Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Will atheism proliferate?

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 5:16:19 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
"Studies on the demographics of atheism have concluded that self-identified atheists comprise anywhere from 2% to 13% of the world's population, whereas people without a religion comprise anywhere from 10% to 22% of the world's population"

Do you think that advancements in science will uncover supporting evidence in favor of atheism?
ANON_TacTiX
Posts: 460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 6:59:42 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 5:16:19 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
"Studies on the demographics of atheism have concluded that self-identified atheists comprise anywhere from 2% to 13% of the world's population, whereas people without a religion comprise anywhere from 10% to 22% of the world's population"

Do you think that advancements in science will uncover supporting evidence in favor of atheism?

Well, science has already removed the necessity and possibility of a Creator in many of the big questions about our universe. So far, though, science hasn't actually uncovered any proof that God doesn't exist, and I don't think it ever will. So long as there is something about the universe that we don't understand, (how it started, for example) there will always be room for a Creator. Even if a Grand Unified Theory is found and explains everything in the universe without the need of a God, there is still no real way to prove that a God doesn't exist. All that we could prove would be that God played no role in the creation or evolution of the universe. So no, I do not think that science will ever uncover conclusive proof that there is no God. I do think, however that science will continue to explain our universe without God in the equation.
Atheism will more than likely continue to be a minority, and religion will probably continue to be the majority with no real proof one way or another. All that either side can really provide to back up their beliefs are logical reason and bits of evidence that support them. Not definitive proof.

I am an atheist, by the way, in case that wasn't clear.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. - Albert Einstein
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 7:04:25 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 5:16:19 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
"Studies on the demographics of atheism have concluded that self-identified atheists comprise anywhere from 2% to 13% of the world's population, whereas people without a religion comprise anywhere from 10% to 22% of the world's population"

Do you think that advancements in science will uncover supporting evidence in favor of atheism?

Most specifically, science will never find any evidence of an interventionist god. Its the lack of evidence that causes atheist to not own a belief in a god.

I think the information age will continue to proliferate critical thinking philosophy. I think this the reason why younger generations tend to be increasingly less religious.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 7:24:01 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 6:59:42 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/14/2016 5:16:19 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
"Studies on the demographics of atheism have concluded that self-identified atheists comprise anywhere from 2% to 13% of the world's population, whereas people without a religion comprise anywhere from 10% to 22% of the world's population"

Do you think that advancements in science will uncover supporting evidence in favor of atheism?

Well, science has already removed the necessity and possibility of a Creator in many of the big questions about our universe.

How so?

So far, though, science hasn't actually uncovered any proof that God doesn't exist, and I don't think it ever will. So long as there is something about the universe that we don't understand, (how it started, for example) there will always be room for a Creator.

This assumes that "God" is defined as "that which explains the unexplained" and there's not any standard definition of God like that.

Even if a Grand Unified Theory is found and explains everything in the universe without the need of a God, there is still no real way to prove that a God doesn't exist.

Science doesn't actually "explain" anything about the natural universe. Science shows "how" things in the natural universe occur, but it doesn't explain "why" or "for what reason."

All that we could prove would be that God played no role in the creation or evolution of the universe. So no, I do not think that science will ever uncover conclusive proof that there is no God. I do think, however that science will continue to explain our universe without God in the equation.

I believe it could explain "how" but not "why." We could explain how a computer works but this doesn't mean it wasn't the product of intelligent design.

Atheism will more than likely continue to be a minority, and religion will probably continue to be the majority with no real proof one way or another. All that either side can really provide to back up their beliefs are logical reason and bits of evidence that support them. Not definitive proof.

I agree.

I am an atheist, by the way, in case that wasn't clear.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 7:31:22 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 6:59:42 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/14/2016 5:16:19 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
"Studies on the demographics of atheism have concluded that self-identified atheists comprise anywhere from 2% to 13% of the world's population, whereas people without a religion comprise anywhere from 10% to 22% of the world's population"

Do you think that advancements in science will uncover supporting evidence in favor of atheism?

Well, science has already removed the necessity and possibility of a Creator in many of the big questions about our universe. So far, though, science hasn't actually uncovered any proof that God doesn't exist, and I don't think it ever will. So long as there is something about the universe that we don't understand, (how it started, for example) there will always be room for a Creator. Even if a Grand Unified Theory is found and explains everything in the universe without the need of a God, there is still no real way to prove that a God doesn't exist. All that we could prove would be that God played no role in the creation or evolution of the universe. So no, I do not think that science will ever uncover conclusive proof that there is no God. I do think, however that science will continue to explain our universe without God in the equation.
Atheism will more than likely continue to be a minority, and religion will probably continue to be the majority with no real proof one way or another. All that either side can really provide to back up their beliefs are logical reason and bits of evidence that support them. Not definitive proof.

I am an atheist, by the way, in case that wasn't clear.

Science attempts to describe how something works in order of being able to predict it. You are confusing how something works with need for God.

As an Atheist you don't care about truth. Just as long as God is not needed. This is why you are comfortable with abiogenesis and multiverse. Despite no evidence of such happening or existing you accept them because they don't need God.

That doesn't make them true.

Plus the ability to describe how God made something doesn't mean god is not needed.

But I can't use reason to convince an Atheist of their faulty equivocations or faith based assumptions in the multiverse.

Take for instance your lies:

"science has already removed the necessity and possibility of a Creator in many of the big questions about our universe. So far, though, science hasn't actually uncovered any proof that God doesn't exist"

Science has removed the possibility of God but not it's possible existence, Clearly if something is no longer is possible to exist it does not exist.

Or when you say "Atheism will more than likely continue to be a minority, and religion will probably continue to be the majority with no real proof one way or another. All that either side can really provide to back up their beliefs are logical reason and bits of evidence that support them. Not definitive proof."

What evidence do Atheist have that there is NO God?

While Atheist have no evidence, they are going to be in contradiction with Theist who do present evidence.

You See Atheist don't want any burden. And claim that they can;t have any evidence of non-existence. You refuse to support your claims just nit pick the claims of others.

Theist present evidence for God and the Atheist actually thinks if I imagine a way to explain this evidence like mulitverse or abiogenesis then the Theist has no evidence for God. This is simply illogical.

The theist presents a fact and says it is evidence for God. The Atheist then imagines a scenario where the fact would exist in a godless world. The fact is still evidence until the Atheist can actually demonstrate their counter hypothesis is more likely.

But you know I'm just rambling on about basic logic and hypothesis comparing. You know intellectual stuff you don;t care about because it could lead to the truth. A place a where you might be forced to meet God.
ANON_TacTiX
Posts: 460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 7:44:10 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 7:24:01 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/14/2016 6:59:42 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/14/2016 5:16:19 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
"Studies on the demographics of atheism have concluded that self-identified atheists comprise anywhere from 2% to 13% of the world's population, whereas people without a religion comprise anywhere from 10% to 22% of the world's population"

Do you think that advancements in science will uncover supporting evidence in favor of atheism?

Well, science has already removed the necessity and possibility of a Creator in many of the big questions about our universe.

How so?
Take the question: How did Earth come to be? It was previously believed that Earth and everything o it was brought into existence by God, and that Earth is 6,000 years old. It is now known that Earth and the rest of the Solar System was created from the remnants of a dead star billions of years ago. There is no longer the necessity for a Creator, and the fact that the universe evolves by the laws of physics removes any choice the Creator may have had in creating Earth. On a large scale, the universe is fairly deterministic. There is a small amount of randomness due to the uncertainty principle, but not enough to allow the Creator to make many choices about how the universe evolves. The necessity and possibility for a Creator playing a role in the creation of Earth has been removed.
So far, though, science hasn't actually uncovered any proof that God doesn't exist, and I don't think it ever will. So long as there is something about the universe that we don't understand, (how it started, for example) there will always be room for a Creator.

This assumes that "God" is defined as "that which explains the unexplained" and there's not any standard definition of God like that.
Religion has been used throughout history to explain the unexplained. Take the Greeks, for example. They saw lightning, didn't understand it, and made a God for it. They saw the behavior of the sea, couldn't predict or understand it, and they made a God for it. The same thing happens today with things like death and the beginning of the universe. They are not understood, so they are left up to God. So long as there are things that we don't understand, religion will be used to try and explain them. There will always be room for a Creator.
Even if a Grand Unified Theory is found and explains everything in the universe without the need of a God, there is still no real way to prove that a God doesn't exist.

Science doesn't actually "explain" anything about the natural universe. Science shows "how" things in the natural universe occur, but it doesn't explain "why" or "for what reason."
Science only doesn't explain why or for what reason, because the why is not important. There is no proof that there even is a reason that we are here. It is an assumption made by religion that the universe and the things in it are here for a reason. As far as science is concerned, there is no reason. Just a cause and effect.
All that we could prove would be that God played no role in the creation or evolution of the universe. So no, I do not think that science will ever uncover conclusive proof that there is no God. I do think, however that science will continue to explain our universe without God in the equation.

I believe it could explain "how" but not "why." We could explain how a computer works but this doesn't mean it wasn't the product of intelligent design.
Like I said, as far as science is concerned, there is no reason. There is no proof that we are here for a reason, so why try and explain it?
Atheism will more than likely continue to be a minority, and religion will probably continue to be the majority with no real proof one way or another. All that either side can really provide to back up their beliefs are logical reason and bits of evidence that support them. Not definitive proof.

I agree.

I am an atheist, by the way, in case that wasn't clear.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. - Albert Einstein
ANON_TacTiX
Posts: 460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 7:57:51 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 7:31:22 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/14/2016 6:59:42 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/14/2016 5:16:19 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
"Studies on the demographics of atheism have concluded that self-identified atheists comprise anywhere from 2% to 13% of the world's population, whereas people without a religion comprise anywhere from 10% to 22% of the world's population"

Do you think that advancements in science will uncover supporting evidence in favor of atheism?

Well, science has already removed the necessity and possibility of a Creator in many of the big questions about our universe. So far, though, science hasn't actually uncovered any proof that God doesn't exist, and I don't think it ever will. So long as there is something about the universe that we don't understand, (how it started, for example) there will always be room for a Creator. Even if a Grand Unified Theory is found and explains everything in the universe without the need of a God, there is still no real way to prove that a God doesn't exist. All that we could prove would be that God played no role in the creation or evolution of the universe. So no, I do not think that science will ever uncover conclusive proof that there is no God. I do think, however that science will continue to explain our universe without God in the equation.
Atheism will more than likely continue to be a minority, and religion will probably continue to be the majority with no real proof one way or another. All that either side can really provide to back up their beliefs are logical reason and bits of evidence that support them. Not definitive proof.

I am an atheist, by the way, in case that wasn't clear.

Science attempts to describe how something works in order of being able to predict it. You are confusing how something works with need for God.

As an Atheist you don't care about truth. Just as long as God is not needed. This is why you are comfortable with abiogenesis and multiverse. Despite no evidence of such happening or existing you accept them because they don't need God.
I never said that I believed that there are multiple universes. Even the physicists that believe it is a possibility accept that it may not be fact and cannot be proven. It is only suggested by certain theories.
That doesn't make them true.

Plus the ability to describe how God made something doesn't mean god is not needed.

But I can't use reason to convince an Atheist of their faulty equivocations or faith based assumptions in the multiverse.

Take for instance your lies:

"science has already removed the necessity and possibility of a Creator in many of the big questions about our universe. So far, though, science hasn't actually uncovered any proof that God doesn't exist"

Science has removed the possibility of God but not it's possible existence, Clearly if something is no longer is possible to exist it does not exist.
By possibility, I meant possibility for a Creator to play a role. I never said that science proved that God doesn't exist. In fact, I said the opposite.
Or when you say "Atheism will more than likely continue to be a minority, and religion will probably continue to be the majority with no real proof one way or another. All that either side can really provide to back up their beliefs are logical reason and bits of evidence that support them. Not definitive proof."

What evidence do Atheist have that there is NO God?
For one, there is the fact that science has had no problem explaining how the universe works without God in the equation. Then, there is the fact that many aspects of religion have been disproved.
While Atheist have no evidence, they are going to be in contradiction with Theist who do present evidence.
What evidence?
You See Atheist don't want any burden. And claim that they can;t have any evidence of non-existence. You refuse to support your claims just nit pick the claims of others.
We don't like a challenge? Atheists are the enemy of every religion on Earth, and we don't like a challenge? Please.
Theist present evidence for God and the Atheist actually thinks if I imagine a way to explain this evidence like mulitverse or abiogenesis then the Theist has no evidence for God. This is simply illogical.

The theist presents a fact and says it is evidence for God. The Atheist then imagines a scenario where the fact would exist in a godless world. The fact is still evidence until the Atheist can actually demonstrate their counter hypothesis is more likely.
What fact can you give that proves God's existence?
But you know I'm just rambling on about basic logic and hypothesis comparing. You know intellectual stuff you don;t care about because it could lead to the truth. A place a where you might be forced to meet God.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. - Albert Einstein
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 8:14:05 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 7:57:51 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/14/2016 7:31:22 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/14/2016 6:59:42 PM, ANON_TacTiX wrote:
At 8/14/2016 5:16:19 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
"Studies on the demographics of atheism have concluded that self-identified atheists comprise anywhere from 2% to 13% of the world's population, whereas people without a religion comprise anywhere from 10% to 22% of the world's population"

Do you think that advancements in science will uncover supporting evidence in favor of atheism?

Well, science has already removed the necessity and possibility of a Creator in many of the big questions about our universe. So far, though, science hasn't actually uncovered any proof that God doesn't exist, and I don't think it ever will. So long as there is something about the universe that we don't understand, (how it started, for example) there will always be room for a Creator. Even if a Grand Unified Theory is found and explains everything in the universe without the need of a God, there is still no real way to prove that a God doesn't exist. All that we could prove would be that God played no role in the creation or evolution of the universe. So no, I do not think that science will ever uncover conclusive proof that there is no God. I do think, however that science will continue to explain our universe without God in the equation.
Atheism will more than likely continue to be a minority, and religion will probably continue to be the majority with no real proof one way or another. All that either side can really provide to back up their beliefs are logical reason and bits of evidence that support them. Not definitive proof.

I am an atheist, by the way, in case that wasn't clear.

Science attempts to describe how something works in order of being able to predict it. You are confusing how something works with need for God.

As an Atheist you don't care about truth. Just as long as God is not needed. This is why you are comfortable with abiogenesis and multiverse. Despite no evidence of such happening or existing you accept them because they don't need God.
I never said that I believed that there are multiple universes. Even the physicists that believe it is a possibility accept that it may not be fact and cannot be proven. It is only suggested by certain theories.
That doesn't make them true.

Plus the ability to describe how God made something doesn't mean god is not needed.

But I can't use reason to convince an Atheist of their faulty equivocations or faith based assumptions in the multiverse.

Take for instance your lies:

"science has already removed the necessity and possibility of a Creator in many of the big questions about our universe. So far, though, science hasn't actually uncovered any proof that God doesn't exist"

Science has removed the possibility of God but not it's possible existence, Clearly if something is no longer is possible to exist it does not exist.
By possibility, I meant possibility for a Creator to play a role. I never said that science proved that God doesn't exist. In fact, I said the opposite.
Or when you say "Atheism will more than likely continue to be a minority, and religion will probably continue to be the majority with no real proof one way or another. All that either side can really provide to back up their beliefs are logical reason and bits of evidence that support them. Not definitive proof."

What evidence do Atheist have that there is NO God?
For one, there is the fact that science has had no problem explaining how the universe works without God in the equation. Then, there is the fact that many aspects of religion have been disproved.

I forgot Science despite being a man made tool of inductive logic and axioms of space and time, is well omniscient and can explain how the universe works with no God. Yeah I learned that equation in high school, you know the one that proven one that explains the expansion of the universe, the organization of galaxies, the speed of stars near the edge and center of galaxies, the reason for lights max speed, entanglement, the size of our moon, and life. Yeah Science explains everything without God, this is not the same as Science actually knowing how everything works with out God.

While Atheist have no evidence, they are going to be in contradiction with Theist who do present evidence.
What evidence?

It's pointless to tell you. You have already decided there is no evidence for God. Not because the evidence doesn't support God. But because you think you have an alternative and more likely explanation for the observation. If I say there is evidence biological life on Earth is designed and created, you will just say "No" abiogenesis is why that is.

Abiogenesis isn't proven to explain life. But because it doesn't involve god you accept it. And in turn you think Life is not evidence for a creator.

thanks for demonstrating the point I was making. Atheist think there is no evidence for God, because they would rather say "I don't know" or some conjecture with no empirical evidence for it.

It doesn't even matter if you think the multiverse is real and explains the creation of the universe. The temporal creation of the universe is evidence for a God.

You See Atheist don't want any burden. And claim that they can;t have any evidence of non-existence. You refuse to support your claims just nit pick the claims of others.
We don't like a challenge? Atheists are the enemy of every religion on Earth, and we don't like a challenge? Please.

That's not what I said. I said Atheist refuse to support their claims and rather throw objections at other peoples claim.

Theist present evidence for God and the Atheist actually thinks if I imagine a way to explain this evidence like mulitverse or abiogenesis then the Theist has no evidence for God. This is simply illogical.

The theist presents a fact and says it is evidence for God. The Atheist then imagines a scenario where the fact would exist in a godless world. The fact is still evidence until the Atheist can actually demonstrate their counter hypothesis is more likely.
What fact can you give that proves God's existence?

Life. it is improbable for life to emerge from natural environments. Much more likely biological life is the result of a manufacturing process. It is one piece of evidence pointing towards a creator. And one requirement of God is that he be the creator of life. But this is off topic and ultimately futile against your stubborn atheist cliches and illogic

But you know I'm just rambling on about basic logic and hypothesis comparing. You know intellectual stuff you don;t care about because it could lead to the truth. A place a where you might be forced to meet God.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 10:41:58 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 5:16:19 PM, Benshapiro wrote:


Do you think that advancements in science will uncover supporting evidence in favor of atheism?

No, the opposite. However, we will see secularism and carnality on the rise despite science uncovering evidence in support of Theism, how does that work exactly? I could speculate....
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 5:34:32 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 5:16:19 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
"Studies on the demographics of atheism have concluded that self-identified atheists comprise anywhere from 2% to 13% of the world's population, whereas people without a religion comprise anywhere from 10% to 22% of the world's population"

Do you think that advancements in science will uncover supporting evidence in favor of atheism?
All of the evidence in support of the atheist position is supplied by those who claim that gods exist yet can provide no evidence in support of said claim.