Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Apr 25, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Psychology Today

My blog posts on religion have attracted a lot of controversy. Religious people are annoyed by my claim that belief in God will go the way of horse transportation, and for much the same reason, specifically an improved standard of living.

Comments (Page 575)

Showing posts 11,481 - 11,500 of21,328
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12193
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
:)
It's what I do best: force them to reveal their true natures.
It's always ugly, isn't it?
:LMAO:
Ugly, yes.....pretty frickin' hilarious too!!!

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12194
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct. Atheism is not a philosophy, it is a cult of denialists.
So you and justsayin' BOTH have it exactly backasswards!

LMAO!

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12195
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct. Atheism is not a philosophy, it is a cult of denialists.
LOL...denial of what? An imaginary being for whose existence there is zero proof?

People who believe in unicorns must also be a cult of denialiists!

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12196
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

sorry...people who DON'T believe in unicorns must also be a cult of denialists.
rio

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12197
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

What happens at an atheist church?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21319945
Thinking

Charlton Mackrell, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12198
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

"only sheep need a shepherd"

Funniest story of the week for me: muslim prisoners oinking about halal

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21302925
rio wrote:
What happens at an atheist church?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21319945

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12199
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Thinking wrote:
"only sheep need a shepherd"
Funniest story of the week for me: muslim prisoners oinking about halal
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21302925
<quoted text>
First Church of German Shepherds.

Indoctrination:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Thinking

Charlton Mackrell, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12200
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

My Airedale is definitely an unbeliever. Where is she?
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
First Church of German Shepherds.
Indoctrination:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12201
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
The scientific method... hypothesize, model, and test is becoming obsolete. Consider physics. Scientific earth models are less than a century old and are already proving to be unreliable. Newtonian models were crude approximations of the truth (wrong at the atomic level, but still useful). A hundred years ago, statistically based quantum mechanics offered a better picture, but quantum mechanics is yet another model, and as such it too is flawed, no doubt a caricature of a more complex underlying reality. The reason physics has drifted into theoretical speculation about n-dimensional grand unified models over the past few decades is that scientists don't know how to run the experiments that would falsify the hypotheses. The energies are too high, the accelerators too expensive, etc.
How does any of this show the scientific method is obsolete? It is through hypothesis formation and testing that we update our models to include new data. That is *why* we had to update Newtonian physics to relativistic and quantum physics. That is *why* physics moves to higher dimensional speculation: that is what is required (as far as we can see) to explain the data we have. And all that speculation is just that, speculation, until there is a test to determine its effectiveness.
Biology is heading in the same direction. The models we were taught in school about "dominant" and "recessive" genes steering a strictly Mendelian process have turned out to be an even greater simplification of reality than Newton's laws. The discovery of gene-protein interactions and other aspects of epigenetics has challenged the view of DNA as destiny and even introduced evidence that environment can influence inheritable traits, something once considered a genetic impossibility.
Once again, how does this make the scientific method obsolete? If anything, it shows exactly how it works in practice. Science works by obtaining successive approximations that explain more and more of the data as we accumulate even more data. So, while Mendelian genetics is simplistic, it is useful in a great many cases. For those cases where it is not, we have our updated theories that encompass it also. those new theories are based on *data* and *testing*. That seems to me to be exactly as it should be.
At best science can only measure reality insofar as human senses and the current use of mental faculties are able to process physical existence.
Do you have another way of measuring reality? Any other method of *reliably* obtaining information about the universe around us?

Part of the 'mental faculties' part allows us to detect radio, infra-red, ultra-violet, x-rays, gamma-rays, ultra-sound, neutrons, neutrinos, electrons, etc, etc, etc. As we learn more, we learn how to use new methods to probe the universe around us. And those new methods allow us to extend our senses to learn even more. Once again, this seems to be as it should be.

You seem to be complaining that science has changed over the last 100 years when that is actually a very good thing: science changes based on data and new techniques. Each stage is an approximation, but as we progress, the approximations get better and better.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12202
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
Journalists following tips.
Wrong. Scientific fraud is almost exclusively discovered by other scientists attempting to replicate results. Journalists, while useful for political fraud, do not understand the basics of science enough to uncover scientific fraud.

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12203
Feb 5, 2013
 
Thinking wrote:
My Airedale is definitely an unbeliever. Where is she?
<quoted text>
I'm more in tune with mongrels. Being one myself.

People here like dogs called Pit Bulls. I carry a packet of bacon in my purse right next to my shiv.

Diversion is a good tactic. Just sayin.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12204
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Tom Jones wrote:
<quoted text>
Science is broken. Psychology was rocked recently by stories of academics making up data, sometimes overshadowing whole careers. And it isn't the only discipline with problems - the current record for fraudulent papers is held by anaesthesiologist Yoshitaka Fujii, with 172 faked articles.
These scandals highlight deeper cultural problems in academia. Pressure to turn out lots of high-quality publications not only promotes extreme behaviours, it normalises the little things, like the selective publication of positive novel findings – which leads to "non-significant" but possibly true findings sitting unpublished on shelves, and a lack of much needed replication studies.
http://m.guardiannews.com/science/blog/2012/n...
< fraud does happen in the sciences >
Did you even read what I wrote? Psychology is a problem because it doesn't generally follow the procedures of science. In particular, the requirement to have testable hypotheses and actually replicate results. perhaps the subject need to get its act together?

And yes, the 'publish or perish' attitude of most universities does promote repeated publication. But, if caught, the career of the scientist is destroyed.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12205
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
You are not following the conversation. If the scientific method is becoming more and more unreliable, the facts it produces are likewise unreliable.
But, in physics, biology, geology, chemistry, etc, the method *is* reliable and the facts are becoming more and more reliable. The social 'sciences' have problems because they often do not follow the scientific method. They should.

Which facts do you consider to be unreliable? Solid state physics, which supports the creation of the computer on which you type? Quantum mechanics, which has unified areas as diverse as subatomic particles, gas dynamics, and solid state? The dating of the meteor that hit about the time that the dinosaurs died off?
Thinking

Charlton Mackrell, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12206
Feb 5, 2013
 
I'm sure you'd love my dog now she's past her prosthetic burying phase.
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm more in tune with mongrels. Being one myself.
People here like dogs called Pit Bulls. I carry a packet of bacon in my purse right next to my shiv.
Diversion is a good tactic. Just sayin.
insidesecrets

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12207
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

trekx wrote:
<quoted text>
HAHAHA That is bull, we dont know anything with out being taught, that is like saying that children know history with out ever being taught. I believe that about as much as i believe in your god. LOL
But giving you the benefit of the doubt this is from scared children that make up imaginary friend has nothing to do with religion and what it teaches, its time to grow up and put the imaginary things away ....
And BTW Atheism is the lack of belief witch is how we are ALL born.
We did not magically appear in time and space by accident. We have a divine source. We are spiritual beings expressing as humans. We are not born blank slates, we bring a history with us.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12208
Feb 5, 2013
 
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
We did not magically appear in time and space by accident. We have a divine source. We are spiritual beings expressing as humans. We are not born blank slates, we bring a history with us.
Ok, lets assume we have a divine source. What can you conclude about this divine entity? Is it good or bad or indifferent? Is it one powerful God or many lesser gods?

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12209
Feb 5, 2013
 
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I think she misread it and thought it was a valid point, ie. "deny the obvious" which has an entirely different meaning to her.
But then, she is easily confused. No wonder Sam Harris bores her...
I know. I was hoping she would elaborate but I think she re-read it and decided to forget she ever posted it. The godbots are quite adept at shooting themselves in the feet.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12210
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
We did not magically appear in time and space by accident. We have a divine source. We are spiritual beings expressing as humans. We are not born blank slates, we bring a history with us.
What, exactly, do you mean by the term 'accident'. There was no intentionality to how life came about: it was a physical process (just as it remains today). To be an 'accident' means that some intelligence intended it to be one way and it came out different. That is not the case here. No intelligence was involved.

There is no such thing as a supernatural. It is a self-contradictory term. To the extent that humans are 'spiritual', It is because they have the *emotions* of awe, feeling connected, and compassion. Nothing supernatural in any of those.

No, we are not born as 'blank slates'. Our brains are formed by genetic processes that have been molded by their environments for millions and millions of years.
insidesecrets

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12211
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
But, in physics, biology, geology, chemistry, etc, the method *is* reliable and the facts are becoming more and more reliable. The social 'sciences' have problems because they often do not follow the scientific method. They should.
Which facts do you consider to be unreliable? Solid state physics, which supports the creation of the computer on which you type? Quantum mechanics, which has unified areas as diverse as subatomic particles, gas dynamics, and solid state? The dating of the meteor that hit about the time that the dinosaurs died off?
Each scientific theory in each field is packaged and sold as true and complete and verified, although it never is. Each theory is an embryonic theory, full of holes, and verified only in small part, if at all. But of course we aren't told any of this.

Two examples. The theory of evolution is a theory, not of creation or birth or incipience. It proposes a mechanism for how life changes, not how it begins. To be a variant answer to Genesis, it would have to propose a mechanism for the beginnings of life, which it does not do. For this reason alone, it is completely illogical for atheists to hold up evolution as a counter-explanation to the biblical version of creation just because it is a "scientific" theory.

The Big Bang theory, or the origin of life from a primordial soup of dead matter is far more irrational and unbelievable than the narrative found in Genesis. Science tells us with great superiority that the DNA strand itself is built and replicated not by Intelligent Design, but by enzymes. Yet what tells the enzymes what to do? Even more significantly, what propels enzymes in the proper direction, at the proper time to do the proper thing? Science does not know, but atheists accept this theory as more believable because it is a "scientific" theory.
insidesecrets

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12212
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, lets assume we have a divine source. What can you conclude about this divine entity? Is it good or bad or indifferent? Is it one powerful God or many lesser gods?
You are made in the image of God. You are spirit made flesh, or god-stuff incarnate. If you would know God then study yourself... both objectively and subjectively.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 11,481 - 11,500 of21,328
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

5 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 25 min Lucifes begotten Son 223,060
Why do i deserve no respect. 4 hr Patrick 6
Our world came from nothing? 8 hr Igor Trip 24
Introducing The Universal Religion Wed NightSerf 718
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Wed ChristineM 802
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) Wed Buck Crick 324
Atheism Destroyed At Last! - The Debate Of The ... Wed Mikko 1,274
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••