Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

There are 14730 comments on the News24 story from Aug 27, 2012, titled Why Atheism Will Replace Religion. In it, News24 reports that:

Please note that for this article "Atheism" also includes agnostics, deists, pagans, wiccans... in other words non-religious.

You will notice this is a statement of fact. And to be fact it is supported by evidence (see references below). Now you can have "faith" that this is not true, but by the very definition of faith, that is just wishful thinking.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at News24.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#376 Dec 3, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know enough about abiogenesis to offer any interesting comments on it, sorry.
You didn't present a framework theory for all biological phenomena. Framework theories have to be explanatory and predictive, able to generate testable, disprovable hypotheses.
Your creationism is not explanatory, nor predictive and it cannot be tested.
You don't even seem to be able to explain why there are apparent lineages in species - why can we classify them into genera, families, orders, etc?
You can make any claims about you wish about creation but until you actually know something about it. Study creation without the leaning towards evolution and you may just become enlightened.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#377 Dec 3, 2012
Colin The Zionist wrote:
WOW this is getting tedious I’m off for a coffee………………Hmmmmmm coffee what a joy, just think about it, a coffee bean……created by God…….roasted to perfection…….. ground and watered and enjoyed by man……………WOW creation is wonderful.
Questions 1 – 9, answer Creation.
That's a non-answer. You're claiming that species just happen to be genetically related to other species for no particular reason.
10 – It didn’t not 12000 years ago but much sooner than that.
11 – again it did not 12000 years ago but much sooner than that
False on both counts. It was 12000 years ago.
Asians don’t drink much milk adaption my dear.
What is the mechanism of this "adaptation" you incorrectly refer to?
12 – Come on surely even you know about melanin in the skin.
How did it get there and why does it work? Why are there different skin pigmentations? Just because "God" likes variety?
13 – Fever, wow you must be lacking sleep if you don’t know that; fever is the bodies reaction to a invasive microbe or a reaction to a physical damage to the body, the best cure for fever is to not get one by keeping the bodies immune system healthy. to keep the patient comfortable but to let it run its course.
Yes - fever is an adaptation. Having a fever, in most cases, is adaptive. It slows down the pathogen while providing optimal temperatures for the the immune system.
14 – Ditto
15 - Ditto
False in these cases. Malaria is evolved to take advantage of our adaptive mechanisms. So it produces fever purposefully. That helps it spread.
Your explanation and presumption that I could not explain has been smashed by creation. And I thought we were in for some serious discussion.
hahaha!

Your entire answer is "creation." It's not explanatory except for "It is God's will." That doesn't provide any kind of predictions and doesn't explain what we see.

Why are Pan and Homo more closely related to each other than either is to Gorilla?

It is God's will.

Why are bats more related to horses than to birds?

It is God's will.

Why do some populations show strange genetic anomalies?

It is God's will.

Why does malaria cause fever?

It is God's will.

Why do humans dump iron when infected by malaria?

It is God's will.

Let's make some testable, disprovable hypotheses from your creationism! How? How do we do that???

Take the malaria example. People with it are iron deficient. Your answer "It is God's will." How do you test that? We can't. Does it lead to any predictions? No. Does it tell us anything about the disease? No.

So, with that for a framework theory, we barrel ahead and give them iron supplements. They all die. We race back to our theoretical framework and come up with "It is God's will." Oh. So...we didn't discover anything and we don't know why they're dying from iron supplements.

That's a terrible framework theory and I'm glad that science disposed of it 160 years ago.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#378 Dec 3, 2012
Colin The Zionist wrote:
My turn:(I’ll number them so you don’t get lost along the way)
I'm an evolutionary anthropologist. So I can't answer most of these questions.
1 Explain the evolution of the human eye.
The human eye does not differ much from the great ape eye. In what sense is this a human evolution problem?

Do you mean eyes in general? Or primate eyes in specific?
2 Explain the planetary evolution
That's astronomy, I'm afraid. You'd be better off asking Polymath. Uhm...stars explode, material eventually cools down and forms an accretion disk that collapses into itself b/c of gravity - voila, planet. That's the limit of my knowledge here.
3 Explain the evolution of the bacterial flagellum
I already told you that's out of my specialty. I could find you the papers, but that would require an inordinate amount of my time.
4 Explain where melanin in the skin comes from
This, this I can do. There are two clines going on here, each producing different selection pressures based on 1) the destruction of follate and 2) the production of vitamin D.

Melanin is a heavy molecule that blocks UV radiation. Near the equator, bodies receive more UV radiation. When it hits your skin, it penetrates into your blood and destroys Vitamin B (follate). That causes all kinds of problems, from reproduction to cellular regeneration. Melanin is protective; it acts to keep your follate reserves from being destroyed.

But as you move away from the equator, there's less and less UV radiation. Humans synthesize vitamin D from UV radiation. Near the equator, you don't need a lot of exposure to get your daily Vit D. But away from the equator, the presence of melanin interferes with Vit D synthesis, so there is selection pressure to remove that. Concurrently, the UV radiation is dropping out so the damage done to follate decreases.

Here's the paper on that: http://faculty.washington.edu/charles/562_f20...
5 Explain why the world is in decay
It's not. What a strange thing to believe.
6 Explain why there is an extremely similar fold story in most cultures even extremely divers cultures.
What is a "fold" story? I'm an anthropologist and I've never heard of this "extremely similar fold story" across cultures. In fact, I'd say that religious diversity is the norm, not religious similarity.
7 Demonstrate how live evolved from non-living organic matter.
I don't do abiogenesis work. All I can say here is that all of our scientific theories work without deities. Not a single one includes a supernatural entity. Based on that we should predict that abiogenesis doesn't require one either.
8 Explain how the chilly evolved it taste
I'm not a botanist. I would guess to fight insects while also being attractive to seed disperses.
9 Explain the evolutions of colours
Huh? Colors didn't evolve. They just exist as part of the EM spectrum.
10 Explain the evolution of gills to lungs
There 10, you asked 15 easily answered, now it’s your turn.
I'm not a zoologist, so I don't know this one very well. Little by little, over time.

The thing about evolution is that we have a framework theory. We can derive predictions from our theory and test them. You cannot do this with your theory.

So we can take your last one - how did lungs evolve - and check into the fossil record, look at all manner of gills and lungs, look at the developmental stages of fish, amphibians, and reptiles and compare them. We could also do genetics studies on various animals and see where the changes lie.

Whereas your answer will always only be "God." It's not predictive, it's not explanatory, it doesn't generate new knowledge. In science, it's a waste of time at best and damaging at worst.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#379 Dec 3, 2012
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Good, I have a challenge for you, here goes, should be easy judging by your posts. You challenge if you are brave enough to accept it is to write and publish a paper claiming and then 100% proving evolution as 100% fact. Don't forget to put your name to it.
There that should be easy.
In science, evolution is regarded as 100% fact. No one would publish my paper saying "hey! evolution is fact!"

There are no competing scientific theories that seek to replace evolution as the framework theory for all biological sciences.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#380 Dec 3, 2012
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
Only computer logic is limited to binary analysis, and I suspect that you "knowledge" of logic arises from a study of systems analysis within that context. Classical logic is more complex and is not always well expressed with flowcharts even using Boolean alternatives. as to evolutionary theory, my own knowledge is scant, but is still sufficient to spot the many flaws in your assertions. I leave it to those with more expertise to point them out, though, because their posts will be much more informative than mine. Nor do I have the time to address or correct every absurdity that I encounter--I do have more productive activities that take up the bulk of my time.
The reason that I keep bringing up Bossdrop (who is beginning to reemerge after a lengthy period of inactivity) is that you are following the same patterns that he did in the long-running "Atheism requires as much faith as religion?" thread. You'll forgive us if many here are reluctant to repeat the tedious process of refuting his many fallacies and absurdities. Frankly, the regulars in the atheism forum already seen--and refuted--every argument you've put forth so far many times, which is why the questions you think are so crucial are boring to us and why few are bothering to answer them. It's also why I called you a bore--within this context, you are exactly that.
I only peek into the above-mentioned thread occasionally. It has amassed a staggering 6,850 pages and 136,996 posts, not including the 5,254 that have been deleted due to Terms of Service violations. The conversations with Bossdrop take up almost a quarter of that, and I doubt that anything you put forth will not already be included there. When I read your posts, my basic reaction is, been there, done that, booooring. We've been through a similar process with Eagle12 when he was writing under another name.
And all of your questions are much better addressed elsewhere in the internet one the science department pages of many major universities and pretty well summarized on Wikipedia. Try reading these, for instance--I just did, and it took only about a half hour:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_col...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_col...
Together, these articles explain the evolutionary process that led up to the human eye. I had already learned some of it (one of my daughters was born with achromatopsia), but these articles explained the process very well and in more detail that I had read previously. There are other articles at university sites that explain how images are processed in the brain. I found the descriptions of how lenses and color receptors evolved particularly interesting.
The world is so much more fascinating when you study it without the need to defend your ideology. As I suggested before, look past the debate if you want to understand the huge ideas that underlie it. The need to debate produces limited thinking. Do you really want to limit yours?
Great post. Colin, when treated with respect, isn't such a jerkface, so that's nice. But he is deeply committed to his belief system. So, I wonder how much he actually considers what we write.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#381 Dec 3, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
In science, evolution is regarded as 100% fact. No one would publish my paper saying "hey! evolution is fact!"
There are no competing scientific theories that seek to replace evolution as the framework theory for all biological sciences.
So you wont publish a paper saying that your theory is fact yet you believe it, that only shows that you and your counterparts are not really sure

Creation or Intelligent design are far more reputable than evolution.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#382 Dec 3, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm an evolutionary anthropologist.
I'm not a zoologist ,……………..
. In science, it's a waste of time at best and damaging at worst.
There seems to be a lot that is out of your field, but then you have already admitted to being ignorant or most things, You did not explain how melanin evolved you described how it was designed to work nothing about its evolution. Funny that.
You do not think the world is in decay perhaps that too is out of your field you had better do some study on that one.
Sorry my mistake Flood not Fold you know auto correct sucks some time. You may not include a super natural entity in your work but you do include unproven theories as fact you do place faith in papers written that go against intelligent design, you did learn that at university.
You need to explain how colour came into being in light of the theory of evolution, let me help you on your way, How did wave lengths that cause light refraction come into being,

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#383 Dec 3, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a non-answer……………………….
.
Not everything you posted is “God’s will” that is a sever simplification of the truth although it is not unlike your answer “it is evolutions will”.
Let me lay it out for you again, all matter was created so may be more closely related to others and some may be far apart that was the way it was designed to be and that is the way it is. Adaption is part of the design, it is inbuilt into every living organism.
You still did not post any proof of your 12000 year theory.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#384 Dec 3, 2012
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
So you wont publish a paper saying that your theory is fact yet you believe it, that only shows that you and your counterparts are not really sure
Creation or Intelligent design are far more reputable than evolution.
Uh...all science treats evolution as fact. It is a fact. I do write about it in science, but not in the manner you are thinking.

What you asked was for me to "prove evolution." I keep telling you that phase in science is over - you're about 160 years out of date.

Evolution is the framework theory of all the biological sciences. There are no competing theories in science to replace it. Not a single one.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#385 Dec 3, 2012
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
There seems to be a lot that is out of your field, but then you have already admitted to being ignorant or most things, You did not explain how melanin evolved you described how it was designed to work nothing about its evolution. Funny that.
You do not think the world is in decay perhaps that too is out of your field you had better do some study on that one.

We are all ignorant of most things. I described how skin pigmentation works in humans. I basically just do human evolution.

You want to know, specifically how melanin evolved - like, the molecule? I don't know the specifics. It would have happened when animals started walking on land. And it would have happened through natural selection.

Do you know the specifics? I mean, beyond "God did it" which is non-explanatory. Can you answer any of your own questions in the detail you are asking me to provide?

[QUOTE]Sorry my mistake Flood not Fold you know auto correct sucks some time.
Oh! hahaha, I should have picked up on that - my bad!

No, flood stories are not universal in human cultures. The one in the Bible comes from Mesopotamia.
You may not include a super natural entity in your work but you do include unproven theories as fact you do place faith in papers written that go against intelligent design, you did learn that at university.
Really. Just show me the research paper that demonstrates evolution is unproven.
You need to explain how colour came into being in light of the theory of evolution, let me help you on your way, How did wave lengths that cause light refraction come into being,
That's physics, my friend, not biological science. Here's another example of you being confused about science.

Why can't you be honest and just admit you don't know the first thing about science? It appears all your knowledge comes from creationist sources - sorry, baby, that's not science. Creationists have no input into how science works. They don't produce new knowledge or new technology. Mostly creationists just try their best to damage education systems.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#386 Dec 3, 2012
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Not everything you posted is “God’s will” that is a sever simplification of the truth although it is not unlike your answer “it is evolutions will”.
Let me lay it out for you again, all matter was created so may be more closely related to others and some may be far apart that was the way it was designed to be and that is the way it is. Adaption is part of the design, it is inbuilt into every living organism.
You still did not post any proof of your 12000 year theory.
The difference is that the scientific answers are explanatory - evolution unifies all biological phenomena. We can use it to test any biological phenomena.

Creationism doesn't do that. It's reduces all knowledge to "god." It is not predictive - there's nothing you can take from that answer. There's nothing you can test from that answer. Phenomena are not explained - why are monkeys more related to bats than to birds? You have no idea, no answer for that, whereas I do and my answer is simple and applies to all species.

You actually believe the world was "created" 6000 years ago?!? And you claim to understand science?

hahaha! That's laughable.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#387 Dec 3, 2012
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
Only computer logic is limited to binary analysis, and I suspect that you "knowledge" of logic arises from a study of systems analysis within that context. Classical logic is more complex and is not always well expressed with flowcharts even using Boolean alternatives. as to evolutionary theory, my own knowledge is scant, but is still sufficient to spot the many flaws in your assertions. I leave it to those with more expertise to point them out, though, because their posts will be much more informative than mine. Nor do I have the time to address or correct every absurdity that I encounter--I do have more productive activities that take up the bulk of my time.
The reason that I keep bringing up Bossdrop (who is beginning to reemerge after a lengthy period of inactivity) is that you are following the same patterns that he did in the long-running "Atheism requires as much faith as religion?" thread. You'll forgive us if many here are reluctant to repeat the tedious process of refuting his many fallacies and absurdities. Frankly, the regulars in the atheism forum already seen--and refuted--every argument you've put forth so far many times, which is why the questions you think are so crucial are boring to us and why few are bothering to answer them. It's also why I called you a bore--within this context, you are exactly that.
I only peek into the above-mentioned thread occasionally. It has amassed a staggering 6,850 pages and 136,996 posts, not including the 5,254 that have been deleted due to Terms of Service violations. The conversations with Bossdrop take up almost a quarter of that, and I doubt that anything you put forth will not already be included there. When I read your posts, my basic reaction is, been there, done that, booooring. We've been through a similar process with Eagle12 when he was writing under another name.
And all of your questions are much better addressed elsewhere in the internet one the science department pages of many major universities and pretty well summarized on Wikipedia. Try reading these, for instance--I just did, and it took only about a half hour:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_col...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_col...
Together, these articles explain the evolutionary process that led up to the human eye. I had already learned some of it (one of my daughters was born with achromatopsia), but these articles explained the process very well and in more detail that I had read previously. There are other articles at university sites that explain how images are processed in the brain. I found the descriptions of how lenses and color receptors evolved particularly interesting.
The world is so much more fascinating when you study it without the need to defend your ideology. As I suggested before, look past the debate if you want to understand the huge ideas that underlie it. The need to debate produces limited thinking. Do you really want to limit yours?
The articles you cited do not explain the evolution of the eye. They describe the sequence of appearance of the eye in time, and on that basis assume the rest. There is no actual pathway for the emergence of the mammalian eye offered which contains the necessary mechanisms for innovation that are required. Particularly difficult is the lack of a plausible theory for how the various components arose separately while dependent upon the other.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#388 Dec 3, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
If you'd read my earlier explanation you might understand these issues better.
The bacteria that had mutations to their adaptive mechanisms of detoxification of antibiotics survived. They were under selection pressure to become more efficient at detoxifying antibiotics. "Selection pressure" means that those bacteria that could not cope with the toxin left fewer offspring behind than those that could.
Evolution is allelic frequency change in gene pools, over time. Buck...the evolution of drug resistance is evolution, plain and simple.
Yes, Buck, natural selection and artificial selection are evolution. They cannot not be. Your comment here is nonsensical, meaningless, lacking in every possible way. How can natural selection not be evolution?!? It changes gene frequencies - those that cannot survive, because of their DNA, die without issue, thereby changing the gene frequency of the gene pool. Those that do survive, because of their genes, leave offspring behind. From that point on, those bacteria with mutations that increase their abilities to survive and reproduce in the presence of antibiotics are better represented in the gene pool and so outcompete other bacteria, lacking such mutation.
Evolution.
Quite clearly not intelligent design.
I understand antibiotic resistance. It's not evolution. The surviving members possessed an advantage for survival, and survived. Therefore they became more numerous, relatively speaking, in the population.

Absolutely nothing evolved.

Natural selection is not evolution. A wider phenomenon can be described which uses natural selection as a component of evolution.

But no - what you described in natural selection is not evolution.

If you want to argue about evolution, you might benefit from learning what it is.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#389 Dec 3, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh! hahaha, I should have picked up on that - my bad!
No, flood stories are not universal in human cultures. The one in the Bible comes from Mesopotamia.
<quoted text>
Really. Just show me the research paper that demonstrates evolution is unproven.
<quoted text>
That's physics, my friend, not biological science. Here's another example of you being confused about science.
Why can't you be honest and just admit you don't know the first thing about science? It appears all your knowledge comes from creationist sources - sorry, baby, that's not science. Creationists have no input into how science works. They don't produce new knowledge or new technology. Mostly creationists just try their best to damage education systems.
Your view of "evolution is fact" can never be disproven because it is not susceptible to proof. If you define antibiotic resistance as evolution, which you did, then it is fact. But when you speak of "evolution" in other contexts, it means much more than is evident in antibiotic resistance. It is such an elastic term, as you use it, that it is essentially devoid of any susceptibility to confirming or disconfirming evidence.

This elasticity is a potent propaganda tool. Whether or not every claim of evolutionary scientists is true, such claims are exempt from critical evaluation in the body of the public because of the success of the propaganda campaign that uses such silly-ass proof as antibiotic resistance on the unsophisticated observer. It has become largely a social and political campaign, rather than a scientific one.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#390 Dec 3, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh! hahaha, I should have picked up on that - my bad!
No, flood stories are not universal in human cultures. The one in the Bible comes from Mesopotamia.
<.
I guess history is not your field, some advice if you are going to comment on a field make sure you know something about it.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#391 Dec 3, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Really. Just show me the research paper that demonstrates evolution is unproven.
.
You are the answer to your own question, you refuse to put your name to a paper saying it is fact, the THEORY is yet to be proved in any way, oh and by the way it wont be.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#392 Dec 3, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
That's physics, my friend, not biological science. Here's another example of you being confused about science.
.
OH dear you must be getting tired, I did not say that light refraction was biology, but to exist it must have evolved some how, yes even the laws of the universe must be explainable by your theory. I am still waiting for this.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#393 Dec 3, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Why can't you be honest and just admit you don't know the first thing about science?.
Ok lets look at the facts so far you claim the following
"I'm an evolutionary anthropologist.
I'm not a zoologist"
Plus you claim ignorance build that into you hypothesis

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#394 Dec 3, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You actually believe the world was "created" 6000 years ago?!? And you claim to understand science?
You claim that the world and the universe sprung into existence out of nothing: i.e. "In the beginning was nothing and nothing made everything, over 15 billion years nothing made everything" WOW I must credit you for having so much faith.

Do me a favour now this may be out of your field, do you know how to mathematics? here is a task for you. calculate the world population based on you billions of years then do the same form the flood 4000 years ago. Now I realise that you are a self-proclaimed ignorant zoologist but even the ignorant zoology community can count I HOPE>

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#395 Dec 3, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh...all science treats evolution as fact. It is a fact. I do write about it in science, but not in the manner you are thinking.
What you asked was for me to "prove evolution." I keep telling you that phase in science is over - you're about 160 years out of date.
Evolution is the framework theory of all the biological sciences. There are no competing theories in science to replace it. Not a single one.
No real scientist will claim evolution to be fact, as I asked you please publish that in a paper and put your name to it, remember you may not use speculation.
You claim that the proof of evolution came 160 years ago, when and by whom perhaps you should add that to the paper you are going to get published for me.

Created organism are in fact the biological frame work, Ummmmm you still have not posted any actual evidence. In particular that of your claim of new spices in the lab, I am still waiting.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 17 min Left of centre 18,286
Poll I troll the gay/lesbian forum because... (Dec '08) 24 min Left of centre 36
Come out of the closet... 31 min Left of centre 6
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 48 min guest 259
News Transgender stories: when you are born in the w... 53 min Left of centre 20
News 10 Reasons Why You Should Help Fight Biphobia i... 57 min WeTheSheeple 35
News Priests and nuns hold bizarre ceremony to 'puri... 1 hr Joseph 7
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr Respect71 40,266
So whips the forum sniveler?.. 4 hr Left of centre 6
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 4 hr Left of centre 68,990
More from around the web