Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Aug 27, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: News24

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.

Comments (Page 37)

Showing posts 721 - 740 of14,385
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“There are other issues.”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#755
Dec 8, 2012
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
<quoted text>Yes they ran like their @ss was on fire and their hair was catching.
Just like your wife Einstein. Her @ss is always on fire supporting you.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#756
Dec 8, 2012
 
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
First the moving crust and folding rocks were caused by the food. There are many cultures that have records of the flood all over the world lol it up.
Except, of course, for the Egyptians, the Chinese, etc. Floods happen in all parts of the world, especially those near rivers. A local flood is not the same as a global flood.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#757
Dec 8, 2012
 
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
First the moving crust and folding rocks were caused by the food. There are many cultures that have records of the flood all over the world lol it up.
You will have some problems with the mechanics of the rocks themselves if you want the amount of folding to happen in a short period of time (less than 10000 years). The flood does not explain the folding that is present unless the laws of rock mechanics are violated.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#758
Dec 8, 2012
 
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution claims that the big bang lie easy the start of the evolution lie. if not where did it all come from
No, evolution simply describes how species change over time. how many times do I have to say this to get it through to you?

Evolution deals with living species. It doesn't deal with how the first living species came into existence. That is the topic of abiogenesis. It doesn't deal with the Big Bang. That is cosmology. Evolution would still be a scientific theory about how species change even if the first life was poofed into existence by a deity. Evolution would still be a theory about how species change even if Steady State cosmology was the one that was consistent with the evidence. We don't need to know how life started to know how it changes over time. How life started is a separate, and interesting question. But it is not evolution.

The problem is that you lump all science that disagrees with your myths as being 'evolution' when the theory of evolution is *only* a theory about biology. The Big Bang is not evolution. Abiogenesis is not evolution. Geology is not evolution. They are different subjects. get it?

Now, it is true that all are about some aspect of the universe and that they all have to be consistent with each other (because the universe is consistent). But the techniques, types of data, and methods are different for each subject. The fact that the results *are* consistent is part of the evidence we are on the right track.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#759
Dec 8, 2012
 
Colin The Zionist wrote:
A message to all the Evolution tag team members please tag in someone willing to go the distance and will not turn to the age old attempt to run down my education.
The problem is that you *do* have a large number of misconceptions about how science is done. You also don't seem to want to learn about how it is really done, but instead want to cling to your pre-conceived notions.

Now, the question of how life got started is still an open one. But the way to answer that question is through scientific exploration, understanding the chemistry of life, the chemistry of the early earth, the processes that were present, etc. Faith will not solve the problem. At most it will push the problem away and provide a non-answer (goddidit).

Are we closer today than we were 50 years ago to solving this problem? I would say yes with no hesitation. We understand the chemistry of life much better now. We understand the geology and the environments on the early earth much better now. We understand the earliest life forms much better now. The gap between what we know and what we want to know has been shrinking every year.

Is there still work to be done? Yes, of course. But your religion doesn't provide any answers. Only simplistic diversions that sway children.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#760
Dec 8, 2012
 
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text> The buyull has cause the death of millions. Thee buybull itself list the amount of genocides committed by the Jews in the old testament.


The Black Book of Communism lists the millions of deaths caused by atheists in less than one hundred years.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#761
Dec 8, 2012
 
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean besides the fact that there is no such thing. To educate if you read the text correctly the clean animals were seven pairs.
Yes, 14 total of each clean animal (and birds) and two each of every unclean animal. Hmmm..Were triceratops clean or unclean?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#762
Dec 8, 2012
 
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually the correct translation is "Thou shalt not murder"
And since murder is unjustified killing, the rule is somewhat tautological, don't you think?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#763
Dec 8, 2012
 
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
First to update your education it is spelled Bible.
Ok now the I have enhanced your education tell me where the creation fact is contradicted.
Make a prediction from it that differs from the predictions of the standard scientific theories. Then we can do the observation to see which is right. Oh, make sure the prediction is agreed to be different than the standard theories first.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#764
Dec 8, 2012
 
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
No moment until you use the correct name for the Bible.... it is spelt B.....I.....B.....L.....E
And it is bull of bull that you buy, so buybull is also relevant.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#765
Dec 8, 2012
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
A nice small collections of the hundreds of bible errors. Let's not forget Moses walking down the mountain with the Ten Commandments including thall shall not kill and the first thing he does is kill a bunch of people.
Lol!
<quoted text>


Kind of of like the atheist pacifist Bertrand Russell who thought we should actually nuke the Soviet Union if they obtained nuclear weapons.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#766
Dec 8, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is that you *do* have a large number of misconceptions about how science is done. You also don't seem to want to learn about how it is really done, but instead want to cling to your pre-conceived notions.
Now, the question of how life got started is still an open one. But the way to answer that question is through scientific exploration, understanding the chemistry of life, the chemistry of the early earth, the processes that were present, etc. Faith will not solve the problem. At most it will push the problem away and provide a non-answer (goddidit).
Are we closer today than we were 50 years ago to solving this problem? I would say yes with no hesitation. We understand the chemistry of life much better now. We understand the geology and the environments on the early earth much better now. We understand the earliest life forms much better now. The gap between what we know and what we want to know has been shrinking every year.
Is there still work to be done? Yes, of course. But your religion doesn't provide any answers. Only simplistic diversions that sway children.
Biogenesis is not a theory but a law, since there are no known exceptions.

Abiogenesis means life coming from non life.
It is a speculative hypothesis.
There is no evidence for it.
It violates the law of biogenesis.
There is no credible mechanism for it.
It remains a myth of naturalism.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#767
Dec 8, 2012
 
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Avoidance classic tactic of a looking team. Please do carry on.
"A looking team."??? LOLser;0)

Yes, the earth's only atmosphere at that time was volcanic gasses with all ingredients of life: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. Oh plenty of other things too, I'm sure. The rains formed the oceans we have today. Life started in the depths of the sea....single cell organisms.

Oh wait, you believe a bearded sky pixie said, "Let there be...." and poof!

I hope your pecker is longer than your original thought process....

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#768
Dec 8, 2012
 
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text> I don't have a nine inch penis nor is your Torah fact.
Not to worry, it's not the size of the boat that counts, it's the motion of the ocean.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#769
Dec 8, 2012
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
There is no tag team just is more educated people and an ignorant c@cklicker who thinks Yahweh magicked everything into existence 6000 to 10000 years ago.
The only score is how many times you have made a jackass out of yourself. Hell Gramen Forex aka Ben aka Colin you don't even know what evolution is.
<quoted text>
Is that Gramen??? Wow, I thought his baggy old arse was off polluting the groundwater somewhere.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#770
Dec 8, 2012
 
STEPHMAR wrote:
<quoted text>A lengthy article with I assume good facts. However, atheism replacing the major Religious Beliefs is nonsense.
You don't want to read it....just contradict it....are we on the same page so far?
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#771
Dec 8, 2012
 
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
This has to be one of the funniest posts of all time, there 26200 sentences in the bibull each 70+ different meanings. That means the total number of meanings in the bibull are:-
70^26200
that is more than all the protons in the Verse.
No wounder you guys are so f.cked.
"As I remember Bruce Metzger(widely-considered to be one of the most influential New Testament scholars of the 20th century) saying once (who trained both Bart Ehrman and myself in these matters) over 90% of the New Testament is rather well established in regard to its original text, and none of the remaining 10% provides us with data that could lead to any shocking revisions of the Christian credo or doctrine."

Bible scholar Ben Witherington, Amos Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary and on the doctoral faculty at St. Andrews University in Scotland.

“There are other issues.”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#772
Dec 8, 2012
 
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>Biogenesis is not a theory but a law, since there are no known exceptions.

Abiogenesis means life coming from non life.
It is a speculative hypothesis.
There is no evidence for it.
It violates the law of biogenesis.
There is no credible mechanism for it.
It remains a myth of naturalism.
Wow. Good point!

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#773
Dec 8, 2012
 
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
The Black Book of Communism lists the millions of deaths caused by atheists in less than one hundred years.
That was the Nazis, poor dolt.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#774
Dec 8, 2012
 
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Biogenesis is not a theory but a law, since there are no known exceptions.
Abiogenesis means life coming from non life.
It is a speculative hypothesis.
There is no evidence for it.
It violates the law of biogenesis.
There is no credible mechanism for it.
It remains a myth of naturalism.
We know that there is no 'life force' that is added to 'non-living matter' to make 'living-matter'. At base, all life is chemistry. Today, the complexity of life is passed from one accumulation of matter to another via reproduction. That is probably how it has been for billions of years. We simply don't have the right materials in the right concentrations today *anywhere* one earth to allow the formation of new life except via reproduction.

But it is NOT established that the complex chemical reactions that are not life cannot proceed to complex chemical reactions that we would consider to be life in the environment of the early earth. In fact, we *know* that there was a time when nothing was alive on earth and that at a later date there *was* life. So, at some point, life *did* come from non-life.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 721 - 740 of14,385
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••