entail rewriting their character. It's not like science hasn't already disproved scripture. Genesis says the Sun and all stars formed after Earth had formed. It says birds were flying around before all land based animals. Both we know is not true. Scripture says early man had lifespans of nearly one thousand years. We know that's not true. The time for gracefully putting down their hands and admitting they had it wrong is already upon them.

Why think more scientific findings will have a different result? Their religious belief is based in faith. Scientific incompatibility is reconciled through faith in an omniscient and omnipotent god that can do anything.

originally posted by: Unrealised
Were it to be proven how life truly arose, how would the Catholic Church gracefully put down their hands and admit that they simply had it wrong for so long?

When dealing with faith, proof is often a precarious word.

In the West, mainstream Christianity has morphed and adapted to accommodate modern thinking, including science. It was a painful struggle, but that's history. The "what happens after death" issue will ensure religion in some form will persist, even in an increasingly secular society. I see religious movements that refuse to adapt having the problems, and this includes some forms of Christianity whose messages are increasingly at odds with accepted science, such as evolution and the age of the world.

originally posted by: TheWhiteKnight
And yes, the zionists in charge of world governments are preparing ... blah, blah, blah

Boring. No evidence and not on topic. Find another thread to pollute.

Major religious organisations have millions of dollars in both bullion and property - they won't admit defeat but make themselves useful.

To keep their influence and money they'd have to make themselves relevant to an increasingly secular and scientific world. They would do this by rebranding themselves as charities teaching not about "God" but about human morals, social justice, meditation etc etc.

I have already seen this demonstrated when I recently took a tour around Australia: many churches have banners out the front declaring "Free the Refugees" and "Let's welcome Refugees into Australia". It's the church trying to be relevant in the face of dwindling numbers.

originally posted by: Unrealised
As far as Religions go, the Catholic Church so far has been fairly lenient and reasonable when it comes to modern scientific finds.

I'll use them as the religion in question.

Scientists are finding out more and more each day about the origins of life.
Humans specifically.

Were it to be proven how life truly arose, how would the Catholic Church gracefully put down their hands and admit that they simply had it wrong for so long?

Are there protocols that they would follow?
Do they have such plans just in case they have to give up the ghost?
Has a religion ever admitted 'defeat'?

I'm not asking if they would.

I'm asking if they did, how would they go about it?

The Catholic Church has a pontifical academy of sciences and it's been a long time since they accepted the current cosmological and evolution models.

To them, studying sciences and the laws of nature are ways to understand better what can be considered "divine" in creation.

Even if science explained how atoms became molecules, how molecules became organic chains, how organic chains became cells and how cells became life, it would only show HOW life appeared, not WHY.


And science cannot tell why because it's a philosophical subject.

Religion will say life is a necessity, while science will say life is an accident.



Only religious fundamentalism and dogma can be "defeated" by science but anyway they do not represent the majority of religious people.

For the majority of people religions are simply theistic philosophies. And as such, they will never be threatened by science.





If you want to see how Catholics reconcile science and theism, read Teilhard de Chardin. It will dispel most misconceptions Americans atheists/agnostics have regarding how many Christian including Catholics see their god.

You'd be surprised it's not an old bearded guy in the sky or any other stupid anthropomorphic projection, but a much more "down to earth" and non-supernatural concept.


The laws of genetics were discovered by a monk, the expansion cosmological model was proposed by a priest. If you are not a fundamentalist, the bible is pretty much a spiritual book, not a science manual.

a reply to: Unrealised

I'm not asking if they would.

I'm asking if they did, how would they go about it?

They would die just like they grew in the first place. One human operative at a time. Deprogramming a meme is somewhat neutral, whereas the programming phase is quite active.

The history of the Catholic Church is quite colorful. By colorful, I mean one color, red. The Catholic meme drove out it's polytheistic competitors, so it's more likely to be displaced by some other active meme, like Islam.

a reply to: Unrealised

You see, the church stays relevant through the God of the Gaps argument which basically puts the answer "God" for anything science doesn't know. The only way to refute this argument is to either disprove god's existence or answer EVERY question about the universe and how it works though science.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The only way to refute this argument is to either disprove god's existence or answer EVERY question about the universe and how it works though science.

Knowing HOW the universe works will never give the universe MEANING.

That's why humans have always and will always search for philosophical and religious answers too.

It's not a "god of the gap" issue. The issue is that science cares only about the mechanical aspect of things while human live in more than a simply mechanical dimension.

If science could explain all mechanisms, the universe would be purely deterministic, meaning humans have no free will, meaning we cannot be held responsible of what we do.

The assumption that humans are above pure determinism is one of the basis of our societies.

originally posted by: Develo

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The only way to refute this argument is to either disprove god's existence or answer EVERY question about the universe and how it works though science.

Knowing HOW the universe works will never give the universe MEANING.

That's why humans have always and will always search for philosophical and religious answers too.

The universe having meaning is an assumption.

It's not a "god of the gap" issue. The issue is that science cares only about the mechanical aspect of things while human live in more than a simply mechanical dimension.

Actually, science cares about what it can prove through evidence. If the spiritual world exists, then it is only a matter of time before science can quantify it.

If science could explain all mechanisms, the universe would be purely deterministic, meaning humans have no free will, meaning we cannot be held responsible of what we do.

And? Does such a possibility frighten you?

The assumption that humans are above pure determinism is one of the basis of our societies.

Building society around assumptions is bound to cause problems when those assumptions are proven to be untrue. It would be best not to base society on ANY assumptions.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The universe having meaning is an assumption.

I know. My point is that humans will still always look for meaning. It's in their nature, they are hardwired for that. So even if science could explain all things, it would not be enough for most people. They would turn to philosophies and religions.

It's simply an observation.

Actually, science cares about what it can prove through evidence. If the spiritual world exists, then it is only a matter of time before science can quantify it.

Wasn't talking about the spiritual. I'm not claiming anything about the supernatural here. I don't really believe in the supernatural in the first place.

I was saying human consciousness lives in a world of mental constructions. It's not the same world as the world described by science. The rules are not the same. Science cannot fully describe human reality.

And? Does such a possibility frighten you?

Nope, it would frighten the judiciary system though.

Building society around assumptions is bound to cause problems when those assumptions are proven to be untrue. It would be best not to base society on ANY assumptions.

And yet we did, we build our societies on the assumptions we have a consciousness allowing us free will. What would happen to the US society if it was proven humans have no free will?

originally posted by: Develo
I know. My point is that humans will still always look for meaning. It's in their nature, they are hardwired for that. So even if science could explain all things, it would not be enough for most people. They would turn to philosophies and religions.

It's simply an observation.

And seeing as how that is a gap in scientific knowledge, we have the god of the gaps argument.

Nope, it would frighten the judiciary system though.

It would frighten quite a bit of people actually.

And yet we did, we build our societies on the assumptions we have a consciousness allowing us free will. What would happen to the US society if it was proven humans have no free will?

I'm not sure, but do you recommend embracing an assumption that society is built on even if it turns out to be untrue? Is it ok to believe a lie to maintain the status quo?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

I'm not sure, but do you recommend embracing an assumption that society is built on even if it turns out to be untrue? Is it ok to believe a lie to maintain the status quo?

I would never recommend that. IF it was proven the universe was deterministic, then morality would have no place left in such a world. Everything is already pre-determined by causes and so if genocide and slavery happen it's because it was meant to be.

It would suck but it would be like that.


But personally I don't think the universe is deterministic and I believe consciousness has free will.

Meaning there will always be that tiny grain of sand that will break the fine deterministic machinery. Since free will cannot be modeled and theorized, then there will always be a gap science can't fill: consciousness and free will.


If consciousness and free will are the gods of gaps it's fine for me because it's my exact definition of god.

a reply to: Develo

Don't get me wrong now, I'm not trying to be offputting or anything by mentioning the god of the gaps argument. It is a 100% valid argument. If your particular god of the gaps argument works for you, then great. The problem arises when science fills in one of those gaps and someone cannot let go of their particular god of the gaps argument for that gap.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The problem arises when science fills in one of those gaps and someone cannot let go of their particular god of the gaps argument for that gap.

I understand. That happens a lot with religious fundamentalism and you can see the cognitive dissonance they have to face.

But for many others, religions are mainly philosophies of life, they don't use religious texts to explain how the world works.

They use religious texts to understand what it means to be a human being, how to deal with suffering, how to become a better person. Their god isn't there to explain what they can't explain. Their god is something they feel inside them, like a little voice, telling them what to do to be a "good person".

Why should we be good?

Why can't we simply be selfish?

Why do we have to feel empathy?


Well, maybe we don't, but it seems the little voice is telling to a lot of people that we do. There probably even exist a sociological/neuropsychological explanation to this feeling, but honestly it doesn't really matter if that feeling is supernatural or not.

It wouldn't make it less valuable if it was explained.




What I'm simply saying is that if science could explain all these philosophical questions, then maybe religions wouldn't be called religions anymore, maybe there would be less rituals and symbols, but maybe not.

Maybe people would still cling to them simply because it helps them. And those who don't need that, well they already don't need that.



Almost all humans are superstitious regarding stupid things. All humans have their habits and rituals to help them feel better.

I think it would be pretty cruel to ask religious people to abandon their beloved rituals and habits simply because science can explain how the world came into existence. As long as they don't reject scientific truth I see no harm. And so far I think besides fundamentalists most religious people have 0 problem with current scientific truths.





I had a lot of fun reading about chaos magic because that "discipline" (hum) explains how the whole human reality is based on beliefs. You change your beliefs, you literally change your world. Even most scientific truths, to us they are beliefs because we have to trust the observations and authority of scientists.


I and someone else also studying it made very interesting experience that could be compared to "super-self-hypnosis". Basically if you manage to convince your subconscious to change his beliefs, you literally change your world. Either you become another person, either you see the world differently. The guy I know became a devout Christian during his experience (even if he was an atheist initially) until he stopped the experience. He said it greatly helped him make sense of that version of reality (the religious one) he couldn't understand before.

For me it was also quite dramatic and it even triggered hallucinations that would conform to my new belief. Hallucinations so real I could only be sure they were not by asking someone else. Certainly puts into perspective a lot of experiences posted on ATS.

We literally see what we expect to see, because it's our mind which is seeing this reality.


When it was found the earth was round, the earth literally went from flat to round in the minds of these people. Their whole reality changed, simply with a belief.


If you can accept that, you see how "reality" and "truth" are very subjective concepts. And then you start seeing different realities like the religious reality and the scientific reality not as having a quantifiable truth in them, but simply as having different characteristics, qualities, pros and cons.

You can see how religions and similar beliefs are a huge part of our culture, of our psyche. And I believe they are here to stay, even if they will change and adapt. They simply answer to a need that is hard to fill otherwise. They answer a necessity.

a reply to: Develo

This is why neuroscience is fascinating. There is so much more to learn about how our brains work and behave. We know so little about it, but everything we do learn makes everything seem stranger. I wish fields like psychology weren't being held back by too many assumptions and half hearted solutions to problems. The biggest problem with science and psychology is that human behavior may be truly subjective and therefore unable to be fully quantified. If that is the case then maybe free will does exist.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Totally. And for me reality is certainly richer with free will and emotions like love or beauty not being fully explainable.

a reply to: Unrealised

I do not think that the church would need to disband. We are one body in Christ. It would not be admitting defeat, but it would mean a sort of transformation.

Look at history and see how the church has changed when it came to a scientific game changer.

The church, as far as I see it, is the most scientifically advanced and remains many steps ahead. If they have secrets I would think they are being held so as to not be hasty in releasing information they do not already understand or have not completely researched themselves.

Very thought provoking discussion.

The great power of religion lies in the belief that people carry on after this life and the comfort they derive from that.

As I attended a funeral today, I took little mental atheist notes at how often people vocalized their relief that their loved one would be "reunited with their spouse in Heaven" et al. Of course, I just smiled and replied with a pleasant sentiment about the recently deceased.

I smiled a lot.

The majority of our population seem to NEED this belief that their loved ones are no longer suffering but rather consciously and permanently joyous in their everlasting kingdom of love.

Conversely, I also see the great comfort humans derive from convincing themselves that the criminals and immoral among us will suffer an opposite and equally permanent fate.

They need to believe in the Ultimate Authority that will protect those that they love and punish those that have done bad.

And as much as I'd love to see the complete eradication of religion on this planet, that need for Authority is so strong, so cemented in our minds from childhood - it will never fully go away.

But I sure can see other ones possibly taking over though. Baaaad ones.