Handy andy

 

 

No, it wasn't. Animals that look like Quaggas have been bred, but they are genetically different.

Bugger. Is there nothing written in the public domain that can believed Is the 2 to 4% Neanderthal dna all none Africans have an underestimate. How bigger sample was taken.

When you say the new quagga is genetically different, could it bread with the old quaggas if they were still alive.

 

 

What else do you think being Buddhist entails?

 

It also makes my life a little easier. Few people i meet understand why a white male doesn't drink, and everyone thinks they will be the one to drag me off the wagon. Failure is met by questioning why. Not enjoying it is apparently not an acceptable answer so i say i'm Buddhist, and apparently that explains it to their satisfaction.

 

But we need a thread on the definition of religion and what constitutes a religious person to explore further.

 

 

 

It's the treatment of religion as one homogeneous entity that i'm arguing against. I fully acknowledge the ugly aspects of various religions. It's just some people do not acknowledge any positive aspects. I would say that such a treatment is actually exacerbating the polarisation you lament, not improving it. It's just an 'us vs them' mentality because, well, you know, religious people are so stoopid and atheists are just intellectually better.

As a religious person who does not believe in god or an afterlife, what are you looking for.? Psychic abilities what?

Buddhism believes in an afterlife in the form of reincarnation until enlightenment. What is enlightenment for you?

You appear lost in the wilderness, and looking for a direction or meaning to life.

Direction is achieved by interest, opportunity, and motivation. You have an interest in Buddhism, how did you get interested in that?

Religious or Atheist, makes no difference to a persons intelligence, what makes you think that. Genetics, upbringing, social environment, and opportunity are major factors in people being allowed to advance amongst many others. Many religious people are atheists it seems.

I suspect0 Religious people take the line of least resistance and can be herded like sheep, whilst atheists are generally not easily led, and are anarchistic in there views, wolves in sheeps clothing ..

As for a meaning to life or some hierarchy in the animal kingdom, why does anyone need one. We were born we will die, just like everything else on the planet. In the middle you have a life to live, why not get on with it. As you indicated earlier what we do in life ripples through into the future. Mindfulness of your actions, and how you behave towards others, is normal human behaviour, religion is not required for this.

As for an afterlife, given a few millennia all your molecules will be recycled reborn ie they will re-enter the food chain, and work their way back through..

The thread was about when would belief in god become obsolete, Rather than highlighting all religion, should we narrow down to religious groups who believe in a god, or narrow it down even further to what definition of a god should become obsolete.

There are numerous options to choose from.

God as a person, Jesus, accepted by some Christian groups. rejected by Islam.

God of the old testament, comes down in flying saucer.

God in everything, or God Particle

Hinduism take your pick

Who is the wanker that keeps marking me down -1 .

I will please who ever it is and stop posting.

No, they are not taught the Pope speaks for God on earth, nor that he over rules Jesus.

If you are going to criticize the religion, at least try to understand the basics, otherwise you'll simply be dismissed as a religious bigot.

It seems I may have put my zapato in my mouth. Apologies for suspecting you support Jesuitism.

Ref the Jesuits: You don't have to dig deep to find all sorts of stories about their involvement in politics, and conspiracies whereby they have been expelled from countries worldwide.

I would therefore refute your idea that I am bigoted or intolerant of ideas differing from my own.

The conspiracy theories could all be hokum, but they do exist and are widely known about, I did not make them up.

https://www.worldslastchance.com/end-time-prophecy/10-facts-you-must-know-about-the-jesuits.html

This is one of their oaths I cant lay my hands on the one I was referencing

http://www.reformation.org/jesuit-oath.html

 

I don't think any theists have contributed to this thread, and i'm perhaps the only one who identifies as religious (Jedi, according to my answer to the last census). But whether one is religious or not doesn't matter, just the points made. Which of the arguments put forward here make you despair for humanity? Nobody had suggested religion will never be obsolete because God exists have they?

Whilst you claim a religious identity, you simply use some of the Buddhist ideas in your life. Many religious people who believe in gods and after lives would say that you are not religious because you do not believe in a god or afterlife. Jedi nights believe in the force, do you believe in the force also Joking. I don't despair for humanity, the only thing I wrote that could give you that ideas is I used the word sadly, which is not despair. I am sad that people think that religion that destroys peoples lives is not a bad thing to teach children. In Catholicism divorce isn't allowed, if a spouse is being mistreated by a partner is it not better to separate, what benefit can there be for children to see their mothers beaten up.

Regarding despair, the world seems to becoming more polarized both politically and religiously, and I suspect it isn't going to turn out well. Mr Trumps latest exploit in Cuba is just an example. Not being an American he appears to be a nutter.

Ok +1 but it has to be read slowly.

TEACHER: Harold, what do you call a person who keeps on talking when people are no longer interested?
HAROLD: A teacher.

Some of the above posts sadly demonstrate why religion will continue into the foreseeable. On this forum there are supposedly intelligent people who would demand scientific proof for everything, and then they believe in the omnipotent great god teapot flying around the sun and supposedly indoctrinate their children into the same belief system.

Catholicism for one fully embraces evolutionary biology, mathematics, and physics. So I guess you are wrong about them.

I don't wish to put the shoe in:

Due to religious education the light at the end of the tunnel has been repeatedly turned off over the millenia.

See crusades, genocide in the name of religious belief, and more recently in Europe Bosnia.

I wonder if you believe in a god?

If you are Catholic, the current Pope is a Jesuit. The Jesuits are taught the Pope speaks for God on earth and over rules the fictional Jesus and Moses or anything wrote about them in the bible.

Do you believe the pope speaks for a god on earth?

The science of torture has gone on for millennia, crucifiction was banned in the Roman empire circa 326Ad in respect of Christianity, it was replaced with pouring molten lead down the throat instead.

Roman Catholicism is a wonderful tax free religion, and is directly responsible for many atrocities world wide over millennia.

If this is in reference to whether or not atoms at rest radiate, what I'm discussing has nothing to do with virtual photons.

No it wasn't. It was to do with how virtual fields move through space generating waves that interfere with the trajectory of photons of light(which are fields), plus a whole lot more not related to this thread. Clearly it is over the head of the Dimreepr(apt name) and others and is therefore irrelevant to the post.

The Sick Note (to be read slowly with an Irish accent)

Dear Sir I write this note to you to tell you of my plight

And at the time of writing I am not a pretty sight;

My body is all black and blue, my face a deathly grey

And I write this note to say why Paddy’s not at work today.

Whilst working on the fourteenth floor, some bricks I had to clear.

Now to throw them down from such a height twas not a good idea.

The foreman was not very pleased, he being an awkward sod.

He said I’d have to cart them down the ladders in me hod.

Now, clearing all those bricks by hand it was so very slow,

So I hoisted up a barrel and secured the rope below.

But in me haste to do the job I was too blind to see

That a barrel full of building bricks was heavier than me.

So when I untied the rope, the barrel fell like lead

And clinging tightly to the rope I started up instead.

Well I shot up like a rocket ‘til to my dismay I found

That halfway up I met the bloody barrel coming down!

Well, the barrel broke my shoulder as to the ground it sped

And when I reached the top I hit the pulley with me head.

Well I clung on tight, though numb with shock, from this almighty blow

And the barrel spilled out half the bricks – fourteen floors below.

Now when these bricks had fallen from the barrel to the floor

I then outweighed the barrel and so started down once more,

Still clinging tightly to the rope I sped towards the ground –

And landed on the broken bricks that were all scattered round.

Well I lay there groaning on the floor – I thought I’d passed the worst

When the barrel hit the pulley wheel and then the bottom burst.

Well a shower of bricks rained down on me – I hadn’t got a hope;

As I lay there moaning n the floor – I let go the bloody rope.

the barrel them being heavier it started down once more

and landed right across me as I lay upon the floor.

Well it broken three ribs and my left arm and I can only say

That I hope you’ll understand why Paddy’s not at work today.

The following link might be helpful here and may help with some of the above questions. It was posted originally under the fermions and bosons thread.

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

 

Neutrinos are fundamental and not made of quarks

Er yes sorry I was reading a lot and not paying enough attention. I was thinking of Helium Atoms from the following link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_%28physics%29

The Higgs boson also has zero spin, and is now thought to exist.

Thanks for the correction.

 

 

This is a very misleading description (I don't blame you, it is a common pop-sci description).

 

Gravitons (if they exist) mediate gravity as "virtual particles".

 

"The best way to approach this concept, I believe, is to forget you ever saw the word “particle” in the term. A virtual particle is not a particle at all."

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

Thank you for the reply, I initially started reading it, thinking I know all this, but then the link got very interesting.

Do you have any opinions on the following.

Would you state the gravitation field consisting of virtual particles exists all through out space? Could the movement of the gravitational field cause the gravitational effect. Do virtual gravitons have different energy levels and take up different volumes in space.?

 

"Particle having some spin" means "how they behave while flying close to external magnetic field", like in mass spectrometer.

 

Pions, kaons, have all spin 0, and are all detectable.

Charged particles leave trace in Cloud Chamber, Bubble Chamber, for instance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_chamber

 

If particle is unstable, trace is ending, and two, three or rarely more, traces appear from that location where it decayed.

collision.jpg

Thank you for the helpful reply, I will read the links you have posted, and see what I have missed.

I understand Pions and Kaons like Neutrinos are made up of quarks with opposite spin that cancels out, but still have a magnetic effect due to the spin of the quarks.

What I was pondering ref the graviton could it simply vibrate amongst other gravitons, without having spin.

I was wondering how gravitons might work, which is why I asked the question ref the graviton spin. I know they are only theoretical and have not been detected. When I read about spin it is not clear if it is momentum due to spin or vibration. The fact that gravitons haven't been detected doesn't detract from the fact that there is such a thing as gravity, and something causes it.

I have read that gravity is transmitted by particles emitting and receiving of gravitons. I was picturing the spinning particles exciting the gravitons around it in space, and these gravitons being replaced by colder gravitons, which are in turn boiled off and replaced by more colder gravitons, a bit like gas around a very hot object.

 

Yes, and I'm all for that. And the right way to go about inquiring is to open a new thread, rather than hijacking someone else's discussion. It's not hard to do, and not a difficult concept. It's one that I think most of us are exposed to while we grow up: don't interrupt someone else's conversation. And after you've been told several times that it's unacceptable, the excuses ring hollow.

 

I have to disagree on that, too.

 

Both questions Strange asked were in response to claims, which are speculation on your part.

I had not wanted to start a new thread, and thought it was a simple question.

How many warning points does one get before being banned.

There are various theories along these lines. The most famous being string theory. There are others (I will mention preons just because it is the work of the wonderfully named Sundance Osland Bilson-Thompson).

 

However, as far as I know, none of these say that the distance between things is made of anything. It is just distance.

 

 

 

Why do you say that?

 

Any evidence for that?

 

 

 

Why would something you have just made up be part of standard physics.

 

 

It is angular momentum. So not vibration.

 

There is a series of questions no speculations, I am looking for answers not questions, and was thinking because you misled me ref gravity flowing towards mass and stated gravitons didn't exist on an earlier post, there is the strong possibility that gravity doesn't flow and something like a graviton might exist as stated by Mordred.

The concept of spin when I read about it, is not necessarily actual spin in all cases. Anything moving has momentum, something vibrating like a string has momentum.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

FYI, "bothering" in this context is also known as "hijacking" and is against the rules. The thread originator asked a question, and you barged in to ask a question of your own that was on a tangential topic. This must stop.

Apologies yet again.

I had thought my question was related to the question energy turning into mass which was answered very nicely by Sensei. The link posted in the answer, was the same as one I was looking at previously when I asked a similar question. I had asked for some clarification, on some points ref electrons and positrons annihilating each other and turning into bosons.

 

Pair production.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

Sorry to bother you.

Am I correct in thinking that electrons and positrons which are fermions (leptons) when they annihilate each other produce bosons (gamma rays).

Am I correct in thinking both Bosons and Fermions have spin and inertia.

Is it possible that both Bosons and fermions are made from the same undetectable substance, which makes up space (strings).

If a fundamental particle had no spin it would be undetectable. If it could be made to spin in one way or another it would then be detectable and become a boson or fermion.

If the undetectable substance was being influenced by the movement of all the other fermions and bosons spinning around it, it would in effect vibrate more in the proximity of fundamental particles than it would in empty space. The empty space would in effect be cooler ie vibrating less and would tend to move towards a fundamental particle and replace the vibrating substance of space around the particle. Is this the concept behind the theoretical graviton (spin 2)? Does the spin have to be actual spin or can it be vibration, due to space or other gravitons around it all at different energy levels.

Strings are thought to be bundles of energy vibrating in complex ways in both the three physical dimensions of space as well as in compact directions—extra dimensions interwoven in the quantum foam (also known as spacetime foam). Is this the same concept space vibrating made up of strings that make up all things in the universe.

 

But there's no way to realistically half-secede from a larger body, or half join one, or half do quite a lot of things like this.

 

And no matter which way it goes, status quo or change, you effectively have half of a population that is being forced to live in a circumstance that is contrary to their preference and with no real recourse that does not impose the same circumstance on the other half of the population.

I am not quite as pessimistic as you

Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are not members of the EU, they have agreements with the EU that allow their citizens to live and work in member countries without work permits. Switzerland has a similar agreement, though its agreement is slightly more limited.

The UK will still trade in the EU, even after Brexit, people working in Europe will still have their jobs. Hopefully for Brits travelling or living in Europe the healthcare agreements will still stand.

The whole Brexit thing may have been avoided if Britain had joined the Euro. Sadly due to money speculators with enough clout to take on the Bank of England like George Soros this did not happen.

 

That's exactly why our current polarization is so bad. Neither side is willing to work with / consider the other.

I am hoping in the UK that since the government could be formed by either the labour or conservative party, they might actually listen to each other and behave like grown ups.

There is a lot of overlap of political views between all parties, dissenters leaving one party and joining another could give either labour or conservative a majority. Dissatifaction amongst Tory party members about joining with the UDP may cause conservative MPs to jump ship. Mrs May is going to have to listen to all points of view.

With selective breeding of Zebras the Quagga was brought back from extinction, is there not enough Neanderthal DNA left to bring them back through breeding naturally.

I understand Pigs are being genetically modified so that their organs can be harvested and used in human organ transplants. What amount of pig DNA is similiar to a humans.

Do you get to eat the pig that donated its organs after your organ donation.

I do consider myself an atheist.

 

I'm reluctant to offer my version of Buddhism as a way forward. Everyone will have their own ideas. The most important thing for religion is to be able to adapt, after that we can reassess.

 

Not sure anybody else would be interested hearing about Buddhism, perhaps best to PM?

My Athiest views are not that far from Buddhist already.

Perhaps people can give you a +1 if they want you to start a thread on your version of Buddhism. If you get 10 points you start a thread.

 

I don't agree that this is always true. There is a problem with democracy when a major decision is taken by a referendum winning 52% - 48% when after the event large numbers admit they only voted for brexit as a protest, not dreaming it would happen and not actually wanting it when they realised the implications. Added to that the apathy of the young voters who didn't bother to vote to remain because everybody said brexit would not happen. This is democracy at its worst.

 

I don't actually think that a simple majority should be sufficient to make a major change like this - If it had been 60-40 or greater, then fair enough, but the result was so unconvincing and not actually legally binding, I am at a loss to understand why May (who had voted to remain) goes steaming ahead with an insane policy instead of a period of reflection. I am cynical enough to believe that the politicians only operate on what is best for their own careers, not what is best for the country (whatever that means).

 

I get very angry with politicians like Cameron and Buffoon Johnson, whose own private financial situations will never be affected by the political decisions they make, and when everything goes pear-shaped, they can shrug their shoulders and walk off the stage and go and play croquet, leaving Cuban revolutionary Corbyn in charge to bankrupt the country entirely.

I agree the majority for Brexit was too marginal. A second vote to gain a wider majority vote would have been a good thing.

In Australia people are legally obliged to vote. Perhaps introducing this into other democracies would improve democracy.

IMO proportional representation would be better than what we have now in the UK.

The constituency I used to live in was hard line labour, A Chimpanzee could get elected if it wore a red rosette. The sitting MP was and still is the most point less MP alive IMO, he should have retired 20 years ago, but continues to get elected. If you vote for another party in that constituency your vote is just a protest vote, and pointless. Other constituencies are hard line conservative the same argument applies, voting the other way is pointless.

With proportional representation of some sorts and a legal requirement to vote, democracy might work better.

People only perceive a problem with democracy when the vote doesn't go their way.

I live in outside the UK most of the time, and am particularly interested to know what is going to happen with European healthcare, and which way the pound is going to go.

Cameron was not faced with Brexit in his coalition. I think there is way too much riding on Brexit that no political group will want to be seen to be the ones who messed it up, If they do mess it up, even morons might never vote for them again.

European style healthcare is something the USA might like to consider, instead of the Obama Care, which is a rip off.

A little history The European Union was originally formed as a trading block after WW2 (1939 to 1945), as a way of making the separate European countries dependent on each other, and therefore less likely to have fall outs and go to war. It has extended its powers beyond being just a trading block and over rules individual states laws.

The Brits have an exceptional track record in Europe of losing at football and winning wars. When speaking with my European friends of the German persuasion, I don't mention the wars if they don't mention the football.

The terrorist problems in Northern Ireland largely stopped immediately after the twin towers event in New York on the 11th of September. Shortly after this event the Catholic IRA agreed to a cease fire. Much fund raising was done by the likes of Jerry Adams of Sinn Fein in New York. Sinn Fein is the political wing of the Catholic IRA terror organisation. I wonder if the funding for Sinn Fein IRA dried up after the twin towers?

 

I agree both are belief systems, but they are very different.

 

We believe in science based on evidence and the balance of probabilities. The belief is never absolute, but always on the condition that it may change with new evidence. It is by far the best method of discovering the physical world.

 

Religious belief (and this is my own take, i know it does not reflect the majority of religious belief), creates human truths, but not physical truths. Human truths are those ethereal threads we use to weave meaning in our lives. It's less that i'm looking for something to believe in, more trying to find meaning. Buddhism helps me, but to be honest i find literature a broader and deeper well in which to delve into the human condition.

 

Am i making sense? I find it very difficult to communicate these ideas is a few sentences.

 

 

 

Facts should always be questioned. They should be answered with evidence on the balance of probabilities. This most definitely includes scientific facts.

 

 

 

I sort of agree. Religion teaches nothing about the universe we find ourselves, but can help impose meaning upon that universe.

 

 

 

Buddhism teaches rebirth not reincarnation, the difference being there is no soul which transmigrates; rather our Karma continues after our death. Many Buddhists interpret this to mean that ones Karma finds a new host body and so continues. I interpret to mean that my actions in life continue to reverberate long after my death. Think of a ripple in a pond: my life is a stone thrown in the pond, my Karma is the ensuing ripples, which then join numerous other ripples to make patterns i could never anticipate. I derive meaning from life in enjoying the patterns that emerge. That is as close to an afterlife as i believe in.

 

I'd be happy to explore Buddhism and my interpretation of it with you, but maybe it is off topic here.

Yes you are making sense and I agree with most of what you wrote. Your view of Buddhism is slightly different to the versions I have come across on my travels.

The interpretation many people derive from their religions is very different to your own. With no god or afterlife, many would argue that you are already an atheist.

Do you consider your version of Buddhism to be the way ahead for religion.?

Perhaps you should start another thread on your version of Buddhism. It would be interesting to see how many religious folk agree with you, perhaps you might get a few atheists interested as well.

The next few years are going to be interesting, in politics, it will go one of two ways with Brexit. It will either be a blazing success or an absolute disaster.

On the plus side for all the people in the UK we actually have a democracy whereby politicians are actually going to have to take into account all the different perspectives.

Governments that win by landslides can do what they like regardless of other views, and are not good for democracy. Most politicians are intelligent and will recognise if they do not pull together now in the brexit negotiations it will cost the country a lot, and they will not wish to be the ones who are seen to make brexit a disaster. I suspect they will try to make a success of it.

 

Let's say, then, that any form of dictatorship is to be avoided regardless of it's source.

 

 

 

I answered that question in post 108. I won't add more detail because then i would just be bleating on about how i would make the world a better place. Kind of like dictators do. Engaging in a dialogue is more important than any great unifying scheme.

 

​from post 106 : In terms of modifying religion the first thing i would try to do is explain why even though religion used to make statements about the physical universe, its speculations are no longer needed as we have the scientific method which has proved an excellent process for discovering physical workings. I would then explain that religion can still have a roll to play if it sticks to seeking and bringing meaning to people's lives. That's probably a few more centuries work, so it's enough for now.

I did read your post 106 and came to the idea that you, like many others are looking for something to believe in.

Some substitute scientific theories for actual facts. Some substitute religious theories for actual facts.

Science and religion are both belief systems, which offer various versions of the truth to believers.

Neither are definitely correct, but to a fanatic or amusingly perhaps an undergraduate, they believe what they are taught.

Facts are facts which can not be questioned. Theories and belief systems must be questioned, but the people in charge high priests or those claiming to be peers, dissuade people from questioning their theories or belief systems.

You mentioned dictatorships above as being a bad thing. Would you agree guidance and teaching people that their religions do not teach the actual truth may be a way forward.

In Buddhism I understand there is no requirement for a god figure to tell people what to do or believe in. So for some religious folk who believe in a god figure Buddhism is not a religion. Buddhists however do believe in an afterlife and in reincarnation or transmigration of the soul, which is kind of occult based, is this something you believe in.? What would it take for you to think there is no after life.?

Your first link is a complete contradiction of your first assertion. I have no idea why you think this was a good link to post in support of what you said.

 

Your second and third links simply tell us what creationism is, and that people believe in in. Again, I have no idea why you think this supports your assertion.

 

 

And hitting for the cycle, your amusing anecdote does nothing to support your final assertion.

Its religion you can believe what you like. Did you try googling the subject? The anecdote amusing as it wasn't, does supportthe anecdote, regardless of your belief system, so there

It is amusing religion is discussed on a science forum, under anything other than psychology.

Religious texts may be written in stone, but the way a given religion functions and what it believes can change over time. In addition, there are tens of thousands of Christian denominations, all based on the same religious text. Not to mention that members within a denomination often have different views from each other.

 

I think people, both supporters are opponents of religion, are barking up the wrong tree when make their arguments based solely on a religious text. There are simply too many interpretations.

Perhaps a normalization, taking what is considered to be good from religion without incorporating insane or contradictory beliefs might be away forward.

I'm afraid I'm going to require a citation on that one.

 

And while you're at it...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

My wife wanted to visit Chatanuga for an exhibition I wandered into the aquarium and was discussing the different types of sharks in a tank with a marine biologist when a crowd walked in, and the guy told me he could not speak any more or he would lose his job for talking about evolution. I have no documentary evidence that I was there, so you will just have to take my word for it. The man was in fear of his job for talking about evolution.

 

Blanket statements like that might be accurate if everyone thought alike. At last check I found there were 7.5 billion of us, though. I guess there aren't 7.5 billion different coherent ways of thinking (we tend to "group" ourselves), but I feel quite sure that many people who've lived and are living found that religion brought them a great sense of meaning. Your mileage may vary - that's ok.

 

I'm not really in that group, but I support their right to feel as they wish. For us to sit back and behave as though we can rationally decide which of those attitudes are meaningful and which are not is the height of arrogance.

If 7.5 billion people require religious leadership, it does not bode well for the concept of there being an end to religious belief.

What is your religion, I am assuming you are Christian. Which group do you align your views with, Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist, C of E, Creationist, Mormon, etc. I know there are a lot more religious groups in America than we have in Europe, and religious tolerance is arguably out of control. Religion has a massive impact on the education and political systems in the USA. Creationism is taught as scientific fact by law, in a huge percentage of the states. I was shocked to find that trained biologists are forbidden to speak about evolution, in creationist states.

Do you think religious freedom has gone too far in the USA when it hinders childrens education.?

 

Political affiliations are often used as motivation to kill. Shall we ban politics? Maybe one day we can do without politics, but we're a very long way from that day.

 

While some people use religion as a framework to guide their lives it will not be obsolete. Given this we should focus on emphasising the good in religion and discouraging the bad.

I would have no problem with doing away with any form of political or religious dictatorship, I do not need a leader to tell me how to behave or what to do . People in general get along just fine with out talking about religion or politics, once these subjects come into a conversation, non reconcilable differences are brought to the forefront very quickly.

The thread is about when will religion become obsolete. I note you write about separating the good from the bad in religion, not wishing to jump to conclusions I assume you mean religion should moderate its views as a way forward. How would you propose this can happen within the next millennia, without radical religious leaders insisting on dropping the bad from all religious books.

Religious texts are written in stone. They include numerous contradictions or things which can be read several ways depending on what you want. Would you suggest a scrapping or simplification of the texts, if so how the hell would this be accomplished if blind belief in something that is wrong or at least is questionable is insisted on in religion.

Since you are Buddhist minded,

would you say each person should find their own light?

or

would you say each person needs strict guidance from a religious doctrine?

or

do you have a different opinion?

What say you?