Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

[Ooogah Boogah]

Fitz wrote:

<quoted text>
As a matter of fact, the scientific consensus for the orgins of the universe is what is popularly known as the "big bang " theory.
As a matter of scientific consensus this theory states that all matter, time &space and all laws of physics came into being 12 to 14 billion years ago.

All matter, time, space and laws of physics AS WE NOW UNDERSTAND THEM came into existence 12 to 14 years ago. There is no reason to believe they did not exist before that time. Most likely they were in a different form than what we now understand.

Fitz wrote:

"Before*" that time the laws of physics did not apply and there was no phyical material in the universe for them to apply to.
*"before" - is problematic language because not just space but time itslef came into eing at that point.
Now - You obviously have ALOT of reading to do ifyour going to bring yourself up speed on the state of scentif consensus on these issues.
Please dont take it as an offense if I stop responding to your ignoran assertios.

No one knows what existed before the big bang because at the event of the big bang, the entire universe was pure energy. So what? That does not mean there were no natural laws, it just means we don't know what went on prior to that time. That does not prove your God dunnit with magic.

[polymath257]

Fitz wrote:

<quoted text>
Its your prejudice not mine that reduces all "real" knowledge to the scientifically testable. You have only this one form of knowledge, I have philosophy, theology and the like.

No, mathematical knowledge is not scientifically testable. It is an abstract knowledge. But, and this is important, it has very strict standards of proof and there are challenge procedures if a proof is invalid. To be *knowledge*, you have to have *justified* true belief.

Now, how does a belief get justified? Well, if there is a challenging belief, there has to be a way to tell at least one to be *wrong*. In mathematics, the challenge procedure is to use require justification from the rules of inference at each stage of a deduction. The axioms are assumed and not proven. In the science, when there are two different theories, the challenge procedure is to find some observation that they make different predictions for and then test in the real world to see which is correct.

So, the question I have for you: suppose there are two different theologies. How do you determine which one is *wrong*. If there is no way, then the subject of theology cannot be given the term 'knowledge'.

You have made a catogory error that dissmisses all fields except yours.

No, I am open to a wide variety of beliefs that are different from mine. To be called 'knowledge', though, there must be some way to justify those beliefs. To justify requires being able to at least determine which beleifs are false. That is a challenge procedure.

tThe fact that the feild of physics has had to combat the questions of the big bang theory as well as the anthropic principles with speculative, untestable hypothesis that fail their own test for "knowledge" is simply one example of history having many ironies in the fire.

On the contrary,there are a great number of very testable hypotheses being investigated; from dark matter and dark energy, to inflation, to theories involving other universes. At this point, the evidence is consistent with a hot big bang with an inflationary period that was seeded by Gaussian fluctuations which then lead to the current distribution of galaxies.

[polymath257]

Colin The Zionist wrote:

<quoted text>
The education system is run by the indoctrinated with the sole purpose of indoctrinating the next generation of brainwashed Indoctrinated people.

That type of system doesn't last long. Eventually reality rears its head and things fail to work. The fact is that we *want* things to work. We want our cars to run, our computers to function, and our medicines to work. In order to achieve that, it is important that we stick to the science and not engage in superstitious non-sense.

Now, the Big Bang theory is not so important as a technological advance. At most, trying to determine the basic parameters has lead to the invention of better detection devices, etc. But the theory of evolution has huge significance in medicine, where the changes in the species of infectious agents is quite relevant to our plans to keep people from getting sick.

Just like Lysenkoism failed in the Soviet Union when the wheat crops failed to thrive, creationism would be a disaster to our economy if it ever was taught in schools: it simply doesn't work in practice.

[inv e]

Hedonist wrote:

<quoted text>
We'd first have to get people to understand that atheism is no more a belief system than not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Yes I agree, I think once both parties understand this, it might take some of unnecessary tension out of the conversation when on the subject.

[inv e]

Hedonist wrote:

<quoted text>
So, are you from Tonga, or do you now live there?

Lol that's right, that's the dot in the pacific ocean I call home.

[Jumper]

After the so-called fall of religion,Atheists will become a religion unto it's self.

[Fitz]

Ooogah Boogah wrote:

<quoted text>
All matter, time, space and laws of physics AS WE NOW UNDERSTAND THEM came into existence 12 to 14 years ago. There is no reason to believe they did not exist before that time. Most likely they were in a different form than what we now understand.
<quoted text>
No one knows what existed before the big bang because at the event of the big bang, the entire universe was pure energy. So what? That does not mean there were no natural laws, it just means we don't know what went on prior to that time. That does not prove your God dunnit with magic.

I am only relating the current scientific consensus at this time based on the objective evidence and research to date.

Your contentions that there were different laws of physics or that their were any natural laws at that "time"*(see above) are your speculations and conjecture.

Given that all matter in the universe was reduced to a matter of millimeters "before"* the big bang is such a profoundly inconcievable matter given all known laws of physics that it has some of physics best minds postulating any number of absurd and unprovable thesis's in order to try and overcome it.

The big bang itself is charachterized properly by atheist physists themselves as a metaphysical event. Charachterizing it as a literal miracle with no known explanation is not uncharitable.

The thesis that a supernatural intellegance created the universe as an act of pure will seems the most likley and most rational explanation. Given the further evidence of the anthropic principles it is the most rational and likley answer.

Please read up on this, try and keep an open mind and dont allow your prejudice against religious believers keep you from coming to the most obvious answer.

Absent that you probably need to subscribe to another one of the camps that are speculating on other explanations other than the devine intellegance answer.

[Ooogah Boogah]

Fitz wrote:

......
The thesis that a supernatural intellegance created the universe as an act of pure will seems the most likley and most rational explanation........

Until you prove that ANYTHING supernatural exists, this is utter, unmitigated BullCr@p!!

It really is that simple.

[madscot]

Fitz wrote:

<quoted text>
As G.K Chesterton said..."The problem with ill-religion is not that people will believe in nothing its that they will believe in anything"
Certainly on a philisophical level it is possible for an atheist to adhere to any number of ethical, religious or socio-political worldviews..
As a pratical matter however, atheists tend ton be just as suseptable to geoupthink as other people..
The most horrible manifestation of this is their often ethical and moral relativism and penchant for rule utilitarianism.
This has been dramtized in the fact that the worlds expresslyatheistic regimes have been by far and away the most in-human and muderous. With Marxisms dialectical materalism being reponsible for 100 million dead.

Atheists have never killed every person on the planet like the god of the Bible did though.

[madscot]

Fitz wrote:

<quoted text>
I am only relating the current scientific consensus at this time based on the objective evidence and research to date.
Your contentions that there were different laws of physics or that their were any natural laws at that "time"*(see above) are your speculations and conjecture.
Given that all matter in the universe was reduced to a matter of millimeters "before"* the big bang is such a profoundly inconcievable matter given all known laws of physics that it has some of physics best minds postulating any number of absurd and unprovable thesis's in order to try and overcome it.
The big bang itself is charachterized properly by atheist physists themselves as a metaphysical event. Charachterizing it as a literal miracle with no known explanation is not uncharitable.
The thesis that a supernatural intellegance created the universe as an act of pure will seems the most likley and most rational explanation. Given the further evidence of the anthropic principles it is the most rational and likley answer.
Please read up on this, try and keep an open mind and dont allow your prejudice against religious believers keep you from coming to the most obvious answer.
Absent that you probably need to subscribe to another one of the camps that are speculating on other explanations other than the devine intellegance answer.

Now all you gotta do is come up with some testable evidence. Good luck because there's a Nobel prize waiting on you if you can.

[Fitz]

madscot wrote:

<quoted text>
Atheists have never killed every person on the planet like the god of the Bible did though.

No, expressley atheistic regimes killed millions and millions of people in the last 100 years, they include the forced ukranian "famine" the Gulag Archepeligo, Pol Pots killing fields, Mao's grweat leap forward...and on & on.

These regimes had a express desire for building atotalitarian regimes were human rights ere seen as impediments to utopian visions.

As such, I have every reason to fear atheistic poltical and social ambitions more than religious ones.

Regadless of the existance or non-existance of God, I have every justification of fearing athesits over the possibility that the God of the old testament will flood the earth.

[Colin The Zionist]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
That type of system doesn't last long. Eventually reality rears its head and things fail to work. The fact is that we *want* things to work. We want our cars to run, our computers to function, and our medicines to work. In order to achieve that, it is important that we stick to the science and not engage in superstitious non-sense.
Now, the Big Bang theory is not so important as a technological advance. At most, trying to determine the basic parameters has lead to the invention of better detection devices, etc. But the theory of evolution has huge significance in medicine, where the changes in the species of infectious agents is quite relevant to our plans to keep people from getting sick.
Just like Lysenkoism failed in the Soviet Union when the wheat crops failed to thrive, creationism would be a disaster to our economy if it ever was taught in schools: it simply doesn't work in practice.

So if you don't want superstitions why is the myth (lie) of evolution that in schools, it is baseless.

Why would the world fall apart if creation was taught in schools?

[Fitz]

Ooogah Boogah wrote:

<quoted text>
Until you prove that ANYTHING supernatural exists, this is utter, unmitigated BullCr@p!!
It really is that simple.

As stated... the top physists themselves have developed a consensus that the porgins of the universe are predicated on the existance of a singular event that is metaphysical (beyond physics)and deied all known laws of the hsical universe.

Wether you cal this event metaphysical, supernatral or a miracle is simply semantics. The fact of the matter is that the sientific community itself subscribes to the concept that phenomina exist that defy any material explanation and that dont subject themselves to the known laws of physics.

This is not "simple" at all, nor is it "unmitigated BullCr@p!!"

What it is is highly sophisticated, beyond your knowledge base & seems to have upset your highly prejudice, indeed bigoted atheism that want to denounce all belief in a creator as mindless or stupid.

Nothing could be further from the case... Many many atheists are sophisticated and philisophically astute defenders of their belief.

Many, many more are like yourself, uneducated and inscure and only want to boost temselves up by tearing down some of the most advanced intellectual belief systems in the world.

The fact of the matter is the state of debate between atheism vs theism is presently very amiable to theistic arguments.

This was not the case 50 years ago but it is today. For the first time your finding out why.. I hope your ego can take it.

[Colin The Zionist]

madscot wrote:

<quoted text>
Atheists have never killed every person on the planet like the god of the Bible did though.

Never has every person on the planet been killed.

[sickofit]

Colin The Zionist wrote:

<quoted text>
So if you don't want superstitions why is the myth (lie) of evolution that in schools, it is baseless.
Why would the world fall apart if creation was taught in schools?

Because creation is mythical BS based on the buybull crap cult....

[Richardfs]

Colin The Zionist wrote:

<quoted text>
So if you don't want superstitions why is the myth (lie) of evolution that in schools, it is baseless.
Why would the world fall apart if creation was taught in schools?

It scares me that the U.S. education system has become so degraded that it would even consider allowing you to home school your children.

[Colin The Zionist]

sickofit wrote:

<quoted text>
Because creation is mythical BS based on the buybull crap cult....

Lets never forget the fact that the myth (lie) of evolution is just that a myth based in lies.

[sickofit]

Richardfs wrote:

<quoted text>
It scares me that the U.S. education system has become so degraded that it would even consider allowing you to home school your children.

I know..I am all for homeschooling just think parents should ahve to etach what is right and what is common knowledge not myth and cult BS.

[sickofit]

Colin The Zionist wrote:

<quoted text>
Lets never forget the fact that the myth (lie) of evolution is just that a myth based in lies.

evolution is based in fact and science.....STOP LYING HITLER..

[Colin The Zionist]

Richardfs wrote:

<quoted text>
It scares me that the U.S. education system has become so degraded that it would even consider allowing you to home school your children.

Don't worry I am not in your US. but it has become so degraded as to teach the myth (lie) of evolution as fact.