Cosmologist Lawrence Krauss: Religion could be largely gone in a generation

[cbayer]

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/04/cosmologist_lawrence_krauss_religion_could_be_largely_gone_in_a_generation/

TUESDAY, NOV 4, 2014 02:27 PM MST

The co-creator of "The Unbelievers," a documentary made with Richard Dawkins, believes religion could disappear VIDEO
SARAH GRAY


Lawrence Krauss

Cosmologist Lawrence Krauss believes that in a generation religion could disappear. Earlier this year the theoretical physicist, who teamed up with Richard Dawkins to create the documentary “The Unbelievers,” spoke at the Victorian Skeptics Cafe.

There he was asked what he thought about religion being taught in schools; the video of the response was uploaded on Monday to YouTube by user Adam Ford.

“What we need to do is present comparative religion as a bunch of interesting historical anecdotes, and show the silly reasons why they did what they did,” Krauss said on the topic of teaching comparative religion.

“People say, ‘Well, religion has been around since the dawn of man. You’ll never change that,’” Krauss stated.

more at link

[rurallib]

1. well that is one bit of good news today.

[cbayer]

3. Well, he is most likely wrong, but it's still an interesting analysis.

[cleanhippie]

12. Says you.

Go on, tell us how he is likely wrong. Tell us how his reasoning is wrong. Tell us how...

Oh, never mind, asking you to actually support your assertions is an exercise in futility.

[earthside]

4. That was my first reaction, too. n/t

[cleanhippie]

2. And the recent trends found in religious surveys support that.

Religion won't be "gone", but it will be irrelevant. And that is a good thing.

[BillZBubb]

5. I can't see how that is possible.

I live in the Bible belt and these people are brainwashed from an early age. There is no logical way change this tradition. The same thing happens in other religious communities.

Maybe one hundred years, but not a generation.

[cbayer]

6. I think he is talking in the abstract, that it is theoretically possible.

I agree with you that it is highly unlikely to happen, particularly in places like the Bible Belt or the middle east.

[mmonk]

123. Agreed.

[rug]

7. Out of something, nothing.

He should stick to astrophysics. He's out of his depth with these statements of wishful thinking disguised as social predictors.

[cbayer]

8. Agree. He's all theoretical here with no regard to reality.

[DetlefK]

9. "Slavery" is not gone as long as people claim that African-Americans were better off in slavery.

Likewise religion won't die off easy.

You know why religion is so popular? Because it's easy. You can put out a claim and you are free from the responsibility to prove it. You are just right. You know it deep inside you. You can feel it. It's the fault of the others if they don't believe you.


This easy way out will never cease to exist. Take the 1960s and 1970s: People in the US were not satisfied with their life and sought out new ways of life, new explanations, enlightenment. Cults and sects bloomed, from Scientology to the Manson-family. And all of this even though the preference for/against religion had not changed! Spirituality was seen as an alternative to the bleak reality.

Something similar is thinkable for a rational, atheist, humanist society in the future: People are unhappy with their lifes, so they start believing things that make them happy.

[cbayer]

10. I think religion can be easy but it can also be hard.

Some individuals struggle mightily with it through there whole lives. And some of the most guilt ridden people on this planet are religious. The picture you paint is done with fingerprints - it is very simplest and not very well thought out.

I agree that religion is highly unlikely to die out. There have always been sects and cults - some survive and some do not. Some are focused on doing bad things, some on doing good things.

There is a positive correlation between religiosity and economic depravation, so I think your idea about spirituality being an alternative to a bleak reality has merit. When one is economically or otherwise enslaved then the only solace may lie in the belief that there will be something better.

I love the diversity in this world and would not want to have a society without the wide variety of believers, non-believers and everyone in between.

[trotsky]

11. I guess there is a big difference between us.

I love the diversity in this world and would not want to have a society without the wide variety of believers, non-believers and everyone in between.

I think this world would be a lot better off without religious groups like Westboro Church or ISIS/ISIL.

[DetlefK]

13. On the one hand, a rational world would have better politics...

...but on the other hand it would have worse art. Not sure I would want to live in that world.

I guess it would be very hard to establish a rational society that doesn't somehow demonify ways of thinking that go beyond the established and logical. It would get boring, as art stagnates, and inevitably science would stagnate as well, because completely new ideas come from harebrained schemes and trial-and-error.

[cbayer]

14. I'm not sure a "rational" world would have better politics.

I'm assuming that by "rational" you mean without religion, though I would not agree with that definition. There is lots of irrationality that has nothing to do with religion, and we are unlikely to eliminate that either.

At any rate, there are lots of liberal/progressive religious people, some of whom have and continue to play major roles in advancing causes that I am strongly in support of.

Would you want to live on the planet Vulcan? It is emotions, both religious and non-religious, that lead to "irrational" thoughts and behaviors.

[DetlefK]

18. I think religion is a private issue that doesn't belong in public or politics.

Believe whatever you want to believe as long as you don't get others into trouble with it.


What I meant with "rational" politics was only in the slightest a reference to religion in politics. What really irks me is when politics pander to ideology and are disconnected from facts.
You have a policy-proposal?
How does it connect to known data? What are the recommendations of experts of that field?
What do your calculations say about it? Under which circumstances will it work?
Have you run simulations on that? What will be the most likely outcome? What will be the side-effects? What would be undesirable outcomes and what's their probabilities?

[trotsky]

19. And the question that should be irrelevant at all times on all issues is...

What does your god think about that?

[cbayer]

20. So, you are suggesting that religious people remain closeted?

I don't think religion should be imposed on others or that legislation should be made based on religion. I believe that the 1st amendment should provide both a separation between church and state and protect the right to practice one's religion.

I agree that policies should be supported with data and the recommendations of experts when that is available. But not all things are that simply fact driven.

[DetlefK]

21. A leveled playing-field would be enough for me.

For example, having a chance at being elected to a US-office while being an atheist.

[cbayer]

22. I think that is coming and will happen in our lifetime.

[pinto]

25. That'll be part of the trends in electoral demographics across the board, imo.

Not a tidal wave but a rising tide. Despite the latest election results, I think time and tide is on the side of equal representation and equal rights in general.

[stone space]

51. Not in my experience.

You know why religion is so popular? Because it's easy.

In my observations (as an atheist) of my religious friends, actually living their religion can be quite difficult at times.

[gcomeau]

15. Could be, yes. Will be, unfortunately not.

Eliminating religion would require shifting the perspectives of those mired in religion to give primary consideration to evidence over their faith. And being mired in religion they are constantly inoculated against that idea taking root, it's religion's great defense mechanism against facts and reason and evidence.


"The fool has said in their heat there is no God"

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools"



That type of bullshit is a standard response to attempts to demonstrate through reasons and evidence that religion is crap. Can't argue with the data, so declare that the people presenting the data are fools BECAUSE they believe the data over God! Instilling a bullshit sense of superiority on the proudly ignorant and oblivious as they deny reality and cocoon themselves in their preferred fantasy. Can't count how many times I've run into that...

[yellowcanine]

16. Meh. One person's opinion. What is the use of making such a prediction?

Stick to cosmology Larry.

[cbayer]

17. It is his wish, only his wish.

We are more likely to discover intelligent life on another planet, imo.

[greendog]

23. "Liberal" religion could be largely gone in a generation.

I don't see the fundamentalist stuff disappearing that quickly.

[cbayer]

24. Actually, I think liberal religion will increase.

Many of the rising number of "nones" will most likely begin to find or form groups that they relate to, and demographically they represent a pretty liberal population.

The growth of UU churches is a sign of that.

[greendog]

26. UU congregations have been growing in recent years.

At the same time, the liberal Christian denominations have been declining. UU congregations are are full of humanists and atheists. Some of the folks we see moving into UU for community could begin to find community in the more secular organizations that we're seeing non-
theists create. Of course, UU's could also evolve toward something that looks less like religion.

[cbayer]

28. I agree and I think churches like the UU's will continue to grow.

Whether you see that as an increase in liberal religion or not may be where we disagree.

What secular organizations are you referring to? There are some Sunday Assemblies and other kinds of groups that look a lot like churches, so maybe the definition of religion will change.

[greendog]

29. Sunday Assemblies

I expect that as people become more comfortable identifying as atheist we'll see a lot of variations on the Sunday Assembly theme. And I think of it as community rather than religion.

[cbayer]

30. I agree that people will be more comfortable identifying as atheist,

but many if not most of those fleeing churches still describe themselves as spiritual and many continue to voice a belief in god.

As I said, many will likely find or form groups that speak to their needs and I don't think they will be joining sunday assemblies.

A lot of religion is about community. Whether god comes into the mix or not may not be all that relevant for many.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. The growth of UU?

Total UUA adult membership for 2011 is 162,796, including non-U.S. congregations and the Church of the Larger Fellowship, up 8,344 from 2001.

http://www.uuworld.org/ideas/articles/183484.shtml

0.068% of the US adult population. The UU is going to have to have a fucking spectacular growth spurt to hit 1%.

There is zero evidence for your other assertion that the nones are all joining liberal churches, they are nones because they aren't joining anything. But given your claim that we are going to be overrun with Unitarians, why would other equally specious claims be surprising?

[struggle4progress]

27. Slavery was essentially gone in a generation? Outside his field, Krauss can be an ignorant moron

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime ... shall exist within the United States ...

Slavery by Another Name

May desolation come upon you who make unjust decrees, who promote harm through the laws they write, who keep justice from the poor and take away the rights of the needy among my people, who prey on widows and rob orphans! What will you do on the day of visitation, when your own desolation comes from far away? to whom will you flee for help? and where will you abandon your glory? -- Isaiah 10

[AtheistCrusader]

36. Fair point.

Clearly Krauss was referring to the open daylight, private institution of owning humans as property, and the state exempts itself from that prohibition, and must to this day be addressed.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/11/18/california-tells-court-it-cant-release-inmates-early-because-it-would-lose-cheap

My personal jury is out on whether he was grossly simplifying the scope of 'slavery' or if he might be ignorant of this issue.
I believe labor should be an option for inmates seeking to fulfill restitution as required by due process, prior to release, but never, ever, forced.

[Odin2005]

31. Krauss is a simple-minded arrogant ass-hat.

Stick to Astronomy, Larry.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. simple minded?

Krauss mostly works in theoretical physics and has published research on a great variety of topics within that field. His primary contribution is to cosmology as one of the first physicists to suggest that most of the mass and energy of the universe resides in empty space, an idea now widely known as "dark energy".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Krauss

And if we are discussing ass-hats, check out these hats:



those are ass hats.

[stone space]

35. Where does this hat come from? Do you know?

those are ass hats.

And what makes it an "ass hat"?

[Warren Stupidity]

37. The ass hat is a property more of the head on which it resides

than of the hat itself, although with those hats, just about anyone wearing them is a bit of an ass, or at the least a clown. Typically these days it is the hipster-douchebag who is wearing the asshat, but the RCC and their imitators have their own niche in this particular fashion genre.

I gather humor is not one of your strong points.

[stone space]

40. Do you know where the hat comes from?

although with those hats, just about anyone wearing them is a bit of an ass, or at the least a clown

I don't recognize it.

The first one looks to my untrained atheist eyes as some sort of standard papal hat, but the second one is more interesting, and I assume the photo was taken during the Pope's travels.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. I gather humor is not one of your strong points.

[stone space]

43. Do you know where the hat comes from or not? (nt)

[Warren Stupidity]

44. This could go on forever. I suggest the googler.

[stone space]

48. It won't go on for ever.

I suggest the googler.

I'll take that as a "no".

I don't know how to google a photo, but since you apparently don't know the answer, I'll end it here, unless you have any specific advice to give for googling information on images of hats.

But before I go, here's another hat worn by a Christian for you.



I won 't keep you guessing or make you google, though. The hat is from Texas.

[Rainforestgoddess]

63. EBay, I would think. N/t

[Warren Stupidity]

97. I couldn't find that one.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Adult-Red-Pontiff-Pope-Catholic-Priest-Hat-Stag-Halloween-Fancy-Dress-Outfit-/131335968144?pt=AU_Costumes&hash=item1e943bd590

[Rainforestgoddess]

112. I like this one. Very snappy.

~320x480

My kids think the Pope is a time lord because they all wear silly hats too.


Edited, I'm on mobile now and my link isn't working. Will fickis when I get home.

[rug]

38. Don't forget these.

[Odin2005]

57. People like Krauss and Dawkins act like they are smarter than everyone else simply because...

...they are in a STEM field and therefore think they know theology better than theologians because the latter aren't STEM.

[Warren Stupidity]

58. Dawkins and Krauss "think they know theology better than theologians"

I actually don't think you can prove that assertion, but please do give it a try.

[rug]

91. Easy peasy.

Krauss is attempting a material explanation based on physics.

Where does theology claim to do that?

Of course having made an attempt to explain, he then draws all sorts of outlandish conclusions having nothing to do with physics.

So, I expect Krauss would be the first (no second, I wasn't counting the replies in here) to claim theology is bunk. Given that, I highly doubt he would claim expertise, let alone knowledge, in that field.

A 2014 B.Th. would certainly know more about theology than Krauss. I'll defer to him on muons.

[Humanist_Activist]

88. Do theologians know theology? From what I can tell, its like being an astrologer, and about...

as likely to lead to things like fact and truth.

Krauss's problem is that he's not a sociologist, and so is far too optimistic of people, even in the so called western world.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. Cosmology and Physics, actually.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. I'll give you this much Cbayer.

The article you selected to post, and the associated headline, is 1000% more honest than the similar article that was posted in Interfaith.

So, I thank you for that. Even if you have me on ignore.
Selecting an article, out of the multitudes of articles available, with a neutral and honest headline, is a nice thing to see.

Thread for comparison: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12645179

[stone space]

42. Interesting viewpoint.

“What we need to do is present comparative religion as a bunch of interesting historical anecdotes, and show the silly reasons why they did what they did,” Krauss said on the topic of teaching comparative religion.

I would find it a fascinating exercise to look at interesting historical anecdotes (for example, of Militant Christians in the sanctuary movement or the plowshares movement), and examine the "silly reasons" for why they did what they did.

[trotsky]

45. Do you think the people in those two movements you mentioned...

did them because of their religion, or because they are good people?

[rug]

47. Let's test that.

Name two atheist movements that are doing that.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. Africa association. PMANE.

Your move.

[rug]

92. Do you mean this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Association

And this?

http://www.dianuke.org/tag/pmane/

The former was looking for Timbuktu.

The latter is not an atheist movement.

[AtheistCrusader]

109. The latter is a secular movement.

The former is.. wtf, I didn't say African, I said Africa.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB113288020517306180
Older article.

However, being an older article, I'll offer a substitute: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/07/29/humanist-groups-band-together-to-provide-legal-assistance-to-refugee-children/

[rug]

111. That's behind a paywall.

I don't think "Africa association" is the name of the group. The subtitle of the WSJ article is "Africa association offers social services to the poor, without an Islamic bent"

The new link is closer, but not quite there. Because, as you know, atheism impels nothing beyond nonbelief.

Now let me ask you this: are they making these efforts (and it doesn't state how large those efforts are) because they're humanists or atheists, or because they're good people?

[AtheistCrusader]

113. Difficult to say, because they can be overlapping or non-overlapping groups.

I don't see a paywall. Part of that effort is made up of people from Foundation Beyond Belief. Explicitly an atheist org. American Humanist Association is, I would say, Secular, not necessarily Atheist.

An atheist may or may not be a humanist. Some members of VHEMT might be atheists and would probably not exactly be a humanist.


I would attribute positively seeking to aid immigrants or refugees in that condition, as a matter of Humanism, or being Nice People. Either of which individuals can belong to a superset called 'Atheists'.

I have not personally adopted Humanism as an ideology, but I participate and contribute to such causes as I see fit. (I've spent quite a bit of time aiding a charity effort for the Crisis Clinic of Wa this year, as one example. Why? It struck me as a worthy cause and a good/effective use of my time and effort.)



(Africa is the name of the group, in that case. A group in France. I don't understand the naming convention either. Possible something is lost in translation, as the group is seeking to aid immigrants from Arabic speaking nations, apparently.)

[stone space]

49. They use Bible verses.

Of course, they don't just toss the Bible verses around scattershot and uninterpreted like Biblical literalists do.

That I would just find annoying, as an atheist.

Instead, they carefully chose specific Biblical passages, and breathe life into those Bible verses to give them meaning and context, so that even an atheist like me can begin to grasp the meaning of their Scriptural references.

They treat specific Scriptural passages as something to be savored, rather than simple random throw away lines.

That strikes me as a more thoughtful approach, and an approach that is as capable of speaking to the lives of atheists as it is to the lives of Christians.

It's an approach to Scripture that informs, rather than one that pushes folks away.

[trotsky]

52. So, did you want to answer the question?

Did they do those things because of their religion, or because they are good people?

As an atheist, I am interested in your answer.

[stone space]

54. I take people as the come.

That includes Militant Christians.

[trotsky]

55. So if they credit their religion, you take them at their word that their religion was responsible?

Always?

[stone space]

59. You are trying to put words in my mouth.

I'm a mathematician, not a psychologist.

What you are trying to get me to say is way above my paygrade.

I prefer to listen to what Militant Christians like these folks have to say, even if it includes thoughtful references to the Bible.

Wisdom can come from many sources.

I have never denied the existence of Militant Atheists. (You seem to think that I have.)

In fact, I consider myself a Militant Atheist.

But when Militant Christians speak, I tend to try to listen to them on their own terms, and in their own language.

[trotsky]

65. Nope, just trying to figure out what you mean.

Never said anything about "Militant Christians" - you did.

Never said anything about "Militant Atheists" - you did.

Asked you a simple question and you've done everything BUT answer it. It's OK, I know why.

[cbayer]

46. He's got a big fat blindspot when it comes to religion.

He is completely unable to see anything good at all.

[trotsky]

53. On the contrary, he (like many, many others)...

see the good associated with religion and think that religion isn't required to get it. Non-believers can, and do, perform the same good and noble actions that believers do. That, coupled with the proven and unique negative baggage that comes with religion tends to skew the equation a bit.

[notrightatall]

69. No good can come from such large lies.

No good at all.

One should be ashamed for perpetrating such fantasies.

[cbayer]

70. It's not a lie, it's just his wish filled opinion. On edit - are you saying that I am lying?

When it comes to cosmology, I will listen to Krauss.

Anyone who listens to him regarding religion is only doing so because he is saying what they want to here.

[notrightatall]

73. I'm saying religion is a lie.

all religion is a lie.

Wish filled opinion?? That's just another way to say "lie".

[cbayer]

75. You are making a definitive statement that religion is a lie.

What that means is that you are responsible for providing proof or evidence of your assertion. Anyone that presents as a gnostic has the burden of proof.

FWIW, the phrase "wish filled opinion" was about Krauss.

Are you willing to share where your overt hostility towards religion comes from?

[notrightatall]

78. Reason.

[cbayer]

82. Blather.

[notrightatall]

84. ..

[cbayer]

85. I just availed myself of the wonderful search function.

I see what you do and don't buy it.

:insertwhateversillyemoticonyouwanthere:

[Warren Stupidity]

98. wait, you think replying to people with rofls is annoying?

Seriously?

Rilly?

[rug]

94. Drivel.

[notrightatall]

96. Yes, religion is but "drivel"

[rug]

101. notrightatall

Drivel.

[cbayer]

99. Watch out. His debating skills are sharp as razor blades. He might cut you….

with an emoticon.

[rug]

102. His debating skills are not sharp enough to cut butter.

And I could use some about now.

[rug]

93. Your saying it does not make it true.

In fact, that itself is no more than a wish-filled opinion.

[notrightatall]

95. Prove your, or any religion.

Since you can not, that points to the fact that they are false.

[rug]

103. You do realize a transitive verb requires an object.

[notrightatall]

105. Yes, but it does not require a bearded sky-god, or a unicorn.

[rug]

106. But a post on DU requires a coherent thought.

[notrightatall]

107. You would think.

But your posts prove that assumption to be as false as your, (or any), religion.

[rug]

108. Geez, even your ad homs suck.

[notrightatall]

110. Oh yea!?! well, your username is a floor covering! So there.

[Rex]

50. Nonsense, what planet does he live on?

Religion will be around in some form or another, until man no longer walks the earth. Wishful thinking, but not happening.

[trotsky]

56. Please note, he didn't say "will be."

He said "could be," and was comparing to the monumental shift in attitudes about homosexuals and marriage equality. Massive societal change in just a generation or so is possible.

[Rex]

61. Billions of people have faith. Numbers don't lie, unless he just means certain geographical areas.

30 years is a drop in the bucket to 1000's of years of huge organized religion. I can see some faith based belief systems disappearing as technology throws a monkey wrench in their reality, but entrenched religions like Islam and Judeo-Christan systems will be around for another thousand years as long as they are part of the institutions that runs societies.

I do see societies becoming more secular, but still holding on to some traditions. And there will always be traditionalist no matter what time period we live in.

[trotsky]

66. I have a tough time with people who think in absolutes.

I don't know what human society will be like in 50, 1000, or 10,000 years. Evidently you do. Congrats.

[Rex]

71. Of course I have no idea, it is called guessing like the people in the OP.

All it requires is an imagination and a basic understanding of history. What's the big deal, you sound like a fatalist now.

[trotsky]

74. Your first response dismissed a claim out of hand.

"Nonsense," you called it. That's different than admitting you have no idea.

You followed it up with another definitive statement: "Religion will be around in some form or another, until man no longer walks the earth." Again, if you have no idea, then you would have said "I have no idea whether religion will be around in some form or another, until man no longer walks the earth." But that's not what you said.

I'm glad you've backed away from those absolutes, though. Thanks for clarifying.

[Rex]

77. No problem I glad it didn't go over your head.

I guess you have no idea what informal writing is.

[trotsky]

79. Hey, whatever makes you feel better to walk back from your initial extreme claims.

If you have to insult me or my intelligence, no big deal. Take care!

[Rex]

80. Just giving it back to you in loose change.

Have a great day.

[notrightatall]

62. That would be nice.

Unfortunately, that seems a little quick to me. But I can hope.........

[cbayer]

64. It might be ok if government and secular organizations stepped

up to the plate and cared for the neediest and most marginalized in this world.

Until that happens, I think it's a really, really bad idea.

[trotsky]

67. And perhaps it enables Republicans to de-fund programs that do so.

They can always just say "churches should do that."

I know you love your team analogies and "stepping up to the plate" but this is really a much more complex issue than you seem to be able to comprehend.

[notrightatall]

68. Yes, Humanity should remain cowed to fairytale characters for their well being.

Good works can be done with out magic.

There is no good to come of furthering the lies.

ALL religion is a drain on humanity. ALL.

[cbayer]

72. Good works can be done without religion and I look forward to

the day when secular organizations take over.

But in the meantime, I'm going to support those that actually do it.

Religion is what keeps much of humanity alive.

And it's not going anywhere, so you might just have to learn how to support what is good while challenging what is not.

[notrightatall]

76. That is part of the issue.

Perpetrating such fantasies "in the meantime" only harms humanity.

A lie is a lie, even if it brings gifts.

[cbayer]

81. Again, saying that religious beliefs are fantasies is a definitive statement.

It might be cool to take that position and I am sure it will earn you some fist bumps, but without evidence you can make no such claim.

Whether you personally believe or not is entirely on you. But when you label the beliefs of others as fantasies and lies, you better be ready to provide so reality based, rational facts to support your contention.

Otherwise, you are only spouting your beliefs which are based on faith.

When you get up off the floor, you can get me some of that data, right?

[notrightatall]

83. This is not Jr. High debate club.

Non-belief is not belief. Religion is a lie.

So wank away, unless proven otherwise, religion is a lie.

[cbayer]

86. Go back to the gun forum. You'll get more attention there.

I don't think anyone is going to buy this here.

[notrightatall]

87. You are the one with "SOMETHING " to sell.

At least you seem to think its "something". I , on the other hand, think you have nothing. Unfortunately many people still buy a lot of the nothing that you sell.

[Warren Stupidity]

100. wait for it....

you are about to fall into the patented "oh I'm not a believer" trap. it is the classic, and quite classy, and well played, trick pulled on the unsuspecting who fall astray of Encouraged Attitudes here.

[notrightatall]

104. Already seen it.

[darkangel218]

121. " Religion is what keeps much of humanity alive. "

You can't possibly be serious

[cbayer]

122. Watch Half the Sky and get back to me.

It doesn't matter how many rolling around on the floor laughing emotions you put up, you will still be only expressing your prejudice.

[Humanist_Activist]

89. You do realize governments, when properly funded, are the only practical way to actually reduce...

poverty significantly?

The best that charity can do and has done is help alleviate some of the worst affects of poverty, mostly temporarily, and usually acute problems such as hunger and homelessness.

Don't get me wrong, charities have a place, and those designed to help specific problems, or with temporary crises, such as Doctors without Borders or the Red Cross, are great, but they are still private organizations, their ability and reach are limited.

Besides which, I don't know how most people abandoning religion would lead to less charity, that doesn't make any sense.

[notrightatall]

90. Unless unicorns and bearded sky-gods work together.

[darkangel218]

114. I hope he is right.

I'm spiritual, but not religious. Never have and never will be.
Hopefully the new generation understands how brainwashing religion is and will not give it the power to control their lives.

[cbayer]

115. Hopefully the new generation will realize that life is special because

everyone is different and the most important thing we can do is embrace the differences in others instead of accusing them of being brainwashed and powerless over their own lives.

[darkangel218]

116. To each their own, cbayer.

Try to explain that to the fundamentalist religious. I am pretty sure they will have a problem with it, and everyone else who think differently than themselves. Hence all the violence brought by fundies.

[cbayer]

117. To each there own is exactly my point.

If you had confined this to those religious people who wish to do harm to others in the name of their beliefs, that would have been one thing.

But you didn't.

I for one don't want to live in a world where religion has been eliminated because some believe that it is some kind of brainwashing that prevents people from thinking for themselves. It's been tried. It failed.

So, do we want to be like those intolerant fundies or do we want to be something else?

[darkangel218]

118. I personally dont care what other people believe in or not believe in

It's their choice, and their right, as long as they respect others.
For how long has religion been around? Look at all the wars and hate and violence which some have used religion to excuse their actions.
Do you really think there will be a time when religion and freedom of religion will flourish, but violent religious fundamentalists will dissapear? I doubt it will ever happen.

[cbayer]

119. Respect is a two way street, isn't it?

If you don't care why do you call others brainwashed? Is that respectful?

There is no doubt that there have been wars and hate and violence in the name of religion. There is also no doubt that there have been all those things without religion. And there is no doubt that there has been peace and love and compassion in the name of religion.

I don't think that there will come a time when the only religion is good religion, but we can support what is good while condemning what is bad and make it maybe a little more likely that might occur.

Or we can just attack it blindly and kill the good.

[darkangel218]

120. I call the fundamentalists brainwashed.

don't think that there will come a time when the only religion is good religion, but we can support what is good while condemning what is bad and make it maybe a little more likely that might occur.

So there , the wars and violence will never stop.

[cbayer]

124. No, wars and violence will never stop, with or without religion.