Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Aug 27, 2012 Full story: News24 14,477

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. Full Story
Imhotep

Ocala, FL

#10859 May 17, 2013
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
How the heck did you come up with all that?!? "Spot on", BTW.
I have always enjoyed studying the world's religions superstitions.

I was never raised religious therefore religion became a Curiosity item for me.

I wondered what all the hooplah was about.

So I began to study religion in general and superstitions around the world.

I found this not only entertaining but Fascinating
Along the way I picked up various items of interest and carefully logged them away as word documents for future reference.

There is an incredible amount of information available if you just take the time to look for it.

And none of this information provides even the lightest twinge of evidence to support any Gods.

What it does indicate - in no uncertain terms - is that gods do not exist.
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#10860 May 17, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
..I was never raised religious therefore religion became a Curiosity item for me.
..
You were lucky. I had baptism, then sunday school, confirmation, then choir, bible study, confirmation, regular church, listening to boring sermons, for a lot of my life. All that wasted time! And you can't get it back!!
Lincoln

United States

#10861 May 17, 2013
spudgun wrote:
<quoted text>
You were lucky. I had baptism, then sunday school, confirmation, then choir, bible study, confirmation, regular church, listening to boring sermons, for a lot of my life. All that wasted time! And you can't get it back!!
Time wasted reading Richard Dawkins .......:-)
Skeptic and Givemeliberty now the same person

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#10862 May 17, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
I have always enjoyed studying the world's religions superstitions.
I was never raised religious therefore religion became a Curiosity item for me.
I wondered what all the hooplah was about.
So I began to study religion in general and superstitions around the world.
I found this not only entertaining but Fascinating
Along the way I picked up various items of interest and carefully logged them away as word documents for future reference.
There is an incredible amount of information available if you just take the time to look for it.
And none of this information provides even the lightest twinge of evidence to support any Gods.
What it does indicate - in no uncertain terms - is that gods do not exist.
I've done pretty much the same thing ... with science. Almost no formal education in these matters. I'm sure it shows. As for religion, I was brought up 'Southern Baptist', duly baptized and all that, but detected the smell of 'something fishy' about it very early on. We all do seem compelled to understand our place in things ... a pursuit that can literally take a lifetime. Regrettably, too many take a religious path that distracts and diverts resources from more reasonable pursuits that have demonstrably benefited Mankind. That, I feel, is our task here ... to chip away, one little post at a time, at the decaying corpse of religious inspired ignorance. Oh and ... to have a little fun at the godbots expense! LOL

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#10863 May 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
For the purposes of allowing free time in prison.
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

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10864 May 17, 2013
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh come on now! There's really no fundamental difference between someone torquing a head bolt on a Buick and someone 'measuring the momentum' of a super-cool cesium atom!! Both are mechanics mucking about with the bits and pieces that hold their respective systems together. Anybody can take things apart ... the real trick is making them work after you put 'em back together.
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?!?!?
For some reason, when I see that we've developed a full understanding of something, I expect to start seeing practical applications. Like 'electromagnetism' was all fine on paper, but what good was it until the first washing machine rolled off the assembly line?
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.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#10865 May 17, 2013
Always the godless, lawless Europeans. Carnal and senseless and denying all facts, covering over all of history with a thin coat of white paint. ALL of this was prophecied, how he would lie to the entire world, oppress the original peoples and subdue every tribe and tongue, dominating them to our collective injury.

The godless agenda of falsified "scientific"/achreal ogical findings only help enable his habitual, historical, pillage and debouchery routine from land to land and he's sought to destabilize all non-white nations with corrupt policies, espionage, disease and warfare. A godless, moral-less generation of deviants on this planet would only allow for that to become the status quo.

2 Thessalonians 2:3
Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction

Daniel 7:25
He will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people and try to change the set times and the laws. The holy people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and half a time.

Daniel 8:25
He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power.

http://montages.no/files/2012/02/Generation-P...

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

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/un-commission...

2 Thessalonians 2:7
For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.

“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

Lexington, KY

#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

Lexington, KY

#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.

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
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 12 min Aura Mytha 235,573
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 24 min Aura Mytha 16,666
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 1 hr Eagle 12 4,771
The Consequences of Atheism 2 hr polymath257 720
Richard Dawkins - God is evil, pedophilesa not ... (Sep '13) 4 hr insaankhan 3,030
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 23 hr Thinking 6,033
Is Religion Childish? Fri thetruth 136
More from around the web