Don't Ever Think That Atheism/Rationalism Can't Be Surpassed

[Tero]

It's real:
http://quizilla.teennick.com/stories/9346778/athyism

[fishie]

So if atheism is surpassed, and becomes unnecessary, will there be pancakes?
With banana.
And rum and caramel sauce.
And vanilla ice cream?

[Sean Hayden]

We must hope that this is the case, else why bother?

[Blind groper]

Atheism is the rejection of the most common superstition. Some reject it in a hostile way. Others with equanimity. Big deal!

[MrJonno]

Unless people become immortal religion will always be around, people believe in god because they can't cope with dying (which is pretty understandable).
It's not coincidence that the vast majority of religions which have a god have humans living for ever (there doesnt have to be a link between the two and in fact in the UK more people believe in an afterlife than in god)

[laklak]

I've never understood the "afterlife with no god" position, though that's basically Mrs. Lak's philosophy. If you're going to buy into one completely unsupported mythology then why not another? If there's an Unseen Spirit World full of dead people it's just a hop, skip and jump to Pearly Gates and devils with pitchforks.

[MrJonno]

I've never understood the "afterlife with no god" position, though that's basically Mrs. Lak's philosophy. If you're going to buy into one completely unsupported mythology then why not another? If there's an Unseen Spirit World full of dead people it's just a hop, skip and jump to Pearly Gates and devils with pitchforks.

The abrahamic god is just so vile, if you wanted to live in paradise you wouldnt want him around to lord it over you all. I don't think you need god for an afterlife just lots of woo, consciousness is quantum energy etc

[hackenslash]

So it's no wonder that James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis – that the biosphere acts like a living organism, one that self-regulates to keep conditions just right for life – became so popular.

Perhaps learning what Lovelock actually said, as opposed to the fatuous caricature of it so beloved of the terminally credulous, would serve you better. Lovelock didn't say that the biosphere acts like a living organism, what he actually said is that there is value in viewing the planet as a single organism, and he was correct.

[cronus]

So it's no wonder that James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis – that the biosphere acts like a living organism, one that self-regulates to keep conditions just right for life – became so popular.

Perhaps learning what Lovelock actually said, as opposed to the fatuous caricature of it so beloved of the terminally credulous, would serve you better. Lovelock didn't say that the biosphere acts like a living organism, what he actually said is that there is value in viewing the planet as a single organism, and he was correct.

It's all gonna fall apart pushed beyond certain limits.

[hackenslash]

You mean the limits beyond what he actually fucking said?

[cronus]

You mean the limits beyond what he actually fucking said?

Complicated things get ever more fragile beyond certain limits. You can drop a hard drive and it'll be knackered, you won't realize until you turn it on. Global economy is more fragile than nature. I actually did a degree in Combined Mechanical and Computer Systems Engineering a long, long time ago in a universe far, far away.

[hackenslash]

Which is fine, except that what Lovelock said wasn't remotely complicated.

[cronus]

Which is fine, except that what Lovelock said wasn't remotely complicated.

Who cares. Gaia was a dead on the slab idea when first muted and is merely curling its toes a bit more now.

[JimC]

So it's no wonder that James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis – that the biosphere acts like a living organism, one that self-regulates to keep conditions just right for life – became so popular.

Perhaps learning what Lovelock actually said, as opposed to the fatuous caricature of it so beloved of the terminally credulous, would serve you better. Lovelock didn't say that the biosphere acts like a living organism, what he actually said is that there is value in viewing the planet as a single organism, and he was correct.

A recent NewScientist article had various geologists and climate scientists basically saying that the evidence is mounting that his hypothesis is simply incorrect.

[Brian Peacock]

What, that there is no value in seeing the biosphere as a single entity?