Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

There are 14715 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.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#4466 Jan 28, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
It really depends on what DNA you are looking at.
Or whose!

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#4467 Jan 28, 2013
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
What created your God?
Zactly! He's not willing to believe in "spontaneous life" but he readily accepts spontaneous infinitely complex and powerful magic god out of nothing.
LOL!!

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#4468 Jan 28, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>The Buy-bull is no more evidence of the existence of god than "The Little Engine that Could" is evidence that trains are capable of independent thought.
I don't know what the Buy-bull is.
It doesn't sound like something God would use. Is it some sort of science book? Perhaps a book on evolution?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#4469 Jan 28, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, it very easy for everybody to see based on the evidence you are presenting in this one post that you have absolutely no clue about any aspect of science.

That's much, MUCH easier to "swallow" than your statement without any evidence that it was all magically **poofed** into existence by some invisible sky deity.
I see. Once you fall for one of these you kind of stuck with the rest. So tell me which Big Bang did you buy?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#4470 Jan 28, 2013
Aliroger1 wrote:
<quoted text>There is a 1% difference in the DNA between humans and chimps.
Felt the need to lie did ya?

"A new report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the common value of >98% similarity of DNA between chimp and humans is incorrect.1 Roy Britten, author of the study, puts the figure at about 95% when insertions and deletions are included. Importantly, there is much more to these studies than people realize."

So because chimps and banana trees are about 50% the same DNA does this make chimps cannibals or humans for that matter?
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#4471 Jan 28, 2013
god is man made nonsense, as is the buy-bull.
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know what the Buy-bull is.
It doesn't sound like something God would use. Is it some sort of science book? Perhaps a book on evolution?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#4472 Jan 28, 2013
Aliroger1 wrote:
<quoted text>SPONTANEOUS LIFE???

THEY TAUGHT YOU THAT SCIENCE SUPPORTS THE IDEA OF SPONTANEOUS LIFE???

Louis Pasteur proved about 100 years ago that there is no such thing as spontaneous generation of life with his swan-kneck flask experiment--I learnt that over 40 years ago!!! Where have you been?

Please go study some elementary and high school science before you take your dogmatic position of blissful ignorance!!! I bet you demand the best scientific medicine when you are sick, the same medical science you refute on here.
Ok good I'm glad you know that much.
So sense life never started on its own we then know there had to be a creator.

So why do buy all the other crap?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#4473 Jan 28, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>It's easier to swallow one god, but that doesn't make it true. Just more likely intellectually lazy people will believe "god did it all." despite a total lack of evidence of god's existence.
"Just more likely intellectually"

That's my point. Thanks.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#4474 Jan 28, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>Your ignorance is showing.

What makes you think you are even remotely qualified to comment on science?
Oh is there a license needed to talk about science myths?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#4475 Jan 28, 2013
Aliroger1 wrote:
<quoted text>WOW, YOU SOUND LIKE A NUT IN THE NUT-HOUSE.

When you nuts bring a block of coal intact today for examination not some piece of garbage from 1844 then someone might listen to your delusional drivel. The science that put people in space is the science that concludes that the best explanation currently in biology is evolution theory and the geo earth sciences say the earth is billions of years old, not 6,000 years like you nuts claim!!!
Your creationist museums are full of talking snakes and pregnant virgins and dead people getting up and walking about!!! LOLLLL
I see because its too old you throw it out
Good under that set of rules science is left with nothing then.

You joke about snakes talking but believe nothing exploded to created everything. I hope the kool-aid had lots of sugar.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#4476 Jan 28, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>Yep and Langoliers is one of the most ignorant.

Isn't there an old saying about empty vessels?
And how did life start?
How did nothing explode to create everything?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#4477 Jan 28, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>Do you know what a hoax is?
Yes
The Big Bang for one.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#4479 Jan 28, 2013
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>So you merely want to take the path of least resistance. IOW, "goddidit" gives you an excuse to be intellectually lazy and sloppy.

Again, your problem, not mine.
Well at least I got you to admit you have a tougher path believing your science crap.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#4480 Jan 28, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>Science doesn't claim that rain falling on rocks created life. Maybe some religion does. Doesn't yours claim that a big powerful deity came along and turned mud into life?

Science doesn't actually explain how the universe got here. It attempts to explain what we observe - that the Big Bang happened, that the universe is expanding, that life exists and evolves.

For me, it's a lot more believable than someone like you telling me they "know" how everything happened and then you provide just one word, no explanation. "God did it" is non-explanatory, cannot produce new knowledge and technology, and is intellectual laziness.

It's impossible to draw a testable, disprovable hypothesis from "God creates all species." It's impossible to go from "God creates all species" to "How do we solve the problem of malaria?" for example, and "why do children born into poverty suffer from short stature, among other bodily problems?" for another.

Your claim - that some deity did everything - leads no where useful. Evolution, on the other hand, presents plenty of testable, disprovable hypotheses. It provides an explanatory framework that generates new knowledge and technology - solutions to medical problems, answers to biomedical questions.

Try to demonstrate how a creationist stance can generate testable, disprovable hypotheses. How can we attempt to understand malaria through creationism?
"Science doesn't claim that rain falling on rocks created life."

Really? Please due explain.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#4481 Jan 28, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>The common ancestor is with Pan. It's quite a bit before Moses.

This is a fantastic example of why creationism is useless. We can use the question: "why does the human chromosome two look exactly like 2 parts of Pan chromosomes, but has centromeres?"

Creationism: let's deny what we see and claim God created us separately.

Evolution: the exact DNA information share by Homo and Pan tells us about their shared phylgenetic history. It's impossible that Homo and Pan are not related based on this observation.

Creationism: No, I suggest we ignore evidence and claim that God just likes to reuse parts, even if they are non-coding mutations.

Evolution: hahaha! This is why creationism has no voice in science. You guys are insecure about your faith, cannot accept reality and seem incapable of having faith within this observable reality.

That tells us that your deity is fictional. That you must ignore evidence, that you need to deny scientific observation, so that you can have a very specific kind of deity, means your deity cannot exist if the reality described by science is accurate.

Since you are incapable of producing better observations than science, your deity is false - and it's false because you are incapable of having faith in a deity that would create the world as described by science.

I find that remarkably ironic.
Yes ironic! Because no ape or monkey has a fused chromosome number 2 we must be related because we do have a fused number 2 chromosome.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#4482 Jan 28, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>If you had no comment pertaining to my post, you could have just not clicked on the 'reply' button.
Evolution is not among my feilds of interest, and I have never claimed it to be.
Not knowing much about science hardly invalidates the shit that is the bible.
I see so you have a faith that you know little about but you try and discredit a faith you know even less about. Makes sense!

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#4483 Jan 28, 2013
Mike wrote:
ahoy
Hello

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#4484 Jan 28, 2013
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>The point is, he's not real. He always has to be either drawn or portrayed by someone else. Sure, he is a character in popular culture, but he's not "real" in the sense that he was born and will die.
I shook his hand. He felt real, I have a photo of him. No he was real and I can tell you right where to go to see for yourself. And I would not tell his mommy about him not being born.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#4485 Jan 28, 2013
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>What created your God?
Revelation 1:8 - I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending

"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

The answer to your question is nothing.
So does this blow your mind?
You would rather believe that nothing exploded to create everything?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#4486 Jan 28, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>Given that the one God would have to be created out of nothing by nothing for no reason .... I'll go with all the other stuff.
That is an incorrect assumption.
God created our universe and all in it. Along with all the laws of physics. But you see he is outside of his creation which includes time.

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) 35 min Eagle 12 247,811
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 48 min Eagle 12 2,369
News Atheism, the Bible and sexual orientation 59 min Eagle 12 40
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr Knowledge- 12,963
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 1 hr Eagle 12 47,920
News As an atheist, how do I maintain my relationshi... 1 hr ORIGINAL WILLARD 91
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 hr Eagle 12 20,901
More from around the web