The future is for agnostics

I guess he must have been referring to how religious parents brainwash their kids into believing stupid things. But unlike the tooth fairy and Santa Claus, they never admit they were full of **** on religion.

 

That's the most generous explanation, but even that doesn't really work seeing as how many people are leaving religion, regardless of how they were raised.

 

I say what I know, not what I believe. Neither have I "chosen a version of God". The true and living God chose to reveal his existence to me by his spirit, awakening me to a remembrance of him. So I speak for myself that which I know. I don't speak for everyone. Would you have me lie?

The OP says there is no God, and the future belongs to unbelievers. And you don't take him to task for his godless and blasphemous prophecy about everyone's life. But because I say he is in alignment with Jesus's warning, you put me to the rack as if I had uttered a blasphemy.

You think your life is all there is, and that there is no living God. But I tell you that you are dreaming and have forgotten God, just as you forget your life when you sleep and think your dreams are real. The difference of course is that in mortality, the consequences are real and eternal. Warnings don't spring from hate. So why the animosity?

 

And again, outside of your feelings — how do you know?

The future belongs to facts and evidence most likely unless one of the more domineering religions takes it over first. Islam is the current leader in conversion.

Because they are not just warnings, they are actions. Religious belief is the cause for a good amount of the world suffering not to mention what they try to impose into law.

 

Interesting take. It's nuts, but interesting.

 

lol... okay maybe if I put it less abrasively: Religious people raise their kids to be religious. Was that your point?

 

It isn't a matter of my feelings. It is a matter of Gods spirit. I know it was his spirit because I recognized and remembered his spirit. How else is one to know that a spirit is of God if you don't recognize and remember his spirit. And how can you recognize and remember his spirit, if you hadn't forgotten him. And how can you forget and remember who you never knew.

That fits with Jesus warning that outside of him is the broad way to death.

Evil in the name of God isn't Godly. It is godless. It is to neither know nor believe in the living God. First Satan gives God a bad name. Then Satan criticizes God for the thing Satan has done. I can't believe people fall for that myth/trick.

 

Thats called a feeling. But ok
Do you know how many people around the world claim the same? From hundreds of different religions… but only yours is real. Sure bro

More belief and little substance

Your god created satan, as well as evil and childhood cancer, so anything satan does is the fault of your god since it is supposed to be omnipotent.

Your god is evil if it exists.

 

No. In fact, I don't know how you got there.

My point was simply that fertility wise, religious people have more kids than the non religious. Some of those kids won't be religious, and will join the ranks of the not-so-fertile, and then that generation, the kids who are religious will have more kids than the non religious and so on, generation after generation.

So, contra the subject line, the future will not belong to agnostics.

Frankly, I've been amazed that so many people (yourself included) have such a knee jerk hatred of religiosity that you felt the need to attack me with ridiculous comments. If you disagree with my point, then bring a counter argument to the table instead of embarrassing yourselves.

 

Decrease in population numbers is bad for the economy in the short term. And its bad for the species if truly dire. But dire it isn't. Atheists and agnostics do have children, just not as many. And non-religous is highly correlated with income and comfort levels, which also correlate with lower reproduction rate. The poor and desperate tend ot be both more religous, and have more children.

 

Demographics seem to indicate otherwise. Religous adherence is down. Atheism and Agnosticism are normalized and rising in numbers.

 

At least Agnostics are a lot more intelligent than Atheists who are dogmatic and overly simplistic in their supposed lack of spirituality.

www.CarbonBias.blogspot.ca

 

That's why they are the ones who will show up for the future.


Which was my point.

 

In the West, which had declining demographics?

If you have a study to show that religious adherence is declining worldwide, outside the West, I would be curious to see it.

 

i
Most atheists are agnostics. I don't know the exact numbers but would not be surprised if 90% of atheists also identify as agnostic. It's the very nature of atheism.

 

Good point......
when Richard Dawkins Ph. d. identifies himself as an "Atheist".... I believe that he is being intellectually dishonest......

because his comments regarding alien life forms........

[assuming that the term "alien" can be expanded to include extra - dimensional as well as extra - terrestrial aliens]... would mean that he is wide open to
intelligences evolving that are far, far, far, far, far, far, far beyond us humans....
when it comes to technology!


Does Richard Dawkins Ph. D. lack understanding of The Anthropic Principle?

https://near-death.com/the-holographic-universe-supports-near-death-experiences/


The Holographic Universe Supports Near-Death Experiences
BY KEVIN WILLIAMSPOSTED ON JULY 30, 2021

 

Now you're just trolling. You still made the point that religious people raise their kids to be religious. If there were no link between ones parents being religious and offspring being religious, what you describe would not affect rates of religiosity unless you're positing it's genetic.

Yes, religion is an annoying delusion that hinders our species. Though I don't think I attacked you, you may feel attacked if you are religious.

 

Well that's the thing; I'm not religious. I'm (wait for it) agnostic. But my personal viewpoints about the divine, or lack thereof, have nothing to do with fertility data. I don't even understand what point you are making when you say, "You still made the point that religious people raise their kids to be religious." That seems to warrant the response of: "Duh." Of course they do. But has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. How does it matter if they were raised religious or picked it up as an adult? That factor doesn't seem to impact fertility differences between the religious and the non-religious.

And thanks for confirming that your disagreement with me was only about your personal animus to religion, and not based on any other data or reason. Just pure emotional id.

 

It was related to what any reasonable person would read as your point. That religious people try to make their kids religious. It is distasteful to me that religious people raise their kids to be delusional like this.

"But it has nothing to do with I'm talking about"

I'm having trouble believing you believe what you type. If religious people have more kids, but religiosity were not dependent upon how one is raised or genetics, then religious people having more kids would NOT affect rates of religiousity. So it is only by saying they were raised to be religious, or inherit genes to increase religiosity, that your point could make sense. Of course we can assume they will raise their kids to be religious. But that is the nature of your point and you're denying it for some reason.

 

"It is distasteful to me "

As I suspected, this is all emotional for you.

"then religious people having more kids would NOT affect rates of religiousity. "

Since your "argument" is at base an emotional rant, not an actual argument, I don't think there is a response that I could give that you would either accept or understand. And it's not that complicated to understand. Atheists and agnostics have fewer children than the religious do. I honestly don't understand what's so hard to understand. If you disagree, fine. If you have evidence that contradicts that, fine. But simply having a tantrum because you find those people "distasteful" is irrelevant to me.

 

No. It is wrong to teach kids delusions. That's not emotional, that's just logic. But it's understandable at least when the parents are delusional themselves.

lol, you don't get me, and I really don't get you. One more try. By what mechanism does religious people having more kids result in having more religious people? You have stated it's not by them raising them to be religious, and had not responded to the suggestion it might be something genetic. It's almost like you made the point without thinking it through, or are leaving something unstated.

 

Ahh you want to know WHY religious people have more kids? I never addressed that, so does that mean you accept that the religious are having more kids?

 

Nope. I am asking you why you think religious people having more kids results in more religious people.

I never disputed that religious people have more kids. The only potentially controversial thing I said was that it is a bad thing that religious people indoctrinate their kids. I DO believe that is the mechanism by which more religious people having kids leads to more religious people. If it were not the case, and if it were not genetic, then religious people having more kids would not lead to more religious people. I guess I can think of a 3rd mechanism, in that religious people simply provided a model that children follow to become religious rather than "forcing" it on them. Is that what you meant?

 

The future is for whichever group does a better job at convincing others that they are right.

 

No, because I never addressed the mechanism of why more religious people have kids, only that they do. If you recognize that, it seems we don't have a disagreement at all, in spite of your best efforts.