/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1609285]

Is there enough data to predict when the next major revolution will occur bringing about the decimation of all current religions and forthcoming of new ones and probable forms of social organization.

[Anonymous No.1609298]

Atheists and agnostics on /sci/ only ever argue at all when deciding upon the definition of atheism & agnosticism

[Anonymous No.1609303]

If your name is Hari Seldon.

[Anonymous No.1609334]

>>1609285

I'm going to say when we make first contact (which will probably be within 500 years).

[Anonymous No.1609347]

I'm pretty sure atheism has been steadily increasing over time (I didn't feel like finding graphs or percentages or anything so if some other /sci/entist could do that I would be grateful), so if this trend continues eventually religion should just dry up. Especially as technology and education begins to the more "backwards" countries and states (there is a correlation between education and atheism. once again, too lazy to find sources). A revolution would be pointless and just create martyrs.

[Anonymous No.1609373]

[Anonymous No.1609378]

>>1609334

>>[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.1609385]

>>1609347
That's been refuted time and again. In Japan, Catholics have a higher IQ. That's because Catholicism isn't mainstream in Japan. Smart people tend to think outside the box and try things the rest of society isn't.

Also, it's important to note that intelligence =/= wisdom.

[Anonymous No.1609410]

>Report submitted! This window will close in 5 seconds...

[Anonymous No.1609415]

Agnostics should be moved to Theists

[Anonymous No.1609421]

>>1609385
>In Japan, Catholics have a higher IQ.

[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.1609418]

>Is there enough data to predict when the next major revolution will occur bringing about the decimation of all current religions and forthcoming of new ones and probable forms of social organization.

zero such data points currently exist, so we conclude "never"

[Anonymous No.1609426]

>>1609334
Atheists who think first contact will make even a single person less religious are fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.1609440]

sure is circlejerk in here

[Anonymous No.1609445]

>>1609426

[Anonymous No.1609449]

>>1609347
Atheism pops up as a fad now and then when charismatic leaders emerge, like Democritus a couple thousand years ago, and Dawkins today. It never lasts, because it's not a very good philosophy.

[Anonymous No.1609479]

>>1609347
>retards implying that being intelligent = being atheist

Back before you were mistakenly born into the world, the USSR successfully force a 1/3 of the world into atheism. After the Iron curtain fell, there was a massive raise in former atheist turning to Christianity dropping the number of atheist to that of the levels before WWII. Atheism has only recently started to get more attention as punk movement, converting people to satanism to piss off Christians, died out and turn into a goth/nihilist movements with atheism as their mode of nonconformism.

[Anonymous No.1609483]

>>1609449
>>1609479

[Anonymous No.1609522]

atheists have always existed as a sort of background noise in the historical record, which is overwhelmingly dominated by the signal of religion. dawkins is rather like the little "pop" produced when the phonograph needle momentarily encounters a speck of dust in the groove.

[Anonymous No.1609528]

>>1609385
So that must mean then that atheists and agnostics have higher IQs than theists in America, that's because atheism isn't mainstream in America. Smart people tend to think outside the box and try things the rest of society isn't.

[Anonymous No.1609541]

>>1609528

until recently, it did, but now it's every angry teenager's path of least resistance in trying to be rebellious. kids today choose atheism because it's easy; the generation of scientists before them were the ones who chose it because it was hard.