Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Aug 27, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: News24

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.
Comments
12,461 - 12,480 of 14,385 Comments Last updated Nov 23, 2013

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12991
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no such thing as "modern wisdom", bubba.
And yet we understand much more about the universe than we did a mere 500 years ago.
No new sin has been invented in the last 5,000 years.
Sin? Who cares about a silly concept like that? Self Imposed Nonsense should be ignored.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12992
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

ThePreacherman01 wrote:
One born fact, Atheist will never replace religion because religion is of mankind not God FACT!!
One born fact, Atheist will burn in hell for ever and ever FACT!!
Obvious FACT #1 : You have no verifiable evidence your God exists.

Obvious FACT #2 : You have no verifiable evidence your hell exists.

Obvious Fact #3 : Mankind has been making Gods in his own image for thousands of years. http://www.godchecker.com
Truth

Jupiter, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12993
Jul 8, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you assume there was a single, first cause at all?
<quoted text>
Simply false. They are, indeed, affected by gravity. By all observations we have been able to make, they act exactly how classical gravity predicts.
<quoted text>
While we have no quantum theory of gravity, it is quite possible to do quantum mechanics with a classical gravity background. This gives a description that fits all actual observations (although we know it is inconsistent at the Planck level).
<quoted text>
Actually, we have a very good description of these phenomena. It is called quantum mechanics. The difficulty is that quantum particles do not act in the same way as classical particles. They do not have definite properties between observations. So, the probability cloud describing an electron is non-zero inside of a whole volume of space. But no single particle is measured as being in two places at the same time.
Particles do NOT pass through 'solid' objects. This is partly because ALL matter is mostly empty space at the atomic level. There is also a quantum phenomenon called tunneling, where a quantum particle can appear outside of a barrier it would not have been able to cross in classical mechanics.
As to the question of where particles 'are' when we can't see them, part of quantum mechanics is that properties such as position, momentum, energy, etc only have values when we actually do measurements and the measured values are probabilistic.
<quoted text>
Part of the difficulty here is that you are attempting to understand quantum theory with classical intuition. No, entangled particles do NOT communicate with each other. The correlations in their probabilities were formed when the particles were. But there is no information transfer.
Yes, there are a great many counter-intuitive things about quantum mechanics. Quantum particles do not have the properties we expect from dealing with the everyday world. But we do understand these phenomena, at least to the extent that we can predict what will happen and even develop intuitions about the range of possibilities. Quantum mechanics is neither mysterious (unless you insist on classical thinking) nor magical (any more than anything in the universe is).
Man this response is well put together, what is your background if you don't mind me asking?

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12994
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you assume there was a single, first cause at all?
Logic. Occam’s razor. And, of course, I read Whitehead’s Process and Reality....
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Simply false. They are, indeed, affected by gravity. By all observations we have been able to make, they act exactly how classical gravity predicts.
Really? Well now, compared to the other forces that act on particles, gravity is basically non existant. Electrostatic force is something like 10^40 times stronger than gravity which means that gravity has about as much affect on a particle as a fart on a windstorm.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>While we have no quantum theory of gravity, it is quite possible to do quantum mechanics with a classical gravity background. This gives a description that fits all actual observations (although we know it is inconsistent at the Planck level).
So you’re trying to understand quantum mechanics in terms of classical mechanics? LOL
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, we have a very good description of these phenomena. It is called quantum mechanics. The difficulty is that quantum particles do not act in the same way as classical particles. They do not have definite properties between observations. So, the probability cloud describing an electron is non-zero inside of a whole volume of space. But no single particle is measured as being in two places at the same time.
Which is a verbose way of saying....we’re still working on it. That’s what I said.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Particles do NOT pass through 'solid' objects. This is partly because ALL matter is mostly empty space at the atomic level. There is also a quantum phenomenon called tunneling, where a quantum particle can appear outside of a barrier it would not have been able to cross in classical mechanics.
Wrong. Neutrino particles pass through solid objects as large as planets, bubba.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>As to the question of where particles 'are' when we can't see them, part of quantum mechanics is that properties such as position, momentum, energy, etc only have values when we actually do measurements and the measured values are probabilistic.
Aaaah yes....that ol’ measurement problem described by Heisenberg et al. LOL
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Part of the difficulty here is that you are attempting to understand quantum theory with classical intuition. No, entangled particles do NOT communicate with each other. The correlations in their probabilities were formed when the particles were. But there is no information transfer.
Bullshit

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/22/quan...
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, there are a great many counter-intuitive things about quantum mechanics. Quantum particles do not have the properties we expect from dealing with the everyday world. But we do understand these phenomena, at least to the extent that we can predict what will happen and even develop intuitions about the range of possibilities. Quantum mechanics is neither mysterious (unless you insist on classical thinking) nor magical (any more than anything in the universe is).
Counterintuitive things like particles don’t behave in ways classical mechanics predicts? That’s exactly what I said, bubba.

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12995
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I would not prefer either of those. I do not care about the social construct. I am interested in the physics construct. And it is quite easy to make sense of time before there were humans. In particular, humans have only been around a few tens of thousands of years, but the universe is about 13-4 billion years old. So time certainly existed before there were humans to conceptualize it.
So, while it makes perfect sense to talk about 'before humans conceptualized time', it does NOT make sense to talk about 'before time'.
Time is simply a mental construct, bubba. It's something humans invented to measure things and make predictions. It's not energy or matter and doesn't exist except in the minds of humans.
Thinking

York, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12996
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

So now I know which flavour of batshit crazy you are.

PS Bollocks.
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
Sufi Islam is much older than either Judaism or Christianity, and the other sects of Islam didn't borrow anything from either Judaism or Christianity. No "Jew" or "Christian" wrote any of the original texts of the Bible or any other ancient wisdom literature from the Middle East.
Thinking

York, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12997
Jul 8, 2013
 
Prefect.
Hitchhiker's.

No wonder you muslims always get your scripture in such a violent muddle.
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
"Time is an illusion; lunchtime even more so." -- Ford Perfect, "Hitcherhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12998
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Thinking wrote:
So now I know which flavour of batshit crazy you are.
PS Bollocks.
<quoted text>
And your ad hominem attack demonstrates how totally ignorant you are of anything regarding religion history, theology, Egyptology, anthropology, archaeology, ancient literature, etc. and how unprepared you are to engage in any mature discussion. Typical atheist.

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12999
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Thinking wrote:
Prefect.
Hitchhiker's.
No wonder you muslims always get your scripture in such a violent muddle.
<quoted text>
Are you drunk or stoned? Your babbling posts don't make any sense, bubba.
Thinking

York, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13001
Jul 8, 2013
 
I was just correcting your drivel.

Don't judge others by your low wahabi standards, blubber.
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you drunk or stoned? Your babbling posts don't make any sense, bubba.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13002
Jul 8, 2013
 
Educated What wrote:
<quoted text>
Just admit it and stop crying.
Oh, looks like you're lying once again.
Do you really think that lies are what should be taught to children?
No wonder you're trying to push creationism on them.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13003
Jul 8, 2013
 
It seems he is switching to another one of his sock accounts.
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>Get an education.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13004
Jul 8, 2013
 
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
You are either an illiterate moron, brain damaged, a liar, or all of the foregoing.
I have clearly stated--many times--that it would be great if the US "renditioned" all of America's thousands of sick atheist pedophiles to Saudi Arabia because the Saudis are a thousand times more efficient and effective than the US in the methods they use to deal with pedophiles, i.e. execution.
Why your little pea brain interprets my clearly stated opinion as being "pro-Islam" or "pro-hetero pedophilia" instead of anti-pedophiles are questions only your shrink or brain surgeon can answer, bubba.
I've given you a chance, yet you've refused to take it.

I'll give you one more:

State that you find pedophilia and child rape repulsive, whether it be a male adult and female child, a female adult and male child, a female adult and female child, or a male adult and male child.

You can copy and paste part of that and just insert "I find [...] repulsive."
This is your last chance, if you dodge and refuse to answer once more, then you quite obviously condone pedophilia.

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13005
Jul 8, 2013
 
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
I've given you a chance, yet you've refused to take it.
I'll give you one more:
State that you find pedophilia and child rape repulsive, whether it be a male adult and female child, a female adult and male child, a female adult and female child, or a male adult and male child.
You can copy and paste part of that and just insert "I find [...] repulsive."
This is your last chance, if you dodge and refuse to answer once more, then you quite obviously condone pedophilia.
I speculated that you were either an illiterate moron, brain damaged, a liar, or all of the foregoing. After reading your response, I'm going with all three.

I have clearly stated--many times--that it would be great if the US "renditioned" all of America's thousands of sick atheist pedophiles to Saudi Arabia because the Saudis are a thousand times more efficient and effective than the US in the methods they use to deal with pedophiles, i.e. execution.
Why your little pea brain interprets my clearly stated opinion calling for the death penalty for all pedophiles as being "pro-Islam" or "pro-hetero pedophilia" can only be answered by a shrink or a brain surgeon, bubba.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13006
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Educated What wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't prove you're a descent person. You just try to twist and turn my words, this is all in good fun. Why are you on here?
I am on here to have rational conversations, and to hear other people's opinion on things. I don't see a reason why I should have to "prove" that I'm a descent person. In all actuality my being a descent person doesn't really have any affect on your actions, and you make that quite clear. I haven't tried to twist any of your words. I simply made the statement that you, being a christian, and coming on here to argue and make people angry simply for entertainment, makes you look like a hypocrite. I just think it's sad that you feel the need to make a mockery of your own religious practice, and I don't understand why you would both defend and mock your own faith on an atheist forum. It just seems like a waste of time.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13007
Jul 8, 2013
 
Educated What wrote:
Hello everyone! I want to take this opportunity to apologize for all my mean comments. I realized that I need to take other steps to improve my life without harming others and stop using these threads for entertainment. I don't ask for anyone to forgive what I have done, but this apology comes from deep within. I am leaving these threads for good and I hope all of you have a wonderful and prosperous life. Take care and goodbye!
Thank you so much for the heart felt apology. I wish you the best as well.:)

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13008
Jul 8, 2013
 
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
...... I don't understand why you would both defend and mock your own faith on an atheist forum. It just seems like a waste of time.
Atheist forum? The header on this thread reads "Israel forum".

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13009
Jul 8, 2013
 
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheist forum? The header on this thread reads "Israel forum".
Nope ... Atheism Forum. Bubba. Might be the source of some of your confusion. A small part of it. Maybe.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13010
Jul 8, 2013
 
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheist forum? The header on this thread reads "Israel forum".
No darlin....this is on the Atheist forum. Original Article "Why Atheism will replace religion."
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13011
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

ISY wrote:
Well thanks for clearing that up lol. Unfortunately, this is just your opinion, and not a fact.

See you have no proof, and Science can only tell us so much so far.

I will say this though...science is definitely winning out. They have much more plausible possibilities than "God made it".
Ans.

Science has its own limitation and it is Non Scientific to apply science to every problem.

Science only deals with material things, any thing which is not materialistic nature is outside scope of science.

For example can science decide, which poem is better than other? Can it decide which music or dance is better? Or which color is superior to other?

People who try to use for subjects which are outside its scope are either ignorant or bring bad name to science.

There is no conflict between religion and science, they should be allies and not enemies of each other.

It is zealots on both sides which are trying to pit one against the other.

"God made it"…shall be always truth irrespective of how much science finds our "How it was made"?

The question "why" it was made, shall be outside the scope of Science for ever and ever!!

It is Creator who knows why it was made and what is its purpose in the grand scheme of Creation.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Other Recent Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 6 min ChristineM 225,674
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 2 hr I can read 21,464
HELL real or not? (Sep '13) 2 hr Mr Duplicity 291
Hollywood Actor Reveals What He Thinks Is 'Weir... 7 hr religionisillness 104
Our world came from nothing? 7 hr religionisillness 365
The Ultimate Evidence of God 7 hr religionisillness 44
Adam Atheoi - the god of 'humanity' 7 hr religionisillness 84

Search the Atheism Forum:
•••