Forums → WEPR → Future of Religion

Furthermore, your premise is clearly self-refuting. "If there was an all mighty being, which is impossible" doesn't work, because the very meaning of "impossible" is that there is no such "if".

Ok, wrong expression. What if there was an almost all mighty being. It can't create a stone impossible to raise and than raise it. But it can bend the time and space. But doesn't have to. It can create the conditions needed for Big Bang. And if it could do that why wouldn't it be able to hide if it want's to hide?

Well, no, it wouldn't. Logic is not something which needs to be "created" at all, so your argument is circular. There is no un-logic for the un-universe to have as its default. X doesn't need to be made to equal X, because there is no alternative to X = X.

If there is a being that can push Universe into Big Bang why wouldn't it be able to have a power equal to electromagnetic force? Or equal to gravitational force? Or power even stronger than any one of these alone?

What if there was an almost all mighty being. It can't create a stone impossible to raise and than raise it. But it can bend the time and space. But doesn't have to. It can create the conditions needed for Big Bang. And if it could do that why wouldn't it be able to hide if it want's to hide?

If there is a being that can push Universe into Big Bang why wouldn't it be able to have a power equal to electromagnetic force? Or equal to gravitational force? Or power even stronger than any one of these alone?

Like William Rowe said : "In the popular sense of the term, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God, while a theist believes that God exists, an atheist disbelieves in God" .
In my opinion the people feel the need to believe in something or they will feel insecure or without hope , it's like a kid creating an imaginary friend , some friends will believe he does have one ,some won't

Like William Rowe said : "In the popular sense of the term, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God, while a theist believes that God exists, an atheist disbelieves in God" .

Like William Rowe said : "In the popular sense of the term, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God, while a theist believes that God exists, an atheist disbelieves in God" .

In my opinion the people feel the need to believe in something or they will feel insecure or without hope , it's like a kid creating an imaginary friend , some friends will believe he does have one ,some won't

You're just setting up another circular argument. What if the universe spontaneously generated itself as a semi-conscious entity made entirely of ham and cheese, which to our ham-and-cheese-based senses appears to be something else? If it could do that, why wouldn't it be able to appear as the universe that we actually observe? Thus, it would seem that the ham and cheese universe is an equally logical model.

Yes, why not. But to people it is easier to say that an intellectually superior being who cares for humanity created all.

1 Why should it? There is no need for such a being.
2 Logic is not force; it isn't even comparable to force. What we call logic is the reason that facts are true. There is literally no way for it not to exist.

1. There is no need for it but people don't want to die, they feel alone and sad so they have this Someone who always watches over them.I'm not saying that that being exist but I want to say that I can understand the arguments of theists
2. It can change the facts and by changing them it also changes the logic with them. I was wrong at saying that it can change logic.

2. It can change the facts and by changing them it also changes the logic with them. I was wrong at saying that it can change logic.

I wonder if Pope Francis' attempts at clamping down on Vatican corruption will ironically drive people away from religion, or organized religion in the event more dirty linen is washed in public?

The millienial generation is increasingly atheist/agnostic so that should bring it down a chunk but there will always be a steady stream of believers who want the community aspect.

Religion will continue to lose it's power, and it's reputation, but it will never die. It will always exist and there will always be those who choose faith over facts, and argue that facts are nothing but beliefs. Funny enough, religion seems to be doing a great job at running itself into the ground more than science is superseding it altogether. A better question to ask is if science ever finds a comprehensive understanding of the universe and if certain people would still prefer religion over the full repudiation of God. There are more factors involved in this question than "do you think religion will end". There is also the fact that some religions will die out and others will come up. Perhaps a new Abrahamic religion claiming to be the "last religion".

As in the past, even the biggest religions gradually adapt to contemporary society, and this is a process that will continue to happen. The big religious institutions will either adapt or fade away over time.

This change is just a futile attempt to make it more palatable to the populous. They're still far from admitting they're just wrong about certain things. Some people can't see the difference between the literal or metaphorical, and many can't admit when they're wrong either.

Yes I do think Christianity and Islamism will eventually die out.

Before or after the sun explodes and we all die?

The Baha'i Faith is the fastest growing religion in the world, they teach simply to teach not to convert unlike its Abrahamic counterparts. Many people attend their youth groups, Christians, Atheists, Buddhists, Muslism and etc, I will tell you that I have seen it first handed. They are an 'extremely tolerant' group who have roots in tradition and thoughts for the future of humanity

It's basis is on Abrahamic religion however. It is to be determined whether they'll pull a "new testament" stunt and all of a sudden Baha'i witnesses is a thing. Or they'll make a variation of Jihad and we have a 10/11 or something.

And if you can't tell this is a joke... well, yeah. That's all I can say.

While looking up this topic on a blog, I realized it may be necessary to do a distinction between education and intelligence; as apparently both do not have the same impact on belief/disbelief. Here's what I found about this topic. Basically, intelligence is positively correlated with disbelief, while education may rather have an impact on the type of belief.

People are realizing this just now? I thought distinction between being educated and intelligent already existed.

I wonder if Pope Francis' attempts at clamping down on Vatican corruption will ironically drive people away from religion, or organized religion in the event more dirty linen is washed in public?

It'll make people think higher of it. Wont change people's overall opinion. Not without publicly admitting to many faults.

People need religion. It's comforting to know (or believe) that there is some deeper meaning or value to life.

People need religion. It's comforting to know (or believe) that there is some deeper meaning or value to life.

Is it the case that only religion can offer some deeper meaning to life? Or perhaps you suppose that all things which offer deeper meaning to life are religions in themselves.

People care less and less for religion as science is going forwards. In the future there will be much more atheists, mostly in western countries.
However, in poor countries in Africa, South America, Southern Asia, Russia and Balkan States in Europe, religion will still be very big part of culture. In those poor countries religion will even be reason for terrorism like Islamic State does today.