9 of 26
9
Is Atheism doomed to extinction?
Posted: 05 November 2012 07:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 121 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
DarronS - 05 November 2012 06:39 AM

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.

Actually, I couldn’t. (Not that I want to start another discussion on this topic here). Twin and adoption studies tell us that although parents can influence the religious label we identify with, they have no impact on how religious we turn out to be. But let’s not forget that religiosity can be partly determined genetically. In that sense, parents could have a big influence.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2012 07:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 122 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3063
Joined  2010-04-26
DarronS - 05 November 2012 06:39 AM

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.

Shall we get the sharpened sticks and start poking at him instead?  vampire

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2012 07:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 123 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4860
Joined  2007-10-05

I was thinking more along the lines of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2012 07:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 124 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3254
Joined  2011-08-15

Ah, you mean the one that Brother Maynard carries? And the counting shall be 3!

Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

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

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2012 07:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 125 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3063
Joined  2010-04-26

And maybe afterward we could feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and the breakfast cereals and mmm, mm.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2012 08:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 126 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3254
Joined  2011-08-15

Actually, I couldn’t. (Not that I want to start another discussion on this topic here). Twin and adoption studies tell us that although parents can influence the religious label we identify with, they have no impact on how religious we turn out to be. But let’s not forget that religiosity can be partly determined genetically. In that sense, parents could have a big influence.


In the genetic sense yes, and that brings up another question. Just how many apostates are out there? Occam had no religious background, and maybe you but how many of us on this site, nation wide and internationally had religious parents who may have imparted the god gene and yet we seemed unaffected by it or consciously rebelled against our natural tendencies?

 

Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

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

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2012 08:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 127 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  101
Joined  2010-12-02
Thevillageatheist - 04 November 2012 06:15 PM

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

I may have made a mistake if I referred to the theories as false.  I’m sure there is a great deal of research behind them.  You likely have a different view of what one considers “crazy”  than I do.  As far as Atheism growing - I have no doubt of that.  Just as the world population is growing, but it is predicted that the world population will start to shrink (I think we hit 10 billion and then start to go down).  The models show white/anglo europe and north america pretty much disappearing and being replaced by the surging african and muslim population.  We’ll see…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2012 09:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 128 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  101
Joined  2010-12-02

Yeah - I’m done with the topic too - I only visit the center (centre as we say in Canada) for inquiry occasionally - kinda like visiting in the lion’s den.  Sounds like there might be some agreement over the birth rate point, but not about the “crazy science”.  Thanks for all the insight.
Patrick hmmm

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2012 11:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 129 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

I agree with Darron.  And, TVA, although my parents didn’t have me go to church, they both believed in a christian god, so if theism/atheism were genetically determined, I would have been a theist by birth.  While I can understand (and even often agree with George’s views smile  ), we have to recognize that not every idea is genetically based.  Essentially everyone in the world believed the earth was flat and the center of the universe.  If we accepted the 100% genetic control, we’d have to say that we all still really believe that.  Our minds may all be genetically determined PC computers, but they can accept a variety of programs.  As such, the program of theism is phasing out and being replaced with non-theism.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2012 06:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 130 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3326
Joined  2011-11-04
Occam. - 05 November 2012 11:16 AM

I agree with Darron.  And, TVA, although my parents didn’t have me go to church, they both believed in a christian god, so if theism/atheism were genetically determined, I would have been a theist by birth.  While I can understand (and even often agree with George’s views smile  ), we have to recognize that not every idea is genetically based.  Essentially everyone in the world believed the earth was flat and the center of the universe.  If we accepted the 100% genetic control, we’d have to say that we all still really believe that.  Our minds may all be genetically determined PC computers, but they can accept a variety of programs.  As such, the program of theism is phasing out and being replaced with non-theism.

Occam

I think that the underlying compatibility with religious programming remains, such that, even if humans were to become primarily non-theists, theism woud very likely become predominate again, at some point.

 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: 05 November 2012 06:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 131 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4860
Joined  2007-10-05
TimB - 05 November 2012 06:05 PM

I think that the underlying compatibility with religious programming remains, such that, even if humans were to become primarily non-theists, theism woud very likely become predominate again, at some point.

These things ebb and flow. Fortunately atheism is ascending right now. With any luck the next round of theism will be polytheistic instead of the hate-inspiring monotheism that controls much of the world today.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2012 07:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 132 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  101
Joined  2010-12-02
Write4U - 04 November 2012 12:01 AM
sobpatrick - 03 November 2012 05:45 AM
Write4U - 03 November 2012 12:37 AM
sobpatrick - 02 November 2012 11:04 PM
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 02 November 2012 07:33 PM

This isn’t necessarily bad - it will just change the way we look at science and maybe take some of the arrogance out of some atheists

Funny how this one gets trotted out when the most breathtaking arrogance I see is NOT among scientists (Who are not afraid to say ” I don’t know, so let’s find out!) but among theists. (Who say We have The One Right Answer given by direct revelation from God, that’s all the answer anybody needs, and oh by the way, we are The Elect.)

Dude - the view of atheism is - I know there is no God - what could be more arrogant?  I’m a sceptical believer not a theist

That is a contradiction in terms. A believer is by definition not sceptical. OTOH to say “I am a sceptical non-believer” is correct.

Interesting how things are defined.  A person arrives at a conclusion by being sceptical of the evidence and forms an opinion on that.  Whether that evidence leads to belief or non-belief.  I am sceptical of both science and religion.  For me the greater evidence continues to support a creator. I don’t deny science - unless the answers are crazy and the evidence is questionable - just as I would deny religious craziness.  I deny both stories of creation - the science one of a billion times all the matter within in the universe condensed into an electron sized particle and then anti-matter destroying 99.9999999 of it in a trillionth of a second by nothing for no reason- and a higher being having the ability to go beyond our cerebral limitations and manipulate our reality are both crazy.  Sceptism tells me the higher being one is more plausable - primarily do to the fact that we can do the same to lower beings (plus I see the universe as being very complex and specific).  How is that not a sceptical believer?

Ok. I’ll be more than generous and take you at your word. You say you do not believe in science and you do not believe in religion, but you are convinced that you are right that a god exists. So you are a theist without a clue as to why.

Tell me, what is going to happen we die?  As an atheist what awaits me in the afterlife? As a skeptical theist, what awaits you in the afterlife?

I’m giving you the opportunity to make your case for both of us.

OK, go!

Quick answer - we both go to where we were before we were born.  Personally I think it’s a good place -as most small children seem to be happy.  I know mine are. They’re always forgiving. And their love seems unconditional.  As far as different afterlifes for different people - anything is possible, but I question the whole judgment thing.  How can anyone be judged if who we are is determined by nature and nurture.  We didn’t have a choice in either -  I can’t think of a choice a person might make that wouldn’t be determined by one or the other. 
On another note - there are a couple theories out there that seem to have God-like qualities.  One is Feynman’s one electron in the universe hypothesis.  The other being the measurement problem - I think it basically says every atom is everywhere till you want it to be somewhere.  Kinda like how believers see God…?  You guys seem smart but prone to insults.  Just keep it to the facts if you can…thanks

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2012 08:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 133 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3326
Joined  2011-11-04

What makes you think that when we die, we go to where we were before we were born?  (I’m assuming you don’t mean we return to our mother’s uterus or that we beome an individual ova and sperm cell, or whatever the ova and sperm cell were before they became such.)  You must mean that our conception of who we are exists eternally somewhere when not confined to our living bodies.  That seems like wishful thinking, but perhaps you have something to base this belief on other than faith?

 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: 05 November 2012 09:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 134 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Quoting TimB:

I think that the underlying compatibility with religious programming remains, such that, even if humans were to become primarily non-theists, theism woud very likely become predominate again, at some point.

  So, carrying my analogy forward, do you assume that the flat earth theory would very likely become predominant again?

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2012 09:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 135 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  101
Joined  2010-12-02
TimB - 05 November 2012 08:52 PM

What makes you think that when we die, we go to where we were before we were born?  (I’m assuming you don’t mean we return to our mother’s uterus or that we beome an individual ova and sperm cell, or whatever the ova and sperm cell were before they became such.)  You must mean that our conception of who we are exists eternally somewhere when not confined to our living bodies.  That seems like wishful thinking, but perhaps you have something to base this belief on other than faith?

Dude - do you really think I can provide evidence that would please this forum? - I base it on personal experience and the happiness and joy I see in children.  I’m sure it can be written off as an evolutionary trait, but I’ve heard that an average child laughs several hundred times a day - an adult maybe a dozen times.  Anyhow I was asked to answer the unanswerable question.  On another note - I find it interesting that once you have children it’s difficult to imagine a time when they didn’t exist.  Even if you look back to your childhood - the notion of “hey my kids didn’t exist anywhere.” is freaky.

Profile
 
 
   
9 of 26
9