Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Aug 27, 2012 Full story: News24 14,385

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

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#2164 Jan 6, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Why Allah is mythological and YHWH is real? Where are your proofs?
Do you know how many names for roses are in different world languages?
Why only Hebrew spelling be real and all others mythological?
Allah was dreamed up by a rogue arab who wanted domination, YHVY is the only true God the God of Israel. alah is a generic term meaning god (fake god even) YHVH is a personal name

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#2165 Jan 6, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Why Allah is mythological and YHWH is real? Where are your proofs?
Do you know how many names for roses are in different world languages?
Why only Hebrew spelling be real and all others mythological?
The Quran The Bible
Allah is unknowable………….. YHVH is knowable
Allah is nonpersonal ……………..YHVH is personal
Allah is not a spirit ………………..YHVH is a Spirit
Allah can do anything with no limitations ……………….YHVH cannot go against His immutable nature e.g. YHVH cannot lie.
Allah is capricious …………………YHVH is trustworthy
Allah has no feelings towards man …………………….YHVH loves man deeply
Allah doesn't personally enter human history.…………………..YHVH, the Son, became a man to bring about man's salvation.
Allah provides no saviour or intecessor. You're on your own. No concept of grace.………………………YHVH provided a Saviour through his manifold grace and kindness and love. Jesus came to save.
Allah wants you to commit murder ………………YHVH wants you to forgive.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#2166 Jan 6, 2013
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
What, so you still can't prove your existence shame on you. Guess you don't spend much time in a real scientific lab, with real scientists.
You want a peer reviewed 100% scientific fact here goes I just proved that I exist,(something you seem unable to do) My wife and children reviewed that I exist and agree full with the conclusion that I exist. To be sure I asked my neighbour and he agrees I exist. So no problem, your turn now prove you evolution myth.
That's not how science works. You said 100% SCIENTIFIC ASSURANCE which would mean you would also have to prove 'last Thursdayism' isn't true. You really don't understand the first thing about science at all. Home schooled?

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#2167 Jan 6, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not how science works. You said 100% SCIENTIFIC ASSURANCE which would mean you would also have to prove 'last Thursdayism' isn't true. You really don't understand the first thing about science at all. Home schooled?
You asked for 100% scientific proof for something. I provided it, If you don't accept it that is you problem not mine, I accept it, it was done under very strict scientific methodology as was the review. You cannot dent that as you do not know, like you do not know the myth of evolution is true and not a myth as it really is.

Now you provide you proof for evolution I am still waiting for it. remember it must be a proof based on the scientific definition of "proof"

In case you don't know here it is for you.
"Scientific proof can best be described as: A conclusion drawn from a repeatable observation that does not violate Ockham’s razor.

For something to be considered scientific proof it must meet those two requirements: not violating Ockham’s razor (making the least possible amount of assumptions) and being drawn from a repeatable observation.

Or in other words the conclusion drawn from a repeatable observation making the least possible amount of assumptions."

Now go for it fit evolution into that frame work, if you dare try. HA I don't know science HA, HA, HA what I have forgotten you still need to learn.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#2168 Jan 6, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not how science works. You Home schooled?
By the way before you mock home schooling you should have a look at the achievements of home schoolers when compared to non home schooled.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#2169 Jan 6, 2013
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
The Quran The Bible
Allah is unknowable………….. YHVH is knowable
Allah is nonpersonal ……………..YHVH is personal
Allah is not a spirit ………………..YHVH is a Spirit
Allah can do anything with no limitations ……………….YHVH cannot go against His immutable nature e.g. YHVH cannot lie.
Allah is capricious …………………YHVH is trustworthy
Allah has no feelings towards man …………………….YHVH loves man deeply
Is that why he created smallpox?
Colin The Zionist wrote:
Allah doesn't personally enter human history.…………………..YHVH, the Son, became a man to bring about man's salvation.
Allah provides no saviour or intecessor. You're on your own. No concept of grace.………………………YHVH provided a Saviour through his manifold grace and kindness and love. Jesus came to save.
Allah wants you to commit murder ………………YHVH wants you to forgive.
Look, you don't have any evidence to back up your claims!
And you don't give us any reason god wouldn't be like you claim Allah is.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#2170 Jan 6, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that why he created smallpox?
<quoted text>
Look, you don't have any evidence to back up your claims!
And you don't give us any reason god wouldn't be like you claim Allah is.
I guess you just can't read then hay.
Hey Rose

Pittsfield, MA

#2171 Jan 6, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that why he created smallpox?
<quoted text>
Look, you don't have any evidence to back up your claims!
And you don't give us any reason god wouldn't be like you claim Allah is.
Are you just as dumb offline?

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

#2172 Jan 6, 2013
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
I know all about “natural selection” it comes in many variances. If “natural selection” was real from an evolutionary point the ok evolution will be true but it is NOT. Evolution is not tangible or verifiable, if you have any real evidence please feel free to post it.
Of course it is. Natural selection is the evolution process. For example, I have worked with native plants. Plants propagated from populations in a nearby but different area often fail to survive, yet those propagated from the exact area often do survive. Here is another example. Arctostaphylos (manzanita) species existed on San Bruno Mountain for thousands of years. There are two types which are genetically related, meaning they evolved from a common ancestor. These two varieties looked much different, yet another unrelated variety looked similar. These were obvious examples of evolution in the plant kingdom. The genome project proves all humans to be related. The most biodiversity exists in Africa, which proves that humans originated there rather than in the Tigris and Euphrates region where the Bible says they did.

Science proves you wrong.

DNA studies indicate that all modern humans share a common female ancestor who lived in Africa about 140,000 years ago, and all men share a common male ancestor who lived in Africa about 60,000 years ago. These were not the only humans who lived in these eras, and the human genome still contains many genetic traits of their contemporaries. Humanity's most recent common ancestors are identifiable because their lineages have survived by chance in the special pieces of DNA that are passed down the gender lines nearly unaltered from one generation to the next. These ancestors are part of a growing body of fossil and DNA evidence indicating that modern humans arose in sub-Saharan Africa and began migrating, starting about 65,000 years ago, to populate first southern Asia, China, Java, and later Europe. Each of us living today has DNA that contains the story of our ancient ancestors' journeys.

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_G...

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#2173 Jan 6, 2013
LuLu Ford wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it is.…………..living today has DNA that contains the story of our ancient ancestors' journeys.
l
Funny that if I take a tropical plant and plant it in my freezer and it dies that is your version of evolution wow what a crock. Your science has proved nothing in that statement, the movement of humans over the world is speculation at best. All you can show is that someone died.
DNA studies show we have a common ancestor yes Adam and Eve 6000 years ago.

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

#2174 Jan 6, 2013
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny that if I take a tropical plant and plant it in my freezer and it dies that is your version of evolution wow what a crock. Your science has proved nothing in that statement, the movement of humans over the world is speculation at best. All you can show is that someone died.
DNA studies show we have a common ancestor yes Adam and Eve 6000 years ago.
Strawman

DNA and genetics proves evolution.

Adam and Eve? You must be kidding. The Bible timeline is less than 10,000 years. Humans have been around much longer than that. The world is around 4.5 - 5 billion years old.

Are you totally daft?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#2175 Jan 6, 2013
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
You asked for 100% scientific proof for something. I provided it, If you don't accept it that is you problem not mine, I accept it, it was done under very strict scientific methodology as was the review. You cannot dent that as you do not know, like you do not know the myth of evolution is true and not a myth as it really is.
Now you provide you proof for evolution I am still waiting for it. remember it must be a proof based on the scientific definition of "proof"
In case you don't know here it is for you.
"Scientific proof can best be described as: A conclusion drawn from a repeatable observation that does not violate Ockham’s razor.
For something to be considered scientific proof it must meet those two requirements: not violating Ockham’s razor (making the least possible amount of assumptions) and being drawn from a repeatable observation.
Or in other words the conclusion drawn from a repeatable observation making the least possible amount of assumptions."
Now go for it fit evolution into that frame work, if you dare try. HA I don't know science HA, HA, HA what I have forgotten you still need to learn.
"Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science." (" http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scien... ;)

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#2176 Jan 6, 2013
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
You asked for 100% scientific proof for something. I provided it, If you don't accept it that is you problem not mine, I accept it, it was done under very strict scientific methodology as was the review. You cannot dent that as you do not know, like you do not know the myth of evolution is true and not a myth as it really is.
Now you provide you proof for evolution I am still waiting for it. remember it must be a proof based on the scientific definition of "proof"
In case you don't know here it is for you.
"Scientific proof can best be described as: A conclusion drawn from a repeatable observation that does not violate Ockham’s razor.
For something to be considered scientific proof it must meet those two requirements: not violating Ockham’s razor (making the least possible amount of assumptions) and being drawn from a repeatable observation.
Or in other words the conclusion drawn from a repeatable observation making the least possible amount of assumptions."
Now go for it fit evolution into that frame work, if you dare try. HA I don't know science HA, HA, HA what I have forgotten you still need to learn.
"... we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory." ~ Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953

"If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part." ~ Richard Feynman (1918-1988).

"A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modification in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration." ~ Bertrand Russell, Grounds of Conflict, Religion and Science, 1953.

"It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven." ~ Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#2177 Jan 6, 2013
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
..."Scientific proof can best be described as: A conclusion drawn from a repeatable observation that does not violate Ockham’s razor.
...
You actually got your definition from an anonymous wordpress blog called "itsnobody"? ROTFLMAO

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#2178 Jan 6, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
"Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science." (" http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scien... ;)
So by denying the definition of scientific proof ( a real scientific definition) I provided, you deny science at its root. Without proofs science is philosophy.

You have nothing to support the myth of evolution that is why you divert and refuse to answer. Theories stop in the class room and real science start in the lab where we can prove things over and over again (repeatability) and prove things. Your science belongs in graced school where you can discuss but never prove and you can still avoid the hard stuff like the actual science.

“goodbye topix”

Since: Jun 12

Im not here

#2179 Jan 6, 2013
Colin The Zionist wrote:
Wow that was all fun. Next please.
Na na na na na my God is better than your God na na na na na.
Its all the same God u loofer.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#2180 Jan 6, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
"... we have no………………..Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953
"If you thought that science was certain ………………..." ~ Richard Feynman (1918-1988).
"A religious creed ……………………." ~ Bertrand Russell, Grounds of Conflict, Religion and Science, 1953.
"It is the aim of science to establish general rules ………………………… Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941.
So you can quote some examples to back up your ridicules claim, without definite proofs there can be no LAWS there can be no rules because both require absolutes and absolutes require proofs, yes even albert can be wrong well he was often and he even admitted it.
I provided you a peer reviewed scientific proof 100% scientifically proved you chose to ignore it so that your denial of the truth would back up your stupid claim. The term scientific theory with the lack of any proof was a term coined by evolutionists who knew they could never prove their utter rubbish so the redefined science terminology to fit their lack of evidential proof for evolution.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#2181 Jan 6, 2013
_Chartreuse_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Na na na na na my God is better than your God na na na na na.
Its all the same God u loofer.
Wow you are one stupid sub-human.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#2182 Jan 6, 2013
LuLu Ford wrote:
<quoted text>
DNA and genetics proves evolution.

Humans have been around much longer than that.

The world is around 4.5 - 5 billion years old.
Are you totally daft?
Prove conclusivly each the above statements. If you can't you are a lair 100%

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#2183 Jan 6, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
You actually got your definition from an anonymous wordpress blog called "itsnobody"? ROTFLMAO
It is a rather common definition.

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 39 min Dak-Original 22,293
Becoming a parent changed everything. 1 hr Reason Personified 17
Our world came from nothing? 2 hr Reason Personified 479
The problem of evil and hate (Oct '13) 3 hr Patrick 332
Respecting belief: why should you? And why shou... 3 hr Patrick 14
Atheist Babies 3 hr Patrick 39
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 4 hr Patrick 194
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 5 hr Aura Mytha 227,688
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••