Is Atheism doomed to extinction?

Though it may be a fact that it is the fastest growing religion (referred to in the media - I would call it a belief system), most atheists I know have few or no children, while religious people are having them by the dozens.  Added to this is my personal belief that science is at a point where faith and belief are playing a much larger role.  300 years ago there were laws, 100 years ago they became theories, currently most of it is hypothesis with the future looking more and more like wide held beliefs and then faith.
Furthermore, I also see science facing what seems to be several impassable walls

1)We have now seen as far as we ever will see in the universe and every question seems to just lead to more questions which can never be answered (I think it’s called the hubble bubble)
2) We have also seen as small as we will ever see - we will likely never build a larger Hadron collider - leading only to guesses and speculation (yes I know they’re using the entire universe as a LHC but how could you ever have controlled results?)
3) The credibility in science is in jeopardy as any one can check out youtube and see Stephen Hawkings get his intellectual butt kicked by Leo Susskind, or have just about any current theory presented by a Phd and challenged by another Phd.  How can there be a concensus?
4) Science is getting crazier and crazier
- Notions of singularities condencing a billion times the matter of the entire universe into an electron sized particle, annialating 99.9999999 of it in a trillionth of a second sound crazier then a bible story
- quintillions upon quintillions of other, unprovable universes existing just to explain the extreme fine tuning of ours.  Lame - this does a huge discredit to science

Besides these plights which science has to contend with is my belief that sceptism is becoming sciences worst enemy.
While I would like to say I believe in evolution I find some fundamental flaws in it due to sceptism.

1)  Why advocate the theory of evolution, but not promote the completely logical notion of higher evolved beings?  By not promoting it evolutionists appear to be hiding something, they seem to be defensive or just plain ignorant.  Why say that we could create a monkey cage in six days but hide from the idea that a higher evolved being could create our cage in six days?  I’m not saying it did - just saying why couldn’t it?  And why spend so much energy trying to dismiss it??
2) While I completely understand the notion of survival of the fitest, I can’t see why a molicule would want survive -let alone 6.4 billion of them want to line up extremely specifically in 60 trillion different cells in our body.  Call me stupid - but you can’t get a million Phds to line up specifically, let alone trillions of non-intellegent specks -
3) If you believe in evolution you need to believe we will evolve out of the concept of it.  Just as our brain evolved out of an protazoa - future intellegence -(if there is such a thing) will have no use for our primordial concepts
4) There are 60 trillion cells in the human body. Each cell has billions if not trillions of parts and functions.  No reasonable person would say that paris or new york just happen without design.  How can a reasonable person say 60 trillion paris’s just happen?  Yes I know fractals - another lame answer that will do more harm than good to science.

So let me know what you think - I like most atheist as you seem to be pretty smart people, with a desire to know and a good sence of fairness.
Thanks
Patrick

sobpatrick - 29 October 2012 10:46 PM

Call me stupid

I can’t. I would get banned.

So let me know what you think - I like most atheist as you seem to be pretty smart people, with a desire to know and a good sence of fairness.
Thanks
Patrick

Thank heavens we also have a sense of humor (see george’s post). You’re using science facts and the scientific method to diss science? Incredible. The universe is just to vast to explore? I guess Einstein should have stayed a patent clerk. And in what world of talking snakes and unicorns has Hawking ever been “bested” by a nay-sayer? Actually everything you mentioned has spurred on the atheist movement, not checked it beause of it’s unintended confusing theories and postulates. Everyman is now looking beyond the simple “it’s a mystery my son” explanations of the previous century to “maybe I can at least begin to understand the physics after all”. If a history teacher can at least grasp the Higgs-Bosun particle concept then so can you. It’s no longer a mystery my son!

Cap’t Jack

Ah yes, the usual theist screed. “Science is too hard and makes my brain hurt, therefore God.”

sobpatrick,

You find all the answers on TalkOrigins. If you do not understand something, don’t be afraid to ask.

Only your first point (in your second list) might not be mentioned. The answer is simple: if such a thing is the case, we must find empirical evidence for it. Until then there is no reason to suppose such a thing is the case. Against it there are many reasons.

George - 30 October 2012 04:44 AM

sobpatrick - 29 October 2012 10:46 PM

Call me stupid

I can’t. I would get banned.

My wife calls me much worse - anyhow - Not sure if the intent of this website is to promote reason - which is great - or attack religion.  Maybe it’s a bit of both, but if you guys want to win over the masses you can’t be picky about where you apply sceptism.  I know that basically all molecules are joined by the eletromagnetic force, but when electromagnatism is gounded on science saying electrons pop into and out of existence you’re talking magic .  I know it’s based on the Hisenburg uncertainty principle - the same reasoning Hawkings applies to his “universe popping into existence” theory but it’s still magic and crazy science that will hurt your cause

DarronS - 30 October 2012 05:23 AM

Ah yes, the usual theist screed. “Science is too hard and makes my brain hurt, therefore God.”

No not at all - I want to learn - I have an obsession with sceince and a thirst for knowledge - There are hundreds of Phds in cosmology and physics that dumb this stuff down for me.  It’s all available online. And if i get a little smarter I can cross reference the stuff with all the info that’s available on the net (and everything is available on the net).  I see myself as a true sceptic that looks at the evidence from all sides with no bias - if I’m wrong - educate me and I’ll cross reference your suggestion with other experts in the field.  I would love to hear that science isn’t as crazy as it sounds - I don’t want particles and the entire universe popping into and out of existence, but this is what science is telling me and it’s unacceptable - no one in their right mind should accept it.  All the evidence I have found overwhelmingly points to a designer - I would love to be wrong because I feel I have lost my faith due to overwhelming evidence and need for a creator - faith was more fulfilling

sobpatrick - 30 October 2012 09:23 AM

...that will hurt your cause

There’s your basic problem. Religions have an underlying agenda of trying to convert everyone ELSE to their belief system. (Which is really the only way to stifle debate and dissent).  Science on the other hand promotes debate and dissent and trots merrily along without worrying about what others think. But religionists attributing a hidden agenda to science is really just a reflection of their own mindset.

No I think science will do just fine. It’s religion that will die a slow death, and actually is as we speak (over the course of generations).

sobpatrick - 29 October 2012 10:46 PM

Is Atheism doomed to extinction?

Interesting phrasing.  How can a lack of belief in something face extinction?

The only thing that could affect atheism is objective evidence that a god exists.  Even that wouldn’t do it because there will always people who reject the evidence.

 

.......

CuthbertJ - 30 October 2012 09:56 AM

sobpatrick - 30 October 2012 09:23 AM

...that will hurt your cause

There’s your basic problem. Religions have an underlying agenda of trying to convert everyone ELSE to their belief system. (Which is really the only way to stifle debate and dissent).  Science on the other hand promotes debate and dissent and trots merrily along without worrying about what others think. But religionists attributing a hidden agenda to science is really just a reflection of their own mindset.

No I think science will do just fine. It’s religion that will die a slow death, and actually is as we speak (over the course of generations).

I guess you can only speak for yourself as far as intentions of conversions go.  Personally I don’t want atheism to die (I know it wont) I think it takes all types to make a world and personally have a soft spot for people challenging religion.  But I don’t think science will do just fine.  There is nothing but dissention when it comes to the micro and macro.  No concensus whatsoever.  I’m sure you’ll arrive at your own conclusions but don’t you think science’s explaination of the extreme fine tuning of our universe (one to the power of 122 other unprovable universes)  is simply a joke?  And when it comes to the micro and macro of our universe answers like these are becoming more prevelant - you can’t deny this.  Religion die?  Science die? - neither will die but both are in trouble.  I don’t want to convert you I want you to challenge me, educate me and show me I’m wrong

Thevillageatheist - 30 October 2012 05:19 AM

So let me know what you think - I like most atheist as you seem to be pretty smart people, with a desire to know and a good sence of fairness.
Thanks
Patrick

Thank heavens we also have a sense of humor (see george’s post). You’re using science facts and the scientific method to diss science? Incredible. The universe is just to vast to explore? I guess Einstein should have stayed a patent clerk. And in what world of talking snakes and unicorns has Hawking ever been “bested” by a nay-sayer? Actually everything you mentioned has spurred on the atheist movement, not checked it beause of it’s unintended confusing theories and postulates. Everyman is now looking beyond the simple “it’s a mystery my son” explanations of the previous century to “maybe I can at least begin to understand the physics after all”. If a history teacher can at least grasp the Higgs-Bosun particle concept then so can you. It’s no longer a mystery my son!

 

Cap’t Jack

I’m guessing you’ve had time to check out Leo Susskind?  Check out “the Hawkings Paradox” on Youtube if you haven’t.  Anyhow, I’ve heard the higgs boson analogies as it’s like paparazzi taking pictures or velcro but only begs the question “what created the higgs? and why should it work as it does, what gives it its properties what is a field, how can something be affected by gravity but have no mass, how can a particle have no mass and still have properties, what is waving in a wave?”  Basically every question you can think of and none can be answered - if you try it will only result in another question.  And you’ve illustrated my point perfectly by referring to the “mystery my son” quote, because at this point it will all be a mystery.  We will never be able to see beyond what the speed of light allows us to see, so yes, the rest of the universe and other universses will always be a mystery - we will never be able to “see” them and hence put them to any test. Same with the micro - we will never see the particle that makes up the particle which makes up light.  Worst of all is the whole Planck level concept.  Science has put a limit on the micro.  Like saying you can’t sail past the horizon or you’ll fall off the earth.  This flies in the face of everything sceince supposedly stands for.  I love sceince, I want to know more but apparently you can’t.  Sorry I don’t believe in crazy magic - whether it be a unicorn or a universe that pops into existance as Hawkins apparently does.

Lois - 30 October 2012 10:06 AM

sobpatrick - 29 October 2012 10:46 PM

Is Atheism doomed to extinction?

Interesting phrasing.  How can a lack of belief in something face extinction?

The only thing that could affect atheism is objective evidence that a god exists.  Even that wouldn’t do it because there will always people who reject the evidence.

 

.......

Yeah - personally I see the extreme, extreme specific nature of dark energy to allow the universe to exist to be some evidence, add to this the extreme, extreme conditions needed for cosmic inflation to allow the universe to exist, the extreme extreme equilbrium needed to balance the forces of nature to allow the universe to exist -This isn’t one in a million stuff, this is one to the power of 10 to 500 + stuff and it needs to happen at every moment everywhere.  Yeah people will still reject it.  I don’t know - maybe I’m wrong, but then so are the vast majority of physists and cosmologists.

George - 30 October 2012 04:44 AM

sobpatrick - 29 October 2012 10:46 PM

Call me stupid

I can’t. I would get banned.

  George,  one must recognize the varieties of nonfunctionality.  One is incomptetence, and another is being broken.

Occam

Oh give me a break sobpatrick- OK! you are wrong ! Stop whining about the fringe edges of science. If you are talking about quantum physics and using English…..you are wrong! It cannot be talked about. You must understand it mathematically. The math is beyond me ( I failed the second semester of calculus…) but it is not beyond understanding. Start off with the basic stuff, understand it and build up from there. Science is not about answers…it is all about the questions.
You sound like a little kid that is going to get in trouble with god if you question god….I dont believe in him but if he does exist I dont want to burn in hell….what do I do? Why wont you answer me god ?

sobpatrick - 29 October 2012 10:46 PM

1)  Why advocate the theory of evolution,
but not promote the completely logical notion of higher evolved beings?
Thanks
Patrick

I am an atheist formally but my body is very religious.
I have no belief in the supernatural I think faith in God
is similar to our ability to make music or to dance.

A kind of existential and emotional art form that serves
as a tool for cooperation beyond generations.

By teaching the young the norms and by referring to
a supernatural God that is the source of these norms
the young will be primed to be loyal to the culture and
to bring up their kids in same structure. Just my naive take.

I am one of the dumbest atheist living so forget all I wrote

But let me ask you. I am not a native user of English.
I have no idea what you wanted or intended to say there:

not promote the completely logical notion of higher evolved beings?

higher evolved beings? You mean Big apes? In what way does science hide ideas
about how them became evolved? You mean God made them evolve?

What else could you refer to?
Buddhists sometimes talk about some Buddhas as higher evolved beings?

You mean Amida Buddha and others like him?

Or are you talking about Supernatural spirits that are outside of Heaven?
I did not know them to evolve or that science kept that secret and hiding it?

Do you refer to cats and dogs being evolved into pets? Such is very interesting
but not easy to make science of because it did happen so far away in time.

Silver Fox being domesticated can maybe share some light on it.

Sorry I fail to get what kind of higher evolved beings you talk about..

Ooops you mean humans? or the humans that died out? But science does not hide
that at all. Science have conferences sharing all they know about such evolution?

I am totally lost but that only support that I am the dumbest atheist you ever met.

sobpatrick - 30 October 2012 10:36 AM

CuthbertJ - 30 October 2012 09:56 AM

sobpatrick - 30 October 2012 09:23 AM

...that will hurt your cause

There’s your basic problem. Religions have an underlying agenda of trying to convert everyone ELSE to their belief system. (Which is really the only way to stifle debate and dissent).  Science on the other hand promotes debate and dissent and trots merrily along without worrying about what others think. But religionists attributing a hidden agenda to science is really just a reflection of their own mindset.

No I think science will do just fine. It’s religion that will die a slow death, and actually is as we speak (over the course of generations).

I guess you can only speak for yourself as far as intentions of conversions go.  Personally I don’t want atheism to die (I know it wont) I think it takes all types to make a world and personally have a soft spot for people challenging religion.  But I don’t think science will do just fine.  There is nothing but dissention when it comes to the micro and macro.  No concensus whatsoever.  I’m sure you’ll arrive at your own conclusions but don’t you think science’s explaination of the extreme fine tuning of our universe (one to the power of 122 other unprovable universes)  is simply a joke?  And when it comes to the micro and macro of our universe answers like these are becoming more prevelant - you can’t deny this.  Religion die?  Science die? - neither will die but both are in trouble.  I don’t want to convert you I want you to challenge me, educate me and show me I’m wrong

Ya sorry buddy, you’re using words you don’t understand about a subject you don’t understand. My guess is you’re actually a conservative who thinks consensus is the hallmark of success. It’s not.  Just because the context of some areas of one particular branch of science is open to more than usual lack of consensus doesn’t mean the whole things falling apart. If we’re talking religion, yes, consensus is needed to keep the emperors new clothes from being seen. Not so in science.