Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

There are 14730 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.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10866 May 17, 2013
RHill wrote:
I thought that was the whole deal, the 'magic' inexplicable part, the separated bits 'knowing' the state of the other despite being separated. Somehow communicating when 'classical' reasoning shouts that no such communication should be possible. Does this mean we can't expect "Quantum Entangled Transceivers" anytime soon? Or <you're killing me here> NEVER?!?!?
And here is where the classical intuition starts to fail. No communication is transmitted between entangled particles. The correlation between outcomes was made when the particles were formed and that correlation persists through time until the observation is made. But because of the inherent randomness of quantum mechanical particles, the correlation is *only* seen when the results of the two observations are brought together. You cannot, even in principle, make a communication device using this technique.

Here is the basic problem. Suppose I want to communicate a message to my entangled colleague. Let's say the message is 10010100101001010010. I attempt to modulate the entangles particles on my side, which have the sequence 00011101011110001111. It turns out that the 'message' seen at the far end is essentially the xor of my message and the random quantum bits:
10001001110111011111. Do you see the problem? The 'far message' looks just as random as the quantum sequence. And, in fact, it is. The correlation between the two entangled quantum results, which gives the intended message is ONLY visible when comparing the two quantum sequences, NOT when looking at one end or the other.

No actual information is transferred in entangled systems. The correlation was 'set up' when the particles were formed, but that cannot be used to produce any communication.

Unfortunately.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#10867 May 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lasers are fundamentally quantum mechanical devices, so are LEDs. Scanning Tunneling microscopes are quite effective at making pictures of the atomic level using quantum effects. Semiconductors are understood, designed, and manufactured using quantum theory. A first quantum computer just went on the market ( http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/05/d-wave... ).
So, yes, very practical devices have and will be made using our understanding of quantum mechanics.
Yeah ... that tunneling stuff is pretty weird. Ya got me there!:)

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10868 May 17, 2013
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah ... that tunneling stuff is pretty weird. Ya got me there!:)
For some reason, I see sustained inversion of quantum energy levels leading to coherent, amplified light to be even more amazing. We would never have created a laser without knowing QM first.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#10869 May 17, 2013
Your posts would really be a lot better of you could improve your English KJV.

http://www.eslgo.com/classes.html

There you go, just trying to be of help. Skeptic is in England, I am in the US which you would know if your reading comprehension was better.

As NS said you obviously don't understand certain words that you use on here. This makes you a laughing stock.

http://www.eslgo.com/classes.html

Be brave, click the link.
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>Time wasted reading Richard Dawkins .......:-)
Skeptic and Givemeliberty now the same person

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#10870 May 17, 2013
As stated, to allow those prisoners equal rights as they were being bullied for being non believers and that was the best way to afford them equal rights.

The judges words for those prisoners in that prison... Not all atheists across America and if you weren't so fat you'd be able to put that together.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>Which they based on the First Amendment.

This is the same amendment on which other governmental treatment of religion is based.

So your point is no point.

If atheism is a religion based on the First Amendment, it is as much a religion as any other religion in the eyes of government.

"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion,..."

-7th Circuit Court of Appeals

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#10871 May 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
For some reason, I see sustained inversion of quantum energy levels leading to coherent, amplified light to be even more amazing. We would never have created a laser without knowing QM first.
The first lasers using a ruby rod with one end fully mirrored the other end partially mirrored,'pumped' with a xenon flash, just seemed to make sense without recourse to theoretical physics. I've always kind of presumed the diode lasers were working on a similar principle.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#10872 May 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And here is where the classical intuition starts to fail. No communication is transmitted between entangled particles. The correlation between outcomes was made when the particles were formed and that correlation persists through time until the observation is made. But because of the inherent randomness of quantum mechanical particles, the correlation is *only* seen when the results of the two observations are brought together. You cannot, even in principle, make a communication device using this technique.
Here is the basic problem. Suppose I want to communicate a message to my entangled colleague. Let's say the message is 10010100101001010010. I attempt to modulate the entangles particles on my side, which have the sequence 00011101011110001111. It turns out that the 'message' seen at the far end is essentially the xor of my message and the random quantum bits:
10001001110111011111. Do you see the problem? The 'far message' looks just as random as the quantum sequence. And, in fact, it is. The correlation between the two entangled quantum results, which gives the intended message is ONLY visible when comparing the two quantum sequences, NOT when looking at one end or the other.
No actual information is transferred in entangled systems. The correlation was 'set up' when the particles were formed, but that cannot be used to produce any communication.
Unfortunately.
Hunter Thompson should have studied Quantum Mechanics. Preserving the initial state across time and space, until observed is still pretty dang weird, considering all the gyrations those particles experience in the interim. How does that happen?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10873 May 17, 2013
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
Hunter Thompson should have studied Quantum Mechanics. Preserving the initial state across time and space, until observed is still pretty dang weird, considering all the gyrations those particles experience in the interim. How does that happen?
Well, one of the points is that the coherence only lasts until there is an interaction. Once the coherence is broken by observation (which does not require an intelligence, only a sufficiently strong interaction), the entanglement is also broken. More accurately, the phases are randomized, so no further correlation exists.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10874 May 17, 2013
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
Hunter Thompson should have studied Quantum Mechanics. Preserving the initial state across time and space, until observed is still pretty dang weird, considering all the gyrations those particles experience in the interim. How does that happen?
Have you read any Robert Anton Wilson? Schrodinger's Cat is a classic, as well as the Illuminatus Trilogy.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#10875 May 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you read any Robert Anton Wilson? Schrodinger's Cat is a classic, as well as the Illuminatus Trilogy.
No. I hope they are in the public domain cause I just easily downloaded both in PDF on my first search. Now I have a moral quandary. I should probably go buy them somewhere to ease my non-existent atheistic conscious.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#10876 May 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, one of the points is that the coherence only lasts until there is an interaction. Once the coherence is broken by observation (which does not require an intelligence, only a sufficiently strong interaction), the entanglement is also broken. More accurately, the phases are randomized, so no further correlation exists.
Is this what they mean when it is said that the measurement invalidates or disturbs the outcome? As a tech, I've seen it in real life when the impedance of your scope or meter 'changes' the circuit conditions causing it to shut down (or more rarely, start to work). I always hated that ... it can make troubleshooting a real joy. I mean ... I know what I'm seeing in the macro-world isn't a Quantum effect, but in the QM domain is the coherence broken BY the observation (spooky) or by the INTRUSION of whatever detector is necessary to determine the states (not so spooky)?

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#10877 May 17, 2013
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh come on Ooogah ... there's a very satisfying elegance about the multiverse business. Besides, there are interesting indicators in the (very) large scale distribution of matter in our Universe. That combined with these QM effects are tantalizing hints that we may be imbedded in something much grander than we have been led to believe. It's not much but should elevate the matter out of the realm of mere imagination. I know the professionals can't speculate wildly and I respect that, fortunately, the rest of us are not likewise constrained. Science has already shown, quite convincingly, our total insignificance, to the dismay of the godbots. A multiverse would simply amplify that effect and to our advantage.
So then you endorse the same kind of thinking that would lead to an Intelligent Design conclusion on the other side of the discussion?

That's a touch hypocritical, don't cha think?

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#10878 May 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed. Now, how is knowledge and authority in a subject obtained? In the sciences, it is done by predicting the results of observations. THAT is the ultimate test: can you predict what will happen in future observations that attempt to break the theory? And for *that* quantum mechanics passes with flying colors.
<quoted text>
So take the 'shut up and calculate' route to QM. Most working physicists do. The actual predictions are the same either way.
The point is the many worlds (slightly different than multiverse, btw) interpretations are natural in the context of QM and lead to insights that can be tested, such as decoherence. It is possible those insights would have happened without that interpretations, but the historical fact is that they didn't.
<quoted text>
Now you are just trying to be an annoying "showboat" ... congratulations, you've succeeded.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#10879 May 17, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
So then you endorse the same kind of thinking that would lead to an Intelligent Design conclusion on the other side of the discussion?
That's a touch hypocritical, don't cha think?
Well ... it would be if that were my intent but, since it's not ... no. Pretty sure neither Polymath nor anything in 'real' QM investigations suggest any kind of link between consciousness (thought) and 'collapsing' anything. That was a suggestion by Godbot Ezdzit who, I am certain, reads (longs for) some kind of ID validation into it. Polymath was quick to point out that the three early QM theorists the Zit was quoting are all dead and their early interpretations no longer accepted.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#10880 May 17, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
Argument from "incredulity" ... I can not imagine how this could be so, therefore it must not be so.
I have offered no such Argument from "incredulity", I merely observed that some conclusions based on current mathematical tools are superficially ludicrous. Since no one has been able to demonstrate they are not ludicrous, then it is logical to assume they are until proven otherwise.
If they are capable of being mathematically modelled then I would say they are not ludicrous. Whereas say the Flying Spaghetti Monster or God can't make scientific predictions or be mathematically modelled then it's not so bad referring to them as being ludicrous. But in the case of the quantum hypotheses of multiverses, they may not be able to be verified until we have a working theory of quantum gravity, but that doesn't necessarily make the models "ludicrous".
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
The fact is that man made mathematical tools are quite limited and often a special class of numbers and operations has to be invented to adequately describe a natural phenomenon ... imaginary number systems, for example. Yes, I know they are quite real, that is just the official name of the numbering system.
This is the argument from authority fallacy. Just because someone has a degree in something, that doesn't automatically make them correct or all knowledgeable on the topic. A conversation with a PhD in Theology should demonstrate that quite clearly.
Not at all. The difference being is the nature of the subject in question. Quantum physics is an established scientific field, which happens to encompass a few competing hypotheses. Theology on the other hand is not science. I would never argue with a PhD in theology about facts concerning theological concepts (Jews believe this, Muslims believe that, Hindi believe something else) but I CAN argue over whether or not a particular theology is valid (Christianity is the best because whatever).
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
Or more concisely, your multiverses are as imaginary as the Chirsturd's Gawd and will remain so until you can prove otherwise.
Except the concept makes potentially scientific predictions of what lays beyond the singularity of the Big bang. Theism does not, as it would be compatible with all scenarios, or lying just even further "outside" whatever we find.
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
Now, please do me a favor and quietly pound sand in your azz.
Bub. Srsly?

(eyeroll)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#10881 May 17, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
The feeling is mutual, I am also not "pining" that I did not get a reply.
I gave you my comments in a civil way as to how I like to discuss these matters.
If you do not like it, it is your decision.
But every one can see how "egoistic and vain person" you are!!
Irony meter go booooooom.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#10882 May 17, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
No Sister, not all rules are man made. Some are ordained by God is His revelation to His prophets and they never change.
Sure they do. Killing is bad, unless God sez so. Shagging your sister is bad, unless God sez so.

In reality all "God's rules" are relayed to us by fundies with serious reality issues, and it just so happens that those rules coincide with everything they hate.
Imhotep

Windermere, FL

#10883 May 17, 2013
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I hope they are in the public domain cause I just easily downloaded both in PDF on my first search. Now I have a moral quandary. I should probably go buy them somewhere to ease my non-existent atheistic conscious.
I'm not worried about my aesthetic conscious.

I have been downloading videos and songs for years since the advent of Napster.

When all of these filesharing sites shut down we switched to using bit torrents.

Even YouTube has a rather good downloader to download and convert everything that appears on YouTube free. The only advantage to paying the 29.95 is to do the conversion and download and delete all at the same time. Also, it Automatically downloads things that are in sections like part one part two part three etc.

Roxio Creator Pro will convert anything into a DVD or CD.

Using bit torrent's and ISO search you can download the entire albums in fact the entire Discography of some entertainers.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#10884 May 17, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
So then you endorse the same kind of thinking that would lead to an Intelligent Design conclusion on the other side of the discussion?
That's a touch hypocritical, don't cha think?
No. QM is useful. IDC is not.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#10885 May 17, 2013
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
Well ... it would be if that were my intent but, since it's not ... no. Pretty sure neither Polymath nor anything in 'real' QM investigations suggest any kind of link between consciousness (thought) and 'collapsing' anything. That was a suggestion by Godbot Ezdzit who, I am certain, reads (longs for) some kind of ID validation into it. Polymath was quick to point out that the three early QM theorists the Zit was quoting are all dead and their early interpretations no longer accepted.
Seems like Ooga has issues with the idea that the universe is not only stranger than we imagine but stranger than we CAN imagine.

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
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 1 hr Richardfs 5,706
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Brian_G 48,728
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Into The Night 23,542
News In defense of faith 7 hr karl44 6
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 9 hr Uncle Sam 70
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 10 hr Thinking 21,881
News Louisiana Christians reclaim safe space by runn... 16 hr Amused 3
More from around the web