Is the future Atheist?

[johannhowitzer]

For the love of FSM/Bob/Rod/Todd/Deuce/Jebus/God/Bubba/Allah/Nothing, don't mix agnostics with atheists together.  It just shows your ignorance :\

Agnostic, are we?    I am well-versed in the concepts behind both.  I paired the two ONLY in saying they are equally permeated by the conclusions drawn by the academic/scientific community.  It is you who read more into my statement.

Objectivity is hard indeed, but a group of agnostics is more trustworthy than any of the two extremes since they will accept data and evidence as opposed to a statement just claiming "There isn't a God/There isn't a God/There is more than 1 God".

This is true, but the claims of the church that concern a deity cannot by their fundamental nature be touched by science anyway, it is the realm of philosophy.  Agnostics are just as immersed in the scientific zeitgeist as atheists, I've found.

[falconbane]

That's where the ignorance comes from, since you know about agnostics, you should know about the separate groups within them (as in people looking for the proof of god, but will consider evidence).  There are some agnostics that questions the finding (especially with regards to fossils), but with arguments and hypothesis that does not rely on "divine sources" as creationists tend to cite or imply. 

With your statement, I can say that christians should be whipped whenever they eat shellfish since they both believe in the book (the ignorance of this statement hurts my head >.<). 

For the record, I'm more of a pastafarian with an helping of agnosticism on the side


"but the claims of the church that concern a deity cannot by their fundamental nature be touched by science anyway, it is the realm of philosophy"

depends on who you ask (also which church), "fundamental nature of a deity" was created by man (as the church is found by man), no?  The people in Socrates' time sure didn't think deity couldn't be touched by science (math)   I'm not sure how helpful a philosopher would be in this case, since even philosophers chased after the divine idea through math and science (probably more known as "god is nature")

[johannhowitzer]

With your statement, I can say that christians should be whipped whenever they eat shellfish since they both believe in the book (the ignorance of this statement hurts my head >.<).

OK, I'm not even sure WHAT statement you're talking about, partly because your sentence isn't even grammatically complete!

A deity by definition is untouchable by the laws of science, operating outside them and ignoring them when he/she/it wishes.  If you have some experiment to propose than can use measurable results to strengthen or weaken the notion of the existence of a deity, I'm sure the scientific and religious communities would both pay you millions for it.  Dawkins, the famous "reptilian" popular face of Science in recent years, has admitted we cannot know one way or the other on scientific ground.

In fact both Creationists and Evolutionists would be cause for Socrates and his contemporaries to roll over in their graves.  Both sides draw no distinction between the empirical evidence itself and the conclusions drawn upon that evidence.  The evidence is the realm of science, while the conclusions are the realm of philosophy.  This is not necessarily to call "scientific" conclusions faulty or misguided, but merely misnamed.  On the other hand, it also throws the whole "evolution/creation in the classroom" debate out the window.  It is not a question of whether we allow either side into schools, but which classroom is involved.  The experiments and evidence belong in the science classroom, while the evolutionary and creationist worldviews built upon the evidence both belong in the philosophy classroom.  This will go a long way toward reducing the confusion of students, as well as establish a reliable framework and procedure for discussion on proper terms.

"Agnostic" is an umbrella word used to define any person who believes about the existence of a deity simply "I don't know."  Of course there are going to be myriads of different kinds of agnostics, but my statement was that very, very many of them have (apart from the question of "god") made their minds up about the conclusions drawn upon scientific evidence, at least to a point.  My core point was that we lack the personnel to form a team to objectively investigate any church's claims.  I did not say which claims, and I used the term "objective" as an absolute.  Once again you are extending my words past where I intended.  Please stop.

[falconbane]

"On the other you have atheists/agnostics and others who are so embedded in the opposite conclusions that their examination of the church's claims would be almost a foregone conclusion."

^ This statement

I'm not extending your word since you CLEARLY states that they (inclusive of the "umbrella term" agnostic) "are so embedded" that they will oppose the church regardless of evidence. 
"I paired the two ONLY in saying they are equally permeated by the conclusions drawn by the academic/scientific community" 
"Agnostic" is an umbrella word used to define any person who believes about the existence of a deity simply "I don't know."  Of course there are going to be myriads of different kinds of agnostics, but my statement was that very, very many of them have (apart from the question of "god") made their minds up about the conclusions drawn upon scientific evidence, at least to a point.
So wait, you are saying you are using a umbrella term (agnostic), combine it with a definite term (atheist) to present a claim where both party is the same.  Then top it off that "very, very many of them have made their minds up about the conclusions drawn upon scientific evidence"  based on personal experience ("very, very many" is "opinion", as you rightfully claim on my "probably" on the other thread)?
Right now, you are generalizing and trying to get away with it, correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I can derive from your statements
A.  Agnostic == Atheist when it comes to science and proving the church wrong. 
B.  Agnostics will not support church claims
This might be what you call "extension" of your word, but you are using implicit language, how can someone NOT extend it?  If you do not get my statement about shellfish, let me make you another one in structure similar to yours.     

"China/South Korea and others who are so embedded in the opposite conclusions that their examination of US' claims would be almost a foregone conclusion."  (ignorant statement, no?) 

Upon your clarification, I tend to agree somewhat about Socrates, although you have to remember many of them did tried to proof the existence of god in an empirical fashion and combine the two.

and just for the heck of it
You are reading into my words more than I intended, I did not say which claim(s) the church was claiming, so you are implying that I "claim something about the church's claims", are you not extending my words?  Please stop that.  /sarcasm


@topic
Another reason future is going to be atheist is because the sciences and math will almost always be more prevalent than philosophy in education.   

[johannhowitzer]

I'm not extending your word since you CLEARLY states that they (inclusive of the "umbrella term" agnostic) "are so embedded" that they will oppose the church regardless of evidence.

Embedded in conclusions formed upon evidence, and we aren't talking about new evidence presented to the church, since the scientific community has every shred the church has.  In other words, the church's claims are conclusions.  Even most agnostics have already dismissed those conclusions in favor of other ones.  Of course this has nothing to do with whether agnostics will consider NEW evidence.  You flew off the handle (and called me ignorant several times) over a misunderstanding.

"China/South Korea and others who are so embedded in the opposite conclusions that their examination of US' claims would be almost a foregone conclusion."  (ignorant statement, no?)

Actually, depending on which conclusions you're talking about (let's say human rights, just for the heck of it), not ignorant at all.  Pretty darn accurate.

and just for the heck of it
You are reading into my words more than I intended, I did not say which claim(s) the church was claiming, so you are implying that I "claim something about the church's claims", are you not extending my words?  Please stop that.  /sarcasm

I'm really not sure where your sarcasm is pointed here, what you're trying to say.  I blame messy grammar, though.  You seem to be saying something like you weren't extending what I said past my intent after all, but...

but my statement was that very, very many of them have (apart from the question of "god") made their minds up about the conclusions drawn upon scientific evidence, at least to a point.

I paired the two ONLY in saying they are equally permeated by the conclusions drawn by the academic/scientific community.  It is you who read more into my statement.

On the other you have atheists/agnostics and others who are so embedded in the opposite conclusions that their examination of the church's claims would be almost a foregone conclusion.

The "extending" was the introduction of the idea that agnostics would refuse additional evidence.  You put that in my mouth, not me.

[Innominate]

Whether the future "belongs" to atheism largely depends on one factor: is the world getting better or worse? Here I define better and worse to be decided by the Human Development Index (HDI). For those unfamiliar with it, the HDI is an aggregate measurement of life expectancy, adult literacy rate, gross enrollment ratio (percentage of people of appropriate age enrolled in primary, secondary or tertiary education), and per-capita gross domestic product. The result is a single figure scaled between 0 and 1.

As this link (http://www.mwmccarthy.com/hdi_v_religion/) demonstrates, there is a significant correlation between HDI and the percentage of the population that identify as non-believers. 15 of the 25 least theistic countries are in the top 25 for the HDI, compared to 4 for the 25 most Christian countries and 0 for the 25 most Muslim countries.

The better educated, wealthy and long-lived the people of a country, the higher the percentage of atheists. Assuming that correlation holds into the future (which is of course not guaranteed), optimists will hope that the future is an atheistic one.

[Artois]

Whether the future "belongs" to atheism largely depends on one factor: is the world getting better or worse? Here I define better and worse to be decided by the Human Development Index (HDI). For those unfamiliar with it, the HDI is an aggregate measurement of life expectancy, adult literacy rate, gross enrollment ratio (percentage of people of appropriate age enrolled in primary, secondary or tertiary education), and per-capita gross domestic product. The result is a single figure scaled between 0 and 1.

As this link (http://www.mwmccarthy.com/hdi_v_religion/) demonstrates, there is a significant correlation between HDI and the percentage of the population that identify as non-believers. 15 of the 25 least theistic countries are in the top 25 for the HDI, compared to 4 for the 25 most Christian countries and 0 for the 25 most Muslim countries.

The better educated, wealthy and long-lived the people of a country, the higher the percentage of atheists. Assuming that correlation holds into the future (which is of course not guaranteed), optimists will hope that the future is an atheistic one.

No wonder atheists are 'slightly' arrogant.  Not only is the future ours, but we move in healthier, richer, and better educated circles.  :p

[johannhowitzer]

Unfortunately for you, Innominate, the world does not contain a big enough sample of countries for "findings" like that to be credible, there are just too many factors in something this large-scale to blame these effects on a specific belief of any kind.  Combine that with the evangelistic efforts of stateside Christians into third-world countries, and the fact that these Christians often bring literacy with them (in order for the natives to be able to read the Bible!), and the fact that literacy education often prompts missionaries to found schools, and you throw a lot of doubt on a study like this.

Sorry, it's just not conclusive.  It sure looks that way, I'll give you that, but the circumstances make it very coincidental.  You could even put the cart before the horse here and draw the converse conclusion - that people in "privileged" nations lose their faith at a larger rate because they don't feel they "need" to believe in a god.  History does show the least faith among those living in luxury, but that doesn't mean they're "enlightened."

Hehe, I love playing devil's advocate sometimes.  Today has been a good day for it!

[Chemist]

You could even put the cart before the horse here and draw the converse conclusion - that people in "privileged" nations lose their faith at a larger rate because they don't feel they "need" to believe in a god.

Actually I'm fairly certain that was the original conclusion... though the dark ages would seem to give the inverse some credibility as well.

[Innominate]

Unfortunately for you, Innominate, the world does not contain a big enough sample of countries for "findings" like that to be credible, there are just too many factors in something this large-scale to blame these effects on a specific belief of any kind.  Combine that with the evangelistic efforts of stateside Christians into third-world countries, and the fact that these Christians often bring literacy with them (in order for the natives to be able to read the Bible!), and the fact that literacy education often prompts missionaries to found schools, and you throw a lot of doubt on a study like this.

Sorry, it's just not conclusive.  It sure looks that way, I'll give you that, but the circumstances make it very coincidental.  You could even put the cart before the horse here and draw the converse conclusion - that people in "privileged" nations lose their faith at a larger rate because they don't feel they "need" to believe in a god.  History does show the least faith among those living in luxury, but that doesn't mean they're "enlightened."

Hehe, I love playing devil's advocate sometimes.  Today has been a good day for it!

I didn't mean to imply that atheism leads to better societies (although a lack of dogma can only ever benefit modern countries), but rather the converse, that better societies lead to atheism. So if we are to be optimistic, we would have to hope the future is an atheistic one.

[johannhowitzer]

I addressed both points, but I think you misunderstand.  I wasn't attacking your conclusion, I was attacking the study you cited as a reference, i.e. your argument.  The study just ignores way too many variables and the sample size cannot possibly be big enough since the world only has hundreds of countries.  Such a conclusion to be reached from a study of that nature would require a sample size of thousands of nations.

I also provided valid counterexamples "hencethus" conveniently ignores.  Don't misunderstand - I was arguing neither in favor of Islam/Christianity nor against Atheism as worldviews.  I was only debunking the HDI as a credible survey.  "hencethus" obviously didn't take a basic survey class! 

[assassim]

... IMO the reason Atheism is much more popular now is because of the internet . From my history textbooks I have been forced to read through, anyone that did not have the "right" religion at the time were considered heretics and killed off. But now that we have the internet and anonymity, the church now cannot control and force beliefs (and are becoming more passive than aggressive) onto people.  Yaaay internet!