Do you think there will be no Religion in about 100 years?

[Reality]

I personally think the numbers of agnostics and atheists are going to increase more and more in the future, and less people are being religious as times go on.

The advances in sciences have helped lead less people into the belief of God, for example; the Evolution theory, the discovery of dinosaur fossils, and Big Bang theory have debunked the Biblical (Christian/Jew) stories of Creation and Adam & Eve.

People have found better ways to explain the world around us, than relying on simple faiths in religion through science, logic and coincidence.

The fact that most Western countries have now separated church from state, also speaks for itself. People aren't as reliant on a God figure as they were hundreds/thousands of years ago.

I really see the world without religion in about 100 years. If not without it, then with much less than we have today.

P.S.
This topic isn't supposed to offend anyone on here that follows a religion. It's simply a debate.

[Camazotz]

I would like to think that science may change the minds of people about their religion. However, I think there will always be people with faith because they are afraid of what may happen if they don't. They fear God and going to Hell, so they will believe. Religion has played such an important part in past societies that leads me to believe there will always be religion.

[Sapphire]

Religion plays a part in society beyond explaining where we have come from and where we are going. It helps people through truly awful things like cancer and abuse.

Btw, there are a number of religions that sprung up within the past 100 years. If science was abolishing religious beliefs then this would not be the case.

I can firmly believe that religion will be around for as long as humans are.

[Reality]

Btw, there are a number of religions that sprung up within the past 100 years. If science was abolishing religious beliefs then this would not be the case.
What religions have sprung up in the past 100 years, exactly?

[Sapphire]

What religions have sprung up in the past 100 years, exactly?
Scientology in Western countries (1950's)
The Rastafari Movement in Jamacia, the Carribean and Africa (1930's)
Seicho-No-Ie in Japan (1929)

[Reality]

Scientology in Western countries (1950's)
The Rastafari Movement in Jamacia, the Carribean and Africa (1930's)
Seicho-No-Ie in Japan (1929)
None of those are particularly that major, though. They're more towards cults that anything.

[Sapphire]

None of those are particularly that major, though. They're more towards cults that anything.
They are still religions that have been formed in the past hundred years. The Rastafari Movement and Seicho-No-Ie have a strong number of followers that exceeds 500,000. Admittedly this is less so for Scientology, but it is still an example.
In the 1800's the Bahá'í faith was founded which has millions of followers worldwide.

Religion isn't something that only cropped up 2 thousand years ago. It is forever changing and this is why I really cannot see a time when religion will become extinct and long forgotten.

[Reality]

They are still religions that have been formed in the past hundred years. The Rastafari Movement and Seicho-No-Ie have a strong number of followers that exceeds 500,000. Admittedly this is less so for Scientology, but it is still an example.
In the 1800's the Bahá'í faith was founded which has millions of followers worldwide.

Religion isn't something that only cropped up 2 thousand years ago. It is forever changing and this is why I really cannot see a time when religion will become extinct and long forgotten.
I know they're not. Religions have been around since early humanity, but what I think is, their importance is getting a lot smaller, and will eventually have only a small existance.

Especially in places like England, Europe, Australia, Canada and USA.

[Sapphire]

To those that have faith or will go on to discover their spiritual/religious side, religion is very important and proves to be of huge help to them in the face of serious illness and the such like.

The sheer number of religious people in the world today indicates that no matter what happens in the next century, religion will still be important to those who have faith.
Also, do you really think that there would be arguments over the separation of the church and the state (in the US and the UK) if religion wasn't important to people?
Would religious schools really exist if people didn't think religion was important?

Everywhere you go you see people practising their religion, preaching religion, fighting for the right to not be discriminated for having faith, celebrating religious events and so on.

[Reality]

But I still think it'll lose it's importance eventually. Not completely, of course.

Arguments over church and state wouldn't have happened if it wasn't losing it's importance, otherwise we'd still be a Christian society.

[RandomChick242]

Well, I don't think it will completly disapear in 100 years, there will always be some who believe in such things, but it will defiantly be a lot less then now.

[Sapphire]

Arguments over church and state wouldn't have happened if it wasn't losing it's importance, otherwise we'd still be a Christian society.
Actually, I feel that the arguments for the separation of the church and the state are more philosophically based than religiously. Arguments against it, however, tend to be religious and traditionalist. I don't feel it is because people don't care about religion anymore.
In fact, Baptists and Mormons tend to be for the separation.

[Reality]

Actually, I feel that the arguments over the church and the state have come to more of a head because we are now a fairly multi-cultural country. I don't feel it is because people don't care about religion anymore.
In fact, Baptists and Mormons tend to be for the separation.
Not when the Mormons were founded, they didn't.

And I'm talking about separation of church and state in other countries as well. I think when the USA was founded, they wanted it, so that it would be a religious haven for those persecuted, and because there's many religious laws that discriminate certain people.

[Zazu]

I don't think it will ever dissapear.

Religion has been something which has been about for thousands of years, in many different forms. As people have said, it forms a vital part of society, it helps to create diversity, it helps different cultures to spring up and we woudln't even be having this conversation if religion 'didn't exist' :D

I can never see religion dying out tbh. There will always be people who have some form of mental want for some kind of higher being, or people who just want some set of rules to follow in life.

Saying all that though, thee only situation in which I could see religion 'dying out' would be if the world was taken over by one single power who was religiously neutral, something 1984-esque.

But still even then, there would be some form of higher power relative to everyone else. People would still be following a set of rules, following certain practices, looking up to one person.

so going back to my original point, in some ways I suppose relogion could die out, allbeit a very small chance of that happening. Just depends on how you view the word 'religion'

[TigerLily]

I think people will always strive to find something to believe in, as a source of comfort and reassurance, or for whatever it is that their religion provides them with even if scientific progress makes them look at religion in a more abstract/symbolic way rather than true scientific fact (as it has done for me).]
Just imo.

[nick]

I think there is a danger of "middle of the road", non-fundamentlist religions dying out leaving only the fundamentalists. That strikes me as a dangerous thing.

I could imagine there being no anglican church in 100 years time, but I fear the Islamists will still be going strong.

[dyslexiaa]

Scientific research might make it harder for people who believe in organized religion to practice, but I doubt it'll ever be killed off.

What I could see happening is a majority of the non-fundamentalist religious people changing over to Deist/Agnostic beliefs that more easily correspond with science.

[theOperaGhost]

There will always be religion.

[INFERNO]

I think that as science continues to progress, then religions will be more hard-pressed, however, I don't see religion dying out any time soon, and certainly not in 100 years. Religion, such as Christianity, can offer an explanation to phenomena that science cannot currently explain. Since we do not know everything there is to know and 100 years won't change that, then religions will still be used to explain those currently unexplainable phenomena by science. Of course, they still may be used even for phenomena that science can explain (i.e. when I say explain, I mean formulate theories, laws, etc...).

Religion also provides people with a sense of happiness or completeness or a feeling that they are not alone in the world when they die. Death scares quite a lot of people and science doesn't exactly paint a nice pretty picture of it, whereas religion tends to paint that nice pretty picture that comforts people. After all, when someone dies whom you love, you tend to not say "oh, he/she will rot in the ground in the coffin, be eaten by bugs, etc...". You're more likely to say "oh, he/she will go to heaven, be reincarnated because they lived a good life, etc...".

And lastly, the USA (and I'm sure other countries also) were founded by religious forefathers. I don't think it's likely for all of the very patriotic people to suddenly abandon the belief or want it to be removed.

[Koman]

None of those are particularly that major, though. They're more towards cults that anything.
Christanity used to be small and hated on for hundreds of years too. Not look at it, number 2 in popularity i believe.

[Death]

I certainly hope that religion is abolished; the world's been blind (and has enforced religion and there's far too many homophobes and that is connected with religion since it teaches it) long enough.

[Cloud]

I certainly hope that religion is abolished; the world's been blind (and has enforced religion and there's far too many homophobes and that is connected with religion since it teaches it) long enough.

actually your wrong there
only some parts of religion are against homosexuality
catholic church allows people to be homosexual jsut not practice it
Church of England and liberal protestants allow it and allow the marriages jsut dont consider them equal to heterosexual marriages

and many religions believe in equality so yeah your wrong

[Sapphire]

I certainly hope that religion is abolished; the world's been blind (and has enforced religion and there's far too many homophobes and that is connected with religion since it teaches it) long enough.
Nearly all of the homophobes I have encoutered in RL have been atheists...

[Sage]

Nearly all of the homophobes I have encoutered in RL have been atheists...

Correlation is not causation. Atheism is only a stance on the question of "Do you believe in god?" and it has no doctrine or set of teachings in itself.

There are, however, pieces of doctrine in many religions that people use to justify homophobia.

[Sapphire]

Correlation is not causation. Atheism is only a stance on the question of "Do you believe in god?" and it has no doctrine or set of teachings in itself.

There are, however, pieces of doctrine in many religions that people use to justify homophobia.
I was pointing out to Death that religion doesn't cause homophobia because most of the homophobes I know aren't religious.

[Antares]

No, religion will exist in 100 years. There are still some really crazy ultra religious people that live in the backwoods of Alabama that are willing to cut a bitch :P

lol jk
but seriously, religion has lasted since...the beginning of man and even the "radical" views of society nowadays will not stop it.

[theOperaGhost]

Nearly all of the homophobes I have encoutered in RL have been atheists...

Correlation is not causation. Atheism is only a stance on the question of "Do you believe in god?" and it has no doctrine or set of teachings in itself.

There are, however, pieces of doctrine in many religions that people use to justify homophobia.

I was pointing out to Death that religion doesn't cause homophobia because most of the homophobes I know aren't religious.

All of the actual homophobes I know are atheists. Now I will say this, Christianity is against homosexual INTERCOURSE, not homosexuality itself. Christianity is also against intercourse for pleasure. I think everyone goes too far this the fucking all christians are homophobes shit; give it a fucking break. From a strictly biological and physiological perspective, I am against homosexual intercourse as well. From a social and relational perspective, I see no problem. I see absolutely nothing wrong with two men or two women having a relationship. The purpose of sexual intercourse however is procreation, which is not possible with the same sex.

[chris__robin]

The purpose of sexual intercourse however is procreation, which is not possible with the same sex.


if the only reason people have sex is to procreate then you would have to admit that condoms, the pill, the morning after pill and every other contraceptive device are against nature like you say homosexual acts are.
But lets face it, it may be natural for sex to be used to procreate in nature, but its human nature to have sex for pleasure.

Continuing on from that theme, i can safely assume that everyone reading this post will at some point in their lives have sex purely for pleasure and most likely (if smart enough) use contraception, which defies the point of the biological definition of sex just as gay sex does. And another point i need to make is, telling gay people its okay to be gay but you cant have sex is like telling straight people that its okay just don't get into bed together. everyone wants and needs sexual pleasure whether you believe its right or wrong.

[theOperaGhost]

if the only reason people have sex is to procreate then you would have to admit that condoms, the pill, the morning after pill and every other contraceptive device are against nature like you say homosexual acts are.
But lets face it, it may be natural for sex to be used to procreate in nature, but its human nature to have sex for pleasure.

Continuing on from that theme, i can safely assume that everyone reading this post will at some point in their lives have sex purely for pleasure and most likely (if smart enough) use contraception, which defies the point of the biological definition of sex just as gay sex does. And another point i need to make is, telling gay people its okay to be gay but you cant have sex is like telling straight people that its okay just don't get into bed together. everyone wants and needs sexual pleasure whether you believe its right or wrong.

I'm not disagreeing with you. This is why I said in my post that I don't care. I don't let my personal opinions get in the way of anything. I may personally think it's wrong, but it doesn't mean I'm going to do anything about it. People can love whomever they want. People can fuck whomever they want. I also don't recall saying (at least explicitly) that I don't think gay people can have sex. I may have said so implicitly, yes, but I'm focusing on physiological intercourse for procreation, not pleasure. I'm not denying that I have and will have sex for pleasure. All I'm really trying to say is that it isn't only religion that is against homosexual intercourse (religion is not against homosexual love in my opinion), but physiologically, homosexual intercourse is unnatural.

[Death]

When I said that christians are homophobes, I said that because they were against the act. I you are against the act, you are homophobic, and that isn't nice. Also, I never said that athiests wern't so I'm afraid that, that point is also invalid. Lastly, I suppose that I should have been a bit more clear, but the bible teaches homophobia and those who truly follow it, must be homophobic otherwise they arn't completely going by the bibles' teachings.

[Sapphire]

When I said that christians are homophobes, I said that because they were against the act. I you are against the act, you are homophobic, and that isn't nice. Also, I never said that athiests wern't so I'm afraid that, that point is also invalid. Lastly, I suppose that I should have been a bit more clear, but the bible teaches homophobia and those who truly follow it, must be homophobic otherwise they arn't completely going by the bibles' teachings.
The Bible teaches Christians to "love thy neighbour" and for only those without sin to judge others, not prejudice and discrimination.

[AllThatIsLeft]

Ugh. Not all Atheists are homophobes. It feels like generalization. Well it is not entirely true.

Also, Religion has been around since the beginning of time, it has lasted over 2000 years, and can be brought back to the oldest civilizations. That is thousands of years, a mere hundred years will probably decrease it by 1 or 2%.
probably less.

As long as human's exist, religion will be a certain thing.

[Death]

The Bible teaches Christians to "love thy neighbour" and for only those without sin to judge others, not prejudice and discrimination.

Then the bible contradicts itself. There are some discrimitive things in the bible but I suppose that you (or whoever implied this) are correct in saying that Christians don't have to follow this exactly so I suppose I was a bit ignorant there but still, it's in the bible.

[Sapphire]

Then the bible contradicts itself. There are some discrimitive things in the bible but I suppose that you (or whoever implied this) are correct in saying that Christians don't have to follow this exactly so I suppose I was a bit ignorant there but still, it's in the bible.
It doesn't promote discrimination. There are several parables and teachings that urge Christians NOT to discriminate. A true Christian will not discriminate or judge. A true Christian believes that God is the only one who is able to judge people and that He only hates the sin, not the sinner.

[Sage]

It doesn't promote discrimination. There are several parables and teachings that urge Christians NOT to discriminate. A true Christian will not discriminate or judge. A true Christian believes that God is the only one who is able to judge people and that He only hates the sin, not the sinner.

There is no such thing as a true Christian, just as there are no true Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, etc.

[Sapphire]

There is no such thing as a true Christian, just as there are no true Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, etc.
There are Christians who believe that everyone deserves to be given another chance and who don't discriminate against people. They are just generally more discreet about their religion than their more discriminating counterparts.

[Sage]

There are Christians who believe that everyone deserves to be given another chance and who don't discriminate against people. They are just generally more discreet about their religion than their more discriminating counterparts.

Just because they're the most pleasant to deal with doesn't mean they're the proper representation.

[lesher]

I think the existence of religion is like quadratic equation. (sounds mathematical, huh?)

It won't disappear 100%, because it's the best moral control in people life. But however, it will pressed to almost zero... Because the development in technology is increasing steadily as time passes.... And technology usually ends with new discovery

[Sapphire]

Just because they're the most pleasant to deal with doesn't mean they're the proper representation.
I never said anything about representation so I don't know where that has come from.
I was talking about these Christians because they are the ones who stay true to the message at the heart of Christianity and indeed any mainstream religion.

[Bluearmy]

I can see where you are going with this (thread maker.). The amount of people in the world belif in God has gone down. And science has succesffuly complelty disloged relgions like that of the aztecs and anceint greeks. Or so you would think. People still practice those things (a very small majority though.). For instance, I know a Pagen.

To me, Science is just this societies way of explaining things. Nobody susspects this but me, but I predict that if the world doesn't go all bonkers and blow up, there will be a totally new way of thinking on how everything works. But the Idea of God will remain, because it is true.

[Sage]

I can see where you are going with this (thread maker.). The amount of people in the world belif in God has gone down. And science has succesffuly complelty disloged relgions like that of the aztecs and anceint greeks. Or so you would think. People still practice those things (a very small majority though.). For instance, I know a Pagen..

Paganism is actually growing these days, last time I checked.

[scuba steve]

not a chance in hell there will always be some kind of religion as a kind of faith for people. just more advanced like the roman empire changing from their own gods to christianity

[INFERNO]

I think the existence of religion is like quadratic equation. (sounds mathematical, huh?)

I really don't understand the analogy you're trying to make here.


It won't disappear 100%, because it's the best moral control in people life. But however, it will pressed to almost zero... Because the development in technology is increasing steadily as time passes.... And technology usually ends with new discovery

I think it won't be pressed to almost zero no matter how sophisticated technology gets. First, religion gives people a sense that they're not alone, gives them something to turn to for guidance, happiness, moral compassing and teaching, etc... . Second, humans are social animals and they like to be together especially if there is something in common amongst all them. Religion gives a commanlity that is not superficial, it becomes something that is part of them. Third, religion has existed for 2,000+ years. Since humans began, that's approximately when religion began. It's stood the test of time and to this day, it's still riding strong. I doubt that religion will be gone but if it happens, I think it's extremely unlikely to virtually impossible it'll be gone in approx. 100 years.

I think religion may chance accordingly as technology and science progress but I don't think it will ever die out.

As for the issue of homophobia and discrimination, Jesus Christ taught people to be compassionate, forgiving, and to love everyone no matter who they are. God also loves everyone, although it seems as though one's action and onself become two separate entities where you judge their actions yet still give mostly unconditional love to everyone (I say mostly because when you are said to be judged at death, it seems like you are judged for your actions yet you suffer anyways despite being loved, have a bit of trouble wrapping my head around that at times).

[punkjake]

I use sciences with God,i think he created the big bang and made us through eveoultion ,just becuz you can't see it doesn't make it fake.

[Quote]As for the issue of homophobia and discrimination, Jesus Christ taught people to be compassionate, forgiving, and to love everyone no matter who they are. God also loves everyone, although it seems as though one's action and onself become two separate entities where you judge their actions yet still give mostly unconditional love to everyone (I say mostly because when you are said to be judged at death, it seems like you are judged for your actions yet you suffer anyways despite being loved, have a bit of trouble wrapping my head around that at times).[Quote]

I agree with you about the homophobia,Im a christian and i think everyone ,is going to heaven,I'm catholic but i don't like somethings about the bible,mainly becuz humans wrote it ,not God ,i think they add stuff like gays bruning in hell,stuff like that.:yes:

[INFERNO]

I use sciences with God,i think he created the big bang and made us through eveoultion ,just becuz you can't see it doesn't make it fake.

I like it when people allow both to co-exist.


I agree with you about the homophobia,Im a christian and i think everyone ,is going to heaven,I'm catholic but i don't like somethings about the bible,mainly becuz humans wrote it ,not God ,i think they add stuff like gays bruning in hell,stuff like that.:yes:

Well, it was written in the word of god, so still by humans. However, the gays burning and such, to me that is simply a reflection of the society, laws and social norms of that time.

It's like way back when, when to test for whether or not someone was a witch, you put them under water and see if they float. That was legal and encouraged, fit with the social norms of that time. Nowadays, you'd be sent to court and probably prison/jail.

So, to me, those such things are not what god almighty professed, but rather a sample of how the civilization back then functioned.

[scuba steve]

why would it be the word of god say gays burn in hell?! homesexuals do not go against god as his own creatures somtimes have same sex relations like sea lions and most recently on the news there's a gay penguin couple who have adopted an egg

[INFERNO]

why would it be the word of god say gays burn in hell?! homesexuals do not go against god as his own creatures somtimes have same sex relations like sea lions and most recently on the news there's a gay penguin couple who have adopted an egg

Because the bible regards humans and not other animals. Also, as I've said already, it's a reflection of the society and social norms at that time, where animals probably weren't seen as equal to humans. Putting them in the bible and applying it to them would make it seem as though they were.

As for the gays burning in hell bit, see my above post.

[scuba steve]

then in a way the bible does not count as the word of god as he would care for all his creatures?

[INFERNO]

then in a way the bible does not count as the word of god as he would care for all his creatures?

No, it still would be in the word of god. He may not regard humans as being at the level of other animals (i.e. social norms at that time), however, he would still have some amount of caring towards them. It's difficult to answer this because the views at that time and now are different, hence, it may seem confusing nowadays.

[vito22andolini]

I hope we will realise that religion is DUMB and useless

[INFERNO]

I hope we will realise that religion is DUMB and useless

And why is religion so "dumb and useless"? It did hinder science and to an extent, it still is today, no argument there. However, nowadays the amount of hinderence overall isn't that big. But what reasons do you have to conclude that all religion is dumb and useless?

[pkid]

I personally think the numbers of agnostics and atheists are going to increase more and more in the future, and less people are being religious as times go on.

The advances in sciences have helped lead less people into the belief of God, for example; the Evolution theory, the discovery of dinosaur fossils, and Big Bang theory have debunked the Biblical (Christian/Jew) stories of Creation and Adam & Eve.

People have found better ways to explain the world around us, than relying on simple faiths in religion through science, logic and coincidence.

The fact that most Western countries have now separated church from state, also speaks for itself. People aren't as reliant on a God figure as they were hundreds/thousands of years ago.

I really see the world without religion in about 100 years. If not without it, then with much less than we have today.

P.S.
This topic isn't supposed to offend anyone on here that follows a religion. It's simply a debate.

first of all religion has survived thousands and years of turmoil, why stop in 100years? and they call it the big bang "theory" and the evolution "theory" for a reason, because they can't really prove what happened, happened, they can only hypothesize or look at other things going on around us.

[Sage]

they call it the big bang "theory" and the evolution "theory" for a reason, because they can't really prove what happened, happened, they can only hypothesize or look at other things going on around us.

A theory in every day context and a theory in scientific context are different things. In every day context, a theory is an educated guess. In science, a theory is a compilation of observable facts that is used to explain an aspect of existence.

I swear to gods, if I had a nickel every damned time I need to explain what a scientific theory is...

[INFERNO]

first of all religion has survived thousands and years of turmoil, why stop in 100years? and they call it the big bang "theory" and the evolution "theory" for a reason, because they can't really prove what happened, happened, they can only hypothesize or look at other things going on around us.

In science you cannot prove anything is completely true or false. Scientific theories by definition are falsifiable and are meant to be attempts to explain something. It's different from a hypothesis, which can be thought of as a prediction. It's not guessing in the air, there is a reason with some evidence to support it and it gets re-tested and re-tested.

[ratiug]

I think religion is a thing that will never die out. Some people need it because it makes them feel good, other because they feel empty, and some because it helps them with their problems. I believe that a balance between science and religion can be reached. Still Semp mentioned the evolution THEORY. why not the evolution law? because it hasn't been proven if it really does happen. People can't prove a higher being exists but they can't prove that one doesn't exist. That is why people will still practice religions. And after all it is all based on faith, or when you risk yourself to prove something don't you have faith it will be proved? If I remember correctly Albert Einstein said: " This world is so mathematically perfect, that a higher being must have created it". A little example of people who have reached a balance between science and religion, I think if everyone was like this the world would be better. Anyways the point is religion isn't going to die in a 100 years and I don't think it will ever. ^^

[pkid]

In science you cannot prove anything is completely true or false. Scientific theories by definition are falsifiable and are meant to be attempts to explain something. It's different from a hypothesis, which can be thought of as a prediction. It's not guessing in the air, there is a reason with some evidence to support it and it gets re-tested and re-tested.

well yea..kinda the same thing..science can't really prove 100% what happens happens (well about things like evolution/creation etc.)

[INFERNO]

well yea..kinda the same thing..science can't really prove 100% what happens happens (well about things like evolution/creation etc.)

They cant prove anything 100% or 0% for anything involving science. If by creation you mean the religious aspect, then the two shouldn't even be combined in such a mess.

[Whisper]

Religion isn't going anywhere
nor should it
it has done a great deal of good for our societies both in the ancient past and in modern day
it has flaws and has caused damage granted

But so has science
saying 5 hail Marys didn't bring about the atomic bomb or sarin gas now did it


It depends on what individual PEOPLE choose to use it for
comes down to a personal moral choice
demonizing religion is weak and childish

a very unscientific approach indeed