Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

There are 14656 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.

Thinking

UK

#13869 Jul 31, 2013
Absolutely. Newton believed in god and alchemy but that doesn't stop me using his motion equations today.
Dak-Original wrote:
<quoted text>
Even geniuses can err sometimes!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13870 Jul 31, 2013
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess if time slows down for objects as they approach the Speed of Light, I presume time STOPS for things that are actually GOING the Speed of Light ... like LIGHT for instance. So for a Photon ... time would 'cease to exist'. They do seem to be rather long-lived. Makes sense to me!
There is a very real sense in which all photons are virtual photons.

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

#13871 Jul 31, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and the atomic theory was proposed in Greece 2500 years ago. Neither have anything to do with the modern results.
Actually, the Father of Atomic Theory was a Hindu alchemist and philospher in India named Kashyapa aka Kanada circa 6th century BC. Almost everything he wrote about atoms has been confirmed by modern scientific methods.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, of course, we test out alternative explanations for our data. But, none of the modified gravity theories has been able to explain the dynamics of the Bullet cluster. Dark matter does.
I don’t agree with the theory that dark matter is an illusion; I’m just saying it’s out there and the logic is solid even though I don’t agrre with his conclusion. My point is we should err on the side of caution when positing what science knows and not overstate what has actually been proven.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I would use the same clocks I use today. I would probably use a different calendar, though.
Interesting..... Which of the 24 time zones on Earth would you use on Venus? Can you adjust your clock to measure a day that is 5,832 hours long instead of 24 hours long or would you just keep it set to Earth’s time for the sake of nostalgia? If your clock stopped while you were sleeping, how would you re-set it to the correct Earth time? Phone home? And, do you think the fact that Venus rotates in the opposite direction of the Earth--sunrise in the west; sunsets in the east--would affect your clock's measurement of time?

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Time is affected by gravity: it slows in stronger gravitational fields. This is a measured effect predicted by Einstein.
Motion is affected by gravity and other forces therefore the recorded measurements of the duration between cause and effect, aka “time”, can vary (as when a particle passes thru the Higgs field) but “time” is simply a measuring device invented by humans and is not affected by anything except human perception.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13872 Jul 31, 2013
Dak-Original wrote:
<quoted text>
Even geniuses can err sometimes!
Indeed.

Einstein erred in thinking the universe should be static. In order to *force* his equations to allow this, he inserted the 'cosmological constant' into them.

It turns out that his equations with the cosmological constant are unstable, so even that solution didn't work.

Einstein was consistently against the conclusions of quantum mechanics. In order to show his issues, he proposed several thought experiments. many of these experiments have actually been done now. Einstein's intuition was uniformly wrong about quantum mechanics in these. The EPR paradox is only the most popular example of his errors.

A less well known example was in Einstein's theory of specific heats of metals. This was a quantum based (!) description of how much heat it takes to change the temperatures of metals. While his theory was better than the previous one (which assumed the specific heats to be constant), his predictions were consistently above the experimental realities. Debye eventually found the correct description for specific heats.

So, yes, even geniuses can be wrong. They are usually wrong for good reasons, but wrong none the less.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13873 Jul 31, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the Father of Atomic Theory was a Hindu alchemist and philospher in India named Kashyapa aka Kanada circa 6th century BC. Almost everything he wrote about atoms has been confirmed by modern scientific methods.
First, Kanada probably lived in the 2nd century BC, which was after the Greek atomic philosophers.

Second, like the Greeks, Kanada also described the atoms as indestructible. As we know, this is false.

Third, Kanada described five elements (water, earth, fire, air, and ether) just like the Greeks. he (and they) were wrong. There are over 100 chemical elements.

Fourth, neither Kanada nor the Greeks described anything like the periodic table as a description of chemistry. While Kanada described very limited chemical bonding (two and three atom bonds), his ideas were nothing like the modern views.
I don’t agree with the theory that dark matter is an illusion; I’m just saying it’s out there and the logic is solid even though I don’t agrre with his conclusion. My point is we should err on the side of caution when positing what science knows and not overstate what has actually been proven.
Agreed. There is *always* the possibility of a new theory coming along that overturns the current one. That is the was of science.
Interesting..... Which of the 24 time zones on Earth would you use on Venus?
Which ever one was most convenient.
Can you adjust your clock to measure a day that is 5,832 hours long instead of 24 hours long or would you just keep it set to Earth’s time for the sake of nostalgia?
Without seasons and with an overcast sky, I would keep the standard units.
If your clock stopped while you were sleeping, how would you re-set it to the correct Earth time? Phone home?
That would be one way. Another would be to use a radio telescope to see the positions of stars and planets.
And, do you think the fact that Venus rotates in the opposite direction of the Earth--sunrise in the west; sunsets in the east--would affect your clock's measurement of time?
No, I don't think that would be an issue at all.
Motion is affected by gravity and other forces therefore the recorded measurements of the duration between cause and effect, aka “time”, can vary (as when a particle passes thru the Higgs field) but “time” is simply a measuring device invented by humans and is not affected by anything except human perception.
Wrong. It is not the forces on the clock that I am talking about. Human perception is irrelevant. The time it takes for, say, a muon to decay depends on its motion and the strength of gravitational fields.

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

#13874 Jul 31, 2013
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
That there is something roughly analogous to 'the Ether' is kind of ironic. It's always made some sense that 'waves' have to have some kind of medium to propagate through. The Ancients drew their conclusions from watching waves propagate around a pond. Nothing Earth shattering about that. They extrapolated from what they could see and feel. I'm surprised they didn't just say "Godidit" and leave it at that. All you've 'proven' is that even in Ancient Times, there were thinkers and people who were not satisfied with a simple supernatural explanation for everything.
LOL Vedic Hindu literature that stated in 5000 BC in writing, that the cosmos is 15 billion years old and that the mind and consciousness has to be factored in. Fast forward 7000 years to science confirming that the cosmos is about 15 billion years old and the realization that science needs a falsifiable theory of consciousness for quantum theory and a grand unified theory.

“When Vedic ideas are proved correct, it is just dreaming , come right. When Western work ( lifted from ancient Vedanta ) are proved right, it is scientific knowledge ”-- Nikola Tesla .

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#13875 Jul 31, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL Vedic Hindu literature that stated in 5000 BC in writing, that the cosmos is 15 billion years old and that the mind and consciousness has to be factored in. Fast forward 7000 years to science confirming that the cosmos is about 15 billion years old and the realization that science needs a falsifiable theory of consciousness for quantum theory and a grand unified theory.
“When Vedic ideas are proved correct, it is just dreaming , come right. When Western work ( lifted from ancient Vedanta ) are proved right, it is scientific knowledge ”-- Nikola Tesla .
I'd love to see how the Vedic Hindus wrote "15 billion" and if the translation might not be subject to interpretation.

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

#13876 Jul 31, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
First, Kanada probably lived in the 2nd century BC, which was after the Greek atomic philosophers.
Second, like the Greeks, Kanada also described the atoms as indestructible. As we know, this is false.
Third, Kanada described five elements (water, earth, fire, air, and ether) just like the Greeks. he (and they) were wrong. There are over 100 chemical elements.
Fourth, neither Kanada nor the Greeks described anything like the periodic table as a description of chemistry. While Kanada described very limited chemical bonding (two and three atom bonds), his ideas were nothing like the modern views.
<quoted text>
Agreed. There is *always* the possibility of a new theory coming along that overturns the current one. That is the was of science.
<quoted text>
Which ever one was most convenient.
<quoted text>
Without seasons and with an overcast sky, I would keep the standard units.
<quoted text>
That would be one way. Another would be to use a radio telescope to see the positions of stars and planets.
<quoted text>
No, I don't think that would be an issue at all.
<quoted text>
Wrong. It is not the forces on the clock that I am talking about. Human perception is irrelevant. The time it takes for, say, a muon to decay depends on its motion and the strength of gravitational fields.
All Indian historians say Kanada lived in the 6th century BC. There is only one source that merely theorized Kanada had to have lived in the 2nd century BC i.e. Oliver Leaman, a Jewish Professor of Philosophy and Jewish Studies in the US and there is no evidence to support his theory.

“When Vedic ideas are proved correct, it is just dreaming , come right. When Western work ( lifted from ancient Vedanta ) are proved right, it is scientific knowledge ”-- Nikola Tesla .

Tesla got it right. That western bigotry towards little brown people is probably the reason Bose didn't get the Nobel he deserved for his work on particle physics.
Thinking

UK

#13877 Jul 31, 2013
Selecta.
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
All Indian historians say Kanada lived in the 6th century BC. There is only one source that merely theorized Kanada had to have lived in the 2nd century BC i.e. Oliver Leaman, a Jewish Professor of Philosophy and Jewish Studies in the US and there is no evidence to support his theory.
“When Vedic ideas are proved correct, it is just dreaming , come right. When Western work ( lifted from ancient Vedanta ) are proved right, it is scientific knowledge ”-- Nikola Tesla .
Tesla got it right. That western bigotry towards little brown people is probably the reason Bose didn't get the Nobel he deserved for his work on particle physics.

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

#13878 Jul 31, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. It is not the forces on the clock that I am talking about. Human perception is irrelevant. The time it takes for, say, a muon to decay depends on its motion and the strength of gravitational fields.
You're so close.....

You said the time it takes for a muon to decay DEPENDS on its motion and the strength of gravitational fields.

What you said comes after DEPENDS, i.e. motion and gravity, is relevant to muon decay.

Note that you did NOT include "time" as something the process of muon decay depends on to do its thing. Why? Because your brain knows better than you do that "time" is irrelevant to muon decay.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#13879 Aug 1, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>You're so close.....

You said the time it takes for a muon to decay DEPENDS on its motion and the strength of gravitational fields.

What you said comes after DEPENDS, i.e. motion and gravity, is relevant to muon decay.

Note that you did NOT include "time" as something the process of muon decay depends on to do its thing. Why? Because your brain knows better than you do that "time" is irrelevant to muon decay.
Yup, you're nuts.
If time were irrelevant, than it wouldn't decay in the first place.
Thinking

UK

#13880 Aug 1, 2013
"Time is nature's way to keep everything from happening all at once"
John Archibald Wheeler, Theoretical Physicist
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup, you're nuts.
If time were irrelevant, than it wouldn't decay in the first place.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13881 Aug 1, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
All Indian historians say Kanada lived in the 6th century BC. There is only one source that merely theorized Kanada had to have lived in the 2nd century BC i.e. Oliver Leaman, a Jewish Professor of Philosophy and Jewish Studies in the US and there is no evidence to support his theory.
“When Vedic ideas are proved correct, it is just dreaming , come right. When Western work ( lifted from ancient Vedanta ) are proved right, it is scientific knowledge ”-- Nikola Tesla .
Tesla got it right. That western bigotry towards little brown people is probably the reason Bose didn't get the Nobel he deserved for his work on particle physics.
And the bigotry against women is why Franklin didn't get one. Getting ideas right in outline is not the same as getting them right in detail. Having experimental and observational backing of your ideas is different than pure speculation. The ancient atomists (both Greek and Vedic) had some basics right: that the world is not continuous, it is discrete. They were also wrong about many things. Since neither was based in observation or experimentation (with the one exception that Lucretius seemed to argue for Brownian motion), they were speculation, not science.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13882 Aug 1, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
You're so close.....
You said the time it takes for a muon to decay DEPENDS on its motion and the strength of gravitational fields.
What you said comes after DEPENDS, i.e. motion and gravity, is relevant to muon decay.
Note that you did NOT include "time" as something the process of muon decay depends on to do its thing. Why? Because your brain knows better than you do that "time" is irrelevant to muon decay.
The *time* it takes to decay depends on relative motion and gravitational field. Time isn't irrelevant. It is the whole point.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13883 Aug 1, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
All Indian historians say Kanada lived in the 6th century BC. There is only one source that merely theorized Kanada had to have lived in the 2nd century BC i.e. Oliver Leaman, a Jewish Professor of Philosophy and Jewish Studies in the US and there is no evidence to support his theory.
I am not denying that Kanada had the ideas independently and had more detail than the Greek idea. That doesn't mean he was right or that his ideas were supported by evidence. In particular, his idea that there are only 5 types of atoms is simply wrong no matter how you slice it.

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

#13885 Aug 1, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The *time* it takes to decay depends on relative motion and gravitational field. Time isn't irrelevant. It is the whole point.
You're getting warmer....

Time is certainly not irrelevant to humans who want to understand and measure how the duration of the moun's process of decay is affected by variables such as motion and gravity. Time is entirely irrelevant to the moun. It's not a variable in process of moun's decay and has no physical impact on it's decay process whatsoever. Time can't slow, halt, or accelerate the moun's process of decay because it has no independent reality outside the minds of humans. A second of "time" or any fraction thereof is just a mental construct invented by humans like a meter or a gram.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#13887 Aug 1, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not denying that Kanada had the ideas independently and had more detail than the Greek idea. That doesn't mean he was right or that his ideas were supported by evidence. In particular, his idea that there are only 5 types of atoms is simply wrong no matter how you slice it.
Liars with no proof of god don't know when to stop embarrassing themselves. First prove your god, then try and fail to criticise science, there a good dishonest person.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#13888 Aug 1, 2013
If creationists stop trying to sound smart and instead proved the gods that they lie about 24/7, they would get more respect here. Only kidding, creationists don't get respect anywhere.. Because liars don't get respect anywhere.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#13890 Aug 1, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>You're getting warmer....

Time is certainly not irrelevant to humans who want to understand and measure how the duration of the moun's process of decay is affected by variables such as motion and gravity. Time is entirely irrelevant to the moun. It's not a variable in process of moun's decay and has no physical impact on it's decay process whatsoever. Time can't slow, halt, or accelerate the moun's process of decay because it has no independent reality outside the minds of humans. A second of "time" or any fraction thereof is just a mental construct invented by humans like a meter or a gram.
Those are all time words.
"Duration, process, slow, halt, and accelerate."

Can you just try to think logically and with a bit of sanity for a bit?

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#13891 Aug 1, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
<quoted text>And you're looking dumber by the post. As if you could outwit anyone here freak. Go sell your daughter to an old Muslim man for a few hundred bucks.
THAT'S why she's okay with pedophilia!
She doesn't believe in time and thinks they're both the same age!

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 Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 37 min lozzza 6,222
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 4 hr Aura Mytha 243,503
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 5 hr Eagle 12 9,496
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 13 hr MikeF 19,806
News Atheism must be about more than just not believ... Jul 4 Amused 2
Should atheists have the burden of proof? Jul 4 thetruth 38
News Founders created secular nation (Jul '10) Jul 4 knight of Jesus 521
More from around the web