# The future of atheism...



## ausnick (Jul 25, 2011)

I think it's interesting to note that in the last few 100 years agnostic/atheist populations have dramatically increased... just look at this chart to give you rough idea of just how many atheist/agnostics there are in the world at the moment:

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

Do you think that over a period of time the majority of the world will continue become less religious and hopefully more accepting of atheists?

I certainly hope so... headlines like "study finds atheists are least trusted" deeply concern me ! Let's hope society can evolve and drop this ludicrous stigma.

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/edgell/home/Strib Atheist Faith and Values.html


----------



## nemesis1 (Dec 21, 2009)

I definitley feel that atheism will become the majority in time. Religion is dying out rapidly, especially christianity and catholicism. People are much more well informed these days, and theres plenty of evidence to prove the evolution theory. Most of the mainly atheist countries are generally rich countries with lower murder rates, is that coincidence?
I think there will still be some religion around for a long time, but the numbers will just keep dwindling.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

Atheism will become the majority given enough time


----------



## Pennywise (Aug 18, 2011)

There might be a few splinter religious groups in the future, but Atheism will probably become more common than most religions in time.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

joinmartin said:


> I hope the future of atheism is that theism and atheism walk and work together. That we can recognise that if someone shoots either one of us, we bleed the same blood.


I don't hate christians. I just don't agree with them. I get along well with christians because they are people.


----------



## huh (Mar 19, 2007)

I'm not as optimistic that atheism will become the norm over time. I think it will increase but eventually level off. The more education people have, the less likely they are to be religious. So access to education will play a part. But I think lots of people just replace one superstitious/unjustified belief with another. The amount of non-religious people that believe in UFOs/Ghosts/etc is a little scary.


----------



## Glacial (Jun 16, 2010)

As you alluded to, it has been the continual trend and direction throughout history. I am sure it will continue in that direction.


----------



## Hiccups (Jul 15, 2011)

it seems funny to have an organisation to state that you don't believe in something.. would it still exist if theism didn't? I'd like to think that in the future humans will do away with both. I'm sure that sounds irrational lols.


----------



## river1 (Jan 12, 2012)

Science leads the future.


----------



## WalkingDisaster (Nov 27, 2010)

If all the atheists left the USA, it would lose 93% of the National Academy of Sciences but less than 1% of the prison population.


----------



## kiirby (Oct 8, 2010)

I think it was Hitchens that said "Religion will exist so long as we are afraid of death". Still, I'd bet everything I own that in 100 years atheists and deists will form the vast majority of the world's population.


----------



## huh (Mar 19, 2007)

joinmartin said:


> It is certainly not the case that the more education a person has the less likely they are to be religious.


Actually, Gallup polls and studies seem to say otherwise.There is a negative correlation between religion and education. However, this doesn't mean that it's the only factor or there aren't exceptions. In fact in some cases testing religious beliefs with more education actually reinforces beliefs. Pretty interesting way to resolve the dissonance I suppose.



joinmartin said:


> A theist is not necessarily someone with little education, someone who is uninformed or someone who lacks intellect.


Agreed, though I never said that in my post :stu People are great at compartmentalizing their beliefs.



joinmartin said:


> Access to education won't automatically cause more atheism because becoming more educated and informed does not automatically make an individual into a non believer.


I agree, because it's only a single factor.


----------



## idiotboy (Sep 30, 2011)

a small group of theists are afraid of the unknown and find comfort in the explanations that religion gives them (and i'm not judging; that's just a fact)...so as long as there is fear will there be religion, even if the truly devout were to stop believing.


----------



## jg43i9jghy0t4555 (Jul 31, 2011)

nemesis1 said:


> People are much more well informed these days


Hit the nail right on the head. Isolated communities being where religion is strong..

That is the cause for change, along with a culture that acknowledges superstition and living by the fears of the Bible is actually quite harmful. Atheism is much more accepting of technology and so on I guess, it's just generally more level-headed.. well that doesn't make it better, because people aren't afraid of being abusive to others and we have the modern problems of i.e. domestic abuse, child kidnappings.


----------



## jg43i9jghy0t4555 (Jul 31, 2011)

kiirby said:


> I think it was Hitchens that said "Religion will exist so long as we are afraid of death".


Mmmm that will become outdated when mankind changes the meaning of death, though.



joinmartin said:


> The Church of England leadership largely accepts evolution and yet they still believe in God. Accepting evolution does not and will not automatically make someone into an atheist.


Yeah. I grew up going to a Church of England school and it didn't push beliefs onto me but it was a great school in general. The headteacher had connections with e.g. St John's Ambulance and a community care sort of thing, food donations from everyone, and he would read stories every day which had real value and centered around a "moral of the day", as an atheist I would definitely send my kids there if I could.

So, in that sense I guess people should be happy to let Christianity coincide with atheism, as is probably the case for a lot of parents, but with religions the west isn't familiar with, they probably ruin the concept of religion for everyone. Case in point, the extreme treatment of women in some Asian countries.. sickening stuff. For cases like that, the distinctions about religion have to be made. I think people will try to stamp it out because of those cases.. it's hard to imagine people in general saying they accept Christianity but not some other religion.


----------



## MJM58 (Jan 29, 2011)

I think that the trend will continue, that atheism will become more popular as time goes on. The younger generation seems to be heavily atheist compared to previous generations. I don't know if this is because education is more accessible today, not only through schools but also through the Internet, but I would suggest that this is a possible explanation for it. Then again, atheism seems to be somewhat of a fad among emo/gothic/depressed teenagers (i.e., it's cool not to believe in God!).

I don't think religion will ever die out though. I think Christianity will shrink, because in Western countries, the trend is that atheism is growing while Christian faith is diminishing. I know a lot of Christians-turned-atheists (including myself). But I don't think Christianity will ever die out. And in less developed countries, there will always be tribal/ethnic religions. There's also Islam in the Middle East and Northern Africa, which is growing faster than any other religion currently. Lack of education and access to information, combined with the authoritarianism and emphasis on tradition in these countries, leads to religious faith, in my opinion.


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

I hope the world will become the way Gene Roddenberry envisioned it in Star Trek - religion is a distant thing of the past.


----------



## Unexist (Jan 30, 2012)

I'm an atheist simply because of the fact that I just understand too much about science to make religion plausible for myself as a belief, I can see atheism growing but religion will always be there and I respect that, until one finds out what consciousness really is, it would almost be ignorant to assume that the possibility of a higher power does not exist as it may very well be possible.


----------



## Meta14 (Jan 22, 2012)

I think the future is sameness. Eventually everyone will:
-Use the same currency
-All be middle class
-Have only slight variations in genetic appearance
-Have the same religion (or lack there of)


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

One thing I find most interesting about that list of nations is that Israel -- deemed a holy land by three of the world's leading religions -- has a vastly larger percentage of atheists/agnostics than the US. Five times more non-believers in a nation explicitly founded upon religion -- truly stunning. 

OK, some will surely take issue with "explicitly founded upon religion" as Israel is a secular state not led by a cleric, rabbi, pope or what have you & allowing citizens to openly believe (or not) whatever they want. Though I think my characterization is valid when it was created as a place for Jews to escape persecution.

I think even the numbers for the US don't truly reflect substantial changes over the last century. My elderly mother was raised Catholic & went to Catholic school. She tells of how they "viewed Lutheranism as a disease." My father who was Lutheran (in name only) had to convert to Catholicism to marry my mother in 1950. Back in the day "mixed marriages" were very much frowned upon.

While going through old junk I even found a pamphlet from around 1950 by the Catholic church detailing why one should never marry a non-Catholic. I tossed it, but evidently those Protestants will undermine your faith in the devine guidance of the Pope and the "one true church." In 38 years I still haven't figured out what the difference between the two are. As far as I can tell Lutherans are a carbon copy minus a Pope.

Back in 1950 being Catholic meant going to mass on Sundays, going to confession to tell of your dirty thoughts & deeds, and actually taking their dogma seriously. And you damn well didn't eat meat on Fridays (except fish that not meat -- tell that one to PETA).

Fast forward 60 years and being Catholic means you're one of over a billion folks who think dogma is a buffet where you can take what you like and leave the rest. The Catholic church continues to stand by their official position that use of birth control is strictly forbidden. Back in the day Catholic families with 6 (or even 10) kids were nothing shocking. See many of these mega-families today? I sure don't.

I see two possibilities. Either Catholic couples are using birth control in direct defiance of church doctrine or they stop having sex after two kids. Which do you think more likely?

My point: the definition of what's a religious (or spiritual) person has been dramatically altered over a time period that is as short as a human lifespan.

Now you're defined as a "believer" if you have just some vague view that includes some undefined higher power of some sort. You don't have to go to any form of worship or belong to any sort of organization. Or you can belong to a church, even if you openly ignore many of their most fundamental official rules (e.g. birth control, gay marriage, abortion).

It seems anyone can be counted as religious/spiritual so long as they fall short of stating "I do not believe in any supernatural beings period."

US numbers of Agnostics would be sky high if you included all those who are religious in name only, doing as they please and feeling they're religious so long as they don't murder folks -- thus obeying at least one item on that top 10 list.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

UltraShy said:


> Back in 1950 being Catholic meant going to mass on Sundays, going to confession to tell of your dirty thoughts & deeds, and actually taking their dogma seriously. And you damn well didn't eat meat on Fridays (except fish that not meat -- tell that one to PETA).
> 
> Fast forward 60 years and being Catholic means you're one of over a billion folks who think dogma is a buffet where you can take what you like and leave the rest. The Catholic church continues to stand by their official position that use of birth control is strictly forbidden. Back in the day Catholic families with 6 (or even 10) kids were nothing shocking. See many of these mega-families today? I sure don't.
> 
> ...


I think these are all great points. I think part of why Christianity has continued to endure is that we've begun taking very liberal interpretations of the Bible or else outright ignoring what we don't like in order to reconcile it with a modern era. As Hitchens stated as long as we fear death, I think people we continue to believe in god, and Christianity gives them a god concept to hold onto even if they don't like a lot of the things that come with it.

In the future, I think we will see a rise of not only atheist, but also theists who don't affiliate with any particular religion, but only believe in a "higher power". And to be honest, I believe thats where a lot of religious people stand right now as it is, because when you press them you often find that they don't buy into what their holy book says either. Part of why I think atheism will rise is because some people are afraid they can't live good lives as an atheist, but seeing more atheists will challenge that belief. It's not just death they fear, but a fear of acknowledging that theres no big cosmic justice, no way of ensuring that the good get rewarded and the evil get punished. No way of knowing that humans have a greater purpose and life isn't ultimately meaningless.


----------



## Quinn the Eskimo (Jan 22, 2012)

I think atheism will eventually die out


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

Quinn the Eskimo said:


> I think atheism will eventually die out


How so? Do you feel we will eventually find solid evidence for god's existence rendering faith unnecessary?

Most atheist only hold the position that there isn't enough evidence for belief in god. They are atheist because they lack faith and don't find faith to be a virtue. I'm not sure how you can say this position will die out as it is the default position. As long as people are skeptics there are those who will doubt the god claims brought before them and with good reason.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

ausnick said:


> Do you think that over a period of time the majority of the world will continue become less religious and hopefully more accepting of atheists?
> 
> I certainly hope so... headlines like "study finds atheists are least trusted" deeply concern me ! Let's hope society can evolve and drop this ludicrous stigma.
> 
> http://blog.lib.umn.edu/edgell/home/Strib Atheist Faith and Values.html


That headline was only for the US population. Atheism is the norm in most of Europe.

Numbers of atheists only grow, they never recede, so in time the total numbers will be the vast majority. It might take another 100 years, but it will happen, even in the middle east.

Every generation is less religious than the last.


----------



## OoieGooie (Jan 30, 2012)

Here in Australia, we have a lot of churches. However the majority from what little iv seen are the older generation that go to them. 

From school (private or public) kids didn't really discuss religion in any form unless as a joke.

Im 35 now and I still am yet to really find anyone who go's to church. Maybe Iv just been lucky enough not too but from my eyes and my friends\family, religion here is nearly non-existent. 

Those I have found that believe in a god don't pray or go to church or even talk about it. They believe, and thats it. Maybe thats the future? Who knows.


----------



## Idgie (Jan 7, 2009)

nemesis1 said:


> I definitley feel that atheism will become the majority in time. Religion is dying out rapidly, especially christianity and catholicism. People are much more well informed these days, and theres plenty of evidence to prove the evolution theory. Most of the mainly atheist countries are generally rich countries with lower murder rates, is that coincidence?
> I think there will still be some religion around for a long time, but the numbers will just keep dwindling.


agreed


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

OoieGooie said:


> Here in Australia, we have a lot of churches. However the majority from what little iv seen are the older generation that go to them.
> 
> From school (private or public) kids didn't really discuss religion in any form unless as a joke.
> 
> ...


Likewise where I'm from in Europe there are lots of churches (as my country was once upon a time very religious), but they are used for community events and things like that. Some still have small services on a Sunday but the congregation is mainly little old ladies.

I've never known anyone who goes to church and I'm not aware of anyone I know being religious (friends, family, work colleagues or anyone in my life). The vast majority (the younger ones) don't believe in God either.

Religion is almost dead in my part of the world and it's not going to make a come back.


----------



## Keith (Aug 30, 2008)

Where i live atheism seems to be more the norm, possibly because i live in such a liberal state of the country where we don't rely on god to give us affordable healthcare like the rest of the country :lol


----------



## Neptunus (Oct 29, 2007)

Keith said:


> Where i live atheism seems to be more the norm, possibly because i live in such a liberal state of the country where we don't rely on god to give us affordable healthcare like the rest of the country :lol


Mass is awesome - so open minded to many beliefs! So's New Hampshire. New England is just cool in general.


----------



## Quinn the Eskimo (Jan 22, 2012)

> How so? Do you feel we will eventually find solid evidence for god's existence rendering faith unnecessary?
> 
> Most atheist only hold the position that there isn't enough evidence for belief in god. They are atheist because they lack faith and don't find faith to be a virtue. I'm not sure how you can say this position will die out as it is the default position. As long as people are skeptics there are those who will doubt the god claims brought before them and with good reason.


I believe that yes, people on earth, and all over the universe will eventually all come to know God and believe in him

I understand the stance of atheism entirely, though. Don't think that I don't. I used to be agnostic. Which I called "just sitting on the fence"

I understand why people don't believe in God. You're entirely right, there is good reason to doubt the popular claims of God that most people hear. That's because in our society real spirituality is NOT mainstream. No one really has any idea of what life is about, or how to go about knowing anything spiritually, because that's not what we are taught.

No I'm not talking about going to church or being a christian. Most christians/members of other religions have no idea how to proceed spiritually either. It's an occult thing. An esoteric thing. Metaphysical thing. Alchemical thing. It's not talked about except in secret, which is the very reason for these words even existing in the first place.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

Quinn the Eskimo said:


> I believe that yes, people on earth, and all over the universe will eventually all come to know God and believe in him


So do you think this god will finally make himself clearly known to all or will we eventually reach a point where we will find some sort of good evidence for his existence?


----------



## Quinn the Eskimo (Jan 22, 2012)

The Silent 1 said:


> So do you think this god will finally make himself clearly known to all or will we eventually reach a point where we will find some sort of good evidence for his existence?


We will find some sort of good evidence for his existence. In all honesty, the problem does not lie in God making himself known to any body. The problem lies in the fact that we don't _*want*_ to know God.

Hard to comprehend, I know, and I don't wish to turn this into a debate either, haha. I respect all opinions and Im not trying to prove my side right. All I can really say to make my point more clear is there are two areas people should familiarize themselves with *if* they are interested in such things. *Occult knowledge* and *Esoteric knowledge*

*These two areas of knowledge are, by definition, "hidden" and "secret" *
"unseen" would be another good descriptor. but these things are not special or hard to understand. they are just hidden. any body could know them if they truly and honestly searched for answers.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

Quinn the Eskimo said:


> We will find some sort of good evidence for his existence. In all honesty, the problem does not lie in God making himself known to any body. The problem lies in the fact that we don't _*want*_ to know God.


Well, I'm not trying to start a debate here either, but the above sounds odd to me. It sounds like your saying we should already have a preconceived notion of god and look for things to support that. But in science we go where the evidence takes us and so far there isn't much evidence that really points in that direction. We make observations and then make hypothesis based on that, but we can only go where the evidence takes us. Then of course "god" is a vague term anyways and its difficult to look for something when we don't know what it is exactly.

I also know people who were former theists, who did indeed really want to know god and prayed with all their heart and soul only to receive no message from him whatsoever. They were forced to begin questioning what they believed and then did more research into religion, until they realized they didn't believe anymore.


----------



## Quinn the Eskimo (Jan 22, 2012)

The Silent 1 said:


> Well, I'm not trying to start a debate here either, but the above sounds odd to me. It sounds like your saying we should already have a preconceived notion of god and look for things to support that. But in science we go where the evidence takes us and so far there isn't much evidence that really points in that direction. We make observations and then make hypothesis based on that, but we can only go where the evidence takes us. Then of course "god" is a vague term anyways and its difficult to look for something when we don't know what it is exactly.
> 
> I also know people who were former theists, who did indeed really want to know god and prayed with all their heart and soul only to receive no message from him whatsoever. They were forced to begin questioning what they believed and then did more research into religion, until they realized they didn't believe anymore.


Yes, if I had told that to myself even.. three years ago, I would have thought I sounded just as odd. :b

But in only three years time my entire system of belief and thought changed and I went through much spiritual learning and direct experience that I would have never seen coming

it is my belief, yes, that we all ready do *know* God. it's more than just a preconceived notion. there are many blocks and barriers that we, ourselves, have put up in the way of that. one is repression. when someone represses something, in psychology, the entire thing is forgotten completely... there also exists things such as amnesia and alzheimers, which are just more examples of people forgetting things that used to be a basic part of their reality...

Scientists will tell you there is no evidence, yes. And there is none that you can immediately see, touch, smell, taste, or hear. However, there are still many people who know God and have seen the evidence. Most of these people, believe it or not, are famous/ at the top ranks of society. That does not mean *ALL* are.

confusing, I know, it really is


----------



## fredbloggs02 (Dec 14, 2009)

People will always seek different descriptions in that there is much common to all, but what we associate with ourselves is distinct and patently without reason at heart. People who don't enjoy being ruled also detest straight lines profferred to them. Even if we found precise answers.. 42 to the meaning of life and described nature to the fullest, the scientific disciplines are barely understood today, people look to them as though they were more than a description of phenomena. God describes the primum mobile. I don't know whether the description will sustain or not, whether oppressed is a description I relate to or not, or whether that is a natural state of human affairs; if it is, then God will always exist to the few precisely and to many as a form of tyranny. A description may have a future and the scientific description satisfies, as any order assimilates the great majority of people, who categorically misunderstand. Sadly, in my opinion, it is only an illusion people are better informed today, more information through varied media doesn't account for it's content at all.. In my opinion, when people distinguish themselves from the content they ingest, they play on the religious doctrine of the soul more than they realise, as though this superceding "rationality" trenscended everything they heard; "at heart I weigh choices rationally", so they believe. I don't think every idea of God has been imposed upon people.

Atheism is only a title, it will die out if religion in general dies out; however, I predict there will always be a form of atheism in vogue to counteract every perceived extremism, however, these are as religious apologists state only popular views of morality and for that reason, if society lost control of it's foundations, in thousands of years to come, it believes we were once closer to the animals with which we shared the earth.... Atheism misses the mark when it asserts religion as a logically incongruous proposition, it is as good a description as the people who affirm it and many of the atheists who contest their views still found their ideas on religious doctrine. I think people are misled when they're told atheism is inherently "reasonable" or "rational", that is another common misconception which seems reasonable now on the back of history, where religion reigned. All I see now are the bigwigs lobbying for another monarchy, they would have kept the old if it weren't for this modern awakening to a religion that mobilizes people to exceed themselves, and the dangers of that today, where one man single-handedly holds the earth in his hand with nuclear technology. Monarchies don't enjoy people who exceed themselves, especially without good reason. I can still empathize with the idea of controlling people without poisoning them; if only this were what I saw! There are many atheists followed today who would make great zealouts and yet people respect them as reasonable individuals simply for their arguing the case against religion-this will be great material for satire some day, though no lesser a description than the religious impulse for that. I don't think much of propounders of atheism who hold buzz words like "truth" over others, when they know full well what they mean- "I know something you don't"..which isn't what motivates them. They don't honestly know what they mean by it, only themselves; they are as inculcated as any disciple in their ignorance. They believe themselves free from a disposition and oppress those they believe have the potential to be something different than they are, as they throw their dice as far as the rest. A war on fanaticism is a war on the deepest engrained motivations of the species in general, in my view. It is only natural that we are the embodiment of great contradictions; people who only see in straight lines are fascinatingly inhuman, potentially just as hypocritical as any inquisitor, as naive and dishonest.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

Quinn the Eskimo said:


> Yes, if I had told that to myself even.. three years ago, I would have thought I sounded just as odd. :b
> 
> But in only three years time my entire system of belief and thought changed and I went through much spiritual learning and direct experience that I would have never seen coming
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what you mean by know god, but I think this sort of thinking puts way too much faith in the subjective emotions and experiences of human beings. Our feelings are caused ultimately by ourselves. So when a person tells me that they have "felt" god or experienced his presence, then there isn't much more to say. I don't doubt that they may have felt something, but I see no reason to agree with their interpretation of what caused that experience. After all Christians, Buddhists, and Muslims all have these kinds of things happen to them and conveniently the way they interpret it usually falls in line with their preconceived notions of god and "spirituality". I guess what I'm saying is that I don't want to be fooled by emotional responses to experiences people don't really understand. Human emotions are too easily fooled.


----------



## Quinn the Eskimo (Jan 22, 2012)

The Silent 1 said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by know god


I know



> but I think this sort of thinking puts way too much faith in the subjective emotions and experiences of human beings. Our feelings are caused ultimately by ourselves. So when a person tells me that they have "felt" god or experienced his presence, then there isn't much more to say. I don't doubt that they may have felt something, but I see no reason to agree with their interpretation of what caused that experience. After all Christians, Buddhists, and Muslims all have these kinds of things happen to them and conveniently the way they interpret it usually falls in line with their preconceived notions of god and "spirituality".


I had no preconceived notions of God or spirituality. I dont find God to be a man, or a figure up in the sky who judges people,



> I guess what I'm saying is that I don't want to be fooled by emotional responses to experiences people don't really understand. Human emotions are too easily fooled.


This has nothing to do with emotion. And like I said, Im not trying to convince, or fool, any body. I understand how you feel. and Im not judging your beliefs. Just sharing my perspective on the topic.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

Quinn the Eskimo said:


> I know


Thats why I asked. You say its not just a feeling, so what is it then if not an experience or a feeling?



Quinn the Eskimo said:


> I had no preconceived notions of God or spirituality. I dont find God to be a man, or a figure up in the sky who judges people,


So what is your god?


----------



## Quinn the Eskimo (Jan 22, 2012)

Im afraid my answer would most likely mean nothing to you, 

The full gravity of what I believe is pretty deep and controversial,

sounds like a cop-out, I know, but spirituality is not something that can just be explained at the drop of the hat, :\

if you were truly interested I would try to explain, in private, I have nothing to hide about it, its just a hard thing to explain shortly and discuss on a public forum


----------



## brycek34520 (Jan 17, 2012)

as long as we as human beings become smarter and smarter. which WILL happen


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

joinmartin said:


> Religion has a habit of adapting. And it certainly has a strong presence in a lot of Europe. Young people not believing in God is really no surprise.


When you say 'adapting', I think it's more like fighting fires. :yes

So many of the adaptations made in the last few hundreds years have been forced due to overwhelming contradictory evidence and cultural pressure and change.

Religion has already burnt out in North West Europe and it's not just young people either, it's most people under 70.



> Doesn't mean they wouldn't decide to believe or discover a faith in the future. They might or they might not but never underestimate religion.


There is no evidence anywhere that indicates that populations become less atheist in time so there is no chance of that happening.

Religions time is up.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Quinn the Eskimo said:


> Most of these people, believe it or not, are famous/ at the top ranks of society. That does not mean *ALL* are.


What does being famous have to do with it? Even then that totally depends on what country you are from.

As for the 'top ranks', who are they?. It certainly can't mean the highest educated. Do you mean rich? If so, again why does that mean anything?

Actually to the contrary it's the bottom ranks of society (98% of the US jail population for example) who are the people of faith.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Quinn the Eskimo said:


> Im afraid my answer would most likely mean nothing to you,
> 
> The full gravity of what I believe is pretty deep and controversial,
> 
> ...


:roll


----------



## Glacial (Jun 16, 2010)

I don't have a link or reference at the moment, but I heard that some of the "mega" churches that went up like wild fires in the 90's are facing financial hard times. I think a lot of people got together and formed these churches on a whim of the "holy spirit," but what happens as people get tired with the church, bored, decide to sleep in on Sunday morning, kids become more atheistic? These football field sized fortresses aren't going to have the financial support to sustain themselves.


----------



## Meta14 (Jan 22, 2012)

Then they close down, causing religion to die out. Hallelujua.


----------



## bottleofblues (Aug 6, 2008)

ausnick said:


> Do you think that over a period of time the majority of the world will continue become less religious and hopefully more accepting of atheists?


Yeah i think so, religion served its purpose for humanity it bought us together and made our species stronger as a result. I think as science progresses more of us are letting go of religion, i personally see religion as primitive.
But there's no reason why us atheists can't adopt some of the christian/muslim/buddhism/whatever ideas and use them to create social harmony. Like for example don't kill each other, forgiveness and look after your fellow man etc. And just leave all that heaven and hell, sinning and all that nasty stuff in those stuffy old churches where it belongs.


----------



## Akane (Jan 2, 2008)

Depends. If the world keeps getting more high tech and the definition of poverty less extreme we will probably see atheism increase dramatically over the years. However it's entirely possible for a natural disaster to hit or a major country to collapse and stressful or difficult situations tend to make people want to believe in a higher power to get through the day. If you are worrying about the price of the good coffee shop down the road you probably don't stop to think how thankful you are when you eat breakfast. If you are worrying about whether you'll get any food at all that day or the next few days you are likely to be thanking "god" when you stop to eat anything.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

bottleofblues said:


> Yeah i think so, religion served its purpose for humanity it bought us together and made our species stronger as a result. I think as science progresses more of us are letting go of religion, i personally see religion as primitive.


Indeed, we are advanced enough to have out grown religion and its child like beliefs. It's high time some of the world grew up and joined the adults.



> But there's no reason why us atheists can't adopt some of the christian/muslim/buddhism/whatever ideas and use them to create social harmony. Like for example don't kill each other, forgiveness and look after your fellow man etc.


We don't need to adopt it from them. They adopted it from the fundamental nature of mankind's social hard wiring, and merely enforced it with the fear of God and hell etc. We are born with the instinct to live in groups, not kill each other and look after each other, among other altruistic values.

We do not need religion for any moral reason.


----------



## Quinn the Eskimo (Jan 22, 2012)

ugh1979 said:


> What does being famous have to do with it? Even then that totally depends on what country you are from.
> 
> As for the 'top ranks', who are they?. It certainly can't mean the highest educated. Do you mean rich? If so, again why does that mean anything?
> 
> Actually to the contrary it's the bottom ranks of society (98% of the US jail population for example) who are the people of faith.


:roll


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Quinn the Eskimo said:


> :roll


Is that an admittance you are wrong?


----------



## Quinn the Eskimo (Jan 22, 2012)

ugh1979 said:


> Is that an admittance you are wrong?


nope. just an admittance that I dont want to discuss it any further.


----------

