8 of 26
8
Is Atheism doomed to extinction?
Posted: 04 November 2012 09:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 106 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4858
Joined  2007-10-05

Beyond here be dragons.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2012 10:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 107 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4572
Joined  2007-08-31
sobpatrick - 04 November 2012 08:53 AM

I admit the whole “too complicated for me to understand math” is a fact.  I don’t understand it.  But it does prove my point - atheism is in trouble. 

??? Not believing in god is in trouble because some outskirts of science are wild speculative? And while the math is too difficult? Wow.  confused
The math of computer chips, sending spaceships to Mars, of accelerating particles at CERN is also way too complicated for me. But it works. So where is the trouble?

You problem is that you so much long for an answer on ‘where it all calls from’ that you are prepared to accept a silly story instead of accepting that science has no final answer to all. Yet.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2012 10:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 108 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  101
Joined  2010-12-02
George - 04 November 2012 09:52 AM

Really, sobpatrick? Is the germ theory also in trouble since you don’t understand immunology and microbiology? Your arguments sound like those of a five-year-old kid.

and this response is any better?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2012 10:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 109 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  101
Joined  2010-12-02
DarronS - 04 November 2012 09:58 AM

Beyond here be dragons.

an interesting choice of words.  The crazy science I speak of would suggest that there are dragons. Between string theory and dark energy there are more possible universes than 10 times the amount of atoms in this one - each with a different physical reality - including one that has fire breathing dragons - and one that might even have a God…?  Kind of a catch 22 I would say…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2012 10:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 110 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3321
Joined  2011-11-04
sobpatrick - 04 November 2012 10:44 AM
DarronS - 04 November 2012 09:58 AM

Beyond here be dragons.

an interesting choice of words.  The crazy science I speak of would suggest that there are dragons. Between string theory and dark energy there are more possible universes than 10 times the amount of atoms in this one - each with a different physical reality - including one that has fire breathing dragons - and one that might even have a God…?  Kind of a catch 22 I would say…

Not really.  There may be dragons or a god. Or there may be something else that seems, at first glance, just as implausable, something which is, for the moment, also speculative, but for which the speculation is based on scientific principles, rather than simple faith that there are dragons.  Either way, let’s go find out.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2012 11:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 111 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  101
Joined  2010-12-02
TimB - 04 November 2012 10:58 AM
sobpatrick - 04 November 2012 10:44 AM
DarronS - 04 November 2012 09:58 AM

Beyond here be dragons.

an interesting choice of words.  The crazy science I speak of would suggest that there are dragons. Between string theory and dark energy there are more possible universes than 10 times the amount of atoms in this one - each with a different physical reality - including one that has fire breathing dragons - and one that might even have a God…?  Kind of a catch 22 I would say…

Not really.  There may be dragons or a god. Or there may be something else that seems, at first glance, just as implausable, something which is, for the moment, also speculative, but for which the speculation is based on scientific principles, rather than simple faith that there are dragons.  Either way, let’s go find out.

I’m all for the go find out idea, but I don’t see a space-ship taking off for the next universe anytime soon.  Personally I see this as opening a door to the supernatural - quite literally this is beyond nature.  And I think exploration will have to take that into consideration.  How in God’s name with they be able to do that? (maybe that’s how…)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2012 11:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 112 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3321
Joined  2011-11-04
sobpatrick - 04 November 2012 11:05 AM
TimB - 04 November 2012 10:58 AM
sobpatrick - 04 November 2012 10:44 AM
DarronS - 04 November 2012 09:58 AM

Beyond here be dragons.

an interesting choice of words.  The crazy science I speak of would suggest that there are dragons. Between string theory and dark energy there are more possible universes than 10 times the amount of atoms in this one - each with a different physical reality - including one that has fire breathing dragons - and one that might even have a God…?  Kind of a catch 22 I would say…

Not really.  There may be dragons or a god. Or there may be something else that seems, at first glance, just as implausable, something which is, for the moment, also speculative, but for which the speculation is based on scientific principles, rather than simple faith that there are dragons.  Either way, let’s go find out.

I’m all for the go find out idea, but I don’t see a space-ship taking off for the next universe anytime soon.  Personally I see this as opening a door to the supernatural - quite literally this is beyond nature.  And I think exploration will have to take that into consideration.  How in God’s name with they be able to do that? (maybe that’s how…)

Come on.  A few centuries ago, most people would have thought that going to the moon, or talking face to face with someone on the other side of the world, or travelling to the other side of the world in a matter of hours, could only be accomplished by magic.  Something is only supernatural until someone discovers the natural laws that support it.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2012 11:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 113 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
sobpatrick - 29 October 2012 10:46 PM

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

 

Accepting evolution doesn’t take belief, it takes understanding of objective evidence.

If you think 60 trillion Parises can’t just happen, how can an all-powerful supreme being just happen?  That seems to me to be a bigger question and one that IDers never think of—because they are incapable of seeing the whole picture.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2012 12:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 114 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3063
Joined  2010-04-26

Pat, are you aware of any of the cosmological models like the Big Bounce or Cyclic Universe model?  You should read up on them The conformal cyclic model in particular.  Some of the variants have interesting ramifications for universal constants and the like.

 Signature 

“In the end nature is horrific and teaches us nothing.” -Mutual of Omicron

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2012 04:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 115 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  101
Joined  2010-12-02
Lois - 04 November 2012 11:40 AM
sobpatrick - 29 October 2012 10:46 PM

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

 

Accepting evolution doesn’t take belief, it takes understanding of objective evidence.

If you think 60 trillion Parises can’t just happen, how can an all-powerful supreme being just happen?  That seems to me to be a bigger question and one that IDers never think of—because they are incapable of seeing the whole picture.

One point I’m trying to get across is that we can’t think that the human perspective is universal.  The universe we see is simply a human universe.  It’s a product of our brain.  Michio Kaku uses an analogy of a cock roach beside an interstate high-way.  Does the cock-roach think that culture must be advanced?  Does it think the mentality of that race must be superior to mine?  No.. the cock-roach doesn’t share anything with us mentally.  How can we expect to know/ understand a higher being?  I think it would be unrealistic to expect it to play by our rules.  I’m not sure if I answered your question?  It’s kinda like us asking the cockroach if it enjoyed its dinner and expecting it to say “yes it was lovely”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2012 04:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 116 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  101
Joined  2010-12-02
TimB - 04 November 2012 11:15 AM
sobpatrick - 04 November 2012 11:05 AM
TimB - 04 November 2012 10:58 AM
sobpatrick - 04 November 2012 10:44 AM
DarronS - 04 November 2012 09:58 AM

Beyond here be dragons.

an interesting choice of words.  The crazy science I speak of would suggest that there are dragons. Between string theory and dark energy there are more possible universes than 10 times the amount of atoms in this one - each with a different physical reality - including one that has fire breathing dragons - and one that might even have a God…?  Kind of a catch 22 I would say…

Not really.  There may be dragons or a god. Or there may be something else that seems, at first glance, just as implausable, something which is, for the moment, also speculative, but for which the speculation is based on scientific principles, rather than simple faith that there are dragons.  Either way, let’s go find out.

I’m all for the go find out idea, but I don’t see a space-ship taking off for the next universe anytime soon.  Personally I see this as opening a door to the supernatural - quite literally this is beyond nature.  And I think exploration will have to take that into consideration.  How in God’s name with they be able to do that? (maybe that’s how…)

Come on.  A few centuries ago, most people would have thought that going to the moon, or talking face to face with someone on the other side of the world, or travelling to the other side of the world in a matter of hours, could only be accomplished by magic.  Something is only supernatural until someone discovers the natural laws that support it.

the limited knowledge I have about the multiverse theories and string theory is that there is no reason to think that they have laws at all.  Either way- they would all be beyond our rules of nature -slightly or dramatically.  Expecting us to be able to apply any of our rules to them, the scientific method or even basic understanding might be expecting too much.  This is not go to the moon stuff - a notion like “going”  may not even apply.  Regardless - this is what I’m referring to as “crazy science” and it is not helping atheism.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2012 04:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 117 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  101
Joined  2010-12-02
Dead Monky - 04 November 2012 12:45 PM

Pat, are you aware of any of the cosmological models like the Big Bounce or Cyclic Universe model?  You should read up on them The conformal cyclic model in particular.  Some of the variants have interesting ramifications for universal constants and the like.

Yep - have you seen BBC horizons “what happened before the big bang”  they go through these and a handfull of others

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2012 06:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 118 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3250
Joined  2011-08-15

the limited knowledge I have about the multiverse theories and string theory is that there is no reason to think that they have laws at all.  Either way- they would all be beyond our rules of nature -slightly or dramatically.  Expecting us to be able to apply any of our rules to them, the scientific method or even basic understanding might be expecting too much.  This is not go to the moon stuff - a notion like “going”  may not even apply.  Regardless - this is what I’m referring to as “crazy science” and it is not helping atheism.


Patrick, this the argument from personal incredulity. Because you don’t understand the theories doesn’t make them false. Even these are competing theories with the big bang (the brane theory actually up incorporates BB into it) but have been explained by their authors. By using the scientific method and extrapolating the outcomes using known physics,  the authors formed the theories and it’s anything but “crazy science”. With more input scientists will be able to strengthen or discard the theories that don’t hold up. Also,  There is no scientific proof of the existence of a supernatural puppet master, hence atheism. Some leave the door open just in case and some shut it. If I’m still living when they reach planet kolob and shake hands with him/her then I’ll stand corrected. Or you could use Sagan’s idea that all matter in the universe/s is god. but it definitely has no immediate effect on atheism. In fact, statistically the movement is growing not shrinking. Theism is receding.


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2012 08:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 119 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

One point I’m trying to get across is that we can’t think that the human perspective is universal.

Nobody here said that it was. You’re contriving a strawman.

The universe we see is simply a human universe.  It’s a product of our brain.

No it’s not. And by the way, this claim directly contradicts your first claim.

Does the cock-roach think that culture must be advanced?  Does it think the mentality of that race must be superior to mine?  No.. the cock-roach doesn’t share anything with us mentally.

So what?

How can we expect to know/ understand a higher being?

Religions claim to do exactly that.

I think it would be unrealistic to expect it to play by our rules.

As I expected, you’re still missing the point. An omnipotant being…which is a trait claimed for god(s) doesn’t need rules, nor does it need the fine tuning which you asseret proves it’s existance. It can just wave it’s hand and “SHAZAM” life exists anywhere regardless of the condistions. That it demonsterably does not and in fact needs certain conditions to arise and survive disproves the notion of an all powerful and omnipotant deity.

I sense that you’re going to just keep re-wording the same tired discredited old argeuements so I’m done wasting my time with you.

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2012 06:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 120 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4858
Joined  2007-10-05
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 04 November 2012 08:33 PM

I sense that you’re going to just keep re-wording the same tired discredited old argeuements so I’m done wasting my time with you.

sobpatrick has nothing more than gut feelings and personal opinion to back his assertion that atheism is doomed. He is ignoring reality: atheism is growing. His point that Christians have more children is irrelevant because he is assuming Christian parents will raise children who remain Christians after leaving home. I’m sure George could refute that rather easily.

We’ve gone around too many circles in this thread. sobpatrick is unwilling to admit his logical errors and incapable of understanding science. Further discussion with him is pointless.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
   
8 of 26
8