Religion is dying, but is the prevailing destructive force a good thing?

Vastet's picture

I'll preface this as regarding North America. I can't speak for anywhere else, as I have too little experience with the rest of the world.
For the last 10-20+ years, at an accelerating pace, children are being taught to have healthy egos and self confidence. Often lamented by myself and others is that rarely is it justified. All the confidence in the world won't help you when you can't back it up.
It started, as many things do, with concerned parents. They didn't want their kids committing suicide or giving up hope for a brighter future.
Now it would seem I'm about to rant on the spiralling stupidity of the education system and the consequences of too much of a good thing, but I'm about to switch gears on you all. Because a side effect just occurred to me.
This has also had the effect of reducing belief in gods and religions. While the youngest generations are, in general, the cockiest and least educated (through no fault of their own, they didn't dumb down the education system), they are also the

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Vastet's picture

least likely to believe in a

least likely to believe in a god.
The good thing is that religious faith is going to see a massive dropoff in future census counts when the upcoming generations start off on their own.
The bad thing is that they will all want more than they can reasonably expect out of life, considering the increasing trend to hire foreign expertise and contract out services.

I almost didn't post this, because it'll either cause a shitstorm or be completely ignored (basic fallacy ftw!), but I'm too interested in hearing what people have to say about this hypothesis.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Cpt_pineapple's picture

It honestly baffles me why

It honestly baffles me why people think getting rid of religion will improve the world.

 

Even with religion dying, there is still social ills. Well DUH!

 

I don't understand what you're saying here. It is highly unlikely that the decline in religion is causing young generations to be morons.

 

 

 

digitalbeachbum's picture

 I have had visions of a

 I have had visions of a godless society in America, with there being a very small minority of people following any religion. Yet, I know the time isn't now even if we have seen a decline in the number of people who claim to be associated with any specific religion. I don't see it happening and I don't really concern myself with it.

Since I believe in evolution I also believe in human social rise and decline. This means that we have highs and lows of society desiring sharing of ideas and followings. We see it all the time on a small scale with people who want big cars,  like the late 80's and 90's.  Now the big thing is getting smaller cars, hybrids, economical.

On a large scale we see religions come and go and for any current religion to say they will last forever is silly. No country, no government and no religion will last forever. Already we can see how religions go through changes, such as with the jewish, christian and muslim faiths.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams

Brian37's picture

Digital, I know, as much as

Digital, I know, as much as I want to think you WONT rail needlessly against what I am about to type, I am hoping against hope you wont.

However, once again, when you rightfully rail against the other woo of other people, but still say "I am a Buddhist" falsely accusing me that it is about "labels" when it is about "why" someone holds their personal predilections, I still have the image of Isac Hayes getting pissed off after all those years blasting all those other labels and even laughing at "Token" without taking umbrage, only to quit when South Park picked on Scientology.

IF WE BOTH have visions of a godless society, AND ACTUALLY, I really don't, I merely think the best thing all 7 billion of us can get is keeping monopolies of power at bay. It bothers me that you have no problem RIGHTFULLY blasting others and then you yourself act like I murdered your family when I say "You don't need" to hold the label Buddhist."

HUMANS will ALWAYS have a degree of irrational claims and behaviors, that has always been the case and will always be the case.

ALL I WANT YOU TO DO is stop getting pissed when I question you when you say "I am a Buddhist". I DON'T CARE THAT YOU ARE. I do care why you feel it is that important to you when evolution existed prior to it's human invention. You have demonstrated RIGHTFULLY that others don't need their predilections.  AND I LOVE YOU for that. I just cant stand that you think "I am not like the others" works.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Kapkao's picture

I wasn't aware you had to

I wasn't aware you had to "justify" a "healthy ego" for it to have a positive effect on your life and others.

 

Granted, I'm no fan whatsoever of the "every kid is a winner" mentality.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

Kapkao's picture

Brian37 wrote:Digital, I

Brian37 wrote:
Digital, I know, as much as I want to think you WONT rail needlessly against what I am about to type, I am hoping against hope you wont.

However, once again, when you rightfully rail against the other woo of other people, but still say "I am a Buddhist" falsely accusing me that it is about "labels" when it is about "why" someone holds their personal predilections, I still have the image of Isac Hayes getting pissed off after all those years blasting all those other labels and even laughing at "Token" without taking umbrage, only to quit when South Park picked on Scientology.

IF WE BOTH have visions of a godless society, AND ACTUALLY, I really don't, I merely think the best thing all 7 billion of us can get is keeping monopolies of power at bay. It bothers me that you have no problem RIGHTFULLY blasting others and then you yourself act like I murdered your family when I say "You don't need" to hold the label Buddhist."

HUMANS will ALWAYS have a degree of irrational claims and behaviors, that has always been the case and will always be the case.

ALL I WANT YOU TO DO is stop getting pissed when I question you when you say "I am a Buddhist". I DON'T CARE THAT YOU ARE. I do care why you feel it is that important to you when evolution existed prior to it's human invention. You have demonstrated RIGHTFULLY that others don't need their predilections.  AND I LOVE YOU for that. I just cant stand that you think "I am not like the others" works.

I'm a little lost on the concept of "(Western) atheist pride", myself. You're an atheist... who honestly gives a fuck besides the bible-thumpers?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

Brian37's picture

Kapkao wrote:Brian37

Kapkao wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
Digital, I know, as much as I want to think you WONT rail needlessly against what I am about to type, I am hoping against hope you wont.

However, once again, when you rightfully rail against the other woo of other people, but still say "I am a Buddhist" falsely accusing me that it is about "labels" when it is about "why" someone holds their personal predilections, I still have the image of Isac Hayes getting pissed off after all those years blasting all those other labels and even laughing at "Token" without taking umbrage, only to quit when South Park picked on Scientology.

IF WE BOTH have visions of a godless society, AND ACTUALLY, I really don't, I merely think the best thing all 7 billion of us can get is keeping monopolies of power at bay. It bothers me that you have no problem RIGHTFULLY blasting others and then you yourself act like I murdered your family when I say "You don't need" to hold the label Buddhist."

HUMANS will ALWAYS have a degree of irrational claims and behaviors, that has always been the case and will always be the case.

ALL I WANT YOU TO DO is stop getting pissed when I question you when you say "I am a Buddhist". I DON'T CARE THAT YOU ARE. I do care why you feel it is that important to you when evolution existed prior to it's human invention. You have demonstrated RIGHTFULLY that others don't need their predilections.  AND I LOVE YOU for that. I just cant stand that you think "I am not like the others" works.

I'm a little lost on the concept of "(Western) atheist pride", myself. You're an atheist... who honestly gives a fuck besides the bible-thumpers?

I am miffed Kapkao, please tell me where I used the word "Pride"?

Labels are nothing to be "proud of" but all of humanity should be remiss to use "it feels good" as a standard vs testing.

I am not asking anyone to give a fuck that I don't believe, I am asking ALL OF HUMANITY not to blindly accept any claim just because "it feels good"

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Kapkao's picture

Wasn't necessarily addressed

Wasn't necessarily addressed to you specifically. Hard as it may be for some to comprehend, I can use a post as a pedestal for some skeptical viewpoint of mine or another without actually addressing (much) of the post content.

Yes, I'm sure I've ruffled some virtual feathers in this manner, here. "Good for the goose, good for the gander", right?

Quote:
I am not asking anyone to give a fuck that I don't believe, I am asking ALL OF HUMANITY not to blindly accept any claim just because "it feels good"

Ah, so you, pineapple and myself agree on something. That's a good thing, and a first if I'm not mistaken. (edit; or maybe not, as I vaguely recall suggesting agreement between us 3 before on this one issue)

Quote:
Labels are nothing to be "proud of"

I would suggest there is nothing to be "proud of", but that is a concept lost on people who make decisions based on their passions at a given moment. Another words, the vast, overwhelming majority of the human race, as you suggested.

I indulge my sentiments of pride because enjoy doing so and by virtue of being hedonistic, it makes life worth living. I DON'T (actively) indulge my pride at the expense of reason.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

Vastet's picture

Cpt_pineapple wrote:It is

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

It is highly unlikely that the decline in religion is causing young generations to be morons.

 

 

 

You are confusing cause and effect. The situation is that we're teaching idiots to think they are geniuses when they are idiots. Instead of teaching them to be geniuses, we're just teaching them to think they are.
A secondary effect is that religious belief is going out the window because the ego's of said idiots are too big to accept the idea there is anything "greater" than themselves.
Most young atheists I've spoken to shrug off the idea of religion as stupid, but then fail to make any sound arguments supporting their position. Their arguments are literally as stupid as any random theist argument.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Vastet's picture

Kapkao wrote:I wasn't aware

Kapkao wrote:

I wasn't aware you had to "justify" a "healthy ego" for it to have a positive effect on your life and others.

Hitler had a positive effect on millions of people. By your argument, failure rates should be ignored in favour of success rates. Bad science. Worse logic.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Kapkao's picture

Vastet wrote:Kapkao wrote:I

Vastet wrote:
Kapkao wrote:

I wasn't aware you had to "justify" a "healthy ego" for it to have a positive effect on your life and others.

Hitler had a positive effect on millions of people. By your argument, failure rates should be ignored in favour of success rates. Bad science. Worse logic.

I'm sorry... my reading comprehension is failing me again. Did you post an actual argument, or merely a "nonsensical" red herring and a (largely irrelevant) Godwin argument? When did science get involved in philosophical discussions like these? How is the philosophical concept of "correct inference" relevant? More nonsequiturs on your part?

Also, Hitler did not have a healthy ego. He shouted at, ranted about, degraded, brutalized and murdered anyone who didn't agree with him.

I still don't see a reason to require "justification" of a "healthy ego". Maybe you'll actually cough one up next post. Probably not, but who knows. I'm guessing your post is not a serious attempt at discussion whatsoever.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

digitalbeachbum's picture

Brian37 wrote:Digital, I

Brian37 wrote:

Digital, I know, as much as I want to think you WONT rail needlessly against what I am about to type, I am hoping against hope you wont.

However, once again, when you rightfully rail against the other woo of other people, but still say "I am a Buddhist" falsely accusing me that it is about "labels" when it is about "why" someone holds their personal predilections, I still have the image of Isac Hayes getting pissed off after all those years blasting all those other labels and even laughing at "Token" without taking umbrage, only to quit when South Park picked on Scientology.

IF WE BOTH have visions of a godless society, AND ACTUALLY, I really don't, I merely think the best thing all 7 billion of us can get is keeping monopolies of power at bay. It bothers me that you have no problem RIGHTFULLY blasting others and then you yourself act like I murdered your family when I say "You don't need" to hold the label Buddhist."

HUMANS will ALWAYS have a degree of irrational claims and behaviors, that has always been the case and will always be the case.

ALL I WANT YOU TO DO is stop getting pissed when I question you when you say "I am a Buddhist". I DON'T CARE THAT YOU ARE. I do care why you feel it is that important to you when evolution existed prior to it's human invention. You have demonstrated RIGHTFULLY that others don't need their predilections.  AND I LOVE YOU for that. I just cant stand that you think "I am not like the others" works.

 

LMAO. You are relentless. 

<sigh>

We need to have a debate. I want to stomp on you for a little bit and get things in to your head that I am not religious. I do not follow religion.

You LOVE to use that label crap over and over, yet you don't apply it to yourself. If you do it and then complain about others using it, it makes you a hypocrite.

It is theoretically possible that all religions given today will one day cease and it is also theoretically possible that all religions will die and all people will be atheists.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams

Kapkao's picture

dbb wrote:(broken quote

dbb wrote:
(broken quote tags)

 

might wanna fix that before someone hits 'reply'. (:

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

digitalbeachbum's picture

Brian37 wrote:Labels are

Brian37 wrote:

Labels are nothing to be "proud of" but all of humanity should be remiss to use "it feels good" as a standard vs testing.

I am not asking anyone to give a fuck that I don't believe, I am asking ALL OF HUMANITY not to blindly accept any claim just because "it feels good"

MUHAHAHAHA! Hypocrite!

You have your point of view and proudly proclaim it to all publicly because "it feels good" to you.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams

digitalbeachbum's picture

Kapkao wrote:dbb

Kapkao wrote:

dbb wrote:
(broken quote tags)

 

might wanna fix that before someone hits 'reply'. (:

Yep I did

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams

Sage_Override's picture

Basically, in regards to the

Basically, in regards to the OP, the major issue here is that it does depend on where you live.  Canadians have a demographic that is more laid back, more positive about politics and how to solve smaller problems without over blowing situations and religion is more of a circumstance than a way of life kind of thing as opposed to how it is here in America. 

 

While it might be true that adults are raising their kids to have better self-confidence by raising their expectations to such a level that disappointment later in life will be detrimental to them, religion is still incredibly prevalent here; at least in my pocket of the country.  Statistics have shown that kids being brought up to nothing but praise, awarding them for nothing, not disciplining them or criticizing their efforts to help better themselves do, indeed, gain an ego complex and faux confidence.  They're also predisposed to depression, experience difficulties making friends, maintaining relationships, take more things for granted, possess anti-social mannerisms and expect everything handed to them.  I found a good article that talks about self-esteem and the author's take on what it is, what it isn't, what type of role is plays and other important factors.  It is a secular web page, but the article is very in depth with no religious references at all.   If you can look past that, you'll enjoy this: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/education/ed0001.html

 

Just because parents and teachers are fucking up by creating children to have traits that don't have a place in this society, that doesn't mean any denomination of religion is faltering whatsoever.  The good news, however, is that atheism is SECOND on the list of "belief systems."  Of course, it's just thrown into the "other" pile, but even that doesn't make sense since we have a "lack of" belief, but let's not split hairs here!    Anyway, here's a pretty detailed list of the world's belief standings for a better perspective: http://fastestgrowingreligion.com/numbers.html  

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me

Vastet's picture

Kapkao wrote: Did you post

Kapkao wrote:
Did you post an actual argument, blah blah blah

Word from the wise, when your argument runs into a brick wall of logic and shatters into irrelevance, breaking out ad homs just seals your failure.

Kapkao wrote:
Also, Hitler did not have a healthy ego.

Also, more logic and reading comprehension failure. Point out where I said anything about Hitler's ego. You lost this so badly you're jumping through hoops to make an idiot of yourself. Have fun with that. I'll not waste my time responding to your foolishness in this topic any longer. Say something intelligent and I'll respond. But clearly you're not interested in being intelligent right now.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Cpt_pineapple's picture

Vastet wrote: You are

Vastet wrote:
The situation is that we're teaching idiots to think they are geniuses when they are idiots. Instead of teaching them to be geniuses, we're just teaching them to think they are.

 

BINGO!