Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

There are 14713 comments on the News24 story from Aug 27, 2012, titled Why Atheism Will Replace Religion. In it, News24 reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at News24.

“Mercury bubbles blast!”

Since: Mar 11

Mercury

#4220 Jan 23, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"The myths of the bible and the quran has been proved false"
Correct.

“Mercury bubbles blast!”

Since: Mar 11

Mercury

#4221 Jan 23, 2013
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Its commonley understood amoung serious scholars (not anti-religious bigots) that the Church was the font of our sciuentific enlightenment. Unlike other religions the Christian religion believed ina God who made a descernable universe capable of being understood by mans intleeigence (because it was made by a rational god)
It is this point that is most used to explain why the western world had such a huge advancment in the creation and fruits of science.
The developed the rules of evidences, the scientific method, the university system, and countless scientist were and still are believing Christians.. Including Gallileo, who proofs for heleocentrism were infact flawed and did not prove what was already widley understood since copernicus as probably true but not yet demostratable through impirical proofs.
The Church does get credit for fostering intentionally the scientists under its direct imploy and for encouraging, financing and fostering the discipline of the sciences for their earliest inception and of coarse continuing today.
Sure, and now it is utterly unnecessary to science.

Science regards the mythological texts of any religion as mythology. Interesting to read, some historical merit, and utterly irrelevant to deductive investigation.

Religion, Christianity, has no more to say about the state of the universe. It had its time, deep in the ignorant ages of the past, and is no longer useful in producing new knowledge and technology.

Yes, it can be helpful in developing one's spirituality, or in fomenting social networks with shared belief systems and rituals, but that's about it.

“Mercury bubbles blast!”

Since: Mar 11

Mercury

#4222 Jan 23, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
We cannot, however, close our eyes to the fact that the God-concept has served too often as a cloak for man's will to power, and the reckless and cruel use of that power, thus adding considerably to the ample measure of misery in this world supposed to be an all-loving God's creation. For centuries free thought, free research and the expression of dissident views were obstructed and stifled in the name of service to God. And alas, these and other negative consequences are not yet entirely things of the past.
Too true. It's time we stopped hurting people by denying them education. We need to move beyond silly mythological ideas and get rid of the harmful god-concept.
For an increasing section of humanity, the belief in God is breaking down rapidly, as well as the accustomed motivations for moral conduct. This shows the risk of basing moral postulates on divine commandments, when their alleged source rapidly loses credence and authority. There is a need for an autonomous foundation for ethics, one that has deeper roots than a social contract and is capable of protecting the security of the individual and of human institutions. Buddhism offers such a foundation for ethics.
You're incorrect about the "need for an autonomous" foundation of ethics, but it's interesting you're pointing toward Buddhism here.

Ethics comes from two places: empathy towards your fellow humans and social consequences. Empathy needs to be developed and reinforced to create a functioning civil society. Social consequences need to be emphasized from a young age - this is where Buddhism shines, but it needs to give up the sexism of its past.

Otherwise, yes, Buddhism is, in my opinion, better at exploring the spirituality of individuals than Christianity is, mainly b/c Christianity embraces so much other unnecessary garbage.

“Mercury bubbles blast!”

Since: Mar 11

Mercury

#4223 Jan 23, 2013
Yellowknightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is on fact to a certain extent..its only fact on a very small scale.
Darwin finches are a perfect example.
They may be different but they were still finches .
Many of the finches bread with eachother producing different types of finches.
Evolution is fact. Evolution is "gene frequency change in gene pools over time." This has been objectively measured in the lab and tested, measured and observed in nature time and time again. To deny this is to deny reality - religion is quite good at that.

Finch evolution has been directly observed and gene frequencies in their gene pools has been measured, multiple times.

The group "finch" is a monophylic category for a variety of bird species that are related, but do not interbreed normally. Your statement above declares that you fail to understand what "species" means and why and how taxonomic names for the gene pools that we short hand to "species" are.

Finches are a fantastic demonstration of an adaptive radiation. Darwin's finches are currently undergoing a speciation event. Here:

"Despite the importance of Darwin’s &#64257;nches to the development of evolutionary theory, the origin of the group has only recently been examined using a rigorous, phylogenetic methodology that includes many potential outgroups. Knowing the evolutionary relationships of Darwin’s &#64257;nches to other birds is important for understanding the context from which this adaptive radiation arose. Here we show that analysis of mitochondrial DNA sequence data from the cytochrome b gene con&#64257;rm that Darwin’s &#64257;nches are monophyletic. In addition, many taxa previously proposed as the sister taxon to Darwin’s &#64257;nches can be excluded as their closest living relative. Darwin’s &#64257;nches are part of a wellsupported monophyletic group of species, all of which build a domed nest. All but two of the non-Darwin’s &#64257;nches included in this clade occur on Caribbean islands and most are Caribbean endemics. These close relatives of Darwin's &#64257;nches show a diversity of bill types and feeding behaviors similar to that observed among Darwin’s &#64257;nches themselves.
Recent studies have shown that adaptive evolution in Darwin’s &#64257;nches occurred relatively quickly. Our data show that among the relatives of Darwin’s &#64257;nches, the evolution of bill diversity was also rapid and extensive."

From:

http://www.eebweb.arizona.edu/courses/galapag...

Thus, your statement above is ridiculously naive. You have no place making authoritative statements on that which you do not understand, unless your sole purpose here is decry your unending ignorance. If that is the case, then thank you. One more nail in the coffin of creationism.
Lincoln

United States

#4224 Jan 23, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Precisely.
They are among the most important lessons of history. Unthinking religion is dangerous - ignorant masses are a powerful weapon and religion makes them ignorant.
Only education can lift people out of ignorance, only humanism can give people non-religiously biased morality.
We can do better and we will do better.
Sounds a bit like propaganda from atheist East Germany or the USSR.
Sorry, but atheists in power proved a bit totalitarian.

Atheists are not trusted,
alas atheists are largely ignored!

“Mercury bubbles blast!”

Since: Mar 11

Mercury

#4225 Jan 23, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
A Christian has the following options:
To assume that Genesis 1-9 is allegory, myth or poetry not to be taken literally. But if so, what do we do with the rest of the Bible? Why stop there?
To hold on to both creation and evolution and try to reconcile the two. This state is unstable and readily leads to liberalism.
To ignore the Old Testament and make an existential leap to a shallow believism.
To accept that “by faith we understand that the worlds were made by the word of God”(Hebrews 11:3). Only in this, the Scriptural way, do we find release from the tensions of the conflict.
Absolutely - why stop there? Only a person not capable of critical thinking would unquestionably accept an ancient text as the sole determiner of reality.

We know more now than uneducated goat herders did from thousands of years ago. Sorry, they were grossly uninformed with how reality works.

Intelligent Christians derive positive spiritual experiences from their religion, and increased empathy and understanding of their fellow humans.

Creationists belittle all that our society has accomplished since the struggle of the enlightenment and would set us back 300 years, destroying all our technical knowledge based on biological science. You people are dangerous and damaging to our society's future.

And you are two faced about it. If you truly believed that evolution didn't happen, you would refuse to use modern antibiotics - you'd demand 1940s medication to the ailments you have. If you did this, you'd be honest, but extinct within a few decades. So you're hypocrites. Living off our advanced knowledge, based on evolutionary theory, yet denying it while trying to stupidify our fellow citizens and destroy the high quality of education that so many, many working class citizens gave their entire lives to achieve for their children.

No. No, sir. We don't need your kind of vile and damaging belief system.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#4226 Jan 23, 2013
"uneducated goat herders".. lol, always makes me smile.
Lincoln

United States

#4227 Jan 23, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
The religion of Hitler matters a great deal. Not in what it teaches us about that specific religion, but in what it teaches us about manipulation, religious thinking and social norms. Hitler quite obviously used Catholicism for his own end - and Catholics had no problems following and agreeing with him. In other words, they were unwilling to or incapable of seeing through his manipulation. Religion blinded them to his ends, vile, inhumane and atrocious as their were.
To ignore religion in the Third Reich is to fail to understand humanity, religious thinking and manipulation - it is to put the blinders on. History is the only teacher we have in world politics.
The example Nazi Germany teaches us is that religion is not enough. It quite clearly cannot safeguard our morality and our civil society. We need something better, something that teaches logical, critical thinking and self reflexivity (not reflection; look it up if you made this mistake).
Religion in the Third Reich - especially the official Catholic response to Hitler - is one of the most important truths in history. To ignore this is to embrace willful stupidity and is dangerous.
"The example Nazi Germany teaches us is that religion is not enough. It quite clearly cannot safeguard our morality and our civil society. We need something better, something that teaches logical, critical thinking and self reflexivity (not reflection; look it up if you made this mistake)."

..........in your opinion.

Christian US, United Kingdom and Canada defeated the Nazis.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#4228 Jan 23, 2013
Stop replying to Atheists and I might believe you.
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
alas atheists are largely ignored!

“Mercury bubbles blast!”

Since: Mar 11

Mercury

#4229 Jan 23, 2013
Adam wrote:
"uneducated goat herders".. lol, always makes me smile.
A pleasure, sir :)

“Mercury bubbles blast!”

Since: Mar 11

Mercury

#4230 Jan 23, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
"The example Nazi Germany teaches us is that religion is not enough. It quite clearly cannot safeguard our morality and our civil society. We need something better, something that teaches logical, critical thinking and self reflexivity (not reflection; look it up if you made this mistake)."
..........in your opinion.
Christian US, United Kingdom and Canada defeated the Nazis.
You failed to address the thrust of my post. Catholics followed Hitler. Christians accepted Hitler's proclamations without argument.

Who beat him doesn't change that Christians were readily persuaded. led by Hitler. Also, your correct pronouncement leaves out that those very nations, Christian nations, were reluctant to attack Hitler and did not do so because of his policies. In fact, they adopted his eugenics policies. The US had eugenics programs that sterilized black soldiers, and people legally deemed "imbeciles." Canada ran its eugenics programs up until the 1970's.

As you write, these were carried out by Christian nations. Clearly, we cannot trust the morality of Christianity to lead our nations. We require something better, something greater - a secular morality that will not cede to biased and inhumane, ignorant religious arguments. We need a morality based upon empathy and civil society.

Christianity cannot make the grade. We need secular humanism.

“Mercury bubbles blast!”

Since: Mar 11

Mercury

#4231 Jan 23, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds a bit like propaganda from atheist East Germany or the USSR.
Sorry, but atheists in power proved a bit totalitarian.
False.
Atheists are not trusted,
alas atheists are largely ignored!
We're working on it.

You, for example, enjoy reading my posts. Thank you for your diligence and consideration.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#4232 Jan 23, 2013
Bit unfair, really. Some of them were educated goatfuckers.
Adam wrote:
"uneducated goat herders".. lol, always makes me smile.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#4233 Jan 23, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
1. "you've done a good job of illustrating how these fictional scriptures were used to hinder scientific investigation."
You have some evidence of motivation?
2. "the religiously blinded would accept "scripture" as fact and deny any scientific observation that appeared to contradict it."
How do your know this, divine revelation of a sort?
The revelations were as plain as the zits on your snoz.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#4234 Jan 23, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Never trust a person who doesn't drink, I say.
I'll drink to that!

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#4235 Jan 23, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
The religion of Hitler matters a great deal. Not in what it teaches us about that specific religion, but in what it teaches us about manipulation, religious thinking and social norms. Hitler quite obviously used Catholicism for his own end - and Catholics had no problems following and agreeing with him. In other words, they were unwilling to or incapable of seeing through his manipulation. Religion blinded them to his ends, vile, inhumane and atrocious as their were.
To ignore religion in the Third Reich is to fail to understand humanity, religious thinking and manipulation - it is to put the blinders on. History is the only teacher we have in world politics.
The example Nazi Germany teaches us is that religion is not enough. It quite clearly cannot safeguard our morality and our civil society. We need something better, something that teaches logical, critical thinking and self reflexivity (not reflection; look it up if you made this mistake).
Religion in the Third Reich - especially the official Catholic response to Hitler - is one of the most important truths in history. To ignore this is to embrace willful stupidity and is dangerous.
Not to mention that Hitler's religion supplements the Christian argument that religion imparts morality quite nicely.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#4236 Jan 23, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
We know more now than uneducated goat herders did from thousands of years ago. Sorry, they were grossly uninformed with how reality works.
I would just add that we know more than the *educated* people from 2000 years ago also. Even the most educated Greek philosopher from 2000 years ago would be considered a bumbling fool by today's standards when talking about how the universe works. At that time, the standard view of the universe was a geocentric universe with different laws working on earth and in the 'heavens'(ie, above the moon) with the stars as openings in a giant sphere encompassing this and a spiritual realm above that sphere. Anyone with this viewpoint today would be considered fit for remedial education. And yet, that was the culture from which Christianity came and to which its principles show allegiance.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#4237 Jan 23, 2013
They forsake the best thing about being a human which is our ability to reason. This is such a wonderful gift that the believers squander and even purposely hide away so they can remain a sheep ready for fleecing.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
:)
and they demonstrate their gullibility at every turn, along with their dishonesty.
It's remarkable. I now understand it to be a tenet of faith, that you have to lie to others and yourself.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#4238 Jan 23, 2013
Hey! I think someone forgot about the uneducated or educated sheep fckers that wrote the bible myths!

Woe woe is the writer of numbers!
Thinking wrote:
Bit unfair, really. Some of them were educated goatfuckers.
<quoted text>

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#4239 Jan 23, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Hey, whatever you do, don't take an atheist word for who an atheist is, and don't check a dictionary either. In fact, maybe you could make up something totally off the wall and try to get us to conform to it. You already know how to do that don't you?

The "a" gives the word it's meaning, the "a" means not, but you already know that.
athe·ist\ˈā-thē-ist\
noun
: one who believes that there is no deity

a·the·ist (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Richard Dawkins does not provide such a strict definition of atheism, and the fact he opposes describing a child as 'Atheist' or 'Christian'[5] suggests that he views atheism as a conscious position and thus leans towards the dictionary definition of atheism as necessarily an active disbelief: Martin's 'positive atheism'. Dawkins' central argument against religion is probabilistic, and his scale of belief reflects this, ranging from 1:'Strong theist. 100% probability of God' to the equivalent 7:'Strong atheist'. He doesn't see 7 as a well-populated category, placing himself as 6:'Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist'.[6] Again, this terminology suggests that he sees atheism as strictly requiring certainty. It should not be taken for a lack of certainty in a practical sense, however: Dawkins states 'I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden'.[7]

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
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 13 min Eagle 12 247,344
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 17 min Gary Coaldigger 12,589
Proof of God for the Atheist 45 min Shizle 107
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 57 min -Stray Dog 47,794
News Atheism, the Bible and sexual orientation 3 hr par five 6
News Militant Atheists are On the March 3 hr thetruth 4
News Si Robertson, 'Duck Dynasty' Star, Says Atheist... 11 hr thetruth 59
More from around the web