Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

There are 14714 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.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#12975 Jul 8, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The phrase 'before time' is self-contradictory.
I am sorry, deeply sorry, that I replied to you in the harsh manner that I did, I mis-read who I was responding to and was responding to whom you were responding to and not you. My harsh comments were not directed to you and again I am deeply sorry for my error.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#12976 Jul 8, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't matter what pious labels these monsters hide behind, bubba. They were totally godless and therefore atheist when they committed their perverted exploitation of children.
"By their fruits ye shall know them." -- Yeshua ben Yosef
There is no such thing as a Christian or a Bible believer; anyone claiming such is a liar bubba.

When ever a "Christian" commits a crime all of a sudden he is not a Christian, but when an Atheist does something humanitarian it is ignored and not counted. You religious nuts are such a sick joke.

Since all "Christians" sin, there are no Christians of any kind, anywhere.

Interestingly enough, according to the Bible no biblicist is a Christian because none abide in Christ. Since none abide in Christ, how anyone can ever be saved becomes a logical question. Why can't people abide in Christ? Because everyone commits anti-social behavior, or what biblicists refer to as sin, and that excludes them summarily: "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him" (1 John 3:6), "No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God" (1 John 3:9 NIV), "We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin, the one who was born of God keeps him safe, and the evil one does not touch him" (1 John 5:18 NIV). Obviously, then, no one has ever been born of God since all biblicists continue to sin, regardless. Until someone can demonstrate sinless perfection, abiding in Christ remains illusory.

And to make matters even worse from the biblicist's perspective, James 2:10 NIV says, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." Also note Matt. 5:19. Since every believer repeatedly stumbles on one point or another, all believers are equally immoral. In other words, while John alleges that any sin obviates any possibility of one abiding in Christ, James asserts everyone commits the most heinous of acts.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#12977 Jul 8, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
Sufi Islam is much older than either Judaism or Christianity, and the other sects of Islam didn't borrow anything from either Judaism or Christianity. No "Jew" or "Christian" wrote any of the original texts of the Bible or any other ancient wisdom literature from the Middle East.
Yeah, and before that there was the 'Divine Cults of the Sacred Bulls' and those who worshiped the 'Magic Mushroom'. So what. I'll take modern 'wisdom' any day.

http://www.magic-mushrooms.net/religion.html#...

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#12978 Jul 8, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
What I said is fully supported by logic, science, and mathematics. Can you prove your so called God exists? I'll wait.
He can't prove his so called God exists because it does not exist, and I will be quite happy to prove it does not exist just as soon as he is finished providing his proof that such an impossibility does in fact exist.

Let us be very clear that hearsay and deeply held beliefs are not evidence.

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

#12979 Jul 8, 2013
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
Astrophysicists, mathematicians and cosmologists must have a 'time zero' with the Universe unwinding, like some enormous mechanism, towards it's inevitable and predictable 'heat death'. The Universe thus becomes amicable to their formulae, analysis and understanding. Infinities of something 'unfathomable' must exist outside of these boundary events. Maybe your god is hiding there. Maybe that's where the really interesting stuff happens. Maybe there's an infinite Multiverse of which we are a tiny and transitory particle. Who knows.
"Time is an illusion; lunchtime even more so." -- Ford Perfect, "Hitcherhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#12980 Jul 8, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
Sufi Islam is much older than either Judaism or Christianity, and the other sects of Islam didn't borrow anything from either Judaism or Christianity. No "Jew" or "Christian" wrote any of the original texts of the Bible or any other ancient wisdom literature from the Middle East.
Two major questions need to be addressed in regard to the alleged original writing of Scripture. First, was there an original copy of the Bible from which subsequent manuscripts were copied and, secondly, if there was such an original, and existing manuscripts are copies of that original, can we reconstruct or do we have an accurate copy of that original. In addressing the first question we noted that although there are thousands of manuscripts with similar and nearly identical texts, there were also thousands of variations. Because of the great number of differences, one would not be wise to assume there must have been a common source. Encyclopedias and cookbooks also bear a remarkable resemblance and one might assume they, too, had a common source. Although it is correct to say that the degree of similarity between biblical manuscripts is significantly higher than that between most encyclopedias and cookbooks, the difference is one of degree, not kind. It remains for believers in an original to prove it existed.

The second is even more important. Even if we assume an original existed, could one know what it said based on existing manuscripts? With thousands of variances between thousands of manuscripts, there is no way to definitely know an original's contents, despite apologetic assurances to the contrary. Hundreds of differences between translations bear witness to the fact that scholars can't agree on what various verses say, what they mean, and whether they should even be included in reconstruction of the Bible. The experts are clearly at loggerheads on many points and uncertain as to others. Unanimity is not the dominant theme by any means. Despite the uncertainty that permeates the process of translating and understanding, people are repeatedly told there is no reason to worry about the validity of translations or reconstruction of the "original."

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

#12981 Jul 8, 2013
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, and before that there was the 'Divine Cults of the Sacred Bulls' and those who worshiped the 'Magic Mushroom'. So what. I'll take modern 'wisdom' any day.
http://www.magic-mushrooms.net/religion.html#...
There is no such thing as "modern wisdom", bubba.

No new sin has been invented in the last 5,000 years.

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

#12983 Jul 8, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Two major questions need to be addressed in regard to the alleged original writing of Scripture. First, was there an original copy of the Bible from which subsequent manuscripts were copied and, secondly, if there was such an original, and existing manuscripts are copies of that original, can we reconstruct or do we have an accurate copy of that original.....blah blah blah
Those questions have already been asked and answered by Biblical scholars, historians, anthropologists, archaeologists, etc.

Didn't you get the memo, bubba?

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

#12984 Jul 8, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no such thing as a Christian or a Bible believer; anyone claiming such is a liar bubba.
When ever a "Christian" commits a crime all of a sudden he is not a Christian, but when an Atheist does something humanitarian it is ignored and not counted. You religious nuts are such a sick joke.
Since all "Christians" sin, there are no Christians of any kind, anywhere.
Interestingly enough, according to the Bible no biblicist is a Christian because none abide in Christ. Since none abide in Christ, how anyone can ever be saved becomes a logical question. Why can't people abide in Christ? Because everyone commits anti-social behavior, or what biblicists refer to as sin, and that excludes them summarily: "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him" (1 John 3:6), "No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God" (1 John 3:9 NIV), "We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin, the one who was born of God keeps him safe, and the evil one does not touch him" (1 John 5:18 NIV). Obviously, then, no one has ever been born of God since all biblicists continue to sin, regardless. Until someone can demonstrate sinless perfection, abiding in Christ remains illusory.
And to make matters even worse from the biblicist's perspective, James 2:10 NIV says, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." Also note Matt. 5:19. Since every believer repeatedly stumbles on one point or another, all believers are equally immoral. In other words, while John alleges that any sin obviates any possibility of one abiding in Christ, James asserts everyone commits the most heinous of acts.
“I was barked at by numerous dogs who are earning their food guarding ignorance and superstition for the benefit of those who profit from it. Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional "opium of the people"—cannot bear the music of the spheres. The Wonder of nature does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards of human moral and human aims.”

— Einstein, 1941. Einstein Archive, reel 54-927, quoted in Jammer, p. 97

You're such a comical cliche, bubba. LOL All that frothing at the mouth is very entertaining....

“Jesus is Lord”

Since: Aug 11

Greenwood, Indiana

#12985 Jul 8, 2013
One born fact, Atheist will never replace religion because religion is of mankind not God FACT!!

One born fact, Atheist will burn in hell for ever and ever FACT!!

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#12986 Jul 8, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no such thing as "modern wisdom", bubba.
No new sin has been invented in the last 5,000 years.
Exactly. There is nothing 'new under the sun'. Religion exists, not because it is of some value, but merely because it has always been. We atheists, at least, see it for what it is ... a cycle of ignorance and superstition that we are too few and too short lived to change. We are like beautiful crystalline diatoms, trapped in the ebb and flow of a unstoppable tide. Kinda sucks if you think about it.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#12987 Jul 8, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Time as we experience it here on the earth in this Universe is a self contained structure, it is not self-contradictory as you would deceive us into believing. Something existed before time and something continues to exist where time does not.
Wrong. The very words 'before' and 'after' require the notion of time to make sense. Once you go beyond time, the words lose their meaning.
Having only your triune brain you are limited in your ability to comprehend what has existed [before time as we know it began] and as it continues to exist outside our time continuum.
Once again, the phrase 'before time as we know it began' is meaningless. if you disagree, it is *your* responsibility to define what it *could* mean. Instead, you wave your hands talking about a 'triune brain'.
You are an incomplete and unfinished being. Your possibilities are so much more than this puny triune brain of yours can comprehend.
Cut the mystical crap. You avoid the meaning of the words you use by ridiculing the thoughts of others that are attempting to keep you consistent. Some of your phrases are literally meaningless (before time). Others are simply wrong (triune brain). Either way, your are speaking non-sense.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#12988 Jul 8, 2013
Educated What wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it?
Get an education.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#12989 Jul 8, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
If God is not the First Cause--what is, bubba?
Why do you assume there was a single, first cause at all?
Can't be gravity because sub-atomic particles are not affected by gravity.
Simply false. They are, indeed, affected by gravity. By all observations we have been able to make, they act exactly how classical gravity predicts.
In fact, sub-atomic particles rarely operate according to Newtonian physics. They operate according to their own laws--laws our poor primitive store of scientific knowledge is yet unable to fully comprehend...but we're working on it.
While we have no quantum theory of gravity, it is quite possible to do quantum mechanics with a classical gravity background. This gives a description that fits all actual observations (although we know it is inconsistent at the Planck level).
For now we know that one sub-atomic particle can appear in two places, pass through what we think of as "solid" objects, magically disappear and then re-appear--and we have no clue how they do this or why or where they are when we can't see them.
Actually, we have a very good description of these phenomena. It is called quantum mechanics. The difficulty is that quantum particles do not act in the same way as classical particles. They do not have definite properties between observations. So, the probability cloud describing an electron is non-zero inside of a whole volume of space. But no single particle is measured as being in two places at the same time.

Particles do NOT pass through 'solid' objects. This is partly because ALL matter is mostly empty space at the atomic level. There is also a quantum phenomenon called tunneling, where a quantum particle can appear outside of a barrier it would not have been able to cross in classical mechanics.

As to the question of where particles 'are' when we can't see them, part of quantum mechanics is that properties such as position, momentum, energy, etc only have values when we actually do measurements and the measured values are probabilistic.
Another magical thing we've observed with entangled particles is that they are somehow able to communicate with each other even when they are separated by distances halfway around the world. The world of quantum physics is far more magical and mysterious than any religion man has created, bubba.
Part of the difficulty here is that you are attempting to understand quantum theory with classical intuition. No, entangled particles do NOT communicate with each other. The correlations in their probabilities were formed when the particles were. But there is no information transfer.

Yes, there are a great many counter-intuitive things about quantum mechanics. Quantum particles do not have the properties we expect from dealing with the everyday world. But we do understand these phenomena, at least to the extent that we can predict what will happen and even develop intuitions about the range of possibilities. Quantum mechanics is neither mysterious (unless you insist on classical thinking) nor magical (any more than anything in the universe is).

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#12990 Jul 8, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you prefer "before the mental construct of time was invented by humans" or "before the illusion of time was invented by humans" ?
No, I would not prefer either of those. I do not care about the social construct. I am interested in the physics construct. And it is quite easy to make sense of time before there were humans. In particular, humans have only been around a few tens of thousands of years, but the universe is about 13-4 billion years old. So time certainly existed before there were humans to conceptualize it.

So, while it makes perfect sense to talk about 'before humans conceptualized time', it does NOT make sense to talk about 'before time'.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#12991 Jul 8, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no such thing as "modern wisdom", bubba.
And yet we understand much more about the universe than we did a mere 500 years ago.
No new sin has been invented in the last 5,000 years.
Sin? Who cares about a silly concept like that? Self Imposed Nonsense should be ignored.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#12992 Jul 8, 2013
ThePreacherman01 wrote:
One born fact, Atheist will never replace religion because religion is of mankind not God FACT!!
One born fact, Atheist will burn in hell for ever and ever FACT!!
Obvious FACT #1 : You have no verifiable evidence your God exists.

Obvious FACT #2 : You have no verifiable evidence your hell exists.

Obvious Fact #3 : Mankind has been making Gods in his own image for thousands of years. http://www.godchecker.com
Truth

Jupiter, FL

#12993 Jul 8, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you assume there was a single, first cause at all?
<quoted text>
Simply false. They are, indeed, affected by gravity. By all observations we have been able to make, they act exactly how classical gravity predicts.
<quoted text>
While we have no quantum theory of gravity, it is quite possible to do quantum mechanics with a classical gravity background. This gives a description that fits all actual observations (although we know it is inconsistent at the Planck level).
<quoted text>
Actually, we have a very good description of these phenomena. It is called quantum mechanics. The difficulty is that quantum particles do not act in the same way as classical particles. They do not have definite properties between observations. So, the probability cloud describing an electron is non-zero inside of a whole volume of space. But no single particle is measured as being in two places at the same time.
Particles do NOT pass through 'solid' objects. This is partly because ALL matter is mostly empty space at the atomic level. There is also a quantum phenomenon called tunneling, where a quantum particle can appear outside of a barrier it would not have been able to cross in classical mechanics.
As to the question of where particles 'are' when we can't see them, part of quantum mechanics is that properties such as position, momentum, energy, etc only have values when we actually do measurements and the measured values are probabilistic.
<quoted text>
Part of the difficulty here is that you are attempting to understand quantum theory with classical intuition. No, entangled particles do NOT communicate with each other. The correlations in their probabilities were formed when the particles were. But there is no information transfer.
Yes, there are a great many counter-intuitive things about quantum mechanics. Quantum particles do not have the properties we expect from dealing with the everyday world. But we do understand these phenomena, at least to the extent that we can predict what will happen and even develop intuitions about the range of possibilities. Quantum mechanics is neither mysterious (unless you insist on classical thinking) nor magical (any more than anything in the universe is).
Man this response is well put together, what is your background if you don't mind me asking?

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

#12994 Jul 8, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you assume there was a single, first cause at all?
Logic. Occam’s razor. And, of course, I read Whitehead’s Process and Reality....
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Simply false. They are, indeed, affected by gravity. By all observations we have been able to make, they act exactly how classical gravity predicts.
Really? Well now, compared to the other forces that act on particles, gravity is basically non existant. Electrostatic force is something like 10^40 times stronger than gravity which means that gravity has about as much affect on a particle as a fart on a windstorm.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>While we have no quantum theory of gravity, it is quite possible to do quantum mechanics with a classical gravity background. This gives a description that fits all actual observations (although we know it is inconsistent at the Planck level).
So you’re trying to understand quantum mechanics in terms of classical mechanics? LOL
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, we have a very good description of these phenomena. It is called quantum mechanics. The difficulty is that quantum particles do not act in the same way as classical particles. They do not have definite properties between observations. So, the probability cloud describing an electron is non-zero inside of a whole volume of space. But no single particle is measured as being in two places at the same time.
Which is a verbose way of saying....we’re still working on it. That’s what I said.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Particles do NOT pass through 'solid' objects. This is partly because ALL matter is mostly empty space at the atomic level. There is also a quantum phenomenon called tunneling, where a quantum particle can appear outside of a barrier it would not have been able to cross in classical mechanics.
Wrong. Neutrino particles pass through solid objects as large as planets, bubba.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>As to the question of where particles 'are' when we can't see them, part of quantum mechanics is that properties such as position, momentum, energy, etc only have values when we actually do measurements and the measured values are probabilistic.
Aaaah yes....that ol’ measurement problem described by Heisenberg et al. LOL
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Part of the difficulty here is that you are attempting to understand quantum theory with classical intuition. No, entangled particles do NOT communicate with each other. The correlations in their probabilities were formed when the particles were. But there is no information transfer.
Bullshit

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/22/quan...
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, there are a great many counter-intuitive things about quantum mechanics. Quantum particles do not have the properties we expect from dealing with the everyday world. But we do understand these phenomena, at least to the extent that we can predict what will happen and even develop intuitions about the range of possibilities. Quantum mechanics is neither mysterious (unless you insist on classical thinking) nor magical (any more than anything in the universe is).
Counterintuitive things like particles don’t behave in ways classical mechanics predicts? That’s exactly what I said, bubba.

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

#12995 Jul 8, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I would not prefer either of those. I do not care about the social construct. I am interested in the physics construct. And it is quite easy to make sense of time before there were humans. In particular, humans have only been around a few tens of thousands of years, but the universe is about 13-4 billion years old. So time certainly existed before there were humans to conceptualize it.
So, while it makes perfect sense to talk about 'before humans conceptualized time', it does NOT make sense to talk about 'before time'.
Time is simply a mental construct, bubba. It's something humans invented to measure things and make predictions. It's not energy or matter and doesn't exist except in the minds of humans.

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 Mormons keep affiliation with Boy Scouts despit... 5 min Fundie Fatwass De... 3
News Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 7 min moco 2,972
News I am a gay Yankee teacher in the South 9 min Fundie Fatwass De... 1
News Ian Mckellen Wants To Take Gay Rights Fight Global 17 min Fundie Fatwass De... 3
News Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny... 19 min Lawrence Wolf 28
News Gay Iranian refugee gets new start in Bay Area 22 min Fundie Fatwass De... 4
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 26 min Frankie Rizzo 25,639
News Kentucky clerk defies order, refuses to issue s... 1 hr Wondering 299
News Court: Baker who refused gay wedding cake can't... 2 hr Prep-for-Dep 1,085
News 4 GOP candidates sign anti-gay marriage pledge 2 hr spocko 221
More from around the web