Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Aug 27, 2012 Full story: News24 14,442

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
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#520 Dec 6, 2012
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
Spot checking your cited sources is an education in and of itself. Can't find any unbiased material....I mean, the Christian Post...c'mon now.
I see how Romania is returning to xtianity....by torturing a mentally ill girl to death....go team >gag<
The decline of Marxism and Lennonism??? Yeah, sure...whatevah, lol.
Tell the Pew survey to check the dictionary and find out the meaning of the word 'atheism.'
Find some real sources.
Dismissed.
Your decline in Lennonism would easily be accomplished by turning the volume on your Ipod down. Now a decline in Marxism and Leninism to show a decline in atheism makes more sense.

Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

Bingo!!
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#521 Dec 6, 2012
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
Spot checking your cited sources is an education in and of itself. Can't find any unbiased material....I mean, the Christian Post...c'mon now.
I see how Romania is returning to xtianity....by torturing a mentally ill girl to death....go team >gag<
The decline of Marxism and Lennonism??? Yeah, sure...whatevah, lol.
Tell the Pew survey to check the dictionary and find out the meaning of the word 'atheism.'
Find some real sources.
Dismissed.


many people that claim they are atheists should look up the definition of atheism. LOL
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#522 Dec 6, 2012
EdSed wrote:
Downhill246 is still repeating selective facts and presenting them in a misleading way. He seems to wish to suggest that religion isn't declining in the face of education and science. His favorite quote seems to be from Pew but he fails to mention that superstition is declining amongst young USAmericans....
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/belief-in-go...
Pew researchers said of the 7% of Americans who were raised unaffiliated, only half remained unaffiliated as adults. "Only Jehovah's Witness has a lower retention rate," says Pew analyst Gregory Smith.

Bummer!

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#523 Dec 6, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
This is the relevant definition, although it isn't as precise as required to speak of a 8scientific* theory.

ALL scientific theories are hypotheses. Yes, even the *theory* of gravity.
As previously mentioned I can test gravity with consistent results the same cannot be said for the theory of evolution.
First, it isn't so easy to make a hypothesis that fits all the current observations. So even the first qualification is extremely non-trivial. The point is that you have to produce some *general* hypothesis that fits all the *specific* observations.
So as I said you build the model on current observation then extrapolate this is generally called fiction.
Second, to be a scientific theory, it has to be testable. Typically, this means it makes very specific predictions about how future observations will go in specific situations. Then, we actually go and do the relevant experiments or field work to make the observations. If the predictions of the theory are correct, the theory is supported. If the predictions are not correct, the theory has to be modified or rejected completely (depending on how substantial the disagreement is).
By your own definition evolution is not even a scientific theory; I must say that you are the second person to admit that today, thanks for the support. But your argument above is still based on circular reasoning.
WRONG. We do not call it a good theory at this point. We call it a good theory when it has repeatedly made predictions of future observations that were actually verified by observations. Unless the predictions are verified, it isn't yet a good theory.
Thanks for being so honest telling us that evolution is nothing more than lies coming for you , an evolutionist, means a lot. Anyone trying to predict the future will only be shown to be wrong unless you, yourself fulfil the prediction, in that case it was not a prediction at all.
Wrong again. If we have to change things, it becomes a new theory, although possibly with many similarities to the previous one. There are also hierarchies of theories involved: some, such as quantum mechanics, are very general, but need the specifics of a situation to make predictions. The specifics can then be part of the hypotheses for that given situation.
So the thousands of times that the theory of evolution has been changed has brought about thousands of “new” theories, what are they called, and where can I find the documented transition of the naming of this fallacy.
Factual evidence is required to be a scientific theory. Predictions must be made about future observations that are then actually verified by those observations.
I am glad you have shed new light on this debate, but as a tag team you scored a own goal, you have called your own high priest (high Priest Hawkins) a lair, you have shown with great accuracy that we should actually call the theory of evolution the fallacy of evolution. By your own admission evolution does not fit into the realm of “scientific” theory a term dreamed up to and twisted to fit evolution as fact.
Here is a scientific theory I would just like to throw out there it is as plausible as the theory of evolution and has the same amount of scientific proofs to back it.
A flesh of a fully ripened water melon is blue, until the skin is broken at which time it turns pink.
Thinking

UK

#524 Dec 6, 2012
If that lot are just burning cycles, I usually keep it short...
Happy to discuss real questions though.
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
You said it much more succinctly than I did. Kudos!
Thinking

UK

#525 Dec 6, 2012
Unlikely.
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe in the near future atheists will become an endangered species entitled to government protection like Loggerhead turtles.
Thinking

UK

#526 Dec 6, 2012
I only scan your sh!t.
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
So you only picked up one of the four that is so very sad for you. Let's carry on the game now see if you can find the other three. This game should be about your level of education.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#527 Dec 6, 2012
Thinking wrote:
I only scan your sh!t.
<quoted text>
Yes, that is both the language and ability I have grown accustomed to.
Evolution tag team - NIL: Me - 7

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#528 Dec 6, 2012
Thinking wrote:
If that lot are just burning cycles, I usually keep it short...
Happy to discuss real questions though.
<quoted text>
You have done nothing to prove that.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#529 Dec 6, 2012
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
As previously mentioned I can test gravity with consistent results the same cannot be said for the theory of evolution.
Yes, in fact, it can. The nested hierarchy is a repeatable observation when doing relatedness tests of DNA, proteins, and morphology.
So as I said you build the model on current observation then extrapolate this is generally called fiction.
Until the extrapolation is verified, true. After it is verified, it supports the reasoning that lead to the extrapolation. For example, it is an extrapolation of the theory of gravity to predict that there will be a solar eclipse visible from the central US in 2017. That is a prediction of the model. I will bet you that it is upheld.
By your own definition evolution is not even a scientific theory; I must say that you are the second person to admit that today, thanks for the support. But your argument above is still based on circular reasoning.
if you think so, you are clearly not understanding the process. And yes, the theory of evolution *is* a scientific theory by my definition.
Thanks for being so honest telling us that evolution is nothing more than lies coming for you , an evolutionist, means a lot.
Again, that is most certainly NOT what i said.
Anyone trying to predict the future will only be shown to be wrong unless you, yourself fulfil the prediction, in that case it was not a prediction at all.
Simply false. Consider the prediction that there will be a solar eclipse above. In no way am I able to fulfill that prediction myself, but I can make it based on the scientific theories. I would also bet a lot of money it will be fulfilled.
So the thousands of times that the theory of evolution has been changed has brought about thousands of “new” theories, what are they called, and where can I find the documented transition of the naming of this fallacy.
The basic tenants have held constant: that species change over time due to ecological pressures (natural selection). This leads to nested hierarchies in the relatedness of species.
I am glad you have shed new light on this debate, but as a tag team you scored a own goal, you have called your own high priest (high Priest Hawkins) a lair, you have shown with great accuracy that we should actually call the theory of evolution the fallacy of evolution. By your own admission evolution does not fit into the realm of “scientific” theory a term dreamed up to and twisted to fit evolution as fact.
This is false. Evolution *is* a scientific theory. it makes definite predictions that have subsequently been verified by observation. A specific example is the discovery of acanthostega, but it is far from being the only example. Another collection of observations are the fossils of the dinosaur to bird transition.
Here is a scientific theory I would just like to throw out there it is as plausible as the theory of evolution and has the same amount of scientific proofs to back it.
A flesh of a fully ripened water melon is blue, until the skin is broken at which time it turns pink.
Not a scientific theory unless it is subject to observational testing. What precise test do you have to determine the color of the flesh of the watermelon before it is opened?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#530 Dec 6, 2012
Colin The Zionist wrote:
I am glad you have shed new light on this debate, but as a tag team you scored a own goal, you have called your own high priest (high Priest Hawkins) a lair
Just a point: science does not have 'High Priests' whose opinions are taken as automatically valid. Some people have been able to produce theories that can be verified, but that gives them no standing to dictate the position of the community. It also isn't even clear whether you mean Stephen Hawking (a scientist) or Christopher Hitchens (not a scientist). if the first, you have definitely misunderstood his points. if the second, his points are irrelevant to science.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#531 Dec 6, 2012
In the English language, most if not all words have multiple meanings, but only one applies in any given context. Using more than one meaning for a word within the same discussion is one of the basic logical fallacies, as is honing in on a single definition from a single source and claiming that its meaning applies to all contexts (see fallacy of equivocation).

Moreover, academic communities often use words differently from the way that the general population does. Technical jargon, for example, rarely makes sense to people outside of any given specialty. This is especially true of the names that groups use to identify themselves. In the field of comparative religion, for example, the best definition of Judaism comes from Jewish scholars. The same is true of Buddhists, Baptists, jains, and Sikhs.

Why, then, do believers think that their definitions of atheism override those of self-identified atheists in general or prominent atheist writers in particular? In the context of discussions about atheism with atheists, it is for atheists to define atheism, not their adversaries. Would you accept a skinhead's definition of Judaism? A Muslim's definition of Christianity? A racist's definition or the Black experience? No? Then why expect any intellectually hones person to accept a fundamentalist's or an evangelist's definition of atheism?

Those who do fail to demonstrate any understanding of the principles of either logic or lexicography.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#532 Dec 6, 2012
"Intellectually honest," that is.(bad fingers bad!!!)
Thinking

UK

#533 Dec 6, 2012
If you want to give yourself minus 7, jog on.
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, that is both the language and ability I have grown accustomed to.
Evolution tag team - NIL: Me - 7
Thinking

UK

#534 Dec 6, 2012
How?
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
You have done nothing to prove that.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#535 Dec 6, 2012
Thinking wrote:
If you want to give yourself minus 7, jog on.
<quoted text>
The more you continue to post the stupider you make yourself look, please be so kind as to carry on looking stupid.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#536 Dec 6, 2012
Thinking wrote:
How?
<quoted text>
Please refer to the above post.

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#537 Dec 6, 2012
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
The more you continue to post the stupider you make yourself look, please be so kind as to carry on looking stupid.
oh your not dead yet... what a shame

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#538 Dec 6, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Just a point: science does not have 'High Priests' whose opinions are taken as automatically valid. Some people have been able to produce theories that can be verified, but that gives them no standing to dictate the position of the community. It also isn't even clear whether you mean Stephen Hawking (a scientist) or Christopher Hitchens (not a scientist). if the first, you have definitely misunderstood his points. if the second, his points are irrelevant to science.
Lets analyse you first remark, so you admit that science has “high priests” just not ones that can be trusted, very interesting point. But I was not talking of science having “high priests” just evolutionism.
When I was referring to Hawking I assumed that you would be able to carry the context through the entire conversation, seems like you got a bit lost there.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#539 Dec 6, 2012
Lililth_Satans_Bore wrote:
<quoted text>oh your not dead yet... what a shame
Go and crawl back under the toadstool you crawled out of.

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) 1 hr ChristineM 231,895
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 1 hr Morse 23
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 1 hr rfirma 1,010
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 3 hr Catholic Girl 27
Why the Internet is slowly strangling religion 13 hr Dally Mama 3
Young atheists: The political leaders of tomorrow 13 hr Carchar king 4
Why Christians should stick up for atheists 13 hr Carchar king 6

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE