When will atheism replace religion?

[Il Morto Che Parla]

Yeah really. Even standard figures grossly overestimate the number of religious people since they rely on who has been baptized.

Yeah. If you ask nearly all my family and friends, they would say they are Catholic on a census. How many of them practice? A tiny number.

Even more if you go to Scandinavia, where it's nearly impossible to find a religious person.

 

[UniqueMixture]

Like I said, religion won't end unless you oppress them. When people take one step further than your sentiment above, and decide they should control and/or meddle with what they hate (the same goes the other way around towards atheists). When they think, "This bugs me so much, I want it out of the world." That's the main idea behind "cultural revolutions" and whatnot.

If you think people are going to just automatically move towards one path (as if we're all being directed towards some higher state of being), then that's not science either. More like pseudoscience, "transhuman" bullshit. Evolution is always an experiment. It goes down many paths.

I figured their genes would get forced out of the gene pool over time as the anti-science bullshit would mean none of them get degrees in hot fields like physics, engineering, etc (aside from a few intj stragglers who are able to compartmentalize their beliefs unlike any other type)

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

Yeah, I more or less agree. David Sloan Wilson (an evolutionary biologist and professor of Biological Sciences and Anthropology at Binghamton University) argues something similar in his book The Neighborhood Project: Using Evolution to Improve My City, One Block at a Time. though his focus is not religion as much as it is the evolutionary basis for social cohesion/networks. He also notes that similar benefits can be achieved through other similar organizations such as community organizations (school, work, extracurricular activities programs like sports, fraternal organizations, charitable organizations, etc [note: he does not argue for those specifically, but sees all of them as part of the larger whole of society, the examples were mine]). Personally, I don't see why other similar organizations (therapists instead of confession, joining together for charitable work instead of to sit in a room on a sunday morning, etc) couldn't or shouldn't replace those kinds of activities. I think in time they will, because they will be more beneficial to the individual and the whole.

Here is an interesting link to an interview he had where he spoke about 7 rules of prosociality that he came up with through observation of wasps and water striders and how they can be used in cities to create richer communities.



That is a very good question. Basically, I am asking when will we take organized religion as seriously as sacrificing goats to Zeus. You know, scratch that because I am not opposed to groups of people coming together and having abstract experiences that we don't quite understand that might be connecting us to some higher power. In fact, I think stuff like that can be a benefit for many, but I hate namby pamby bullshit religion that is just there to make everyone feel like they're "doing their part" without actually having to do anything worthwhile.

This is the mentality of society--not religion. Apathy is a disease that ravages our world, imo. This happens regardless of religion existing or not.

Reminds me of this:

"I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot, you are lukewarm. I wish that you were either cold or hot for me! But because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will vomit you from my mouth."

Cookie for whoever knows the source (no Google, I will know if you have cheated).

 

[KDude]

I figured their genes would get forced out of the gene pool over time as the anti-science bullshit would mean none of them get degrees in hot fields like physics, engineering, etc (aside from a few intj stragglers who are able to compartmentalize their beliefs unlike any other type)

It's not genes. Every human brain is more or less similar (sad but true). Our differences (and faults, if you will) are a matter of choices, of free thought, experience, dreams, complex conceptual thinking, etc.. Things that rest in some.. immaterial plane of "ideas". Physically though, we all have more in common with each other than we do lizards and mammals (other mammals beside us, that is). Many of us resort to our basest impulses, but we all have potential. Our more retarded thoughts are devoted to territorial considerations (the reptillian brain, basically), but religion is not part of that inferior genetic makeup. Religion and science both are something unique (as far as we know) to the human experience. You're essentially wanting to get rid of a segment of humanity that are, in many ways, reflective of us as advanced (albeit strange) creatures. As if you're on the outside looking in, some superior "post human" who is above all of it.

I'd suggest to learn to live with people. If you have to have enemies, weed out the people with reptillian brains (many of which are religious.. but many of which are just vapid people who live for nothing except dominating others. Go get in a fight with drunk marine or something. Maybe a guido. You'd be doing everyone a favor. But the average religious person? Not so much). These are truly "genetically inferior". They've chosen to throw away any higher thoughts, and do nothing but pump their chests and peacock, like beasts.

 

[Mycroft]

I suspect religion will always exist because we're all to some degree aware that empirical explanations can only describe reality as we experience it, so the question of what reality is at its highest level will be forever unanswerable. Many people will be unable to accept that and attribute to reality whatever figments of their imaginations are appropriate to the time and place where they find themselves.

I suppose it's not impossible that man develops to a point where he has the intelligence needed to spend life in this suspension of the desire for concrete explanations, but we'd still need psychology to develop to such a point as to satisfy many of the roles religion still plays for many people.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

(aside from a few intj stragglers who are able to compartmentalize their beliefs unlike any other type)

:hi:

 

[Coriolis]

I figured their genes would get forced out of the gene pool over time as the anti-science bullshit would mean none of them get degrees in hot fields like physics, engineering, etc (aside from a few intj stragglers who are able to compartmentalize their beliefs unlike any other type)

This is because, unlike many others, we do not confuse beliefs with rational explanations.

 

[UniqueMixture]

This is because, unlike many others, we do not confuse beliefs with rational explanations.

Magic 8 ball says try again

 

[Coriolis]

Magic 8 ball says try again

What is your theory, then?

 

[KDude]

This is because, unlike many others, we do not confuse beliefs with rational explanations.

I don't try to either. I leave a little room for mystery. It's a little box I throw a few things in. My real "belief" is that I have rights to this box. I can also give a rational explanation why I have rights to the box, but not what's in it.

 

[Society]

[MENTION=15315]UniqueMixture[/MENTION] - look, i've seen this mentality before, whenever there's a "born again atheist", someone who rebelled against a religious background, then there's commonly a deep seeded disdain towards religion, but that doesn't continue on: the kids who are raised without religion, me and plenty of others, will rarely be able to relate, sympathize with your disdain but not able to emphasize.

do i dislike religious intervention in politics? sure, just like any other ideology i disagree with.
do i dislike religious wars? of course, but i also dislike wars for oil & natural resources.
if anything, religions tend to be exotic interesting things for me, something i experimented with in my youth.

why? because when you don't grow up with it, you don't have much of relationship with religion to rebel against. for me, i view people practicing religion the same way i view people going to yoga classes, "awesome for them". i even flirt with it - on average i'd say i'm agnostic most of the week, atheist on Mondays, and Gnostic a few times a year.

my point is: your disdain comes from your own past relationship with religion, it's not inherited in being a non-theist. so for you to project that disdain on the whole non-theist "movement" is simply incorrect.

 

[Lark]

[MENTION=15315]UniqueMixture[/MENTION] - look, i've seen this mentality before, whenever there's a "born again atheist", someone who rebelled against a religious background, then there's commonly a deep seeded disdain towards religion, but that doesn't continue on: the kids who are raised without religion, me and plenty of others, will rarely be able to relate, sympathize with your disdain but not able to emphasize.

do i dislike religious intervention in politics? sure, just like any other ideology i disagree with.
do i dislike religious wars? of course, but i also dislike wars for oil & natural resources.
if anything, religions tend to be exotic interesting things for me, something i experimented with in my youth.

why? because when you don't grow up with it, you don't have much of relationship with religion to rebel against. for me, i view people practicing religion the same way i view people going to yoga classes, "awesome for them". i even flirt with it - on average i'd say i'm agnostic most of the week, atheist on Mondays, and Gnostic a few times a year.

my point is: your disdain comes from your own past relationship with religion, it's not inherited in being a non-theist. so for you to project that disdain on the whole non-theist "movement" is simply incorrect.

I actually think what you're describing is more common and changing the world more than Dawkins, new atheism et al

 

[Society]

I actually think what you're describing is more common and changing the world more than Dawkins, new atheism et al

exactly that! the rise of atheism doesn't mean a growing disdain towards religion, if anything, it means atheism is growing of age, and their are increasingly more 2nd and 3rd generation non-theists who have little to no personal relationship with religion at all, neither negative or positive.

militant atheism isn't in the core, it's the fringe, the boarders area where the newcomers walk. if anything, i dislike dawkins and maher a lot more then any disdain i have for religion. i see them and think "what the f' do they think they are doing, putting 'us' back in the world-view faction game?"

non-believers have a good political alliance with the concept of liberty, i don't care if religions exist as long as none of them are pushed down my throat, and since religions don't want each other's faith pushed down their own throat, we have the same shared interests. as far as i'm concerned - "we have a good thing going. let's not ruing that" is the appropriate response.

 

[Lark]

exactly that! the rise of atheism doesn't mean a growing disdain towards religion, if anything, it means atheism is growing of age, and their are increasingly more 2nd and 3rd generation non-theists who have little to no personal relationship with religion at all, neither negative or positive.

militant atheism isn't in the core, it's the fringe, the boarders area where the newcomers walk. if anything, i dislike dawkins and maher a lot more then any disdain i have for religion. i see them and think "what the f' do they think they are doing, putting 'us' back in the world-view faction game?"

non-believers have a good political alliance with the concept of liberty, i don't care if religions exist as long as none of them are pushed down my throat, and since religions don't want each other's faith pushed down their own throat, we have the same shared interests. as far as i'm concerned - "we have a good thing going. let's not ruing that" is the appropriate response.

I dont share that positive outlook, I see the development as just another aspect of the deterioration of all that was really good and bequeathed to the present by the past.

 

[Society]

I dont share that positive outlook, I see the development as just another aspect of the deterioration of all that was really good and bequeathed to the present by the past.

o, i didn't think you would. and i wasn't including you in on it, if anything i got the impression that your of christian faith (just at first impression - i'm not sure if i actually read you saying so anywhere).

i do fundamentally disagree with you - life is full of problems which we never quite know what combination of minds can solve, and so there's always a strong advantage in having a large diversity of mindsets. as such, the setting that allows the most divergence of mindsets tends to provide the larger diversity of solutions, and a higher likelihood one would apply. by providing the best opportunities for different mindsets to coexist and still be able to communicate to one another, we gain the advantage as a society.

that means that the "old ways" if you will might get to play the center stage, but they don't get eliminated either, neither do they get to eliminate each other.

 

[Riva]

Religion will slowly diminish as we have observed throughout human history but prayers will always be a part of humanity.

When the day comes you know your father can't help you anymore, your mother can't make you feel better and when all hope fails most turn to prayers or addictive substances or both.

I just hope psychotherapy will replace religion.

 

[Lark]

o, i didn't think you would. and i wasn't including you in on it, if anything i got the impression that your of christian faith (just at first impression - i'm not sure if i actually read you saying so anywhere).

i do fundamentally disagree with you - life is full of problems which we never quite know what combination of minds can solve, and so there's always a strong advantage in having a large diversity of mindsets. as such, the setting that allows the most divergence of mindsets tends to provide the larger diversity of solutions, and a higher likelihood one would apply. by providing the best opportunities for different mindsets to coexist and still be able to communicate to one another, we gain the advantage as a society.

that means that the "old ways" if you will might get to play the center stage, but they don't get eliminated either, neither do they get to eliminate each other.

I'd like to believe what you are saying is true but I've never found it to be true in practice.

Diversity of opinion is no substitute for knowledge, it all sounds very good as a straight forward opinion piece or discussion point but try it out in practice, in a team meeting or any other forum at which decisions are needed, leadership provided etc.

I'm not really interested in "old ways", whether that's considered positively or negatively its usually not accurately, but sociological or psychological objectivity which most people dont possess or feel like developing.

I think there's value in all the world religions but I think that Judahism, Christianity (particularly Roman Catholicism and some of the better criticisms of the same, internal and external) are traditions I identify with the most and which are the most valuable as a part of the overall cultural backdrop which I think matters.

 

[UniqueMixture]

[MENTION=15315]UniqueMixture[/MENTION] - look, i've seen this mentality before, whenever there's a "born again atheist", someone who rebelled against a religious background, then there's commonly a deep seeded disdain towards religion, but that doesn't continue on: the kids who are raised without religion, me and plenty of others, will rarely be able to relate, sympathize with your disdain but not able to emphasize.

do i dislike religious intervention in politics? sure, just like any other ideology i disagree with.
do i dislike religious wars? of course, but i also dislike wars for oil & natural resources.
if anything, religions tend to be exotic interesting things for me, something i experimented with in my youth.

why? because when you don't grow up with it, you don't have much of relationship with religion to rebel against. for me, i view people practicing religion the same way i view people going to yoga classes, "awesome for them". i even flirt with it - on average i'd say i'm agnostic most of the week, atheist on Mondays, and Gnostic a few times a year.

my point is: your disdain comes from your own past relationship with religion, it's not inherited in being a non-theist. so for you to project that disdain on the whole non-theist "movement" is simply incorrect.

yeah, probably. it seems like child abuse to me. like saying having an alcoholic father is just a "different kind of lifestyle" or something

 

[Standuble]

This is a question I ask myself on occasion. Although I'm an atheist on occasion a minor, ineffable experience can occur in my consciousmind which could be considered distantly similar to a religous experience. I'm pretty sure it is correlative to when the rational sceptic part of my brain is slacking off and I conclude that it (and any religious belief in general) occurs when certain areas of the brain cannot override another and thus cannot rationalise such a notion out of existence before it can reach full bloom and erroneously convince the person they are making a connection with something or somewhere else as a result. I'm also willing to assert that the supposed correlation between some thinking types and lack of religious belief is also causal with the idea that the parts of the brain prone to these experiences are less developed than the parts which can destroy them in the first instance and that there is an inverse correlation for some feeling types.

All the above is pure introspection however so take it as you see fit. It does not answer the question on how many people feel "God" or people who adopt religion simply becase it is traditonal or culturally valued (probably both have their origins in influential Fi and Ni using types who saw no need to understand why their beliefs are what the are and in time this grew to swallow up Si and Fe) though it does answer the question why an educated man can still be religious as the education alone would not create enough new neuron connections to fight the fire so to speak in a mortal lifetime.

If we are talking about a 60%-40% split in favour of atheism (not secularism) then that is probably possible via conventional education methods and sufficient resources and communication of ideas (AKA protect the internet!) however I forsee a greater percentage would require genetic engineering to greater levels. Engineer increased levels of creativity but logical thought too. Make it a final, literal victory for science against religion. You could end up with atheists, agnostics and religious movements which have immense intellectual mechanics - with a high investigation on the nature of creation rather than the desire to feel "closeness" or commit acts of charity with delusions of afterlife.

 

[UniqueMixture]

What is your theory, then?

I think in general intjs seclude themselves from certain experiences and so there is less pressure on them to find a way of thought that is accepting of diametrically opposed views. Not always the case, but introverts in general do this (ie when something feels overwhelming they back off and take time to integrate the experience for themselves, but what if they were forced to keep interacting? What would happen then?)