People in the world will appreciating each other`s belief

Wrong, haven't you ever heard of an asymptote?
And as per the scientific community, they commune and cede to one another through factual evidence.
THERE IS NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE IN BELIEFS

yeah, beliefs may have no factual evidence, but as we're having more and more knowledge of the world thanks to the scientific advances, more and more beliefs based on the wrong assumptions just have to disappear, eventually.

for example some centuries ago everyone believed what the church says that our grand earth is the center of this universe.

now it's ridiculous to talk of such things (but there's still some people in my country who do, just let them be), exactly because such beliefs are undermined by scientific advances.

well, of course it's not just thanks to sciences. many thanks needs to go to philosophy too, for kicking out things like apartheid and slavery.

but anyway, i think examples like that is enough for me to hold that one day all these irrelevant beliefs will one day cease to exist, because people are becoming more and more intelligent. that may not be the way to reduce conflicts and disputes, but at least there will be no people who won't agree to whatever solution that is suggested and the fights will be a lot more intellectual.

It probaly won't happen. People are stupid and don't like being wrong. If you believe in something else you are in essence saying that they are wrong and people will fight over that. I myself have trouble respecting other peoples beleifs. I don't say anything and I don't do anything but I still think that they are wrong and stupid. But who am I to say there beliefs are wrong or stupid? I sure as hell don't know what's true.
It is my personal belief that there will always be friction between those that seek truth, those that think they have found truth, and those that have found a different truth.

Using all caps and bold letters does not lend any credit to your argument. And I believe I mentioned that we would never truly reach the same point, only come very close to it. I have been forced to repeat myself many times because certain people keep ignoring my arguments and raising the same objections. I only left points out of the post that you quoted because I have already made them, and I didn't think it was a good idea to keep posting walls of text.

The rest of your post is also irrelevant. I realize beliefs are not factual, I made a post in this very thread discussing what exactly constitutes a belief, and as I said then - everything is a belief. Nothing is truly concrete. There really isn't any proof of anything. What seems factual evidence to the scientific community may appear as gibberish to someone else in the same way that religion might appear to an atheist - the difference is in perspective only.

The scientific community reaches a consensus based on what they perceive to be factual. People will change their beliefs in the same way - to someone who is religious the existence of god is as much a fact as anything else. They then convert to another religion when they see that something doesn't add up within their own. To you, the whole thing is still nonsense, but it makes sense to them.

But as I have already said two or three times, as education and communication standards increase, people will gradually come to share the same understanding of what is logical - and as our understanding of what makes sense becomes the similar, so will our beliefs.

Also, please stop trying to isolate my points and take them out of context. Attacking single points while ignoring others wont really provide you with anything but a moral victory. You still haven't said anything about how the law of entropy magically doesn't apply.

OK, the capital letters and bolding was for emphasis xD
I'm sorry about my previous post, I wasn't thinking and formulating a proper argument based upon your previous arguments and statements. I conveniently forgot your previous argument and raised a flag of ignorance (or forgetful bliss?), thinking my argument to be superior.
My failure to recognize the irrationality of my previous post (and irrelevence) is another proving point for you, as I have somewhat added (and somewhat proved) that people will indeed join a common idea when much debate/events have occured, in my case, the failing of a rather pointless argument.
So, I cede to your wonderfully thought out argument, and I apologize for the blatant ignorance shown in my previous post.

No ~ my previous 2 threads in this section show's why.

Funny, how it seems the culture will just meld just because you said about law of entropy. I don`t know law of entropy very much. But that itself is a mere one of many belief. U realized that I actually don`t agree with it. It is not that simple cause Race, faith, skin color, dialect can be meld into one. I can`t even imagine it. Can u enlighten me in details how it can be? U too realize right, for other than science major there is social major. Which means though the technology may seem able to overcome culture but don`t underestimate culture itself. Technology and science itself can`t beat the true worth of belief to cling with nor it can replace culture. People cling to it very dearly cause they wanted it. Like I said many times what I mean belief isn`t just limited to faith to God or not. The difference in principle itself has splitted many humanity. Like u can`t appreciate people`s thinking of killing thousands for greater goal. I`m sorry if u were mislead by what I said as belief cause I don`t know the perfect term for all things that u belief in like principle, faith, culture, and so on. So I just said it is a belief. Can u trully think that when they meld they only have one belief? Cause I don`t, the moment the all belief becomes one may only be the mark of human becomes a robot.

Well I initially didn't want to say anything about the law of entropy, because it makes claims about the way the universe works on a much larger scale than is the focus of this discussion. I don't need for the law of entropy to be true for my argument to still stand, though my stance on the subject is easily explained and supported by it.

Basically though, the law of entropy states that the disorder of a system will increase until it reaches equilibrium. In this case, equilibrium would be the point where we all share the same set of beliefs. It may seem strange to you that the state where we all share the same set of beliefs would be considered disorderly, but I can explain it more in detail if you are interested (alternatively you could just wiki it). It holds other rather serious implications relating to conduction of heat as well, but I wont get into that. It isn't called a law for nothing though, as the second law of thermodynamics it is a fundamental concept in physics.

You do raise a good point though - my argument assumes that humans have the capacity to learn the entirety of our compiled knowledge, and I suppose that is somewhat unrealistic. If we take the example where, as you said, we have a science major and a sociology major, then even though presumably they are both educated they still hold a different knowledge set. The problem here lies in that humans don't really live long enough to learn everything that an education could offer, so there will always be something that they don't understand.

At the same time though, the situation isn't quite the same either. I don't think conflicts are born out of things that we simply haven't studied, but rather they are born from things that we have studied, but disagree with. No one ever goes into a war not knowing who or what they are fighting, and no one ever goes into an argument without a sense of what the argument is about. But even so, I think we have mostly all agreed that there is a certain limit on how close we can come to being the same.

As to technology not being able to overcome peoples need to cling to their beliefs - I think you are being rather short sighted. As I said before, the true key is in what you pass on to new generations. Children are very impressionable, but older people are not. Technology as well is only the medium through which cultures will eventually blend, I did not mean that technology by itself would overcome anything.

Also, I would have thought it was clear by now that I knew you meant all types of beliefs - not merely religious ones. You might have noticed that my arguments on the convergence of culture and education include all those other beliefs you are referring to, including principles (these are just another sort of belief anyway). I don't think I ever confined myself to religion anywhere in this thread. I never meant that we would all converge on one belief either, only that we would converge on one *set* of beliefs (this should have been obvious?).

Well, that`s I realize that but don`t u think how fatal it will be if the belief become one. It means like there is only one people in the world. U know what I mean right? What u points out is they will not appreciate others belief but merging into one. That itself is making a mindless human which is the same as robot. I might be wrong, but the whole question is while still retaining the belief we wield we can respect others belief. But, what u said is merging all into one. Belief is foolish is what I don`t agree. That`s a way of life, people live with that as support for him/her to get through life. How can that think which affected by environment, friends, experience, personality be merged into one same with all the people in the world.

Well its not really a matter of if I think it would be a good idea, or if I like the idea. None of that really matters - it just makes sense. I would think that you as an atheist would understand that, because atheists generally view life the same way. It isn't necessarily that you like the possibility of there being no afterlife, only that you find it most probable. Not believing something simply because you don't want it to be true would be a fairly poor reason by my line of thinking, but if thats the stance you are going to take there isn't much I can say.

I did acknowledge already (in my first post actually) that I wasn't really talking about people appreciating other beliefs, so you are right there - but really that should be no surprise to you, because I have already stated it several times. I already said that truly appreciating someones belief that is different than your own is not possible, because, and I quote myself,

I don't think you are really listening to me though, because you keep posting the same thing over and over. That bit above that I quoted was a response I made to one of your posts earlier in the thread. The entire second paragraph of this post might as well have been taken verbatim from it. Your last point as well I have already acknowledged at least three or four times. Yes, it has been established, there is a limit on how similar people are likely to become - but that limit is very far off.

Well, FYI I myself not an atheist cause I just find it is the most probable thing science made. I myself look through the passage of the religion itself and think the supposed to be almighty isn`t trully almighty. So I choose not to believe it cause it is just like reading a story (no offence to one that has religion). In my case I take the social approach of not wanting to have religion. Not the science one, well maybe I`m at fault for not understanding what u are talking about cause like I said to appreciate others belief and answer it with by merging it into one. I just can`t accept it as an answer. Not that I`m afraid it will happen, cause I know it will happen. People can`t just be the same, like u said there is certain extent that people be similiar. But even with two similiar people it doesn`t mean they can just respect others belief. Like our post which can be a fact of that. I in other hand don`t believe that can happen, u believe it can happen. It is all may not be clear till the time comes. I myself have a hard time to respect u`r answer, cause like U said many times before belief isn`t something that can be merged.
edit: of course I never believe there is an afterlife nor other similiar thing.

I'm not entirely sure we fully understand each other... maybe due to the language barrier?

Don't misconstrue my answer though, I think people will become similar enough that major ideological conflicts will be impossible for sure. You are placing too much stock in the limit of the convergence of culture - I don't really see how the sort of hate that you say you experience in your country will be possible in the future I am talking about, which is after all mostly what this thread is about I think.

I'm going to let this debate die off though. Maybe someone else will bring up some new points and we will have something to discuss, but you and me are really just arguing technicalities now.

You might be true. Well, language itself can be a barrier to understand each other. Though you are right, it is more effective if we wait others to say their opinion. Which if only us two that argue it will become a never ending cycle. Which I often find when arguing in forum. Thank you for your opinion anyway