Why there almost certainly is No God!!

The countries that impose these penalties are Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

Michael, the majority of the population in the countries listed in your quote believe in Islam. There could be smaller religions within them, but a reasonable mind would have to conclude they are Islamic countries.

I did not see any country where the primary religion is Christianity. Can you provide ONE example of a "Christian country" that actively practices the execution of those subscribing to Atheism? You can't.

Evidently you are an Atheist. The majority of your post in this thread are targeted at the Christian faith. Why would you not target the Islamic faith? Per the information from your own post, Islamic counties are the least tolerant of Atheism. Are you afraid to target Islam with your posts? If not, why haven't you done so more often?

I think you should be a man and take consistent "shots" at the religion, who again by your own post, that is most hostile to Atheism, Islam.
 
I got to reading bits and pieces of the first post.
Too hard to stay focused on non-boob related subjects.

But it got me to thinking...
What if God never made us, or the big bang never happened, or whatever you believe in. What would exist? Nothing?

If God knows our choices before we make them, then ultimately he/she knows if we are going to heaven or hell.
So why even create us?

Doesn't make sense.

On the other hand.... why don't we see monkeys turning to people. Don't get me wrong, a walk through walmart late at night gets me to thinking we really did ascend from pond scum.... buy still, why doesn't it happen anymore?

Doesn't make sense.

The answer?
The cake is a lie.
 
We are constantly evolving and so are monkeys, it's just a very slow process.
you should watch cosmos, it's on netflix.

I was watching some thing on netflix saying in a few centuries all humans are going to be about 7 feet tall, live about 100 years, and all have a coffee colored skin. Can't remember what it was but it was interesting. Talked a lot about the future of humanity
 
Did Jesus really exist?
Did Jesus really exist? - Macleans.ca

“Do this in memory of me,” said Jesus at the Last Supper, according to the Gospel of Luke.

But memories of Jesus the man have proved stubbornly elusive for historians who are convinced the truth of the son of God lies beneath the surface of Gospel accounts written decades after his death.

Now, for the first time, one of America’s most prominent New Testament scholars has gone outside of his narrow field, driven as much by frustration as curiosity, to examine what the science of memory might offer to separate the historical wheat from the theological chaff in the Gospels.

In so doing, University of North Carolina religious studies professor Bart Ehrman may have opened a new front in the currently quiescent Jesus wars, a quarter-century of devout and secular scholars battling over what, exactly, is the gospel truth.

Ehrman’s eye-opening Jesus Before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, and Invented Their Stories of the Savior may prove most useful for those who hold to a position Ehrman finds more wrong-headed than insistence on the Bible’s literal truth.

The reason Biblical historians cannot find even the outline of a historical Jesus, argues an increasingly persuasive chorus of challengers, is that there is nothing to find: Jesus Christ never lived at all.

 
Oh-Pear-animation.gif
 
What Are The Demographics Of Heaven?
What Are The Demographics Of Heaven?

Assuming that all who expire are promoted to a peaceful afterlife, what would the demographics of heaven be?

If I’m smart about my methodology, I can get pretty close to a decent answer, but it’s still a speculative estimate. Here’s what I’ve got: Roughly 100,825,272,791 people have ever died. Let’s call it 100.8 billion if you’re struggling to read a number that long.
 
Will Science Drive Religion Extinct?
Will Science Drive Religion Extinct? | RealClearScience

Religion is declining in America.

This is actually something fairly new. For decades, religion has been on the wane in developed countries worldwide, with statistical models going so far as to predict its eventual extinction in nine countries: Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland. America was pretty much the sole country bucking the trend to nonbelief. No longer.

In 1998, 62 percent of Americans said they were “moderately” or “very” religious. In 2014, that number dropped to 54 percent. According to a recent study, irreligion is particularly pronounced amongst younger Americans.

"Nearly a third of Millennials were secular not merely in religious affiliation but also in belief in God, religiosity, and religious service attendance, many more than Boomers and Generation X’ers at the same age," the authors wrote. "Eight times more 18- to 29-year-olds never prayed in 2014 versus the early 1980s."

In light of the new data, it seems inevitable that as demographics change over a matter of decades, religious practitioners will become a minority group in the United States. What's driving the decline?

While a variety of factors are likely at play, I'd like to focus on what may be the most significant contributor: science.

We are perhaps the first generation of humans to http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Science-Based-Religion a factually accurate understanding of our world and ourselves. In the past, this knowledge was only in the hands and minds of the few, but with the advent of the Internet, evidence and information have never been so widespread and accessible. Beliefs can be challenged with the click of a button. We no longer live in closed, insular environments where a single dogmatic worldview can dominate.

As scientific evidence questions the tenets of religion, so too, does it provide a worldview to follow, one that's infinitely more coherent.

Sir James George Frazer, often considered one of the founding fathers of modern anthropology, wrote that -- when stripped down to the core -- religion, science, and magic are similar conceptions, providing a framework for how the world works and guiding our actions. He also noted that humanity moved through an Age of Magic before entering an Age of Religion. Is an Age of Science finally taking hold?

Bemidji State University psychology professor Nigel Barber expounds upon Frazer's thoughts even further.

"[He] proposed that scientific prediction and control of nature supplants religion as a means of controlling uncertainty in our lives. This hunch is supported by data showing that more educated countries have higher levels of non belief and there are strong correlations between atheism and intelligence."

Frazer's hunch is also supported by a recent study published journal Personality and Individual Differences. Querying 1,500 Dutch citizens, a team of researchers led by Dr. Olga Stavrova of the University of Cologne found that belief in scientific-technological progress was positively associated with life satisfaction. This association was significantly larger than the link between religion and life satisfaction. Moreover, using the World Values Survey, they extrapolated their findings worldwide. As Ronald Bailey reported in Reason:

Stavrova and company concluded that the "correlation between a belief in scientific–technological progress and life satisfaction was positive and significant in 69 of the 72 countries." On the other hand, the relationship between religiosity and life satisfaction was positive in only 28 countries and actually negative in 5 countries.

"Believing that science is or will prospectively grant... mastery of nature imbues individuals with the belief that they are in control of their lives," Stavrova concluded.

So not only does science dispel religious belief, it also serves as an effective substitute for it. Science will never drive religion completely extinct, but religion may be marginalized to a small minority bereft of influence.

One of science's primary aims is to seek out knowledge that will hopefully better our world and the lives of all who live on it. That's something we all can believe in.
 
[Open Access] Twenge JM, Sherman RA, Exline JJ, Grubbs JB. Declines in American Adults’ Religious Participation and Beliefs, 1972-2014. SAGE Open 2016;6(1). Declines in American Adults’ Religious Participation and Beliefs, 1972-2014 | SAGE Open

Previous research found declines in Americans’ religious affiliation but few changes in religious beliefs and practices. By 2014, however, markedly fewer Americans participated in religious activities or embraced religious beliefs, with especially striking declines between 2006 and 2014 and among 18- to 29-year-olds in data from the nationally representative General Social Survey (N = 58,893, 1972-2014).

In recent years, fewer Americans prayed, believed in God, took the Bible literally, attended religious services, identified as religious, affiliated with a religion, or had confidence in religious institutions. Only slightly more identified as spiritual since 1998, and then only those above age 30. Nearly a third of Millennials were secular not merely in religious affiliation but also in belief in God, religiosity, and religious service attendance, many more than Boomers and Generation X’ers at the same age. Eight times more 18- to 29-year-olds never prayed in 2014 versus the early 1980s. However, Americans have become slightly more likely to believe in an afterlife.

In hierarchical linear modeling analyses, the decline in religious commitment was primarily due to time period rather than generation/birth cohort, with the decline in public religious practice larger (d = −.50) and beginning sooner (early 1990s) than the smaller (d = −.18) decline in private religious practice and belief (primarily after 2006). Differences in religious commitment due to gender, race, education, and region grew larger, suggesting a more religiously polarized nation.
 
Highlights
· Belief in scientific–technological progress positively predicts life satisfaction.
· This association is nearly culturally universal.
· This association is partially mediated by personal control.
· Its strength depends on the extent to which this belief is culturally shared.

Stavrova O, Ehlebracht D, Fetchenhauer D. Belief in scientific–technological progress and life satisfaction: The role of personal control. Personality and Individual Differences 2016;96:227-36. Belief in scientific–technological progress and life satisfaction: The role of personal control

While numerous studies have examined the positive association between religious beliefs and subjective well-being, there is a notable absence of research addressing the potential role of secular beliefs as a source of happiness and life satisfaction. Drawing from literature on compensatory control, the present research fills this void by exploring the association between belief in scientific–technological progress and life satisfaction, investigating its underlying mechanism and examining cross-cultural moderators. The results showed that belief in scientific–technological progress is a stronger predictor of life satisfaction than religious beliefs in a nationally representative sample of the Dutch population (Study 1) and across 69 out of 72 countries (Study 2). Additional analyses highlighted the role of personal control beliefs as the mechanism driving this effect: a strong belief in scientific–technological progress was associated with an enhanced sense of personal control, which in turn contributed to higher life satisfaction. Consistent with previous research on “shared reality” and person–culture fit, the beneficial consequences of an individual's belief in scientific–technological progress were enhanced when this belief was widely held within a specific culture.
 
Boy how confusing this all gets, but I'll give it a shot.

Science will never be able to answer the question why is there something rather than nothing. Before anyone gets excited, while I am a Christian I am one by faith - not by evidence. When I conclude this treatise you will see that scientism, materialism, atheism, and any other ism is also a faith.

Back to something rather than nothing (SRTN). Even if you posit that the existence of the universe will one day be proved by mathematical consistency alone (leaving aside Godel's Incompleteness Theory which makes this stance rather untenable) then one can just as reasonably ask where math came from. If you then offer the explanation that math exists in some Platonic realm outside of time that we somehow tap into then you have a problem: prove it. You can't. Therefore your belief in such a math is based on....faith. What you have then is two faith based approaches that differ in their ontological preference. One faith points to a absolute being, the other to a concept or system called "math".

If the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved then the Atheist finds themselves in a quandary. If you can't prove God does not exist and you chose to believe such a statement, you do so based upon - you guessed it - faith. Therefore Atheism and Christianity are both faith based, again with different ontological preferences. This is something Atheists (which I once was) are blind to and will only admit when the logic forces them to that conclusion.

Now to consiousness. Science will never be able to solve what is called the hard problem of consciouness. Let me explain. The soft problem - what occurs functionally in the brain when you do something such as learn, perceive, and even report a subjective feeling - is well within the realm of science. Why these functions are accompanied by a feeling of "what it is like to be you and have these experiences" is called the hard problem and is unsolvable using objective science. Mystics study the problem subjectively, but that is another post.

To explain what I mean by this, let's break science into two parts - that which explains things and that which observes and catalogs things. Physics explains things. Botany tends to catalog things like the types of flowers found in a certain part of the world. Now let us attempt a thought experiment. If I hold a ball and then let it go, it falls to the ground. I now ask you why it fell to the ground. If you answer "because you let it go" you are certainly correct but only offering an observation and not really an explanation. If you say, "because of gravity" we are heading in the right direction. If you walk over to a whiteboard and write down Newton's laws of gravity that include potential energy, kinetic energy, energy lost to air friction, and then dive into chaos theory and how, if you had infinite information, you could tell me exactly how and where the ball will end up - you are offering an explanation.

Now let's assume the brain has only four neurons that can be either on or off. This provides for 16 possible states (2^4). Let's call each of these states an emotion. If you look into my brain and note that the state is one of unhappiness and I report I am unhappy you have not explained anything at all, you have only noted a state, observed it, cross-referenced it to a list you have, and made a statement. This is not science. It offers no explanation as to why, when my neurons are in that state, I subjectively feel unhappy. This has lead many materialists into attempting what I call cirque du soleil philosophy and neurology. So twisted and odd are their arguments that one begins to question their sanity. When Daniel Dennett proposes what he calls qualia to "explain" consciousness, he is doing nothing more than admitting that consciousness is a fundamental quality that cannot be explained and therefore we must invent a concept to explain it. Confused yet? But wait, there is more. To get around this issue, many materialists have gone so far as to say that consciousness does not actually exist. Chew on that for awhile. If this smacks of desperation, it should.

Therefore there are two great mysteries that can never be solved - why is there something rather than nothing, and why does it feel like something to be you (in other words an objective explanation of subjective feelings). These great mysteries should instill in anyone who ponders them long enough a sense of total awe that we are here at all and can look out and observe the universe and make some sense of it. This great mystery I call God. St. Thomas Aquinas called God the "great cloud of unknowing" and this is how I approach it. I am not in any way a dogmatic Christian. I believe Jesus was a wise mystic who saw the same truths as the Buddha.

The discussion on the topics of human concepts and their absence of any sense of self-existence is also for another post. Zen takes us down a really deep rabbit hole that rips apart the very fabric of thought and leaves nothing underfoot. And by nothing, I do not mean nothing as opposed to something - this type of nothing would still be a concept and is the type of nothing that Nihilists believe in, which is why they too are flawed in their thinking. No, think of this type of nothing - called Sunyata in Japanese - as the type of nothing that exists between your thoughts when are thinking neither of something or nothing. However, just as one thought ceases and another begins, this is not a static nothing, but rather a fullness of being. Therefore Fullness and Nothingness and the same and different at the same time. If this sounds weird - it really is. But hold on to your hats - this logic of soku hi is also the same logic used in quantum computing. Now go chew on that one!
very nicely put imo
 
Does the Universe Need God?
Does the Universe Need God? - Preposterous Universe

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”

In many religious traditions, one of the standard roles of the deity has been to create the universe. The first line of the Bible, Genesis 1:1, is a plain statement of this role. Much has happened, both in our scientific understanding of the universe and in the development of theology, since that line was first written. It’s worth examining what those developments imply for the relationship between God and cosmology.

In some ways of thinking about God, there’s no relationship at all; a conception of divinity that is sufficiently ineffable and transcendent may be completely separate from the workings of the physical world. For the purposes of this essay, however, we will limit ourselves to versions of God that play some role in explaining the world we see. In addition to the role of creator, God may also be invoked as that which sustains the world and allows it to exist, or more practically as an explanation for some of the specific contingent properties of the universe we observe.

Each of these possibilities necessarily leads to an engagement with science. Modern cosmology attempts to come up with the most powerful and economical possible understanding of the universe that is consistent with observational data. It’s certainly conceivable that the methods of science could lead us to a self-contained picture of the universe that doesn’t involve God in any way. If so, would we be correct to conclude that cosmology has undermined the reasons for believing in God, or at least a certain kind of reason?

This is not an open-and-shut question. We are not faced with a matter of judging the merits of a mature and compelling scientific theory, since we don’t yet have such a theory. Rather, we are trying to predict the future: will there ever be a time when a conventional scientific model provides a complete understanding of the origin of the universe? Or, alternatively, do we already know enough to conclude that God definitely helps us explain the universe we see, in ways that a non-theistic approach can never hope to match?

Most modern cosmologists are convinced that conventional scientific progress will ultimately result in a self-contained understanding of the origin and evolution of the universe, without the need to invoke God or any other supernatural involvement. This conviction necessarily falls short of a proof, but it is backed up by good reasons. While we don’t have the final answers, I will attempt to explain the rationale behind the belief that science will ultimately understand the universe without involving God in any way.

...
 
Kentucky’s Ark Defies Science but Evokes a Version of Christianity
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/us/noahs-ark-creationism-ken-ham.html

WILLIAMSTOWN, Ky. — In the beginning, Ken Ham made the Creation Museum in northern Kentucky. And he saw that it was good at spreading his belief that the Bible is a book of history, the universe is only 6,000 years old, and evolution is wrong and is leading to our moral downfall.

And Mr. Ham said, let us build a gargantuan Noah’s ark only 45 minutes away to draw millions more visitors. And let it be constructed by Amish woodworkers, and financed with donations, junk bonds and tax rebates from the state of Kentucky. And let it hold an animatronic Noah and lifelike models of some of the creatures that came on board two-by-two, such as bears, short-necked giraffes — and juvenile Tyrannosaurus rexes.

And it was so.

Mr. Ham’s “Ark Encounter,” built at a cost of more than $102 million, is scheduled to open on July 7 in Williamstown, Ky. Mr. Ham and his crew have succeeded in erecting a colossal landmark and an ambitious promotional vehicle for their particular brand of Christian fundamentalism, known as “young earth” or “young universe” creationism.

 
Back
Top