Does the future belong to Atheism?

[Tajir]

I'd say so.

Over the length of time we've developed the concept of religion from its humble beginnings of understanding simple earthly concepts into some sort of understanding of why we're on earth and the afterlife. Now, once we get past some of the 'reasoning' of why we're put here on earth, I assume we're heading towards the phase of leaving religion behind as our cover story for understanding why we're here.

I assume the next phase is Atheism and conquering the logical aspects of human life. Instead of asking why we're here on earth (afterlife stuff), I presume we'll start asking and even solving what life itself means.

At this point, it seems like the spiritual winds are pointing in 2 directions; the Islamic self-fulfilling prophecy (especially post-911) and the other which is Atheism, the natural direction of the wind.

[Jabberwock]

No.

Atheism is not an advancement of human thought. It is simply a stance held on a particular subject. You're treating Atheism as if it's a philosophy.

Those who believe in a deity can do exactly the same thing you speak of.

[Tankbuster]

I love how some people drop in here and start shouting "OMG ATHEISTS WILL BE EATING BABIEZZZ!!".
Give me a break. Our morality and our society are not based on the sad fact that many of our citizens believe in an invisible man in the sky. If these people were to change their minds (as many of them do every day) our society will not fall into moral decay.
I see a very high contempt of humans displayed by the religious, except for a very decent post by Keravnos.

Based on statistics I deem it highly possible that humans will start losing their belief in deities over time (if our society stays at this high level), but I don't think it will ever completely disappear: some humans are solipsists (o simply more inclined to want to be religious for whatever reason) and they have an innate need for religion.

As Manco pointed out, I don't think a world of atheists would be that much better than the world we have now. Nutjobs will be nutjobs.
On the other hand, I don't see how the disappearance of an institution based entirely on wish-thinking and irrationality can be a bad thing.

[MaximiIian]

No.
Atheism is not an advancement of human thought. It is simply a stance held on a particular subject. You're treating Atheism as if it's a philosophy.
Those who believe in a deity can do exactly the same thing you speak of.

This, partly.

Also, while atheism is growing larger, it is not at a pace that would overtake the existing religions in the world.
Rather, we are looking at a more pluralistic future.

[boofhead]

Atheism will get us renewed forms of social Darwinism, easier abortions, disregard for traditions and morality, the destruction of the family, indiscipline, increased selfishness, and an unhappier world.

[Tigrul]

Atheism will get us renewed forms of social Darwinism, easier abortions, disregard for traditions and morality, the destruction of the family, indiscipline, increased selfishness, and an unhappier world.

It is amazing. We have statistics over statistics showing that the more atheist a country is, the better a place to live in it is, and that this applies even to states int he USA, and still, people like you continue lying, continue pushing with not only unfounded propagandist claims, but claims that are against what has so far been observed. Aren't you a christian? Aren't you supposed to not tell lies? Or does, perhaps, yahweh approve of lies when they're said against the "enemies" of christianity?

Anyway... yes, those two directions are the probable situations for the future. I am not so convinced about atheism, though. I am somewhat afraid that islam will get the upper hand, and that's part of why I wish religious education to be taught everywhere. (by religious education I mean, of course, objective studies of the major religions and brief looks at their history)

[boofhead]

It is amazing. We have statistics over statistics showing that the more atheist a country is, the better a place to live in it is, and that this applies even to states int he USA, and still, people like you continue lying, continue pushing with not only unfounded propagandist claims, but claims that are against what has so far been observed. Aren't you a christian? Aren't you supposed to not tell lies? Or does, perhaps, yahweh approve of lies when they're said against the "enemies" of christianity?

I'm not sure how an opinion on an unknowable future can be classified as a lie. That's a little harsh.

Atheism as a popular movement is only in its earliest days, and can not be given credit for the successful wealthier countries and their standards of living at all. The successful societies have bred atheism, but have still been founded on more traditional principles.

So, what you claim to observe doesn't really say much.

[iudas]

It is amazing. We have statistics over statistics showing that the more atheist a country is, the better a place to live in it is, and that this applies even to states int he USA, and still, people like you continue lying, continue pushing with not only unfounded propagandist claims, but claims that are against what has so far been observed. Aren't you a christian? Aren't you supposed to not tell lies? Or does, perhaps, yahweh approve of lies when they're said against the "enemies" of christianity?

You're mixing up secularism with atheism... Get your definitions straight.

[basics]

" Or does, perhaps, yahweh approve of lies when they're said against the "enemies" of christianity?"

Tigrul,

According to the word of God it is the enemies of God who are the liars, murderers, thieves, slanderers, sexual deviants, druggies and so on. The more that refuse to have a God the more that fall into that category and unless my seventyseven years have been deceiving me the more I see this country of mine descend into what is laughable under the names diversion and political correctness the truer the word of God.

But that is my opinion so bear with me when I ask what lies from God it is that you refer to? I mean under the concept of evolution there is no God to accuse yet under the concept that there is a God and from His beginning mankind grasped the lie to be what is described above. So in your estimation how do you explain your own words?

[Tigrul]

I'm not sure how an opinion on an unknowable future can be classified as a lie. That's a little harsh.

The opinion on what will be in the future can not be a lie. But you base that opinion on a set of lies, namely that atheism is detrimental to society.

Atheism as a popular movement is only in its earliest days, and can not be given credit for the successful wealthier countries and their standards of living at all. The successful societies have bred atheism, but have still been founded on more traditional principles.

1. I would not claim that atheism is responsible, or even worse, sole responsible, for the well-being of those societies. I haven't claimed that in my reply. However, what we can say with almost complete certainty is that atheism is positively correlated with lower crime rates, lower abortion rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower divorce rates. So we can say one thing for certain: people such as you claiming that atheism is bad for society are wrong. An increase in atheism doesn't lead to worse societies.
2. Those traditional values aren't necessarily christian, or religious in nature.
3. You seem to assume that if societies become atheist, ALL values of today will be lost. That's just not true. Atheism means only one change, towards a lack of belief in deities. There's no rule whatsoever that we can't teach morality classes in schools, even if we are atheist, or that we can't do our best to ensure moral societies. We could even go so far as to keep the traditional values and have atheist societies. Atheism doesn't conflict with any of the traditional values other than the respect for religion.

You're mixing up secularism with atheism... Get your definitions straight.

No, I'm not. When I mention more atheistic countries I mean countries where a larger portion of the population is atheist. Even among secular societies, the ones which are more atheistic are better places to live in than the less atheistic ones.

But of course, I don't intend this to be an argument for atheism. I only intend this to be an argument against the getting-old-claims that an increase in atheism leads to worse societies. So far, all the data that we have points to the contrary. The only restriction is that atheism not be forced on the population. And I already condemn forcing atheism on people, and so do most atheists.

[iudas]

No, I'm not. When I mention more atheistic countries I mean countries where a larger portion of the population is atheist. Even among secular societies, the ones which are more atheistic are better places to live in than the less atheistic ones.

But of course, I don't intend this to be an argument for atheism. I only intend this to be an argument against the getting-old-claims that an increase in atheism leads to worse societies. So far, all the data that we have points to the contrary. The only restriction is that atheism not be forced on the population. And I already condemn forcing atheism on people, and so do most atheists.

Source. And I meant personal secularism (i.e., people who are irreligious. I'm secular, but I'm not atheist).
Also, it's very hard to determine the percentage of people who are atheists, religious or secular, since the line is blurred sometimes. In Romania, for instance, most people call themselves Orthodox Christians, when in reality they are secular or even atheists.

[boofhead]

However, what we can say with almost complete certainty is that atheism is positively correlated with lower crime rates, lower abortion rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower divorce rates.

Can you link me to such studies?

[Nietzsche]

It is amazing. We have statistics over statistics showing that the more atheist a country is, the better a place to live in it is, and that this applies even to states in the USA... then some blathering ad hominem nonsense.

You may also draw the same correlation replacing atheism with affluence, so I wouldn't be so cock-sure about atheism ushering in paradise just yet.

[Axeman]

Atheism will get us renewed forms of social Darwinism, easier abortions, disregard for traditions and morality, the destruction of the family, indiscipline, increased selfishness, and an unhappier world.

Tradition .... there is a saying about that.

"Tradition is not keep the dead living, it is keeping the living dead so the dead may live"

Social Darwinism? Unless there is a drastically changed geo-political landscape and the whole huge wars, genocides, and colonization become "ok" in the eyes of the people, then I think Social Darwinism as a result would be the lesser of concerns.

Easier Abortions are great

Morality is also subjective...

selfishness is needed to some degree for survival and the idea that all athiests are uncharitable is ridiculous .

So how does this all lead to an unhappier world?

[Ellsid]

Well the admission of ultimate uncertainty does not mean complete uncertainty. The absolutist tradition of modern monotheist religion leads people to believe if we don't have absolute standards we can't have any standards, we live for nothing.
The idea that we already know the final truth is absurd. The fact that there are so many multiple differences in human culture creates more questions than answers. Atheism bucks the historical past and asked, can humans be moral and ethical with out the belief in a Super natural cosmic being?

We are quite certain that many of the men who designed the U.S. Constitution were at least Deist. They created the most secular government today, A Democracy,"The Dignity of the long, painful struggle for liberty and equality". It was not by chance that God was left quite silent in the text.

[Manco]

I think what Boofhead is trying to say is that, just like religious extremist movements and wacky offshoots, we'll have atheist versions of that.
If the entire world becomes atheist, that doesn't mean there won't be nutjobs anymore, it'll just mean they will be atheist nutjobs.

[My Favorite Martian]

Circumstances of social conditions and the change of social conditions determine largely the situation of ideologies. If circumstances and conditions remain stable over a longer period of time, ideologies will do so either, if not ideologies will change and adapt. It is in the moment rather difficult to predict what the future will be. Conditions look as they could change rather fast. As we do not know this exactely, there is an element of incertainty regarding the cricumstances and social conditions ideologies will find themselves in in the future. Of course there are the classical patters our cultures have developped over time to thematize the unpredictable like the pattern of the catastrophe and the miracle of salvation. That is what I have thought recently when watching John Lovelock being interviewed in Hard Talk on BBC International. I think it is important that we distinguish - well we might not be able to do always - between that what we can know and that what we believe being able to predict on the base of experiences (inductions).

[Keravnos]

I believe without a doubt that God wants the best for us, irrespective of our our own respect for Him. That's what the Good Book is about. That's why we have it. I believe salvation is in there. In His Magnificence we are all sheltered, even if most of us fail to acknowledge Him.
I don't know if most of us want what is good for ourselves.
I also think that choices define who we are and Faith can be such a choice.

As for atheism prevailing, I honestly think that this is irrelevant. It isn't a game of who wins, it is about saving one's soul, one's life and if we take that to the next level one's world. To make choices that will lead to the most good for yourself as a member of your own society (that doesn't mean personal gain, sometimes it is the opposite) and speak the truth as you see it that others might help themselves to their own better future.

I am absolutely certain of the good or bad influence that some people may have in other's lives. How about if we try to influence those around us, all of us, in the best way possible? Irrespective of personal gain, but without turning anarchist or communist (communism turns to dictatorship down the line-ALWAYS).

[Tigrul]

Lol...

Ok, this last reply of yours makes it clear that you don't know what a secularist is. One can be a secularist atheist and a secularist christian. Intrigued yet? Secularism is a position referring to the separation of church and state. It has nothing to do with the religious affiliation of the person. As for it being difficult to determine, we work with what we've got. While I agree that in our country, orthodox christians are a lot fewer than the census would have us believe, due to wrong reasons for considering one's religious affiliation (i.e. orthodox christian because of being baptized so, even though they might not believe in a lot of the tenets of orthodoxy), so far as atheists are concerned, there's less reason for confusion - there's only one statement to be considered: does one believe in god or not.

But perhaps I should take the point that I should have expressed my views based on irreligiousity rather than atheism. However, although it would have been more meaningful that way, I stand by my claims, as they aren't any less valid. Anyway, the statistics on religious concerns for Europe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe

You'll find more studies being used on that page.

As for the societal health:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm - Divorce in the US; we should have this for Europe too
And a rather long-ish study based on quite a few statistical surveys: http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html

[iudas]

Secular means irreligious (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secular). Secularist is something else. Now you mistake secular for secularist. Nice.