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

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#2883 Jan 11, 2013
sickofit wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU HAVE PROOF YOUR BUYBULL AND FLYING SPACE JEW ARE REAL??????????
So you admit that you have no evidence or proof for the myth (lie) of evolution.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2884 Jan 11, 2013
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
I dont deny the predictive power of the big bang model for the universe creation...indeed I embrace it.
You are not arguing against final and formal causes...rather you are sticking up for the usefullness of a methodology (the scientific method)- I dont refute the usefullness of that methodology, indeed I subscribe to it.
The problem is you are stuck within that methodology for both your questions and your answer. I on the other hand have both science and metaphysical knowledge as viable.
Its simply eedifying to know that your methodology cant prove the origins of the known universe with anymore evidence than what reason suggests is the lickly cause of a inteleigiable universe...
How do you go about establishing and testing 'metaphysical knowledge'?

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#2885 Jan 11, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The basic data is that from the cosmic microwave background radiation. It was collected over several years by the WMAP probe. The preconceived information was that the probe could accurately detect this radiation (tested on earth). The data was then subjected to analysis of its spherical harmonics and those compared to the predictions of a number of different models.
So, here's a challenge. based on your hypothesis of there being a creator, make a prediction about the nature of the angular fluctuations of the cosmic background radiation. You may use preliminary data to select your parameters and then use that to make fuller predictions. After you do, let's compare the results with those from the LCDM (Big Bang) scenario.
I read that too, and the underlying presumption was.......

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2886 Jan 11, 2013
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
No kid, not "as we know it" but as it is known. Their was no "universe" before the big bang. Time & space themselves are expanding...and not into a void, but simply expanding since that moment of creation.
An intelligent creator that designed an intelliable universe is not proven by these scientific fact, its simply just the most rational explanation posited to date.
Really? Why would you say that? Why is it any more reasonable than saying the universe is due to a quantum fluctuation?

All other explanantions also fail the test of being testable or based on emprirical eviedence.
I simply am going were the evidence leads.
No, saying there is a deity goes *way* beyond the evidence.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2887 Jan 11, 2013
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
And none are 100% irrefutable evidence for the myth (lie) of evolution.
Of course not. 100% irrefutable evidence is never available. So we go for the theory that works best with the evidence we have available.
For a point if correction, creation is the only thing that explains all we can see and all we cannot see
No, it 'explains' nothing at all. We still need all the rest of science to explain what we actually see. And what we actually see requires a universe expanding from a hot, dense state and species that change over time.
sickofit

Owatonna, MN

#2888 Jan 11, 2013
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
So you admit that you have no evidence or proof for the myth (lie) of evolution.
I HAVE ALOT OF PROOF.....You see every college that teaches REAL SCIENCE TEACHES EVOLUTION...proof enoughf ro any sane person..
sickofit

Owatonna, MN

#2889 Jan 11, 2013
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
And none are 100% irrefutable evidence for the myth (lie) of evolution. For a point if correction, creation is the only thing that explains all we can see and all we cannot see
CREATION??????????LOL LOL....OH YEA GOD DIDIT....LOL.....
GOT ANY PROOF??????????
Fitz

Roseville, MI

#2890 Jan 11, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you go about establishing and testing 'metaphysical knowledge'?
Now your subjecting metaphysical knowledge to scientific analysis.. Kind of running home to momma...all you know.

But it is the very nature of metaphysics (literally beyond the physical) that it dosent subject itself to scientific analysis.

On the same score however either do your mutiple theories of what came "before" the big bang.
Fitz

Roseville, MI

#2891 Jan 11, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you should be able to prove there was no universe in any form prior to the big bang ..... I'll wait .....
Dumbazz!
Newsflash...The feild of physics itself has reached a scientific consensus that "prior" to the big bang their was no universe.

Thats the whole point of the big bang theory and the last 60+ years of debate between big bang proponents and "solid state" theories of the universe.

A Library card and a little knowledge would help you avoid these traps.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#2892 Jan 11, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course not. 100% irrefutable evidence is never available. So we go for the theory that works best with the evidence we have available.
<quoted text>
No, it 'explains' nothing at all. We still need all the rest of science to explain what we actually see. And what we actually see requires a universe expanding from a hot, dense state and species that change over time.
So you like so many before you finally admit that there is no truly scientific, thanks for bring honest.
Science does not need to look to a myth to see the here, now and tomorrow. If you do you look back at a presumption not at real truth. Why would what we see today rely on anything that might have happened billions of years ago they makes no scientific sense at all. The big bang, the life from a puddle; the fish walking and breathing the whole of evolution is based on theory and myth and as such has no place in real science

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#2893 Jan 11, 2013
sickofit wrote:
<quoted text>
CREATION??????????LOL LOL....OH YEA GOD DIDIT....LOL.....
GOT ANY PROOF??????????
Attempting to divert once again. Far more intelligent people than you have admitted that there is no real evidence for the myth (lie) of evolution, you should concede now before you loose that last glimmer of credibility.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#2894 Jan 11, 2013
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
You should feel sorry for all the brainwashed children in school being taught the myth (lie) of evolution
Your arrogance of ignorance is staggering.

The only good thing about the people of your ilk, is you will never have control of the education system.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2895 Jan 11, 2013
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
So you like so many before you finally admit that there is no truly scientific, thanks for bring honest.
Nothing in science is 100%. But for a great many thing, we have 99.999999% or more. Evolution and the expanding universe are at least at this level.
Science does not need to look to a myth to see the here, now and tomorrow. If you do you look back at a presumption not at real truth. Why would what we see today rely on anything that might have happened billions of years ago they makes no scientific sense at all. The big bang, the life from a puddle; the fish walking and breathing the whole of evolution is based on theory and myth and as such has no place in real science
Science *is* the construction of theories to explain the observations. The theory of evolution is based on th evidence we have. It is *at least* as firm as the evidence that small masses fall at the same rate as large ones in a gravitational field.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2896 Jan 11, 2013
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Now your subjecting metaphysical knowledge to scientific analysis.. Kind of running home to momma...all you know.
So how can you call it knowledge?
But it is the very nature of metaphysics (literally beyond the physical) that it dosent subject itself to scientific analysis.
Which is why it is self-contradictory.
On the same score however either do your mutiple theories of what came "before" the big bang.
Actually, that is not true. There are testable differences between string theory and loop quantum gravity. Those tests are beyond our current capabilities, but they are possible, physical predictions that would then support the other conclusions of the theories, such as other universes.
A different scenario is given in string theory, where the other universes are not *completely* separated from ours, but interact via gravity (just not the other three fundamental forces). If this is the case, we would be able to detect the other universes through their gravitational effects. There was even a suspected detection of such a couple of years ago.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2897 Jan 11, 2013
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Attempting to divert once again. Far more intelligent people than you have admitted that there is no real evidence for the myth (lie) of evolution, you should concede now before you loose that last glimmer of credibility.
No scientific theory is *ever* 100%. But the evidence for evolution (i.e, that species change over geological time) is far, far beyond the realm of 'reasonable doubt'.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#2898 Jan 11, 2013
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Newsflash...The feild of physics itself has reached a scientific consensus that "prior" to the big bang their was no universe.
Thats the whole point of the big bang theory and the last 60+ years of debate between big bang proponents and "solid state" theories of the universe.
A Library card and a little knowledge would help you avoid these traps.
Then you should have no problem citing your sources. I'll wait ....

Since: Dec 12

Kolomotu'a

#2899 Jan 11, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually you have engaged in conversation very well and have not resorted to the usual creationism banter we see.
However, you would be a very, very tiny minority of posters in any of the Atheism Forum threads, so forgive some of us if we keep expecting you to go vertical at any moment and start ranting.
That is the common history here.
Even though I have really enjoyed typing to you, I too keep expecting the worst, and I'm sorry for that.
Thank you for your post. I guess you're right, this is controversial topic and so it would be expected.
I came with something to argue, but it seems it probably isnt for something so broad as Atheism, bounded by one awefully simple thing, "not-theist".
how one becomes 'not-atheist' is almost as varied as how one becomes 'theist'. To bring all atheists together might saying to all theists to come together. To say call one a sect, a branch off theism might just as firmly be rejected as calling another - a branch off atheism.
Maybe the debate or arguments should not be theists and atheists, but things more specific.. just my humble opinion..
sickofit

Owatonna, MN

#2900 Jan 11, 2013
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Attempting to divert once again. Far more intelligent people than you have admitted that there is no real evidence for the myth (lie) of evolution, you should concede now before you loose that last glimmer of credibility.
REALLY SO ALL THESE HIGHLY EDUCATED COLLEGE TEACHERS ARE WRONG AND AN UNEDUCATED IDIOT LIKE YOU IS RIGHT??????????

Come on grow up hitler boy...Your religion is BS and we all know it...

Since: Dec 12

Kolomotu'a

#2901 Jan 11, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
FYI --
HUMANISM AND ITS ASPIRATIONS
Thank you, an interesting, positive, compassionate outlook into the world.. I like it
Fitz

Roseville, MI

#2902 Jan 11, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
So how can you call it knowledge?
<quoted text>
Which is why it is self-contradictory.
<quoted text>
.
Its your prejudice not mine that reduces all "real" knowledge to the scientifically testable. You have only this one form of knowledge, I have philosophy, theology and the like.

You have made a catogory error that dissmisses all fields except yours.

tThe fact that the feild of physics has had to combat the questions of the big bang theory as well as the anthropic principles with speculative, untestable hypothesis that fail their own test for "knowledge" is simply one example of history having many ironies in the fire.

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
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 11 min Thinking 2,277
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 56 min KiMare 232,900
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 9 hr polymath257 23,199
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 15 hr Yiago 148
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 20 hr _Bad Company 141
Islam is the Enemy (Sep '12) 21 hr thetruth 34
God' existence 21 hr thetruth 67
More from around the web