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

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#3958 Jan 19, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
We need a "slam dunk" judge it icon.
hee, hee, hee, thanks!

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#3959 Jan 19, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>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.
I don't care why or what you do with species. I work with Kinds not species.

All rabbits are one Kind.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#3960 Jan 19, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>]

Evolution is the framework theory of all biological sciences, regardless of your ignorance.

[QUOTE]"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.

[QUOTE]"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.
"Who cares what some non-scientist religious believer says?"

Apparently you and many others on this thread do. LOL

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#3961 Jan 19, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"It is very important not to confuse the "created kind" with the modern use of the word species. Although animals like the fox and coyote might be considered different taxonomic species, they are still parts of the same "kind" of animal. The created kind is thought to be more often synonymous with the "Family" level of classification in the taxonomic hierarchy; at least in mammals; and occasionally it can extend as high as the order level. Here are some examples:
Felidae — Scientists from Creation Ministries International and the Institute for Creation Research have proposed that the original feline kind was comparable to the Liger and the Tigon.
Canidae — Including Wolves, Foxes, Jackals, Coyotes, and Domestic dogs.
Camelidae — Including both the Camel and the Llama, which are reproductively compatible, their hybrid offspring being known as "Camas."
Bovidae — Including Cattle, Buffalo, Bison, and Yaks.
Equidae — Including Horses, Zebras, and Asses.
Caprinae — Including Sheep, Goats, and Ibex.
Crocodilia — Including all the varieties of Alligators, Crocodiles, and Gharials.
Elephantidae — Including African and Asian elephants, Mammoths, Mastodons, and Gomphotheres.
Thus the created kind corresponds roughly to the family level of taxonomic classification, and possibly even the order with the notable exception of humanity wherein the genus is representative."
Wow!!!

So your people are dumbing down reality for you so that you can swallow the creationist nonsense pill?

By using these catch-all categories, you've muddied biology so much that you will never be able to understand anything about biology.

Science is specific. It requires sharp delineations at all levels of analysis to increase our ability to understand how reality works.

Here, you are erasing the differences between species in an Orwellian sense. You are literally removing the ability to understand details by removing the vocabulary.

You have convinced me beyond any doubt how dangerous and damaging your religion is. It is child abuse. You are actively trying to make people stupid.

“saved From jesus”

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#3962 Jan 19, 2013
ToManyLaws wrote:
<quoted text>
LIAR....Hitler was a catholic....STOP THE BS...
The long and the short of it is that it doesn't matter what Hitler was ideologically. What matters more is that the Pope and Hitler looked like BFFs. What was the supposedly all-wise, deep-thinking holy man doing schmoozing with someone that everyone now compares to the devil, unless there was something about Adolf's ideology that the Pope found alluring?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#3963 Jan 19, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>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.
"Every fossil is a transition fossil."
While of course it is. LOL

In fact you can meet your ancestors in the petrified forest.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#3964 Jan 19, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"I see. So you want to see family level evolution, which tends to take millions of years in the wild, happen in a single generation, or even a few hundred generations? You don't see the problem with this???"
No not at all. I just want proof of it.
No, you don't. You've been advocating for a reduction in knowledge - in knowable categories.

You must hate DNA because of what it teaches us.

Fossils demonstrate evolution through shared morphology over time. DNA proves evolution through phylogenetic relationships.

The worthless catch-all categories you people have created cannot hold up to DNA testing. Some species within those categories don't belong - they're more closely related to species that they do not resemble.

Hence, DNA makes everything more specific and, in the doing, broadens our understanding of life.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#3965 Jan 19, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>Wow!!!

So your people are dumbing down reality for you so that you can swallow the creationist nonsense pill?

By using these catch-all categories, you've muddied biology so much that you will never be able to understand anything about biology.

Science is specific. It requires sharp delineations at all levels of analysis to increase our ability to understand how reality works.

Here, you are erasing the differences between species in an Orwellian sense. You are literally removing the ability to understand details by removing the vocabulary.

You have convinced me beyond any doubt how dangerous and damaging your religion is. It is child abuse. You are actively trying to make people stupid.
These definition of kinds of animals have been around thousands of year before your science started using the word species with there all new definition to the old Hebrew word species.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#3967 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.
That's not how fossils are used. Fossils are looked at in the sequence they came in and the morphology they have. Morphology is compared to other fossils up and down the time sequence and similarities and disparities are noted and compared. Then best guesses based on parsimony are drawn up.

When fossils can be analyzed for DNA - and this happens now on relatively young fossils (or "ancient bones" as the disciplines are now calling them), it either conclusively and objectively backs up our morphologically based lines of descent or disproves them.

A fossil reveals a great amount of information about the now deceased organism, like what it ate, how it lived, where it lived, and even bits about its behavior.

Your religion thrives on ignorance, dogma and stupidity. So it's not surprising that you know so little about biological science and fossils. It would help if you'd actually read science instead of the lies handed to you by creationists.

“saved From jesus”

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#3966 Jan 19, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I hope your faith is VERY strong that I'm not god. Your answer has sealed the fate that I presented to you if I AM.

Either you didn't understand my post, or are just avoiding answering directly. Your post is all over the place and doesn't address anything I presented.

But....it's cool. I have my answer. Thanks.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#3968 Jan 19, 2013
Religionthebiglie wrote:
<quoted text>The long and the short of it is that it doesn't matter what Hitler was ideologically. What matters more is that the Pope and Hitler looked like BFFs. What was the supposedly all-wise, deep-thinking holy man doing schmoozing with someone that everyone now compares to the devil, unless there was something about Adolf's ideology that the Pope found alluring?
Do you believe this?
What a sucker! You would believe anything Hitler said! Yes Hitler called himself a Christian. You believe him!
Why would he lie? You need to learn what a Christian is. Hitler was no Christian.

Was Hitler a Christian?

October 30, 1999

Dear Straight Dope:

In my numerous online debates in various chatrooms, I have learned the following: many Christians seem to think that Adolf Hitler was an atheist (or at least wasn't "Christian"). Of course I and my fellow atheists know better, as Hitler mentions his devotion to Christianity numerous times in his writings. Can you clear this up for me? Was Hitler an "honest to God" Christian, or was he simply using religion as a means of control?- Carl Stieger

The short answer is a definite "maybe" or, more precisely, "probably neither." The looooong answer is somewhat more complicated.

You are right that Hitler did mention Christianity many times in his writings. He paid Christianity a lot of lip service in Mein Kampf, and he claimed to be a Christian. But Hitler's secretary, Martin Bormann, also declared that "National Socialism [Nazism] and Christianity are irreconcilable" and Hitler didn't squawk too much about it. Similarly, Hermann Rauschning, a Hitler associate, said, "One is either a Christian or a German. You can't be both." In addition, Hitler declared Nazism the state religion and the Bible was replaced by Mein Kampf in the schools.

First, let's look at what he said that seems to put him on the anti-Christian side:

According to a press release from Catholic League President, William A. Donohue (2/4/99): "Hitler was a neo-pagan terrorist whose conscience was not informed by Christianity, but by pseudo-scientific racist philosophies. Hitler hated the Catholic Church, made plans to kill the Pope, authorized the murder of thousands of priests and nuns, and did everything he could to suppress the influence of the Church. In 1933, Hitler said,'It is through the peasantry that we shall really be able to destroy Christianity because there is in them a true religion rooted in nature and blood.'"

[further down, within the text:]

“... atheists looking for a quick cheap-shot may claim Hitler was a Christian; similarly, Christians looking for a quick shot may claim he was an atheist. Know what? Hitler was a vegetarian! Oooh, those evil vegetarians! He also recommended that parents give their children milk to drink instead of beer and started the first anti-smoking campaign.(So by the "reasoning" used in these types of arguments, if you are truly anti-Hitler, you should smoke heavily and only give your baby beer!) Better watch out, though he was an oxygen-breather, too! In other words, does it really matter whether Hitler was an atheist or a Christian or whatever? Just because somebody may hold a particular worldview (along with other views) doesn't make him a spokesman for that view, or even remotely representative of others who hold that view.”"

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1699...

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#3969 Jan 19, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"I see. So you want to see family level evolution, which tends to take millions of years in the wild, happen in a single generation, or even a few hundred generations? You don't see the problem with this???"
No not at all. I just want proof of it.
No you don't, proof of it happening is something you want no part of.

But, you do want proof that evolution is not real, and that you can't have, ever.

“saved From jesus”

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#3970 Jan 19, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not how fossils are used. Fossils are looked at in the sequence they came in and the morphology they have. Morphology is compared to other fossils up and down the time sequence and similarities and disparities are noted and compared. Then best guesses based on parsimony are drawn up.
When fossils can be analyzed for DNA - and this happens now on relatively young fossils (or "ancient bones" as the disciplines are now calling them), it either conclusively and objectively backs up our morphologically based lines of descent or disproves them.
A fossil reveals a great amount of information about the now deceased organism, like what it ate, how it lived, where it lived, and even bits about its behavior.
Your religion thrives on ignorance, dogma and stupidity. So it's not surprising that you know so little about biological science and fossils. It would help if you'd actually read science instead of the lies handed to you by creationists.
Speaking of brilliant minds, you were one of the ones I was thinking about when I was referring to those who have the patience to teach science to those who refuses to accept anything you present when it conflicts with the dogma. Some of us out here who appreciate knowledge have benefited from your input.

Are you that patient with your students?

“saved From jesus”

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#3971 Jan 19, 2013
Sorry 'bout the run-on sentence, HFY. Should have edited before I posted.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#3972 Jan 19, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
These definition of kinds of animals have been around thousands of year before your science started using the word species with there all new definition to the old Hebrew word species.
So, a pair of those lion/tiger things emerged from Noah's Ark and started giving birth to house cats?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#3974 Jan 19, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>That's not how fossils are used. Fossils are looked at in the sequence they came in and the morphology they have. Morphology is compared to other fossils up and down the time sequence and similarities and disparities are noted and compared. Then best guesses based on parsimony are drawn up.

When fossils can be analyzed for DNA - and this happens now on relatively young fossils (or "ancient bones" as the disciplines are now calling them), it either conclusively and objectively backs up our morphologically based lines of descent or disproves them.

A fossil reveals a great amount of information about the now deceased organism, like what it ate, how it lived, where it lived, and even bits about its behavior.

Your religion thrives on ignorance, dogma and stupidity. So it's not surprising that you know so little about biological science and fossils. It would help if you'd actually read science instead of the lies handed to you by creationists.
A fossil can only be proof of what once lived

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#3975 Jan 19, 2013
Religionthebiglie wrote:
<quoted text>I hope your faith is VERY strong that I'm not god. Your answer has sealed the fate that I presented to you if I AM.

Either you didn't understand my post, or are just avoiding answering directly. Your post is all over the place and doesn't address anything I presented.

But....it's cool. I have my answer. Thanks.
NP

“saved From jesus”

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#3973 Jan 19, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you believe this?
What a sucker! You would believe anything Hitler said! Yes Hitler called himself a Christian. You believe him!
Why would he lie? You need to learn what a Christian is. Hitler was no Christian.
Was Hitler a Christian?
October 30, 1999
Dear Straight Dope:
In my numerous online debates in various chatrooms, I have learned the following: many Christians seem to think that Adolf Hitler was an atheist (or at least wasn't "Christian"). Of course I and my fellow atheists know better, as Hitler mentions his devotion to Christianity numerous times in his writings. Can you clear this up for me? Was Hitler an "honest to God" Christian, or was he simply using religion as a means of control?- Carl Stieger
The short answer is a definite "maybe" or, more precisely, "probably neither." The looooong answer is somewhat more complicated.
You are right that Hitler did mention Christianity many times in his writings. He paid Christianity a lot of lip service in Mein Kampf, and he claimed to be a Christian. But Hitler's secretary, Martin Bormann, also declared that "National Socialism [Nazism] and Christianity are irreconcilable" and Hitler didn't squawk too much about it. Similarly, Hermann Rauschning, a Hitler associate, said, "One is either a Christian or a German. You can't be both." In addition, Hitler declared Nazism the state religion and the Bible was replaced by Mein Kampf in the schools.
First, let's look at what he said that seems to put him on the anti-Christian side:
According to a press release from Catholic League President, William A. Donohue (2/4/99): "Hitler was a neo-pagan terrorist whose conscience was not informed by Christianity, but by pseudo-scientific racist philosophies. Hitler hated the Catholic Church, made plans to kill the Pope, authorized the murder of thousands of priests and nuns, and did everything he could to suppress the influence of the Church. In 1933, Hitler said,'It is through the peasantry that we shall really be able to destroy Christianity because there is in them a true religion rooted in nature and blood.'"
[further down, within the text:]
“... atheists looking for a quick cheap-shot may claim Hitler was a Christian; similarly, Christians looking for a quick shot may claim he was an atheist. Know what? Hitler was a vegetarian! Oooh, those evil vegetarians! He also recommended that parents give their children milk to drink instead of beer and started the first anti-smoking campaign.(So by the "reasoning" used in these types of arguments, if you are truly anti-Hitler, you should smoke heavily and only give your baby beer!) Better watch out, though he was an oxygen-breather, too! In other words, does it really matter whether Hitler was an atheist or a Christian or whatever? Just because somebody may hold a particular worldview (along with other views) doesn't make him a spokesman for that view, or even remotely representative of others who hold that view.”"
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1699...
Yes, he called himself a christian. Those were HIS words. Anything else is hearsay, and suspect. If you're going to use the "his actions say he wasn't", you can stop there. If all christians were judged as christian or not based on their behavior, there would be no christians.

What was his hatred of Jews based on if not christianity? Even on these threads, the xenophobia has been overwhelming. Why is it such a stretch that his religious views played a role in his actions?

And no, I'm not suggesting all christians are like Hitler, or even like some of the zealots who gravitate toward these threads. I can only hope it's it's a fringe minority.

Why all the red herrings about diet, smoking, and breathing oxygen? Surely you don't compare those to religious convictions. Are you denying that his religious convictions were tied in to his worldview?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#3976 Jan 19, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>No you don't, proof of it happening is something you want no part of.

But, you do want proof that evolution is not real, and that you can't have, ever.
"you do want proof that evolution is not real, "

I all ready have that proof.
Thanks anyways.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#3977 Jan 19, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>So, a pair of those lion/tiger things emerged from Noah's Ark and started giving birth to house cats?
Maybe they were house cats on the ark and they produced Lion and Tigers and Bears oh my!

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 to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 25 min MUQ1 21,905
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 25 min Richardfs 227,299
Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns 1 hr woodtick57 36
An atheist returns to Christ (Jan '09) 2 hr Patrick 4,083
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 3 hr Patrick 176
What Bums Me Out Most About Being an Atheist 3 hr californio 88
The Ultimate Evidence of God 5 hr susanblange 119
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••