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.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#13575 Jul 21, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
I can gather what his story was from the bits and pieces I've heard so far.
I don't buy it.
Yeah...me either really. I keep thinking that he'll realize how stupid he sounds, but....nope...he just keeps comin back for more.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#13576 Jul 22, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah...me either really. I keep thinking that he'll realize how stupid he sounds, but....nope...he just keeps comin back for more.
"I went to an atheist convention of satanic rituals and converted them all to Christianity."

I bet that'll be his next claim.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#13577 Jul 22, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Pop Zits!! Is that you ???
Naaa... it's "John" the stump

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#13578 Jul 22, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Fair point. We would mandate different specs today, but it looks like the design met the specs.
<quoted text>
If one of the ship's design criteria was being 'unsinkable' then it was clearly flawed. The shipyard met the fabrication specs as laid out by the designers and Naval Architects. There is a question whether the hull may have been made from an inferior quality of steel (" http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/9801/fel... ;) which might have contributed and could probably be 'blamed' on shipyard Bean Counters trying to save a buck. The 'water tight compartment' system not extending to the main deck didn't help, certainly a design flaw, but only in retrospect. This system was quite innovative and contributed to their over-confidence. That company guy urging the Captain to speed up on a route that included the possibility of ice bergs was pretty dumb. Captain's fault for listening. Jack and Rose smooching it up and distracting the lookouts didn't help. Oh the Humanity!

The design of a modern sea-going vessel incorporates the accumulated wisdom of thousands of years of humans plying the oceans. Yet, they are still lost, the designs and safety systems continue to evolve. There is no 'perfect' ship.

This process is directly analogous to Human Evolution. We are the result of millions of years of starts, stops and adaptations to meet the ever changing demands of a capricious Mother Nature. All extant life forms share certain successful biological systems and since Momma Nature wastes nothing, we all carry around a little genomic 'excess baggage'.

But ... what does it matter. Our imperfections have always been around and the questions they generate about our "Perfect Creator" have always been answered. We screwed ourselves over opening Pandora's Magic Box or listening to talking snakes.

I bet if we would all just 'worship really hard' we could get the Old Codger to forgive us and return us to our former state of perfection. LOL

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#13579 Jul 22, 2013
Lord Stannis wrote:
<quoted text>There is a thread on the Evolution Debate forum called "Examples of UNintelligent Design of the Human Body."
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TPA...
We seem 'designed' to fall apart. Usually painfully and while messing ourselves. The godbots, of course, blame it all on Eve, a gullible woman who ensured that all humanity (and women in particular) must suffer. They do. We do.

I would think carrying a grudge this long would be a major flaw in the psychology of a supposedly "perfect" Creator Being. We Unbelievers, I suppose, perpetuate Humanity's misery, God only providing relief on an individual basis as we stand in review at the Pearly Gates.

Anyway, thanks for the link! That's quite a list of 'unintelligent design' flaws. Our Old Codger is quite the prankster!!
Thinking

Lymington, UK

#13580 Jul 22, 2013
I reckon we will have lost the majority of our genetic information somewhere down the line.

It's really difficult to quantify, but we've found much larger genomes. The largest found so far - that of a mountain flower - is fifty times larger than ours.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-ne...

Here's an article on how mammalian genomes have been shrinking over the last millions of years.

http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/07/01/13...
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
If one of the ship's design criteria was being 'unsinkable' then it was clearly flawed. The shipyard met the fabrication specs as laid out by the designers and Naval Architects. There is a question whether the hull may have been made from an inferior quality of steel (" http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/9801/fel... ;) which might have contributed and could probably be 'blamed' on shipyard Bean Counters trying to save a buck. The 'water tight compartment' system not extending to the main deck didn't help, certainly a design flaw, but only in retrospect. This system was quite innovative and contributed to their over-confidence. That company guy urging the Captain to speed up on a route that included the possibility of ice bergs was pretty dumb. Captain's fault for listening. Jack and Rose smooching it up and distracting the lookouts didn't help. Oh the Humanity!
The design of a modern sea-going vessel incorporates the accumulated wisdom of thousands of years of humans plying the oceans. Yet, they are still lost, the designs and safety systems continue to evolve. There is no 'perfect' ship.
This process is directly analogous to Human Evolution. We are the result of millions of years of starts, stops and adaptations to meet the ever changing demands of a capricious Mother Nature. All extant life forms share certain successful biological systems and since Momma Nature wastes nothing, we all carry around a little genomic 'excess baggage'.
But ... what does it matter. Our imperfections have always been around and the questions they generate about our "Perfect Creator" have always been answered. We screwed ourselves over opening Pandora's Magic Box or listening to talking snakes.
I bet if we would all just 'worship really hard' we could get the Old Codger to forgive us and return us to our former state of perfection. LOL

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#13581 Jul 22, 2013
Oh and on that "designed to fall apart" note ... we are. Momma Nature knows about 'transcription errors' and she knows that if organisms were 'allowed' to live forever or breed indefinitely, we would eventually be passing a lot of seriously screwed up genes down the line. Can't let that happen.

She's in it for the species, boys, so let's keep those zippers up and both hands on the wheel!!!

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#13582 Jul 22, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I reckon we will have lost the majority of our genetic information somewhere down the line.
It's really difficult to quantify, but we've found much larger genomes. The largest found so far - that of a mountain flower - is fifty times larger than ours.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-ne...
Here's an article on how mammalian genomes have been shrinking over the last millions of years.
http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/07/01/13...
<quoted text>
Those giant genomes are cool and are trying to tell us something fundamental. I think they're little repositories of all the biological tricks Momma Nature has learned over the billions of years. Just a crack-pot hypothesis.

I'll study the links and get back to ya!
Thinking

Lymington, UK

#13583 Jul 22, 2013
Nature knows nothing.
RHill wrote:
Oh and on that "designed to fall apart" note ... we are. Momma Nature knows about 'transcription errors' and she knows that if organisms were 'allowed' to live forever or breed indefinitely, we would eventually be passing a lot of seriously screwed up genes down the line. Can't let that happen.
She's in it for the species, boys, so let's keep those zippers up and both hands on the wheel!!!
Thinking

Lymington, UK

#13584 Jul 22, 2013
I believe "big" DNA is a consequence of running the mathematics for long enough. I don't see nature itself learning anything.
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
Those giant genomes are cool and are trying to tell us something fundamental. I think they're little repositories of all the biological tricks Momma Nature has learned over the billions of years. Just a crack-pot hypothesis.
I'll study the links and get back to ya!

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#13585 Jul 22, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I believe "big" DNA is a consequence of running the mathematics for long enough. I don't see nature itself learning anything.
<quoted text>
Don't mistake my anthropomorphizing "Momma Nature" as a belief in nature being sentient in any sense. Blind, deaf, dumb, uncaring and unaware (anthropomorphizing again)... that's our Momma Nature! A system of wholly physical components interacting, often predictably, based upon properties established when the Universe was micro-seconds old.

Even so, the Old Girl managed to come up with a molecule that seems to make replicating itself something of a priority. It pursues this priority (anthropomorphizing again) with a single minded (anthropomorphizing again) intensity that has resulted in the plethora of lifeforms we observe today. The DNA molecule comes closest to seeming 'sentient' as it inserts copies of itself into every viable niche and cranny on the planet.

I'm just musing that some of those giant genomes contain DNA copies that stretch, unbroken, further back in time. Probably quite silly really, but, it's how I amuse myself.

The mammalian genome starting to shrink coincidental to the CT event is interesting. Your link linked to charts indicating that some of the biggest genomes belonged to some of the simplest (hardiest?), most ubiquitous, creatures. Hmmmmmm.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#13586 Jul 22, 2013
I'm picturing God now ... floating alone amongst all the magnificent matter he just created in the Big Bang. He conjures a DNA molecule, places it gently upon the surface of a nutritious, cosmic booger. Uttering a single command "SURVIVE!" as he flicks it from a mighty finger (none to gently) into space.

<he then retires to another dimension never to be seen or heard from again>
Thinking

Lymington, UK

#13587 Jul 22, 2013
Fair comments. I know you get it. It's just that some posters may look to any anthropomorphisation as belief in design.

With regards to why some of the least complex organisms have some of the largest genomes, I look at this as more evidence of non design.

We have 2x10^30kg of fusing hydrogen and helium one AU away and no mandate for lifeforms to use it as efficiently as possible, other than as a result of natural selection.
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't mistake my anthropomorphizing "Momma Nature" as a belief in nature being sentient in any sense. Blind, deaf, dumb, uncaring and unaware (anthropomorphizing again)... that's our Momma Nature! A system of wholly physical components interacting, often predictably, based upon properties established when the Universe was micro-seconds old.
Even so, the Old Girl managed to come up with a molecule that seems to make replicating itself something of a priority. It pursues this priority (anthropomorphizing again) with a single minded (anthropomorphizing again) intensity that has resulted in the plethora of lifeforms we observe today. The DNA molecule comes closest to seeming 'sentient' as it inserts copies of itself into every viable niche and cranny on the planet.
I'm just musing that some of those giant genomes contain DNA copies that stretch, unbroken, further back in time. Probably quite silly really, but, it's how I amuse myself.
The mammalian genome starting to shrink coincidental to the CT event is interesting. Your link linked to charts indicating that some of the biggest genomes belonged to some of the simplest (hardiest?), most ubiquitous, creatures. Hmmmmmm.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#13588 Jul 22, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Fair comments. I know you get it. It's just that some posters may look to any anthropomorphisation as belief in design.
With regards to why some of the least complex organisms have some of the largest genomes, I look at this as more evidence of non design.
We have 2x10^30kg of fusing hydrogen and helium one AU away and no mandate for lifeforms to use it as efficiently as possible, other than as a result of natural selection.
<quoted text>
I'm sure the poor devils do jump on any crumb they can find. Similarly, anthropomorphizing things is just oh-so-easy to do. It's almost like we (I) can't help ourselves. God is really nothing more than a 'anthropomorph' of the wonders we see around us. A primitive attempt to understand things. What's the first thing ya do when presented with a frightening unknown? Put a Human face on it! Less scary almost automatically.
Thinking

Lymington, UK

#13589 Jul 22, 2013
All very true. Also, the way we process images quickly rather than accurately means we find facial patterns everywhere. In clouds, trees, the Moon. We make assumptions, we make mistakes, but we're still better at image processing than computers in most scenarios.
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure the poor devils do jump on any crumb they can find. Similarly, anthropomorphizing things is just oh-so-easy to do. It's almost like we (I) can't help ourselves. God is really nothing more than a 'anthropomorph' of the wonders we see around us. A primitive attempt to understand things. What's the first thing ya do when presented with a frightening unknown? Put a Human face on it! Less scary almost automatically.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#13590 Jul 22, 2013
Thinking wrote:
All very true. Also, the way we process images quickly rather than accurately means we find facial patterns everywhere. In clouds, trees, the Moon. We make assumptions, we make mistakes, but we're still better at image processing than computers in most scenarios.
<quoted text>
Computers have a long, long, long way to go. Even a Josephson-junction-superconduc ting-supercomputer could only give us a brute-force simulation of what our brains can do. You could probably program such a computer to recognize a match, pick it up and light a cigarette, but, it would have to be reprogrammed to scratch it's own ass.
Thinking

Lymington, UK

#13591 Jul 22, 2013
Throwing CPU cycles at the problem will only achieve so much. Maybe the self driving car proponents will help push image processing software and sensors to another level.

They should end up with more demand and budget than university robot building types.
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
Computers have a long, long, long way to go. Even a Josephson-junction-superconduc ting-supercomputer could only give us a brute-force simulation of what our brains can do. You could probably program such a computer to recognize a match, pick it up and light a cigarette, but, it would have to be reprogrammed to scratch it's own ass.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#13592 Jul 22, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Throwing CPU cycles at the problem will only achieve so much. Maybe the self driving car proponents will help push image processing software and sensors to another level.
They should end up with more demand and budget than university robot building types.
<quoted text>
Yeah. Moving manipulators around is easy in comparison. Assigning visual input it's proper place in reality is, I guess, a never ending process. We do it from childhood and with a pretty effective negative feedback mechanism when we make incorrect correlations. Ouch! How can we simulate or recreate that? It's always gonna be CPU cycles and comparing input images to something pre-stored in memory. In the short term, we are probably going to have to incorporate living tissue into our processors to achieve the desired effects. But then, what good is a truly 'thinking' machine? We'll have just created something else we are ill-equipped to control. It will probably end up hating us, just like the sci-fi authors predict.
Brit Expat

Montpellier, France

#13593 Jul 22, 2013
atheism is evil wrote:
<quoted text>
Hopefully your death will involve your head being decapitated in a fiery car crash. One would hope.

What a very Christian/Religious post. You sum up your beliefs perfectly. How very sad. But for religious types pure ignorance is pure bliss.

Cyril.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#13595 Jul 22, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
"I went to an atheist convention of satanic rituals and converted them all to Christianity."
I bet that'll be his next claim.
lol...that is most certainly not beyond his reach of wild claims.

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.

Pagan/Wiccan Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Who Is Allah? (Aug '07) 1 hr Thinking 254,782
News Curtis Brown column: Trick-or-Treat not to ever... (Oct '10) Sep 19 T Marie 10
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Sep 14 Pariah 4,886
News Athiest tells high schoolers God is evil (May '11) Sep 14 Bob of Quantum-Faith 843
News Remembering a Christian and a Jew who traced an... Sep 13 Philbert 23
Anyone still at this forum Aug '16 Sarah Good 1
When do you know if you are truly Wiccan? (Nov '07) Aug '16 Tekmoses 137
More from around the web