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
Thinking

UK

#459 Dec 5, 2012
This could take a while. OK, do you know the Contraction Mapping Theorem?
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
What don't I know???

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#460 Dec 5, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is a theory. But so are the theory of gravity, the theory of statistical mechanics, the theory of light, the theory of quantum mechanics, etc. In science, the pinnacle is a theory: a hypothesis that has been tested and found to agree with the data.
Funny I can scientifically demonstrate gravity, I can reproduce its effects, I can redo all the test, on a continual basis and get consistent results. The same can be said for light, its properties and causes.
If you want to call this a theory, scientific or not, then you have a problem with the use of English. Now here is a interesting hypothesis, evolutionary scientific thought up the term scientific theory (as a theory that can or cannot be proven) so the theory of evolution fits into the box of science. In fact the unproven evolution theory is faith.
If the best you can do in science is a unproven theory then I really feel sorry for the evolution tag team both here are worldwide, no wonder the world of science is in such a mess.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#461 Dec 5, 2012
Thinking wrote:
This could take a while. OK, do you know the Contraction Mapping Theorem?
<quoted text>
No I do not I will however go and read about it so when it comes up in a debate I will know something. Now be realistic we were not discussing that.
Thinking

UK

#462 Dec 5, 2012
Drug resistance and the need for repeated flu jabs... yawn.
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny I can scientifically demonstrate gravity, I can reproduce its effects, I can redo all the test, on a continual basis and get consistent results. The same can be said for light, its properties and causes.
If you want to call this a theory, scientific or not, then you have a problem with the use of English. Now here is a interesting hypothesis, evolutionary scientific thought up the term scientific theory (as a theory that can or cannot be proven) so the theory of evolution fits into the box of science. In fact the unproven evolution theory is faith.
If the best you can do in science is a unproven theory then I really feel sorry for the evolution tag team both here are worldwide, no wonder the world of science is in such a mess.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#463 Dec 5, 2012
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that it's usually foolish to make claims about ………………………whom he disagrees.
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
I've seen ad hominem attacks from Colin, but none of them have resorted idiotic assumptions about his opponent's lives or playground taunts. But I tend to skip over the end of posts that are making no sense, so if a post doesn't begin with insults (which usually makes me instantly skip over to the next one), I could easily miss them. And I've begun skipping Colin's posts altogether as he clearly has nothing to say that is worth the time it takes to read it, so I'll defer to you on this point.
So the tag team tags back in no three welcome back no three, the rest of your cohorts are still running.
I really enjoyed (laughed at) your post, I fully agree with the opening line, but if we disagree why does that automatically make me wrong and you right? I have another question, Why has no one on the evolution tag team been able to stand to any of the challenges posted, by the way merely saying “because evolution says so” is a faith answer not a scientific one. Are you perhaps skipping my posts because you have no real answers to give, pretty much like the rest of your tag team except “Hidingfromyou” she at least put up a fight until she admitted in a post to being a totally ignorant zoologist. Pit I was enjoying that past of the debate.

Even you scurried away when challenged I though you would do better, so now tag team member three are you going to raise to the challenge.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#464 Dec 5, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Drug resistance and the need for repeated flu jabs... yawn.
<quoted text>
What you getting tired again what a pity, yes drug resistance is the natural design feature all organisms have to adapt the their surroundings. Personally I don't need repeated flu jabs because I was not stupid enough to let them start poisoning me the first time, funny how your drug resistant bugs don't seem to be able to harm me a created being. Perhaps it is an evolution thing.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#465 Dec 5, 2012
Thinking wrote:
This could take a while. OK, do you know the Contraction Mapping Theorem?
<quoted text>
You should have said that you were talking about he Banach fixed-point theorem, I know it all too well and have done much work around proof of it.
Thinking

UK

#466 Dec 5, 2012
Poe.
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
What you getting tired again what a pity, yes drug resistance is the natural design feature all organisms have to adapt the their surroundings. Personally I don't need repeated flu jabs because I was not stupid enough to let them start poisoning me the first time, funny how your drug resistant bugs don't seem to be able to harm me a created being. Perhaps it is an evolution thing.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#467 Dec 5, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Poe.
<quoted text>
What you mean Edgar Allan Poe, No I don't really go for Poe I am more a Shakespeare or Dickens man.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#468 Dec 5, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Poe.
<quoted text>
But then you could be referring to Power over Ethernet, but then even you would know that the acronym is written PoE
Thinking

UK

#469 Dec 5, 2012
Your two replies to my one post is a sure sign you're a dumbfuck.
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
But then you could be referring to Power over Ethernet, but then even you would know that the acronym is written PoE

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#470 Dec 5, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Your two replies to my one post is a sure sign you're a dumbfuck.
<quoted text>
So evolution tag team member 6 goes on the defensive with a rather predictable move, the use of profanities and a waste of time attempt at a put down. Perhaps you should start posting something that is actually applicable to the debate at hand or pass the baton to someone who can.
Thinking

UK

#471 Dec 5, 2012
Why?
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
So evolution tag team member 6 goes on the defensive with a rather predictable move, the use of profanities and a waste of time attempt at a put down. Perhaps you should start posting something that is actually applicable to the debate at hand or pass the baton to someone who can.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#472 Dec 5, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Why?
<quoted text>
Why what?
Why was your move predictable, well in the debate model when one starts to lose both the debate and ones way, this tactic is used for two reasons;
1) to avoid answering a question
2) to give the speaker time to think of an appropriate response.
In your case I am not sure if you can actually think of appropriate response so it must be the former.
Or perhaps, why should you start posting something that is actually applicable to the debate at hand or pass the baton to someone who can, one simple reason;
Beating you is so very easy; I am getting board debating non-entities.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#473 Dec 5, 2012
So here's a radical idea: let's discuss the original topic of this tread. We often move on to other lines of though after the original one has been exhausted, but I don't think that's true in this case.

Many topics whose descriptions begin with the word "Why" either present or look for explanations for phenomena that haven't been demonstrated--call it the fallacy of the leading question, if you will. So the first question to examine is whether atheism will replace religion at all.

I don't think that it will within my lifetime. Perhaps it won't happen at all. The pattern over the course of what little recorded history I've been able to absorb is that, while the nature and intensity of societal religion varies wildly over time, societies tend to share common religious beliefs. Modern times are different in that unprecedented rates of immigration have created societies comprised of multiple religious subpopulations, but the world's societies are still overwhelmingly religious except where multigenerational oppression has driven religion far underground.

Some believe that increased levels of education will erode religion down to nothingness, but recent statistics are showing that as college educations become more commonplace, the degreed populations become less agnostic/atheistic. I think this may be because the nature of college studies are changing along with that trend, with more focus on the acquisition of technical skills and knowledge and less on such elements of a classical education. We are beginning to see this at the high school levels now as reading standards are focusing on technical nonfiction at the expense of more traditional literature.

Contrary to what might be intuitive for some, I think that shift in focus lessens the degree of introspection that brings about shifts in outlooks and beliefs, and could actually leave the kind of societal intellectual vacuum that engenders a resurgence of religion rather than a continuation of its erosion. Only an educational philosophy that encourages fearless introspection with an emphasis on skeptical logical analysis would continue that trend in the college educated subpopulation. Continued shift in focus to technical expertise erodes that aspect of advanced education.

I used to be endlessly amused by President Eisenhower's shock when he was informed that full one half of the U.S. population was of below average education. Now I feel obligated to point out that the statistic will remain true even if more than 50% of the population attains higher education and that that 50% will remain tenaciously religious for a very long time.

That's why religion probably won't replace religion in the foreseeable future.
Thinking

UK

#474 Dec 5, 2012
"bored"
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Why what?
Why was your move predictable, well in the debate model when one starts to lose both the debate and ones way, this tactic is used for two reasons;
1) to avoid answering a question
2) to give the speaker time to think of an appropriate response.
In your case I am not sure if you can actually think of appropriate response so it must be the former.
Or perhaps, why should you start posting something that is actually applicable to the debate at hand or pass the baton to someone who can, one simple reason;
Beating you is so very easy; I am getting board debating non-entities.
Thinking

UK

#475 Dec 5, 2012
I agree religion will survive for the foreseeable future.

FSM - a poster I really like to read - is sure that religion is needed to keep the violently stupid in line.[FSM please finesse my viewpoint as you see fit]

Sometimes this argument feels analogous to saying some slaves were better off before liberation. Distasteful... it just feels wrong to me.
NightSerf wrote:
So here's a radical idea: let's discuss the original topic of this tread. We often move on to other lines of though after the original one has been exhausted, but I don't think that's true in this case.
Many topics whose descriptions begin with the word "Why" either present or look for explanations for phenomena that haven't been demonstrated--call it the fallacy of the leading question, if you will. So the first question to examine is whether atheism will replace religion at all.
I don't think that it will within my lifetime. Perhaps it won't happen at all. The pattern over the course of what little recorded history I've been able to absorb is that, while the nature and intensity of societal religion varies wildly over time, societies tend to share common religious beliefs. Modern times are different in that unprecedented rates of immigration have created societies comprised of multiple religious subpopulations, but the world's societies are still overwhelmingly religious except where multigenerational oppression has driven religion far underground.
Some believe that increased levels of education will erode religion down to nothingness, but recent statistics are showing that as college educations become more commonplace, the degreed populations become less agnostic/atheistic. I think this may be because the nature of college studies are changing along with that trend, with more focus on the acquisition of technical skills and knowledge and less on such elements of a classical education. We are beginning to see this at the high school levels now as reading standards are focusing on technical nonfiction at the expense of more traditional literature.
Contrary to what might be intuitive for some, I think that shift in focus lessens the degree of introspection that brings about shifts in outlooks and beliefs, and could actually leave the kind of societal intellectual vacuum that engenders a resurgence of religion rather than a continuation of its erosion. Only an educational philosophy that encourages fearless introspection with an emphasis on skeptical logical analysis would continue that trend in the college educated subpopulation. Continued shift in focus to technical expertise erodes that aspect of advanced education.
I used to be endlessly amused by President Eisenhower's shock when he was informed that full one half of the U.S. population was of below average education. Now I feel obligated to point out that the statistic will remain true even if more than 50% of the population attains higher education and that that 50% will remain tenaciously religious for a very long time.
That's why religion probably won't replace religion in the foreseeable future.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#476 Dec 5, 2012
Thinking wrote:
"bored"
<quoted text>
Yes I am bored with your lame responses

So now it's Evolutionists NIL: Me 6
Thinking

UK

#477 Dec 5, 2012
No, it was your typo.

You: cuntall
Rest of the world: lots
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I am bored with your lame responses
So now it's Evolutionists NIL: Me 6

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#478 Dec 5, 2012
Thinking wrote:
No, it was your typo.
You: cuntall
Rest of the world: lots
<quoted text>
Just the type of response I would expect, ill-informed, un-informative, negative, just plain stupid.

You cant even count the score on such a simple tag team match says a lot for your lack of abilities.

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) 24 min ChristineM 229,976
Islam for peace, or violence? 37 min Larry 28
Our world came from nothing? 52 min Larry 1,034
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 3 hr Chiclets 22,987
Adam Atheoi - the god of 'humanity' 14 hr Thinking 90
Man center of the universe. 14 hr Thinking 87
Razer and Ben Affleck take on the atheists Oct 17 Thinking 6

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE