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
761 - 780 of 14,385 Comments Last updated Nov 23, 2013

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#796
Dec 8, 2012
 
Richardfs wrote:
Something odd happened with topix that should have read:-
<quoted text>
The stars.
Now we are getting to the nitygritty of the matter. Ghetto elements came from the stars, where did they come from?

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#797
Dec 8, 2012
 
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text> You can't get through a stone wall.
The fact of the matter is evolution does not make sense no matter how many hours and dollars are spent it still does not add up. There are too many hole, in fact more holes than substance. Unlike matter that has the same type of hole and substance make up, the fallacy of evolution does not stand up to scrutiny. Sorry to bring the bad news but that is a fact

“Handsome white and black men”

Since: Jan 10

Interracial love

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#798
Dec 8, 2012
 
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
The definition of evolution not from a creationist but form an evolutionist,“thought to have developed”
The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the...
The gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form
To have developed it must have come from somewhere, so evolutionary biology does not concern its self with origins just how things change now, in other words how created organism adapt to their environment, but does biological evolution concern it’s self with new species developing over time YES it does now that becomes a issue of faith because you do not know nor have you observed any new species in nature or in the lab.
You admit that evolutionists do not know how life begun yet you dismiss out of hand the possibility of a creator, you have never seen a new species evolve yet you dismiss a creator. Sounds like you have great faith on the writings of men.
Intelligent design is the only intelligent answer.
Well the creation as told by the bible is clearly flawed. That seven day creation crap.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#799
Dec 8, 2012
 
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Now we are getting to the nitygritty of the matter. Ghetto elements came from the stars, where did they come from?
Ghetto??? what the hell is that?

“Handsome white and black men”

Since: Jan 10

Interracial love

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#800
Dec 8, 2012
 
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Seeing as though this thread has moved into a creation v evolution debate I though it prudent to address this post more than the first so called list of contradictions which was based two geologies of Yeshuah, that is quickly answered like this one is for Mary and the other for her husband Joseph, in one they talk of the Husband of Mary and the other the Guardian or father of Mary.
Now for the creation debate:
Again no issues here either,
Follow if you can
Day one God made the heavens and the earth and the water was on the face of the deep.
Day two God divides the water from the earth and the sky
Day three God gather the waters so that dry land can appears, on that land he creates plants of all kind
Day four God lights up the skies with stars (other planets) the sun and the moon
Day five God creates water animals and birds
Day six God creates land animals and Man he made male and female animals.
Day seven God brings us the Shabbat.
Where does God walk on the water but not create it? Where does it say that that women came from the womb of the man nowhere that is the answer, you are trying to deceive. This is chapter one of Genesis chapter two is a recap.
God brings all the animals to man to show him that there is none equal to him on earth, man is created as a “Living Soul” no other animal has this distinction, God is pointing this out to man. Not to try to find him a helpmeet but to show man that there is none, God already knows this God want to show man that woman is a special part of creation, created as a helpmeet for man and nothing else can take that place, not an animal nor another man.
God is not this odd sounding “magical skydaddy” as you insist on calling him, He is the almighty all knowing creator of the universe.
Genesis 1:25-27 (Humans were created after the other animals.)
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

Genesis 2:18-19 (Humans were created before the other animals.)
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Genesis 1:27 (The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 2:18-22 (The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Spocko

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#801
Dec 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Who wrote the laws of rock mechanics? What pressures were three on the rocks during a world wide flood?
There has always been a world wide flood, there is very little that is not covered by water :-)

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#802
Dec 8, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text> Well the creation as told by the bible is clearly flawed. That seven day creation crap.
What makes it flawed. Is seven days any less feasible than 15 billion years.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#803
Dec 8, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
There has always been a world wide flood, there is very little that is not covered by water :-)
Yes and there was a time that everything was covered.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#804
Dec 8, 2012
 
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
Ghetto??? what the hell is that?
That was auto type at its worst big fingers small keys on phone.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#805
Dec 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Technically you are correct but the main difference is you believe it was a strictly random process of nature and I believe it was purposeful, as in God got the party started.
Part of scientific testing is falsification. Falsifiability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment.Obviously you know that something that is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. Abiogenesis is not falsifiable since a negative result may just mean that the right conditions were not used as you have already argued. That means there is no experimental or observational failure that would make the supporters of abiogenesis conclude that it is impossible. In fact scientific problems arising from areas like Thermodynamics and Information theory are dismissed as not applying to abiogenesis. This is because abiogenesis is a philosophical necessity of absolute naturalism, rather than a scientific concept. Webster’s defines faith as “firm belief in something for which there is no proof” and,“something that is believed especially with strong conviction.”. Welcome to the First Church of Abiogenesis.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#806
Dec 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes it flawed. Is seven days any less feasible than 15 billion years.
Well then you are a YEC, quick turn off your PC as that works on the laws Physics and Chemistry which you seem think are false. Don't use any modern medicine. Stop using your car and go back to stone age and leave the 21st century to those of us who are equipped to handle it.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#807
Dec 8, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
That was auto type at its worst big fingers small keys on phone.
So bibull is infallible, has no mistakes then what are these?

24. What was the name of King Abijahs mother?

Michaiah, daughter of Uriel of Gibeah (2 Chronicles 13:2)
Maachah, daughter of Absalom (2 Chronicles 11:20) But Absalom had only one daughter whose name was Tamar (2 Samuel 14:27)

25. Did Joshua and the Israelites capture Jerusalem?

Yes (Joshua 10:23, 40)
No (Joshua 15:63)

26. Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?

Jacob (Matthew 1:16)
Hell (Luke 3:23)

27. Jesus descended from which son of David?

Solomon (Matthew 1:6)
Nathan(Luke3:31)

28. Who was the father of Shealtiel?

Jechoniah (Matthew 1:12)
Neri (Luke 3:27)

29. Which son of Zerubbabel was an ancestor of Jesus Christ?

Abiud (Matthew 1: 13)
Rhesa (Luke 3:27) But the seven sons of Zerubbabel are as follows: i.Meshullam, ii. Hananiah, iii. Hashubah, iv. Ohel, v.Berechiah, vi. Hasadiah, viii. Jushabhesed (I Chronicles 3:19, 20). The names Abiud and Rhesa do not fit in anyway.

30. Who was the father of Uzziah?

Joram (Matthew 1:8)
Amaziah (2 Chronicles 26:1)

31. Who was the father of Jechoniah?

Josiah (Matthew 1:11)
Jeholakim (I Chronicles 3:16)

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#808
Dec 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
Well then you are a YEC, quick turn off your PC as that works on the laws Physics and Chemistry which you seem think are false. Don't use any modern medicine. Stop using your car and go back to stone age and leave the 21st century to those of us who are equipped to handle it.
None of the above evolved all were designed so perhaps you should stop using everything that did not evolve and that included Gods air that you breath.
Spocko

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#809
Dec 8, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
The definition of evolution not from a creationist but form an evolutionist,“thought to have developed”
The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the...
The gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form
To have developed it must have come from somewhere, so evolutionary biology does not concern its self with origins just how things change now, in other words how created organism adapt to their environment, but does biological evolution concern it’s self with new species developing over time YES it does now that becomes a issue of faith because you do not know nor have you observed any new species in nature or in the lab.
You admit that evolutionists do not know how life begun yet you dismiss out of hand the possibility of a creator, you have never seen a new species evolve yet you dismiss a creator. Sounds like you have great faith on the writings of men.
Intelligent design is the only intelligent answer.
Evolution is a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth, it can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms. How can one ignore the enormous Body of Evidence that has not only withstood the onslaught of time but is getting more robust every day!
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#810
Dec 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
So bibull is infallible, has no mistakes then what are these?
24. What was the name of King Abijahs mother?
Michaiah, daughter of Uriel of Gibeah (2 Chronicles 13:2)
Maachah, daughter of Absalom (2 Chronicles 11:20) But Absalom had only one daughter whose name was Tamar (2 Samuel 14:27)
25. Did Joshua and the Israelites capture Jerusalem?
Yes (Joshua 10:23, 40)
No (Joshua 15:63)
26. Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?
Jacob (Matthew 1:16)
Hell (Luke 3:23)
27. Jesus descended from which son of David?
Solomon (Matthew 1:6)
Nathan(Luke3:31)
28. Who was the father of Shealtiel?
Jechoniah (Matthew 1:12)
Neri (Luke 3:27)
29. Which son of Zerubbabel was an ancestor of Jesus Christ?
Abiud (Matthew 1: 13)
Rhesa (Luke 3:27) But the seven sons of Zerubbabel are as follows: i.Meshullam, ii. Hananiah, iii. Hashubah, iv. Ohel, v.Berechiah, vi. Hasadiah, viii. Jushabhesed (I Chronicles 3:19, 20). The names Abiud and Rhesa do not fit in anyway.
30. Who was the father of Uzziah?
Joram (Matthew 1:8)
Amaziah (2 Chronicles 26:1)
31. Who was the father of Jechoniah?
Josiah (Matthew 1:11)
Jeholakim (I Chronicles 3:16)
To be more concise, many Christians believe the Bible is inerrant, not infallible. Inerrant means there are no errors, infallible means there can be no errors. Biblical inerrancy is the doctrine that the Bible in its original manuscripts, is accurate and totally free from error of any kind.
As already pointed out, the lineage conflict arises from one being Joseph's and the other Mary's. Matthew traces the legal line from Abraham (as any Jew would) through David, then through Solomon to Joseph, the legal father of Jesus. Luke traces the blood line from Adam (the first Man) through to David -- and his genealogy from Abraham through David is identical to Matthew's. But then after David, Luke departs from the path taken by Matthew and traces the family tree through another son of David (the second surviving son of Bathsheba), Nathan, down through Heli, the father of Mary, the biological mother of Jesus. So Joseph, the legal father of Jesus was from the House of David. Mary the physical mother of Jesus was also of the House of David and scripture foretold that the Messiah would be of the House of David.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#811
Dec 8, 2012
 
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
None of the above evolved all were designed so perhaps you should stop using everything that did not evolve and that included Gods air that you breath.
Which god there 30,000+ to pick from what makes think yours is the right one who told you?

With 70^26200 possible interpretations of the bibull how do you know you got it right?

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#813
Dec 8, 2012
 
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
So bibull is infallible, has no mistakes then what are these?
Again it is the Bible nothing else,
First you cannot use differing names alone as error or contradiction because of different translations the form of the Bible Hebrew to English and the back of the Bible Hebrew – Greek to English, there may even have been intermediary steps in translation, also as today people were known by different names by different people, let’s look at the name Robert also know as Bob, Bobby, Rob, Robby, even Bert and Berty.

Next let’s look at the genealogies of Yehoshua (Mistakenly called Jesus), there are two totally separate genealogies for his line back to David, One in the book of Matthew and the other in the book of Like. On first glance there is a problem until you look at them correctly, one is from his mothers lineage and the other form his father, they split with David's sons: Nathan (Mary's side?) and Solomon (Joseph's side). One ends with the husband of Mary the other with the father of AMRY ALSO NAMES Joseph.

Next In Joshua 10 only the King of Jerusalem is captured not the city and later in Joshua 10 the surrounding country side but not the city is captures as described later in the book of Joshua.
You see no problems .

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#814
Dec 8, 2012
 
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
To be more concise, many Christians believe the Bible is inerrant, not infallible. Inerrant means there are no errors, infallible means there can be no errors. Biblical inerrancy is the doctrine that the Bible in its original manuscripts, is accurate and totally free from error of any kind.
As already pointed out, the lineage conflict arises from one being Joseph's and the other Mary's. Matthew traces the legal line from Abraham (as any Jew would) through David, then through Solomon to Joseph, the legal father of Jesus. Luke traces the blood line from Adam (the first Man) through to David -- and his genealogy from Abraham through David is identical to Matthew's. But then after David, Luke departs from the path taken by Matthew and traces the family tree through another son of David (the second surviving son of Bathsheba), Nathan, down through Heli, the father of Mary, the biological mother of Jesus. So Joseph, the legal father of Jesus was from the House of David. Mary the physical mother of Jesus was also of the House of David and scripture foretold that the Messiah would be of the House of David.
Actually, it was no big deal saying you were descended from the House of David...

"If you go back on average 1.77 times further again (35 generations) everyone in the population will have exactly the same set of common ancestors (although they will be related, of course, through different routes in all the different family trees).

Advances in DNA allow us to detect shared genetic ancestry
In fact about 80% of the people at that time in the past will be the ancestors of everyone in the present. The remaining 20% are those who have had no children, or whose children have had no children, and so on - in other words, people who were genetic dead-ends.

Apply that to the case of King David. According to this model, he would be a common ancestor of the whole population of the Holy Land somewhere between 20 and 35 generations after his life. That's even without Solomon sowing his seed so widely.

That's why everyone alive in the Holy Land at the time of Jesus would have been able to claim David for an ancestor."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19331938

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#815
Dec 8, 2012
 
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth, it can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence,!
Ok now I will ask the very first yet unanswered question once again.

Post your irrevocable evidence for evolution, if I am so ignorant post it here to educate me, no one else has even tried even though I have asked the best the evolution tag team can offer.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#816
Dec 8, 2012
 
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
Well then you are a YEC, quick turn off your PC as that works on the laws Physics and Chemistry which you seem think are false. Don't use any modern medicine. Stop using your car and go back to stone age and leave the 21st century to those of us who are equipped to handle it.
“When I reflect on so many profoundly marvelous things that persons have grasped, sought, and done I recognize even more clearly that human intelligence is a work of God, and one of the most excellent.”
Galileo Galilei

"We cannot end this rapid review which we have made together of the most magnificent subject that the human mind may be tempted to explore without being proud of these splendid endeavors of Science in the conquest of the Earth, and also without expressing our gratitude to One Who has said: "I am the Truth," One Who gave us the mind to understand him and to recognize a glimpse of his glory in our universe which he has so wonderfully adjusted to the mental power with which he has endowed us."
Monsignor Georges Lemaitre, Father of the Big Bang Theory

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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) 14 min CunningLinguist 226,142
Our world came from nothing? 2 hr Patrick 394
100% Faith Free 2 hr Patrick 6
Should Uninformed Opinion Be Respected? 2 hr Patrick 5
Atheists that tout free thinking use bully tact... 4 hr NightSerf 6
Richard Dawkins in a nutshell 7 hr Patrick 24
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 7 hr ChristineM 898
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••