Quantcast
Would Religion Survive a Resurrection?

Forums - General Discussion - Would Religion Survive a Resurrection?

Well?

Yes 26 38.24%
 
No 27 39.71%
 
Maybe 7 10.29%
 
<--- Results button 8 11.76%
 
Total:68
Soleron said:
The more interesting question I thought you were asking is: would any religion survive a resurrection of Jesus (as in, provably so). Assuming Jesus could make rulings on exactly how to be a Christian, would the "wrong" denominations with conflicting beliefs disappear? Would Islam disappear, given that it regards Jesus as A prophet but not THE prophet? Would unrelated religions disappear?

Actually, Islam has always expected Jesus to return. The difference to the christian "second coming"-belief is that they basically expect two "messiahs" will come in company: One being Jesus Christ, the other being the hidden twelveth Iman Al-Mahdi (who, by the way, is the legitimite ruler of Iran according to their constitution - so if one wanted to overthrow the iranian government, all he had to come up with was a person credibly claiming to be Al-Mahdi ;) ).

When Ahmadinejad gave his UN speech about 2 weeks ago, he even dedicated more than one whole page of his speech to this topic, how great it's going to be and even claimed this would happen soon. It was quite bizarre and I'm still wondering why not a single media over here even mentioned this, for I think it would have matched the usual "crazy Ahmadinejad"-stereotype perfectly.

So Islam would hardly disappear, it would rather prove their beliefs. I think there would be more danger to judaism, for according to the talmud, Jesus is forced to rot in hell forever, swimming in boiling hot excrements...



Around the Network
Sam3o said:
Marks said:
I'm sure lots of people would believe in the religions if they were resurrected, but I bet it would be way less people than currently.

I think Islam would suffer the biggest hit. Because many people in North America/Europe have read the bible and believe it based on readings...but I feel like the majority of people in Islamic countries haven't even read the Quaran, but believe in Islam based on it being the only option in their country... and how there is no separation between church and state in places like the middle east.

That made sense in my head, but I'm not sure if you'll get what I mean.

@ BOLD

Actually, I could argue that it's the complete opposite. In addition to the usual reading, Muslims recite verses from the Quran at least 5 time a day during prayers. Not to mention, the thousands, if not millions, who have memorized it entirely from cover to cover some of which who are 10 years old or even illiterate.


The second part of your post is more what I was talking about. I've heard that a lot of Islamic people in the middle eastern countries are illiterate and therefore their only knowledge of the Quaran is what they've been told by their teachers and religious leaders, not knowledge they've gained through their own personal readings. 

I'm sure this occurs in all religions, but since many Islamic people are African/Middle Eastern I feel like it would be a more widespread issue. 



RoryGamesFree said:
the2real4mafol said:
RoryGamesFree said:
the2real4mafol said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
the2real4mafol said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
RoryGamesFree said:
as Mormons exist I think this thread grossly overestimates human beings intelligence...


Uh... What? Are you suggesting that Mormons are less intelligent than other religious and non-religious people?

Source?

They have some stupid beliefs don't you think? For example, they believe women can't go to heaven (if there is one!) without permission from her husband, and if she goes to heaven, she is forever pregnant with spirit children! I suppose there are stupid believes with every religion but that is pretty stupid. Also, Mitt Romney who is a mormon (moron!) says stupid things all the time. Just like anything though, there are stupid and smart people, despite what Romney says, i'm sure there are smart mormons


So am I. Hinduism, for example, contains lots of outright ridiculous gods that they worship, but that doesn't confirm that hindus are less intelligent than other people.

It's almost like saying a certain race is inferior to all the others, which is what nazis believe 

please do not compare people believing in a religion based on some junkie kids acid trip by choice to people being a colour skin at birth, that is disgusting.

If you believe a race or religious group is inferior to yours, then you are a nazi. There believes were based on that master race rules all crap, it may be an extreme case of it, but that's how I see it. But some people belief they are a superior person just because they are white and christian, Mormon's belief that. Just look up some mormon beliefs on black people


race is real, religion is not, comparing the two is like comparing horses and unicorns.

Mormon's belive a bunch of egotistial horseshite that some drugged up kid claims was imparted to him in a vision, which anyone with a brain cell knows was a drug trip, it's only popular cause he threw in a bunch of bs about how great the USA was, people who believe that shit are morons.

yeah well but if they believe in the greatness of the USA, then it makes no sense that they exist in Europe. For one thing though, you don't need a mormon leader



Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018

If religion disappeared for a hundred years and then resurfaced, I think it would probably explode. Why? Because there is power in religion, and a populace who has grown beyond religion to suddenly be introduced into a religion creating experience would be completely and totally overpowering.

I think the dominant religion would be deus ex machina, or some viral or bug strain religion that has the side-effect of prolonging life exorbitantly. I picked those two because they are largely hard to predict phenomena. For example, lots of people feel like computers have personalities. They sometimes exhibit quirks. While they are easily explainable scientifically, I could realistically see quirks being interpreted as motivation and persona.



To reference something in popular culture, I would recommend the movie Akira.
Akira is a scientific experiment using nanomachines and technology that refocuses cosmic knowledge into a single being. To explain somewhat quickly, we evolved from much more primitive people and animals, and at each step of the way, we've learned something that becomes so routine that our social structure adapts it and the information is absorbed into our "cosmic knowledge". It's like what would happen if a kid knew the understanding of his parent, and his parent, and his parent, and everything previous. That kind of knowledge would not only make someone socially and intellectually brilliant, he'd have the knowledge of evolutionary change;
This, basically, gives Akira the power to mentally perform, well, anything.

The theme of the movie revolves around the dystopian cyber-punk future that awaits us if we continue our path of following knowledge without restraint, and the fallible human forces that guides our progress.

The metaphor presented in the film actually somewhat reflects the OP question itself as civilization bends their knees to their newly created God, with a resulting cataclysmic disaster that leaves few questioning the awesome consequences of tampering with things we don't understand.



Around the Network

religion is a man made thing. It is just like the iphone but for old times(2000 years back). don't bother urself with stupid lies. Just try to connect to that higher source of energy (we can call it god/universe/ law of attraction) the way YOU see fit for yourself and don't be like a monkey and follow what other people tell you.



haha i just noticed I logged back for the first time after 2 year to reply to this. Hope everyone here is doing good :)



 

 

 

Haha, the whole question tries to be clever and hide the fact that any kind of philosophical basic perception, is in fact a "religion" or any sort of "fanaticism" no matter how you see it. So yes, if you extinct all religious fanaticism, whether is theistic, agnostic or atheistic, they would all come back, but the fact is that theism always arises first and without it, there would be no atheism or agnosticism. So would this suggest, that theism is the default natural perception in our nature and so the logical one? and the other just the twisted and unnatural versions of it?



cityprey said:

Haha, the whole question tries to be clever and hide the fact that any kind of philosophical basic perception, is in fact a "religion" or any sort of "fanaticism" no matter how you see it. So yes, if you extinct all religious fanaticism, whether is theistic, agnostic or atheistic, they would all come back, but the fact is that theism always arises first and without it, there would be no atheism or agnosticism. So would this suggest, that theism is the default natural perception in our nature and so the logical one? and the other just the twisted and unnatural versions of it?


Are you saying that if everyone lost their faith, or an even more extreme example; if every theist was killed, there would be no atheism? That makes no sense. If people don't believe in a single god then they are atheist. It's that simple.

And science has nothing to do with religion. One is based on belief, the other is based on facts and scientific theories.



IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
cityprey said:

Haha, the whole question tries to be clever and hide the fact that any kind of philosophical basic perception, is in fact a "religion" or any sort of "fanaticism" no matter how you see it. So yes, if you extinct all religious fanaticism, whether is theistic, agnostic or atheistic, they would all come back, but the fact is that theism always arises first and without it, there would be no atheism or agnosticism. So would this suggest, that theism is the default natural perception in our nature and so the logical one? and the other just the twisted and unnatural versions of it?


Are you saying that if everyone lost their faith, or an even more extreme example; if every theist was killed, there would be no atheism? That makes no sense. If people don't believe in a single god then they are atheist. It's that simple.

And science has nothing to do with religion. One is based on belief, the other is based on facts and scientific theories.

You are making an assumption again that atheism is not a basic perceptionand in a way a religion again, but the fact is that it is. It is a belief based on the philoshopy of naturalism. It bases it dogmatic claims from science, but this is a self promoted authority, science in itself is based on universal logical and mathematical truths(not facts) so it does not have any kind of reasonable ground for any athiestic or naturalistic claim it to be true, you just have to believe. An example argument would be "if it's not proven in a laboratory it's not true" but this kind of claim is simply not true and is just a inductive reasoning therefore, there are a lot things you can not prove scientifically, but still are true, mainly logical and mathematical truths, the big bang theory has not been proven, so you have to believe in it, but still it's 99% to be true.  I didn't quite understand your example, but what you have to understand is that faith is everything that we are, wheter it includes a God or not, it's still faith. All I said was that, if all beliefs including atheism would be wiped out, then naturally our first perception would be, that there is a God. Remember though you are mixing to subject with your question too. You are making the assumption that theistic religions = existence of God, these should be treated seperately, the logical reasoning for the existence of God is in our basic nature like I pointed out. But the religions we invent based on that deep natural question is totally different matter. Your question also is flawed in a way that is already has a dogmatic view that science and tested fact are the only base of true understanding, this is also not true, and the whole claim is not even scientific but rather philosophical, so how would you would have to prove that claim to be true scientifically for me to believe it in order for the claim to be true, but that is impossible of course, so I would just have to believe in what you say, or who ever told you that and so it becomes marely dogmatic again no matter how scientifically you dress it it is stll not logical.



cityprey said:

You are making an assumption again that atheism is not a basic perceptionand in a way a religion again, but the fact is that it is. It is a belief based on the philoshopy of naturalism. It bases it dogmatic claims from science, but this is a self promoted authority, science in itself is based on universal logical and mathematical truths(not facts) so it does not have any kind of reasonable ground for any athiestic or naturalistic claim it to be true, you just have to believe. An example argument would be "if it's not proven in a laboratory it's not true" but this kind of claim is simply not true and is just a inductive reasoning therefore, there are a lot things you can not prove scientifically, but still are true, mainly logical and mathematical truths, the big bang theory has not been proven, so you have to believe in it, but still it's 99% to be true.  I didn't quite understand your example, but what you have to understand is that faith is everything that we are, wheter it includes a God or not, it's still faith. All I said was that, if all beliefs including atheism would be wiped out, then naturally our first perception would be, that there is a God. Remember though you are mixing to subject with your question too. You are making the assumption that theistic religions = existence of God, these should be treated seperately, the logical reasoning for the existence of God is in our basic nature like I pointed out. But the religions we invent based on that deep natural question is totally different matter. Your question also is flawed in a way that is already has a dogmatic view that science and tested fact are the only base of true understanding, this is also not true, and the whole claim is not even scientific but rather philosophical, so how would you would have to prove that claim to be true scientifically for me to believe it in order for the claim to be true, but that is impossible of course, so I would just have to believe in what you say, or who ever told you that and so it becomes marely dogmatic again no matter how scientifically you dress it it is stll not logical.

Atheism isn't a belief.