Religion clearly still shapes politics and identity, so this isn’t wishful thinking. But the strongest predictor of decline isn’t argument, it’s security: as societies get richer, healthier, and more educated, existential anxiety falls, and religious practice tends to fall with it. In dozens of countries, each cohort is less observant than the last; in much of Scandinavia and Western Europe, weekly attendance is under 10 percent, and “no religion” is often the largest category. Extrapolate that trajectory, and by 2100 religion may survive in pockets and as culture, but not as the default framework. That’s the disappearance that matters.

Look at South Korea: church attendance has collapsed in a single generation, and "no religion" now runs near 60 percent of the population. That's the fastest secularization on record, and it happened in a country with deep religious roots. My opponent's hospital chaplain is real, but chaplains serve everyone regardless of belief, so that's ceremony, not faith. Religion adapting proves my point: it survives as culture and ritual while the actual belief drains out. That's exactly what disappearance means here.

Picture a 2090 wedding: a couple who never pray books a chapel because it photographs well, and the officiant runs a spiritual, not religious, ceremony. That is what survival looks like. My opponent says religion adapts into community and identity, and I agree, but that concedes the core: belief drains out and cultural residue remains. South Korea’s one-generation collapse shows how fast that happens. Global religious growth is mostly fertility, not conversion; as those societies get secure and educated, the same drift likely follows. By 2100 religion may persist as heritage, not as the default framework.