Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Aug 27, 2012 Full story: News24 14,477

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. Full Story
pinch111

Plymouth, UK

#4363 Jan 26, 2013
Seems to me that many are losing the plot, and the whole debate/argument.Atheism will not replace religion,Agnosticism will.
Fitz

Roseville, MI

#4364 Jan 26, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, while clearly great thinkers for their time, made a lot of mistakes. Socrates made many very basic logic errors in his questioning. Plato's version of the ideal world is clearly wrong in many ways. Aristotle was better than Plato because he at least considered the real world worthy of explanation, but he was wrong about most of his physics (for example). His ideas about causality are fundamentally flawed.
These three are important because they got us working towards a better understanding of ourselves and the universe around us. But, as the ones making the first steps, they did not reach that goal and they fell into some troubles that were not fixed for thousands of years.
So where were we again?
We were at the point were I concede you as far and away the most worthy advocate on this board. Clearly your fellow travelers have not read much of anything much less "Humes Dialogues concerning natural religion"..

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#4365 Jan 26, 2013
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Someone has obviously never read Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates.
Fine! So all of their ideas did not stand on their own, just the important ones did. So what?

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#4366 Jan 26, 2013
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Historians know that oral traditions are very reliable conduits of hiostorical knowledge and differ sharply from story telling and legends in both substance and practice.
The Gospels were first person accounts made by people who were eye witnesses.. They have as much veracity as the letters of Paul...that we have zero evidence were written by Paul and you fail by your own inconsistant "standard" that you established to make a point that has now backfired on you.
The reason for this is simple. Unlike serious minds that dont doubt the historical existance of Jesus.. they are apporaching the subject the same way the apporach any historical figure.
You however have a deep seated bias against religion and want to mock figures like Jesus, in that persuit you end up engaging in arguments that hold impossible to maintain "standards of proof" that resonable people dont apply and that you cannot apply with any consitancy or accuracy..
Nice Job painting yourself into a corner.
Wrong on virtually all counts. The authors of the Gospels did not meet Christ. They are not eyewitness accounts. Pedal your BS somewhere else.

http://www.deusdiapente.net/science/gospels.p...
http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#4367 Jan 26, 2013
pinch111 wrote:
Seems to me that many are losing the plot, and the whole debate/argument.Atheism will not replace religion,Agnosticism will.
Nobody cares about that point. The difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic is very small in most discussions.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#4368 Jan 26, 2013
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Historians know that oral traditions are very reliable conduits of hiostorical knowledge and differ sharply from story telling and legends in both substance and practice.
The Gospels were first person accounts made by people who were eye witnesses.. They have as much veracity as the letters of Paul...that we have zero evidence were written by Paul and you fail by your own inconsistant "standard" that you established to make a point that has now backfired on you.
The reason for this is simple. Unlike serious minds that dont doubt the historical existance of Jesus.. they are apporaching the subject the same way the apporach any historical figure.
You however have a deep seated bias against religion and want to mock figures like Jesus, in that persuit you end up engaging in arguments that hold impossible to maintain "standards of proof" that resonable people dont apply and that you cannot apply with any consitancy or accuracy..
Nice Job painting yourself into a corner.
From: http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

30 C.E. to appx. 73 C.E
The conflict between the Hellenism and the traditions of ethnic Judaism was nowhere more obvious than in the northern part of Palestine, which had been so often subject to conquest and which, being on the major trade route between Asia Minor and the Transjordan, was constantly subjected to foreign influence. This northern region apparently didn't even consider itself to be Jewish, but rather a separate nation that had been annexed, apparently involuntarily, by the Maccabean kings of Israel. So here you have Hellenized Semitics under the influence and control of Jewish kings, looking elsewhere for philosophical guidance. It was a volatile mix.

Into this little region, called Galilee, was born a stubborn iconoclast. He resented the Roman occupation but accepted its rule. He was an intellect who understood at least the rudiments of the Cynic school of Greek philosophy and the complex theology of the Semitic Jews around him. But he would have none of it. He felt that there had to be a better way to live. He grew up a suburb of the capital of Galilee, in a place called Nazareth. His name was Jesus.

At least, that's the mythology that has grown up around this figure. For all his influence on the world, there's better evidence that he never even existed than that he did. We have absolutely no reliable evidence, from secular sources, that Jesus ever lived, or that any of the events surrounding his life as described in the four Gospels ever happened.

Indeed, when scholars apply the Negative Evidence Principle, it begins to look like the Jesus we know from the New Testament is the result of late first-century mythmaking.

The Negative Evidence Principle is, of course, not foolproof. It is not a proof in itself, but is rather a guideline, a good rule of thumb. How useful and reliable it is, of course, is subject to debate among logicians. Here's how the N.E.P. works - it states that you have good reason for not believing in a proposition if the following three principles are satisfied: First, all of the evidence supporting the proposition has been shown to be unreliable. Second, there is no evidence supporting the proposition when the evidence should be there if the proposition is true. And third, a thorough and exhaustive search has been made for supporting evidence where it should be found.
Jumper The Wise

Owensboro, KY

#4369 Jan 26, 2013
I wonder who would jump out of window first if they thought they could fly.An Atheists or a Agnostic?

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#4370 Jan 26, 2013
Jumper The Wise wrote:
I wonder who would jump out of window first if they thought they could fly.An Atheists or a Agnostic?
Both would be after the Christians since the Atheist and Agnostic would want to see verifiable evidence it were possible first.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#4371 Jan 26, 2013
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
We were at the point were I concede you as far and away the most worthy advocate on this board. Clearly your fellow travelers have not read much of anything much less "Humes Dialogues concerning natural religion"..
Hume is one of the better ones in my mind, although I lean more to Ayer and the positivists. Kant made a valiant effort, but still was subject to too many assumptions that were later found to be wrong.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#4372 Jan 26, 2013
Atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive they deal with two different sides of the coin. You can be an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist. An agnostic theist or a gnostic theist.

It amazes me how people lack the IQ to understand this.

Or more likely many non believers run from the atheist title because of the stigma put on the term by theists. Personally I won't allow theists to have that much control over me.
pinch111 wrote:
Seems to me that many are losing the plot, and the whole debate/argument.Atheism will not replace religion,Agnosticism will.
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#4376 Jan 26, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Being a primate scares you, doesn't it? Care to claim that you are not?
It is easy to prove, yet I would put $100,000 cash on the line, saying you would not have your blood and DNA mapped to prove otherwise. Get used to it ape-boy, human is ape, human is primate.
That proves my case, you are not "fully evolved"....may be if you were to live amongst apes and primates, they might understand you better!!

“There are other issues.”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#4377 Jan 26, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
<quoted text>Atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive they deal with two different sides of the coin. You can be an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist. An agnostic theist or a gnostic theist.

It amazes me how people lack the IQ to understand this.

Or more likely many non believers run from the atheist title because of the stigma put on the term by theists. Personally I won't allow theists to have that much control over me.
IQ? Bwahaha! Yet you are married to a theist and I am sure she controls you.

“There are other issues.”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#4378 Jan 26, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>That proves my case, you are not "fully evolved"....may be if you were to live amongst apes and primates, they might understand you better!!
Reason Personified is petrified.

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#4379 Jan 26, 2013
You don't see apes blowing themselves up to kill other apes like Muslim swine do.
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
That proves my case, you are not "fully evolved"....may be if you were to live amongst apes and primates, they might understand you better!!

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#4380 Jan 27, 2013
Jumper The Wise wrote:
I wonder who would jump out of window first if they thought they could fly.An Atheists or a Agnostic?
The vapid hole, of course.

If we thought* we could fly, we would first get clearance, then we would taxi out to the runway. It will be you alone going out the window.

* We would be certain as to whether we had, had any lessons. We would be certain as to whether we had any certification. So while you are thinking you can fly we would know, whether we could. In fact some of us can, there are valid pilot's licenses issued to several of us.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#4381 Jan 27, 2013
In a world of 7 billion people that is hardly surprising.
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Someone has obviously never read Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#4382 Jan 27, 2013
What's it like hearing the words "allahu akbar" without a large explosion following it?

Because every time I see muslims in places like Syria and Egypt on the news, that's what I have to endure.
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
That proves my case, you are not "fully evolved"....may be if you were to live amongst apes and primates, they might understand you better!!

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#4383 Jan 27, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
That proves my case, you are not "fully evolved"....may be if you were to live amongst apes and primates, they might understand you better!!
I knew you would chicken out.

Since you think there would be proof that you are a primate in your blood, you can't take the chance on it being found out right? Would your religion of peace buddies, stone you to death, if you had your DNA mapped?
And no one is fully evolved, we all continue to evolve.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#4384 Jan 27, 2013
Aliroger1 wrote:
JESUS IS A PURELY pFICTIONAL CHARACTER, NO MORE REAL THAN MICKEY MOUSE
Religions are based on fairy tales for the weak-minded, gullible and mentally ill.
But of course....atheists are as pure as the driven snow......ALL. are intectual giants.....No credible man or woman of science would dare believe in such "fairy tales".
pinch111

Plymouth, UK

#4385 Jan 27, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody cares about that point. The difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic is very small in most discussions.
No Atheists tend to be as arrogant in their disbelief as many religious zealots are in their beliefs,Agnostics less so.

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
Supreme Court won't stop gay marriages in Florida 17 min Pope Bennie s Closet 8
Supreme Court allows gay marriage to proceed in... 27 min Otter in the Ozarks 1
Comedian Margaret Cho to headline at San Jose I... 49 min Fa-Foxy 19
With gay marriage on the horizon, Visit Tampa B... 52 min ishbu 18
Gay couples exchange vows in Montana after ruling 59 min jinxysscrew 124
Transgender Woman Featured in New Television Ca... 1 hr Pope Bennie s Closet 20
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 1 hr Pope Bennie s Closet 4,999
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 1 hr KiMerde 2,836
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 3 hr Static Charge 26,690
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 3 hr Rick in Kansas 5,455
Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition 4 hr NorCal Native 1,215
More from around the web