When do you think people will look back at our world and wonder?

Húrin

Jakkass wrote: »

I think the term secular humanist would be more accurate for most people on this forum, their views don't just constitute a disbelief in God, but they try to attach things like "rational thought", "scientific enquiry", "logic", and other things that aren't inherently a part of atheism to it. One could agree that the term atheist is being expanded to include things that were never originally considered in the definition.

There is no choice, but to attach other beliefs to atheism. Nothing wrong with it either. Atheism is not a worldview. I call them naturalists - the idea that nothing exists other than that which can be discovered by the scientific method, because I see this as the central disagreement between atheists and theists.

wylo

Well after reading this I definitely wont be calling myself an atheist, mainly because I probably dont fully understand what it is. I am someone who simply believes there is no higher existance of any sort, I believe we have no priority over an ant , a dog , or a plant when we die.
As for my argument being teleological, could someone elaborate on that?
From Wiki:
A teleological school of thought is one that holds all things to be designed for or directed toward a final result, that there is an inherent purpose or final cause for all that exists.

I dont see how that compares to my argument.
I dont think we are destined towards a point in time in the world where religion is gone because its meant to happen, I just think it will happen because I believe all humans will eventually accept what we are.
I believe the likes of wealth, economy, peace etc will be the deciding factors, e.g. Africa could be the leading continent in commerce, health and education in 1000 years, and so they wont have a 'need' for religion any more. And so once every part of the world gets a taste of this I think religion will fade.

Húrin

wylo wrote: »

Well after reading this I definitely wont be calling myself an atheist, mainly because I probably dont fully understand what it is. I am someone who simply believes there is no higher existance of any sort, I believe we have no priority over an ant , a dog , or a plant when we die.
As for my argument being teleological, could someone elaborate on that?
From Wiki:
A teleological school of thought is one that holds all things to be designed for or directed toward a final result, that there is an inherent purpose or final cause for all that exists.

I dont see how that compares to my argument.
I dont think we are destined towards a point in time in the world where religion is gone because its meant to happen, I just think it will happen because I believe all humans will eventually accept what we are.

wylo wrote: »

... Because no matter how much I believe the word represents rationality and forward thinking I still think it still has too much of dark aura over it when you say it to people.
...
Anyway my question to you is, when do you think the world will be in a position that they look back on our era as a strange world that believed in a god. Something along the lines of us looking back at people that thought the Earth was flat. People are getting more educated, more rational and more logical. I think its only a matter of time before atheism reaches a critical mass(no pun intented).

I strongly believe in about 1000 years time humans will look back at us and wonder what we must have been thinking.

It seems that you have an idea that the expansion of atheism is progress. History shows that religious belief undergoes waning and revival, so you would need some higher purpose to explain why you think it is destined to disappear irreversibly. You think that we are destined to accept "what we are" (which you are certain is atheistic?). The principle of pursuing truth would suggest that this is the way it should be - a teleological statement.

There is also no evidence to suggest that people are becoming more logical with their education. Saints have been replaced by celebrities these days.

I believe the likes of wealth, economy, peace etc will be the deciding factors, e.g. Africa could be the leading continent in commerce, health and education in 1000 years, and so they wont have a 'need' for religion any more. And so once every part of the world gets a taste of this I think religion will fade.

I agree, material circumstances partially determine atheism, but that surely means that atheism is convenient, rather than meaning it is true.

Black Swan

wylo wrote: »

I strongly believe in about 1000 years time humans will look back at us and wonder what we must have been thinking.
When do you think it will happen?
50 years?
200 years?
1000 years
10,000 years?
Never?

In The Lessons of History by Will and Ariel Durant, they conclude:

A. "Does history support a belief in God? If by God we mean not the creative vitality of nature but a supreme being intelligent and benevolent, the answer must be a reluctant negative."

But, they also conclude...

B. "One lesson of history is that religion has many lives, and a habit of resurrection... because its mythology consoles and brightens the lives of the poor."

And with the coming of a huge global economic meltdown, does religion offer hope to those who have lost their retirement funds, their jobs, or the lack of an opportunity to earn a wage that would allow them upward social mobility?

Recorded history has evidenced various forms of religions, from polytheistic to monotheistic, and if history can be used to predict future trends, religion will continue into the future, be it 50 or 1000 years from now.

10,000 years from now? Will Homo Sapien Sapien still exist as a species? One prediction from biology that seems to hold about species is that someday they will be extinct.

asdasd

I just think it will happen because I believe all humans will eventually accept what we are.

You are projecting your rational views on everybody else. you would think by now that astrology would be dead as doornails, but it isnt. There are human needs to this. Also relgious people breed more.

I believe the likes of wealth, economy, peace etc will be the deciding factors, e.g. Africa could be the leading continent in commerce, health and education in 1000 years, and so they wont have a 'need' for religion any more. And so once every part of the world gets a taste of this I think religion will fade.

Africa could be, but so what? Africa is not the a fulcrum of religious fanatiscm.

Two places stand out - the US bible belt, and the Saudi Arabia. Neither are poor. Both are peaceful - ( the US is at war but it is not - relatively speaking a major war nor does it affect the homeland).

The view of the secular Westerner is - with regards to religion - always wrong. The entire French Left thought that Khomeni was a progressive, or that his radical Islam was a chimera for the "socialist" aspriations of the People - this is merely reading your own ****e into other peoples identities and beliefs.


anyway, the demographics are agin ya.

Húrin

asdasd wrote: »

Africa could be, but so what? Africa is not the a fulcrum of religious fanaticism.

Two places stand out - the US bible belt, and the Saudi Arabia. Neither are poor. Both are peaceful - ( the US is at war but it is not - relatively speaking a major war nor does it affect the homeland).

I would say that many parts of Africa (it's a very large place) are far more religious - genuinely faithful - than the US South and Arabia with their prosperity gospels.

Dades

wylo wrote: »

Well after reading this I definitely wont be calling myself an atheist, mainly because I probably dont fully understand what it is. I am someone who simply believes there is no higher existance of any sort.

The negative perceptions and misnomers that come with the term "atheist" don't change the fact that your beliefs make you one!

Don't sweat it!

sionnach

wylo wrote: »

I am someone who simply believes there is no higher existance of any sort

A rose by any other name...

Black Swan

asdasd wrote: »

Two places stand out - the US bible belt, and the Saudi Arabia. Neither are poor. Both are peaceful - ( the US is at war but it is not - relatively speaking a major war nor does it affect the homeland).

The US Bible Belt is not poor? When I toured the deep South I found extraordinary poverty, as well as in the Appalachian Mountains, both strongholds of the US Bible Belt. A majority of these people are without health insurance, and many are either unemployed or underemployed. I also sensed the presence, and saw mention in the news of ultra-violent poor White groups like the KKK in these same areas, not exactly paragons of peacefulness?

The Bible Belt has also been called the Poverty Belt. Source: https://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/Proceedings/y2004/files/Jsm2004-000910.pdf

On a larger scale, to say that the US is "peaceful" is an opinion that many would disagree with, especially those in Iraq or Afghanistan where US wars have been ongoing for years with thousands of innocent men, women, and children reported as collateral damage. I would think Americans warlike after their War for Independence, British-American War (or whatever it was called), Civil War, Spanish American War, WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, Desert Storm (Iraq I War), Afghan War, and Iraq II War, the last 7 of these wars occurring in the past century.

asdasd wrote: »

anyway, the demographics are agin ya.

“The World Bank estimates that in 1998, more than one billion people lived on less than one dollar per day. When we exclude China from the estimates, we see that there were almost 106 million more very poor people in the world in 1998 than there were a decade earlier. The world's total population is projected to increase by another three billion people by the middle of this century, with almost all of this growth occurring in the poorest countries.”
Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2804102.html

Is there a positive relationship between poverty and religious beliefs? If so, then as world population growth and poverty increases, religious membership will increase?