Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

[inv e]

albtraum wrote:

<quoted text>
No, afraid not. Try Cambridge University:http://www.investig atingatheism.info/definition.h tml
Definition of Atheism
Atheism is a complex term to define, and many definitions fail to capture the range of positions an atheist can hold. Perhaps the most obvious meaning to many people now is the absence or rejection of a belief in a God, or gods. However, it has been used through much of history to denote certain beliefs seen as heretical, particularly the belief that God does not intervene in the world.
“...the exact meaning of 'atheist' varies between thinkers and caution must always be shown to make sure that discussions of atheism are not working at cross purposes.”
I do believe we are at cross purposes as you seem to be referring to the archaic 'accepted' definition and I am using the 21st century form of the word.
The greek root 'a' in atheist simply means without, ergo 'without belief.'
Plus the meaning of the word doctrine:
Noun
1.A belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.
2.A stated principle of government policy, mainly in foreign or military affairs: "the Monroe Doctrine".
Synonyms
tenet - ism - teaching - dogma
If we can come to an agreement on definition, I believe we can communicate better.
We agree on Evolution.....that's a start;0)

Yes, I think a definition would definitely help. Are there any other isms you might believe in btw?
Anyways, here's one I got from my dictionary app:
a·the·ism  [ey-thee-iz-uh& #8201;m]
noun
1.the doctrine or belief that  there is no God.
2.disbelief in the existence o f a supreme being or beings.

Another from the Oxford Dictionary of English on my ebook reader
- noun [mass noun] the theory or belief that God does not exist.

That's what I got so far...

[albtraum]

inv e wrote:

<quoted text> My argument is neither for gods or no gods, it's that atheism is a conclusion, a doctrine, a belief in no god. One reached by believing science arbitrarily leads to a conclusion that there is no god. Gods are not empirical,'therefore' I will not believe it!

Yes, I believe atheism is a conclusion but that seems to be all we agree on. You speak of science as if it were a way of life, a philosopy so to speak. It isn't, there are many disciplines in science (if that is the correct term) much more than I can ever hope to understand.

That said, my change of attitude did not come about because of science in any shape, form or fashion. Thirty some odd years of church, the last decade being a Sunday School teacher caused my belief in a god to wither and die.

The contradictions of the bible, the hypocrisy, the pettyness of the deity much less the shennanigans of the 'saved'(for we are all human) eroded and chipped away my convictions. Also, I am without belief, not a belief in the nonexistance of a god. This brought me great relief and I saw that I could continue my life as I had before without the superstitious myths, without rules and without a heaven or hell yawning before me.

There are consequences, but they occur in this life. Death is the equalizer and inevitable. I've already 'died' once and it's nothing to fear.

[Colin The Zionist]

Thinking wrote:

Silly story.
<quoted text>

Think again it is not a story it is in fact an accurate account of the creation of the human race.

I will make a presumption here then set you a test, I presume you are capable of basic mathematics (hopefully I am right) ok now calculated the population of the world based on the myth (lie) of evolution taking into account the normal population model, then do the same for the creation account. If you are honest enough to do so then your results may just shock you, if you are not then your results will not.

[Ooogah Boogah]

Colin The Zionist wrote:

<quoted text>
Which of this abbreviated list needs "magic" of any kind to exist.
List partially thanks to Wikipedia:
These are the main branches of biology that do not require the myth (lie) of evolution.
Aerobiology – the study of airborne organic particles
Agriculture – the study of producing crops from the land, with an emphasis on practical applications
Anatomy – the study of form and function, in plants, animals, and other organisms, or specifically in humans
Arachnology – the study of arachnids
Biochemistry – the study of the chemical reactions required for life to exist and function, usually a focus on the cellular level
Bioengineering – the study of biology through the means of engineering with an emphasis on applied knowledge and especially related to biotechnology
Biogeography – the study of the distribution of species spatially and temporally
Bioinformatics – the use of information technology for the study, collection, and storage of genomic and other biological data
Biomathematics (or Mathematical biology)– the quantitative or mathematical study of biological processes, with an emphasis on modeling
Biomechanics – often considered a branch of medicine, the study of the mechanics of living beings, with an emphasis on applied use through prosthetics or orthotics
Biomedical research – the study of the human body in health and disease
Biomusicology - study of music from a biological point of view.
Biophysics – the study of biological processes through physics, by applying the theories and methods traditionally used in the physical sciences
Biotechnology – a new and sometimes controversial branch of biology that studies the manipulation of living matter, including genetic modification and synthetic biology
Building biology – the study of the indoor living environment
Botany – the study of plants
You just alienated a whole lot of your myth friends by saying they need "magic". WOW you need to get a consensus between the myth (lie) of evolution followers if you want to look at all credible, you just single handily blew the whole evolutionary science brand out of the water. THANKS

Which on your list require God to exist?

[albtraum]

inv e wrote:

<quoted text>
I see, interesting.. It may take me a little while to wrap my head around your view of atheism, but I will try. One thing is for sure, I doubt I'll be entering anymore discussions with such a variety each individual atheists believes. To find common ground with one, another will disagree with it, and it continues on endlessly.

Lol, that would be the same as talking to a member of each of the 41,000 sects of christianity worldwide;0) Then factor in all of the other religions and subsects.....

[Colin The Zionist]

Ooogah Boogah wrote:

<quoted text>
Which on your list require God to exist?

NO YOU CANNOTY DIVERT THIS TIME>

That was not the discussion, do you claim that you need the myth (lie) of evolution to participate in these sciences like the other posters do. That is the discussion

[albtraum]

inv e wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, I think a definition would definitely help. Are there any other isms you might believe in btw?
Anyways, here's one I got from my dictionary app:
a·the·ism  [ey-thee-iz-uh& #8201;m]
noun
1.the doctrine or belief that  there is no God.
2.disbelief in the existence o f a supreme being or beings.
Another from the Oxford Dictionary of English on my ebook reader
- noun [mass noun] the theory or belief that God does not exist.
That's what I got so far...

I like to practice humanism when I've got the time, inclination and wherewithall. I suppose my only belief in humanism is that if we help one another, many may benefit....is that a belief or a hope? It's certainly not a surety.

If you agree with 'no belief' and 'doctrine' I will have no frame of reference re my personal experience and I can't speak for those I don't know.

[Fitz]

anthropic principles

If te worlds top physisits are stumped by them what makes you think your minds have reached a level of sophistication and honesty that it akes to refute them?

[Ooogah Boogah]

Colin The Zionist wrote:

<quoted text>
NO YOU CANNOTY DIVERT THIS TIME>
That was not the discussion, do you claim that you need the myth (lie) of evolution to participate in these sciences like the other posters do. That is the discussion

No I don't ... I claim that you need the FACT of evolution to further the advance of these scientific endeavors.

[Ooogah Boogah]

Fitz wrote:

anthropic principles
If te worlds top physisits are stumped by them what makes you think your minds have reached a level of sophistication and honesty that it akes to refute them?

Just because science does not know something at present time, that does not mean "Gaud dunnit".

That was the consensus of religious folk during the Black Plague. No one knew about germs at that time, so it was assumed that it was Gaud's wrath.

The "God of the Gaps" conclusion was wrong then and it is wrong now.

[Colin The Zionist]

Ooogah Boogah wrote:

<quoted text>
No I don't ... I claim that you need the FACT of evolution to further the advance of these scientific endeavors.

Then you have a serious problem as there is no such thing as the "fact" of evolution it is best known as the myth (lie) of evolution. If you have any real proof that evolution is a fact post it here, I have been asking since page 1 of this thread and no one has, if you have that 100% verifiable proof that 100% proves evolution is not a myth (lie) then be brave and post it. If not be like the rest and back away, and loose.

[Fitz]

emperorjohn wrote:

Religion is illogical. Atheism is logical. Why believe in what cannot be proven?

Its not "logical" to have an effect without a cause.

[Fitz]

Ooogah Boogah wrote:

<quoted text>
Just because science does not know something at present time, that does not mean "Gaud dunnit".
That was the consensus of religious folk during the Black Plague. No one knew about germs at that time, so it was assumed that it was Gaud's wrath.
The "God of the Gaps" conclusion was wrong then and it is wrong now.

Apparently your not familiar with the anthropic principles.. They are not "God of the gaps" argument.They are a set of formal laws of physics that point directly to a rational creator as the author of the universe.

You should know something of what you speak before you weight in on a topic.

If they have stumped our best physisists then you should probably take some time before you dismiss arguments your clearly not ready to refute except by spurious analogy.

[Colin The Zionist]

Fitz wrote:

<quoted text>
Its not "logical" to have an effect without a cause.

Around here you have to get use to the lack of any well constructed logic argument form the supporters of the myth (lie) of evolution.

[albtraum]

Colin The Zionist wrote:

<quoted text>
Then you have a serious problem as there is no such thing as the "fact" of evolution it is best known as the myth (lie) of evolution. If you have any real proof that evolution is a fact post it here, I have been asking since page 1 of this thread and no one has, if you have that 100% verifiable proof that 100% proves evolution is not a myth (lie) then be brave and post it. If not be like the rest and back away, and loose.

Yep, Pigeon Chess.

[Colin The Zionist]

albtraum wrote:

<quoted text>
Yep, Pigeon Chess.

I agree the supporters of the myth (lie) of evolution fit that 100% which is ironic because that is how much they lack any credible evidence for the myth, thanks for pointing that out to us.

[madscot]

Colin The Zionist wrote:

<quoted text>
I know exactly how the universe was created, I have documents. Just like the automobile the universe had a designer.
How do know that your documents are not fake?

WTF ever. Bible doesn't count moron. You've been taught that over and over here. You're just too dense to grasp reality.

[madscot]

Colin The Zionist wrote:

<quoted text>
And exactly how do you propose to detect His interactions.

Science

[madscot]

Colin The Zionist wrote:

<quoted text>
List partially thanks to Wikipedia:
These are the main branches of biology that do not require the myth (lie) of evolution.
Aerobiology – the study of airborne organic particles
Agriculture – the study of producing crops from the land, with an emphasis on practical applications
Anatomy – the study of form and function, in plants, animals, and other organisms, or specifically in humans
Arachnology – the study of arachnids
Biochemistry – the study of the chemical reactions required for life to exist and function, usually a focus on the cellular level
Bioengineering – the study of biology through the means of engineering with an emphasis on applied knowledge and especially related to biotechnology
Biogeography – the study of the distribution of species spatially and temporally
Bioinformatics – the use of information technology for the study, collection, and storage of genomic and other biological data
Biomathematics (or Mathematical biology)– the quantitative or mathematical study of biological processes, with an emphasis on modeling
Biomechanics – often considered a branch of medicine, the study of the mechanics of living beings, with an emphasis on applied use through prosthetics or orthotics
Biomedical research – the study of the human body in health and disease
Biomusicology - study of music from a biological point of view.
Biophysics – the study of biological processes through physics, by applying the theories and methods traditionally used in the physical sciences
Biotechnology – a new and sometimes controversial branch of biology that studies the manipulation of living matter, including genetic modification and synthetic biology
Building biology – the study of the indoor living environment
Botany – the study of plants
Cell biology – the study of the cell as a complete unit, and the molecular and chemical interactions that occur within a living cell
Conservation biology – the study of the preservation, protection, or restoration of the natural environment, natural ecosystems, vegetation, and wildlife
Creation Biology - the study of biology from the point of view of creation and intelligent design
Cryobiology – the study of the effects of lower than normally preferred temperatures on living beings
To Be continued

Post a link shitforbrains

[Colin The Zionist]

madscot wrote:

<quoted text>
Science

OK now prove you can do this extraordinary thing with your science.