In a thousand years will another religion replace Christianity?

Religions have come and gone over the centuries.

Do you think it’s possible that in a thousand years or more that Christianity will slowly die out and be replaced by a new deity and a new religion that people practice?

1 Like

It’s likely changed so much in the last two thousand years, that it would be unrecognisable to many of its previous adherents.

My grandparents were they alive would struggle to recognise the religion they believed in.

Change is constant, and inevitable, and that applies to human ideas, such as religion, as well.

Whether all religion will disappear is another matter. Humans are instinctively superstitious, whereas critical thinking skills have to be learned, and while objective methods like logic and science help, education still needs to help us understand the value of such methods.

There are indicators religiosity decreases in direct proportion to education, with higher education having a profound influence in freeing people to think for themselves, often away from the influence of family for the first time.

It’s no accident IMHO that religions are growing fastest among the poorest nations, where free education is often unavailable, and girls are often not offered any education at all.

Nor is it an accident that in very religious countries, the main religions are hostile to, and seek constantly to influence education. Even in the US, where it ostensibly violates the constitution.

Probably won’t take 1000 years. I’m hoping that religions will eventually be replaced by secular humanism. However, imo human beings have an urge to the divine. I think it may have some evolutionary value. That’s why religion is universal.

This is all moot to me. What with being dead and all within the next decade or so. Or worse, gaga, a drooling imbecile in one of those ghastly aged care joints.

That is my position too.

For example, the roman catholic church is very different than it was 500 years ago, and quite different from that a thousand years ago.

One can also see the changes that can happen in a few decades. Just a few decades ago evangelicals spent a lot of their energy in raising money for charities in poor nations and missionaries. These days, they seem to be devoting a lot of attention towards political activism.

1 Like

Indeed. The case of the disintegration of the Soviet Union is a good example

Yes. But they will still call themselves Christians. A Christian today would be burned alive by a Christian group of the past for uttering the nonsense they believe.

The Christianity of today is nothing at all like the Christianity of 100 years ago. It is a completely different religion.

In a thousand years, the same shit will be going on. The religion may take on the parameters of the modern day Isis cult, or modern day Thor worship, but it will still be an anchor dragging the bottom urchins along who are forced to change while admitting to none.


Of course. It may be in the name of a religion or not.

True enough that Catholics would burn the broad category of people known as protestants. Of course proddies also liked to burn papists. I’m convinced both sides still would if they could.

…atheists will debate mostly “spiritual humanists”. Those in masses that have removed religious doctrine and rely upon spiritual truths of how humans are to treat another for their own “spiritual” rewards (afterlife, forms of karma, reincarnation). The same shit - just gentler and unnamed. Not doctrine. More “personal” as “all are gods’ [place the apostrophe where you want] children”. My guess? Even theocratic countries will be no more.

The new alien overloards will ban education, the human race will slump back into an iron age mentalaty. People is dumb without they’s technologis. And beliebs in gods.


Agree the whole alien overload stuff!

BUT - what if we turn off their technology first???

i think to answer the op all we need to is look at the past. in the last 2000 years christianity remains. is it always the most popular? no, but it doesn’t have to be, in order to be viable religion.

what you are describing is christian worship. in that your grandparents would have a hard time identifying christianity today. when in fact the core structure of christianity is the same as it was in the first few centuries. As many churches and denomination seek to preserve the bibles as it was written. while worship specific non biblical doctrine, music, dress are all apart of ‘worship services.’

A very real possibility as the government seeks to control the masses. Simply limit technology to the masses… wait! … they do that already. DAMN! We’re fucked!

Welcome to Atheist Republic Drich.

The dogmas and tenets may remain similar, but how the church interacts with today’s society has changed. At one time the roman catholic church made proclaimations, and everyone nodded their heads. These days, that same church must listen to and accommodate the public voice and societal pressures.

The dogmas and tenets may remain similar, but how the church interacts with today’s society has changed. At one time the roman catholic church made proclaimations, and everyone nodded their heads. These days, that same church must listen to and accommodate the public voice and societal pressures.

That is the point i made/was making. While the doctrine based in the bible remains… (which is what makes every different denomination uniquely ‘christian’ ) our forms of worship/how the primary denomination interacts with people/god will inevitably change.

what people don’t seem to understand, the core doctrine allows this by design. which s why christianity has been a viable religion for the last 2000 years and will continue on so long as religion is allowed. (and even if it is not if history is any indicator) it is able to adapt. one verse specifically highlights this flexibility adablity for change. Jesus himself said and taught: “What ever you bind here on earth, will be bound in heaven. and whatever you loose here on earth, will be loosed in heaven.” Christ gave us the freedom to worship him the best way we know how. that is why we got the ‘golden rule’ and the jews got several hundred point religious rule book.

Several posters have ready explained that christianity doesn’t exist as a constant, it has constantly changed, and would be all but unrecognisable to earlier adherents. However even were this not the case the longevity would in no way validate or lend any credence to the belief.

That’s an argumentum ad populum fallacy. Logically the number of people who believe a claim, tells us nothing about it’s validity.

Then why waste time mentioning logical fallacies and specious dubious claims about longevity?

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

Start there…

Sounds like the ground work for a no true Scotsman.

1 Like

The two are not mutually exclusive of course, though you would need to explain what you mean by “core structure” and why that claim has any bearing on my point?

I don’t believe that was ever true. Even when the first Christians cobbled it together, it was a subjective process, and has become more and more fractious since. However it wouldn’t matter if it could be shown objectively to be exactly as it was originally written, as this doesn’t remotely validate it’s claims, or objectively evidence any deity. Anymore than an original exact copy of the Harry Potter manuscript evidences wizardry.

Well I reiterate my previous points, however it hardly bodes well for the belief the bible is the inerrant word of of an omniscient omnipotent deity, if so many “Christians” can’t agree on what it means or what the deity it claims created it wants in the form of worship.

Though again, I’m an atheist, so I don’t care what anyone thinks the bible says, or what they think any deity wants.

Can anyone demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity?

So far I’ve never seen a shred of objective evidence demonstrated. Adherents vary wildly in their approach, from bold grandiose claims that come to nothing, through asinine denials that objective evidence is even possible, to sophistry using semantics about what objective or evidence really mean.

Ultimately I don’t have to set a different standard for believing god claims, than I do for any others. Though I’d accept Hume’s premise that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence of course.

I disagree, and a cursory read of the bible’s murderous laws and torturous punishments for what most Christian’s would now consider acceptable, rather proves the point. It isn’t just about worship, assuming you mean this literally.

Biblical laws, endorsed by Jesus n the bible allegedly, endorsed slavery, and stoning unruly children. The biblical deity encouraged it’s adherents to commit acts of ethnic cleansing, sex trafficking female prisoners, and much much more. Though we needn’t go that far back.

Homosexuality is very specifically reviled in biblical doctrine as an abomination, and even post industrialised liberal western democracies had laws persecuting gay men and women. Yet all that has changed over just a few decades. The doctrine is disregarded as unjust or immoral by many mainstream Christians.

Yes, the fact this core doctrine wasn’t offered specifically as evidence had alarm bells ringing for me as well. I’d bet my ex wife’s share of the divorce he can’t offer any objective doctrine here, and that any other Christian’s might just laugh, or damn him to Hell, for his subjective viewpoint on core doctrine.

Looking at the inquisition in the context of his claim, I’m left wonder what all the fuss was about. Galileo must have been puzzled at the church’s (over) reaction as well.

Again this a subjective claim, how are you measuring success here? It has fragmented and continues to do so, often accompanied by wars and bloodshed. Core doctrinal teachings are violently adhered to by some, and reviled as unjust by others. The bible is a mass of contradictions.

According the bible he endorsed all old testament law, so your unevidenced subjective claim, and the cherry picking of a small piece of text seems like sophistry to me.

Not that I care, as without a demonstration of sufficient objective evidence I don’t believe any claim.

Rather proving the original point about the changing nature of religions I’d say.