
Ask HN: By when will majority of homo sapiens become true atheists? - hubatrix
While reading Homo Deus, I was intrigued by this question of when will a consensus be drawn among us that we are just an other animal and there is no one called God. a slow transition to this singularity can be observed reviewing our history, but I am curious to know your opinion on when we will reach there and what might be a supplant to God. Off course there will be anomalies in all casses, let&#x27;s root them out as of now.Let&#x27;s Discuss more in the comments section.
======
wahern

      a slow transition to this singularity can be observed
      reviewing our history
    

Citation? Atheists, using the modern definition, were known in Plato's time.
Many so-called atheists today _promote_ facially superstitious beliefs. For
example, the anti-GMO movement.[1] Indeed, I don't think I've personally ever
met a single individual (myself included) who didn't systematically exhibit
superstitious beliefs.

A propensity to superstition might be an unavoidable byproduct of abstract
reasoning or of complex social organization. The first question shouldn't be
when do we become true atheists, but whether we want to be. The next question
might be, how do we devise processes and institutions that independently
address our biases and superstitions, either by mitigating or reshaping them.

[1] Because lack of evidence is not evidence. Neither is appealing to
uncertainty or supposedly unacceptable risks (annihilation of all humanity)
without _quantifying_ those risks. In rational discourse there's no avoiding
accepting the limits of existing knowledge. But people aren't very good at
abstaining from drawing conclusions.

~~~
hubatrix
"Archaic hunter-gatherers were just another species of animal. Farmers saw
themselves as the apex of creation. Scientists will upgrade us into gods"

I think you misunderstood the context I am really emphasizing on, here. it's
not about whether this world consists of "true" atheists or not rather it is
about when can at least a majority of us become agnostic about God and
supernatural powers. As @tomhoward mentions below superstition may be a
byproduct after all ,but I agree with your take on the dire requirement needed
to mitigate the rampage of unscientific belief being capitalized by demagogs
knowingly or unknowingly. Mere education seems to be working but personally, I
can't withstand its dawdling struggle against gov funded conventions. What
pragmatic steps do you think we can take to ramp up the processes of awareness
without being ousted by the society or of that sorts.

------
tomhoward
I started my militant atheist phase about 10 years ago, then emerged from it
about 4-5 years ago as I started to understand enough about the world/universe
to realise that much of the true nature of existence is way beyond our ability
to comprehend.

That doesn't mean I have any belief in a theistic, interventionist god.

It does mean I have an acceptance and appreciation for the transcendent and
the unknowable, similar to what Einstein and Darwin described of themselves.

I'd recommend exposing yourself to the writings of physicists like Roger
Penrose and Freeman Dyson, and recent podcast appearances by physicist Eric
Weinstein, to understand how religion and spirituality can (and indeed, must)
co-exist with physics.

To answer the question in the title of your post: we are so far away from
understanding the fundamentals of the nature of reality, that such a question
doesn't bear any serious consideration at all.

~~~
hubatrix
" I started to understand enough about the world/universe to realise that much
of the true nature of existence is way beyond our ability to comprehend."

Can you quantify this with one of your own experiences? I will learn from it
vicariously if possible. I am not militating theists and neither am I
propagandizing atheism. Surprisingly enough these superstitions have saved
animals and humans before (Ex: Hinduism, Bhudisim, Jainism, etc.) but caused
more harm than good. I will look up people you referred and their writings. We
will always be unbeknown about God or some super power because no matter how
much technically advanced we become, there will always be layers deeper to dig
into and we can never declare that we know everything to prove that God
doesn't exist.

We can only fail to accept God but never truly reject him.

This is a universal truth.

You have all the freedom to be an agnostic(which I am too) and not an atheist,
but what I am urging on more people should be educated enough to be agnostic
and have the courage to question an action made in the name of God the
almighty.

The question was to rekindle thoughts among HNs as to where we really stand in
this path towards unknown waters.

~~~
wahern
Replace "God the almighty" with "homeland", "honor", or "science". Does it
make a difference?

If it doesn't make a difference, then what does any of this matter? If the
issue is people using imaginary persons, relationships, and qualities to
justify bad behavior, I don't see how the response should be promoting a
reactionary identity that fundamentally commits the same error. Some
communists committed unimaginable horrors in the name of suppressing religious
ideas. I'm not trying to equivocate history, but am trying to point out that
replacing theism with anti-theism or even skeptical-theism isn't necessarily
going to produce different outcomes in the long run. God exists, such as he
does, whether you say "there is a God" or you say "there is no God" or you say
"I don't know if there's a God". The only way to purge the idea is to say
nothing at all.

If there is a difference, then there might something distinct and salient
about such a concept that might be beneficial and worth preserving,
notwithstanding all the harms.

------
gregjor
Extrapolating from history: never

Based on the power of HN comments to change humanity: never

We have to start by not capitalizing "god" and improving our writing skills to
better argue with the believers.

------
steanne
when we meet sentient aliens and they laugh at us?

