Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Aug 27, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: News24

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.

Comments (Page 131)

Showing posts 2,601 - 2,620 of14,394
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Lincoln

Rutherfordton, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2760
Jan 11, 2013
 
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
We've had a slow erosion of our pure secularist roots ever since we became a country --
March 4, 1789 - secular U.S. government established.
June 7, 1797 -“The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”~ unanimously approved by the Senate and signed by President John Adams
1863 - President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed a national day of Thanksgiving
1870 - Christmas was declared a federal holiday by Congress
1881 - Chester A. Arthur swearing in ceremony is the first documented response of "so help me god" (not a part of the official oath of office).
1890 - "The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of women's emancipation." ~ Elizabeth Cady Stanton
April 17, 1952 - President Harry S. Truman signed a bill proclaiming a National Day of Prayer must be declared by each following president at an appropriate date of his choice.(In 1988, the law was amended so that the National Day of Prayer would be held on the first Thursday of May.)
June 14, 1954 - "God" was added to the pledge, changing us from “one nation indivisible” into one nation divided by god.
July 30, 1956 - "God" was added as our national motto and officially put on our money (I still prefer "e pluribus unum" - out of many we become one).
August 27, 1987 –“No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.”~ George H. W. Bush
Democratic Government in the US may not hold with secularist beliefs.
John Adams was a Unitarian.
Christmas and Easter vacations in Public Schools.
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2761
Jan 11, 2013
 
It's not Simon Singh or my "if music" either.
But it does prove you're a cu*t.
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't really care how they spell it not my kind if music. What it showed is just how easily you were brainwashed by the myth (lie) of evolution.
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2762
Jan 11, 2013
 
Why?
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it is Brilliant Science. Did you do the maths yet I am waiting for your answers.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2763
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Yes instead of you dictating to atheists what they are perhaps you should actually listen to an atheist?

Feel free to change screen names again.
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.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2764
Jan 11, 2013
 
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
We've had a slow erosion of our pure secularist roots ever since we became a country --
Jan 2009 to date, Barak Obama "In our household the Bible, the Koran, and the Bhagavad Gita sat on the shelf alongside books of Greek and Norse and African mythology." His Book, The Audacity of Hope

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2765
Jan 11, 2013
 
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for once again proving that you cannot handle the truth.
And truth would be, that having sexual intercourse while looking at striped sticks floating in water will result in striped progeny?
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2766
Jan 11, 2013
 
Thinking wrote:
But it does prove you're a cu*t.
<quoted text>
He is in a cult?:D

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2767
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

1: Stay away from those how to debate an atheist websites that you stole your arguments from.

2: Listen to actual atheists. Don't dictate and obfuscate what you want them to be.

3: Most importantly show us why we should accept your god as anything more than your imagination.
inv e wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I only just became aware of that lol. I came here thinking I understood atheism, to find its as broad as a new word I just added to my small vocabulary, theism. I'm not sure if one can argue against something so broad.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2768
Jan 11, 2013
 
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
And that site is based on what factual evidence?
Exactly. It is based on the buybull (bible), meaning no factual evidence.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2769
Jan 11, 2013
 
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
No study of Biology NEEDS to recognise the myth (lie) of evolution yes they are all taught it and that to indoctrinate their thinking, NEED it now way. I do not need the myth (lie) of evolution to study the cell in a muscle and the way it interacts with amino acids in order to develop, nor do I need to have any need of the myth (lie) of evolution in order to study embryonic development. In order to create a predictive model of any sort one need to begin with a base if that precondition is myth (lie) of evolution they your model will be established with a faulty base and your conclusion based on myth (lie) of evolution will never be proven, if however you construct your model on knowledge of the seen and tested then your outcome is testable and reproducible in the lab.
The issue you have with you myth (lie) of evolution based model is that you age your fossils by the layers of the geologic column and you age the layers of the geologic column by the fossils you found in them. WRONG you cannot do so. How do you explain the existence of dino footprints alongside human footprints and how do you explain the finding of Dino soft tissue still intact. Some problems for your myth (lie) of evolution and billions of years.
Evolution: gradual adaptations played out over huge time spans.
Reality: that which is left when all the bullshit has been tossed. Like floating spotted sticks in your zebra's drinking water.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2770
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
The worlds most prominant physisits have had to postulate "multiverses", parrallel universis" and "worm hole producing baby universis" all to try an refute the clear implication of the anthropic principles.
That actually is not how it happens. We have two deep theories about how the universe works: general relativity and quantum mechanics. General relativity deals with large masses and high velocities, while quantum mechanics deals with atomic and sub-atomic phenomena. Both are incredibly well tested and are well-established in their realm of relevance.

Now, general relativity is a classical theory and describes gravity (among other things). It is also the foundation for our understanding of the expansion of the universe and, ultimately, the base theory for the Big Bang scenario.

Quantum mechanics, is a probabilistic theory, where the results of particular interactions cannot be predicted, but the overall probabilities can. It describes *everything* as a wave/particle where the wave describes the probability of detecting a particle.

The problem is that for the very early universe we need a quantum theory of gravity. Essentially, the densities get so high that the quantum effects become relevant for the gravitational fields. It has turned out to be very difficult to find a single theory that encompasses both general relativity and quantum mechanics. This has been a focus of physicists for the last 80 years and we only have a couple of viable theories that do this: string theory is one of them (loop quantum gravity is another).

Now, if you take the mathematics of string theory seriously, it *predicts* the existence of a multiverse and describes how universes like ours are formed from this multiverse. Instead of trying to use the concept of the multiverse to avoid the anthropic principle, it comes naturally out of the desire to unify gravity and quantum mechanics.
The statistical imporbability of mutiple life producing phenomina reduiguires a better explanantion than Adams..."well were here so I guess its no big deal" - non answer.
FYI - I dont axpect you to answer this querry, I am just demonstrating that many juvinile atheists have a hard time excepting that genuine intellectual challanges abound for their zelous lack of belief.
Genuine intellectual challenges abound when attempting to understand the universe. The scientific method gives us a way to untangle the complexities and gives us a hope of real understanding. It isn't an easy or straight road. It tends to have false starts, misunderstandings, faulty assumptions, etc. But, in the long run, the requirement that ideas be testable and that they agree with all observations will win out.
sickofit

Owatonna, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2772
Jan 11, 2013
 
s people get educated and put away childish things is why and when religion dies...Religion is for weak minded and hate filled people.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2771
Jan 11, 2013
 
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.
While you are at it, consider this ... absurd as it sounds, the atheist may just be the one to consult as to who the atheist actually is.
Every atheist is just the one thing, "not theist".
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2773
Jan 11, 2013
 
That's my get out card. I used to asterisk out the "u", but it's better to asterisk out the "n", isn't it? I mean "l". ;)
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
He is in a cult?:D

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2774
Jan 11, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh ya God could in no way make a female out of Adams rib.
He spoke into existence's everything you see and all you don't see. He breathed the breath of life in to dirt to create Adam.
DNA who do you think made it?
LOL
No, he couldn't have done that, he couldn't even count the legs on insects, or figure out that birds didn't have mammary glands.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2775
Jan 11, 2013
 
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<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.
I have seen the creationist claims on population growth and, truthfully, they have problems right from the start because they assume a constant rate of growth. We know very well that this is a bad assumption because we know that the rate of growth over the last couple of centuries has been much higher than for previous times. Add to that the fact that some periods of time have *negative* population growth (bubonic plague anyone?) and it is easy to see the creationist model is deeply flawed. The models don't even correctly predict the population at the time of the Roman empire.

The first problem is modeling the rate of growth. We know it is not constant, so the exponential growth models fail right from the start. Furthermore, the assumptions of continuous growth fail when populations get too small (as they would be for early humans) and more statistical methods need to be used.

Epic fail.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2776
Jan 11, 2013
 
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it is Brilliant Science. Did you do the maths yet I am waiting for your answers.
No, it is particularly poor modeling of a complex system using a two-parameter model which is known to be wrong.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2777
Jan 11, 2013
 
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
What big bang would that be?
The one that describes the universe expanding from a hot, dense state. You know, the one supported by the evidence.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.5226

“Pepsi is better than coke”

Since: Mar 11

and better with rum

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2778
Jan 11, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
That actually is not how it happens. We have two deep theories about how the universe works: general relativity and quantum mechanics. General relativity deals with large masses and high velocities, while quantum mechanics deals with atomic and sub-atomic phenomena. Both are incredibly well tested and are well-established in their realm of relevance.
Now, general relativity is a classical theory and describes gravity (among other things). It is also the foundation for our understanding of the expansion of the universe and, ultimately, the base theory for the Big Bang scenario.
Quantum mechanics, is a probabilistic theory, where the results of particular interactions cannot be predicted, but the overall probabilities can. It describes *everything* as a wave/particle where the wave describes the probability of detecting a particle.
The problem is that for the very early universe we need a quantum theory of gravity. Essentially, the densities get so high that the quantum effects become relevant for the gravitational fields. It has turned out to be very difficult to find a single theory that encompasses both general relativity and quantum mechanics. This has been a focus of physicists for the last 80 years and we only have a couple of viable theories that do this: string theory is one of them (loop quantum gravity is another).
Now, if you take the mathematics of string theory seriously, it *predicts* the existence of a multiverse and describes how universes like ours are formed from this multiverse. Instead of trying to use the concept of the multiverse to avoid the anthropic principle, it comes naturally out of the desire to unify gravity and quantum mechanics.
<quoted text>
Genuine intellectual challenges abound when attempting to understand the universe. The scientific method gives us a way to untangle the complexities and gives us a hope of real understanding. It isn't an easy or straight road. It tends to have false starts, misunderstandings, faulty assumptions, etc. But, in the long run, the requirement that ideas be testable and that they agree with all observations will win out.
Actually, Poly, in my lab, we postulate physics to disprove anthropomorphic universes and have managed to separate the strong anthropic principle from the weak big quantum bang theory. And, in the doing, we have determined that God = 2.0192756e34we, while Buddha = 8, therefore demonstrating that rum - dark, mind you, at least 7 years old, mainly Cuban - is among the most enjoyable beverages to be had with cigars (again, preferably Cuban).

Yes, that's right. Plug that into your equations, physics boi!

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2779
Jan 11, 2013
 
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Again Adam and Eve have been covered, <WHY DO I NEED TO KEEP DISPROVING THE SAME OLD ARGUMENTS OVER AND OVER>
You've disproven nothing. Your viewpoint does nothing to negate any other viewpoint. Just as my belief that Shrek, really isn't real, does not change that Fiona believes, that he does exist.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 2,601 - 2,620 of14,394
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••