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.

Since: May 11

UK

#7038 Mar 10, 2013
You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
Your first error is to presume there was a 10000 BCE there was no. You second error is to try to calculate the population grown on modern figures as you have been doing very inaccurate and non-representative of historical figures.
You don`t think there was a 10 thousand BC? Why is that? LOL

300 years is not sufficient time for 8 people to propagate enough `other` people over the ENTIRE GLOBE to enable the functioning civilisations which existed at the time...to exist.

Ergo:- your global flood didn`t happen, and like the rest of your 16th century book of social control, it just doesn`t make any sense.

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

#7039 Mar 10, 2013
You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
The BIBLE is a word used for the sacred books of the Christian churches and the Hebrew BIBLE is the used as a modern term for the Hebrew Tanach. No other religion has until very recently used the term BIBLE for their religious books.
The term BIBLE has in recent years become used for any book of instruction, in an attempt to degrade its true meaning.
It is called Hebrew Scripture. There is no Hebrew Bible.
You gotta be kidding

Auckland, New Zealand

#7040 Mar 10, 2013
LuLu Ford wrote:
<quoted text>
They are most certainly not the same. The Pentateuch is a Greek translation of Torah which makes it different. The Bible contains many more books than the first five books of Hebrew Scripture.
Again you show just how stupid you are. Let me recap you made this statement “There was Hebrew Scripture, the Pentateuch, and Torah to name a few” claiming that both the Torah and the pentateuch were to be found in the Hebrew Tanach. I corrected you once aging I had to correct you it is becoming habitual.
You gotta be kidding

Auckland, New Zealand

#7041 Mar 10, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
You don`t think there was a 10 thousand BC? Why is that? LOL
300 years is not sufficient time for 8 people to propagate enough `other` people over the ENTIRE GLOBE to enable the functioning civilisations which existed at the time...to exist.
Ergo:- your global flood didn`t happen, and like the rest of your 16th century book of social control, it just doesn`t make any sense.
No there was no 10,000 BCE there is no factual evidence for that at all.
People did not occupy the entire globe as you claim.
The flood did happen.
The Tanach was not written in the 16th century

You gotta be kidding

Auckland, New Zealand

#7042 Mar 10, 2013
LuLu Ford wrote:
<quoted text>
It is called Hebrew Scripture. There is no Hebrew Bible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Bible
http://www.breslov.com/bible/
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/6...

Us Jews would disagree with you on this one, once again. Why would you insist on making statements on behalf of a people you know nothing of

Since: May 11

UK

#7043 Mar 10, 2013
You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
No there was no 10,000 BCE there is no factual evidence for that at all.
People did not occupy the entire globe as you claim.
The flood did happen.
The Tanach was not written in the 16th century
Do you know why we use atomic clocks?

Well I`ll tell you, it`s because the decay of radioactive elements into their daughter products is an extremely accurate way of measuring time.

It takes 4.468 billion years for Uranium 238 to decay and form the daughter product of Thorium 234. The fact that these daughter products exist in nature proves that there was a 10 thousand BCE...and beyond.

The flood did not happen, don`t be silly.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#7044 Mar 10, 2013
You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
ERROR 1:“using the differences in brightness to show the differences in distance” who is to say they present the same luminosity.
ERROR 2:” we can make sure that the stars are of intrinsically the same brightness by making sure they are at the same temperature” Temperature is defined by colour, colour is defined by the type of gas burning to make the colour, no comparison can accurately be made by colour unless the exact gas type and concentration is known.(Have you been there to tale a sample?)
You don't need to be. You can check the spectrum to determine the composition.
ERROR 3:“determined by which elements are emitting light at what wavelengths” see above for explanation
This was *your* error.
ERROR 4:“because we saw a supernova (an exploding star) and watched its reflection from nearby gas clouds” that same light would have taken too many light years to reach earth to measure in our time so you are using speculation and extrapolation not factual measurement.
Incorrect. We have actual measurements of the time it takes for the reflection. We have actual measurements for the brightness of the stars in the region. We have actual measurements for the supernova itself.
ERROR 5:“? It is all consistent with a distance and time of 160,000 years, and definitely NOT consistent with a time of less than 10,000 years” as I stated GOD put the stars in the heavens for us to use in various ways He would not have put them there without showing us their light or they would have been useless to us. So 6000 years is perfectly feasible.
Only if your deity made the universe with light representing stars actually in flight at the time it was made. It also requires the light to show things like supernova that did not actually happen, making your deity a liar.
ERROR 6:“Conclusion: The Bible is wrong” no the BIBLE is not wrong you are.
So many obvious errors in one such small post you really should do better than that.
YOU are the one making the mistakes here, not me. Your knowledge of the methods of science and its ability to make conclusions is sorely lacking. All criticisms you are making is solely based on your decision to assume a version of 'Last Thursdayism': that the universe was *made* to *look* like it is old even though it is not. That shows a complete lack of intellectual honesty.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#7045 Mar 10, 2013
You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
If intelligence is measured and defined by ignoring the obvious facts then you are more than welcome to it.
That seems to be your primary tactic.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#7046 Mar 10, 2013
You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
No there was no 10,000 BCE there is no factual evidence for that at all.
People did not occupy the entire globe as you claim.
The flood did happen.
All of the above are out and out lies.
You gotta be kidding

Auckland, New Zealand

#7047 Mar 10, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you know why we use atomic clocks?
Well I`ll tell you, it`s because the decay of radioactive elements into their daughter products is an extremely accurate way of measuring time.
It takes 4.468 billion years for Uranium 238 to decay and form the daughter product of Thorium 234. The fact that these daughter products exist in nature proves that there was a 10 thousand BCE...and beyond.
The flood did not happen, don`t be silly.
If it takes 4.468 billion years for Uranium 238 to decay and form the daughter product of Thorium 234 it has never been observed or measured so it cannot be a defined as fact. It is speculation and extrapolation not fact
You gotta be kidding

Auckland, New Zealand

#7048 Mar 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>You don't need to be. You can check the spectrum to determine the composition.
<quoted text>
This was *your* error.
<quoted text>
Incorrect. We have actual measurements of the time it takes for the reflection. We have actual measurements for the brightness of the stars in the region. We have actual measurements for the supernova itself.
<quoted text>
Only if your deity made the universe with light representing stars actually in flight at the time it was made. It also requires the light to show things like supernova that did not actually happen, making your deity a liar.
<quoted text>
YOU are the one making the mistakes here, not me. Your knowledge of the methods of science and its ability to make conclusions is sorely lacking. All criticisms you are making is solely based on your decision to assume a version of 'Last Thursdayism': that the universe was *made* to *look* like it is old even though it is not. That shows a complete lack of intellectual honesty.
To know the temperature spectrum you need to know the gas and at what temperature it burns and what colour, not all gas or solid burns at the same colour temperature. You do not know what gas any star is made up of so you cannot tell distance by temperature colour comparison, this is not a science it is a speculative art.
For your supernova did you know the exact element it was made of and the exact elements the light travelled through in space to know the exact colour temperature to know the exact (close) distance? NO
You are underestimating GOD and His ability in creation.
Most science make conclusions of speculation, guess work and extrapolation, they need to do this to be able to fit millions and billions of years into the spectrum. There are many who do not I am one of the latter; I deal in science that is observable, measurable and reproducible. Not guess work that much of science has been reduced to.
Can you honestly say that you (if you are involved in science in any way) have never used speculation and extrapolation?
You gotta be kidding

Auckland, New Zealand

#7049 Mar 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
That seems to be your primary tactic.
That would be evolutionists who follow that line, I am not one.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#7050 Mar 10, 2013
You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
To know the temperature spectrum you need to know the gas and at what temperature it burns and what colour, not all gas or solid burns at the same colour temperature. You do not know what gas any star is made up of so you cannot tell distance by temperature colour comparison, this is not a science it is a speculative art.
Wrong. We can tell the composition via the spectrum, specifically the wavelengths that are absorbed or emitted. These are very specific and are used on Earth to determine compositions. When we see the same spectra in stars, we know the compositions of those stars. Yes, i tis precisely the differences between the different gases that allows us to determine the composition. The characteristics of the spectrum also allow us to determine the temperature. This is not speculative. It is solid science verified in the labs here on earth and applied to the stars.
For your supernova did you know the exact element it was made of and the exact elements the light travelled through in space to know the exact colour temperature to know the exact (close) distance? NO
That is determined from the spectra of the light itself.
You are underestimating GOD and His ability in creation.
Most science make conclusions of speculation, guess work and extrapolation, they need to do this to be able to fit millions and billions of years into the spectrum.
Wrong. The conclusions are the other way around. We look at the compositions, the distances involved, and the physical properties of matter (as we can determine here on earth). The ages are conclusions based on this knowledge. We don't make the results fir the age: we allow the results to show us what the age is.
There are many who do not I am one of the latter; I deal in science that is observable, measurable and reproducible. Not guess work that much of science has been reduced to.
Can you honestly say that you (if you are involved in science in any way) have never used speculation and extrapolation?
Is it guesswork to say that a spectrum that uniquely determines an element here on earth also determines that same element in a distant star? it is guesswork to use the principles of geometry to determine the distances of the stars? is it guesswork to use the reproducible properties of materials we see here on earth to recognize those same materials in space?

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#7051 Mar 10, 2013
Go to a Muslim, open a real science book, fossil records to genetic testing proves it.

And you know it.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
Do share your observable evidence for evolution we are still waiting.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#7052 Mar 10, 2013
You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>Well I guess you obviously cannot use an atlas so let me educate you.

There are 9 planets in our solar system, although there is debate as to weather to include Pluto as a planet or even to include some of the larger moon of other planets as actual planets. Recent trending is that there may be another planet further out than Pluto. The actual number is debated by many in science.

It is so sad that you need me to educate you or are you perhaps younger that your 14 your sister and too shy to ask her.
It's sad that you think you are right but are utterly wrong.
I wasn't asking you because I didn't know, I was asking you in order to get you to prove yourself wrong.

You just did so, finally, after refusing to prove you have knowledge.
There are 8 planets, Pluto is not in debate; it is not a planet.

Moons are not planets and aren't in debate either as to whether they're planets or not. That's because they're moons, not planets.

You should also check your grammar and spelling, for we aren't talking about the "weather."

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#7053 Mar 10, 2013
You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>Get real fool.
Get "evidance."

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#7054 Mar 10, 2013
Okay Poe your screen name gives it away you are just kidding. You really aren't this stupid.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I believe the BIBLE.
How does light prove actual age, it does not, light travels to earth form a distant planet at a set speed, so by the lie you promote that plant must be really really far away. However GOD put the planets in the sky for us to be able to see, enjoy, navigate by and tell time by therefore he put them there plus he put the light for us to see.
The BIBLE is not wrong you are.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#7055 Mar 10, 2013
Bwahahahahahahahahahhahahahahh aha!

Making fun of Christians I see. No way you really believe this nonsense.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
No there was no 10,000 BCE there is no factual evidence for that at all.
People did not occupy the entire globe as you claim.
The flood did happen.
The Tanach was not written in the 16th century

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#7056 Mar 10, 2013
You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>No there was no 10,000 BCE there is no factual evidence for that at all.
People did not occupy the entire globe as you claim.
The flood did happen.
The Tanach was not written in the 16th century
The Gobekli Tepe is the first known civilization dated at 9000 BCE.
Oh look, that's before the Earth existed, according to you.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#7057 Mar 10, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>Do you know why we use atomic clocks?

Well I`ll tell you, it`s because the decay of radioactive elements into their daughter products is an extremely accurate way of measuring time.

It takes 4.468 billion years for Uranium 238 to decay and form the daughter product of Thorium 234. The fact that these daughter products exist in nature proves that there was a 10 thousand BCE...and beyond.

The flood did not happen, don`t be silly.
I'm saving this comment, thanks for the summary of how we know the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
(Crazy religion-man probably won't understand it anyway, and claim "blasphemy")

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) 1 min Knowledge- 247,605
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 2 min Thinking 47,860
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 4 min Thinking 12,828
News Atheism, the Bible and sexual orientation 1 hr peruzzi 24
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 3 hr Thinking 2,357
News As an atheist, how do I maintain my relationshi... 6 hr NoahLikesPi 41
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 11 hr macumazahn 20,900
More from around the web