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
13,021 - 13,040 of 14,385 Comments Last updated Nov 23, 2013

“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 ??

“Handsome white and black men”

Since: Jan 10

Interracial love

|
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!!!

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13600
Jul 24, 2013
 
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>Just a more cautious form of atheism.
There is also agnostic atheism.
I am of that.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13601
Jul 24, 2013
 
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>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!!!
I agree, full agnostics do tend to annoy me, but to each their own.
As an agnostic atheist, I do not believe in any god, but will not make a positive claim (or not a serious positive claim) that there is no god, for I never know.
I would look foolish if one actually existed, however unlikely that seems.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13602
Jul 24, 2013
 
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
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!!!
What is interesting is that the word 'agnostic' was coined by TH Huxley, also known as Darwin's Bulldog. He defined it by stating, essentially, that if the data is not sufficient to make a conclusion, then no conclusion should be reached. This is a good position to take in many scientific endeavors and, coming from a scientific background, it was natural for him to take this position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Hux...

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13603
Jul 24, 2013
 
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
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!!!
There is nothing "fence sitting" about saying "you have no evidence, therefore you know nothing". This is a correct assessment of both sides of the "is there ANY god" question. As for the Christian God, that is obvious bull crap.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13604
Jul 24, 2013
 
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, full agnostics do tend to annoy me, but to each their own.
As an agnostic atheist, I do not believe in any god, but will not make a positive claim (or not a serious positive claim) that there is no god, for I never know.
I would look foolish if one actually existed, however unlikely that seems.
Well ... if some kind of god shows up, we're all gonna look a little foolish. I know that in what may well be an Infinite Multiverse, assigning something a 0% probability might not be 100% reasonable, but ... I'm willing to go out on a limb on this matter. Besides, looking foolish ain't so bad.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13605
Jul 24, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
What is interesting is that the word 'agnostic' was coined by TH Huxley, also known as Darwin's Bulldog. He defined it by stating, essentially, that if the data is not sufficient to make a conclusion, then no conclusion should be reached. This is a good position to take in many scientific endeavors and, coming from a scientific background, it was natural for him to take this position.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Hux...
An excellent component, no doubt of good science! I like this quote stolen from your link ...

"In a letter of September 23, 1860, to Charles Kingsley, Huxley discussed his views extensively:

It is no use to talk to me of analogies and probabilities. I know what I mean when I say I believe in the law of the inverse squares, and I will not rest my life and my hopes upon weaker convictions..."

He doesn't sound very 'agnostic' there.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13606
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
There is nothing "fence sitting" about saying "you have no evidence, therefore you know nothing". This is a correct assessment of both sides of the "is there ANY god" question. As for the Christian God, that is obvious bull crap.
But you must admit, as Skeptic points out, it therefore 'equates' Knowledge and Faith where no such equality exists. In a way, our doubts are the only 'evidence' godbots have, whereas evidence of a tangible reality grows with each passing second.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13607
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
But you must admit, as Skeptic points out, it therefore 'equates' Knowledge and Faith where no such equality exists. In a way, our doubts are the only 'evidence' godbots have, whereas evidence of a tangible reality grows with each passing second.
No, I don't agree. Knowledge requires evidence, faith actually requires there be NO evidence. How can they be equated? If anything, they are opposites. I call "Bull Crap" on this proposition as well.

How's that for "fence sitting"?

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13608
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't agree. Knowledge requires evidence, faith actually requires there be NO evidence. How can they be equated? If anything, they are opposites. I call "Bull Crap" on this proposition as well.
How's that for "fence sitting"?
It is not I who is equating Faith and Knowledge, rather the Agnostic who declares 'we cannot know'. It is only here, on this particular thread where "Atheism" has liberally been defined as "includes agnostics, deists, pagans, wiccans" etc. In fact, Atheism does not include or encompass these lessor or philosophically ambiguous divergences.

I know there is no God because I have looked, admittedly through other's eyes, at our reality from dancing sub-atomics to filigreed galaxies and he's not there. Anyone who says different best come up with some evidence beyond mere longing. If you relish the 'fog of uncertainty', so be it. Sounds a lot like "fence setting" to me. We're here to argue the one side or the other, not the gray area in-between. Hell, it's so small it's more like an infinitely fine line connecting two points ... not an "area" at all.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••
•••