[nonesuch]

Religions come and go. In the future, when today's religions are subjects of historical or anthropological interests only, will there still be religions? Belief in a metaphysical reality?

[Drlee]

Probably. This will send the atheists into apoplexy when they read this but my opinion is not that people are becoming less spiritual but they are becoming less interested in certain organized religions. More secular, if you wish, does not necessarily mean less religious.

The argument most favored by atheists is that since it is relatively easy to attack some religious doctrine that religion is going to fail. What it will do is change with the times just as it always has. If there is anything to learn from studying religious history it is that religion has profoundly changed over the millennia but the reason for embracing it in whatever form remains the same.

Besides. I have lived long enough to see so many temporary atheists come back into the ranks of believers that I don't treat these recurring God is Dead pronouncements with much concern.

[Godstud]

There will always be believers in a god, and there will always be those that do not believe. That's all.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

The argument most favored by atheists is that since it is relatively easy to attack some religious doctrine that religion is going to fail. What it will do is change with the times just as it always has. If there is anything to learn from studying religious history it is that religion has profoundly changed over the millennia but the reason for embracing it in whatever form remains the same.

However, the major religions have not changed much in the past 1400 years in their beliefs. If you're saying "religion has profoundly changed", you're going back the the polytheistic beliefs that preceded Christianity and Islam in the areas they are now most common in, to the Vedic period in India, and to pre-Buddhist beliefs. But you claim to know the reasons people had for embracing those forms of religion, perhaps 3000 years ago. What were they? How do you know them? How are they similar to people's reasons for present-day beliefs?

[Drlee]

However, the major religions have not changed much in the past 1400 years in their beliefs. If you're saying "religion has profoundly changed", you're going back the the polytheistic beliefs that preceded Christianity and Islam in the areas they are now most common in, to the Vedic period in India, and to pre-Buddhist beliefs.

They have changed profoundly. Even within Christianity. Christianity is vastly more diverse, offers a far wider interpretation of its core beliefs and embraces far more divergent opinions that the church of Augustine, for example.

But you claim to know the reasons people had for embracing those forms of religion, perhaps 3000 years ago. What were they? How do you know them? How are they similar to people's reasons for present-day beliefs?

Come on PC. Do you really want to go there? I think you are just being silly with that question.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

No, I'm not being silly at all. You think you know the reasons people, all over the world, believed in religion thousands of years ago, even though you also say the religions have changed a lot since then (and, though you don't say it in that post, present-day religions also widely differ from each other). If you have a theory for a universal drive for believing in widely different religions, you ought to state it (I'm guessing 'ignorance and insecurity' isn't going to be the answer, although that's probably the only one that could be justified).

[Drlee]

Insecurity is certainly one reason people embrace religious beliefs. You are the one who thinks them ignorant. The vast majority of all people who have ever lived and are alive today disagree with you. Neither can you make the claim that atheism is the home of the intelligent. I could cite any number of deeply stupid people who are atheists and any number of religious people who are indubitably intelligent.

While I have no proof that God exists, you have none that He doesn't. Stalemate.

As you are not a religious person I can see how you would conclude that insecurity is the only reason people embrace religion. There is nothing I can do to convince you otherwise and to try would be to embark on yet another round of my talking about deeply personal feelings and beliefs and you slinging insults. Pass.

If I were an atheist in an overwhelmingly religious world I would honestly try to truly understand what the buzz is about. That PC would be the smart thing to do.

[nonesuch]

The argument most favored by atheists is that since it is relatively easy to attack some religious doctrine that religion is going to fail.

I don't concern myself too much about atheists. They're just as likely to help us old guys change a flat tire as the next. Much less likely is that their arguments have changed many minds. I much more think it is an epoch characterized by science as solvent, faith being the solut. It is much harder to walk the walk (as they say) and very few ever find what you have found through your anguish and - I'm guessing here- grace. For the vast majority their religion is merely a credo worn like a clean shirt on Sunday, discarded like dirty socks come Monday.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Insecurity is certainly one reason people embrace religious beliefs. You are the one who thinks them ignorant. The vast majority of all people who have ever lived and are alive today disagree with you. Neither can you make the claim that atheism is the home of the intelligent. I could cite any number of deeply stupid people who are atheists and any number of religious people who are indubitably intelligent.

While I have no proof that God exists, you have none that He doesn't. Stalemate.

As you are not a religious person I can see how you would conclude that insecurity is the only reason people embrace religion. There is nothing I can do to convince you otherwise and to try would be to embark on yet another round of my talking about deeply personal feelings and beliefs and you slinging insults. Pass.

If I were an atheist in an overwhelmingly religious world I would honestly try to truly understand what the buzz is about. That PC would be the smart thing to do.

Religions arise because people have been, historically, ignorant of basic natural processes - the origin of the Earth, the origin and diversification of life, meteorology, medicine, and other areas. So loads of supernatural agents were invented to explain what was seen. But that ignorance, one of the major reasons for religion, has gone now. You're reduced to "god could exist".

Insecurity is a reason for religion because many people are afraid that they'll cease to exist. So they take comfort in being told they'll be reincarnated, or have a new existence in a perfect world, where their present-day woes are all banished. Having heard about the powerful god(s) that control the world, they wonder why those gods aren't organising things a bit better, with the world summed up as "life's a bitch. And then you die". So religions promise that the inconvenience of being hungry, ill etc. is just temporary - follow our rules, and you'll have a great existence, eventually. Maybe there'll be some justice in this world too - but, if there isn't, then "God moves in mysterious ways", or some other excuse.

[Drlee]

Insecurity is a reason for religion because many people are afraid that they'll cease to exist. So they take comfort in being told they'll be reincarnated, or have a new existence in a perfect world, where their present-day woes are all banished. Having heard about the powerful god(s) that control the world, they wonder why those gods aren't organising things a bit better, with the world summed up as "life's a bitch. And then you die". So religions promise that the inconvenience of being hungry, ill etc. is just temporary - follow our rules, and you'll have a great existence, eventually. Maybe there'll be some justice in this world too - but, if there isn't, then "God moves in mysterious ways", or some other excuse.

What is your point? That these observations are the reasons you are an atheist? Fine. Good luck with that. Do you think that these observations have not occurred to most religious people too? They have. Long ago. We are still religious, more people are religious than ever before and the claim to some kind of metaphysical belief is all but universal. If you wish to advocate for atheism, that is your right (or prerogative depending on where you live). Go ahead. If, however, you believe that what you have posted represents the truth behind the beliefs of most religious people on a personal level you are mistaken.

[Buzz62]

GOD...or as I like to spell the word...GAWD.
What is it? Is it this?

No...somehow a "Great Sky King" just doesn't cut it...does it.
So what is Gawd? And if its not this Great Sky King, is it possible that in our need to explain the unexplainable, we have managed to propagate a number of rather silly ideas? Ideas that, when examined, make people turn away from the organizations who have started these silly notions?

The classical religions are their own worst enemies. It is a result of their own silliness, that people turn from them...and claim to be atheists.
But the mistake here is that these atheists have turned away from silliness...which is undoubtedly a GOOD thing...but unfortunately they create their own silliness by equating the teachings of a bunch of politically motivated, ruthless, philosophical hacks, with Gawd.

In the end, this whole issue is one of subjectivity. A person must choose to believe or not. I happen to choose to believe. But my notion of Gawd is a far cry from the Great Sky King. To me, Gawd is life, and the well it springs from. And that well happens to be the entirety of this universe. Do I worship this Gawd? In a way, yes. I don't actually get on bended knee and speak to it...that would be...silly. But in my own way, I do pay homage to that which is responsible for all that IS.

So "Is atheism the future"?
Not really. I expect that as people awaken to the horrible damages of "The Dirty Three" (Judaism, Islam and Christianity), that new and less silly philosophies will emerge. 'cause the universe...is rather eternal.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

What is your point?

That those are reasonable suppositions for why people believe the stories told them about gods and afterlives. Whereas you are unable to articulate your ideas on why people believe. It's OK, if you just can't work it out, you can admit it.

[Buzz62]

One more point if I may.
This is not a contest.
There are no winners...or losers.
See...Gawd doesn't really give a hoot whether a person believe or worships it.
Gawd just is. And we are too.
That makes us all part of the same never ending story.
It all just IS. For if it were NOT, we wouldn't be here to debate it.
And that we are, forces me to once again, pay homage to Gawd...our universe.

[Beren]

I think it is, or Spinoza's god will replace Abraham's. Spirituality will remain anyway, as even Evolution Theory and Materialism have their own spirituality, I suppose.

[nonesuch]

So, I'm curious Prosthetic Conscience do you, or atheists in general, assert there is no god (or the word 'god' has no referent) or is atheism just not believing in god? Also. I'd like to run this by you. A precursor to religion was magic and many of the cave paintings are of animals probably used in hunting magic to create a 'mystical identity' between the hunter and the hunted. In other words to focus the hunter's attention on the game. This almost certainly would better the hunters chance of success. And let's say a placebo for migraine works 30% of the time for patients allergic to the medications. Eventhough something is not causal or, in the case of the placebo, an outright lie, could its efficacy ever trump ignorance?

[PeterPaulRubens]

No, I don't think atheïsm is the future. Not only because I am not an atheïst myself, but because there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that the importance of religious feelings and affiliations is diminishing when you look at this from a global perspective. Certainly, there will always continue to be atheïsts. But like today, they will remain a relatively small minority.

[redcarpet]

Not in the short term, given the rise of conversion to Islam as the
fastest growing religion in the world.

[Drlee]

Islam is not the fastest growing religion in the world Christianity is but it is a popular myth. It doesn't matter. Your point is the same:

The five fastest growing religions in terms of absolute numbers (new adherents per year, in millions):

1. Christianity 25,210,195
2. Islam 22,588,676
3. Hinduism 12,533,734
4. Chinese folk-religions 3,715,548
5. Buddhism

• Rate to size is the natural growth compared to the size of the religion. Says something of the overall fertility of the people in the religion.

• Christianity is the fastest growing religion in terms of the growing number of new Christians due to a positive population growth (22,708,799 new Christians / year).

• Islam followed by Zoroastrianism are the religions with the highest natural growth in relation to their overall size. i.e. have the highest population growth rate (1.83%, 1.78%).

[Prosthetic Conscience]

So, I'm curious Prosthetic Conscience do you, or atheists in general, assert there is no god (or the word 'god' has no referent) or is atheism just not believing in god? Also. I'd like to run this by you. A precursor to religion was magic and many of the cave paintings are of animals probably used in hunting magic to create a 'mystical identity' between the hunter and the hunted. In other words to focus the hunter's attention on the game. This almost certainly would better the hunters chance of success. And let's say a placebo for migraine works 30% of the time for patients allergic to the medications. Eventhough something is not causal or, in the case of the placebo, an outright lie, could its efficacy ever trump ignorance?

Atheism is 'not believing in gods'. Some atheists do assert there are, and can be, no gods; other say there's no evidence for any god, and there's no point in picking one conception of gods and pretending it should make any difference to your behaviour, because it's baseless. This is like saying there's no evidence that the universe as you see it is a hallucination that you are imagining, and there's no point in behaving as if you are just having a dream; or that you are part of a computer-like simulation. I can't completely rule out a god, dream or computer; but all the major religions are based on ideas about gods that either contradict themselves, or have no evidence, and thus fall down as baseless. Perhaps the universe was 'designed' by some entities fine-tuning physical constants to allow the formation of atoms and chemicals; but such 'deist' gods don't help us with the things that religions try to make claims about, such as morals.

Sure, religious belief may have psychological benefits for an individual in some situations; but a 'mystical identity between hunter and hunted' may get superseded by the hunter doing an in-depth study of the behaviour of his prey, allowing him to hunt more efficiently. If religions are like placebos, then they have unwanted psychological side effects, such as painting groups as 'outsiders', or making people resistant to scientific understanding, and thus encouraging something like climate change (to take an example of the danger of religion in the USA).

[annatar1914]

Yes, Atheism is the future in regards to the outcome of it's long struggle against 'religion'.

Atheism will be the 'future' until there is no future, until the End of History.