CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
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.
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.
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.
No, you stated "But, ultimately, we are running out of things to guess about." That implies that we are getting close to knowing everything. The fact is, we know that we only know about 20% of the matter of the universe, and we don't know a whole lot about the matter that we do know about :)
ctually, a team of scientists has been spending the past few years devising a way to use the large-hadron-collider to run such experiments.
The LHC doesn't deal with those first moments of the Big Bang. Rather, it deals with the process of energy transforming into matter. It's a start, but it doesn't go anywhere near the actual beginning.
If we figured the BB 100%, we would already know the answer to that question.
The Big Bang only deals with every moment from the initial moment on. It doesn't stipulate at all about what came before. In the truest sense, the Big Bang theory doesn't even explain the formation of galaxies, stars, planets, etc... [1]
Your comments about time and the other laws of our universe miss one key point. All of the laws of our universe, including space-time, exists completely in our universe. We are inside the universe, and if we look out in any direction far enough, we could see that first moment. Our time has nothing to do with anything outside of our universe, so that doesn't explain anything outside of it. Think of it this way. If you were able to condense energy into a tiny point and release it outside of our universe, you could create your own 'Big Bang', your own universe with it's own space-time. Nothing about the Big Bang addresses outside of our own universe.
As to how much we know, it is unscientific to think of things that way. When we think we have something figured out, it poisons the seed of further experimentation. True scientists understand that all we currently have are best explanations for things we have observed.
Even if everything we knew were true, we could still only account for 20% of all matter, and about 4% of all the mass-energy in the universe. In other words, we aren't close to knowing it all, we haven't even seen past the tip of the iceberg, let alone being able to explain the tip of the iceberg.
My hypothetical situation would indeed be evidence of God. The broadest definition of God is creator of the universe, so requiring a catalyst makes it more likely that the catalyst exists in some intelligent form than not requiring a catalyst.
It's true, we may never have empirical evidence of God, but at the same time, we will never have empirical evidence that God doesn't exist unless we manage to learn everything that can possibly be learned.
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.
This is a baseless claim. If we learned how to reanimate dead tissue, would that be more evidence not to believe in Christ? Or, would it be more evidence that the story of Christ's miraculous resurrection could be true? Just because we figure something out doesn't provide any evidence that God couldn't do that as well. If we learned how to create life in a lab, what's to say God wouldn't be capable of the same thing?
No, you stated "But, ultimately, we are running out of things to guess about." That implies that we are getting close to knowing everything.
Not exactly. Ultimately simply refers to the end game, I did not put a time limit on it. However we are snowballing our understands of the physical workings of the universe quite rapidly. We are gaining information and understanding, as well as the technology and math to facilitate such things, at such a pace that I suspect we aren't terribly far away from answering the majority of the questions that the authors of the Bible had. I will grant that there would be new questions. Right now the best place to find God would seem to be Quantum Physics. I'm curious to see how those puzzles will be unraveled.
The Big Bang only deals with every moment from the initial moment on. It doesn't stipulate at all about what came before.
I'm fully aware of that. What I was saying was that if we understand it 100%, we will know what the cause is, the catalyst as you say. Until we know what got it going, it is not completely understood.
Your comments about time and the other laws of our universe miss one key point. All of the laws of our universe, including space-time, exists completely in our universe.
I didn't miss that. Reread my comment about time as we know it starting with the Big Bang. And I'm not sure how this helps your point, since it makes linear cause-and effect strands as we know them useless, therefore rendering the whole "matter coming from nothing" point useless as well. This is also under the assumption that there is or was an "outside/prior to the universe" scenario at all. There are theories of a cyclical time loop, essentially creating an infinite succession of universes with each rebirth invalidating linearity outside each iteration of the universe. Purely hypothetical of course, but more falsifiable than God.
Even if everything we knew were true, we could still only account for 20% of all matter, and about 4% of all the mass-energy in the universe. In other words, we aren't close to knowing it all, we haven't even seen past the tip of the iceberg, let alone being able to explain the tip of the iceberg.
Although at this point you could be talking more about exploration than actual scientific experimentation. Not saying for sure that that is all that would be left, but I consider it a reasonable possibility, or at least as reasonable as this level of speculation can ever get.
The broadest definition of God is creator of the universe, so requiring a catalyst makes it more likely that the catalyst exists in some intelligent form than not requiring a catalyst.
This is sounding dangerously close to circular reasoning. Tell me, aside from the definition of God, why is it more likely that the catalyst be intelligent than not? And have you know response to the possibility that God ceased to exist when the Universe was born?
It's true, we may never have empirical evidence of God, but at the same time, we will never have empirical evidence that God doesn't exist unless we manage to learn everything that can possibly be learned.
In investigative inquiry, the first assertion makes the second irrelevant. I admit that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, however, attempting to prove the nonexistence of a thing is a rather useless endeavor, so for confirmation we need positive evidence that matches the claim.
If we learned how to reanimate dead tissue, would that be more evidence not to believe in Christ? Or, would it be more evidence that the story of Christ's miraculous resurrection could be true?
That would depend on the method used. If it was something that could not be possible at the time or in the conditions of that part of the world, then it certainly wouldn't be a great case for Christ.
If we learned how to create life in a lab, what's to say God wouldn't be capable of the same thing?
Again, one can't say that because God has no limits. Seems mighty convenient to make sure that the definition of an entity automatically eliminates all attempts to investigate or disprove it.
It's ridiculous to say we are running out of things to guess about when we haven't even seen 96% of the universe that exists within 50-billion light years, nor have we seen anything further out than that. We are nowhere near close to running out of things to guess about. That was my point.
Quantum mechanics is a very new and unproven branch of science. It could be completely wrong for all we know. But, on the other hand, we might learn a lot from it. Time will tell. If it leads us to other universes, planes, or dimensions, then that will only multiply the amount of things we have to guess about.
What I was saying was that if we understand it 100%, we will know what the cause is, the catalyst as you say.
No, we could understand the Big Bang theory and still not know the cause. It doesn't address the cause, so proving the Big Bang doesn't prove the cause(or lack of). It goes back to that first moment, but not a second before.
Our space-time exists inside the Big Bang, so to speak. Inside the area in which the 'banged' material is expanding. Outside of that, our space-time doesn't apply, but that has nothing to do with the existence of time outside of our universe. Imagine an infinite expanse of nothingness that our universe is expanding into. It makes sense that if 1 universe like ours can exist in that nothingness, that multiple universes can and should also exist.
Tell me, aside from the definition of God, why is it more likely that the catalyst be intelligent than not?
You missed my point. I didn't say the catalyst would more likely be intelligent than not. What I said was, the requirement of a catalyst makes the likelihood of an intelligent catalyst more likely than not requiring a catalyst. It could be non-intelligent or destroyed in the creation, but in that situation intelligence is more likely if a catalyst is required.
That would depend on the method used.
Not at all. Proving that it is impossible at all makes the story more likely to be true. You assume that if we only knew one way to do it, and that wasn't available at the time, that it would be the only way to do it.
We have 96% of the universe that we can't detect. Most of it is energy. Who is to say that we can't use that energy to perform miracles? Perhaps we will learn that Dark Matter and Dark Energy mirror the matter and energy we can see(in other words, spiritual bodies and spiritual energy).
Again, one can't say that because God has no limits. Seems mighty convenient to make sure that the definition of an entity automatically eliminates all attempts to investigate or disprove it.
Not necessarily. The Judeo-Christian God is 'almighty'. The Hebrew word for almighty means 'most powerful'. It doesn't necessarily mean 'able to do anything'. 'Able to do anything that can be done' would be a better translation, but that doesn't come across well if you substitute it every time in the Bible.
It's ridiculous to say we are running out of things to guess about when we haven't even seen 96% of the universe that exists within 50-billion light years, nor have we seen anything further out than that. We are nowhere near close to running out of things to guess about. That was my point.
Fair enough. Forgive me my semantics. But my point is, the farther we slide down the scale to the point of ultimate knowledge, the less reliance we have on supernatural causes. Specifically I referred to the apparent decrease in "things to worship" as our knowledge base has increased, as well as the increase in global atheism during the information age. There was a time when we had rituals for everything because it was the only way we could think of to solve problems that had no answers. But those rituals never rendered consistent results. Once we started learning how things worked, we realized we didn't have to pray to increase chances of fertility or leave offerings to a harvest goddess to increase crop yields. We learned that stars are quite a bit more than holes in some celestial fabric. And as we learned to take things into our own hands, the need for supernatural explanations has gradually diminished.
If this particular correlation is indicative of the causation I propose, then continued information will likely bring us to the hypothetical posed in the debate title. We got a little sidetracked, and some of my assertions may have been hyperbole, but my point still stands. There is reason to believe that atheism is tied to scientific advancement.
No, we could understand the Big Bang theory and still not know the cause. It doesn't address the cause, so proving the Big Bang doesn't prove the cause(or lack of).
That wouldn't, in my opinion constitute full understanding. I'm not saying that we would use the theory to explain its origin. I'm saying until we explain its origin, we don't fully understand the expansion. Similarly, I fully understand that abiogenesis and evolution are two different topics, and I totally get that evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origins of life. But until we do understand at least something prior to the formation of the first life (which could be helped along by figuring out abiogenesis), I wouldn't consider evolution to be a closed subject, even if we knew all of its twists and turns.
Imagine an infinite expanse of nothingness that our universe is expanding into. It makes sense that if 1 universe like ours can exist in that nothingness, that multiple universes can and should also exist.
I agree, although I'm not entirely sure where you are trying to go with this.
What I said was, the requirement of a catalyst makes the likelihood of an intelligent catalyst more likely than not requiring a catalyst. It could be non-intelligent or destroyed in the creation, but in that situation intelligence is more likely if a catalyst is required.
Why? (And I didn't miss your point, this is the question I was asking.)
Proving that it is impossible at all makes the story more likely to be true. You assume that if we only knew one way to do it, and that wasn't available at the time, that it would be the only way to do it.
(Did you mean to say "proving that it was possible at all"?)And why do you assume that it wouldn't? While another avenue may open up in the future, the case for the Resurrection is not supported until the point where we find a method that could work under those conditions.
We have 96% of the universe that we can't detect. Most of it is energy. Who is to say that we can't use that energy to perform miracles?
I'm not saying that we can't. I'm saying that until such evidence arrives to support that claim, there is no valid reason to believe in it outside of faith. And faith doesn't typically solve riddles, at least not in and of itself.
'Able to do anything that can be done' would be a better translation, but that doesn't come across well if you substitute it every time in the Bible.
Interesting offering, I'll give you that. So, would you say that it is incorrect (at least possibly) to conceive of God as omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omnitemporal, etc.?
I certainly understand and respect your point about there being less that is supernatural. More knowledge doesn't necessarily move us away from God however. If we understood everything about God and how he operates, then God wouldn't be supernatural, but would still exist.
I guess you're saying a topic isn't fully explored unless we also explore inter-related topics, and I can agree with that about the Big Bang. :D
Why?
Currently, we have two basic scenarios. The possibility of the universe being created without a catalyst(no possibility for God), and the possibility of the universe being created with a catalyst(possibility for God). If we learned that a catalyst is required, it would remove an infinite number of non-catalyst possibilities, therefore making it more likely that an intelligent catalyst is the explanation. Similarly, if we learned that a catalyst couldn't have been involved, it would completely remove the possibility for an intelligent catalyst.
Impossible/possible
Yes, that's what I meant. Thanks for correcting me :) Just like the catalyst scenario, proving that reanimation is possible eliminates the possibility of Christ's story being impossible, thereby making the story more likely to be true, even if we haven't figured out how it could have happened back then.
no valid reason to believe in it outside of faith...
Just as importantly, there is no valid reason to dismiss it as a possibility. Subjectively, we believe based off of experience. Objectively, and what we present as universal, verifiable truth, we shouldn't make any such limits. If you are referring to atheism in the 'weak atheism'(agnostic) sense, then there isn't too much of an issue. But referring to atheism is the strong sense, there is no valid reason to objectively dismiss something as a possibility. True science must be approached objectively.
So, would you say that it is incorrect (at least possibly) to conceive of God as omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omnitemporal, etc.?
I believe that omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnitemporal are poor translations, and aren't included in the original Greek or Hebrew. As such, we should at least be open to the possibility of a better translation. Saying God is omnipotent with no restrictions opens the door for paradox(Can he create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?), where 'most powerful) doesn't require paradox by definition.
However, I don't know if there is the same problem with omniscient, omnibenevolent... I see no reason for there to be a limit to those.
More knowledge doesn't necessarily move us away from God however.
Well, I'd say that depends on how you are using the phrase "move us away from God". If you mean it doesn't get us any closer to disproving his existence, I agree with you. I do not believe in God, but I do not claim that proof of non-existence is extant, and am not sure if it will ever be.
But there is a fair amount of evidence that humans do move away from God, volitionally, with increased knowledge. We've already discussed how it can occur on a societal level, but there is evidence of it on a personal level. While stats on how many Americans believe in God can sometimes yield wildly different answers, there is a consistent trend in Atheism increasing and Biblical literalism decreasing with higher levels of education. Further, there is the well-known phenomena of scientific fields having a very disproportionately large number of atheists compared to pretty much any other vocation. Regardless of whether this should happen, or is a good thing, it still does happen. And that is pretty much the main reason why I responded how I did to this debate.
I guess you're saying a topic isn't fully explored unless we also explore inter-related topics, and I can agree with that about the Big Bang. :D
Yeah, that is basically what I'm saying. Science has taught me that no concept is an island. There is always something going on in one specific field that is affected by another. But then, science MUST divide itself in specific fields and clearly delineated theories. It makes the study quicker and makes experts more common. But still, with everything being connected, I find it impossible to fully understand a scientific topic without smudging the boundaries to a degree. That's my personal epistemological philosophy regarding science.
Currently, we have two basic scenarios...
Okay, I get what you are saying now and basically agree. I say basically because in a scenario where God is truly omnipotent, even a non-catalyst scenario would not preclude him. But by the way you seem to be looking at him, I find this to be totally valid reasoning.
Just like the catalyst scenario, proving that reanimation is possible eliminates the possibility of Christ's story being impossible, thereby making the story more likely to be true, even if we haven't figured out how it could have happened back then.
More likely, yes. I still wouldn't really call it evidence. But I do see what you're getting at.
Just as importantly, there is no valid reason to dismiss it as a possibility.
Sure, but belief and dismissal aren't the only two options. At least not complete dismissal. I have to have a reason to believe, and I must have reason to disbelieve. In the absence of strong evidence either way, I fail to do either. But I do STRONGLY feel that in order to believe, there has to be a much better reason for the belief than simply "it is possible". I have no problems with imagination and envisioning endless possibilities, I just don't think it is intellectually healthy to incorporate those possibilities into one's belief system on faith alone.
If you are referring to atheism in the 'weak atheism'(agnostic) sense, then there isn't too much of an issue.
Well, as it so happens, I AM an agnostic atheist, and don't have much more in common with strong atheism than I do with theism.
As an aside, in reference this whole debate topic, I think I just conceived an answer to my quandary in my original post. Perhaps in a world where religion is essentially a thing of the past, perhaps the divide in empathic and rational people would manifest as a conflict between strong and weak atheism? Hmmm...I wonder if someone has already written a sci-fi story about that, because if not, I should get started.
I think I can basically concur with your assessment of those attributes, although I see omnibenevolence as being the stickiest wicket for your side. This is the one attribute that atheists are often quickest to jump on, as the presence of suffering, as well as numerous actions in the Bible (the OT especially) seem to defy this description.
I appreciate the discussion :)
As do I. You are a worthy and thought provoking opponent :)
I definitely understand the correlation between education and the tendency to dismiss mainstream religion, most religion, in my experience, contains irrational teachings that aren't really based in their religious texts. I personally think a larger majority of higher-educated individuals would believe if less religions held onto these false ideas, and instead interpreted scriptures in a more rational(less traditional) way.
One reason why I truly believe we'll have more believers in the future is due to Dark Matter and Dark Energy. From everything I have experienced in this world, I expect it to be more likely that they mirror our current matter and energy, rather than being more like neutrinos that just seem to be everywhere. I really think that if we discover a way to measure and detect the two, we will find that there is much more to each person that we first thought.
I think when we understand each other better, we essentially agree with each other's reasoning. Your experiences have led you to agnostic atheism, and mine have led me to a different understanding. If we had different experiences, we could each stand completely in the others' shoes.
Part of the confusion when talking about atheism is always how to define it. I imagine it will become more concrete in the future, but now it seems half define it as strong atheism and half define it as weak... and half define it as both :P
But like I said, I have more of an expectation that future findings will lead us toward theism/spirituality than otherwise. Perhaps agnostic theist will become the norm.
I will support this as I largely agree with, or am at least intrigued by, most of your points. But there are still a few matters that I feel warrant dispute or at least further discussion.
I definitely understand the correlation between education and the tendency to dismiss mainstream religion, most religion, in my experience, contains irrational teachings that aren't really based in their religious texts.
There are definitely examples of religious beliefs that aren't really supported by the texts, its true. However, the texts themselves (it doesn't really matter which religion we are discussing) invariably contain irrational teachings themselves. This can be overlooked if we remember they were a product of their times and were written by limited, fallible, people. But most of these texts claim to be the one true word of whatever deities they represent, and the authors, either out of divine inspiration or much more base desires, typically institute a punishment/reward system and style of writing that seems intended to push towards a literalist interpretation. And therein, I believe, lies the problem. Most religious texts do not inspire critical examination, many argue vehemently against it. As much as literal interpretations of scripture annoy me, I cannot totally fault the reader for falling into a system that strives so hard to earn their loyalty. But I cannot forgive the source for it either.
One reason why I truly believe we'll have more believers in the future is due to Dark Matter and Dark Energy. From everything I have experienced in this world, I expect it to be more likely that they mirror our current matter and energy, rather than being more like neutrinos that just seem to be everywhere. I really think that if we discover a way to measure and detect the two, we will find that there is much more to each person that we first thought.
While this is an interesting and appealing thought, I simply see no reason to accept it as evidence without us actually knowing anything about these things. From what I understand, we only really know they are there because they pretty much have to be mathematically. But does this tell us anything more about their actual properties? I'm curious as to what has led you to this conclusion, particularly as you speak of what you have "experienced in the world".
Your experiences have led you to agnostic atheism, and mine have led me to a different understanding. If we had different experiences, we could each stand completely in the others' shoes.
As neuroscience and psychology move on and discover more, we inevitably find less room for nurture than nature in regards to our personalities and methods of understanding. Not long ago, I read an article where specially designed questionnaires helped place respondents on a scale from intuitive to rational. Those who were more intuitive were more likely to respond to scenarios based on emotion, more willing to believe in things without hard evidence, more likely to accept faith as a valid answer to questions. The further you go towards a rational person, the more you inverse these understandings, eventually creating a mental framework that is likely to have almost opposite responses in regards to these types of understanding. The correlation was, inevitably, that strongly intuitive people were much more likely to be religious, while atheists and agnostics would be more towards the rational end. In the middle ground, upbringing and other experiences do probably play a role on whether one would be religious or not, but they still tend to determine how one interacts within those environments.
I don't know how far they've gotten into establishing whether this is more nature or nurture as of yet. However it is very reminiscent of the "Precepts of Morality" experiments that showed that how strongly a respondent felt the pull of the various aspects of morality, how they prioritized them, one could predict their overall political philosophy. In those experiments, a very strong genetic link was found. If the intuitive/rational spectrum works in the same way, then it might not matter what experiences two people have (unless they are very close on the spectrum to begin with), they will most likely end up wherever they end up, as long as they are allowed to be honest with themselves.
Judging by our conversation, I find it pretty obvious that you are more intuitive than I. As far as myself, I was raised to be pretty intuitive, but I was never religious in any real way, despite my parents best efforts. The farther I get away from my childhood, the more focused on rationality I become. So I rather doubt that we would fit in each others shoes. That does not preclude similarity in other areas such as final goals or intellectuality. But I suspect you would never be an atheist any more than I would ever be a theist.
Part of the confusion when talking about atheism is always how to define it. I imagine it will become more concrete in the future, but now it seems half define it as strong atheism and half define it as weak... and half define it as both :P
I say it includes both, but the intended and most historically accepted definition is closer to weak. That is, ALL atheists lack a belief in deities. From there, some manifest an active disbelief leading to strong atheism. But, in that atheism refers primarily to belief regarding deities, weak is the one that encompasses both. For me the delineation is quite clear, but I accept both approaches as being atheist.
Perhaps agnostic theist will become the norm.
It does seem that during the Enlightenment Era this was starting to happen, at least in certain places. But it didn't take too long for both the Gnostic Theists and the Atheists to get more powerful and ornery. Rural revivalism and academic elitism can both become anathema to agnosticism in general.
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.
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.
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 ;)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.