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

“saved From jesus”

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#3938 Jan 19, 2013
ToManyLaws wrote:
<quoted text>LOL...So you want PROOF 100% PROOF OF EVOLUTION AND YET YOU WILL TAKE RELIGION AND CREATIONISM ON FAITH?????????
Insane much??????????
There will never be enough proof for hardcore believers. They don't really want any.

I've seen some brilliant minds on these threads who have explained science and the scientific method in extraordinary detail, to no avail to the deity worshippers, but it's not a total waste. Some of us lay-persons find it fascinating.

“saved From jesus”

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#3939 Jan 19, 2013
ToManyLaws wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is creationist proof of there god and creation myth???????
Word of mouth and a book. That makes sense. What more do you need?

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#3940 Jan 19, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Links?
You are the one claiming all these "Historians" Let's see their backgrounds and credentials.

“saved From jesus”

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#3941 Jan 19, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Those are all Paul's claims, and Paul never even met Jesus.
Paul had a vision of jesus. He told all of his godly secrets to Paul in great detail, including his entire history back to the virgin birth, all the philosophical stuff, the names of everyone associated with him, his big sermon, and all the magical stuff(miracles). He remembered everything that jesus told him word for word and wrote it all down (eidetic memory I'll assume)..... or he just made it all up as he went along. Hmmmmmm. Tough choice.
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#3942 Jan 19, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Annoyed we ask you questions that you don't like you mean. If you don't like people asking you honest questions or if you are ashamed to answer those questions stop coming to the atheism forum or posting on threads where you see lots of atheists posting.
Yes you would probably be better sticking to your Muslim threads if you are scared of our questions. Either way your off topic walls of text spam will from now on be reported for mass deletion and rightfully so as they violate the topix terms and conditions.
Freedom of speech is about the government not stopping you from voicing your opinion in a proper setting it has nothing to do with a private website which topix is. As a private website thy are allowed to set their own terms and conditions, terms that you violate with your walls of spam.
<quoted text>
I have RIGHT to answer any question or not. You cannot force me to answer any question, neither can I.

It is YOUR version that you ask honest and direct questions, while I think that neither the questions are honest nor direct. You want to get confirmation of your own warped minds from me.

So you should get on with the topic, I answer or I do not answer is not the question.

You should not threaten me to stop posting in my ways. I will post whatever I like in whatever way I like.

I post is civil language and I post in logical and reasonable manner, that is what is needed on these public threads.

try to adjust to your pinch of salt is my advice to you and your gang members.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#3943 Jan 19, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
Flaws of the Big Bang
The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question: "Where did everything come from?" Can nothing explode?
The person who wrote this doesn't understand the Big Bang theory.
Langoliers wrote:
This contradicts to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Conservation of Matter). Where did Space, Time, Matter, and Energy come from? Next, how did this explosion / "expansion" cause order while every explosion ever observed and documented in history caused only disorder and chaos? Consequently, the Big Bang seemingly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Increased Entropy). What organized the universe after the singularity?
Besides conflicting with the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, the Big Bang Theory contradicts the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum.
Who wrote this?
Langoliers wrote:
For example, how does the Big Bang Theory explain "Retrograde Motion" (the backward spin of some planets and the backward orbits of some moons) without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?
Everything in the universe is spinning - planets, stars, galaxies, etc. It would take an enormous amount of energy to start a planet spinning. To solve this, advocates of the Big Bang Theory claim that the singularity that blew up in a sudden big bang was spinning before it exploded, thus everything within it was spinning as it flung out. The problem is Venus, Uranus, and Pluto are spinning backwards (Retrograde Motion). If something spinning clockwise blows up, all of the pieces will be spinning clockwise (the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum). The Big Bang explains Retrograde Motion as cosmic impacts on planets that have stopped and then reversed the spin. This is not acceptable, since many small impacts would be largely self-defeating, and the force of impact necessary to stop and reverse the spin of a planet all at once is incredible, so much so it would certainly leave a mark -- probably take a huge chunk out of the planet! At the very least, it would upset the orbit. Yet Venus has a retrograde spin and is nearly flawless in both its shape and orbit.
Besides the significant problem of retrograde spin, some natural satellites have a retrograde orbit around their planet. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have satellites orbiting in both directions. Once again, how can Big Bang cosmologists solve this dilemma without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?
The person who wrote this either doesn't understand the law, or is hoping his readers don't.
Langoliers wrote:
Also, the Big Bang Theory contradicts observed phenomena. For example, the Big Bang Theory is unable to explain uneven distribution of matter throughout the universe resulting in galactic "voids" and "clumps". If the Big Bang was true, all matter would be (roughly) evenly distributed.
Why?
Langoliers wrote:
In the universe, there are too many “large scale structures” to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years, as suggested by the Big Bang Theory. Also, when observing globular clusters (groups of tens of thousands, to one million stars), they appear older than the universe, which falsifies the Big Bang Theory. Finally, there are contradictions between the Big Bang Theory, and thoughts of various religions.
http://www.odec.ca/projects/2004/khak4a0/publ...
So what if it conflicts with superstitious beliefs?
Who wrote this?
I'm sure there are problems with and questions unanswered by the Big Bang theory, but none of that changes the fact that the creation story in Genesis is an absurd Bronze Age myth.
Even if we had absolutely no idea how the universe began, and no theories, well can still dismiss the creation story.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#3944 Jan 19, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>You are the one claiming all these "Historians" Let's see their backgrounds and credentials.
Go ahead google them. Dolt!

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#3945 Jan 19, 2013
Religionthebiglie wrote:
<quoted text>
Paul had a vision of jesus. He told all of his godly secrets to Paul in great detail, including his entire history back to the virgin birth, all the philosophical stuff, the names of everyone associated with him, his big sermon, and all the magical stuff(miracles). He remembered everything that jesus told him word for word and wrote it all down (eidetic memory I'll assume)..... or he just made it all up as he went along. Hmmmmmm. Tough choice.
Great post!
Lincoln

United States

#3946 Jan 19, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Most "Biblical Historians" who are not historians at all but religious zealots calling themselves historians.
Documentation?
or just inventive ?
Lincoln

United States

#3947 Jan 19, 2013
Atheists had their time in power in East Germany shooting people who tried to leave.

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#3948 Jan 19, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
Atheists had their time in power in East Germany shooting people who tried to leave.
LIAR....Hitler was a catholic....STOP THE BS...

“saved From jesus”

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#3949 Jan 19, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes because science is not a religion is it? Science deals in fact right? Science has provable theory's right?
Religion is faith base. No proof required. Deal with it.
Serious question. Why don't you personally require proof for such outlandish stories? What if I tell you that I am God and I pushed these scientists in your direction to teach you. What if it's true? What if it's not?

Is there a small part of you that believes it might be true and that I, in fact, am GOD, with the power to take my wrath out on you for doubting me, or for not giving an answer that I would be pleased with?

But of course, my being GOD, already know what answer you will give and already know your fate, since I AM omniscient and know how everything is going to play out, forever. It's kind of a drag..... no surprises, and not as fun as you'd think.

Of course this is all hypothetical, but can you be 100% sure I'm not telling you the truth? Remember... if you want proof, it means you don't really have faith in me, complete with consequences for your lack of faith, since I AM telling you that I AM GOD. If you believe me even a little, you'll have your place in heaven. It takes a mustard seed's worth(it's really a quantum particle , but they didn't know about that back then).

So do you want the proof, knowing that it means you lack faith in what I'm telling you and that you might be banished to the pit for not believing, OR will you give me a mustard seed's worth for heaven? Am I lying, or telling the truth?

Your thoughts?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#3950 Jan 19, 2013
The Big Bang Theory

A Flawed Concept

Cosmology, by definition, claims to be the science of our universe, i.e. of everything that exists (in more recent times it has even invented the 'idea' of parallel universes in order to accommodate things that do not exist).
The ambition to find the ultimate reason for the existence of everything may be acceptable as a (pseudo-) religious quest but hardly as an objective and rational scientific endeavour. It is obvious that the assumption of a 'creation' is logically inconsistent with the scientific principle of cause and effect. Any valid scientific approach is therefore necessarily tied to the infinite dimensions of space and time as the forms of existence (the argument of cosmologists that time and space came only into existence at the 'time' of the big bang is a logical contradiction in itself and therefore scientifically nonsense).
What has led cosmologists to abandon logic and establish a pseudo-scientific system that tries to explain the creation and ultimate fate of everything ? At least with regard to modern times, the reason has to be seen in the discovery of the 'global' redshift of galaxies (Hubble Law), which, as interpreted through the Doppler effect, led to the conclusion that all galaxies are receding from each other. Now, in a homogeneous and infinite universe this is not possible as it would mean that the average mass density would permanently decrease, which would violate the continuity equation for mass conservation (in other words, mass conservation demands that the mass density has to increase elsewhere if it decreases in a given region of space; obviously this rules out an overall decrease of the mass density (see the page The Expansion of the Universe Debunked for more)). This on its own should already prove the physical impossibility of the expansion idea. However, in a kind of inversion of logical and physical principles, cosmologists decided then to tamper with the forms of existence and make space itself an object in some imaginary hyperspace.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#3951 Jan 19, 2013
Part 2

Yet even with this unphysical 'model', there remains the paradoxical consequence that not only the distances between galaxies but also the size of the latter should increase. Even atoms should become larger, altering therefore the fundamental frequencies for radiative transitions and resulting in an apparent blueshift for distant (young) galaxies (to evade this argument, cosmologists argue that physical systems held together by forces are exempt from the Hubble expansion, but this should then actually mean that the space in our solar system is unexpanded, and since light should adapt to the local scale of space, we should not see galaxies redshifted at all (which obviously contradicts observations)).
It is obvious that space (as well as time) can not be a subject of scientific investigation as we ourselves are objects within them.
The observed redshift of galaxies is therefore not a consequence of space expansion but only of (intergalactic) distance and one should look for a physical effect that delivers this redshift rather than try to involve 'known' physics by bending the rules of logic and common sense. A good candidate for the actual cause of the redshift is the intergalactic plasma electric field (see the page Plasma Theory of Hubble Redshift of Galaxies on my site plasmaphysics.org .uk; regarding the argument by Big-Bang cosmologists that other than recessional redshifts would not yield the observed time dilation of supernova lightcurves, see the page Galactic Redshifts and Supernova Lightcurves).
However, cosmologists can be accused of not only lacking a grasp of conceptual principles, but also of experimental expertise, as demonstrated by a crucial flaw in the WMAP data analysis.
The concept of a 'curved space', which is essential for present cosmological models, is logically flawed because it assumes that the distance between two points in a given (curved) metric is the shortest possible distance, which however is only the case for the Euclidean metric (as the shortest distance between two points is by definition a straight line). Mathematicians frequently try for instance to illustrate the properties of 'curved space' through the example of a spherical (or otherwise curved) surface and the associated geometrical relationships. However, a surface is only a mathematical abstraction within the actual (3-dimensional) space and one can in fact connect any two points on the surface of a physical object through a straight line by drilling through it.
Strictly speaking, one can not assign any properties at all to space (or time) as these are the outer forms of existence and it makes as much sense to speak of a 'curved space' as of a 'blue space'. Any such properties must be restricted to objects existing within space and time.
The concept of gravity being due to a space curvature, as promoted by General Relativity, is therefore also inconsistent and should be replaced by appropriate physical theories describing the trajectories of particles and/or light near these objects.
One should also note here the inconsistency that cosmologists are making when assuming a resultant gravitational force in their models despite adhering to the cosmological principle of homogeneity and isotropy (which should logically imply a zero gravity force everywhere throughout the universe as equal and opposite forces cancel). This obviously completely invalidates their conclusion regarding the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

Thomas Smid (M.Sc. Physics, Ph.D. Astronomy)
email: thomas at physicsmyths.org .uk

“saved From jesus”

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#3952 Jan 19, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Great post!
Thanks. I've been a fan of many of yours.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#3953 Jan 19, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
You're stuck on your sciences word species. 4 species of Rabbit LOL
Really? LOL
There is one Kind of Rabbit. As I specified in my post. Macro Evolution is one KIND giving rise to another KIND.
First, we divide organisms into species for important reasons.

Second, one species of rabbit diverged into 4 separate species. That's evolution, whether you like it or not.

Macroevolution is microevolution over long periods of time. The rabbit evolution is speciation - rapid speciation.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#3954 Jan 19, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
"You didn't come here to learn about evolution"
Why would I? Evolution is a MYTH just as the Big Bang
]

Evolution is the framework theory of all biological sciences, regardless of your ignorance.
"The fossil record, however, is quite incomplete. Here's one major reason why
That's what I wrote. And I outlined species where we have great records. H. erectus to humans is one such evolutionary history we have in fantastic detail.
"Exposing the Evolutionist’s Sleight-of-Hand With the Fossil Record
Fred Williams January 2002
(Featured in Creation Digest, Winter 2002)
Who cares what some non-scientist religious believer says?

Like you, they have no input into science, no ability to understand any of the sciences.

Your religion has blinded and damaged you.

This is why you have to resort to religious opinions and misinformation rather than quote science.

You are utterly unable to reference a single scientific research paper in an academic journal that backs up your silly belief in creationism.

Once again, creationism has no place in science, is non-explanatory and of no value to producing new knowledge or technology. Evolution has no competing biological theories - it is the framework theory of all biological sciences.

You just have your head in the sand.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#3955 Jan 19, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
If evolution were true, the fossil record should be littered with countless examples showing many different transitions leading up to the millions of species of these complex creatures. YET WE DO NOT HAVE A SINGLE EXAMPLE! NOT EVEN ONE! The remarkable completeness of this vast portion of the fossil record thwarts evolutionists from cooking up "transitionals" because speculation is not so easy when you have entire specimens. There is not the wild guesswork inherent when dealing with willy-nilly fragments of a tooth here, a leg bone there."
The above is a lie.

Every fossil is a transition fossil.

As I wrote to you before, and that you completely ignored, we have a fantastic sequence of hominins leading to human. The same is true of many bivalves and other species.

Nice that you have to resort to lying to support your religion. That speaks volumes about your religion.
Lincoln

United States

#3956 Jan 19, 2013
ToManyLaws wrote:
<quoted text>
Hitler was a catholic.....
A university course dealing with World War II might cure your fantasy.

Stalin, an atheist murdered twenty million.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#3957 Jan 19, 2013
Religionthebiglie wrote:
<quoted text>Serious question. Why don't you personally require proof for such outlandish stories? What if I tell you that I am God and I pushed these scientists in your direction to teach you. What if it's true? What if it's not?

Is there a small part of you that believes it might be true and that I, in fact, am GOD, with the power to take my wrath out on you for doubting me, or for not giving an answer that I would be pleased with?

But of course, my being GOD, already know what answer you will give and already know your fate, since I AM omniscient and know how everything is going to play out, forever. It's kind of a drag..... no surprises, and not as fun as you'd think.

Of course this is all hypothetical, but can you be 100% sure I'm not telling you the truth? Remember... if you want proof, it means you don't really have faith in me, complete with consequences for your lack of faith, since I AM telling you that I AM GOD. If you believe me even a little, you'll have your place in heaven. It takes a mustard seed's worth(it's really a quantum particle , but they didn't know about that back then).

So do you want the proof, knowing that it means you lack faith in what I'm telling you and that you might be banished to the pit for not believing, OR will you give me a mustard seed's worth for heaven? Am I lying, or telling the truth?

Your thoughts?
Faith:
: firm belief in something for which there is no proof

Science:
:knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

Try and grasp the difference. Science needs to hold to facts and testable observation.

Faith doesn't have these requirements.
We have plenty of evidence for our faith. We just don't need proof.
You simply can't argue against it because no argument you can produce would even come close to over turning the evidence yet alone our faith. I'm sure this is beyond your understanding.

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 requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 6 min Eagle 12 227,778
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 33 min Dak-Original 22,380
The problem of evil and hate (Oct '13) 38 min KIND 345
Can atheists pray? Gretta Vosper on Andrew W.K.... 6 hr Reason Personified 2
Our world came from nothing? 6 hr Reason Personified 484
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 7 hr NightSerf 932
Another week, another atheist demands we call h... 10 hr P_Smith 1
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••