Is Atheism our only hope?

Question

..our only hope of surviving as a species, I mean. I ask this because, to me there is clearly a limited time left before some major changes are enforced upon us due to declining resources and still increasing global population. We live now in the age of religion and this present age simply cannot last forever.

Answer 1

Well, I'm not an Atheist, but if we spent less time with religion and more time concerned about our own species' survival, like the war going on, we would, in the long run, probably be better off.

Answer 2

The hope for survival of our species remain in innovation. Humans innovated and with technology were able to provide for the ever growing population. Malthus, back several centuries ago thought that humans would die out because of limited resources.

We have yet to tap into the resources that we have. The sun, the water, the wind, and our minds.

Atheism would help, but is not necessary to innovate. Eventually, it is the behavior of people to each other that will be the key test to the survival of our species. It will not be what each of us believes (or doesn't believe), but rather how we treat one another.

Answer 3

Not a chance.

First, religion is a part of the human condition. It's very hard to get around the fact that religion is a part of every human society. The only things that common are things a healthy person needs, or else we wouldn't keep having it. Heck, even atheistic philosophies often take on religious zeal and attitudes. It almost goes without saying that anything that sets itself against a normative humanity is not at all healthy for us in the short or long run.

Secondly, atheism has been tried as a governing principle for humanity in the twentieth century. In every government it was tried, it produced pernicious fruit and led men backwards towards a stone age rather than forward to peace: The USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, Cambodia, etc. Not once has it produced something desirable, not a single time. Its track record is more self-destructive and violent than any religion that's been instituted in government. Given such a record record, I'd say it's a quick way to go to extinction.

Third, I just find it false. I don't think that falsehoods will often help us overcome our problems. They're more like sugar pills to make us feel better.

Answer 4

The only reason that Greece and Rome spawned the Western world was that religious belief interacted with their lives very differently than modern day Christians.

When the Romans would conquer new territory, they believed that the current countries were ruled by other gods and would sacrifice to whatever religion the locals had. They took them as a part of their environment, and they have subsequently been replaced with scientific knowledge.

Completely different from the intolerance that is bred by most modern religions.

Answer 5

Interestingly enough, atheist countries such as Russia, China, and Japan are dropping in population due to abortions (often mandated). Very likely, in Darwinian style, Fundamentalist Christians who have 12 babies will outbread atheism by a long shot. The more obvious question is how will atheism survive in any other way than a few disgruntled ex-Christians?

Answer 6

I don't care what religion someone is, we all need to take a giant step backward and stop being so greedy and materialistic, especially Americans. We take up way more of the Earth's resources than just about any other country. We all need to conserve and simply make do with less.

Answer 7

One, we live in the COMMUNICATION age(Computers,cell phones...). Two, people too poor to afford paper was teaching orallly so if something happens to our resources we will just teach orally. Three, who need religion on resources when we have computers? Hello!

And I hope no one gives any one of us a thumbs down because we are only expressing our feelings on this matter

Answer 8

Scripture will always be here.

"As regards the Word particularly, it has existed in every age, though not the Word we possess at the present day. Another Word existed in the Most Ancient Church before the Flood, and yet another Word in the Ancient Church after the Flood. Then came the Word written through Moses and the Prophets in the Jewish Church, and finally the Word written through the Evangelists in the new Church. The reason why the Word has existed in every age is that by means of the Word there is a communication between heaven and earth, and also that the Word deals with goodness and truth, by which a person is enabled to live in eternal happiness. In the internal sense therefore the Lord alone is the subject, for all goodness and truth are derived from Him" (Arcana Coelestia n. 2895).

Answer 9

No, freedom of religion would be a huge step in the right direction though. Not what we claim to have in america now... real freedom from religion where there are no statistics or policies that are influenced by ANY religion. Sadly, the very priniciple of religon will never let this happen though as is evidenced by the answer above mine. Religion has the tendancy of saying "our way or the highway" and eventually, the highway will probably be death (as it has so many times in the past). As resources deminish, religions will claim it as the armaggedon referenced in their respective literature and people will be dumb enough to follow completely unaware of the fault in it all.

Answer 10

- Your good judgment is noted as "begging the question", the place you help your premise with a presumption that the tip is authentic. The clue is all the "if"s on your premise. not something says the ontological arguments are valid, not something ability that a god could be "eternal, previous time", not something ability that a none-eternal god "would not exist". not something validates that the universe has a reason from "exterior time or previous it". and in spite of if all of those fallacies are set aside, not something confirms that certainly one of those being created the universe. There are would greater ideal motives than a god for the universe. and that i don't want evidence to understand that a mistaken argument is invalid. Nor do I unquestionably have a burden of evidence against an invalid argument, the fallacies talk for themselves.