Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

There are 14735 comments on the News24 story from Aug 27, 2012, titled Why Atheism Will Replace Religion. In it, News24 reports that:

Please note that for this article "Atheism" also includes agnostics, deists, pagans, wiccans... in other words non-religious.

You will notice this is a statement of fact. And to be fact it is supported by evidence (see references below). Now you can have "faith" that this is not true, but by the very definition of faith, that is just wishful thinking.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at News24.

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

#13100 Jul 9, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it is something that we construct tools to measure. We also construct tools to measure space, mass, charge, etc. All of these are physical things that we measure through our tools. But don't confuse the tools we make for the physical things we are measuring.
The concept of time is a mental construct. Humans use it to make tools to measure things which actually exist, like matter and energy. Time is just a concept like alphabets, words, numbers, mathematics, etc. Time is neither matter nor energy nor a force that interacts with matter or energy and it simply does not exist except in the minds of humans.

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

#13101 Jul 9, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the 'interval' between the two *is* the 'time' between the two. it is an interval *in time*.
<quoted text>
This is wrong. In fact, time can be affected by energy and matter as shown by relativity and proven by actual observations. You also seem to be confusing gravity (the force that makes you fall) and time (the interval of the fall).
From Scientific America:

In Brief

Time is an especially hot topic right now in physics. The search for a unified theory is forcing physicists to reexamine very basic assumptions, and few things are more basic than time.
Some physicists argue that there is no such thing as time. Others think time ought to be promoted rather than demoted. In between these two positions is the fascinating idea that time exists but is not fundamental. A static world somehow gives rise to the time we perceive.
Philosophers have debated such ideas since before the time of Socrates, but physicists are now making them concrete. According to one, time may arise from the way that the universe is partitioned; what we perceive as time reflects the relations among its pieces.
As you read this sentence, you probably think that this moment—right now—is what is happening. The present moment feels special. It is real. However much you may remember the past or anticipate the future, you live in the present. Of course, the moment during which you read that sentence is no longer happening. This one is. In other words, it feels as though time flows, in the sense that the present is constantly updating itself. We have a deep intuition that the future is open until it becomes present and that the past is fixed. As time flows, this structure of fixed past, immediate present and open future gets carried forward in time. This structure is built into our language, thought and behavior. How we live our lives hangs on it.

Yet as natural as this way of thinking is, you will not find it reflected in science. The equations of physics do not tell us which events are occurring right now—they are like a map without the “you are here” symbol. The present moment does not exist in them, and therefore neither does the flow of time. Additionally, Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity suggest not only that there is no single special present but also that all moments are equally real [see “That Mysterious Flow,” by Paul Davies; Scientific American, September 2002]. Fundamentally, the future is no more open than the past.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#13102 Jul 9, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
From Scientific America:
In Brief
Time is an especially hot topic right now in physics. The search for a unified theory is forcing physicists to reexamine very basic assumptions, and few things are more basic than time.
Some physicists argue that there is no such thing as time. Others think time ought to be promoted rather than demoted. In between these two positions is the fascinating idea that time exists but is not fundamental. A static world somehow gives rise to the time we perceive.
Philosophers have debated such ideas since before the time of Socrates, but physicists are now making them concrete. According to one, time may arise from the way that the universe is partitioned; what we perceive as time reflects the relations among its pieces.
As you read this sentence, you probably think that this moment—right now—is what is happening. The present moment feels special. It is real. However much you may remember the past or anticipate the future, you live in the present. Of course, the moment during which you read that sentence is no longer happening. This one is. In other words, it feels as though time flows, in the sense that the present is constantly updating itself. We have a deep intuition that the future is open until it becomes present and that the past is fixed. As time flows, this structure of fixed past, immediate present and open future gets carried forward in time. This structure is built into our language, thought and behavior. How we live our lives hangs on it.
Yet as natural as this way of thinking is, you will not find it reflected in science. The equations of physics do not tell us which events are occurring right now—they are like a map without the “you are here” symbol. The present moment does not exist in them, and therefore neither does the flow of time. Additionally, Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity suggest not only that there is no single special present but also that all moments are equally real [see “That Mysterious Flow,” by Paul Davies; Scientific American, September 2002]. Fundamentally, the future is no more open than the past.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...
The physics equations dealing with force and motion have 'time' as a necessary component right up there with force, velocity, acceleration, mass, etc. In fact, without the 'time' variable, it would all become quite meaningless. As much as I love Scientific American, I can see where such articles might 'sell magazines' rather than promote the purest scientific thought. It was not always like that.

E=MC2 establishes the equivalency of matter and energy. C=the speed of light. Velocity (speed)=distance/time. Use whatever 'human conceptualized' units you want, this basic, universal aspect of our reality does not change. Further ... at relativistic velocities, we can see and measure the 'dilated' decay times of radioactive particles increase, confirming (yet again) Einstein's Relativity and reminding us that these effects would exist whether humans were here or not.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#13103 Jul 9, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
You seen me ask 3 times to just copy/paste that pedophilia is wrong, and yet Zit can't.
It's like asking me to say I believe in a god.
I don't believe in a god and Zit believes pedophilia is right.
I read an interesting article (long ago I'm afraid, no references) dealing with observing / interpreting interrogations / confessions, suspect statements, interviews, etc. One of the 'tells' is that very often, guilty people cannot / will not simply state "I did not do it". It's like the first thing truly innocent people say. I seem to remember they 'analyzed' statements from O.J. Simpson and the Ramsey's with intriguing results. There's much more to it than that, but that's kind of the idea in a nutshell. Food for thought.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#13104 Jul 9, 2013
Straight Sh00ter wrote:
Soon gays won't exist, aids will have cured everybody.
ummm...gay people have and always will exist. The HIV virus has been used on a small platform to kill cancer cells though :) That is a really awesome discovery :D

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

#13105 Jul 9, 2013
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
The physics equations dealing with force and motion have 'time' as a necessary component right up there with force, velocity, acceleration, mass, etc. In fact, without the 'time' variable, it would all become quite meaningless. As much as I love Scientific American, I can see where such articles might 'sell magazines' rather than promote the purest scientific thought. It was not always like that.
E=MC2 establishes the equivalency of matter and energy. C=the speed of light. Velocity (speed)=distance/time. Use whatever 'human conceptualized' units you want, this basic, universal aspect of our reality does not change. Further ... at relativistic velocities, we can see and measure the 'dilated' decay times of radioactive particles increase, confirming (yet again) Einstein's Relativity and reminding us that these effects would exist whether humans were here or not.
LOL

Question: Is time quantized? In other words, is there a fundamental unit of time that could not be divided into a briefer unit?

John Baez is a member of the mathematics faculty at the University of California at Riverside and one of the moderators of the on-line sci.physics.research newsgroup. He responds:

"The brief answer to this question is,'Nobody knows.' Certainly there is no experimental evidence in favor of such a minimal unit. On the other hand, there is no evidence against it, except that we have not yet found it. There are no well-worked-out physics theories incorporating a fundamental unit of time, and there are substantial obstacles to doing so in a way that is compatible with the principles of General Relativity. Recent work on a theory of quantum gravity in which gravity is represented using loops in space suggests that there might be a way to do something roughly along these lines--not involving a minimum unit of time but rather a minimum amount of area for any two-dimensional surface, a minimum volume for any three-dimensional region in space and perhaps also a minimum 'hypervolume' for any four-dimensional region of space-time."

William G. Unruh is a professor in the department of physics and astronomy at the University of British Columbia. He offers this reply:

"There is certainly no experimental evidence that time--or space for that matter--is quantized, so the question becomes one of whether there exists a theory in which time is quantized. Although researchers have considered some theories in which there is a strict quantization of time (meaning that all times are an integer multiple of some smallest unit), none that I know of has ever been seriously regarded as a viable theory of reality--at least, not by more people that the original proponent of the theory.

"One could, however, ask the question in a slightly different way. By putting together G (Newton's constant of gravity), h (Planck's constant) and c (the velocity of light), one can derive a minimum meaningful amount of time, about 10-44 second. At this temporal scale, one would expect quantum effects to dominate gravity and hence, because Einstein's theory links gravity and time, to dominate the ordinary notion of time. In other words, for time intervals smaller than this one, the whole notion of 'time' would be expected to lose its meaning.

"The biggest obstacle to answering the question definitively is that there exists no really believable theory to describe this regime where quantum mechanics and gravity come together. Over the past 10 years, a branch of theoretical physics called string theory has held forth the greatest hope, but it is as yet far from a state where one could use it to describe the nature of time in such a brief interval."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#13106 Jul 9, 2013
This article I read was pre-WIKI and possibly pre-internet, but found this ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statement_analys...

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#13107 Jul 9, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
Question: Is time quantized? In other words, is there a fundamental unit of time that could not be divided into a briefer unit?
John Baez is a member of the mathematics faculty at the University of California at Riverside and one of the moderators of the on-line sci.physics.research newsgroup. He responds:
"The brief answer to this question is,'Nobody knows.' Certainly there is no experimental evidence in favor of such a minimal unit. On the other hand, there is no evidence against it, except that we have not yet found it. There are no well-worked-out physics theories incorporating a fundamental unit of time, and there are substantial obstacles to doing so in a way that is compatible with the principles of General Relativity. Recent work on a theory of quantum gravity in which gravity is represented using loops in space suggests that there might be a way to do something roughly along these lines--not involving a minimum unit of time but rather a minimum amount of area for any two-dimensional surface, a minimum volume for any three-dimensional region in space and perhaps also a minimum 'hypervolume' for any four-dimensional region of space-time."
William G. Unruh is a professor in the department of physics and astronomy at the University of British Columbia. He offers this reply:
"There is certainly no experimental evidence that time--or space for that matter--is quantized, so the question becomes one of whether there exists a theory in which time is quantized. Although researchers have considered some theories in which there is a strict quantization of time (meaning that all times are an integer multiple of some smallest unit), none that I know of has ever been seriously regarded as a viable theory of reality--at least, not by more people that the original proponent of the theory.
"One could, however, ask the question in a slightly different way. By putting together G (Newton's constant of gravity), h (Planck's constant) and c (the velocity of light), one can derive a minimum meaningful amount of time, about 10-44 second. At this temporal scale, one would expect quantum effects to dominate gravity and hence, because Einstein's theory links gravity and time, to dominate the ordinary notion of time. In other words, for time intervals smaller than this one, the whole notion of 'time' would be expected to lose its meaning.
"The biggest obstacle to answering the question definitively is that there exists no really believable theory to describe this regime where quantum mechanics and gravity come together. Over the past 10 years, a branch of theoretical physics called string theory has held forth the greatest hope, but it is as yet far from a state where one could use it to describe the nature of time in such a brief interval."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...
Hmmmmmm. Okay. What does that have to do with the question of rather time is 'real' or merely a human concept? If they can 'quantize' it, it must be real, otherwise ... why bother. This article does not support your original contention ... quite the opposite. Are we not 'quantizing' time when we break it up into our own arbitrary units? I guess if something exists less than 10-44 seconds we can safely say that it never existed? Not sure I could go along with that. You, Polymath and SciAm work it out.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#13108 Jul 10, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
I speculated that you were either an illiterate moron, brain damaged, a liar, or all of the foregoing. After reading your previous response, I'm going with all three and adding THREE more to the pile--obsessive compulsive disorder, control freak (emphasis on freak), and attention deficit disorder.
Want to go all in and reveal some more mental/personality disorders to add to the pile, bubba?
"All sexual relations of people older than 18, with people younger than 16 are wrong."

Can you say it? Could you mean it, if you did say it?

Repeat after me >>>> "All sexual relations of people older than 18, with people younger than 16 are wrong."

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#13109 Jul 10, 2013
Your posts remind me of trying find the clean end of a turd!

To my Dear Friends:

The backlash has begun! Those who claim we are trying to re-define marriage are guilty of redefining the word " ALL" in the U.S. Constitution to mean "only the people we like".
But that's what hypocrites always do. Change the definitions to suit their needs.

The ba\ttle cry of "religious freedom" has been redefined by the haters to mean "Only MY religious freedom and no one else's."

Please post this on all social media venues. This MUST be addressed:

I just created the following poll on TOPIX:

Is TOPIX allowing editors to censor/kill Gay and Lesbian stories on the Jacksonville FL and other local Forums?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#13110 Jul 10, 2013
oops. my bad.

"Your posts remind me of trying find the clean end of a turd!" was directed at the haters, not all the people on this thread.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#13111 Jul 10, 2013
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>I read an interesting article (long ago I'm afraid, no references) dealing with observing / interpreting interrogations / confessions, suspect statements, interviews, etc. One of the 'tells' is that very often, guilty people cannot / will not simply state "I did not do it". It's like the first thing truly innocent people say. I seem to remember they 'analyzed' statements from O.J. Simpson and the Ramsey's with intriguing results. There's much more to it than that, but that's kind of the idea in a nutshell. Food for thought.
That is rather interesting, though we already feel that way with Zit because it's become so popular of a tell these days. Especially when someone is so hooked on a belief, they will not denounce it in any way.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#13112 Jul 10, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>"All sexual relations of people older than 18, with people younger than 16 are wrong."

Can you say it? Could you mean it, if you did say it?

Repeat after me >>>> "All sexual relations of people older than 18, with people younger than 16 are wrong."
She won't say it.
It goes against her beliefs to reject that which she believes is right.

I've tried 5 times, I've tried to give her a chance to bring this whole argument to an end. Yet she has proven she does not want to stop being called a pedophile. Probably because she is one.
Thinking

Lymington, UK

#13113 Jul 10, 2013
Then how come, unlike your god, time exists?
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
All that proves is you've used the mental construct of "time" to describe the interval between the launch and the (crash) landing of your jump.
One mississippi, two mississippi, three....splat!
Time isn't real. It isn't energy, matter, or a force that can be manipulated or controlled to avoid the inevitability of splat! after launch. Time is just a mental construct used by humans for measurements and predictions. That's all it is.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#13114 Jul 10, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
Question: Is time quantized? In other words, is there a fundamental unit of time that could not be divided into a briefer unit?
John Baez is a member of the mathematics faculty at the University of California at Riverside and one of the moderators of the on-line sci.physics.research newsgroup. He responds:
"The brief answer to this question is,'Nobody knows.' Certainly there is no experimental evidence in favor of such a minimal unit. On the other hand, there is no evidence against it, except that we have not yet found it. There are no well-worked-out physics theories incorporating a fundamental unit of time, and there are substantial obstacles to doing so in a way that is compatible with the principles of General Relativity. Recent work on a theory of quantum gravity in which gravity is represented using loops in space suggests that there might be a way to do something roughly along these lines--not involving a minimum unit of time but rather a minimum amount of area for any two-dimensional surface, a minimum volume for any three-dimensional region in space and perhaps also a minimum 'hypervolume' for any four-dimensional region of space-time."
William G. Unruh is a professor in the department of physics and astronomy at the University of British Columbia. He offers this reply:
"There is certainly no experimental evidence that time--or space for that matter--is quantized, so the question becomes one of whether there exists a theory in which time is quantized. Although researchers have considered some theories in which there is a strict quantization of time (meaning that all times are an integer multiple of some smallest unit), none that I know of has ever been seriously regarded as a viable theory of reality--at least, not by more people that the original proponent of the theory.
"One could, however, ask the question in a slightly different way. By putting together G (Newton's constant of gravity), h (Planck's constant) and c (the velocity of light), one can derive a minimum meaningful amount of time, about 10-44 second. At this temporal scale, one would expect quantum effects to dominate gravity and hence, because Einstein's theory links gravity and time, to dominate the ordinary notion of time. In other words, for time intervals smaller than this one, the whole notion of 'time' would be expected to lose its meaning.
"The biggest obstacle to answering the question definitively is that there exists no really believable theory to describe this regime where quantum mechanics and gravity come together. Over the past 10 years, a branch of theoretical physics called string theory has held forth the greatest hope, but it is as yet far from a state where one could use it to describe the nature of time in such a brief interval."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...
Ok now prove the god you're lying to us about then.
MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#13115 Jul 10, 2013
R Hill wrote:
01. Hmmmmm. Must have been "Great and True" Creationist Scientists, which, sorry to say, are not Scientists at all.

02. I don't recall 'boasting' about anything. Perhaps you don't know, but 'blue collar'(as in my moniker) places me firmly in with the great unwashed, the general masses, the Proletariat, the worker bees, the lowest of the low.

03. Very few people raised in America, or Western Civilization for that matter, obtain the intensity of religious indoctrination you Muslims get. Catholics might be close ... some of them, my wife for instance ... are pretty far gone.

04. I just want to know the true nature of the Universe. I want to understand reality. I may be stepping outside my bounds with such lofty goals, but I believe that in my 60 years of existence I've learned enough science to make this an achievable quest. I'm as interested in Archeology as Zoology and (boasting again) may know more 'general science' than some specialists!. Sorry.
Ans.

01. Branding people has been a specialty of you people. The moment you fix a label on him, all his arguments and thinking are put into dustbin.

02. I did not comment on your personal status, only on your thinking process.

03. You are right brother, very few people in Western Country receive any religious information.

What they receive is faulty information based on Bible and that is why they loose interest in what they get.

Media and work style, leave no room for "religion" in work place, this is another reason of people loosing contact with religion.

It is just a name and a few rituals and some annual feasts and celebrations (which have become too commercialized).

04. There is no hindrance on you gaining as much knowledge about the Universe as you can.

60 or 70 years are not sufficient to gather all the info out there, but one should gather as much as we can.

This info is good, but it should not sidetrack you from knowing what is actual purpose of your life!!

If you start with a right frame of mind, every thing in this Universe will bring you closer to your Merciful Creator, with wrong frame of mind the same info will take you away and away from your Creator.

It is only the matter of outlook, like positive and negatives of the same picture!!

We are not enemies, we have different purpose.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13116 Jul 10, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
Question: Is time quantized? In other words, is there a fundamental unit of time that could not be divided into a briefer unit?
As all of your quotes say, we do not know. The reason we do not know? because the quantum of time, if it exists, is incredibly small, probably around 10^{-43} second. We have, at this point, no way to measure times this small.

That does not mean time is a figment of the mind. It means it is physical, but we do not fully understand it.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13117 Jul 10, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
Yet as natural as this way of thinking is, you will not find it reflected in science. The equations of physics do not tell us which events are occurring right now—they are like a map without the “you are here” symbol. The present moment does not exist in them, and therefore neither does the flow of time. Additionally, Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity suggest not only that there is no single special present but also that all moments are equally real [see “That Mysterious Flow,” by Paul Davies; Scientific American, September 2002]. Fundamentally, the future is no more open than the past.
First of all, Scientific American is not nearly the quality science magazine it once was. While it once had articles written by the actual scientists and was directed to giving accurate information, it is now a popular science magazine that is written primarily by journalists. In the goal to make money, it destroyed itself.

More to the point. In modern physics, space and time together become part of the dynamic geometry of the universe. Both space and time are affected by and affect matter and energy, so they become real quantities that have to be addressed. But, spacetime comes as a whole: all of space and all of time are together in this geometry. No 'right now', as your article says.

This does not mean that time is merely a construct of our minds. In fact, the evidence says that time and space are quite physical things that are crucial parts of our universe.

If you really want to continue this discussion, you should learn some actual physics. You will find that time is a fundamental part of our universe. Even those who think that space and time are emergent from other phenomena (suggested by the first part of your post), see time as a physical thing whose properties need to be explained.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13118 Jul 10, 2013
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmmmmm. Okay. What does that have to do with the question of rather time is 'real' or merely a human concept? If they can 'quantize' it, it must be real, otherwise ... why bother. This article does not support your original contention ... quite the opposite. Are we not 'quantizing' time when we break it up into our own arbitrary units? I guess if something exists less than 10-44 seconds we can safely say that it never existed? Not sure I could go along with that. You, Polymath and SciAm work it out.
The problem is that for very short times and very small distances, quantum effects become significant. So, the quantum fluctuations can become large enough to produce small black holes. These are geometrical changes in spacetime. In other words, the geometry of spacetime is *also* governed by quantum effects. That is one of the arguments that *suggests* that time is quantized at the 10^{-43} second level.

The problem, as it is with many of these discussions, is that we do not have a fully quantum theory of gravity that can be tested. We now have several candidate theories, but they give different answers to basic questions and almost all the differences are way beyond our ability to measure.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#13119 Jul 10, 2013
1: Beheading people has been a specialty of you people. The moment you label him an infidel he is marked for death.

2: You did not comment on questions asked of you because your Allah could not guide you to the answers.

3: Yes very few people in your country receive a proper education.

4: You continue to shame Islam with each and every post you make.
MUQ wrote:
Ans.

01. Branding people has been a specialty of you people. The moment you fix a label on him, all his arguments and thinking are put into dustbin.

02. I did not comment on your personal status, only on your thinking process.

03. You are right brother, very few people in Western Country receive any religious information.

What they receive is faulty information based on Bible and that is why they loose interest in what they get.

Media and work style, leave no room for "religion" in work place, this is another reason of people loosing contact with religion.

It is just a name and a few rituals and some annual feasts and celebrations (which have become too commercialized).

04. There is no hindrance on you gaining as much knowledge about the Universe as you can.

60 or 70 years are not sufficient to gather all the info out there, but one should gather as much as we can.

This info is good, but it should not sidetrack you from knowing what is actual purpose of your life!!

If you start with a right frame of mind, every thing in this Universe will bring you closer to your Merciful Creator, with wrong frame of mind the same info will take you away and away from your Creator.

It is only the matter of outlook, like positive and negatives of the same picture!!

We are not enemies, we have different purpose.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Ten Commandments judge faces runoff in Alabama ... 4 min Marcavage s Emission 308
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 6 min Harold 26,886
News Don't destroy gay-sex records, historians urge ... 28 min Jamal 3
News Former OKC Mayor blames homosexuality for moral... 48 min Okie 60
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 55 min June VanDerMark 58,394
News Gay man denied marriage license hopes to unseat... 1 hr Wisdom 62
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 1 hr Frindly 14,712
J A D E: Another Failed Weekend 1 hr Jamal 7
Roy Moore.....Just Another Hypocrite 4 hr GodSmacked 392
More from around the web