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

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#10717 May 14, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
Interesting on Dawkins
First on the list was Richard Dawkins, known for his work in biology and for his polemics against religion. Dawkins on biology is an elegant, lucid and even enchanting explicator of science. Dawkins on religion is historically uninformed, outrageously partisan and morally obtuse. If Dawkins is indeed our best, the life of the mind is in a precarious state.
Historical Ignorance
Anyone who could write "Hitler's ideas and intentions were not self-evidently more evil than those of Caligula" is egregiously ill-informed at best. Not only are Caligula's intentions and actions a subject of historical speculation and even revision, but he did not plot to wipe out an entire people simply because they existed, or mobilize a vast military machinery to enmesh the entire world in war. I trust this is merely a misjudgment and not -- given Dawkins statement that "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" and that "Jews" are "notoriously one of the most effective political lobbies in the United States" -- indicative of any deeper prejudice.(Note to the many credentialed Prof. Dawkins, "Jews" are not a political lobby.)
Of course, this historical misfire comes from the same book, "The God Delusion," that insists, "I do not believe there is an atheist in the world who would bulldoze Mecca -- or Chartres, York Minster or Notre Dame." As Alistair McGrath points out, that would surprise anyone who is aware of the fact that the explicitly atheistic Soviet regime destroyed the vast majority of churches (and priests) between 1918-1941. The Tamil Tigers (again, atheistic, and the inventors of suicide vests) leveled countless Buddhist sites of worship. While it is true to say that atheists would not have built Notre Dame, it is not true to say none would ever destroy it.
The Jews have been persecuted throughout History for the murder of Jesus. Of course, that's just the cover story. What people really want is their money. Poor basterds have a knack in the banking business. Bankers are right up there with lawyers in most people's Hate Book. Let's face it. They took 50 or 60 years to turn a little patch of desert into a prosperous and technologically advanced country. Pisses the hell out of the people that haven't been able to do it after thousands of years. Anyway ... it's a little deeper than 'simply existing' don't you think?
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#10718 May 14, 2013
Kesla wrote:
01. Oh poor little dear you really are clueless aren't you.

Being gay is no longer regarding as a 'perversion' or even 'mental illness' for that matter.

02. Also, you seem to solely have a chip on your shoulder regarding homoerotic activities.

03. What if I was to tell you that I was a gay male who never engaged and never will engage in homoerotic activities? I'm content merely with cuddling. Am I still a 'pervert' in the eyes of your twisted morality?
Ans.

01. Yes the definitions are in your control, you can remove any thing and every thing from that moral list.

The basics will not change, just because you change the definition and "remove" homosexuality from the list of immoral acts.

02. I do not have any "grudge" against Homos as such. The Topic of thread was "Is homosexuality is a Sin"? And I gave my logic that it is a Sin from whichever angle you look at it.

03. I have no interest in your personal life and what you were and what you are now.

I am not going to judge you.

And neither we are interested what you do inside your bedrooms.

Like all perverts, Homos should live the life in the margin and be happy with their lives.

But when we see that a Compaign being mounted that Homos are a Natural Specie and there is "Nothing wrong" in being a Homo, and their "marriages" be given same status as normal marriages….we feel that our rights are threatened.

How can you equate perverts with normal people?

How can you treat ones who are tools in preserving and continuing human race with those who are working at "cross purpose"?

There is some thing very wrong in you logic, my poor little thing.

Some thing very, very wrong indeed.

MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#10719 May 14, 2013
CI wrote:
1. Homosexuals exist in over 10% of the entire world population regardless of ethnic background or religion. many animal species are also homosexual.

2. Catch phrase? hardy! You have no human rights in Saudi Arabia if you are a woman. There are even 'rules' on the proper way to beat your wife!

3. Brainwash? lol! This is the mantra of ALL religions. The irreligious reject religious dogma due to the complete absence of viable proof of claims.

4. Perversion is treating your women like cattle. It is slavery to dogma. It is the total abandonment of your own mind.

5. Scale of silliness? DEPRAVITY is a more accurate work. The Crusades, The Inquisition, 9/11 and countless Islamic alleged martyrs. RELIGION DOES NOT EMBRACE HUMANITY, IT DIVIDES IT.

Odium theologicum
Ans.

1. Thieves, murderers, forgers, robbers also exist in 100 % of every present or past civilization., So we treat them as "Normal" and equate them with law abiding citizens?

Presence and existence of something or some trait does not mean that it becomes "natural"?

There is no specie in the world which is Homosexual. How it would survive? May be they also have some "perverts" like we have in our human society!!

02. Come and see in Saudi Arabia, if women have no rights. And in fact there are rules in Islam as to how to beat your wife!!

What are rules of Domestic violence in your society?

03. It is strange the hogwash of Modern media is to be taken as absolute truth and any thing proven by age old practices treated as brainwashing.

04. Islam does not treat women as cattle, so your accusation melts away and need no response.

05. It is strange that you thing Atheism "unites humanity< some thing which you cannot even define, how it can be a uniting force?

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#10720 May 14, 2013
That is what I said and as expected he cowered away.
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>MUQ ... you continue to astound! If god doesn't 'communicate back and forth with humans at all'... then what are 'prophets'? Are they not Human? Surely you must recognize the possibility that they are simply charlatans who are playing their devoted followers for fools. Do 'prophets' labor in the fields? Cut stone? Make mud bricks? Muck the stables? No. They are venerated and provided for and live quite comfortably. I wouldn't trust a self-proclaimed prophet further than I can spit into the wind.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#10721 May 14, 2013
Women are sold into marriage as children, forced to dress and act as men demand or face imam sponsored gang rape, honor killings, having their nose and ears chopped off.

Cattle in America are treated better than women in your area.
MUQ wrote:
Ans.
04. Islam does not treat women as cattle.?

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#10722 May 14, 2013
Most likely because he has been shown to be unable to post a cohesive statement let alone argument.

So stealing from others is a must.
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you have to be reminded so often to give other writers credit when you post their work. The above is from Rabbi David Wolpe in an article that was published by the Huffington Post and by Real Clear Religion. when you fain to credit the work of others, you implicitly take credit for it yourself whether that is your intention or not. Such failure is either sloppy and stupid or dishonest.
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#10723 May 14, 2013
R Hill wrote:
01. MUQ ... you continue to astound! If god doesn't 'communicate back and forth with humans at all'... then what are 'prophets'? Are they not Human? Surely you must recognize the possibility that they are simply charlatans who are playing their devoted followers for fools.

02. Do 'prophets' labor in the fields? Cut stone? Make mud bricks? Muck the stables? No.

03. They are venerated and provided for and live quite comfortably. I wouldn't trust a self-proclaimed prophet further than I can spit into the wind.
Ans.

01. Who says God does not talk "back and forth" with the prophets? The prophet's do communicate with God many times.

Depending upon the needs of the people, God does send His revelation to His chosen prophets, many times during their tenure as a prophet.

Calling Prophets as Charlatans means that you know nothing about the office of prophet. I do not know any prophet built their "empire" on this earth.

They taught their followers all good morals and how to pass the test of this life.

What morality we see in the world is only because of the efforts of the prophets.

02. I do not see any prophet of God "begging in the street, did you"?

Some of them worked also to earn their lawful living.

But the work to guide humans and bring them closer to their Creator is much more important than working in the field.

And for that reason why you pay so much to your Presidents and Prime Ministers and other politicians, what they do really?

03. Your grudge against prophets seem to be personal and unreasonable and may be it is your envy that how come they got Billions of followers and you could not gain any one.

Try, Try My friend , may be you get some one who will follow to the end of the world!!
Thinking

Bury, UK

#10724 May 15, 2013
islamic countries may have ratified this treaty but many ignore it, blubber.

e.g. Saudi Arabia executes child criminals by waiting until they are 18.

e.g. Iran's laws take precedence over the UN treaty.
ezdzit wrote:
Currently 193 countries have ratified, accepted,
or acceded to the UN Convention on Child Rights, including every member of the United Nations.....except Somalia, and the United States.
Both Somalia and the United States have signed the document but have not ratified it. Somalia had announced in late 2009 that it would eventually do so but the US Congress refuses to ratify the CRC.
Only in a "civilized" country like the US do sick perverts like child abusers, kidnappers, molesters, rapists, and murderers serve light prison sentences, if any at all, and then freed to prey on more children.....

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#10725 May 15, 2013
Those savages find ways around civilized measures.
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>islamic countries may have ratified this treaty but many ignore it, blubber.

e.g. Saudi Arabia executes child criminals by waiting until they are 18.

e.g. Iran's laws take precedence over the UN treaty.
d pantz

Chicago, IL

#10726 May 15, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Try a bit harder, little sock.
<quoted text>
k then. Everything we "know" is all the world is limited to. Evrything you don't know and can't explain we will just call "junk". Wow. You sound like your zealot counterpart.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#10727 May 15, 2013
No show observable proof oh screen name changer.
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text>k then. Everything we "know" is all the world is limited to. Evrything you don't know and can't explain we will just call "junk". Wow. You sound like your zealot counterpart.
Thinking

Bury, UK

#10728 May 15, 2013
Speak only for yourself, straw man.
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> k then. Everything we "know" is all the world is limited to. Evrything you don't know and can't explain we will just call "junk". Wow. You sound like your zealot counterpart.

Since: May 11

UK

#10729 May 15, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
Loon Watch reports they traced these perverted lies about Islam on the internet back to a “Christian” zionist wacko named David Wood with “echo chamber” assistance from zionazi propagandists such as Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Bat Ye'or, Brigitte Gabriel, Daniel Pipes, Debbie Schlussel,Walid Shoebat, Joe Kaufman, Wafa Sultan, Geert Wilders, etc.....
Duping atheist perverts like you to post these lies is easy since atheists have no morals.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/oxford-c...
Lincoln

United States

#10730 May 15, 2013
Interesting on Dawkins By Rabbi David Wolpe

History is not Dawkins field and it shows

First on the list was Richard Dawkins, known for his work in biology and for his polemics against religion. Dawkins on biology is an elegant, lucid and even enchanting explicator of science. Dawkins on religion is historically uninformed, outrageously partisan and morally obtuse. If Dawkins is indeed our best, the life of the mind is in a precarious state.
Historical Ignorance
Anyone who could write "Hitler's ideas and intentions were not self-evidently more evil than those of Caligula" is egregiously ill-informed at best. Not only are Caligula's intentions and actions a subject of historical speculation and even revision, but he did not plot to wipe out an entire people simply because they existed, or mobilize a vast military machinery to enmesh the entire world in war. I trust this is merely a misjudgment and not -- given Dawkins statement that "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" and that "Jews" are "notoriously one of the most effective political lobbies in the United States" -- indicative of any deeper prejudice.(Note to the many credentialed Prof. Dawkins, "Jews" are not a political lobby.)
Of course, this historical misfire comes from the same book, "The God Delusion," that insists, "I do not believe there is an atheist in the world who would bulldoze Mecca -- or Chartres, York Minster or Notre Dame." As Alistair McGrath points out, that would surprise anyone who is aware of the fact that the explicitly atheistic Soviet regime destroyed the vast majority of churches (and priests) between 1918-1941. The Tamil Tigers (again, atheistic, and the inventors of suicide vests) leveled countless Buddhist sites of worship. While it is true to say that atheists would not have built Notre Dame, it is not true to say none would ever destroy it.
Lincoln

United States

#10731 May 15, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you have to be reminded so often to give other writers credit when you post their work. The above is from Rabbi David Wolpe in an article that was published by the Huffington Post and by Real Clear Religion. when you fain to credit the work of others, you implicitly take credit for it yourself whether that is your intention or not. Such failure is either sloppy and stupid or dishonest.
tnx reposted at your request - Dawkins does have problems with History which seems the problem of many atheists
Imhotep

Lady Lake, FL

#10732 May 15, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Ans.
1. Thieves, murderers, forgers, robbers also exist in 100 % of every present or past civilization., So we treat them as "Normal" and equate them with law abiding citizens?
Presence and existence of something or some trait does not mean that it becomes "natural"?
There is no specie in the world which is Homosexual. How it would survive? May be they also have some "perverts" like we have in our human society!!
02. Come and see in Saudi Arabia, if women have no rights. And in fact there are rules in Islam as to how to beat your wife!!
What are rules of Domestic violence in your society?
03. It is strange the hogwash of Modern media is to be taken as absolute truth and any thing proven by age old practices treated as brainwashing.
04. Islam does not treat women as cattle, so your accusation melts away and need no response.
05. It is strange that you thing Atheism "unites humanity< some thing which you cannot even define, how it can be a uniting force?
#1 - "There is no specie in the world which is Homosexual"

https://www.google.com/search...

Homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.

Cattle?
Wearing a portable tent with a eye porthole? Muslim men are too weak to resist females?
Stoning a teenager that fell in love?

It is the 21st-century - join it
Lincoln

United States

#10733 May 15, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
#1 - "There is no specie in the world which is Homosexual"
https://www.google.com/search...
Homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.
Cattle?
Wearing a portable tent with a eye porthole? Muslim men are too weak to resist females?
Stoning a teenager that fell in love?
It is the 21st-century - join it
Generalizing from incidents.

Cleveland sad events could be used to state
"Americans keep girls in slavery" as a rule, not a sad event.

Cherry picking events on your part?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10734 May 15, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand that we know they do not behave in the same way as classical states.
What I am saying is that we do not understand exactly how they behave, only that they behave differently.
When we try to describe what is going on with our current language, we get nonsensical sh!t like spawning identical universes and Horus going to lunch. We simply don't understand what is going on very clearly and to say that we are creating new universes several times a day is clearly stupid sh!t IMHO.
The problem is that at some level we *do* understand these things. Each and every prediction of quantum mechanics, no matter how 'strange', has been substantiated. In a real sense we *do* understand how quantum particles behave: they behave like interfering probability waves. This is well-understood and not even controversial any longer.

The Many Worlds description that you seem to dislike quite a bit actually follows from taking the equations we have seriously. It describes the universe as a single probability wave function that evolves through time. But what happens is that the wave function itself breaks down into components that don't interact with each other. It then happens that each component evolves via the same overall equation as the larger wave function. And *that* is what is meant by 'splitting universes'. The lack of interaction keeps them separate, which justifies the use of the word 'universe'. But there is still only *one* overall wave function.

Here is a (pretty bad analogy). Take the positive integers: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8...

After one second, split them into two groups, the even and the odds:
1,3,5,7,9,....

2,4,6,8,.....

Now, make a choice of 'first thing', either 1 or 2. Let's say we pick 1. THrow it out of that sequences

Then, divide the odds into two groups, taking every other number in the group chosen:

3,7,11,15,19....

5,9,13,17,21,...

Now take the first out of one of these and throw it out, say we pick 5. Now divide that list into two:

9,17,25,33,...

13,21,29,27,...

The point? We can keep going like this forever. The original sequence 'divides' into two subsequences at each choice. Are all those other sequences there? Sure, yes, whatever.

In the same way, whenever a quantum observation is made, the list of future possibilities is restricted. This can be *interpreted* as a splitting off of other universes. But is is less interesting than it sounds.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#10735 May 15, 2013
You really need to work on your English. Certainly English is not your first language right?
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>Generalizing from incidents.

Cleveland sad events could be used to state
"Americans keep girls in slavery" as a rule, not a sad event.

Cherry picking events on your part?
Lincoln

United States

#10736 May 15, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
You really need to work on your English. Certainly English is not your first language right?
<quoted text>
The Soviet Union was the first state to have, as an ideological objective, the elimination of religion and its replacement with universal atheism. The communist regime confiscated religious property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in schools. The confiscation of religious assets was often based on accusations of illegal accumulation of wealth.

The vast majority of people in the Russian empire were, at the time of the revolution, religious believers, whereas the communists aimed to break the power of all religious institutions and eventually replace religious belief with atheism.

"Science" was counterposed to "religious superstition" in the media and in academic writing. The main religions of pre-revolutionary Russia persisted throughout the entire Soviet period, but they were only tolerated within certain limits. Generally, this meant that believers were free to worship in private and in their respective religious buildings (churches, mosques, etc.), but public displays of religion outside of such designated areas were prohibited. In addition, religious institutions were not allowed to express their views in any type of mass media, and many religious buildings were demolished or used for other purposes.

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
New York City mayor marches in gay pre-St. Patr... 59 min Fa-Foxy 10
Texas lawmaker married five times files error-f... 1 hr sparkle 9
Why this obsession with what gay people do in b... (Jan '13) 1 hr Sherlayne 158
Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 1 hr NorCal Native 1,112
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 15,670
California GOP recognizes gay faction of party 1 hr Belle Sexton 9
I'm gay. And I want my kid to be gay, too 1 hr Belle Sexton 140
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 2 hr Belle Sexton 57,921
Is Jeb Bush 'evolving' on same-sex marriage and... 2 hr Rick Perry s Closet 151
Biggest Gay Lies (May '14) 3 hr Frankie Rizzo 3,231
More from around the web