Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

There are 14712 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.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10639 May 13, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you're wrong, bubba.
Estimates for the age of the Milky Way galaxy range from 800 million to 13.5 billion years old.
And, yeah, I should have used the words "solar system" instead of "galaxy" to describe our neighborhood in the universe.
Anyone who confuses the terms 'solar system' and 'galaxy' should not be discussing astronomy.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10640 May 13, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
And FYI, science still hasn’t discovered what DNA is or does so your claims are nothing but hyperbole. 5
Complete and utter garbage. We actually know the composition of DNA quite accurately: it consists of two backbones of alternating phosphate and deoxyribose going in opposite directions with one of the four nucleic acids: adenosine, guanine, cytosine, thymine. The nucleic acids code for proteins by having three acids in a row code for an amino acid in the protein. This translation is done in steps, first with the DNA translated into RNA (which differs from DNA in having ribose instead of deoxyribose in the backbone and uracil instead of thymine in the neucleic acids). Then the RNA is run through a ribozyme which does the actual translation into amino acids.

So yes, we do know what DNA is and what it does. I could easily go into much more detail than what I did above, but I bet you will ignore what I have written, so why write more?
CunningLinguist

Lady Lake, FL

#10641 May 13, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Amusing
Yes it is amusing... AND it is also bogus!

http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/hell.asp

Now for those MATH wizards out there...

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hell.htm

HEAVEN IS HOTTER THAN HELL

The temperature of heaven can be rather accurately computed. Our authority is the Bible, Isaiah 30:26 reads,
Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold as the light of seven days.

Thus, heaven receives from the moon as much radiation as the earth does from the sun, and in addition seven times seven (forty nine) times as much as the earth does from the sun, or fifty times in all.

The light we receive from the moon is one ten-thousandth of the light we receive from the sun, so we can ignore that. With these data we can compute the temperature of heaven: The radiation falling on heaven will heat it to the point where the heat lost by radiation is just equal to the heat received by radiation. In other words, heaven loses fifty times as much heat as the earth by radiation. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann fourth power law for radiation
(H/E)4 = 50

where E is the absolute temperature of the earth, 300°K (273+27). This gives H the absolute temperature of heaven, as 798° absolute (525°C).

The exact temperature of hell cannot be computed but it must be less than 444.6°C, the temperature at which brimstone or sulfur changes from a liquid to a gas. Revelations 21:8: But the fearful and unbelieving... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." A lake of molten brimstone [sulfur] means that its temperature must be at or below the boiling point, which is 444.6°C.(Above that point, it would be a vapor, not a lake.)

We have then, temperature of heaven, 525°C. Temperature of hell, less than 445°C. Therefore heaven is hotter than hell.

This version differs from some on the net, and has been faithfully copied from the version in Applied Optics. The misprint in the exponent of the equation has been corrected, and one insertion added, in square brackets. The author of this piece of humor is unknown.

The Applied Optics version was prefaced by "The following reached your Managing Editor via John Howard (from) H. William Koch (from) Alan Bromley (from) an unnamed environmental physicist of several decades back." This places its origin as early as 1950.

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

#10642 May 13, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
First, that age is *way* too long for the age of the youngest star. The more massive, hot stars tend to last a very 'short' period of time: less than 50 million years for many.
Second, even if the number were accurate, that would not be the 'age of the Milky Way'. You see, stars form continuously in spiral galaxies like the Milky Way. We even see this process happening today. The question of the age of the Milky Way is more when the star forming process *started* and when the galaxy became a spearated part of the universe. THis was about 13 billion years ago.
It would be accurate to say the oldest star in the Milky Way galaxy is estimated to be 13.2 billion years old, but not the galaxy itself. Science's best estimate is that it is between 800 million and 13.2 billion years old. And that estimate is just that....an estimate--science's best guess.
CunningLinguist

Lady Lake, FL

#10643 May 13, 2013
Brit Expat wrote:
HELL EXPLAINED
The following is an actual question given on a University of Arizona chemistry mid term, and an actual answer turned in by a student.
The answer by one student was so 'profound' that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well :
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.
One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving, which is unlikely. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today.
Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it?
If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that,'It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,' and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct........leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting 'Oh my God.'
Entertaining but it is not true...

http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/hell.asp

Enjoy this site.. two views!

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hell.htm

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

#10644 May 13, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Complete and utter garbage. We actually know the composition of DNA quite accurately: it consists of two backbones of alternating phosphate and deoxyribose going in opposite directions with one of the four nucleic acids: adenosine, guanine, cytosine, thymine. The nucleic acids code for proteins by having three acids in a row code for an amino acid in the protein. This translation is done in steps, first with the DNA translated into RNA (which differs from DNA in having ribose instead of deoxyribose in the backbone and uracil instead of thymine in the neucleic acids). Then the RNA is run through a ribozyme which does the actual translation into amino acids.
So yes, we do know what DNA is and what it does. I could easily go into much more detail than what I did above, but I bet you will ignore what I have written, so why write more?
We?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahaha.......

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#10645 May 13, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Look it up, bubba.
The youngest star in the Milky Way cluster is estimated to be 800 million years old.
You're serious aren't you?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

I haven't had a laugh like that in YEARS!
Thank you!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10646 May 13, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
We?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahaha.......
Prediction confirmed.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10647 May 13, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
It would be accurate to say the oldest star in the Milky Way galaxy is estimated to be 13.2 billion years old, but not the galaxy itself. Science's best estimate is that it is between 800 million and 13.2 billion years old. And that estimate is just that....an estimate--science's best guess.
Show me *one* estimate that the Milky Way is only 800 million years old. Just one. Just from the fact that there are population I stars, it is clear that the galaxy is several billions of years old (at least). The ages of stars in the Milky Way and the ages of stars in globular clusters orbiting the Milky Way all show an age of over 13 billion years.

An estimate? Sure. But an estimate based on a variety of evidence. That's why we only have two or three decimal places instead of five.
CunningLinguist

Lady Lake, FL

#10648 May 13, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Look it up, bubba.
The youngest star in the Milky Way cluster is estimated to be 800 million years old.
Have you considered suing your brains for nonsupport?

You are so dense light itself bends around you.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#10649 May 13, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
The so-called "Theory of Evolution" IS just science fiction, bubba.
And apparently you didn't get the memo. It's the 21st century. Science has discovered that prions evolve but don't use DNA, so WHOOPS DNA can no longer be posited to be the mechanism for evolution. Looks like this is just another one of those "inconvenient truths" atheists refuse to face.......
If you don't believe in the fact of evolution, there is really no hope for you.

I suggest you go back to your cult and concentrate on the simple things in life that give you joy - like putting the square wooden block into the square shaped hole and other associated activities you find complicated.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#10650 May 13, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Complete and utter garbage. We actually know the composition of DNA quite accurately: it consists of two backbones of alternating phosphate and deoxyribose going in opposite directions with one of the four nucleic acids: adenosine, guanine, cytosine, thymine. The nucleic acids code for proteins by having three acids in a row code for an amino acid in the protein. This translation is done in steps, first with the DNA translated into RNA (which differs from DNA in having ribose instead of deoxyribose in the backbone and uracil instead of thymine in the neucleic acids). Then the RNA is run through a ribozyme which does the actual translation into amino acids.

So yes, we do know what DNA is and what it does. I could easily go into much more detail than what I did above, but I bet you will ignore what I have written, so why write more?
Are you a teacher?
Your knowledge is vast and I always learn something from your posts.

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

#10651 May 13, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me *one* estimate that the Milky Way is only 800 million years old. Just one. Just from the fact that there are population I stars, it is clear that the galaxy is several billions of years old (at least). The ages of stars in the Milky Way and the ages of stars in globular clusters orbiting the Milky Way all show an age of over 13 billion years.
An estimate? Sure. But an estimate based on a variety of evidence. That's why we only have two or three decimal places instead of five.
One? LOL

There's over a million links to the estimate I posted. Google it and take your pick, bubba.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#10652 May 13, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>One? LOL

There's over a million links to the estimate I posted. Google it and take your pick, bubba.
You made the claim, you back it up.
Otherwise you admit to lying.

Oh and a credible source would be nice, not a bull religion site or something equally biased.
They're usually wrong 80% of the time.

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

#10653 May 13, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don't believe in the fact of evolution, there is really no hope for you.
I suggest you go back to your cult and concentrate on the simple things in life that give you joy - like putting the square wooden block into the square shaped hole and other associated activities you find complicated.
Micro evolution is a fact, bubba. Macro evolution is just science fiction....and that's a fact.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#10654 May 13, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>Micro evolution is a fact, bubba. Macro evolution is just science fiction....and that's a fact.
You have a micro-brain, that is a fact.
You know nothing about evolution because all you bring is fallacies.
That is a fact.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#10655 May 13, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you're wrong, bubba.
Estimates for the age of the Milky Way galaxy range from 800 million
Citation plz.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#10656 May 13, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
The so-called "Theory of Evolution" IS just science fiction, bubba.
And apparently you didn't get the memo. It's the 21st century. Science has discovered that prions evolve but don't use DNA, so WHOOPS DNA can no longer be posited to be the mechanism for evolution.
Actually it has no bearing on what DNA does at all. Of course if you can demonstrate that your DNA is NOT inherited half from your mother and half from your father then we'd love to see it.
ezdzit wrote:
Looks like this is just another one of those "inconvenient truths" atheists refuse to face.......
Atheism? Didn't even mention it.(shrug) But thanks for effectively admitting your "scientific alternative" is GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC. Never takes long for you fundies to shoot yourselves in the foot.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#10657 May 13, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Look it up, bubba.
The youngest star in the Milky Way cluster is estimated to be 800 million years old.
Oh, well in that case if just one star WAS that age it's quite obviously an indicator of the formation of the galactic spiral as a whole.

So now we've established your obvious genius there really is only one relevant question to ask:

Why do you hate kittens?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#10658 May 13, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
We?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahaha.......
Okay, ya got him.

Obviously not you.

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 Rowan County clerk closes office ahead of gay r... 32 min annoyed 8
News Kentucky clerk defies order, refuses to issue s... 33 min dang 281
News Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 1 hr NoahLovesU 2,966
News Man claims he was fired because he is gay, file... 1 hr Delmar 888 6
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 1 hr NoahLovesU 34,825
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 1 hr NoMo 7,209
News Prosecutors say sex-abuse charges against gay r... 1 hr TomInElPaso 6
News Court: Baker who refused gay wedding cake can't... 1 hr DaveinMass 1,070
News Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny... 3 hr Christaliban 26
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 7 hr Pietro Armando 8,771
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 10 hr NoahLovesU 25,627
More from around the web