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
3,721 - 3,740 of 14,385 Comments Last updated Nov 23, 2013

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#3898 Jan 19, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>Wait, so in a mere 5,000 years, a Liger/Tigon pair turned into lions, tigers, cheetahs, servals, ocelots, lynx, bobcats, cougars, and housecats?

Sounds like some kind of hyper-evolution.
This from your own web site.

"more and more scientists are concluding that evolution occurs very, very rapidly as a rule."

http://atheism.about.com/b/2012/02/27/evoluti...
Jumper

Owensboro, KY

#3899 Jan 19, 2013
As I see it.the gays have a right to belive what they want to!

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#3900 Jan 19, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
According to Yardenna Alexandre, excavation director on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority,“The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth and thereby sheds light on the way of life at the time of Jesus. The building that we found is small and modest and it is most likely typical of the dwellings in Nazareth in that period. From the few written sources that there are, we know that in the first century CE Nazareth was a small Jewish village, located inside a valley. Until now a number of tombs from the time of Jesus were found in Nazareth; however, no settlement remains have been discovered that are attributed to this period”.
In the excavation a large broad wall that dates to the Mamluk period (the fifteenth century CE) was exposed that was constructed on top of and “utilized” the walls of an ancinet building. This earlier building consisted of two rooms and a courtyard in which there was a rock-hewn cistern into which the rainwater was conveyed. The artifacts recovered from inside the building were few and mostly included fragments of pottery vessels from the Early Roman period (the first and second centuries CE). In addition, several fragments of chalk vessels were found, which were only used by Jews in this period because such vessels were not susceptible to becoming ritually unclean.
Quick!

Send her to Mount Sinai!!

Maybe she can find the evidence no one else can: That 3 million people, nearly 1 million animals (cattle, goats and sheep) and 10,000 wagons were encamped at the bottom of the mountain.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#3901 Jan 19, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>The point was that even if there had was a town of Nazareth at the time Jesus was supposed to have existed, that's not evidence he was a real person.(Can't believe I had to explain that...)
"Paul knew Jesus' brother, James, and he knew his closest disciple, Peter, and he tells us that he did," Ehrman says. "If Jesus didn't exist, you would think his brother would know about it, so I think Paul is probably pretty good evidence that Jesus at least existed"

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3902 Jan 19, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
This from your own web site.
"more and more scientists are concluding that evolution occurs very, very rapidly as a rule."
http://atheism.about.com/b/2012/02/27/evoluti...
Langoliers,

I'm asking how it makes sense if you reject evolution.

If you believe all cat species came from 2 ligons on a boat, and do NOT accept evolution, then what is the process by which they came?

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#3903 Jan 19, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
A fossil can only be proof of what once lived. It cannot tell you or anyone what it planned on turning into. A transition fossil is nothing more the a fossil of what once lived. Science can Guess at the probabilities that it used to be this animal and later became that animal. There is noway a fossil can prove it came from one kind of animal or another. A fossil is only proof of what it was once was.
What would you accept as evidence of evolution, since the fossil record doesn't do it for you?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#3904 Jan 19, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>Sure, I know that you don't understand what a species is.
No I know what a species is. Trouble is I was talking about Kinds not species.
Of course one would have to know how to read to know this so I do understand why you didn't know.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#3905 Jan 19, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>Langoliers,

I'm asking how it makes sense if you reject evolution.

If you believe all cat species came from 2 ligons on a boat, and do NOT accept evolution, then what is the process by which they came?
You would then need to understand your theory of evolution better.

Micro evolution has been observed and is Provable. Getting all those cats from one pair is an example of Micro evolution. I don't believe the Myth of Macro Evolution. e.g. A Pair of cats as listed above evolving in to a Snake.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#3906 Jan 19, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
You would then need to understand your theory of evolution better.
Micro evolution has been observed and is Provable. Getting all those cats from one pair is an example of Micro evolution. I don't believe the Myth of Macro Evolution. e.g. A Pair of cats as listed above evolving in to a Snake.
There is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution. They occur by the same mechanisms. The only "difference" is the number of generations involved.
Lincoln

United States

#3907 Jan 19, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"Paul knew Jesus' brother, James, and he knew his closest disciple, Peter, and he tells us that he did," Ehrman says. "If Jesus didn't exist, you would think his brother would know about it, so I think Paul is probably pretty good evidence that Jesus at least existed"
Jesus existing complicates atheism in some way based on posts.
Lincoln

United States

#3908 Jan 19, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
You would then need to understand your theory of evolution better.
Micro evolution has been observed and is Provable. Getting all those cats from one pair is an example of Micro evolution. I don't believe the Myth of Macro Evolution. e.g. A Pair of cats as listed above evolving in to a Snake.
Does evolution somehow indicate atheism is logical?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3909 Jan 19, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
You would then need to understand your theory of evolution better.
Micro evolution has been observed and is Provable. Getting all those cats from one pair is an example of Micro evolution. I don't believe the Myth of Macro Evolution. e.g. A Pair of cats as listed above evolving in to a Snake.
Wrong. Macroevolution is defined as changes at or above the level of species.

The cats named earlier are not distinct species, they are from different genuses, and different subfamilies.

That's THREE LEVELS above microevolution.
Lincoln

United States

#3910 Jan 19, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Quick!
Send her to Mount Sinai!!
Maybe she can find the evidence no one else can: That 3 million people, nearly 1 million animals (cattle, goats and sheep) and 10,000 wagons were encamped at the bottom of the mountain.
Does evolution in some way add to the theory of atheism?
Fitz

Roseville, MI

#3911 Jan 19, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"Paul knew Jesus' brother, James, and he knew his closest disciple, Peter, and he tells us that he did," Ehrman says. "If Jesus didn't exist, you would think his brother would know about it, so I think Paul is probably pretty good evidence that Jesus at least existed"
You dont need to argue a point as basic as the existance of Jesus as an historical figure. The only reason its even up for debate is because of WHO he is. Multiple historical figures from antiquity cant be "proven" to have existed by their standards of evidence.

Yet these figures existance is not in dispute, and neither is Jeusus's. This is simply a gambit by anti-religious bigots.
Fitz

Roseville, MI

#3912 Jan 19, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Does evolution somehow indicate atheism is logical?
These people cant defend their narrow atheist point of view sufficently to satiate their anti-religious bigotry.

So what they do is pick on the straw man of a narrow tiny group of young earth creationists as straw men or hyperinflate the theory of evolution to pretend that it is emprically sunstantiated and without any gaps or flaws. This way they can invision their substitute faith as a flawless gem that no reasonable person could question. Its not, authentic scientists and well enformed individuals understand that science dosent have all the answers nor will it ever be able to provide all the answers in the same kind of way that would be a sufficient substiute for faith.

This is the difference between science and scientism.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3913 Jan 19, 2013
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Its not, authentic scientists and well enformed individuals understand that science dosent have all the answers nor will it ever be able to provide all the answers in the same kind of way that would be a sufficient substiute for faith.
Why would anyone be looking for a substitute for faith, which is of no value?
Fitz wrote:
This is the difference between science and scientism.
Ah, scientism, the buzzword of those who hate people that actually want rational, evidenced answers.

Science can't provide ALL the answers, so let's reject in it favor of systems that provide no answers at all!

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#3914 Jan 19, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>Langoliers,

I'm asking how it makes sense if you reject evolution.

If you believe all cat species came from 2 ligons on a boat, and do NOT accept evolution, then what is the process by which they came?
"THE CLAIM HAS BEEN made that whereas acceptable evidence of microevolution exists, there is no acceptable evidence for macroevolution The microevolutionary changes conceded are changes in gene frequencies or genetically based adaptations, which can be demonstrated in short-term scientific studies. These include changes in the frequency of dark morphs in moths, and changes in the age of first reproduction in fish as the result of the selective actions of predators on fish.

Macroevolution, however, is seen as unsubstantiated by critics of evolutionary theory. It is not seen how a process of macroevolution could produce new higher categories of life such as bird, butterflies, and flowering plants, as well as any unique and well-developed structures they possess such as brains, wings, and flowers.

Macroevolution suffers, in this view, from unconvincing evidence, missing evidence, and counter-evidence. Deemed unconvincing is the evolutionary biologists' claim that the processes that led to observable short-term changes in the genetic complements of species (and the traits governed by these genes) also led over millions of years to bigger changes, greatly modified structures with new uses, and new kinds of organisms. Also deemed unconvincing is the occasional fossil intermediate-the odd whale with legs here and the reptile with feathers there.

The missing evidence, in this view, is explained away as gaps in the fossil record. The missing "proof' would have to be a chain from ancestor to very different descendent of adapted intermediates, not overlapping in time, each superior to its predecessor.

The counter-evidence for macroevolution is regarded to be the overlapping in time of presumed ancestral and descendent species. Other counter-evidence is held to be the apparent sudden appearance- suggesting creation-of new forms, and of life itself.

Given, finally, that the evidence for macroevolution is so bad, the reason that so many scientists stand behind it must be political. There is a struggle for cultural domination: Science or God, Evolution or Creation Scientists must exclude an actively creating or otherwise involved God because, if they didn't, it would mean the death of science. To win, scientists push the dogma of metaphysical naturalism, which states that knowledge can come only through the methods of investigation of natural science."

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#3915 Jan 19, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>Jesus existing complicates atheism in some way based on posts.
It does come off as a totally unacceptable possibility that they can't tolerate.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#3916 Jan 19, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus existing complicates atheism in some way based on posts.
There is no evidence that Jesus existed. Paul never met Jesus and Christians are always calling each other "brother", it means nothing.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3917 Jan 19, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"THE CLAIM HAS BEEN made that whereas acceptable evidence of microevolution exists, there is no acceptable evidence for macroevolution The microevolutionary changes conceded are changes in gene frequencies or genetically based adaptations, which can be demonstrated in short-term scientific studies. These include changes in the frequency of dark morphs in moths, and changes in the age of first reproduction in fish as the result of the selective actions of predators on fish....

-snip-
Yawn. Is this the kind of discussion I can expect from you? I ask a question and you post a wall of text that is completely irrelevant to said question?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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 requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 22 min KiMare 226,285
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 53 min Patrick 42
Should Uninformed Opinion Be Respected? 1 hr Patrick 21
100% Faith Free 1 hr Thinking 11
Our world came from nothing? 1 hr Thinking 408
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 1 hr ChristineM 902
The Ultimate Evidence of God 1 hr Patrick 54
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••