It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Religeon: The doom of humanity?

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 11:38 PM
This is not going to be what you thought! I am curious if belief in god is preventing humanity from doing the things we need to do to continue our existence.

Intelligence if not life itself will likely be very rare in the universe. After all only one species on earth has evolved intelligence to the same level as humans.

Instead of colonizing space and spreading humanity into the stars we (including our leaders) are hoping for salvation through a mythical all powerful creator.This reliance on life after death and a heaven if you really stand back and look at it is almost insanity!

There are so many dangers to our existence that we cannot afford to rely on a god that does not speak and wont let us know for sure if he is out there. Even though there are right now more of his creations (humans) on earth than ever in history.

Are we as a species setting ourselves up for extinction by ignoring the reality of the dangers out there because we have faith in an after life?

We are also ignoring and even outlawing medical and science breakthroughs in stem cell research and cloning. This science could someday extend our lives and maybe even save our extinction. Ignored and outlawed all the name of religion! Why. Life nad healing tehnology denied by religion. How hypo critic is that?

What do you all think? Is there anyway for humanity to grow up and save ourselves? Will a god pop up and bring heaven on earth? We we all die to an asteroid, virus, nuclear war etc...? What are your thoughts on this?

[edit on 19-4-2008 by Xeven]

[edit on 19-4-2008 by Xeven]

posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:02 AM
I personally agree with you; religion has held real development back numerous times. It has been said that scientific victory often comes at the expense of religion, and that relgious victory always comes at the expense of science.

Though to be fair, regarding stem cells, religious ethics perhaps prompted new research and we are now close to being able to convert any cells into stem cells, instead of extracting them from aborted fetuses.

posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:10 AM
I doubt it. World would probably be better off if religions were actually followed more closely. The moral obligations tha man has for each other that religion teaches will be what saves humanity from itself. I'd rather live in a world ruled by peace than a world ruled by progress.

posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:14 AM
From what I understand of people, even if Science won out over Religion somehow, it wouldn't help. Science would simply replace religion. Instead of wars fought becasue "My religion is better than yours you heathen!" We'd have 'My Science is better than yours, you ingnoraums."
Seriously speaking, most of the world religions preach peace and tolerance. It's the followers that cause the problems. Ity'd be better to keep religion tempred by scientific knowledge, and science tempered by religiouse morals.
That my humble opinion about it, anyway.

posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:35 AM
Neither religion nor science alone can save humanity.

It is the same science that we condemn for nuclear wars that has brought us health, comparative longevity (for some), and an increased awareness of exactly how we are connected to our environment.
Unless Ecology is a religion.

And yes, some Religions have proclaimed peace, and yet waged war. Some religions have taught humans to believe that the universe exists to serve (humankind). Yes, because of this selfish mindset, we have perpetrated atrocities on each other and the world around. But that would be looking at just one half of it.
Over the years, many people have been helped by religiously-motivated actions. Buddhism, for instance, is regarded a religion, and its practitioners value serving their fellows above all else. And whether or not you agree with the Christian message, it cannot be doubted that some [Christians] reach out -- and enrich -- their communities in valuable ways.

Morality didn't dawn with religion, and certainly not with Christianity (for those who may choose to imply it). Morality is the task of every individual; shouldn't we educate future generations on the importance of understanding points of view? I think we should learn a little more about how they are formed, retained, and modified. Without that information, we will stick to the outrageously outdated view that something can be objectively "better" than something else.

posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:43 AM
Indeed, They're a good tandem to have for this world. I wouldn't recommend eliminating either one. I don't think belief in one demands condemnation in the other.

posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 01:39 AM

Originally posted by Xeven
This is not going to be what you thought! I am curious if belief in god is preventing humanity from doing the things we need to do to continue our existence.

Intelligence if not life itself will likely be very rare in the universe. After all only one species on earth has evolved intelligence to the same level as humans.

Two things before I get to the main topic: One, this is exactly what I thought it was going to be. =P

Two, I would have to completely disagree with the idea that life is rare in the universe. Considering the diversity of life on Earth, and the serious possibility that another planet in our very own solar system may have at least once supported(microbial) life(and remember how small a scale that is compared to the billions of stars in the universe); I find the idea of a universe devoid of life to be just as ridiculous as you find religious beliefs about God.

With that out of the way, on to the main topic. I think it's extremely important to define what we mean by "religion." If by religion you mean organizations such as the Roman Catholic Church that essentially dictates the beliefs of their members; I agree. If by religion you mean clinging to old traditions while(in some cases, literally) demonizing any new tradition, I agree. If we're talking dogmas in general, once again I agree.

However, if we're talking spirituality in general, and a belief in something outside of the universe as we know it, I disagree. I don't think it's necessary to get rid of the spiritual mindset to make scientific progress; but merely the herd mentality that dogmatic religions encourage, and the us vs. them mentality that the major religions of the world seem to be spreading.

I feel that so long as we follow our own hearts in regards to beliefs(and allow our children to do the same instead of indoctrinating them when they're young), so many of the negatives associated with religion today either wouldn't exist, or be as pronounced as they are.

"No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. "

-Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Self-Reliance"

posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 06:01 AM
reply to post by Xeven

You raise a very important issue. Many thanks.

I'd like to highlight your main point: we're facing something of an emergency here.

There's a widespread social convention against questioning another person's faith; it is considered to be rude and also potentially dangerous, since religious conflicts so often turn violent. But when people bring a religious agenda to debates on non-religioius issues and seek to claim special status for the dogmatic bases of their arguments in terms of this convention, they should, in my opinion, no longer be protected by it. And that is how we shall have to proceed if the human race is to survive.

It is time for religious belief to lose its sanctity and be obliged to defend its claims in the market of rational ideas. And as you say, this is a matter of life and death.

posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 05:47 PM
I wonder if religion was created to justify war or make it eaiser to wage war. If you think about it war would end your life and if there was no religion or "after life" like the 70 virgins thing then war seems less attractive to solving the worlds problems.

I am not saying there aren't those that have fought on the front lines that have not believed in a God but I'll bet they were very few and far between when the fit hit the shan.

I think religion was invented as a way to get humans to accept war as a way to solve thes stupid issues we seem to have with each other. Without religion I would bet there would be more civility in the world than not...

What was life like before religion? I'll have to do some research on that one...

Edit to add...
Here is a nice little map....

[edit on 01/01/2008 by Perplexed]

posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 05:59 PM
reply to post by Perplexed

You're all pretty much right.
If you look in all bibles or the Koran there are alot of stories of wars and of God wanting them to go to war and kill. It's all about control the masses. You can't have one religion because everyone would be on the same playing field. So let's make a religious system that promotes war and hate and a little love once in awhile. But yet is God there for the little baby girl that got molested and murdered or is he there when cancer eats away at your cells. Is any God there to stop the death, hate and destruction!!! NO! but he loves you.

posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 07:52 PM
It is easier to blame someone for what they do than to try to understand why they did it. Perhaps the most dangerous thing about (some) religions is that their followers are taught to accept what they hear without question. There are also mental fail-safes for the doctrine:

1. It's not supposed to make sense because it was designed that way.
2. Those who (point out the lack of coherence) are 'testing your faith.' If the follower holds out, a reward will be on the way.

With these firmly in place, it becomes ridiculously difficult to show some religious adherents any point of view but their own.

c(A) => e(B) => a(C):

c(A) or Concept A: What is believed (whether in God, or shoes).
e(B) or Experience B: Concepts and experiences, which are gained by interpreting the world in the context of c[A].
a(C) or Action C: a range possible actions, based on interpretations of c(A) that agree with e(B).

The more complex c(A) is, the more available actions in a(C). A religion that lasts for over a thousand years can become complex, and therefore justify anything -- even the sins it decries. But that doesn't make all religions objectively bad.

None of this is about religion. It's about how we think. We expect God to answer for the things we have done, and then we get mad when we don't find what we think God is.

But who then shall we blame for starting Religion? If there is no God to hold accountable, who invented religion?

That's right.
We did.

new topics


log in