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.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#10744 May 15, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
That is what I said and as expected he cowered away.
<quoted text>
You drop off the grid a few days and this is what happens! Sorry if I belabored a point already well thrashed. It's just amazing how ... how ... DUMB ... godbots can be. It's a pity their blinders don't work both ways.

Hey godbots! We can still see you!!!
CunningLinguist

Winter Garden, FL

#10745 May 15, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Generalizing from incidents.
Cleveland sad events could be used to state
"Americans keep girls in slavery" as a rule, not a sad event.
Cherry picking events on your part?
'Generalizing' is because you haven't the skill to properly research anything.

From what I have observed you are well versed in lying, deception and a host of other maladies known specifically to industrious Xtians in their never ending quest for validity.

My answer for you're Xtian 'love'...

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#10746 May 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is that at some level we *do* understand these things. Each and every prediction of quantum mechanics, no matter how 'strange', has been substantiated. In a real sense we *do* understand how quantum particles behave: they behave like interfering probability waves. This is well-understood and not even controversial any longer.
The Many Worlds description that you seem to dislike quite a bit actually follows from taking the equations we have seriously. It describes the universe as a single probability wave function that evolves through time. But what happens is that the wave function itself breaks down into components that don't interact with each other. It then happens that each component evolves via the same overall equation as the larger wave function. And *that* is what is meant by 'splitting universes'. The lack of interaction keeps them separate, which justifies the use of the word 'universe'. But there is still only *one* overall wave function.
Here is a (pretty bad analogy). Take the positive integers: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8...
After one second, split them into two groups, the even and the odds:
1,3,5,7,9,....
2,4,6,8,.....
Now, make a choice of 'first thing', either 1 or 2. Let's say we pick 1. THrow it out of that sequences
Then, divide the odds into two groups, taking every other number in the group chosen:
3,7,11,15,19....
5,9,13,17,21,...
Now take the first out of one of these and throw it out, say we pick 5. Now divide that list into two:
9,17,25,33,...
13,21,29,27,...
The point? We can keep going like this forever. The original sequence 'divides' into two subsequences at each choice. Are all those other sequences there? Sure, yes, whatever.
In the same way, whenever a quantum observation is made, the list of future possibilities is restricted. This can be *interpreted* as a splitting off of other universes. But is is less interesting than it sounds.
I mean, mathematics is a wonderful tool for understanding these phenomenon, no doubt, but when you start talking 'splitting off other universes' and stuff like that it quits being quite so abstract. Universes, at least the one we reside in, is not 'abstract' at all. I can kind of grasp that all these various particles, in their various quantum states present themselves because that particle exists simultaneously in multiple 'dimensions' or 'universes' or maybe everything is made out of super-strings and the multiverse and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are all in on it!!!!

<poof!... brain just exploded, excuse me while I reboot and try to clean up this mess>
Lincoln

United States

#10747 May 15, 2013
Thinking wrote:
No it wasn't.
<quoted text>
The Soviet Union was the first state to have, as an ideological objective, the elimination of religion[1] and its replacement with universal atheism.[2][3] The communist regime confiscated religious property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in schools.[4] The confiscation of religious assets was often based on accusations of illegal accumulation of wealth.
The vast majority of people in the Russian empire were, at the time of the revolution, religious believers, whereas the communists aimed to break the power of all religious institutions and eventually replace religious belief with atheism. "Science" was counterposed to "religious superstition" in the media and in academic writing. The main religions of pre-revolutionary Russia persisted throughout the entire Soviet period, but they were only tolerated within certain limits. Generally, this meant that believers were free to worship in private and in their respective religious buildings (churches, mosques, etc.), but public displays of religion outside of such designated areas were prohibited. In addition, religious institutions were not allowed to express their views in any type of mass media, and many religious buildings were demolished or used for other purposes ..........

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

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#10748 May 15, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
The Soviet Union was the first state to have, as an ideological objective, the elimination of religion[1] and its replacement with universal atheism.[2][3] The communist regime confiscated religious property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in schools.[4] The confiscation of religious assets was often based on accusations of illegal accumulation of wealth.
The vast majority of people in the Russian empire were, at the time of the revolution, religious believers, whereas the communists aimed to break the power of all religious institutions and eventually replace religious belief with atheism. "Science" was counterposed to "religious superstition" in the media and in academic writing. The main religions of pre-revolutionary Russia persisted throughout the entire Soviet period, but they were only tolerated within certain limits. Generally, this meant that believers were free to worship in private and in their respective religious buildings (churches, mosques, etc.), but public displays of religion outside of such designated areas were prohibited. In addition, religious institutions were not allowed to express their views in any type of mass media, and many religious buildings were demolished or used for other purposes ..........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_...
Dumb creationist f*ck with no proof of god.
CunningLinguist

Winter Garden, FL

#10749 May 15, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
The Soviet Union was the first state to have, as an ideological objective, the elimination of religion[1] and its replacement with universal atheism.[2][3] The communist regime confiscated religious property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in schools.[4] The confiscation of religious assets was often based on accusations of illegal accumulation of wealth.
The vast majority of people in the Russian empire were, at the time of the revolution, religious believers, whereas the communists aimed to break the power of all religious institutions and eventually replace religious belief with atheism. "Science" was counterposed to "religious superstition" in the media and in academic writing. The main religions of pre-revolutionary Russia persisted throughout the entire Soviet period, but they were only tolerated within certain limits. Generally, this meant that believers were free to worship in private and in their respective religious buildings (churches, mosques, etc.), but public displays of religion outside of such designated areas were prohibited. In addition, religious institutions were not allowed to express their views in any type of mass media, and many religious buildings were demolished or used for other purposes ..........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_...
You should have read more from your site ...

Although Lenin believed that eventually all nationalities would merge into one, he insisted that the Soviet Union be established as a federation of formally equal nations. In the 1920s, genuine cultural concessions were granted to the nationalities. Communist elites of various nationalities were permitted to flourish and to have considerable self-government. National cultures, religions, and languages were not merely tolerated but, in areas with Muslim populations, encouraged.

Soviet officials identified religion closely with nationality. The implementation of policy toward a particular religion, therefore, depended on the regime's perception of the bond between that religion and the nationality practicing it, the size of the religious community, the extent to which the religion accepted outside authority, and the nationality's willingness to subordinate itself to political authority. Thus the smaller the religious community and the more closely it identified with a particular nationality, the more restrictive were the regime's policies, especially if the religion also recognized a foreign authority such as the pope.

In 1929, with the onset of the Cultural Revolution in the Soviet Union and an upsurge of radical militancy in the Party and Komsomol, a powerful "hard line" in favor of mass closing of churches and arrests of priests became dominant and evidently won Stalin's approval. Secret "hard line" instructions were issued to local party organizations, but not published. When the anti-religious drive inflamed the anger of the rural population, not to mention that of the Pope and other Western church spokesmen, the regime was able to back off from a policy that it had never publicly endorsed anyway.

Although all Soviet leaders had the same long-range goal of developing a cohesive Soviet people, they pursued different policies to achieve it. For the Soviet regime, questions of nationality and religion were always closely linked.

Therefore their attitude toward religion also varied from a total ban on some religions to official support of others.

Now what were you saying again?
Lincoln

United States

#10750 May 15, 2013
"Therefore their attitude toward religion also varied from a total ban on some religions to official support of others."

Under Atheist Stalin 20 Million were killed.

Read a 20th century history and atheism and murder will appear hand in had.
Thinking

Roydon, UK

#10751 May 15, 2013
No it wasn't.

From your link: "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(January 2008)"
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
The Soviet Union was the first state to have, as an ideological objective, the elimination of religion[1] and its replacement with universal atheism.[2][3] The communist regime confiscated religious property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in schools.[4] The confiscation of religious assets was often based on accusations of illegal accumulation of wealth.
The vast majority of people in the Russian empire were, at the time of the revolution, religious believers, whereas the communists aimed to break the power of all religious institutions and eventually replace religious belief with atheism. "Science" was counterposed to "religious superstition" in the media and in academic writing. The main religions of pre-revolutionary Russia persisted throughout the entire Soviet period, but they were only tolerated within certain limits. Generally, this meant that believers were free to worship in private and in their respective religious buildings (churches, mosques, etc.), but public displays of religion outside of such designated areas were prohibited. In addition, religious institutions were not allowed to express their views in any type of mass media, and many religious buildings were demolished or used for other purposes ..........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_...
Thinking

Roydon, UK

#10752 May 15, 2013
You already agreed that Atheism can't be blamed for atrocities, remember?
Lincoln wrote:
"Therefore their attitude toward religion also varied from a total ban on some religions to official support of others."
Under Atheist Stalin 20 Million were killed.
Read a 20th century history and atheism and murder will appear hand in had.
Lincoln

United States

#10753 May 15, 2013
"Therefore their attitude toward religion also varied from a total ban on some religions to official support of others."

Under Atheist Stalin 20 Million were killed.

Read a 20th century history and atheism and murder will appear hand in hand.
Thinking

Roydon, UK

#10754 May 15, 2013
If it was written by a lying cu*t like you, maybe.
Lincoln wrote:
"Therefore their attitude toward religion also varied from a total ban on some religions to official support of others."
Under Atheist Stalin 20 Million were killed.
Read a 20th century history and atheism and murder will appear hand in hand.
Lincoln

United States

#10755 May 15, 2013
Thinking wrote:
You already agreed that Atheism can't be blamed for atrocities, remember?
<quoted text>
Atheism, Islam, Judism, and Christianity may be be blamed for atrocities. They are, almost daily, on atheist threads :-)

Atheist threads often mentions the Roman Catholic inquisition but not Stalin
CunningLinguist

Winter Garden, FL

#10756 May 15, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism, Islam, Judism, and Christianity may be be blamed for atrocities. They are, almost daily, on atheist threads :-)
Atheist threads often mentions the Roman Catholic inquisition but not Stalin
Everyone has the right to be stupid, but you have abused the privilege.

Have you considered suing your brains for nonsupport?

It is no secret you are forever lost in thought, it's unfamiliar territory.
Lincoln

United States

#10757 May 15, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
It is revealing how? This is once again a failure to express a point in proper English on your part.
I know you lack proper English comprehension skills but let's try this anyways.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany
East Germany is historically 90% Protestant and the church remained strong even throughout the time of Stalin. They even cordially invited more Catholics to move there.
Any friction was caused when certain churches would not go along with political leaders, not because of their faith.
90% Protestant historically.
Do you deny history or just not comprehend it?
<quoted text>
When you prove anything regarding atheism let us know?:-)
Lincoln

United States

#10758 May 15, 2013
CunningLinguist wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone has the right to be stupid, but you have abused the privilege.
Have you considered suing your brains for nonsupport?
It is no secret you are forever lost in thought, it's unfamiliar territory.
Atheist denial
LOL

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10759 May 15, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism, Islam, Judism, and Christianity may be be blamed for atrocities. They are, almost daily, on atheist threads :-)
Atheist threads often mentions the Roman Catholic inquisition but not Stalin
The problem in *all* these cases is that someone has a dogma that they want to force on other people. Stalin used the known tactics of religion in order to support and promote his power. And power, not ideology, was his primary concern. In a very real sense, communism in the Soviet Union (and in North Korea today) is just another type of religion: accepting a viewpoint not because of free and rational inquiry, but because of "received" knowledge that *must* be accepted or the authorities will kill you.

So, while atheist in philosophy, Stalin was very religious in beliefs and tactics.
CunningLinguist

Winter Garden, FL

#10760 May 15, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheist denial
LOL
Some have said you were a great asset.
I told them they were off by two letters.

Thinking isn't your strong suit, is it?

You are at least consistent in ratings, the forums chief buffoon, maroon and general nincompoop.

CLUELESS, NUTS & SPAM ratings continue to follow each post!

Why, this is just the thing a good Xtian should exhibit.
A real poster child for atheism.

Keep it up.

NO! not that! Save it for your priest Sunday

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#10761 May 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is that at some level we *do* understand these things. Each and every prediction of quantum mechanics, no matter how 'strange', has been substantiated. In a real sense we *do* understand how quantum particles behave: they behave like interfering probability waves. This is well-understood and not even controversial any longer.
The Many Worlds description that you seem to dislike quite a bit actually follows from taking the equations we have seriously. It describes the universe as a single probability wave function that evolves through time. But what happens is that the wave function itself breaks down into components that don't interact with each other. It then happens that each component evolves via the same overall equation as the larger wave function. And *that* is what is meant by 'splitting universes'. The lack of interaction keeps them separate, which justifies the use of the word 'universe'. But there is still only *one* overall wave function.
Here is a (pretty bad analogy). Take the positive integers: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8...
After one second, split them into two groups, the even and the odds:
1,3,5,7,9,....
2,4,6,8,.....
Now, make a choice of 'first thing', either 1 or 2. Let's say we pick 1. THrow it out of that sequences
Then, divide the odds into two groups, taking every other number in the group chosen:
3,7,11,15,19....
5,9,13,17,21,...
Now take the first out of one of these and throw it out, say we pick 5. Now divide that list into two:
9,17,25,33,...
13,21,29,27,...
The point? We can keep going like this forever. The original sequence 'divides' into two subsequences at each choice. Are all those other sequences there? Sure, yes, whatever.
In the same way, whenever a quantum observation is made, the list of future possibilities is restricted. This can be *interpreted* as a splitting off of other universes. But is is less interesting than it sounds.
SIGH!! Right! And the ancient Egyptians "understood to some degree" that Horus took a break.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#10762 May 15, 2013
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
I mean, mathematics is a wonderful tool for understanding these phenomenon, no doubt, but when you start talking 'splitting off other universes' and stuff like that it quits being quite so abstract. Universes, at least the one we reside in, is not 'abstract' at all. I can kind of grasp that all these various particles, in their various quantum states present themselves because that particle exists simultaneously in multiple 'dimensions' or 'universes' or maybe everything is made out of super-strings and the multiverse and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are all in on it!!!!
<poof!... brain just exploded, excuse me while I reboot and try to clean up this mess>
There's an old saying I think applies here, "When the only tool you have is a hammer, EVERYTHING looks like a nail."
DaBroad

Minneapolis, MN

#10763 May 15, 2013
Boy, go away for a year, come back and it’s still the same little group playing slap and tickle with each other. Wars aren’t a religious or atheist problem, they are a human problem. Greed, jealousy, fear…those are the things that produce war. A person cannot be forced to believe, or cease to believe, in the idea of deity, or the nature of that deity. It’s not a matter of superiority or inferiority, that goes back to the things that produce war. Nobody is going to change anyone’s mind here, and what you guys are doing is merely to prop up your own beliefs. Nobody knows the “truth”. There IS no “truth” when it comes to the possibility of the existence of deity, except the truth that we do not know, and can never know, because there is no proof one way or another. The existence of a deity can neither be proven nor disproven. No books, no experiments, nothing can prove or disprove it. Lack of proof is not proof that something doesn’t exist.

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Scientific, Philosophical Case for God's Existe... 54 min Eagle 12 - 92
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 1 hr Wisdom of Ages 6,061
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr MIDutch 93,434
News American Atheists terminates its president over... Apr 20 Eagle 12 - 19
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Apr 14 blacklagoon 3 4,141
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Apr 14 Into The Night 258,515
News The Anti-Christian Movement Apr 10 blacklagoon 3 11