Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

There are 14735 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.

The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#8092 Apr 4, 2013
Sheik Yerbouti wrote:
It is extremely doubtful that atheism will replace religion. Like it or not in western civilization religion has inspired some of the greatest works of art, music and literature. Examples-Michelangelo's Pieta, Mozart's Requiem and Blake,s poems. All of these were inspired by religion and have stood the test of time.
You are probably quite correct.

“the end-times is now”

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#8093 Apr 4, 2013
Dude = "Actually the origin of life is NOT a simple question

.......... no .. not for you

Dude = "that those first organisms were microbial/bacterial in nature"

bacteria:......... does posess DNA .. Y/N
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#8094 Apr 4, 2013
His-truth wrote:
<quoted text>
okay ... so how do you know when you're seeing c o d e
Give examples of code Dude
Alphabet. Morse.

We did this dance weeks ago and you still lost then. If you're unwilling to change your approach and actually start providing anything of substance there is no reason to think anything will turn out different this time.(shrug)

What's the "scientific theory" of IDC?

Thanks again for never answering.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#8095 Apr 4, 2013
His-truth wrote:
Dude .. you won't see evidence when you refuse to look
a man convinced against his will is unconvinced still
I cannot see evidence you refuse to provide.(shrug)
You gotta be kidding

Auckland, New Zealand

#8096 Apr 4, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
So ignoring the evidence and saying a magical fairy went POOF and everything existed is not delusion?
Pretending the Earth is only 6'000 years old is not delusion?
First I have never mentioned any "magical fairy" nor any "POOF" so you are grasping at the proverbial straw once again.

Second all I want to see is one bit of your evidence that proves evolution to be 100% factual.

I am still waiting for those who have chosen to ignore my question.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#8097 Apr 4, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
What the hell are you talking about?
What is this "code" you keep talking about?
Darned if I know. I kept asking him this on another thread for a number of weeks straight and he was never able to answer me then either.(shrug)

“the end-times is now”

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#8098 Apr 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
I will not see the evidence you provide (shrug)
......... later Dude
You gotta be kidding

Auckland, New Zealand

#8099 Apr 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.
The evolution need a beginning it needs the myth of abiogenesis or all you have is well nothing. Actually that is all you have anyway.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#8100 Apr 4, 2013
His-truth wrote:
Dude ... forget you "evolution" crap for a while
we're talking ORIGIN ...(pounding on his head)
.......... ORIGIN
how do you know when you're seeing .. c o d e
Give some examples of code:
1.....
2.....
3.....
The definition I provided should have been adequate. I have also now already provided at least three examples.

Note that all the time you avoid each and every single one of my posts like the plague, I address yours directly. This means that the premise of your own argument is left undemonstrated. Without this any point you think you have does not stand.

What is this "code" you refer to? What evidence supports this? What was the mechanism(s) responsible for it? What evidence supports this?

What is the "scientific theory" of IDC?

Thanks in advance for never answering.
Thinking

UK

#8101 Apr 4, 2013
Why do you ask?
His-truth wrote:
can a rock or a puddle of water produce code ??.. Y/N
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#8102 Apr 4, 2013
His-truth wrote:
Dude = "Actually the origin of life is NOT a simple question
.......... no .. not for you
Dude = "that those first organisms were microbial/bacterial in nature"
bacteria:......... does posess DNA .. Y/N
Usually does. Point?

If you didn't have one weeks ago what makes you think you have one now?

What's the "scientific theory" theory of IDC?

Thanks in advance for never answering.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#8103 Apr 4, 2013
You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
First I have never mentioned any "magical fairy" nor any "POOF" so you are grasping at the proverbial straw once again.
It is not an unfair caricature since you refer to evolution as originating from water and rocks. This is because fundies are unable to address what the actual concepts themselves entail.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
Second all I want to see is one bit of your evidence that proves evolution to be 100% factual.
I am still waiting for those who have chosen to ignore my question.
I didn't ignore it but addressed it directly. You failed to address it. So perhaps you can answer something for me:

Why are you asking for evidence that both of us know you will reject no matter what is presented? In short, why is it always creationists who are intellectually dishonest?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#8104 Apr 4, 2013
His-truth wrote:
<quoted text>
......... later Dude
No. Not later. Not ever. It doesn't matter how many times I ask you will categorically refuse to answer my question:

What is the "scientific theory" of IDC?

Thanks in advance for never answering.
You gotta be kidding

Auckland, New Zealand

#8105 Apr 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you have been unable to demonstrate that:
1 - he was wrong.
2 - he was lying even if he was wrong.
<quoted text>
Yes they have. In fact I just did. Plus I can also provide more, but you haven't been able to address the info I just presented to you yet. Life changes over time. Fact. These changes accumulate. Fact. Ergo, evolution occurs. Fact.
This is why so many creationists find Young Earth Creationism so attractive, because if the Earth is only say, about 6,000 years old, then they can claim that there would not be enough time for evolution. However that is not only denying the entire field of biology, but also physics and chemistry along with it. In short, ALL of science. And this is why the scientific community doesn't take creationist claims seriously.
Creation and logic prove he and his grandfather were wrong, he lied to uphold the family name and to pay for his trips aboard.

If changing is an inbuilt design feature from GOD's creation, I will never deny adaptation, you know like getting a suntan, or blond hair darkening with sunlight or to be technical drug resistant TB. That is adaptation and as I has said adaptation has never produces a new species. If that is your version of evolution then OK change and adaptation happens, thanks for agreeing that it can not produce new species.

Creationism does not deny biology, physics, geology or any other science that is based on scientific fact only the rubbish put forward by those who worship at the foot of evolution.

No one has ever been able to post any fact that upholds evolution if you know any why don't you be the first to post it.
You gotta be kidding

Auckland, New Zealand

#8106 Apr 4, 2013
[QUOTE who="The DudeThis is why so many creationists find Young Earth Creationism so attractive, because if the Earth is only say, about 6,000 years old, then they can claim that there would not be enough time for evolution. However that is not only denying the entire field of biology, but also physics and chemistry along with it. In short, ALL of science. And this is why the scientific community doesn't take creationist claims seriously.[/QUOTE]

The truth of time span is that the evolutionists keep on stretching it out so that they can sound believable to the masses they are tying to brainwash, are you a brainwasher or one brainwashed.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#8107 Apr 4, 2013
You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
The evolution need a beginning it needs the myth of abiogenesis or all you have is well nothing. Actually that is all you have anyway.
Evolution needs a beginning, yes. But since evolution happens then we know something started it. However the THEORY of evolution need not address abiogenesis. The theory of gravity works without having to reference the origin of mass. The germ theory of disease works without having to reference the origin of germs (which technically would also be abiogenesis). The theory of evolution works without having to reference the origin of life. Hence the theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.

Now there is at least one thing that both supporters of science AND creationists agree on - the universe is finite. Therefore the Earth is finite. Therefore life is finite. Therefore it had a beginning: Abiogenesis. Now, there are currently four possibilities as to how this happened:

1 - Naturally occurring chemical processes.

2 - Aliens.

3 - Goddidit with magic.

4 - An unknown fourth option which no-one has thought of yet.

None of which is relevant to the scientific veracity of the current modern evolutionary synthesis. As long as any one of these four options occurred, then evolution can occur. Since life IS here we know that at least one of these has occurred. The question is which one.

So far the only option that provides a testable hypothesis is option 1.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#8108 Apr 4, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Why do you ask?
<quoted text>
Indeed. He enjoys to tease us ever so smugly with some amazing point that he understands but is unable to articulate. It's just a shame that whenever he DOES make any claims they always turn out to be wrong.(shrug)
You gotta be kidding

Auckland, New Zealand

#8109 Apr 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
It is not an unfair caricature since you refer to evolution as originating from water and rocks. This is because fundies are unable to address what the actual concepts themselves entail.
<quoted text>
I didn't ignore it but addressed it directly. You failed to address it. So perhaps you can answer something for me:
Why are you asking for evidence that both of us know you will reject no matter what is presented? In short, why is it always creationists who are intellectually dishonest?
Yet you claim life sprang form a puddle that means in your mind you evolved form a rock, why don't you admit to that.

I deal in real science almost everyday of my working life, I reject evolution simply because it is rubbish and has no grounding in science or logic. I have asked for 100% factual evidence, if provided I would not ignore it at all. However it is yet to be provided, all I ever get it answers like you have posted. No real proof no factual evidence nothing.

So why not use your extensive knowledge and post the factual evidence that prove evolution. I am still waiting for it.

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

#8110 Apr 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is, if Flew did happen to come across such overwhelming evidence, he took it with him to his grave.
:-/
No, the problem is you are just totally ignorant of the fact that Professor Antony Flew’s wrote a book about his epiphany called "There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed his Mind" BEFORE he went to his grave. Typical atheist....
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#8111 Apr 4, 2013
You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
Creation and logic prove he and his grandfather were wrong, he lied to uphold the family name and to pay for his trips aboard.
Creationism is undemonstrated. Logic is not a prerequisite of creationism.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
If changing is an inbuilt design feature from GOD's creation
"God" and "design" are undemonstrated.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
I will never deny adaptation, you know like getting a suntan, or blond hair darkening with sunlight
That's not adaptation. That is your body taking damage. The body can heal (such as sun-tan fading), or it can stay, or get worse (like skin cancer due to way too much suntanning). But thanks for demonstrating your complete lack of understanding of biology.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
or to be technical drug resistant TB. That is adaptation
Yes, drug resistance is an example.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
and as I has said adaptation has never produces a new species.
No, new species develop from accumulative changes to the genome.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
If that is your version of evolution then OK change and adaptation happens, thanks for agreeing that it can not produce new species.
I'm sorry, I do not accept the creationist caricature of "micro" and "macro"-evolution. Both are evolution. "Macro" is just lots of "micro" changes.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
Creationism does not deny biology, physics, geology or any other science that is based on scientific fact only the rubbish put forward by those who worship at the foot of evolution.
If you're an Old Earth Creationist (OEC) it denies the entirety of biology at the very least. But unintended consequences usually means they end up denying other fields too. If you're a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) then it is an unavoidable fact that it is a complete and total utter denial of all scientific reality itself.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
No one has ever been able to post any fact that upholds evolution if you know any why don't you be the first to post it.
I have. You have yet to address it.

Also the interesting part here is that you do not even grasp your own hypocrisy. You claim Goddidit with magic (without evidence). The "God" concept is not scientific. But if taken to be a valid argument in a debate, even if evolution WAS incorrect, we could then easily say well evolution is still right cuz MAGIC!

Therefore you can never win. The BEST you could ever achieve would be a stalemate. There is no point in your being here. You'd may as well go home.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Samuel Patre 87,207
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 15 hr superwilly 5,811
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Feb 14 ChristineM 4,032
Christianity almost did not happen Feb 12 Quatsch22 1
News Egypt's parliament takes serious actions to com... Feb 12 dollarsbillmom 19
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Feb 10 superwilly 5,154
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) Feb 9 Eagle 12 - 257
More from around the web