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 (Page 652)

Showing posts 13,021 - 13,040 of14,394
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13579
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Todmorden, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13580
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13581
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13582
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Todmorden, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13583
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

Todmorden, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13584
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13585
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13586
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

Todmorden, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13587
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13588
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Todmorden, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13589
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13590
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Todmorden, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13591
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13592
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13593
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.
PINCH111

Plymouth, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13596
Jul 23, 2013
 
Lililth_Satans_Bore wrote:
simple... atheism is real... religion is mythical superstition..... see that was easy
And agnosticism ??

“If God was real”

Since: Jan 10

He would look like this

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13597
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

PINCH111 wrote:
<quoted text>And agnosticism ??
Just a more cautious form of atheism.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13598
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Just a more cautious form of atheism.
agnosticism is ignorance of the highest order. Its definitely wrong because it equates religion with science, two inequatable things - one based in facts and reality, the other in the egotistical mental illness and self righteousness of the human species.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13599
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
agnosticism is ignorance of the highest order. Its definitely wrong because it equates religion with science, two inequatable things - one based in facts and reality, the other in the egotistical mental illness and self righteousness of the human species.
I don't believe I've ever heard it stated quite so well!! Agnostics make me sick ... fence setters, Pascal Wagerers, indecisive middle-of-the-roaders. This is a matter where 'doubt' only fuels the fantasies, it makes no contribution to the side of Reason, despite pandering their doubts in it's name! Atheists, like their godbot neighbors on the other side of the fence, have at least come to a decision and carry the burden of their knowledge as best they can. Agnostics are members of the 'feel good, politically correct' cancer that permeates and weakens everything it touches. Agnostics need to hit the books, sip a few more gallons of Holy Water, come to some kind of a decision or STFU!! We are ARGUING HERE and their wishy-washy BS is NOT HELPING!!!

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 13,021 - 13,040 of14,394
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

6 Users are viewing the Pagan/Wiccan Forum right now

Search the Pagan/Wiccan Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Who Is Allah? (Aug '07) 40 min Your Mother 193,572
Rev. Mirado Crow (Sep '13) 1 hr Lmhw 9
What is Ritual Sex? (Nov '11) 5 hr PINCH111 74
Wiccan Atheists and Agnostics (Aug '13) Thu PINCH111 284
Paganism still suffering from wounds inflicted ... Thu PINCH111 5
Ex-Disney Star Renounced Christianity and Becam... Thu PINCH111 54
Wiccan Threefold Law Is Overrated Thu PINCH111 8
•••
•••
•••
•••