25 thoughts on “God To Be Phased Out by 2050

  1. SINCE – folk still talk about the Greek Gods (Male & Female) – TENS of Centuries AFTER the base for the “belief” in those Gods disappeared – the LIKELIHOOD of the “belief” in Gods – 50 years from now – is RATHER HIGH !!!!

    I’m an Atheist of MANY decades – and certainly want the Religious institutions to PAY their fair share of taxes (they DO get the BENEFITS from Tax-supported institutions) – the issue of “belief” is a DIFFERENT issue.

    FOLK WILL believe in the supernatural 50 years from now – as people HAVE BELIEVED in the supernatural over the Past TENS of THOUSANDS of years – despite the Internet !!!!!

    Although Millions of folk world wide have Internet Access – Tens of Millions of folk – do NOT have Internet Access – now or even 50 years from now.

  2. Bob;

    Just because people “talk” about the greek gods doesn’t mean they believe in their existence. We talk about them in a historical context and in ways which result from the manners in which that belief affected our society, so of course, christianity will also be talked about centuries from now, as it has profoundly affected human society for fully as long as the greek/roman gods were believed in, if not longer.

    But that doesn’t mean many people will have a real belief in its truth. The real determinant of this will be how our education system is brought into some semblance of sanity and stops teaching religion and goes back to science and reason. These things do result in less supernatural belief, which one should hope will be reduced with time.

    Additionally, as you note, there are less developed parts of the world where supernatural beliefs (not just christianity) still hold sway – this will also wane as the education level of the various societies increases.

    But it’ll take time.

  3. Hi Gregory in Seattle –

    I agree with you – AND – I believe that I said as much in my original comment !!!!

  4. Bob, your first paragraph is a non-sequitir. Yes, people still talk about the Greek pantheon. But they don’t, on the whole, believe in it. I’m sure they’ll still talk about Yahweh in 50 years, too. I hope it will be with a touch of embarrassment, that people in such an advanced society could cling to such primitive ideas.

    Also, really, we’ve had the Internet for tens of thousands of years? I did not know that.

  5. People have believed in superstition and pseudoscience for millenia, and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. But the trend is that said belief is declining.

    I, for one, welcome our new rational overlords.

  6. Personally, I think the “invention” of religion (and I use the term “religion” broadly and inclusively of many different things) is inevitable in any culture that doesn’t already have one, unless the culture has an explicit and active secularism. In order to have an active secularism you might need to have some religion somewhere or a usable historical reference to religion.

    When I think about the religion of the ancients in “Western” history (the Greek Gods, etc.) I see that as being so strange and incongruous in relation to modern society that I don’t think it would serve well. In other words, as religion fades into history in a theoretical secular world, it’s historical existence may cease to become useful in convincing people that secularism is important, and so, secularism itself may cease to be important.

    Then, religion would get re-invented. Again.

  7. Hi Nemo (in #5 above),

    I guess that you don’t understand a sentence – that uses hyphens – to separate clauses – so it appears as though you mis-understood the reference about – “TENS of THOUSANDS of years” – in the sentence – “FOLK WILL believe in the supernatural 50 years from now – as people HAVE BELIEVED in the supernatural over the Past TENS of THOUSANDS of years – despite the Internet !!!!!”

    I’m sorry for your mis-undersdtanding.

  8. If religion is reduced in 50 years to the state that Jay Bakker portrays in this video, I’m not going to be too worried about it. He sounded a bit pantheistic to me.

  9. @Bob #8:

    Actually my point was that you write poorly. Please believe me when I tell you that your excessive affinity for hyphens is not helping you to communicate.

  10. @ Nemo #11 – It’s too bad that you fail to understand that hyphens can and do properly separate clauses.

    Again, It’s so sad that you fail to understand – and lapse into a Grammar Nazi mode !!!!!

  11. Greg@7, that makes sense, but what if people maintained — just out of geeky interest — a discipline studying the cognitive science of ancient religion?

    They might continue to study how the people of 2000 CE came to believe that their lives were affected by supernatural agents, and how you, enlightened individual of the future, are vulnerable to the same cognitive errors.

    The findings could be simplified enough to teach to adolescents. Maybe by demystifying the occasional sensation of supernatural agency, a society could innoculate against religion even without a widespread understanding of why it’s important to avoid becoming religious.

  12. I’m trying to make a smart remark about bringing up things from 2000 years ago as the basis of an argument and I can’t get one that’s short enough to be pithy and as specifically tailored as I’d like it. Fuck. >.>

  13. @ 15 – Azkyroth, Former Growing Toaster Oven says: –

    How ’bout that great one-liner – John 11:35 – “Jesus Wept” !!!

    It’s some 2000 years old, short, and pithy !!!!

  14. @Bob – regardless of hyphens, your first sentence is a non sequitur. You follow a statement that refers to talking about gods with a statement about belief in gods. They are different things, and so the latter clauses ‘do not follow’ on from the first.

    Replacing commas, semi-colons and conjunctions with hyphens may seem fine to your own eyes, but communication is a two way street. The clearer your expression of language is through the use of common conventions (ie grammar, accenting of vowels), the less chance there is of a misunderstanding by your audience. You have just as much a responsibility to speak/write carefully as I have to listen/read carefully.

    Saying that it’s sad that others aren’t aware of the convoluted rules of English grammar is no excuse, nor is throwing out accusations of Grammar Nazism a good way to engage with people who find your writing difficult to read.

  15. As I have indicated in this Blog area and a number of other Blog areas, a hyphen, within a Blog space, forces a longer pause, than does a comma. I’m perfectly aware of the proper usage of commas, as these first two sentences demonstrate.

    However – when one desires that the reader, pause – for a longer period than is commonly associated with a comma – a hyphen is a perfectly reasonable and acceptable method for forcing the longer pause.

    Now, Suido (in #17), if you had had the chance to read earlier Blog posts (here and elsewhere) you would already know about the convention that I use – in forcing a longer pause within the thought process of the reader.

    As one of my all time heros within the usage of the English Lanugauge, Samual Johnson, would/could express it – the English language is highly flexible, particularly when encountering new endeavers, such as Blogs, thus, flexibility, rather than staid, sometimes, stale expression, should enliven the presentation of the written word.

    On the other hand, Gramma Nazis, tend to prefer the same ol’, same ol’.

    Just sayin’

  16. As I have indicated in this Blog area and a number of other Blog areas, a hyphen, within a Blog space, forces a longer pause, than does a comma. I’m perfectly aware of the proper usage of commas, as these first two sentences demonstrate.

    Your extra comma after ‘pause’ (and also after ‘thus, ‘sometimes’ and ‘Nazis’) gives the lie to your second sentence. They, together with your idiosyncratic use of hyphens, capitalization and multiple exclamation marks, send me the message ‘I am a kook!’ I assume this is not your intention.

    On topic: In 50 years there will still be many believers in Christianity, Islam and other religions, although I hope they will be less intolerant, fewer in number and have less influence than they do at present.

  17. Bob Allen, your idiosyncratic use of dashes and all-caps and your disjointed sentence structure makes your posts feel like a rocky road traversed in a Trabant. It’s a struggle just navigating your punctuation and typography, which seems to encourage you to jam random sentence fragments together. If you were a blogger or novelist, I’d click back or return the book to the shelf.

    I thought the interviewer was somewhat disjointed and prejudiced. When he was asked to restate a question, he asked a completely different one. He apparently couldn’t resist watering the meme that Omaba is a secret Muslim. The interview did nothing to change my opinion of journalists: nonspecialists incapable of in-depth conversations on any topic. I was pleased that his guests were able to talk about such things as belief in magic underwear and churches’ fair share of taxes. I was a bit confused about the difference between belief and faith … and disappointed that that was not challenged. Nevertheless, the segment broached the topic for many. Awareness of atheism is spreading.

  18. Hey, I like this Don Lemon guy. Maybe I need to start watching TV again.

    And even Jay Bakker says “it’s important we don’t live for life after death, that we live for life before death…we should love one another and care for each other and you don’t have to have religion for that.”

    We’re making inroads.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *