PDA

View Full Version : Do you think that smart society of the future (by Eugenics) will be more atheist?



LeBrok
28-07-13, 01:46
Assuming that scientists are the smartest of us all, their spirituality or rather lack of it, can point us to the character of future society. I'm almost certain that in future people will make kids in hospitals or labs by gene manipulation, rather than risking sick or mediocre child made natural way. In future everybody will be smart, healthy and beautiful.
So, when all society is smart or super smart like today's best scientists, will society become more atheistic?
Will it bring the end of all religions?

There is more atheists among scientist than other occupations or general public.


Only 33% of scientists believe in "God" while another 18% believe in a "universal spirit" or "higher power". (See source 1. ) The study concluded that scientists are less likely to believe in a "God" or "Higher Power" as the general public.
By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in "God" or a "Higher Power" with approx. 83% having a religious affiliation according to a 2006 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center.

It means that there is 10 times more atheists amongst scientists than in general public. This is huge difference.
Interestingly, the older one gets the less spiritual one becomes. At least as a scientist.

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2009/11/Scientists-and-Belief-3.gif

http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx

hope
28-07-13, 05:40
Interesting....... but I may have to come back to this.
However, my immediate thought on whether a smart society will bring an end to all religions, I don`t necessarily think it would LeBrok.
For instance, using the table below as the basis for the debate, we see that regardless of their science background, their knowledge across the various sciences, 33% of these smart people still proclaim a belief in God. Another percentage state they believe in a universal spirit or higher power, and this despite their work.
If you add those who believe and name it as God to those who believe in something higher, you still have more believing in something than those not.
This, to me at least, would suggest with more smart people added to the equation,it would widen the gap between those who believe and those who don`t, but still leave a group of believers.
You could ask why is this smart group still choosing to believe in God or a higher power? Could it stem from how they were raised, family or cultural beliefs? But would that alone be enough to make them hold those views now, considering their work? I don`t think it might be, I`m not sure.
So what could it be? Do we come back, again, to the thought that it might actually be in some peoples nature to believe in the spiritual? I know there was a good deal made of the VMAT2 gene, and it was poorly labelled the God Gene. I didn`t keep up with that. Is it still being discussed or has it been set aside?
If there was something genetic to this desire or need to believe, if it could be identified and isolated then maybe at the early stage it could be, for the want of a better word, switched off.
To be honest, I don`t think if this happens it will happen on an immense scale. There will, I feel, always be those for one reason or another,who will not wish to participate.
So with this group of non-participants added to the really smart group still wanting to hold their beliefs, I think it will be enough to keep religion alive.

Although, it is interesting to note that as they grew older, the tendency was to be less spiritual.

LeBrok
28-07-13, 07:21
Interesting....... but I may have to come back to this.
However, my immediate thought on whether a smart society will bring an end to all religions, I don`t necessarily think it would LeBrok.
For instance, using the table below as the basis for the debate, we see that regardless of their science background, their knowledge across the various sciences, 33% of these smart people still proclaim a belief in God. Another percentage state they believe in a universal spirit or higher power, and this despite their work.
If you add those who believe and name it as God to those who believe in something higher, you still have more believing in something than those not.
This, to me at least, would suggest with more smart people added to the equation,it would widen the gap between those who believe and those who don`t, but still leave a group of believers.
You could ask why is this smart group still choosing to believe in God or a higher power? Could it stem from how they were raised, family or cultural beliefs? But would that alone be enough to make them hold those views now, considering their work? I don`t think it might be, I`m not sure.
That's right, it is hard to be sure how it will pan out in the future. There are always the very traditional people, the very spiritual or the ones that can't give up hope of afterlife.
Here is an interesting summary of many research about negative correlation between IQ and believing in god.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/IQ%20and%20religious%20belief%20paper%20by%20Lynn, %20Harvey,%20Nyborg.doc
If this is a true pattern then we might expect further "Atheisation" of population together with rising IQ. How many people will remain believing in god when thanks to Eugenics average IQ will climb to 200 in distant future? Today's average IQ for scientists is about 130.




So what could it be? Do we come back, again, to the thought that it might actually be in some peoples nature to believe in the spiritual? I know there was a good deal made of the VMAT2 gene, and it was poorly labelled the God Gene. I didn`t keep up with that. Is it still being discussed or has it been set aside?
If there was something genetic to this desire or need to believe, if it could be identified and isolated then maybe at the early stage it could be, for the want of a better word, switched off.
We might run into unforeseen circumstances of switching spirituality off. Perhaps it will be easier for people to give up and commit suicides?

To be honest, I don`t think if this happens it will happen on an immense scale. There will, I feel, always be those for one reason or another,who will not wish to participate.
So with this group of non-participants added to the really smart group still wanting to hold their beliefs, I think it will be enough to keep religion alive.
Possibly


Although, it is interesting to note that as they grew older, the tendency was to be less spiritual.
This might be related to people feeling less family pressure (parents are dead), other words caring less what others think about them. In this case admitting their lack of faith. It also take a big while for religious people to give up faith, switching sides equals "cheating on God" or feeling like sinner.

hope
01-08-13, 01:32
Thank-you for that link LeBrok, I need to read it again, but on first read... I found it a very interesting study.

Coriolan
01-08-13, 12:48
As people become smarter and get better science education the religiosity declines. This is a factual observation in many societies. Hope is correct when he says that a lot of smart people still believe in god, even if they have lost faith in religion itself. A lot of people need to believe in a superior power to feel that their life has a sense. It's a natural feeling since it is true that life in itself has no particular sense. We are matter and that's it. There is no purpose in life except to enjoy it and propagate it. People like to believe in a god because it reassures them about their existence and about death. Many people, no matter how clever, are too weak psychologically to live without that reassurance. I am fine with that as long as it's a purely deist and non-religious belief in god. God doesn't need religion. Religions are just a kleptocraic organizations that use people's angst about death and the afterlife to control and brainwash them.

Templar
01-08-13, 17:17
This reminds of something that I was thinking about a few days ago. The only "intelligent/educated" people who I know that are religious are either:
A) people who haven't researched religion (for example they never read their religion's holy book and other texts)
or
B) people who were really really really brainwashed by their parents and community (the thought of leaving their religion seems impossible for them).

Nobody1
03-08-13, 12:21
So, when all society is smart or super smart like today's best scientists, will society become more atheistic?

Still a long way to go;
http://www.skepticmoney.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/water.jpg


mmmmmmmmmmmm Yummy salt water

Twilight
12-08-13, 22:17
In every one of us, there is a intellegent being. You just need to tap it and believe in yourself nomatter your religion, race, sexuality or disability. We can all work together, divided we fall.

Twilight
15-08-13, 08:51
Depends on how you raise the child, I feel like it doesn't matter if you are brainwashed or not if you are seen as submissive you could still be seen as a tool to brainwash and if the child is brainwashed the intelligence can determinates but if you let the child explore and use their imagination then intelligence grows

LeBrok
15-08-13, 09:23
Still a long way to go;
http://www.skepticmoney.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/water.jpg


mmmmmmmmmmmm Yummy salt water

Thank god we have to pee. :D

LeBrok
15-08-13, 09:36
In every one of us, there is a intellegent being. I would love to believe it, but looking at the mess we create daily on this planet, it seems contrary to your statement. ;)

Cambrius (The Red)
18-08-13, 01:34
Thank god we have to pee. :D

Hard to understand why many people believe such nonsense.

Noman
20-08-13, 00:32
Probably genetically engineered mind control would be the norm for such a "civilization", no one thinks more than they have to.

Twilight
31-08-13, 01:43
I'm pretty sure if religion was abolish, STDs would be on the rise, besides what's so bad on studying mythology and culture?

Cambrius (The Red)
10-09-13, 15:24
Religion does have a positive side since (supposedly) teaches us morality.

Templar
10-09-13, 16:11
Religion does have a positive side since (supposedly) teaches us morality.

A good quote by the physicist Steven Weinberg:

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

ElHorsto
10-09-13, 16:29
A good quote by the physicist Steven Weinberg:

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

That's a very good quote, although it applies not only to religion.

Ike
10-09-13, 16:34
I'm pretty sure if religion was abolish, STDs would be on the rise, besides what's so bad on studying mythology and culture?

We'd have cure for all STD's by that time. Groovy baby :)

Anyway, even in totally atheistic society in the year 2546. we'll still have wars:
6014

FBS
10-09-13, 16:50
This is a very serious and sensitive topic. Each time the eugenics are mentioned a shiver goes down my spine, it reminds me of the Nazi "ubermenschen" that unfortunately had its origin in California USA, and frankly I get quite shocked how it is presented as something good.

The very thought of eugenics is against the core basis of the evolution theory which is the basis for the atheists, or scientific thinking, regarding all the living beings on Earth. On the other hand eugenics goes in hand with the creationists’ theory. If we, the humans of the Earth, will be able to intervene in the course of nature (evolution) and in the long run even create new creatures or more advanced species, then we confirm the creationist theory, don't we? And the creationists will jump and say "Aha, we said it all along, humans could not develop form the monkeys, something else (someone) intervened!" For me Eugenicists are the crazy people/scientists who have the God complex.

According to Dawkins, religion is a meme, and if you read the ECLET theory by Dr. Graves,will understand that this meme is a necessity of the human evolution that needs to take its course and have its' influence in the human evolution, same as atheism. For me both religious and atheists can be dogmatic and closed in their convictions, as the matter of fact they can function from the same level of the complexity of the human mind capacity.

LeBrok
10-09-13, 17:53
We'd have cure for all STD's by that time. Groovy baby :)

Anyway, even in totally atheistic society in the year 2546. we'll still have wars:

Mind you that only war in Europe (since WWII) we had was in Yugoslavia between 3 religions.

Angela
12-09-13, 23:15
This might be related to people feeling less family pressure (parents are dead), other words caring less what others think about them. In this case admitting their lack of faith. It also take a big while for religious people to give up faith, switching sides equals "cheating on God" or feeling like sinner.

I think that belief in God probably declines with age among all groups. How much senseless suffering can people watch or endure before they start to doubt the purposes of a so called loving God? The fact that the numbers stay as high as they do suggests to me not only the importance of early training and of cultural norms, but that there is something in people that makes them want to believe, either because they don't want to think that human life is just the result of random chance, or because they want to believe there will someday be some form of justice, and perhaps a reunion with loved ones, and/or they're just hard-wired that way.

There's no getting around the fact that there are advantages to being religious, as numerous studies have shown...religious people are happier, have more stable and fulfilling marriages, they're healthier, they live longer, they have greater mental stability, and on and on. Even the most recognized and successful, by some accounts, addiction treatment program, AA, recommends reliance on a "higher power".

I'd also argue that religion has two components: spirituality and ethics. Most religions address both, but the proportion is sometimes different. In terms of the ethics component, the strength of the ethical proscriptions gains from the "divine" affiliation and the promise of punishment after death in one form or another. I think that some people underestimate the importance of this connection. One well known example is Nazi Germany. That was an atheistic regime which found the religion of Jesus not as good a fit for the culture they hoped to build as some resurrected and reconstructed pseudo-paganism. Not, of course, that atrocities haven't been committed in the name of Christianity...it's just that to do so, you have to fly in the face of a good deal of actual Christian doctrine.

It's my own personal opinion that young people in the post-modern, Judeo-Christian countries, who have more often been raised in non-religious households, and more broadly speaking, non traditional households, are far less ethical in all their relationships, whether it be with a significant other, or friends, or family members, or whether it concerns business or general societal contacts.

Ike
12-09-13, 23:54
Mind you that only war in Europe (since WWII) we had was in Yugoslavia between 3 religions.

We've had the same conflict during WW2, so it was virtually just it's sequel.

Anyway, that episode of SouthPark I linked is about wars in future non-religious societies. In summary - people will always find something to fight about.

Templar
13-09-13, 01:55
have more stable and fulfilling marriages

I've actually heard that the divorce rate in the US is higher among the religious than the irreligious.

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistfamiliesmarriage/a/AtheistsDivorce.htm

LeBrok
13-09-13, 05:52
We've had the same conflict during WW2, so it was virtually just it's sequel. That's because communist regime kept all in check for years not letting things to play out in free way, natural way.


Anyway, that episode of SouthPark I linked is about wars in future non-religious societies. In summary - people will always find something to fight about. Not necessarily, in the west we have so much (even during this recession, and generally speaking) that not many wants to go and fight for piece of land or some ideas. Why would you risk and lose good life, kids, family, etc for who knows what? We only fight if someone wants to take it away. :) This is unprecedented 70 year peace trend in the West.
Only young guys want naturally (genetically) fight and play soldiers, but they are not in control of politics. Therefore not much danger from it.
Most world's unrest these days is caused by poverty, lack of freedoms and religious fanaticism (form of fascism). All of these behind revolutions in Middle East. If we help them to become successful like the West, things will look very promising for global peace.
Being very sceptical and cynical doesn't make you right or objective (still emotions in play). I guess the Balkan war didn't make it easier for you to believe that total peace might be possible one day.

Twilight
13-09-13, 07:20
Okay, if that is the case maybe we could integrate religious ideals in history like for example the rise and fall of religions.

LeBrok
13-09-13, 07:23
they do suggests to me not only the importance of early training and of cultural norms, but that there is something in people that makes them want to believe,
It looks to me that the big part of spirituality is hardwired. I have it too, form of feeling of awe in front of extraordinary events. Fortunately (my mother says otherwise, lol) my logical part of brain overwritten spirituality long time ago.


either because they don't want to think that human life is just the result of random chance, or because they want to believe there will someday be some form of justice, and perhaps a reunion with loved ones, and/or they're just hard-wired that way. Hope is a powerful emotion and I agree it is hardwired. Also in face of complicated world our ancestors gave many natural phenomenons human quality of control. Who controls thunders, who wakes the sun for its daily journey, why angry see sinks ships?
Life in the past sucked big time, short life, diseases, parasites, dying kids, few pleasures etc. There was no way atheists could indulge so much pain and soldier forward. It is understandable to envision spirituality, hope, anthropomorphism and eventually religion were leading forces helping humankind survive.



There's no getting around the fact that there are advantages to being religious, as numerous studies have shown...religious people are happier, have more stable and fulfilling marriages, they're healthier, they live longer, they have greater mental stability, and on and on. Even the most recognized and successful, by some accounts, addiction treatment program, AA, recommends reliance on a "higher power". I guess it is true, that religious people can fight addiction stronger. They don't do it for themselves, they do it also for god or others. They will also easily sacrifice themselves for a cause.
Surprisingly atheists can enjoy health benefits (as religious people do) if they belong to strong social group, or have many good friends. It is not much religion aspect, but more of social one, to belong to a strong group and rip health benefits.


I'd also argue that religion has two components: spirituality and ethics. Big part of ethics, as social justice, empathy, working hard for group, and few more, must be genetic and it affects religious people equally as atheists. We can find ethics in any group animals, even ants. They work hard for the community, they feed their young, they defend and give their lives when colony is in danger, they clean the nest. Even by human standards, ants are very ethical and moral, though none of it is learned, it's all inherited in DNA. Surely our social structure and interactions are more complicated than ants, and big part of ethics or moral conducts are learned, but I swear, the base of our morality and ethics must be genetic.


It's my own personal opinion that young people in the post-modern, Judeo-Christian countries, who have more often been raised in non-religious households, and more broadly speaking, non traditional households, are far less ethical in all their relationships, whether it be with a significant other, or friends, or family members, or whether it concerns business or general societal contacts. Well, it is actually not my observation. I know many atheists and many very little religious and very religious people and I must say that I don't find one group less ethical than other. My rough guess would be, there is no difference. To my understanding if someone is born just, the person will die just, regardless of religion or lack of it.

Templar
13-09-13, 12:00
There's no getting around the fact that there are advantages to being religious, as numerous studies have shown...religious people are happier, have more stable and fulfilling marriages, they're healthier, they live longer, they have greater mental stability, and on and on. .



Sources? You sound like a Christian fundamentalist. By the way, religious people aren't healthier. A big part of being healthy is maintaining a proper BMI (body mass index). Religious people are much more likely to be obese than the irreligious.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42256829/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/praise-lard-religion-linked-obesity-young-adults/#.UjLQx9LTxQg

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Diet/faith-fat-religious-youths-obese-mid-life/story?id=13204624

Since religious people tend to generally be less intelligent than atheists, self-control problems are the likely culprit for this correlation.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists--study-finds--113350723.html#NZ7hWVF

http://www.humanreligions.info/files/intelligence_god.jpg

ElHorsto
13-09-13, 13:22
Mind you that only war in Europe (since WWII) we had was in Yugoslavia between 3 religions.

In Yugoslavia there was ethnic cleansing, not religious cleansing. Religion played maximally a role as part of ethnic categorization like language, history, look etc. That's why also atheists were going to church back then, waving national flags at the same time. Only the mudjahedeen were religious.
Future wars will be more haplogroup based I guess.

Templar
13-09-13, 13:32
In Yugoslavia there was ethnic cleansing, not religious cleansing. Religion played maximally a role as part of ethnic categorization like language, history, look etc. That's why also atheists were going to church back then, waving national flags at the same time. Only the mudjahedeen were religious.
Future wars will be more haplogroup based I guess.

The "ethnic" lines were drawn by religion.

ElHorsto
13-09-13, 14:55
The "ethnic" lines were drawn by religion.

I thought the ethnic lines were drawn by history (rome, byzantinum plus earlier by separate serb-croat tribes, later Turks, Austrians, England, Russia,....). Slovenes and Croats are both catholic, yet separated from each other.

Templar
13-09-13, 15:58
I thought the ethnic lines were drawn by history (rome, byzantinum plus earlier by separate serb-croat tribes, later Turks, Austrians, England, Russia,....). Slovenes and Croats are both catholic, yet separated from each other.

In Bosnia they WERE drawn by religion. The majority of the population considered themselves Bosnians until the late 19th century.

LeBrok
13-09-13, 17:35
The "ethnic" lines were drawn by religion. I agree. It wasn't strictly religious war but the lines were drawn by religious denomination. Otherwise people look the same and speak same language.

Did religious leaders appeal for peace, or were warming troops for a fight with enemy?

Templar
13-09-13, 17:38
Did religious leaders appeal for peace, or were warming troops for a fight with enemy?

I don't know the details (since I am not old enough to really remember the war well), but I've heard many stories of SOME priests telling soldiers that to kill a Muslim isn't a sin, and that therefore they shouldn't. Or something along those lines. This is just something I've heard, I cannot confirm its authenticity.

Ike
13-09-13, 22:57
That's because communist regime kept all in check for years not letting things to play out in free way, natural way.


Not necessarily, in the west we have so much (even during this recession, and generally speaking) that not many wants to go and fight for piece of land or some ideas. Why would you risk and lose good life, kids, family, etc for who knows what? We only fight if someone wants to take it away. :) This is unprecedented 70 year peace trend in the West.


In fact, I don't understand your post. You're saying two opposite things.
First you say the war in a natural thing, but then you say there is no war in the west. All I can deduce from there is that West is under the communist regime for 70 years.

LeBrok
14-09-13, 01:19
All I can deduce from there is that West is under the communist regime for 70 years.
It didn't need to be communist regime to keep things in check. GB kept in check separatists in Northern Ireland or Spain and France kept Basques quiet. But people in the West being more free played their separatist cards for few decades now, with some sort of violence but not fully blown domestic war. These conflicts defused in natural way through time and new generations, referendums and some autonomy.

Too bad Yugoslav regime didn't let Croatia and Bosnia separate in peaceful way. If it did, then probably right now they would be back with Serbia in some sort of economic union, working and helping each other.

I'm sure with time more and more regions will separate from existing countries, like Catalonia, Scotland, Basques, Belarus, etc. under umbrella of European Union. It means that regions will never get full autonomy, but at least they will belong to bigger entity as free and willing partners. And that's the beauty of an union.


First you say the war in a natural thing,
Yes, it is very genetic for boys. All they want to do all day is to play war games, either on computer or outside. Also the team sports like football are based on two opposing sides "fighting" for a win/domination. That's way it is so difficult for humankind to escape wars and live in peace, when we are hardwired for wars.
Hopefully our good standard of life, freedoms, friends around the world, and mass media showing human face on people in neighboring countries, will appeal to our compassion and logic and make wars the thing of the past.

Angela
14-09-13, 01:27
Sources? You sound like a Christian fundamentalist. By the way, religious people aren't healthier. A big part of being healthy is maintaining a proper BMI (body mass index). Religious people are much more likely to be obese than the irreligious.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42256829/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/praise-lard-religion-linked-obesity-young-adults/#.UjLQx9LTxQg

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Diet/faith-fat-religious-youths-obese-mid-life/story?id=13204624

Since religious people tend to generally be less intelligent than atheists, self-control problems are the likely culprit for this correlation.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists--study-finds--113350723.html#NZ7hWVF

http://www.humanreligions.info/files/intelligence_god.jpg

How on earth did you deduce that? I don't make a habit of discussing my personal beliefs, or lack of them, or any other very personal information on this site. Knowing some basic facts about the sociology of religion and being familiar with the research doesn't equate to religious affiliation. It equates to a certain level of education. You might want to pick up some relatively recent textbook on the subject, if it interests you.

As to the articles you cited, I'm afraid they don't support your position. It helps to read the *entire* article if one is going to post a link to it. For example, in the above nbc news link that you posted for the proposition that religiously affiliated people are more prone to obesity, the article concludes with the following:

"Feinstein says while obesity appears to be an issue for religious people, previous studies have shown that the faithful tend to live longer, be less likely to smoke, and to have better mental health status."

Likewise, the abc article that you cited about the same Feinstein study concludes that while several studies have found this link to obesity, they did not find "an association between religiosity and negative health outcomes, (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Video/videoLogin?id=3612855) such as markers of cardiovascular disease. Indeed, several studies link faith to an increased lifespan, more positive mood, and avoidance of unhealthy behaviors like drinking and smoking."

These statements are totally unremarkable summaries of years of research into the subject.

I don't believe I addressed the issue of education level or intelligence level with regard to levels of religious belief...in fact, I thought the premise of the thread was that scientists, who are among the most intelligent and educated members of our society, have far lower levels of belief in a divine being. However, since you have raised the issue, I found this statement in your article intriguing:

“Most extant explanations (of a negative relation) share one central theme—the premise that religious beliefs are irrational, not anchored in science, not testable and, therefore, unappealing to intelligent people who “know better.”

The answer may, however, be more complex. Intelligent people may simply be able to provide themselves with the psychological benefits offered by religion - such as “self-regulation and self-enhancement”, because they are more likely to be successful, and have stable lives. "

Someone also raised the issue of divorce among religiously affiliated people. I believe that the study that was referenced showed that Catholics have a divorce rate of about 28%, Atheists 30%, and members of Protestant denominations 33%. Since atheists tend to marry at a lower rate, and cohabit more frequently, one wonders what effect these factors have on the divorce rates. Might it be that as they are less likely to marry, they are more thoughtful and less impulsive in their marriage choices, and therefore the marriages are more stable? As they also tend to have higher education levels, and higher levels of education also correlate with lower levels of divorce, that might also be a factor.

As for your comment about religious people having a problem with self control...it very much depends on the group...you've obviously never spent much time in Utah among Mormons. :smile:

Ike
14-09-13, 02:04
Too bad Yugoslav regime didn't let Croatia and Bosnia separate in peaceful way. If it did, then probably right now they would be back with Serbia in some sort of economic union, working and helping each other.

Why would it let 'em? It was against the Constitution.


Hopefully our good standard of life, freedoms, friends around the world, and mass media showing human face on people in neighboring countries, will appeal to our compassion and logic and make wars the thing of the past.

Well, we had very high standard in Yugoslavia, but it didn't help.

LeBrok
15-09-13, 04:32
Why would it let 'em? It was against the Constitution.
I guess your constitution was very stupid then. Look at results. Without US help you unleashed hell in your own home. Bravo.




Well, we had very high standard in Yugoslavia, but it didn't help. I guess you have low expectations from life. It is easier this way. ;)

Ike
15-09-13, 14:22
You made two wrong statements, and drawn one false conclusion from wrong opinion... Don't know what else to say.

Templar
15-09-13, 22:33
How on earth did you deduce that?

Christian fundamentalist are always trying to show "evidence" for benefits of religion.


As to the articles you cited, I'm afraid they don't support your position. It helps to read the *entire* article if one is going to post a link to it. For example, in the above nbc news link that you posted for the proposition that religiously affiliated people are more prone to obesity, the article concludes with the following:

"Feinstein says while obesity appears to be an issue for religious people, previous studies have shown that the faithful tend to live longer, be less likely to smoke, and to have better mental health status."


There are many different kinds of health. Cardio-vascular health, muscle endurance, BMi, etc. My point in showing that religious people were more likely to be obese was to counter your claim that religious people were more healthy. You made a huge generalization: "religious people are happier, have more stable and fulfilling marriages, they're healthier, they live longer, they have greater mental stability, and on and on."


I believe that the study that was referenced showed that Catholics have a divorce rate of about 28%, Atheists 30%, and members of Protestant denominations 33%

Most religious Americans are Protestants, therefore the divorce rate point is valid.

kromon
06-10-13, 23:36
In Yugoslavia there was ethnic cleansing, not religious cleansing. Religion played maximally a role as part of ethnic categorization like language, history, look etc. That's why also atheists were going to church back then, waving national flags at the same time. Only the mudjahedeen were religious. Future wars will be more haplogroup based I guess.More like politic cleasing.

Twilight
07-10-13, 02:34
Assuming that scientists are the smartest of us all, their spirituality or rather lack of it, can point us to the character of future society. I'm almost certain that in future people will make kids in hospitals or labs by gene manipulation, rather than risking sick or mediocre child made natural way. In future everybody will be smart, healthy and beautiful.
So, when all society is smart or super smart like today's best scientists, will society become more atheistic?
Will it bring the end of all religions?

There is more atheists among scientist than other occupations or general public.



It means that there is 10 times more atheists amongst scientists than in general public. This is huge difference.
Interestingly, the older one gets the less spiritual one becomes. At least as a scientist.

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2009/11/Scientists-and-Belief-3.gif

http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx

Interesting, although the moral philosophy might say otherwise look at Albert Einstein for example a while back I remember watching a documentary about him talking about philosophical stuff on his death bed but I could be wrong yet he claimed to be agnostic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein#Moral_philosoph y

toyomotor
21-11-13, 04:05
A very recent poll in Australia indicates that church attendance is falling, one could well extrapolate from that, that people are losing faith and therefore interest in religion. But I think the poll would only reflect the traditional Christian religions. I would not expect the same decline, for instance, in Islamic communities. I also think that young people often fail to see the relevance of religion in their lives, if in fact there is a relevance. I'm not religious and I can easily see that religion will decline into the future.

amenhotep
13-04-17, 20:00
there will always be a thing similar to religion, if there won't be todays religions i am sure people will make new one, perhaps more scientificly one

Diomedes
13-04-17, 22:00
Religion is going to be replaced by science--even that part of it that it is still hypothetical and, thus, not proven by data.

Diomedes
13-04-17, 22:02
Check some videos of Laurence Krauss and Richard Dawkins.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qb1-F_UEtS4

LeBrok
14-04-17, 02:29
Check some videos of Laurence Krauss and Richard Dawkins.

Great short and to the point speech of Krauss, and yet it touched subject from every direction.

Bergin
19-04-17, 22:44
It is all about our behavior once we know we are close to death - a terminal person.
From a game theory, one has nothing to lose and should become a rabid psychopath not sparing murder and rape to get whatever one wants.
Well, that is not really nice for the rest of the people, and we invented 2 systems: - the afterlife, and - the greater good.

-The afterlife is the typical religious/spiritual medicine so that we don't kill each other when all is lost. India is perfectly resembling such behavior.

-The greater good is the hive-mentality atheistic solution that we belong to a bigger entity and our contribution relies within it. SO no point to destroy the hive as you are part of the hive. China is a great example.

Both are lies, in my view, but welcomed ones because if not it would be the end of society. There is a lot of people that have nothing to lose and yet keep calm and peacefully (quasi) accept their destiny - sad but better than the zombie horde.

LeBrok
20-04-17, 04:08
It is all about our behavior once we know we are close to death - a terminal person.
From a game theory, one has nothing to lose and should become a rabid psychopath not sparing murder and rape to get whatever one wants.
Well, that is not really nice for the rest of the people, and we invented 2 systems: - the afterlife, and - the greater good.

-The afterlife is the typical religious/spiritual medicine so that we don't kill each other when all is lost. India is perfectly resembling such behavior.

-The greater good is the hive-mentality atheistic solution that we belong to a bigger entity and our contribution relies within it. SO no point to destroy the hive as you are part of the hive. China is a great example.

Both are lies, in my view, but welcomed ones because if not it would be the end of society. There is a lot of people that have nothing to lose and yet keep calm and peacefully (quasi) accept their destiny - sad but better than the zombie horde.
Not really. Our basic morality is genetic, for that reason atheists are as moral as christians or buddhists. There was a lot of research done on kids, before they could be "doctrinated" in morality, and yet they already behave ethically. For example, they will avoid playing with you if you cheat, or they will help you if they see you are hopeless or sad, etc.

The simplest example how morality could be genetic is from observation of simple group animals who can't learn much or at all, like ants. From the moment of being born to end of their lives, they help all the group to collect building material and food, defend own tribe, feed infants and carry them to safety, work for common good, sacrifice own life fighting enemy. All very ethical behavior even by human standards.

Of course, human social life is much more complicated, and especially modern societies have lots of rules, laws and regulations to direct our complicated lives, but basic moral and ethical instincts are very genetic.

Edward_J
20-04-17, 15:09
Wasn't there a South Park Episode that tackled this concept?

Bergin
20-04-17, 22:25
Not really. Our basic morality is genetic, for that reason atheists are as moral as christians or buddhists. There was a lot of research done on kids, before they could be "doctrinated" in morality, and yet they already behave ethically. For example, they will avoid playing with you if you cheat, or they will help you if they see you are hopeless or sad, etc.

The simplest example how morality could be genetic is from observation of simple group animals who can't learn much or at all, like ants. From the moment of being born to end of their lives, they help all the group to collect building material and food, defend own tribe, feed infants and carry them to safety, work for common good, sacrifice own life fighting enemy. All very ethical behavior even by human standards.

Of course, human social life is much more complicated, and especially modern societies have lots of rules, laws and regulations to direct our complicated lives, but basic moral and ethical instincts are very genetic.


I would like to agree with the concept of genetic morality, ... but our genetics has not changed since:
https://phys.org/news/2009-12-evidence-unearthed-mass-cannibalism-neolithic.html

LeBrok
21-04-17, 03:58
I would like to agree with the concept of genetic morality, ... but our genetics has not changed since:
https://phys.org/news/2009-12-evidence-unearthed-mass-cannibalism-neolithic.html It happened sometims in the past due to starvation, or religious rituals. Did you see movie Alive?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alive_(1993_film)
A very powerful and insightful.


Generally speaking people have aversion to eating other humans, and it must be a genetic restriction too, because it is very rare in all the mammals. Otherwise what would stop a lion to eat other lion, or wolf to eat other wolf?

Bergin
22-04-17, 02:47
It happened sometims in the past due to starvation, or religious rituals. Did you see movie Alive?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alive_(1993_film)
A very powerful and insightful.


Generally speaking people have aversion to eating other humans, and it must be a genetic restriction too, because it is very rare in all the mammals. Otherwise what would stop a lion to eat other lion, or wolf to eat other wolf?

No, I haven't. Will try to watch it.

I think quite few mammals (lions for sure), kill the cubs of other males so that they can transmit their own genes - genetic amorality? we don't do that (who knows if we did in the dawn of time?). So, i think that the smart society of the future might well be more atheistic, but will still have to affront an increasing number of psychopaths.

stevenarmstrong
22-04-17, 03:28
From my perspective, religious belief and belief in God are two different things. Just as left-brain dominant intelligence (exemplified perhaps by scientists) and right-brain dominant intelligence (demonstrated perhaps through mystics and visionaries) are two different things. A machine can be engineered to be "smarter" than any scientist. This kind of intelligence can and will be automated in the near future. Which seems to suggest to me that it is not really intelligence at all--at least not TRUE intelligence. To tap into our true potential, we need to bring left brain and right brain together. That's where our true intelligence lies. And when that day comes, we will have no need for religion; we will all be capable of experiencing God in Her trueness, without such pseudo-intermediaries. IMHO

LeBrok
22-04-17, 03:59
No, I haven't. Will try to watch it.

I think quite few mammals (lions for sure), kill the cubs of other males so that they can transmit their own genes - genetic amorality? Yes, they kill other male's cabs, or other male during a fight, and so do people. But after killing both don't consume own species flesh.


So, i think that the smart society of the future might well be more atheistic, but will still have to affront an increasing number of psychopaths. Simple answer, we don't know that. We know that there are more atheists among scientists than in general population. Do we have statistics about psychopaths and their education or religious affiliation for example? If most of them are highly educated, you might have a point.

Dibran
12-05-17, 03:50
People should just be left to believe what they wish. A system which abolished individual thought(whether that thought is batshit or not) is itself a militant ideology. Anything that force you to sacrifice your rights and freedoms is a plague. With or without religion. Men will find something to fight about. I mean, you do have Joseph Stalin. So atheists are quite capable of the same evil as religious people. So what it comes down to is a simple answer. Humans are dicks. lol

Tomenable
18-05-17, 22:46
There's no getting around the fact that there are advantages to being religious, as numerous studies have shown...religious people are happier, have more stable and fulfilling marriages, they're healthier, they live longer, they have greater mental stability, and on and on.Is it really about being religious or just about being spiritual and believing in God or a similar higher power? A lot of people in this thread are confusing religiosity with spirituality. Many atheists are in fact more "religious" in their fervour than a lot of non-religious but spiritual people. Atheism has become a kind of religion in itself for a lot of people. Especially if they try to proselytize it.

Some atheists would probably try to genocide all religious and spiritual people, if they could. I can definitely imagine equivalents of religious wars, jihads or crusades - waged by fanatical atheists against non-atheists.



http://www.pewforum.org/files/2009/11/Scientists-and-Belief-3.gif

http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspxThis data shows that the number of people who believe in God is actually increasing among new generations of scientists. Can't you see that only 32% of scientists in the 18-34 years old age group are atheists?

Do you think that scientists who are now 65+ years old used to be more spiritual or religious when they were younger? Where is the proof? I think that it is not the matter of age, but the matter of millennials being more spiritual than the baby-boomers and generation X.


Do we have statistics about psychopaths and their education or religious affiliation for example? If most of them are highly educated, you might have a point.
Psychopaths have above-average IQ but I haven't seen data on their level of education.

Angela
18-05-17, 23:24
I said it upthread three four years ago but I think it's both true and expressed well, so I'll repeat it: :)

"I'd also argue that religion has two components: spirituality and ethics. Most religions address both, but the proportion is sometimes different. In terms of the ethics component, the strength of the ethical proscriptions gains from the "divine" affiliation and the promise of punishment after death in one form or another. I think that some people underestimate the importance of this connection. One well known example is Nazi Germany. That was an atheistic regime which found the religion of Jesus not as good a fit for the culture they hoped to build as some resurrected and reconstructed pseudo-paganism. Not, of course, that atrocities haven't been committed in the name of Christianity...it's just that to do so, you have to fly in the face of a good deal of actual Christian doctrine.

It's my own personal opinion that young people in the post-modern, Judeo-Christian countries, who have more often been raised in non-religious households, and more broadly speaking, non traditional households, are far less ethical in all their relationships, whether it be with a significant other, or friends, or family members, or whether it concerns business or general societal contacts."

I would add that given the full throated assault on religion on college campuses, and by people who know nothing of the religions they criticize, btw, I'm surprised anyone coming out of college believes in God at all, much less a religion

LeBrok
19-05-17, 05:38
Some atheists would probably try to genocide all religious and spiritual people, if they could. I can definitely imagine equivalents of religious wars, jihads or crusades - waged by fanatical atheists against non-atheists. They are all there to get you, boowahahahahahah. Lol, you are making enemies in your scary eyes of all the different looking and thinking people than you. Paranoid as Trump!


This data shows that the number of people who believe in God is actually increasing among new generations of scientists. Can't you see that only 32% of scientists in the 18-34 years old age group are atheists?

Do you think that scientists who are now 65+ years old used to be more spiritual or religious when they were younger? Where is the proof? I think that it is not the matter of age, but the matter of millennials being more spiritual than the baby-boomers and generation X. Your grasp on understanding life..., still needs to develope. Young people are coming from ordinary families, which are mostly religious, and it takes years if not decades for young scientists to finally drop religious affiliations and beliefs. It takes time to analyze the world and conclude that god doesn't exist. In most of cases, becoming an atheist is a long process. That's why there are more atheists in older and more experienced population of scientists.


Psychopaths have above-average IQ but I haven't seen data on their level of education.I don't think so. In simplest definition, psychopath is a person who enjoys pleasure of causing harm to others. Not only lacks compassion but actively causes pain to others and enjoys it. You don't need high IQ to do that. However most infamous cases are of the psychopaths of high IQ, that's why it might seem like it is the case.

LeBrok
19-05-17, 05:58
It's my own personal opinion that young people in the post-modern, Judeo-Christian countries, who have more often been raised in non-religious households, and more broadly speaking, non traditional households, are far less ethical in all their relationships, whether it be with a significant other, or friends, or family members, or whether it concerns business or general societal contacts." Interesting, because I didn't notice much difference.


I would add that given the full throated assault on religion on college campuses, and by people who know nothing of the religions they criticize, btw, I'm surprised anyone coming out of college believes in God at all, much less a religion Why would you? Heck, 80 years of institutionalized and violent atheism didn't do much to curtail Russian religiousness. 75% people believe in god today. This big experiment should teach us something about human nature.

MarkoZ
20-05-17, 16:50
Young people are coming from ordinary families, which are mostly religious

Is this really true though? In Canada?

Angela
20-05-17, 18:22
It's certainly true in the U.S. My children attended a high achieving public school in an upper middle class suburban neighborhood. Off hand, I can't remember a single child who didn't attend religious services of some sort, even if it was just the Unitarian Church, which barely qualifies as a religion, imo. That doesn't count all the children who go to private Catholic or Jewish or Lutheran or whatever schools. In the south Evangelical schools are big. Virtually all of them had first communions, confirmations, bat and bar mitzvahs etc.

Even people whom I know are not actual believers themselves sent their children for religious instruction in preparation for these rites even if it was only an hour a week. That's not to mention all the Cafeteria Catholics, or Catholics who pick and choose their beliefs.

I'm sure it's different in college towns and parts of Manhattan, maybe some New Agey California places.

Even weekly church attendance is high, although declining. It was really high decades ago when we first came to this country. My mother was stunned by the pews full of father, mother, and not one child or maybe two, but three, four, or more, especially if they were Irish. In Italy, men stopped going to Mass regularly once they were confirmed.

LeBrok
20-05-17, 22:05
Is this really true though? In Canada?I should have said spiritual, as most people believe in supernatural. On top of it, this statistics was done in states, which is more religious than Canada.

ΠΑΝΑΞ
21-05-17, 01:30
I will strictly answer to the title of the thread.
-Do- you- think- that- smart- society -of-the- future- (by Eugenics) -will- be-- more- Atheist?


No, Because... we will be Gods. How the damn hell we will be Atheists
With the same humanitarian way we are humans? -Maybe.
but with more fun...
:rolleyes2:

ΠΑΝΑΞ
21-05-17, 01:35
Our Wars will be like the Class of the Titans... we will end at the dirt, and the cockroaches will sing lyrics for a lost paradise... Isn't that an epic dimension post modern paramythology?


so
IF, Theos/Θεός= eng.View as sight, scenery, outlook, visibility, ken, `knowledgε.
and view is
I)- the ability to see something or to be seen from a particular place.
2)-a particular way of considering or regarding something; an attitude or opinion.
3)-look at or inspect (something).
4)-regard in a particular light or with a particular attitude.


Is it good to live with nothing of the above?
How we gonna live;
- as sponges deep into the sea of "sterile" informations (dramatic mood -ha!)


What which possibly would we mean our word "Atheists" ? That some people do not do all the above.?
What we mean Eugenics? - My dad has a big fat wallet and will make me healthy, beautifull, and longlive if not immortal...? yes the profoundly logic -Smart dad provides the best for ... Whom?
or
We are gonna say that : We just trying to make the Humanity or our World better... for that ones with the wallets;
Because Eugenics as you well imagine are not afordable for all of us/you/them.
or we mean;
That we are gonna create the new generations into the ambules of laboratories with money of our states/goverments and sperm from one individual; -Because if there are two, we are speaking about different qualities maybe also for another price; so someone of them is probably better beetween them? Are they both compatible for sustain and stable future? -I will ask.


Enough with fun
Here in my place we say that: When a man plans, God laughs.

The finest science is the science of Logic that will transform humans, and as humans we have the abillity to make new gods- if we dont like the old ones. -We have to be reasonable and creative.
(Creative I mean analytical, synthetical, orthodox and catholical and i dont mean the religions I mean the guallities of thinking process)

Εν αρχή ήν ο λόγος.

LeBrok
21-05-17, 01:56
What which possibly would we mean our word "Atheists" ? That some people do not do all the above.?
What we mean Eugenics? - My dad has a big fat wallet and will make me healthy, beautifull, and longlive if not immortal...? yes the profoundly logic -Smart dad provides the best for ... Whom?
or
We are gonna say that : We just trying to make the Humanity or our World better... for that ones with the wallets;
One of main things about technology is that it makes things inexpensive. Years back cars, phones, vacation or air flights where only for rich. Now, thanks to huge advances in technology, everybody has a car, cellphone and can fly to vacation destination around the globe. Heck, and it is just a 100 years after invasion of these things. Now imagine how cheap these things will be in another 100 or 1000 years, together with genetic engineering.

Can you answer this question? When genetic engineering will be afforded by all people and perfected to be safe. Wouldn't you want your children to be beautiful, smart, healthy and living long lives? All it takes is to go to the clinic give your DNA and your spouse DNA and with some alteration make a perfect human being. Or you will still try the old fashion procreation technic, pray to god, and hope for the best?

ΠΑΝΑΞ
21-05-17, 19:11
One of main things about technology is that it makes things inexpensive. Years back cars, phones, vacation or air flights where only for rich. Now, thanks to huge advances in technology, everybody has a car, cellphone and can fly to vacation destination around the globe. Heck, and it is just a 100 years after invasion of these things. Now imagine how cheap these things will be in another 100 or 1000 years, together with genetic engineering.

Can you answer this question? When genetic engineering will be afforded by all people and perfected to be safe. Wouldn't you want your children to be beautiful, smart, healthy and living long lives? All it takes is to go to the clinic give your DNA and your spouse DNA and with some alteration make a perfect human being. Or you will still try the old fashion procreation technic, pray to god, and hope for the best?

And I will answer for you,
I can rudiculise and discredit myself in public, to take my pants off in the middle of a sunday church for the love of our Lord...


You know our difference -if that is the right word to say, i wish not, but cant find better at the moment-, is that when
you say: "Tomorrow, I will fly my kite to the sky with the winds."
I say: "Tommorow, if the winds wish, we will fly ours kite."


you ask me and you begin saying:
"-When genetic engineering will be afforded by all people and perfected to be safe..."
and I say:
When jesus feed the people with two breads and five fishes.... and give them also the immortal life...


Isn;t that the best price to buy... (~25 to 35Eu) and not to spend money for hundred years possibly more of sick life... with sciences and magic pills for all the diseases...
(craps)
When i will be president a week for holidays to Mars for all the families.... and that;s my word for that.

Beautifull people are many but can we see them?


That with the DNA is interesting enough, but we dont have to bother.
Keanu Reeves is the absolut stallion we have little Buddha, little Matrix, divinal composition...


Lets land our planes now.

ΠΑΝΑΞ
21-05-17, 19:17
Nice points @Le brok who could disagree; (If not the Logic itself)


These days I am very busy, but my love for you, could not stop me... I will find time to "make love with you" and I mean spiritual -Platonic love, the finest one. With no precautions the specifigue one. (no taboos, free speech, the greek way)


Technology is a nice thing, how else casn it be; There is a "logy" inside, from -Λόγος and if you agree we can use a supplementary term to desribe it as: "Handcrafted-tangible;- logical sequences"? you are open minded person Le brok and that means it is not difficult for you to follow my lines... (no matter how craps they are- Are they?) Do it and you will no regreat, Do you agree? (only for the discussion, for the "sake of argument" as usually our host @Maciamo succesfully refers...)


-so, If you agree...


Knife is a prime example of it (of technology)... but instictively we know that mostly what matter is -which one is holding it and with what purpose-. (there is no reason to elaborate it, you allraedy realise what i mean...) That knife, the "Tooth" of the jungle boy, could reveal who is the brave but also who is the coward, let me to say simple,- who is the good one and who is the bad. etc etc. That is a simplistic approach like those of highschool kids, which suddenly realise one night that something went wrong with their interpretations about what could probably life is, but these are not for us , because we are still pre school infants in terms of spirituality ( Dont worry the others are frog embryos there is alot of time before they born, and very far before they become princes.)
So,
Lets put it simple for all of us.
From a "spiritual" perspective, as for a technical also
Technology = ability, possibility, opportunity, capability, potentiality
and all the above what -element- mostly reguire to express their properties? -Thats easy isnt it;
Lets to name it Power; just to move it little further, to put in action as we could say (-power switch;... electricity;... money,... beauty for F. Dostoyevsky,... guns for A. Hitler;)


Answer me, you now:
Who, is holding the Power and if you do, be sure there is no answer thatcannot be answered! Like Archimedes once said something like "Give a stable place and i will move the World".
( My people by the way somerimes call me "o Archidees.")


Serious now if i am not off topic and not tired you, I can elaborate -for you- a very critical issue which can be setted as
The price of the value, (are we ready?)
and using your addresed samples according to your previous post (telephones, planes, super wow tecnologies and super wow people) -only if you wish.
Please read me carefully because I read you -years now- carefully.
Know me now, because I know you better... long ago.

IF (that great IF) you wish quote me I will answer every post in time...
You and [email protected] you are the best guys here for different reasons- At least for me. (who cares for the others, -rhetorically!)


Wait for a week, read me well, think it well, I am here for you.
about Atheism i recently expose my opinion here: (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34007-Atheists-are-more-intolerant-than-Christians?)
(I will give you the keys from my house, I will I wait you at the airport come with planes and kites, come with teletransportation, come with whatever you wish. I will give my one ball to science to play table tennis if it is the right thing to do.)
Correct me. (thats spiritual interaction isn't it?)
To help, is Ευγενικό, a chivalry action.

Sofie Tveit
27-11-19, 12:37
Interesting thought. I am not a philanthropist or philosopher

I believe it only get stronger, and atheist group will be a minor community.

It is true that some discoveries in the scientific world has rewrote fundamental belief in religions.

When scientific discoveries goes further deep, people will have strong feeling to resist the change.