CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:31
Arguments:21
Total Votes:32
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Do you think in the far future the majority of people will be atheist? (21)

Debate Creator

VincentCross(196) pic



Do you think in the far future the majority of people will be atheist?

Add New Argument
5 points

I suspect so.

As society progresses scientifically and technologically, reliance on the supernatural appears to decrease. The earliest civilizations were animists, worshiping nature itself, ascribing all things with power and personae. Many of the animist societies that still exist today are very low on the technology scale. Somewhere around the time civilizations and settled societies began emerging, religions that worshiped specific Gods became the norm, almost as if the increased technology that accompanied this transition simultaneously reduced the number of things that humans felt compelled to worship.

Now we live in a time where information is coming in faster than ever, and many countries have been seeing a steady rise in atheists. Interestingly, we are also seeing a rise in creationists and other types of people who take holy books literally. There are numerous reasons why this is happening, but a significant one may be as a defense mechanism to the rise in atheism.

But, ultimately, we are running out of things to guess about. We are getting hard and fast information about dang near everything, and eventually religion is going to come to look more and more foolish, or at least unnecessary to society in general.

That being said, there will always be the divide between the more intuitive and the more rational. How the highly intuitive would act in the future without religion is difficult for me to guess on.

Side: likely
TruthAnalyst(48) Disputed
1 point

I'm afraid we don't know nearly as much as you seem to think we do. Our best compilation of knowledge about the creation of our universe is the Big Bang Theory. From the initial point of nearly-infinite energy, to a short time afterward when the universe was a light-year in size, we have absolutely no idea of what was going on. The only way we could create formulas and specific theories would be through experimentation, but that amount of heat and energy would destroy any lab if we could simulate it. If it is even possible to test, we are a long way from it.

But, let's assume that we figure out the Big Bang Theory 100%. Then, we have to ask 'What came before? What caused it?'. Science says mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed, so it had to come from somewhere. The question would still be unanswered.

In addition to the Big Bang, we can only account for 20% of the matter in the universe. The rest is some kind of Dark Matter that only interacts with other matter through gravity. It doesn't collide with matter in any way, it doesn't reflect any radiation(so we can't see it). We are blind to the vast majority of the universe.

Our age of information has created a false sense that we know more than we do. After all, we could discover tomorrow that the start of the universe required a catalyst, which would be huge evidence for some type of God.

Side: No
imrigone(761) Disputed
1 point

I'm afraid we don't know nearly as much as you seem to think we do.

I never claimed we KNOW everything, but that we are gaining knowledge on almost every subject with great rapidity. Our understandings of biology, chemistry, physics, geology, etc. have increased exponentially over the past century or two, with A LOT of very important information being collected and interpreted since the creation and advancement of the computer.

The only way we could create formulas and specific theories would be through experimentation, but that amount of heat and energy would destroy any lab if we could simulate it. If it is even possible to test, we are a long way from it.

Actually, a team of scientists has been spending the past few years devising a way to use the large-hadron-collider to run such experiments.

But, let's assume that we figure out the Big Bang Theory 100%. Then, we have to ask 'What came before? What caused it?'.

If we figured the BB 100%, we would already know the answer to that question.

Science says mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed, so it had to come from somewhere.

Quantum physics appears to defy this, making the rule you stated potentially outdated. Furthermore, the Big Bang was a quantum event. Further you are making a common, but ultimately limiting, mistake: you are assuming that time always travels in a linear fashion the way that we observe it. We know that isn't necessarily true of the whole universe, particularly at the quantum level. Not to mention that it is generally accepted that time as we know it was created by the Big Bang, meaning that any logic chains requiring temporal linearity could be completely invalid in whatever environment "preceded" the Big Bang.

Yes, though, dark matter is quite the mystery. At least physicists still have plenty to do.

Our age of information has created a false sense that we know more than we do.

I would argue that people who don't know what they are talking about create a false impression that we don't know nearly as much as we do, or how truly amazing it is that we know it all since it took us millions of years worth of curiosity to even conceive of things like BB, plate tectonics, quantum theory, etc.

After all, we could discover tomorrow that the start of the universe required a catalyst, which would be huge evidence for some type of God.

Not really. The way God is depicted, anything can be considered huge evidence for his existence. Just because there had to be a catalyst (which is still an unproven hypothetical), it need not necessarily be an intelligent, personal catalyst that did this all on purpose. Also, whatever started the BB might have been destroyed in the process, or reconstituted into the energy that was released by the big bang. Maybe it was a God of a sort but one that died long before we arrived on the scene. Until you all agree to put some limits on God, or at least show us some material that we can recognize as being part of him, we won't be able to measure or identify him. It is very likely that the question of his existence will never be answered.

But as we observe more and more things that were once attributed to him to be natural consequences of cause and affect, the reason to attribute anything to him diminishes.

Side: No
2 points

Yes, I do. Mostly because far in the future, we will all probably ageless, invincible, all-knowing, and nearly all-powerful due to our technological advancements.

Side: likely
2 points

Religion is prevalent because its a type of escapism from all too ingrained problems in our societies.

If the future doesn't entail world destruction, then technological growth will likely result in many of those problems being less bothersome or even non-existent. People are not naturally followers of traditional religions and without a cause, they won't be.

Side: likely

I hope so, and I hope it's better than that South Park episode where Cartman goes forward in time and all the atheist beavers and humans are fighting each other ;)

Side: likely
1 point

I actually would suspect that as we progress closer to the Apocalypse, more people are going to become reliant on gods and other supernatural deities.

Side: likely

Of course they will. Religion is no different then being a good employee; it takes hard work, morals, and ethics. It is easier to be unemployed (draw welfare, get food stamps, steal, etc.) than put an effort into something more productive and laziness shall prevail. This triumph in atheism, will be society's loss.

Side: likely
imrigone(761) Disputed
3 points

You are saying it is easier to put in generations worth of time, money, and creative thought to actually investigate phenomena than it is to just take the words of some ancient people who were basically just guessing and had no way or desire of verifying these claims?

Have you met reality?

Side: likely
chris4251(17) Disputed
1 point

I disagree. The main thing that religion has done for society throughout the ages is give a sense of good morals. Now people are taught these morals with no religious background and society also shouldn't suffer from the non reliance of an all knowing deity that mysteriously created the universe (and himself?) with supernatural powers.

Side: likely

There is no way to know. As of yet, we have been unable to create life from inorganic material, so we don't even know if it is possible for life to be created from pure chance.

We don't even understand how the first few stages of the Big Bang Theory would have worked, as we have no methods to test such energy levels or temperatures, so we don't have any idea if the universe could have potentially created itself in that way.

Now, let's assume that in the future we figure out exactly how the Big Bang happened(by compacting a bunch of pure energy into a tiny point and watching it explode, creating matter), and we figure out exactly how to create basic life in a lab.

Would we really expect that it would be impossible for God to do the same thing we would know how to do in this situation? It could even be argued at that point that we had risen in a way to the level of God.

If you define atheist as believing that God doesn't exist, then I say 'no'. If you define atheist as not believing in God, then I would still say 'no'.

It is human nature to look toward the unknown, and to hope for something better.

Side: No
1 point

Do you think in the far future the majority of people will be atheist?

Hmmm... Well, can't say. There are a number of maniacs on this planet. And now it's left to the choice of the beholder of who it is in the maniac position.

Side: No

It looks that way. Oh, religion will still be around but the religious will most likely be in the minority.

Side: No