will atheism one day spread to 99%+ of the world population in the future?
i think it will based on several reasons
1. there are statistics and trends that show a percentage change year by year that shows atheism is growing in the world, particularly in europe, and the united states shows ever quicker change in atheism demographics year by year, decade by decade.
2. when technology such as nano-bots come out and people start using them, their brains will be able to comprehend things much quicker thus leading to much better logic, comprehensive thinking, etc etc and many will find it to be illogical to believe in a religion or that a higher being exist due to the technology
3. with future technology, people will be able to better analyse religion. from that they will be able to analyse the many gaps and problems with religions.
4. the majority of people will likely realize with their better thinking, whats the point in believing in and or worshiping a supernatural force or higher being that wasn't derived from any natural, physical or scientific law.
dont concentrate on why i think it this will happen, concentrate on your own reasoning whether you are for or against this notion.
yes
Side Score: 26
|
 |
no
Side Score: 24
|
|
|
|
|
3
points
1
point
If there ever comes a time when relgion is outnumbered by atheism, the world won't be any better. People will just fine something else to justify there actions with. Hitler used Eugenetic (along with alot of propaganda) to runt he holocaust. News media like fox are examples of how people can mix around statistics and patriotic values to convince people of something that they would have otherwise recognized as being wrong. Side: yes
2
points
You would need to determine and understand the exact nature of the entire universe in order to bust all religious myths and prove that God doesn't exist. Actually, you can't even imagine how far we are from this point, even if science is expending at an exponential rate.. the stakes are just too big. Hell, we don't even know why we exist at all. Side: no
1
point
1
point
1
point
|
In China, Christianity is actually booming. Not only has it survived the cultural revolution, it has flourished. When Marxist-Leninist policies were adopted, the people were told to become atheists. In 1949, there was a meager ~500 000 christians in China. Nowadays there are over 60 million protestants living in China and about 30 million catholics. Keep in mind that a considerable number of protestant and catholic churches aren't registered, so the true estimate could be well over 130 million. China could very well become a Christian nation. Atheism may be spreading, but not with the voracity of religion. Regardless, technology will have no effect on religious thinking and most likely some trans-humanist church will ultimately spring up as tech keeps advancing. Side: no
will i do agree with you that there is a sizable christian population in china, well i don't think its 130 million, i disagree that religion is spreading with as much voracity as you claim. while religion may spread quickly in certain parts of the world, atheism spreads just as quickly in other parts of the world, specifically first world nations. lets take a look at Europe, a very fast growing atheist population lives there. in Europe, nations like Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Hungary, Lithuania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Finland show statistics of 40 - 50% in a belief in god, France, Norway, Britain, the Netherlands, Iceland, Latvia and Slovenia show statistics of 30 - 40% belief in god, Sweden is 20 - 30%, Czech republic and Estonia come in at a all time low of 10 - 20%. the nations in the 50 - 60% category are Spain and Austria. the rest of the nations above that are Italy, Poland, Ireland, Greece, Croatia, Romania, Slovakia, and turkey. notice how in general the nations with a higher GDP per capital tend to show a trend of lower belief in god than nations in which the average citizen makes less money an a yearly basis. of course that's the first step, the first thing that leaves a population is belief in god, but in order to be an atheist things like life force and other supernatural/superstitious belief need to disappear, but i will say that Europe shows no sign of suddenly becoming more religious again, as atheism has spread with much veracity in many parts of Europe. if you feel you need confirmation i have listed a source, if you don't like my source there are others i have found on the internet, this one is just simply convenient because it takes the exact same information i have found elsewhere and puts it into a table for me. interesting, i just noticed that your profile says you are from Estonia, that's cool. what is your impression of religion there? Side: yes
Well, Estonia is one of the most non-religious nations in the world. While not particularly atheistic as the majority admit to having spiritual beliefs about nature and the universe - the fact stands that estonians generally have not subscribed to any real religion. This isn't due to some modern enlightement in Estonia - during the occupation of the USSR, atheism was forced on the nation, churches were closed etc. During that time a new generation grew up without any prior connection with religious traditions and beliefs, which is mostly why there is no real religious element in Estonia. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ Side: yes
Nope. Maybe atheism would really spread one day, but there is still that point 1 percent who would go with religion. Ill compare it with alcohol.. the antiseptic one. Most of it says that it kills, 99.9 percent of germs. So why, have a 0.1 percent remaining? Because somehow, that 0.1 germs is needed by our body in order to survive. Yes, I say germs, cause really, most people think that theists are germs and they should be removed from this earth. Really, not so. Because somehow, those believers are needed by our world in order to balance it. Side: no
its not a debate about if it will cover 99.9%, just 99%+ meaning a minimum of 99%. and the reasoning of "somehow the religious believers balance the world" doesn't sound like real reasoning to suggest that even a small minority group of religion balances the world. and technically, if you do think that 99% of the world will be atheist as likely implied from your first sentence, then why did you pick no, despite what your religious beliefs are? Side: yes
I have several reasons to disagree with the statement that 99% of the world will be atheists in the future. 1. FALSE DILEMMA. I believe that theism is extremely problematic but what I think you forget is that atheism and theism are not the only options. Agnosticism is,in my opinion the most sensible stance seeing as we are currently uncertain about so much. Clarify - do you mean to say people will abandon their religious beliefs and also become strictly atheist or just that the world will abandon religion? 2 COMPLEXITY. In any event, even if we could account for some kind of disproof for god it would not make it intellectually accessible. These things get extremely complex whether you like it or not. The fact of the matter is that if you regard this debate as a simple one then you are infinitely naive and probably hold whatever view you do (by 'you' I don't mean anyone specific) be it theism or atheism, purely because of your perception of that belief I.e. Because of a societal stereotype rather than your own independent and intellectually rigorous reasoning. While it is true that atheists tend to be better thinkers than theists it does not hold that these people are better thinkers by virtue of them being atheists. If I decided tomorrow. To 'convert' to atheism I would not automatically become smarter or a better thinker. I would just believe god does not exist. 3. STATISTICAL INFERENCES. This is a general concept that I think has not been addressed: regardless of what the statistics reflect regarding trends we must also consider what we can draw by either atheistic or theistic trends. For one, I believe that while atheism is 'on the rise' this does not necessarily correlate to an ever increasingly rational world. People may have been atheist before hand but just not have been prepared to admit it given the stigma surrounding the 'heretic' in history in this case, someone's view has not been changed so much as his/her readiness to be honest about it. 4. NATURE OF DOGMA AND HUMANITY. Perhaps the most pertinent point is this: people are not only controlled by reason. People must deal with their emotion and instinct as well. People do not believe in religion for rational reasons. They believe in it to resolve cognitive dissonances that they might have. In other words, they don't want to have to sift through every problem to the nth degree. They just want to have a way of life rather than spend their life debating how they ought to be. The argument regarding robots somehow increasing our capacity as humans is, for the time being, far fetched, we may have information at our disposal because of things like the Internet but the fact of the matter is that reason is subject to prior commitment. It is a well established fact that we form our views well before we reason out whether this is in fact rational. A reading of books like crucial conversations (Kerry Paterson) or Influence: the psychology of persuasion (Robert Cialdini, PhD) supports this. Humans beings desire purpose which is something religion is very good at providing for them. EVEN IF it is irrational to do so. Social cohesion is evidentally not an issue - we can have religion and still live in a functional society. Atheism struggles to provide this sense of purpose to life because it deems the idea of purpose as completely absurd - because it is illogical. Atheism is a very general concept and does not have the inner specificity that theism has in the case of religious dogma. it is an anti-position. It doesn't tell us what we ought to do. It tells us what we ought not to do namely: not believe in god or any gods for that matter. Humans need to be GIVEN direction. We are not all budding scientists and philosophers. Why should a poverty-stricken Ethiopian care if god exists or not if by 2050 the world will have no more oil and his country has no clean water and he and his wife and children are starving to death. If we account for the fact that: there are people who upon considering the god question just give up; there will always be religious opposition that is not based on rational behaviour; there are people who will not even contemplate this question altogether either because they deem it irrelevant or because they don't care or because like me, they never seem to have enough information no matter how much they ingest to make it worthwhile to say with resounding certainty that god definitely, irrefutably does not exist I.e. Agnosticism... The simple answer to the question "will the world ever be filled with a 99% atheist population?" is "No." would it be a bad thing if this was the case? I don't think so. But in this case, I think we have to simply accept that no normative claim about what ought to be the case makes it descriptively so. Am I a theist? Hell no. Do I believe that atheism will dominate the world 99% / 1% absolutely not. Side: no
1.i may be disputing this but you do bring up many valid points, there is just a few things that i disagree with and i will discuss them. it is true that its impossible to give out arguments past agnosticism when you are an atheist, but when you view it from the perspective that people from long ago used imaginative thinking to create gods, and superstitious beliefs then being an atheist is a very logic position, and as an addition since there is no hard evidence to support religion, then there is no reason to believe in religion. I myself cant predict the future, i just view it as a very likely scenario that most of the world population will become atheist because of a more logical and comprehensive thinking style that is being spread throughout societies. i'm not saying it for 100% certainty, but i just think that based on trends that perhaps in the far future it may happen this way.; 2.i have what i consider a very rigorous thinking style, and while i am open minded i am extremely logical about what i am open minded about, so you could say cautiously open minded, and i always do my research thoroughly and carefully. 3.yes, its true that if every single nation showed statistical trends of becoming more atheistic, then this would support the idea that global atheism would occur within a relatively short time period, not exactly say for absolute certainty, but support it. my argument though doesn't set a date it is suggestive of any time period in the far future or the near future, but because of trends in Africa, south east Asia, India, the middle east and other parts of the world i would very likely be far off to think that religion will be abolished in 100 years. 4. emotions and imagination go hand in hand, that is likely how the first religion got created. people can still have a strong sense of purpose without involving anything religious or supernatural. my sense of purpose is to be an inventor and create new and innovative devices, i love to study physics, electricity and science to further my goals, not to make a profit but to benefit humanity. i'm also a technological optimist and i have really good reason from my constant research that eventually nano technology will be really big in society well before 2050. Again i cant predict the future, but its one of the most likely scenarios if not the most likely scenario's of all possible scenarios that may happen in the future involving technology. i can respect your view point that atheism wont reach 99% of the world population one day as you bring up some very valid and logical points. however just mind its not wishful thinking on my part that stemmed the idea that this will event will occur, its more of my research on society, trends, education, technology, and how people function in general, although it is my hope that one day it will be like this, because it will be much better for society. Side: yes
Two things seem clear at this point: 1. we both agree that atheism is on the rise 2. we disagree about the extent to which this will continue and for what reasons. Yes people from long ago created gods from their own imaginations but the fact is that people these days will not take you seriously if your belief is based on superstitious hogwash - at least, very few will. the point is that even if religious gods are "made up", this does't automatically discredit the idea of God existing altogether. It appears you are comparing religion to secularism rather than theism to atheism. theism need not pertain to any kind of abrahamic god or any other kind that has been "created by people's imagination" - not necessarily that is. the point is that there are plenty of reasons to believe in one god or another. Any serious kind of atheist (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, John Loftus) acknowledges that this is not the kind of dispute that can be settled by ignoring the fact that there IS some kind of evidence for a belief in god. Note that a belief in god is not tantamount to a belief in a specific religion. Religion also provides a set of rules for the way we ought to conduct ourselves IN ADDITION to believing in whatever kind of god the religion happens to believe in. They then claim that their dogma is of divine origins. Clearly this isn't the same as someone just believing that God created the world. We can't settle these kind of questions through deductive logic - as richard dawkins and john loftus repeatedly point out. We use abductive and inductive logic. We look for the simplest most probable explanations - not for which arguments are incoherent and which are not. if it were that simple then this dispute would have been resolved a long tiume ago. As for there being "no reason to belive in religion"... I couldn't disagree with this statement more. This is perhaps more radical an assertion than you realise. There are plenty of reasons to believe in religion, though they may not be the BEST reasons or the most logical reasons. the point is that this doesn't make them meaningless. Religion for one, although accompanied with many catastrophes in its name, has created a lot of good. If this matter was as simple as you are making it out to be then it begs the question: why do so many people believe in a religion today? not just people whose belief is inherited from their parents - people who are intellectually astute. There are plenty of philosophical obstacles that one has to deal with to dismiss religion. From the time of Thomas Aquinas (11th century if I'm not mistaken which is quite a long time ago) , theologians have been attempting to provide good reasons in the form of arguments like the teleological argument and the cosmological argument. These are not just dealt with in one fell swoop. If we are to be intellectually honest, then we can't ignore these kind of arguments because they are extremely complex. The teleological argument, for one, raises completely valid points in showing how unbelievably low the probability of life originating by chance is. Even if you don't agree with the previuous statement, you still have to say why. Theists DO provide logical explanations for their beliefs and they deserve to be answered. Aside from that, the sheer fact that religion has brought about some kind of social cohesion all over the world is a reason in itself to believe in it. It has plenty of pragmatic principles for societies on a mass scale even if it isn't the "word of god" as it were. The point of my argument about the hypothetical ethiopian is that people have bigger problems - 3rd world - to deal with. The world as we know it is a closed system. Resources are therefore limited - our planet is plagued with scarcity. Hence the whole need for Economic systems in the world. As long as this is the case, there will be billions of people who simply don't care enough about commiting themselves to atheism or theism at all because they have much more fundamental needs to look after. Given that religion is the status quo for the majority of the world, how is it that people who simply dont care enough to think about changing their beliefs because of their poor economic status will come to dispute things like the cosmological argument or the telological argument? how many people in the world have even heard of such an argument? This is inspite of any technological development, which brings me to my next point... I dont doubt your information regarding nanobot technology - i dont need to. what I'm saying is that technological development has a limited effect on the world in terms of its religious belief - sometimes it even strengthens it. It matters not how quickly this technology is developed nor how effecient the technology itself is. As long as we are human beings we will always have irrational tendencies. This is why fields like psychology and sociology are so necessary. Even if nanobots help us to process information faster, the point is that as human beings we still make irrational choices inspite of the information we have, not only because of it. We cannot, do not, and will not ALWAYS make the best decisions - our world is too complex to be so. What's more, emotion and imagination are not the same thing. I understand that you mean to say that they often correlate with one another when involved in bad decision making but they also help us to make good decision and discoveries too! the scientific hypothesis testing is the perfect example of how imaginatiion can be used very effectively. What's more - emotions are stimulated from an external source. I don't just decide to be happy or sad about something... In that sense, emotions are real in a way that imagination is not. With regards to purpose, perhaps I ought have been more clear. i do not mean to say that humans don't have a sense of motivation without religion. i mean to say that a large majority search for some kind of ultimate cause or purpose in their lives. They WANT to be told there is a life after death. they WANT to be told that their life has more meaning to it than just living it and then dying. These are inherent human characteristics that you cannot get rid of by means of technological development. I think it's important to note that we do actually agree about the general idea here - that atheism is a rising world-wide trend. But I can't agree with the extent to which this belief is being proposed. I'm not trying to say it would be a bad or good thing. I'm simply saying that it cannot happen to such an extent as long as we live on this planet and are the kind of beings that we are - human. Side: no
i must admit, that doesn't make a bit of sense, ill quote myself from one of my other arguments so why would a logical comprehensive population choose something that doesn't derive its self from scientific, natural and physical law? why would they choose something that was derived from non other than the thought processes of ancient superstitious minds from thousands of years ago, which of course required no physical, natural or scientific data/evidence for them to have an imagination? a logical, comprehensive and intelligent population would try to derive new ideas from natural, scientific and physical law and there is no way they would want to follow ideas that relate to superstition in any way. that is basically how most scientific theories work, they all attempt to derive themselves from those 3 categories without involving wacky ideas that come from no where and have no origin point. besides, who classified atheism as a religion? atheism is lack of and disbelief of religion. Side: yes
1
point
1
point
Set religions might fade, but atheism will never grow that large. Most atheists actually just have no religion, their not actually atheists. Most of them believe in a greater power but cannot find a religion that they completely believe in. Plus there will always be devout people to any of the large religions, like priests. Side: no
1
point
No, probably not. 1) Christianity is a pretty big religion right now... And so are many other religions. 2) Trump and N Korea might start a nuclear war, killing us all. 3) Global warming might kill us all. Basically, even if it is spreading, it has a long way to go, and we could all die before then. Side: no
|
