Poll
Question:
What year do you think atheism will become the majority on the global stage?
Option 1: 2040
votes: 0
Option 2: 2050
votes: 1
Option 3: 2060
votes: 0
Option 4: 2070
votes: 1
Option 5: Never
votes: 10
For many years now I've felt like the world is losing its religion quite literally. Polls around the world show a trend of fewer and fewer theists. So much so that in some countries atheism is the majority. However on the global scale theism still dominates atheism. We do see the young are far less likely to be theists, and the numbers of atheists there lend support to my idea that theism is dying. So the question is this at what year do you think atheism will become the majority on the global stage?
4444--if then. Do NOT underestimate the stupidity of the average theist--or American voter! It is just sooooooooo much easier to believe than to think or reason. And the sheeple simply provide too much money to the 'shepherds' for the fleecing to stop. Or the election of Drump has me so depressed about things like this that I am not thinking straight.
Quote from: Coveny on September 07, 2017, 10:35:44 PM
For many years now I've felt like the world is losing its religion quite literally. Polls around the world show a trend of fewer and fewer theists. So much so that in some countries atheism is the majority. However on the global scale theism still dominates atheism. We do see the young are far less likely to be theists, and the numbers of atheists there lend support to my idea that theism is dying. So the question is this at what year do you think atheism will become the majority on the global stage?
From what I've read, atheism is projected to shrink as a percentage of the global population by 2050. While there are indications that it's growing in many Western countries, that's going to be more than offset by population growth in the developing world (especially among Muslim countries) and theism spreading in China.
Atheism of course will rebound as developing countries undergo demographic transition and secularization eats away at missionaries' gains.
Atheism will be the norm, apparently in the West much earlier much of the rest of the world. But when? That's much harder to predict. A few hundred years? A thousand? Longer?
I'm going to go with a few hundred years, 2200 CE or so for the West. The world might take much longer. 2500 CE or later.
I like to think that theism is in its last throws - but then, that's what Cheney said about Iraq...
Theists are becoming desperate to attract believers, so they're doing all sorts of stuff, like changing the kind of music in church (e.g., more upbeat rock), spiffing up the sermons, etc. Less fire and brimstone and more prosperity gospel.
Theists will be around until long after I'm gone, I sure,
I'm not very optimistic. Religion tends to adapt to secular ideals, while claiming that the true believers always held those ideals. They rewrote history when they claimed that Christians were against slavery in America. They'll do it again with homosexuality. I've already seen Christians doing this on social media. Religion cannot be easily killed. Even when people are not particularly religious, they still hold on to their religion because of family tradition. Religion will also always serve as something people can resort to in their pursuit of meaning and happiness. It will not die out so easily.
Luckily, there is only one religion exist on the planet - Christianity.
When that disappears, -sooner than you expect- there will be no religion left to worry about.
I think 2050 is feasible, the way things are going.
Never. We're more likely to change human nature to be less credulous and jump to conclusions resulting in unfalsifiable beliefs, than be rid of it.
Although atheism has a growth rate of 0.24% per year and non-religious have a growth rate of about 0.8% per year, that is less than population growth per year, so in median, percentage-wise, we're less when compared to total population per year.
http://www.wnrf.org/cms/statuswr.shtml
Never is a long time.
What if humans exterminate each other?
In the name of a god, possibly.
https://youtu.be/bNs2pgFhaPw
Quote from: pr126 on September 08, 2017, 12:43:13 AM
Luckily, there is only one religion exist on the planet - Christianity.
When that disappears, -sooner than you expect- there will be no religion left to worry about.
I think 2050 is feasible, the way things are going.
A strange opinion. Has Ibn Khaldun hijacked your account?
Quote from: pr126 on September 08, 2017, 06:36:13 AM
https://youtu.be/bNs2pgFhaPw
The stats are all skewed, long term. Originally people came to religion thru non-individual conversion. In the 20th century people came to atheism thru non-individual conversion. Then people either one, from there, thru their parents. So per individual POV, it is all mixed up. I like to think of this psychologically. There are approximately 16 personality types. If people are free of parental influence, then to that extent, they fit into their own personality type. So probably there will always be one personality type that gets atheism. The other 15 will get different theisms. Which is just about how the world is currently arranged, with relatively more religious freedom and freedom from religion, than it had in the past.
There have always been atheists around, not that I was there when mankind lived in caves, but I'm sure there were always men that were prone to reason and verification if only at a simple level, but that subset of humanity is not man's default state. Logical fallacies are just too seductive to be ignored. Mankind gravitates to them like moths to a flame. Mankind does not become more intelligent as his knowledge base increases. He just has more knowledge. That part of the brain that seeks to understand at a rational level, probably hasn't changed much since man invented the spear.
Until evolution evolves a brain that is not prone to gravitate to fallacies, intellectual laziness, and supernatural explanations, man will continue to bump along misfiring with his reason while a few keepers of knowledge fight to maintain the libraries as repositories of knowledge, and religionists will compete to stuff the shelves with spiritual nonsense, and even burn a few other shelves from time to time. Atheists will always be a minority. Reality is not all that comforting. The only reason you made it to this stage of your life is not because God saved you for a reason. It's just as logical to understand you are where you are, because God didn't kill you for no reason. There is no upside to raw probabilities and actuarial tables. Man needs a magic hand pulling levers behind a curtain.
In the course of 7 years atheism has doubled from 1.6 to 3.1 in the U.S. That's an impressive change.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/01/10-facts-about-atheists/
The article covers some of the other issues with defining athiest and the misuse of the term in general.
On the world scene we see much the same.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160422-atheism-agnostic-secular-nones-rising-religion/
The article goes into some of the roadblocks to a wider acceptance of atheism.
Quote from: Baruch on September 08, 2017, 07:15:52 AM
The stats are all skewed, long term. Originally people came to religion thru non-individual conversion. In the 20th century people came to atheism thru non-individual conversion. Then people either one, from there, thru their parents. So per individual POV, it is all mixed up. I like to think of this psychologically. There are approximately 16 personality types. If people are free of parental influence, then to that extent, they fit into their own personality type. So probably there will always be one personality type that gets atheism. The other 15 will get different theisms. Which is just about how the world is currently arranged, with relatively more religious freedom and freedom from religion, than it had in the past.
The four-letter Myers Briggs personality types that I assume you're refering to are not exactly scientifically sound. They oversimplify personalities, but many continue to use them anyway. I haven't seen any research to suggest any one type gravitates to atheism.
Never, and I don't see why it matters either way.
It's never gonna happen.
Now, religion is something I could see dying out. There is a very definite shift towards a form of non-religious theism in educated parts of the world, with people believing in a god yet also generally trusting science over scripture. That could definitely become the norm within my lifetime.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on September 08, 2017, 11:24:56 AM
It's never gonna happen.
Now, religion is something I could see dying out. There is a very definite shift towards a form of non-religious theism in educated parts of the world, with people believing in a god yet also generally trusting science over scripture. That could definitely become the norm within my lifetime.
The reason most beliefs are discarded is when facts and data call into question the veracity of a claim. There isn't as yet a better explanation rooted in facts and data that accounts for our existence and the existence of the universe. The belief God created the universe and life is a belief just as the belief mindless mechanistic forces minus plan or intent caused the universe and life to exist is a belief.
never gonna happen, theres to many stupid people in the world now.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 08, 2017, 12:32:10 PM
The reason most beliefs are discarded is when facts and data call into question the veracity of a claim. There isn't as yet a better explanation rooted in facts and data that accounts for our existence and the existence of the universe. The belief God created the universe and life is a belief just as the belief mindless mechanistic forces minus plan or intent caused the universe and life to exist is a belief.
Either the universe came from nothing or the universe and a god came from nothing. One explanation requires a few more assumptions than the other.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 08, 2017, 12:32:10 PM
The reason most beliefs are discarded is when facts and data call into question the veracity of a claim. There isn't as yet a better explanation rooted in facts and data that accounts for our existence and the existence of the universe. The belief God created the universe and life is a belief just as the belief mindless mechanistic forces minus plan or intent caused the universe and life to exist is a belief.
For the average person, all they have is belief in one or other authority. They have no personal knowledge of anything. So it isn't even belief in some concept, it is always belief in some parental substitute.
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 08, 2017, 12:38:12 PM
Either the universe came from nothing or the universe and a god came from nothing. One explanation requires a few more assumptions than the other.
Well put sir, well put. This fact escapes theists though.
The old saw I heard in Sunday school was that God didn't come from anything. He was always there. Unlike the universe which had to come from something, because everything must come from something, except God. No wonder he created the universe, along with time. He must have gotten really bored in the uber infinity before time. Nothing could happen without time. Imagine just sitting there. Imagine trying to have an idea without time. Then poof a universe from nothing. It must have startled God, who decided he would make little tiny humans and put them in this huge universe. Little tiny humans that would do bad things that God didn't like. What a good idea!
I always think of the Millerites when I think theists have a chance to think critically or with reason. These are the Millerites:
"Millerites were disciples of William Miller. Miller, a farmer from New York, claimed to have discovered when Jesus Christ would return to Earth as stated in the Bible. Miller reached this belief in the 1820s but did not begin to share it with other people until the 1830s. By the early 1840s, approximately one million people had attended camp meetings and heard Miller's message. Perhaps ten percent of those people actually believed Miller.
Miller predicted that Christ's second coming would occur in April 1843 and that all worthy people would ascend to heaven on October 23, 1844. Thousands of people across the United States, including in Ohio, eagerly anticipated the event. Numerous people forsook their original religious beliefs and adopted Millerism, hoping that Jesus Christ would find no fault with them upon his return to Earth. Millerites consisted of all types of people. Many working-class people hoped that Christ's arrival would end their laborious lives. Other Americans believed that many people were sinners and that only the true believers, the Millerites, would escape punishment. God wanted the deserving to assist their unworthy neighbors through various reform movements, such as the temperance and abolition movements. Other people believed that citizens of the United States were God's chosen people and that Jesus Christ's arrival would prove this point.
As October 23, 1844 approached, some Millerites went so far as to sell their earthly possessions in preparation for the second coming of Christ. Many sources claim that the Millerites, dressed in white robes, climbed the highest mountains and hills that they could find so that they would be closer to heaven. Unfortunately for these people, they did not ascend to heaven on the appointed day. Miller claimed to have made an error and quickly issued a new date for the second coming, approximately six months later. Once again, this day came and went. In most cases, Miller's followers abandoned him. In 1845, some of Miller's followers joined the Adventist Church, which Miller helped establish. Adventists believe in the second coming of Christ, but they do not specify a day when this event will occur."
Even after two failed predictions, "In most cases" Miller lost his followers. Even in the face of two huge, personally seen, facts (no return), some still followed this guy. This level of stupid just cannot be erased.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 08, 2017, 12:32:10 PM
The reason most beliefs are discarded is when facts and data call into question the veracity of a claim.
And since religions are largely built on unfalsifiable claims...
QuoteThere isn't as yet a better explanation rooted in facts and data that accounts for our existence and the existence of the universe.
That's a big part of it, though not in the way that you think. 'Science doesn't have all the answers, therefore faith. Better an answer than no answer at all!' What a sad motto to live by.
Some people manage to live with not having all the answers. Some people are so terrified of unanswered questions that they'll flock to any answer, no matter how foolish or implausible. Thank you for personally demonstrating the latter.
QuoteThe belief God created the universe and life is a belief just as the belief mindless mechanistic forces minus plan or intent caused the universe and life to exist is a belief.
And the idea that missing underpants aren't stolen by gnomes (just vanishing by themselves without plan or intent) is a belief just like the idea that missing underpants are stolen by gnomes.
Quote from: Coveny on September 08, 2017, 02:17:36 PM
Well put sir, well put. This fact escapes theists though.
I can dispense with the notion that the universe or nature exists ... Buddha
PS - humans don't have answers, we have questions, which we are too arrogant to phrase properly ;-))
Quote from: SGOS on September 08, 2017, 03:01:40 PM
The old saw I heard in Sunday school was that God didn't come from anything. He was always there. Unlike the universe which had to come from something, because everything must come from something, except God. No wonder he created the universe, along with time. He must have gotten really bored in the uber infinity before time. Nothing could happen without time. Imagine just sitting there. Imagine trying to have an idea without time. Then poof a universe from nothing. It must have startled God, who decided he would make little tiny humans and put them in this huge universe. Little tiny humans that would do bad things that God didn't like. What a good idea!
This requires metaphysics. And almost nobody understands metaphysics, let alone physics ... least of all ... theologians ;-)
This mismatch comes about from applying Newtonian physics to a medieval concept, that is in another category altogether. Eternity/temporality are actually independent of time. Synonymous with immortal/mortal ... not like a clock at all.
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 08, 2017, 03:30:03 PM
I always think of the Millerites when I think theists have a chance to think critically or with reason. These are the Millerites:
"Millerites were disciples of William Miller. Miller, a farmer from New York, claimed to have discovered when Jesus Christ would return to Earth as stated in the Bible. Miller reached this belief in the 1820s but did not begin to share it with other people until the 1830s. By the early 1840s, approximately one million people had attended camp meetings and heard Miller's message. Perhaps ten percent of those people actually believed Miller.
Miller predicted that Christ's second coming would occur in April 1843 and that all worthy people would ascend to heaven on October 23, 1844. Thousands of people across the United States, including in Ohio, eagerly anticipated the event. Numerous people forsook their original religious beliefs and adopted Millerism, hoping that Jesus Christ would find no fault with them upon his return to Earth. Millerites consisted of all types of people. Many working-class people hoped that Christ's arrival would end their laborious lives. Other Americans believed that many people were sinners and that only the true believers, the Millerites, would escape punishment. God wanted the deserving to assist their unworthy neighbors through various reform movements, such as the temperance and abolition movements. Other people believed that citizens of the United States were God's chosen people and that Jesus Christ's arrival would prove this point.
As October 23, 1844 approached, some Millerites went so far as to sell their earthly possessions in preparation for the second coming of Christ. Many sources claim that the Millerites, dressed in white robes, climbed the highest mountains and hills that they could find so that they would be closer to heaven. Unfortunately for these people, they did not ascend to heaven on the appointed day. Miller claimed to have made an error and quickly issued a new date for the second coming, approximately six months later. Once again, this day came and went. In most cases, Miller's followers abandoned him. In 1845, some of Miller's followers joined the Adventist Church, which Miller helped establish. Adventists believe in the second coming of Christ, but they do not specify a day when this event will occur."
Even after two failed predictions, "In most cases" Miller lost his followers. Even in the face of two huge, personally seen, facts (no return), some still followed this guy. This level of stupid just cannot be erased.
There are still crypto-Jews in Turkey, the Donmeh, who are superficially Muslims, but are in fact followers of the false Messiah, Shabbatai Zvi, from 1666. They have been waiting longer than the Millerites ;-) The Christians were a similar movement, but have been waiting even longer ;-))
Quote from: Baruch on September 08, 2017, 07:06:36 PM
This requires metaphysics. And almost nobody understands metaphysics, let alone physics ... least of all ... theologians ;-)
This mismatch comes about from applying Newtonian physics to a medieval concept, that is in another category altogether. Eternity/temporality are actually independent of time. Synonymous with immortal/mortal ... not like a clock at all.
You would get along great with Mindy from The Animaniacs...
Brain: Come, Mindy. It's time for us to conquer the world!
Mindy: Why?
Brain: By right of superior intelligence, I am best suited to guide the destiny of this planet.
Mindy: Why?
Brain: My empirical powers give me the mandate.
Mindy: Why?
Brain: BECAUSE IT'S SOMETHING I WANT TO DO!!!
Quote from: Baruch on September 08, 2017, 07:08:31 PM
There are still crypto-Jews in Turkey, the Donmeh, who are superficially Muslims, but are in fact followers of the false Messiah, Shabbatai Zvi, from 1666. They have been waiting longer than the Millerites ;-) The Christians were a similar movement, but have been waiting even longer ;-))
For some reason the Millerites stick in my mind for use as the 'poster child' of this kind of stupid. It is not rare and does not happen in only christianity. The religious can see, experience and live thru all manner of stuff like this--and still believe. Amazing!--at least to me.
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 08, 2017, 10:18:12 AM
The four-letter Myers Briggs personality types that I assume you're refering to are not exactly scientifically sound. They oversimplify personalities, but many continue to use them anyway. I haven't seen any research to suggest any one type gravitates to atheism.
Nothing is scientifically sound, including Newtonianism. I don't have research either ... but the idea that atheism is inverse Teilhard DeChardin ... is laughable ... advancing to ultimate naturalism instead of supernaturalism. Progress is laughable, when the whole world is on the same development curve as the Soviet Union more or less. Human arrogance and hope ... push us to disaster after disaster ... until we kill ourselves or nature kills us in self defense.
So if all anthropology is based on psychology, and all of psychology is BS .. then we really have nothing worth knowing, because ultimately, to humans, only the human is worth knowing. Do you think there is more than one personality type? Then present better research by whomever, don't just shoot arrows in the dark. If there is only one personality type, isn't that just oversimplification? If there are 7 billion personality types, then all study of man is pointless ... every man is an island unique to himself, with nothing in common with any other human.
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 08, 2017, 08:12:46 PM
You would get along great with Mindy from The Animaniacs...
Brain: Come, Mindy. It's time for us to conquer the world!
Mindy: Why?
Brain: By right of superior intelligence, I am best suited to guide the destiny of this planet.
Mindy: Why?
Brain: My empirical powers give me the mandate.
Mindy: Why?
Brain: BECAUSE IT'S SOMETHING I WANT TO DO!!!
And you would get along well with Brain. So why do your plans fail, every F'ing episode?
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 08, 2017, 09:04:40 PM
For some reason the Millerites stick in my mind for use as the 'poster child' of this kind of stupid. It is not rare and does not happen in only christianity. The religious can see, experience and live thru all manner of stuff like this--and still believe. Amazing!--at least to me.
Walking is amazing to a snake ;-) Relatively speaking, the act of a demigod ;-))
Quote from: Baruch on September 08, 2017, 10:49:59 PM
Walking is amazing to a snake ;-) Relatively speaking, the act of a demigod ;-))
And snake handling by those mentally challenged christians is amazing to me----too.
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 08, 2017, 10:53:30 PM
And snake handling by those mentally challenged christians is amazing to me----too.
I wouldn't do it, but I understand the religious symbolism. Snake priestesses in Bronze Age Crete did something similar ... and they were women with a natural fear of snakes. Clearly the origin of the Eve story goes back to priestesses like that. Alexander's mom was a snake charmer to. And there are modern villages in India that not only worship cobras, but let their children play with them. Don't you want to taste the forbidden fruit, have knowledge of good and evil? I dare you ...
The reason most beliefs are discarded is when facts and data call into question the veracity of a claim. There isn't as yet a better explanation rooted in facts and data that accounts for our existence and the existence of the universe. The belief God created the universe and life is a belief just as the belief mindless mechanistic forces minus plan or intent caused the universe and life to exist is a belief.Quote from: Blackleaf on September 08, 2017, 12:38:12 PM
Either the universe came from nothing or the universe and a god came from nothing. One explanation requires a few more assumptions than the other.
You make my argument for me. You don't know the universe or God came into existence from nothing. Once again you substitute your belief (the universe came from nothing) as a fact and wonder why only the faithful believe. I grant you the simplest explanation for any phenomenon is it came into existence uncaused out of nothing. We call that magic don't you?
Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 08, 2017, 11:13:55 PMI grant you the simplest explanation for any phenomenon is it came into existence uncaused out of nothing. We call that magic don't you?
Isn't creation ex nihilo the theistic position? :headscratch: Why attribute your position to the other side and call it ridiculous?
That doesn't seem like a particularly smart move to me, since a sharp eye will spot that right away. I suppose you're banking on slow-witted people to not notice the ploy. I hope I didn't accidentally ruin that by drawing attention to it. My apologies. Forget I said anything.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 08, 2017, 11:13:55 PM
The reason most beliefs are discarded is when facts and data call into question the veracity of a claim. There isn't as yet a better explanation rooted in facts and data that accounts for our existence and the existence of the universe. The belief God created the universe and life is a belief just as the belief mindless mechanistic forces minus plan or intent caused the universe and life to exist is a belief.
You make my argument for me. You don't know the universe or God came into existence from nothing. Once again you substitute your belief (the universe came from nothing) as a fact and wonder why only the faithful believe. I grant you the simplest explanation for any phenomenon is it came into existence uncaused out of nothing. We call that magic don't you?
It is only magic if there is no visible actor in the scene. In conventional theology, G-d is invisible. A deus ex machina.
The argument from Ockam's Razor slits its own throat. Sometimes things are more complicated, not less. For materialists, there are no persons. Including themselves. Therefore materialists shouldn't exist ... contradiction by so called rationalists. It is possible for personalism to be real ... a personalist can claim that there are persons, and not self contradict. A personalist who claims that there are no persons, is simply not paying attention to the man in the mirror. Materialists are not actually impersonalist, because that is impossible, they are simply "a personalist that claims that there are no persons". Someone not worth paying attention to.
Conventional theology is quite in error, G-d is visible and and people are risible all the time .. but we keep our heads up our asses because of the view.
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 08, 2017, 11:21:01 PM
Isn't creation ex nihilo the theistic position? :headscratch: Why attribute your position to the other side and call it ridiculous?
That doesn't seem like a particularly smart move to me, since a sharp eye will spot that right away. I suppose you're banking on slow-witted people to not notice the ploy. I hope I didn't accidentally ruin that by drawing attention to it. My apologies. Forget I said anything.
A theistic position. And relatively recent in human history (early Medieval). The monarchial model of deity didn't want the Divine King to get his hands dirty. Better to pull a rabbit out of nothing, instead of out of a hat. Prior to that gods were scene to be reworking chaos into order. The older idea is more correct, the newer idea is the result of Greek intellectual masturbation. Order does come out of chaos, life out of non-life, consciousness out of unconsciousness. There are fundamental paradoxes .. which are dismissed with handwaving magic by epiphenomenalists.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 08, 2017, 11:13:55 PM
You make my argument for me. You don't know the universe or God came into existence from nothing. Once again you substitute your belief (the universe came from nothing) as a fact and wonder why only the faithful believe. I grant you the simplest explanation for any phenomenon is it came into existence uncaused out of nothing. We call that magic don't you?
It's called quantum mechanics, and it does seem pretty magical sometimes - but it's not magic.
Quote from: Unbeliever on September 08, 2017, 11:24:56 PM
It's called quantum mechanics, and it does seem pretty magical sometimes - but it's not magic.
Actual quantum mechanics ... there are virtual particles that appear and disappear quickly, so as to not violate Heisenberg. They don't come into permanent existence like electrons and protons. Quantum cosmology is simply science masturbation. Like I dare Drew to build a computer program whose execution is a virtual universe ... I dare you to create a Big Bang. Otherwise you have nothing to show for your idle speculations, either of you. Put up or shut up.
Quote from: Baruch on September 08, 2017, 10:45:23 PMSo if all anthropology is based on psychology, and all of psychology is BS .. then we really have nothing worth knowing, because ultimately, to humans, only the human is worth knowing.
How do you know that?
C'mon..people keep voting for republicans. What would lead anyone to believe that people are starting to actually think rationally?
No, it's just a matter of time before the next charismatic gazillionaire buys up all the air waves and convinces the masses that he or she became a gazillionaire because god declared it so and the public at large will eat it up. After all, many people believe that the current chief shit slinger at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue got rich and became a 'great' businessman because he's just smarter than everyone else and should have been able to lead us all into prosperity and make Umericka great again.. Lather, Rinse, Repeat until your scalp disintegrates to a plastic ball on your neck.
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 08, 2017, 11:21:01 PM
Isn't creation ex nihilo the theistic position? :headscratch: Why attribute your position to the other side and call it ridiculous?
I was responding to Blackleaf's post.
QuoteEither the universe came from nothing or the universe and a god came from nothing. One explanation requires a few more assumptions than the other.
Why did Blackleaf attribute my alleged position to his position? Ex nihilo isn't a theistic position...its a religious one based on the bible.
Quote
That doesn't seem like a particularly smart move to me, since a sharp eye will spot that right away. I suppose you're banking on slow-witted people to not notice the ploy. I hope I didn't accidentally ruin that by drawing attention to it. My apologies. Forget I said anything.
You're sharp as a marble Hydra...
Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 08, 2017, 11:13:55 PMYou make my argument for me. You don't know the universe or God came into existence from nothing. Once again you substitute your belief (the universe came from nothing) as a fact and wonder why only the faithful believe. I grant you the simplest explanation for any phenomenon is it came into existence uncaused out of nothing. We call that magic don't you?
You're trying to elevate your own unjustified claims by making them equal to atheist "belief." It's a common tactic, so natural to the theist apologist that I doubt you even are aware you're doing it.
The general atheist "belief" is "I don't know." I was merely pointing out the flaw in theist logic when they claim something can't come from nothing, therefor God. Theists then use special pleading to claim their god is exempt from the same rules as the universe. We know that the universe exists; we do not know that any gods exist. So trim off the extra fat.
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 09, 2017, 12:32:59 AM
How do you know that?
According to E O Wilson, humans are ants. If he had studied cows, he would research publish that humans are cows. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you are an unconscious, un-living chaos ... then modern materialism makes sense. But not otherwise.
So is the study of humans called Anthropology or not?
So is the nature of humans revealed in Human Psychology or not?
Yes, studying other animals, and other animal behavior is ... illuminative. But it isn't primary. Unless you are an ant or a cow.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 09, 2017, 01:26:32 PM
I was responding to Blackleaf's post.
(https://i.imgflip.com/yrwss.jpg)
QuoteWhy did Blackleaf attribute my alleged position to his position?
Do you actually know Blackleaf's position?
Seems to me that he just stated the occam's razor retort to the theistic/religious claim that an uncaused God caused the universe to exist.
In truth, you haven't the foggiest what Blackleaf's position is and likely never cared. You'd much rather bash what you consider the atheist position to be - the idea that everything came from nothing - apparently while blind that to the fact that what you're criticizing is actually a common religious position. It's the rhetorical equivalent of stabbing yourself in the foot and claiming that you savagely wounded the enemy.
QuoteEx nihilo isn't a theistic position...its a religious one based on the bible.
And how many people in my neck of woods do you estimate are religious but not theistic or vice versa? A trivial distinction, then.
QuoteYou're sharp as a marble Hydra...
Insults from you mean nothing, because everyone knows by now that your assessments are reliably a 180 from reality. Were I to be complemented by you, now that would give me pause.
Cause/effect BS? Cause/effect is pre-scientific. Therefore it is BS. Reality isn't an effect (but one can assume that), whatever the hell it is, it has no cause ... no matter your pull it out of my ass philosophy. Also the usual view is cause/effect is temporal (rather than logical necessity ... in the correlation isn't causation problem). Nobody understands time .. or space or for that matter/energy. I suspect there are a lot more dimensions to reality than reductionism allows. If time isn't linear ... we are only left with if-then logical necessities ... or sufficiencies as the case may be. Aka naked empirical correlations and/or logical necessities (except QM violates conventional De Morgan's law).
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 08, 2017, 06:23:27 PM
And since religions are largely built on unfalsifiable claims...
How would you go about falsifying your claim?
QuoteThat's a big part of it, though not in the way that you think. 'Science doesn't have all the answers, therefore faith. Better an answer than no answer at all!' What a sad motto to live by.
Science doesn't have all the answers therefore belief. In your case atheism in my case theism. Atheism is an answer it means without God. No God(s) necessary. You've stated it plenty of times. Is this your new position now that you don't know but have faith God doesn't exist?
QuoteSome people manage to live with not having all the answers.
Not you... you and many others consistently pretend its a fact there is no God or gods because you can't stand the idea of admitting atheism is simply a counter belief to theism. You pretend only knuckleheads believe in theism because the overwhelming preponderance of evidence (you fail to present) favors atheism.
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 09, 2017, 03:02:42 PM
(https://i.imgflip.com/yrwss.jpg)
Do you actually know Blackleaf's position?
Seems to me that he just stated the occam's razor retort to the theistic/religious claim that an uncaused God caused the universe to exist.
I responded to what he stated...do you think he lied?
QuoteIn truth, you haven't the foggiest what Blackleaf's position is and likely never cared. You'd much rather bash what you consider the atheist position to be - the idea that everything came from nothing - apparently while blind that to the fact that what you're criticizing is actually a common religious position. It's the rhetorical equivalent of stabbing yourself in the foot and claiming that you savagely wounded the enemy.
And how many people in my neck of woods do you estimate are religious but not theistic or vice versa? A trivial distinction, then.
If Blackleaf was being disingenuous or employing a straw-man that's his fault. I stated ex nihlo is a religious belief so how was I blind to it?
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 07, 2017, 11:10:30 PM
4444--if then. Do NOT underestimate the stupidity of the average theist--or American voter! It is just sooooooooo much easier to believe than to think or reason. And the sheeple simply provide too much money to the 'shepherds' for the fleecing to stop. Or the election of Drump has me so depressed about things like this that I am not thinking straight.
Yeah, if any time, not in our lifetime.
I wouldn't say it's because of stupidity, but because of the want and desire to believe in something greater. Life sucks and people develop all sorts of coping mechanisms. Religion is a go-to for most
As it stands now it's 1 that it will happen at some point and 9 that it won't. I believe it will, as atheism is in it's infancy, and the more globalized the world becomes the less it's possible to isolate and indoctrinate children before they hear about and experience opposing viewpoints.
Quote from: Coveny on September 10, 2017, 02:35:54 PM
As it stands now it's 1 that it will happen at some point and 9 that it won't. I believe it will, as atheism is in it's infancy, and the more globalized the world becomes the less it's possible to isolate and indoctrinate children before they hear about and experience opposing viewpoints.
Yeah, I used to say that, too. But after Bush took office and saw the inroads the religious fanatics made--and now they have a strangle hold on this country; I don't know. We are falling backward at a frantic pace.
My number's not up there. 2070 is too soon, and I don't think it will be 'never'. I think there are centuries to go yet, but I don't think it will be 'never'. I hold out hope that we grow up as a species. Eventually. Not within my (potential) lifetime.
Modern science is still in its infancy too, and will eventually replace the outmoded ways of thought of the past generations. It will take at least a century, I think, probably longer, but maybe even less, Who knows? God-belief might become as rare as flat-Earthers are today, but it'll persist in small pockets for a long time. But technology and social media may inhibit the maintenance of small pockets.
Not anytime soon, but not "never" either. Religion will eventually fade like flat-eartherism. We will advance in thinking.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 10, 2017, 11:09:58 PM
Not anytime soon, but not "never" either. Religion will eventually fade like flat-eartherism. We will advance in thinking.
Flat earthism may have faded, but it is still with us.
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 11, 2017, 12:10:08 AM
Flat earthism may have faded, but it is still with us.
I expected that (really), and no insult meant at all saying that. But if we could get theism down to the flat-earther level, that would be a great benefit to all humanity. Pretty much laughed at and little attention paid.
Quote from: Baruch on September 09, 2017, 02:50:54 PM
According to E O Wilson, humans are ants. If he had studied cows, he would research publish that humans are cows. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you are an unconscious, un-living chaos ... then modern materialism makes sense. But not otherwise.
So is the study of humans called Anthropology or not?
More specifically, I understand anthropology to be the study of human societies as they change over time.
Quote from: Baruch on September 09, 2017, 02:50:54 PMSo is the nature of humans revealed in Human Psychology or not?
"Nature" is too vague a word. Psychology is the study of human behavior, and attempts to draw conclusions about the mind and how it works. It sometimes works in tandem with other sciences, such as medicine when dealing with drugs that affect the mind and behavior patterns.
Quote from: Baruch on September 09, 2017, 02:50:54 PMYes, studying other animals, and other animal behavior is ... illuminative. But it isn't primary. Unless you are an ant or a cow.
How do you know that?
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 11, 2017, 01:18:09 AM
More specifically, I understand anthropology to be the study of human societies as they change over time.
"Nature" is too vague a word. Psychology is the study of human behavior, and attempts to draw conclusions about the mind and how it works. It sometimes works in tandem with other sciences, such as medicine when dealing with drugs that affect the mind and behavior patterns.
How do you know that?
1. Of course, but also how they change geographically and in non-physical dimensions. Not just time. That is history (when it isn't propaganda).
2. Nature means ... assume no gods (as in pagan gods, there weren't any monotheisms around then). In Greek ... Phusis ... which evolved into physics, and physician. But it is an assumption ... which is Drew't point. If he was on-point he would defend the Olympian gods against impious heretics like Thales etc.
3. How do I know I am not a cow or ant? Apparently you haven't looked in the mirror lately. Or are you a nihilist?
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 11, 2017, 01:18:09 AM
More specifically, I understand anthropology to be the study of human societies as they change over time.
"Nature" is too vague a word. Psychology is the study of human behavior, and attempts to draw conclusions about the mind and how it works. It sometimes works in tandem with other sciences, such as medicine when dealing with drugs that affect the mind and behavior patterns.
How do you know that?
It is possible that both ants and cows think they are the epitome of evolution.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 11, 2017, 12:22:43 AM
I expected that (really), and no insult meant at all saying that. But if we could get theism down to the flat-earther level, that would be a great benefit to all humanity. Pretty much laughed at and little attention paid.
True.
Quote from: Coveny on September 10, 2017, 02:35:54 PM
As it stands now it's 1 that it will happen at some point and 9 that it won't. I believe it will, as atheism is in it's infancy, and the more globalized the world becomes the less it's possible to isolate and indoctrinate children before they hear about and experience opposing viewpoints.
In order to understand that it wont, you must understand human psychology. A very basic understanding will tell you that things like trauma, stress, and hardship, will harbor a need for believing in something "greater" and since something as common as a loved one dying can fling people in to despair, remorse, and depression is something that will never go away... the belief in afterlife and all the fringe beliefs that come with it, will also never go away.
Some people do not have the strength to not reject reality when it stomps on their heart, throws sand in their eyes, and spits in their face. If you think about it, it can be seen as an evolutionary survival mechanism
Quote from: PickelledEggs on September 11, 2017, 05:02:14 PM
In order to understand that it wont, you must understand human psychology. A very basic understanding will tell you that things like trauma, stress, and hardship, will harbor a need for believing in something "greater" and since something as common as a loved one dying can fling people in to despair, remorse, and depression is something that will never go away... the belief in afterlife and all the fringe beliefs that come with it, will also never go away.
Some people do not have the strength to not reject reality when it stomps on their heart, throws sand in their eyes, and spits in their face. If you think about it, it can be seen as an evolutionary survival mechanism
Yet flat earthers ARE considered idiots now and they weren't 400 years ago. It will happen to theism some day...
It will be when the people who orders the world want...
Religions are useful tools to them...
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 08, 2017, 10:18:12 AM
The four-letter Myers Briggs personality types that I assume you're refering to are not exactly scientifically sound. They oversimplify personalities, but many continue to use them anyway. I haven't seen any research to suggest any one type gravitates to atheism.
My parents were not atheists.
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on September 11, 2017, 05:10:49 PM
It will be when the people who orders the world want...
Religions are useful tools to them...
I wish I could disagree with THAT statement. :(
Quote from: Cavebear on September 11, 2017, 05:08:15 PM
Yet flat earthers ARE considered idiots now and they weren't 400 years ago. It will happen to theism some day...
That's basically my impression. Just compare religious norms throughout recent history and it's obvious that a lot of things have changed. Stuff like witches and magic are taken much less seriously now. Fundies still exist of course, but they're less and less mainstream. Meanwhile, atheism has gone from being a criminal charge to a small group of people to a mainstream public opinion, at least in the West.
There's every reason to believe that in time, theism may die out, much the same way that belief in faeries and ghosts have largely died out. While it is true that people will still seek meaning and jump to irrational explanations for the unknown, religion may no longer have as tight a grip on that market as it once did.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 11, 2017, 05:14:10 PM
My parents were not atheists.
Personality types aren't directly inheritable either, though children either conform to their parents or invert them. People are more complicated than Mendel's peas. I was adopted, and my social ability to conform makes me a cross between my adoptive parents, not my natural ones. Blackleaf wants to claim that one can't characterize personality (happy, sad etc) .. because it isn't quantitative, like surveying ... personality tests being so much less objective. But he doesn't claim to have anything better.
Quote from: Coveny on September 11, 2017, 10:49:37 PM
I wish I could disagree with THAT statement. :(
As a slave, you will do as your masters command. All us slaves do ;-)
Quote from: Cavebear on September 11, 2017, 02:08:36 AM
It is possible that both ants and cows think they are the epitome of evolution.
You are quoting the famous monotheist ... Xenophanes, who was a monotheist 600 years before Jesus. If cows could draw, they would show that they believe in cow-morphism. And if I were a cow, so would I. But I am not. All of my gods are monkeys, like Hanuman.
do your gods throw poo? Do you throw yours back?
atheists can take over after we get the Christians and the Muslims fighting with each other and stack the deck. If that doesn't work we will just have to rely on the TV to reveal how phony individual groups are: like Joel Osteen, Benny Hinn, TBN. There are already a lot of Americans that say they are Christian if you ask them, but you never catch them praying and they only show up in church on special occassions. The fact that god is AWOL isn't lost on them.
I do my best defecating here, every day ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on September 12, 2017, 12:06:42 AM
As a slave, you will do as your masters command. All us slaves do ;-)
**Going off topic sorry**
Anyone who believes they are free just try doing something with no money. I learned my lesson when the housing bubble burst and financially had the worst time of my life. We are slaves to the money/job until be gain our financial freedom, and the ruling elite want us to spend time worrying about the "others" rather than worrying about the people who cause the problems. Because let me assure you blacks, women, LGBT, mexicans, muslims, or whatever this weeks escape goat is, wasn't the ones who have gotten richer and richer while we fight each other over what is left...
Quote from: Baruch on September 12, 2017, 12:04:47 AM
Personality types aren't directly inheritable either, though children either conform to their parents or invert them. People are more complicated than Mendel's peas. I was adopted, and my social ability to conform makes me a cross between my adoptive parents, not my natural ones. Blackleaf wants to claim that one can't characterize personality (happy, sad etc) .. because it isn't quantitative, like surveying ... personality tests being so much less objective. But he doesn't claim to have anything better.
Happy and sad are not personalities; they are emotions.
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 12, 2017, 08:47:10 AM
No shit!
I see what you did there, and found it humorous...
Quote from: Coveny on September 12, 2017, 08:35:59 AM
**Going off topic sorry**
Anyone who believes they are free just try doing something with no money. I learned my lesson when the housing bubble burst and financially had the worst time of my life. We are slaves to the money/job until be gain our financial freedom, and the ruling elite want us to spend time worrying about the "others" rather than worrying about the people who cause the problems. Because let me assure you blacks, women, LGBT, mexicans, muslims, or whatever this weeks escape goat is, wasn't the ones who have gotten richer and richer while we fight each other over what is left...
Inflation is outrunning the minimum wage and Republicans see no problem with this. A few decades ago, you could work a minimum wage job, pay for college, and pay for food and rent. When you adjust for inflation, the minimum wage in 1968 was about $11.39. There is absolutely no evidence that raising the minimum wage causes inflation. All it does is force greedy companies to pay their workers a wage they can live off of.
My official position henceforth is that I don't care.
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 12, 2017, 10:42:06 AM
Happy and sad are not personalities; they are emotions.
Optimist vs Pessimist? Or are you just happy or sad ;-) I suspect your Emotion Quotient needs boosting.
Quote from: Coveny on September 12, 2017, 08:35:59 AM
**Going off topic sorry**
Anyone who believes they are free just try doing something with no money. I learned my lesson when the housing bubble burst and financially had the worst time of my life. We are slaves to the money/job until be gain our financial freedom, and the ruling elite want us to spend time worrying about the "others" rather than worrying about the people who cause the problems. Because let me assure you blacks, women, LGBT, mexicans, muslims, or whatever this weeks escape goat is, wasn't the ones who have gotten richer and richer while we fight each other over what is left...
Sorry you had to find that out the hard way. The modern world is simply the Medieval world of ... royalty, nobility, clergy, military, guild craftsmen and peasants (levels I thru VI)... with better technology. One of the best con jobs of all time, after the Bible ;-)
Put yourself in the place of the royalty and the nobility ... they are just trying obsessive/compulsive grow their estate beyond all reason, and avoid Paris, 1788. Because that leads to Paris, 1792. If I had inherited wealth, didn't have to work for a living, but felt that the working folks owed my their obedience in return for my philanthropy (known as patronage in old Rome) ... I don't know what I would do ... probably be an ass like the way I think those folks are. Fortunately I was saved by having to work for a living (at level III, IV and V). Never been a farmer, ... or upper class, missed it by this ... much. My great grandparents were farmers though.
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 12, 2017, 08:47:10 AM
No shit!
But I don't eat shit, I let the dogs do what they like to do.
Quote from: Baruch on September 12, 2017, 12:58:32 PM
Optimist vs Pessimist? Or are you just happy or sad ;-) I suspect your Emotion Quotient needs boosting.
You didn't say anything about optimism or pessimism. You said happy and sad. Both pessimists and optimists can be happy or sad, depending on the circumstances and their current mood. Optimism and pessimism are about expectations for the future, and are probably learned behaviors. Pessimism in particular might be a form of learned helplessness. People also seem to have different thresholds for what they can tolerate, so two people in similar situations may have completely different reactions to stress. While one may break, the other might be perfectly fine. This isn't optimism vs pessimism either, because some pessimists may actually have a numbness that allows them to better cope with stress.
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on September 11, 2017, 05:10:49 PM
It will be when the people who orders the world want...
Religions are useful tools to them...
I disagree that it will go away simply because the people in charge want it to be there. The "people in charge" know that humans more times than not "need" religion or feel a desire to believe in something greater for comfort or whatever reason. This is deeper than "the people in charge want it so"
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 12, 2017, 02:04:43 PM
You didn't say anything about optimism or pessimism. You said happy and sad. Both pessimists and optimists can be happy or sad, depending on the circumstances and their current mood. Optimism and pessimism are about expectations for the future, and are probably learned behaviors. Pessimism in particular might be a form of learned helplessness. People also seem to have different thresholds for what they can tolerate, so two people in similar situations may have completely different reactions to stress. While one may break, the other might be perfectly fine. This isn't optimism vs pessimism either, because some pessimists may actually have a numbness that allows them to better cope with stress.
Usually emotions are considered a part of psychology too, not just LARPing as Spock.
Quote from: Baruch on September 12, 2017, 07:09:08 PM
Usually emotions are considered a part of psychology too, not just LARPing as Spock.
Yes, emotions are a part of psychology. But emotions are separate from personality, which was the topic. If someone asked you to describe your personality, would you tell them, "I just learned that my brother died, so I'm sad?" If so, don't be surprised if they back away slowly and suddenly remember a thing they have to do.
A mere twenty years ago I would have said in 30 years atheism would comprise 30% of the pop. But, alas, science and education, although the front runners in the atheist movement cannot compete equally with fear. After 9-11 religion took a boost as patriotism wrapped itself in the babble and vice versa, and now after we had the audacity to elect a black person, racism wrapped in patriotism, standing on the babble has boosted the ignorant to record numbers.
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 11, 2017, 11:27:40 PM
That's basically my impression. Just compare religious norms throughout recent history and it's obvious that a lot of things have changed. Stuff like witches and magic are taken much less seriously now. Fundies still exist of course, but they're less and less mainstream. Meanwhile, atheism has gone from being a criminal charge to a small group of people to a mainstream public opinion, at least in the West.
There's every reason to believe that in time, theism may die out, much the same way that belief in faeries and ghosts have largely died out. While it is true that people will still seek meaning and jump to irrational explanations for the unknown, religion may no longer have as tight a grip on that market as it once did.
That sure agrees with MY thoughts. Superstitions die slowly as science explains the things religion is based on. Like defining a circle with smaller external and enlarging internal polygons, religion is slowly being smothered by fact.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson - "If that's how you want to invoke your evidence for god, then god is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HooeZrC76s0
Quote from: Coveny on September 14, 2017, 07:50:39 AM
Neil DeGrasse Tyson - "If that's how you want to invoke your evidence for god, then god is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HooeZrC76s0
Love him. The first time I ever heard him speak, I said, He's the new "Carl Sagan". And that was before the Cosmos remake. Great Neil, terrible graphics, BTW...
Yes, apparently good graphics were too expensive for DeGrasse's project. Also they were chosen to dumb down to the perceived audience, assumed to be less intelligent than in the 70s.
Dr Tyson happens to be wrong outside of his domain of expertise ... but I don't hold that against him. I match your Tyson and raise you a Morgan Freeman. Don't temp me to bring out my MLK card!
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 08, 2017, 10:18:12 AM
The four-letter Myers Briggs personality types that I assume you're refering to are not exactly scientifically sound. They oversimplify personalities, but many continue to use them anyway. I haven't seen any research to suggest any one type gravitates to atheism.
If I recall correctly, I was an IJTM (ISTJ?) or the one that was relentlessly logical (and not to make a joke of it Spocklke). I was as a child and am as an adult.
The opposites of me on the chart were ALWAYS very religious. I think there is a connection.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 14, 2017, 01:25:54 PM
If I recall correctly, I was an IJTM (ISTJ?) or the one that was relentlessly logical (and not to make a joke of it Spocklke). I was as a child and am as an adult.
The opposites of me on the chart were ALWAYS very religious. I think there is a connection.
I agree. With Blackleaf, the perfect drives out the practical. I seem to be mostly the same now as in the past, but I shifted one out of 4 letters, maybe. Less logical, more intuitive.
Myers Briggs personality types are not scientific, accurate, or any more useful than a horoscope...
Try the big five - http://www.outofservice.com/bigfive/
Or this less accepted Hexaco - http://hexaco.org/hexaco-online
Quote from: Coveny on September 14, 2017, 02:03:25 PM
Myers Briggs personality types are not scientific, accurate, or any more useful than a horoscope...
Try the big five - http://www.outofservice.com/bigfive/
Or this less accepted Hexaco - http://hexaco.org/hexaco-online
I found the Myers Briggs to be pretty accurate among my coworkers. The ones I agreed with daily were the same types as me. The ones I least agreed with there the opposites in all letters.
Quote from: Coveny on September 14, 2017, 07:50:39 AM
Neil DeGrasse Tyson - "If that's how you want to invoke your evidence for god, then god is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HooeZrC76s0
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/a6/a63358a7da13c58edc9006897529cefee925362af050ae545fed3126f7abeb98.jpg)
Science is in the process of killing the whole idea of God. How many gaps have to be filled before the God delusion finally peters out for lack of hiding places for an invisible fiction?
Quote from: Unbeliever on September 14, 2017, 03:28:24 PM
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/a6/a63358a7da13c58edc9006897529cefee925362af050ae545fed3126f7abeb98.jpg)
Science is in the process of killing the whole idea of God. How many gaps have to be filled before the God delusion finally peters out for lack of hiding places for an invisible fiction?
There will always be a "last gap" but that isn't important. The important thing is that we are finding the edges to the puzzle and that helps us figure out the rest.
Quote from: Unbeliever on September 14, 2017, 03:28:24 PM
Science is in the process of killing the whole idea of God. How many gaps have to be filled before the God delusion finally peters out for lack of hiding places for an invisible fiction?
Considering how much mileage some theists make out of first cause of creation thing, it seems like that one gap is all that is needed to demand a god. Think Drew; "Existence, therefore God."
That final gap will eventually be closed up, but I bet they'll find some other "mystery" to harp on.
Quote from: Unbeliever on September 14, 2017, 03:28:24 PM
Science is in the process of killing the whole idea of God. How many gaps have to be filled before the God delusion finally peters out for lack of hiding places for an invisible fiction?
No, science, unfortunately, is the process of killing the whole idea of humanity, to satisfy smug autistic geniuses. Think of Caligula, only smarter. Musk and Zuckerberg come to mind.
Quote from: Baruch on September 14, 2017, 07:47:17 PM
No, science, unfortunately, is the process of killing the whole idea of humanity, to satisfy smug autistic geniuses. Think of Caligula, only smarter. Musk and Zuckerberg come to mind.
I doubt you'll believe that next time you need a doctor.
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 14, 2017, 07:55:25 PM
I doubt you'll believe that next time you need a doctor.
Musk and Zuckerberg aren't doctors. My doctor is doing her best to kill me (see stats on how many people doctors kill). It was a saying in ancient times, that doctors bury their mistakes. My dental hygienist is a sadist though ... has arms like a linebacker!
The medical community isn't there to cure you, they are there to sell the drugs that are pushed on them by drug salesmen. Legal form of drug pushing. The usual situation is ... the cure is as bad as the disease (but not usually worse). Think of the first treatment for syphilis. Mercury salts. If the syphilis didn't kill you first, the medicine would ... but usually the medicine killed you slower. Death is man's fate ... stop trying to live forever. Who do you think you are, Elon Musk?
Quote from: Baruch on September 14, 2017, 08:15:45 PM
Musk and Zuckerberg aren't doctors. My doctor is doing her best to kill me (see stats on how many people doctors kill). It was a saying in ancient times, that doctors bury their mistakes. My dental hygienist is a sadist though ... has arms like a linebacker!
The medical community isn't there to cure you, they are there to sell the drugs that are pushed on them by drug salesmen. Legal form of drug pushing. The usual situation is ... the cure is as bad as the disease (but not usually worse). Think of the first treatment for syphilis. Mercury salts. If the syphilis didn't kill you first, the medicine would ... but usually the medicine killed you slower. Death is man's fate ... stop trying to live forever. Who do you think you are, Elon Musk?
Do tell how many people doctors kill than save. I would love to see the numbers. But you won't provide the numbers because they save a lot more than are killed through error.
And I mean currently, not some time in the past where they knew less.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 19, 2017, 06:06:08 AM
Do tell how many people doctors kill than save. I would love to see the numbers.
Martin Makary from the Johns Hopkins university school of medicine research found it was the third leading cause of death in the U.S.
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2139
I'm not sure how you could find a list of people "saved". It's similar to trying to find a list of mass murders stopped because someone was carrying. It's very difficult to both decide there would have been death, and that it was saved objectively and with a consensus.
Quote from: Coveny on September 19, 2017, 09:56:15 AM
Martin Makary from the Johns Hopkins university school of medicine research found it was the third leading cause of death in the U.S.
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2139
I'm not sure how you could find a list of people "saved". It's similar to trying to find a list of mass murders stopped because someone was carrying. It's very difficult to both decide there would have been death, and that it was saved objectively and with a consensus.
So you are suggesting we should shut down all the hospitals? As that is ridiculous, so are the lethality claims. They measure specific problems not applicble to the whole situation.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 19, 2017, 10:02:13 AM
So you are suggesting we should shut down all the hospitals? As that is ridiculous, so are the lethality claims. They measure specific problems not applicble to the whole situation.
You asked for numbers, so I gave the ones I had. There was no suggestion on my part that we shut down hospitals, but on the "whole situation" aspect I will say we are not getting the health care we are paying for in the U.S.
If I would the dictator and could change things in the medical field it would be a massive change as I see problems with universal health care, our current system, and health care in every other country. But that's a completely different topic. :)
I've been diagnosed and misdiagnosed, with a nod in favor of correctly diagnosed, three times avoiding death in critical situations. I'm perhaps more prone to get the correct medial care in life threatening situations, and not a mirror of any statistical average. Yeah, I know, it's an anecdote. But perhaps I'm biased.
Quote from: Coveny on September 19, 2017, 10:16:22 AM
You asked for numbers, so I gave the ones I had. There was no suggestion on my part that we shut down hospitals, but on the "whole situation" aspect I will say we are not getting the health care we are paying for in the U.S.
If I would the dictator and could change things in the medical field it would be a massive change as I see problems with universal health care, our current system, and health care in every other country. But that's a completely different topic. :)
OK, granting that you would like to make changes in hospitals, so would I. Start a thread. Forums flow sometimes with interesting posts. I would like to hear more.
I have a vacation coming up but I'll post something about what I see as the best medical system, and why I've chosen the various things I've chosen when I get back. (around Oct 6th) Sorry about the delay, but I don't want to post something and then be silent for over a week while I'm out of the country and may not have internet access.
Quote from: Coveny on September 19, 2017, 02:34:32 PM
I have a vacation coming up but I'll post something about what I see as the best medical system, and why I've chosen the various things I've chosen when I get back. (around Oct 6th) Sorry about the delay, but I don't want to post something and then be silent for over a week while I'm out of the country and may not have internet access.
So... Canada, right?
Nope. I see several flaws in universal health care as it's in use today.
Quote from: Coveny on September 19, 2017, 02:54:00 PMNope. I see several flaws in universal health care as it's in use today.
But does it top this?
(http://www.getreferralmd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Misleading-Doctor12.jpg)
If people were really honest with themselves we'd already be there.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 19, 2017, 10:02:13 AM
So you are suggesting we should shut down all the hospitals? As that is ridiculous, so are the lethality claims. They measure specific problems not applicble to the whole situation.
That is the problem with statistics. Totals don't reflect individual incidents. Averages don't apply to anyone in particular. But yes, nosocomial infection is real, and it is easier to get that at hospitals, and for children to get it at school. Human beings are filthy animals, and being around sick seniors or sick children, is germ warfare. But at the doctor's office you aren't in any particular danger, until she does a prostate exam on you (cough).
Quote from: Baruch on September 19, 2017, 09:59:17 PM
That is the problem with statistics. Totals don't reflect individual incidents. Averages don't apply to anyone in particular. But yes, nosocomial infection is real, and it is easier to get that at hospitals, and for children to get it at school. Human beings are filthy animals, and being around sick seniors or sick children, is germ warfare. But at the doctor's office you aren't in any particular danger, until she does a prostate exam on you (cough).
I had the misfortune to have a female doctor for my last physical exam (at the place you don't choose). She was fine overall, no problems. But at the point where she did (as she expressed in rather disgusted terms) "the male part" where a doctor normally pushes a testicle up into you and says "cough", she couldn't do it right. No apparent knowledge of "the parts".
I could tell she wasn't doing it right, and worse, being a woman doctor, she was required to have an observer. A young female receptionist. A difficult intersection of culture and inexperience all around. I even volunteered to help, but...
Speaking of prostate exam, I learned the best way for it to be done from a Public Health Service doctor at work. You lie on your side on the table, knees drawn up. No pressure.
Hope that wasn't TMI. LOL!
Quote from: Cavebear on September 23, 2017, 05:31:23 AM
I had the misfortune to have a female doctor for my last physical exam (at the place you don't choose). She was fine overall, no problems. But at the point where she did (as she expressed in rather disgusted terms) "the male part" where a doctor normally pushes a testicle up into you and says "cough", she couldn't do it right. No apparent knowledge of "the parts".
I could tell she wasn't doing it right, and worse, being a woman doctor, she was required to have an observer. A young female receptionist. A difficult intersection of culture and inexperience all around. I even volunteered to help, but...
Speaking of prostate exam, I learned the best way for it to be done from a Public Health Service doctor at work. You lie on your side on the table, knees drawn up. No pressure.
Hope that wasn't TMI. LOL!
I had a similar experience, with a young woman doctor (and her female observer). I had retained urine in case I needed to provide a specimen ... unfortunately the pressure of the test was too great, and the wait here until the doctor is done with you was too long, and I messed myself and their floor before I could get to the lavatory. It wasn't an auspicious first visit, but it got better.
Quote from: Baruch on September 23, 2017, 03:24:15 PM
I had a similar experience, with a young woman doctor (and her female observer). I had retained urine in case I needed to provide a specimen ... unfortunately the pressure of the test was too great, and the wait here until the doctor is done with you was too long, and I messed myself and their floor before I could get to the lavatory. It wasn't an auspicious first visit, but it got better.
My profound sympathy! My problem was that I unthinkingly "went" before the visit, so I had to drink some water and sit around for a while to deliver a sample.
The good thing is that they are probably used to dealing with bodily fluid problems. You were probably more upset than they were. I'll suggest that it wasn't their first time...