Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
"within 100 years or so atheism/naturalism/materialism will probably close to extinct" "within 100 years or so atheism/naturalism/materialism will probably close to extinct"

11-05-2010 , 08:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Siegmund
The funny thing is, if I had been living at the peak of the age of exciting new science say 150 years ago, I might have felt so optimistic about unlocking the secrets of the universe that I'd have predicted religion would be close to extinct in 100 years.

(I still think religion should be close to extinct, but am old enough to have seen how little rational thought surrounds it, and no longer expect it to be extinct in 100 years, just for its influence to continue to diminish.)
As stated in the following, it's just another modern myth that most scientists are atheists:

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9501/bigbang2.html

Quote:
Does everyone agree with Stephen Hawking's opinion on these matters? The answer is no. Alan Lightman, a MIT professor, said in his book Origins: The Lives and Worlds of Modern Cosmologists (Harvard University Press, 1990), "Contrary to popular myths, scientists appear to have the same range of attitudes about religious matters as does the general public."

Sigma Xi, the scientific honorary society, ran a large poll a few years ago which showed that, on any given Sunday, around 46 percent of all Ph.D. scientists are in church; for the general population the figure is 47 percent. So, whatever influences people in their beliefs about God, it doesn't appear to have much to do with having a Ph.D. in science.
"within 100 years or so atheism/naturalism/materialism will probably close to extinct" Quote
11-05-2010 , 08:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso
I also hold a theistic evolution veiw.
I haven't read Schroeder but from his site:

God According to God: A Physicist Proves We Have Been Wrong About God All Along

In this groundbreaking exploration, a biblical scholar and M.I.T.-trained physicist combines decades of research to change the debate between religion and science, presenting a new paradigm of how to understand God.

Gerald Schroeder has spent his career revealing the hand of God in the intricate discoveries of physics. Now, for the first time, he turns his attention to this Force, examining both the Bible and the physical world to discover the true nature of God - God according to God.

Schroeder argues that we have ignored those traits of God we find unappealing, replacing them with our personal desire for the all-knowing, all-loving, neverchanging deity that so many worship today. This leads to the age-old problem: How can there be such a God when the world is filled with tragedy? Yet Schroeder reveals that this troubling juxtaposition is really smoke and mirrors. The God revealed in the Bible is 100 percent compatible with the world as we know it today. It is our misconception of God that causes the disparity. In fact, the concept of God that atheists rail against and that believers defend is inaccurate.

In God According to God, Schroeder presents a compelling case for the true God, a dynamic God who is still learning how to relate to creation. The key to God's action in the world, says Schroeder, can be found in a well-known verse in Exodus that is typically translated "I am that which I am." Schroeder's correction that it should be translated "I will be that which I will be" reveals a God that changes Its presence to fit the ever-changing world.

This opens our eyes to other characteristics of God that we have long overlooked despite their being present in some of the most popular stories in the Bible - a God who regrets (the flood of Noah), a God who wants us to argue with Him (Jacob wrestling with God in the desert), and thus a God who changes His mind (Moses convinces God to spare the Israelite people), and a God who allowed nature, and the creation itself, from the very start, to rebel (Adam's and Eve's betrayal in Eden).

With riveting chapters on the origins of life, a scientist's view of creation, and the unique place of our planet in the galaxy, God According to God offers a radical paradigm shift that will forever change how we understand God.

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AccordingToGod.aspx
"within 100 years or so atheism/naturalism/materialism will probably close to extinct" Quote
11-05-2010 , 08:56 PM
http://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Exi...9004840&sr=8-1

I recently heard Father Spitzer (Jesuit Priest) speak and am going to order this book soon. He talks about a group of cosmological scientists who have theorized that our universe had to have a beginning and they haven't been refuted yet. Once I order the book I'll look it up and bring more to this discussion, but it looks to be a very good book.
"within 100 years or so atheism/naturalism/materialism will probably close to extinct" Quote
11-05-2010 , 08:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso
I have been talking about a movement toward deism and/or agnosticism and not toward the existence of a person creator. I don't know how you can expect to do well in your graduate work with such poor reading comprehension.
Yikes. I was talking about the conversations with cosmologists that I have had. You asked a specific question that I don't have detailed data or conversations with cosmologists about. I told you basically all I remembered about the god talk that I have had with cosmologists. I didn't ask them about your exact crackpot claim which you hadn't even made yet at the time I had those conversations.
"within 100 years or so atheism/naturalism/materialism will probably close to extinct" Quote
11-05-2010 , 09:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Raker
Yikes. I was talking about the conversations with cosmologists that I have had. You asked a specific question that I don't have detailed data or conversations with cosmologists about. I told you basically all I remembered about the god talk that I have had with cosmologists. I didn't ask them about your exact crackpot claim which you hadn't even made yet at the time I had those conversations.
I will go on record as saying I don't think there is much movement amoung cosmologist toward belief in the existence of a personal god. I just think they are starting to reject atheism.
"within 100 years or so atheism/naturalism/materialism will probably close to extinct" Quote
11-05-2010 , 09:03 PM
Excerpts

Introduction
From the Introduction of God According to God:

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AccordingToGod.aspx#
"within 100 years or so atheism/naturalism/materialism will probably close to extinct" Quote
11-05-2010 , 09:04 PM
Not sure why naturalism is included, since that is not incompatible with theism (though here again we run into issues of how words are defined). Not sure about atheism. Materialism is already in serious decline and could be very marginal within 100 years.
"within 100 years or so atheism/naturalism/materialism will probably close to extinct" Quote
11-05-2010 , 09:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso
I say the appearance is consistent with both.
Both of what

Quote:
However I favor intellect because I can observe intellect creating realities.
We haven't got to the point yet where we can start giving opinions. You need to first stop saying factually incorrect things. You can't so there is an appearance of fine tuning and then say that there is 0 evidence of a multiverse. Both of those ideas require saying that apparent free parameters in physical equations can actually be different. There is no direct evidence that that is true, it is not an unreasonable idea, but one has to be consistent.

Last edited by Max Raker; 11-05-2010 at 09:19 PM.
"within 100 years or so atheism/naturalism/materialism will probably close to extinct" Quote
11-05-2010 , 09:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso
I will go on record as saying I don't think there is much movement amoung cosmologist toward belief in the existence of a personal god. I just think they are starting to reject atheism.
But you are just making this up and you actually don't understand anything about the field and have never talked to these people. Again, what is the point of doing this?
"within 100 years or so atheism/naturalism/materialism will probably close to extinct" Quote
11-05-2010 , 09:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso
I will go on record as saying I don't think there is much movement amoung cosmologist toward belief in the existence of a personal god. I just think they are starting to reject atheism.
AND WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE OF THAT?

Hint: Throwing out 2 deceased astronomers from google/wikipedia and then claiming that they were originally atheists who changed to deists before they died with no citation whatsoever is not a good start.
"within 100 years or so atheism/naturalism/materialism will probably close to extinct" Quote
11-05-2010 , 09:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotReady
As stated in the following, it's just another modern myth that most scientists are atheists:

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9501/bigbang2.html
Butnaaaaaah.

Quote:
Originally Posted by That Terrible Sinkhole of Atheistic Lies and Innuendo
Nature's chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. The highest percentage of belief was found among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).[10]
The NAS study seems to make no mention of how respondents spend their Sunday mornings. Presumably because it was deemed utterly irrelevant (gotta love the 'any given Sunday' thing, too - no kosher scientists allowed?).
"within 100 years or so atheism/naturalism/materialism will probably close to extinct" Quote
11-05-2010 , 09:27 PM
Come on in Pletho, there's room for 1 more.
"within 100 years or so atheism/naturalism/materialism will probably close to extinct" Quote
11-05-2010 , 09:27 PM
There should really be a poll with results being public on whether you agree or disagree with the OP statement.
"within 100 years or so atheism/naturalism/materialism will probably close to extinct" Quote
11-05-2010 , 09:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Raker

Quote:
When challenged on this forum most atheists here have rejected hard atheism because it is untenable.
You are a very unreliable source and you flat out make things up (like your statement about cosmologists) so I don't believe you.
I'm at least one counter-example. I am a hard atheist. That is, I believe that God does not exist.
"within 100 years or so atheism/naturalism/materialism will probably close to extinct" Quote
11-05-2010 , 10:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso
Auto-spell checker is not built into the forum software silly. You have to download ieSpell for it to work(which I have never bothered to do).
it was built into mine fwiw, just not when im on my phone.
"within 100 years or so atheism/naturalism/materialism will probably close to extinct" Quote
11-05-2010 , 10:33 PM
lol i just can't get over stupidasso having 8 kids...may allah have mercy on their poor little souls
"within 100 years or so atheism/naturalism/materialism will probably close to extinct" Quote
11-05-2010 , 11:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position
I'm at least one counter-example. I am a hard atheist. That is, I believe that God does not exist.
Note to self: bump this thread in a hundred years.
"within 100 years or so atheism/naturalism/materialism will probably close to extinct" Quote
11-06-2010 , 12:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by duffe
Note to self: bump this thread in a hundred years.
Quote:
Stu: Recent discoveries had made it very difficult to reject the notion of a creator.
Rize: And this is based on what? The fact that you anomaly mined 2 dudes that support it from google? Do you like have any actual statistics and facts to back up what you just said?
Duffe: Hey Rize, here's a dude that likes the idea of god and wrote a supportive review of another dude who wrote a book about how he likes the idea of god...but neither at any point actually explains why god is helpful, needed or required for any part of science. Hopefully this convinced you why recent discoveries have made it very difficult to reject the notion of a creator, Rize!
gg no re
"within 100 years or so atheism/naturalism/materialism will probably close to extinct" Quote
11-06-2010 , 01:36 AM
"within 100 years or so atheism/naturalism/materialism will probably close to extinct"
iff
a) a god who intervenes exists
and
b)god intervenes for (probably close to) the whole world to see in such a way that it is obviously coming from god

Last edited by rage4dorder; 11-06-2010 at 01:36 AM. Reason: imo
"within 100 years or so atheism/naturalism/materialism will probably close to extinct" Quote
11-06-2010 , 02:26 AM
here's a statement that's truer than op. within 100 years or so 99.99% of the people reading this thread will be dead so this statement won't matter. besides op, if you really believe in what you've stated, you are saying people tremendously will digress with education and quality of life.
"within 100 years or so atheism/naturalism/materialism will probably close to extinct" Quote
11-06-2010 , 03:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso
Intelligent design and evolution are both plausible explainations for the diversity of life on this planet. I accept evolution is the likely explaination because of observations made. However if those observations were never made or never could be made we would have no rational basis to reject the notion of intelligent design.
Right. So prior to the observations, both were plausible. Now ID is less plausible - isn't that the exact opposite of what you said.

We're getting better at doing science. We're getting better at observing things previously beyond the scope of measurement. How does that lead to the conclusion that atheism is less plausible? Your first couple of paragraphs don't lead to the conlusion you think they do, imo.
"within 100 years or so atheism/naturalism/materialism will probably close to extinct" Quote
11-06-2010 , 04:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso
Intelligent design and evolution are both plausible explainations for the diversity of life on this planet. I accept evolution is the likely explaination because of observations made. However if those observations were never made or never could be made we would have no rational basis to reject the notion of intelligent design.
And the fact that the elements that comprise the human body are synthesized inside of massive stars - which form and "die" naturally - is evidence of what? ID?

We are children of stars, not your god. And that is scientifically proven. And guess what? We don't need god to explain the existence of stars. We just need gas, dust and gravity.
"within 100 years or so atheism/naturalism/materialism will probably close to extinct" Quote
11-06-2010 , 05:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso
I think there is a slow movement from atheism toward deism and/or agnosticism amoung people who study cosmology. [snip] Antony Flew (sic)
You seem to imply Flew was a cosmologist, which is total baloney -- he wasn't any kind of scientist, just a "soft" philosopher (ie not even a philosopher like e.g. Dennett who understands science and follows contemporary advances in science).

Anyway, what happened was that Flew, having no clue about biology or most any other branch of science, was fooled by the lies of the "Intelligent Design" creationists to believe that life could not come about without supernatural assistance.

That's pretty much the whole story, except that he later retracted a bit, admitting that he didn't know what he was talking about.

On a side note: funnily enough, he even managed to publicly blame Richard Dawkins for his own misstep. His logic for that went as follows: Dawkins had never presented a theory for how life could come about from non-life (which is wrong, BTW), so he figured there were none. Therefore the ID people were correct.

Why anyone should have listened to that senile old geezer who self-admittedly was not keeping up with any modern advances in science (nor theology, if there can be such a thing as "advancement" in theology) is beyond me, anyway.

That theists are still using Flew as a significant conversion story says a lot about how much they are grasping at straws in this department.

Last edited by -moe-; 11-06-2010 at 06:19 AM.
"within 100 years or so atheism/naturalism/materialism will probably close to extinct" Quote
11-06-2010 , 09:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rizeagainst
I don't like baseball. Therefore, the MLB will be out of business in 100 years or less.
Well this is jsut wrong, I suspect Blurnsball will be the dominant sport in the US in 45
"within 100 years or so atheism/naturalism/materialism will probably close to extinct" Quote
11-06-2010 , 09:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by -moe-
You seem to imply Flew was a cosmologist, which is total baloney -- he wasn't any kind of scientist, just a "soft" philosopher (ie not even a philosopher like e.g. Dennett who understands science and follows contemporary advances in science).

Anyway, what happened was that Flew, having no clue about biology or most any other branch of science, was fooled by the lies of the "Intelligent Design" creationists to believe that life could not come about without supernatural assistance.

That's pretty much the whole story, except that he later retracted a bit, admitting that he didn't know what he was talking about.

On a side note: funnily enough, he even managed to publicly blame Richard Dawkins for his own misstep. His logic for that went as follows: Dawkins had never presented a theory for how life could come about from non-life (which is wrong, BTW), so he figured there were none. Therefore the ID people were correct.

Why anyone should have listened to that senile old geezer who self-admittedly was not keeping up with any modern advances in science (nor theology, if there can be such a thing as "advancement" in theology) is beyond me, anyway.

That theists are still using Flew as a significant conversion story says a lot about how much they are grasping at straws in this department.
Francis Collins converted from atheism and he keeps up with science.

Last time I checked he sped up science.
"within 100 years or so atheism/naturalism/materialism will probably close to extinct" Quote

      
m