Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Aug 27, 2012 Full story: News24 14,456

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

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#540 Dec 6, 2012
Guys, you can dream all you like, but atheism is never going to replace religion. It's just not realistic.
Thinking

UK

#542 Dec 6, 2012
In a world where papers devote more space to horoscopes than science, you have to accept that most people are thick.
Clementia wrote:
Guys, you can dream all you like, but atheism is never going to replace religion. It's just not realistic.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#543 Dec 6, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, in fact, it can..........
This is territory has already been already covered, DNA and proteins do not point as any sort of proof for evolution. DNA is far too complex to have spontaneously evolved or to have had millions of additions and subtractions over billions of years. Your solar eclipse model is a predictable model not based on evolution or gravity but based on the mechanical movement of the universe, one set in place by creation. Making that prediction would like predicting that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. If it does not happen no one will be here to nay say.
Now be so kind as to show how and where any evolution has been verified in a lab, to form a scientific consensus verified by observation and repeatable in the lab.
Let’s examine your so called “fossils of the dinosaur to bird transition”. All you really have is some ones word on that, there is no real evidence of transition, there are what 7 fossils in existence that claim to be examples fossils of the dinosaur to bird transition, perhaps they are actually just extinct species as is the acanthostega. Let’s look at the coelacanth an outstanding evolutionary example of a mistake.
My water melon theory holds as much scientific evidence as the theory of evolution. Nether can be proved true or false. So we are at loggerheads none of the so called evolutionary evidence is really evidence at all, circumstantial at best.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#544 Dec 6, 2012
Thinking wrote:
In a world where papers devote more space to horoscopes than science, you have to accept that most people are thick.
<quoted text>
Actually according to the predictive model of evolution the horoscope must in fact be science. Maybe that model won't work after all.
Thinking

UK

#545 Dec 6, 2012
Sources?
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually according to the predictive model of evolution the horoscope must in fact be science. Maybe that model won't work after all.
Thinking

UK

#546 Dec 6, 2012
Prove it.
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
DNA is far too complex to have spontaneously evolved or to have had millions of additions and subtractions over billions of years.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#547 Dec 6, 2012
Thinking wrote:
In a world where papers devote more space to horoscopes than science, you have to accept that most people are thick.
<quoted text>
Yep, that's what I meant!
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#548 Dec 6, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Unlikely.
<quoted text>
In 2012, Baylor University indicated that a significant amount of American nondenominational church members are checking "unaffiliated" or "no religion" on surveys. Nondenominational Christians, who tend to be conservative and creationists, are the fastest growing segment of the religious population.

http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08...


Concerning various views on atheists, research in the American Sociological Review finds that among several groups listed, atheists are the group that Americans relate least to in terms of their vision of American society and are the group most likely to be mentioned as one that Americans would not want to have marry into their family. That probably explains why Pew Forum statistics show a whopping 37% of atheists never marry as opposed to 19% of the American population, 17% of Protestants and 17% of Catholics.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#549 Dec 6, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Prove it.
<quoted text>
Logic determines that one, not that you would understand it.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#550 Dec 6, 2012
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
This is territory has already been already covered, DNA and proteins do not point as any sort of proof for evolution.
On the contrary, they are very strong evidence for common ancestry, for specific relatedness, etc.
DNA is far too complex to have spontaneously evolved or to have had millions of additions and subtractions over billions of years.
That is your claim, but it turns out that natural selection rapidly produces high complexity.
Your solar eclipse model is a predictable model not based on evolution or gravity but based on the mechanical movement of the universe, one set in place by creation.
You are right, it has nothing to do with evolution (which is a biological theory), but it has everything to do with the theory of gravity. You see, it is gravity that determines that 'mechanical movement'. The specific timing of eclipses (predicted to within the minute) are very sensitive tests of our theories of gravity.
Making that prediction would like predicting that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. If it does not happen no one will be here to nay say.
And why would wrong predictions of exact times for eclipses based on our theories of gravity imply that nobody is around to 'nay say'? once again, complete lack of understanding of how science actually works. For example, the predictions of Mercury's motion, based on Newton's theory of gravity were off the predictions by 43 seconds of arc per century. That very tiny difference was enough to show Newton's theory is wrong and the Einstein's theory of general relativity is a better description of gravity.
Now be so kind as to show how and where any evolution has been verified in a lab, to form a scientific consensus verified by observation and repeatable in the lab.
How many references do you want? Almost every single issue of every single biological journal has this data, going back for over a century.
Let’s examine your so called “fossils of the dinosaur to bird transition”. All you really have is some ones word on that, there is no real evidence of transition, there are what 7 fossils in existence that claim to be examples fossils of the dinosaur to bird transition, perhaps they are actually just extinct species as is the acanthostega.
Yes, they are extinct species. but that have all the characters of transitional species: from feathered dinosaurs to birds with keels.
Let’s look at the coelacanth an outstanding evolutionary example of a mistake.
Already dealt with.
My water melon theory holds as much scientific evidence as the theory of evolution. Nether can be proved true or false. So we are at loggerheads none of the so called evolutionary evidence is really evidence at all, circumstantial at best.
No, you are wrong here. The theory of evolution makes very specific predictions about things like the similarities of proteins of different species as a function of how related those species are. For example, the proteins that carry oxygen in the muscles of whales are more similar to those of other mammals than they are to proteins in fish that do the same job. Furthermore, those whale proteins are more similar to those of ungulates (hooved animals) than they are to, say carnivores.

All *your* viewpoint can say is 'it is how it is because it was designed that way'. In other words, you provide no explanation at all.

In the case of the watermelon, you have NOTHING testable that follows from your hypothesis. In evolution, there are many testable hypotheses that have actually been tested and shown to hold.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#551 Dec 6, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Sources?
<quoted text>
Read the posts above from your fellow team mates that was there description.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#552 Dec 6, 2012
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually according to the predictive model of evolution the horoscope must in fact be science. Maybe that model won't work after all.
To the extent it makes actual predictions that are testable, it would be science. However, most 'predictions' it makes are not testable and those that are testable are known to be wrong in many instances.

Once aspect is that scientific predictions have to be specific enough that, if the theory is wrong, the prediction can be seen to be wrong. Horoscopes fail to do this miserably.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#553 Dec 6, 2012
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Logic determines that one, not that you would understand it.
Perhaps the problem is that what you think is logical is not, in fact, logical. Complexity is not the problem you seem to think it is.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#554 Dec 6, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
In 2012, Baylor University indicated that a significant amount of American nondenominational church members are checking "unaffiliated" or "no religion" on surveys. Nondenominational Christians, who tend to be conservative and creationists, are the fastest growing segment of the religious population.
http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08...
Concerning various views on atheists, research in the American Sociological Review finds that among several groups listed, atheists are the group that Americans relate least to in terms of their vision of American society and are the group most likely to be mentioned as one that Americans would not want to have marry into their family. That probably explains why Pew Forum statistics show a whopping 37% of atheists never marry as opposed to 19% of the American population, 17% of Protestants and 17% of Catholics.
I suspect that one factor in the "never married" statistic is the demographic composition of the current atheist population, which is disproportionately under 30, which is in turn disproportionately single--for now. As these young atheists grow older, they will probably marry in similar proportions to the rest of the population.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#555 Dec 6, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
On the contrary,
No, you are wrong here.
In the case of the watermelon, you have NOTHING testable that follows from your hypothesis. In evolution, there are many testable hypotheses that have actually been tested and shown to hold.
The fact remains that neither you nor anyone else has ever produced actual scientific evidence for this I look forward to reading yours.
Still the eclipse is determined by the mechanical movement of the solar system, not evolution, which by the way is not only biological, it is also geological and planetary. Wow you c an miss the point if you try, the no nay sayers was for the sun not coming up tomorrow, a pint to your “we can predict the future based on a theory”
Pleas post the references you referred to but don’t forget that have to be verifiable and repeatable to even begin to fit your model.
You DNA and protein example fit perfectly into the intelligent design model that is an undeniable fact. Yes my view point says that is the way it was designed to work by a creator, all your says is that is what evolution says, no parrot not facts no nothing really. You can say as much as you like there is proof there are facts there are whatevers, but you still cannot produce them. Why do you not take up my first challenge, write a paper get it peer reviewed and then published putting your name to the irrevocable scientific proof for the theory of evolution.

Last words When and Where

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#556 Dec 6, 2012
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”- Issac Asimov

Asimov's assertion can find no better support than in internet blogs in which people whose level of biological awareness rarely extends beyond that obtainable in introductory high school courses claim to know more than first-rate biological researchers do. Long before Nova, Asimov did in print what Sagan did on the screen--present science so as to be accessible to the lay population, giving us a peek into the worlds of lab coats, microscopes, and telescopes. He would have agreed with Sagan that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

So do I.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#557 Dec 6, 2012
Clementia wrote:
Guys, you can dream all you like, but atheism is never going to replace religion. It's just not realistic.
Very true. Since there is no "ism" in being an atheist, it will not become a replacement "ism". Atheism is the lack of an ism, and the lack of an ism will, in time replace the isms, as more and more people actually look at what they have been taught to believe.
Take the Abrahamic god for instance. Believing in an all powerful loving god is very possible, until you actually read and understand the bible. Then you have no choice but to know that the loving god would force you to eat your child, and the all powerful god was flat out whooped by the iron chariot. That will tell you that what the buybull says ain't necessarily so.
Jumper

Owensboro, KY

#558 Dec 6, 2012
A Hallmark moment.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#559 Dec 6, 2012
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Very true. Since there is no "ism" in being an atheist, it will not become a replacement "ism". Atheism is the lack of an ism, and the lack of an ism will, in time replace the isms, as more and more people actually look at what they have been taught to believe.
Take the Abrahamic god for instance. Believing in an all powerful loving god is very possible, until you actually read and understand the bible. Then you have no choice but to know that the loving god would force you to eat your child, and the all powerful god was flat out whooped by the iron chariot. That will tell you that what the buybull says ain't necessarily so.
What a load of absolute rubbish. Atheism is one of the many pagan religions that appeared on earth between the would wide flood and the dispersion of Babel. But then I would not expect an ignorant sod like you to know that.

“My hand is over my crotch.”

Since: Jan 10

It's time to put it to use

#560 Dec 6, 2012
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
What a load of absolute rubbish. Atheism is one of the many pagan religions that appeared on earth between the would wide flood and the dispersion of Babel. But then I would not expect an ignorant sod like you to know that.
You proved your foolishness when you mentioned Babel.

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) 4 hr Morse 232,033
God' existence 8 hr Geezerjock 1
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 9 hr tha Professor 1,051
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 17 hr Morse 30
Young atheists: The political leaders of tomorrow Thu thetruth 6
Why Christians should stick up for atheists Thu thetruth 8
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... Thu QUITTNER Nov 27 2014 31

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE