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

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.
 
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.

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_philosophy
 
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.
 
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
 
Religion is going to be replaced by science--even that part of it that it is still hypothetical and, thus, not proven by data.
 
Check some videos of Laurence Krauss and Richard Dawkins.

 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.

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.

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 

This thread has been viewed 43418 times.

Back
Top