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: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#8437 Apr 8, 2013
Yes we seek to empower women to do as she wishes with her own body and frankly it's long overdue.
Jumper The Wise wrote:
Atheism will never dictate woman's right too choose what to do with her own body!

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

#8438 Apr 8, 2013
Jumper The Wise wrote:
Atheism will never dictate woman's right too choose what to do with her own body!
Probably not.
The Male Gaze

South Hadley, MA

#8439 Apr 8, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Yes we seek to empower women to do as she wishes with her own body and frankly it's long overdue.
<quoted text>
Yes, irresponsible behavior and expecting others to pay for it is soooo American. But in all honesty nobody has been denying women to degrade and demean themselves for many years now. I mean after all, treating yourself as a sexual object or piece of meat has no affect on other women right? How they "mistreat" their own body has no impact on how women are viewed by young boys, teens, or men, correct? Ya see, that's another huge problem in America that liberals wish to totally ignore. Much of which has been done through 'sexuality' and pornography.
That IS the war on women, and you are an idiot!
The Male Gaze

South Hadley, MA

#8440 Apr 8, 2013
Lesbianism and pornography, the war on women, the war on family.
Cha-Ching!

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#8441 Apr 8, 2013
The Male Gaze wrote:
Lesbianism and pornography, the war on women, the war on family.
Cha-Ching!
People like you; the wrong side of intelligence.
Uves Soul

South Hadley, MA

#8442 Apr 8, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
People like you; the wrong side of intelligence.
Much of the domesic violence and other violence against women in general is by men that have had extensive exposure to pornography. Especially violent serial killers. Talk about the wrong side of intelligence.

Since: Mar 11

Lawrenceville, GA

#8443 Apr 8, 2013
Proof? Oh ya you just made it up. Government reports show there is no correlation at all between porn and violence or rape.

Plus women are just as likely to buy porn as men these days in several cases more likely.

Fact.
Uves Soul wrote:
<quoted text>Much of the domesic violence and other violence against women in general is by men that have had extensive exposure to pornography. Especially violent serial killers. Talk about the wrong side of intelligence.

Since: Mar 11

Lawrenceville, GA

#8444 Apr 8, 2013
Women should be viewed by young boys an teens as mom, teacher, clerk or lady walking in the store.

If a woman choses to take a part in an adult movie and is lucky enough to win the spot in a highly competitive market good for her as thousands are turned down. Many of those women go on to start highly profitable businesses and are doing very well for themselves.

You are making a compete jackass out of yourself.
The Male Gaze wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, irresponsible behavior and expecting others to pay for it is soooo American. But in all honesty nobody has been denying women to degrade and demean themselves for many years now. I mean after all, treating yourself as a sexual object or piece of meat has no affect on other women right? How they "mistreat" their own body has no impact on how women are viewed by young boys, teens, or men, correct? Ya see, that's another huge problem in America that liberals wish to totally ignore. Much of which has been done through 'sexuality' and pornography.
That IS the war on women, and you are an idiot!
Imhotep

Stuart, FL

#8445 Apr 8, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Women should be viewed by young boys an teens as mom, teacher, clerk or lady walking in the store.
If a woman choses to take a part in an adult movie and is lucky enough to win the spot in a highly competitive market good for her as thousands are turned down. Many of those women go on to start highly profitable businesses and are doing very well for themselves.
You are making a compete jackass out of yourself.
<quoted text>
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In an outburst that shocked many onlookers at the Supreme Court today, Justice Antonin Scalia said that it made him “angry beyond belief” that he had to listen to people talking about gay couples all week.

As Justice Anthony Kennedy questioned whether it was appropriate for the Court to hear a case about same-sex marriage at this time, Mr. Scalia stunned observers with an emotional outburst.

“O.K., could we just stop talking about this stuff right now?” Justice Scalia snapped at Justice Kennedy.“I’ve told you all how I feel about this topic, and I don’t understand why we’re going on and on about it unless you all hate me.”

As the courtroom froze in dead silence, Justice Scalia seemed to gather steam, shouting,“For two days, it’s been gay this, gay that. You’re all just talking about this stuff as if it’s the most normal thing in the world. Well, it’s not, O.K.? It’s weird and it’s wrong. And just talking about it like it’s O.K. and whatnot is making me angry beyond belief.”

As the other justices averted their eyes, Justice Scalia broke down, sobbing that he wished “things were normal, the way they used to be.”

(The Borowitz Report)—As the Supreme Court prepared to hear two cases involving same-sex marriage this week, Justice Antonin Scalia said that he would not allow his votes to be influenced “in any way” by his lifelong fear of gays.

“As Justices of the Supreme Court, we have a sacred duty to check our personal feelings at the door,” he told the Fox News Channel.“In my case, that means putting aside my longstanding and profound fear of homosexuals.”

Justice Scalia added that he was committed “to safeguarding the rights of all Americans—even those I personally find terrifying.”

“I take my role as an impartial arbiter very seriously,” he said.“So when I hear a case, I put all feelings of abhorrence, disgust, and revulsion completely out of my mind.”

The Justice said that when it came to the issue of same-sex marriage he would rely on the Constitution,“which makes no mention of gays whatsoever.”

“Remember, when the framers wrote the Constitution, there were no gays in America,” he said.“They didn’t come here until the nineteen-sixties.”

All in all, he said, advocates of same-sex marriage should rest assured that he will listen to this week’s arguments with an open mind:“I’m going to apply the same robust sense of fairness that I’ve brought to cases involving blacks and women.”

Lol
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#8446 Apr 8, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
We can start a debate the moment you deside to learn something about Biology, Physics and Math. Until then we may as well be talking to a brickwall.
So you accepted defeat even before the debate started!!

It was not difficult to know that.

Most of those who believe in TOE, do not even know the basic facts about TOE.

How it started and why so many people "Jumped in to prove this Non Scientific theory as Scientific" and how much time and efforts have been wasted in making it look Scientific!!
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#8447 Apr 8, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect! True Science endeavors to fit the conclusion to the available evidence. True Religion endeavors to fit the evidence to the preferred conclusion. They will never support each other.
Unless you have sizable evidence to prove your assumptions, you should keep on collecting Data.

Darwin made a very non scientific thing to propose a theory without sufficient data available to him.

It is strange how it caught the imagination of Pseudo Scientists, otherwise, he would have been blackballed by True Scientists!!

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

#8448 Apr 8, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect! True Science endeavors to fit the conclusion to the available evidence. True Religion endeavors to fit the evidence to the preferred conclusion. They will never support each other.
LOL

That's just a variant of Flew's example of the "no true Scotsman" argument.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries”(Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, p. 107)
Little Blue Alien

South Hadley, MA

#8449 Apr 8, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Women should be viewed by young boys an teens as mom, teacher, clerk or lady walking in the store.
If a woman choses to take a part in an adult movie and is lucky enough to win the spot in a highly competitive market good for her as thousands are turned down. Many of those women go on to start highly profitable businesses and are doing very well for themselves.
You are making a compete jackass out of yourself.
<quoted text>
Move onto corrupting the minds of millions. See follyhoot for details.

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

#8450 Apr 8, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Unless you have sizable evidence to prove your assumptions, you should keep on collecting Data.
Darwin made a very non scientific thing to propose a theory without sufficient data available to him.
It is strange how it caught the imagination of Pseudo Scientists, otherwise, he would have been blackballed by True Scientists!!
Darwin's name, work, and personal beliefs have been grossly misrepresented by atheists.

Charles Darwin was a deist who believed that God set in motion the physical laws of the universe, which he proposed included laws of "natural selection" and the mutability of the species.

IMO one of Darwin's greatest discoveries was the indigenous people of Terra Del Fuego who had physically adapted to their cold environment.

Since: May 09

New York, NY

#8451 Apr 8, 2013
I like how everything leads back to "God". I guess if you take the Bible seriously it would. Unfortunately, I don't take C grade "literature" seriously.

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

#8452 Apr 8, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
People like you; the wrong side of intelligence.
That says it all for sure.

Since: Mar 11

Lawrenceville, GA

#8453 Apr 8, 2013
When did that happen? Sean Hannity show?

Lol!
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>

Charles Darwin was a deist who believed that God set in motion the physical laws.

Since: Mar 11

Lawrenceville, GA

#8454 Apr 8, 2013
Why do Muslims chop off the noses of little girls Muq?
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>Unless you have sizable evidence to prove your assumptions, you should keep on collecting Data.

Darwin made a very non scientific thing to propose a theory without sufficient data available to him.

It is strange how it caught the imagination of Pseudo Scientists, otherwise, he would have been blackballed by True Scientists!!
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#8455 Apr 8, 2013
Polymath wrote:
This is false. Decades before Darwin, scientists were noticing that species were different was we move back in time in the geological strata. The question wasn't whether evolution occurred, but rather the mechanism of the changes seen.
2. Then there was no rule or pattern why some species evolved and some did not evolve.
Again, a falsehood. It was noticed that species in the past that were similar to those in the present were always geographically close and that for longer periods of time, things like land bridges affected the time of dispersal of new species.
3. There was zero evidence of seeing this evolution of species in nature.
Once again, a falsehood. Adaptation, which is simply evolution over short time periods, was well observed. Larger scale evolution was seen by comparing fossils and modern animals, or fossils from one time with fossils from another.
4. Read the book or Darwin, it is full of assumptions and half truths and saying things about which he had no knowledge.
Of course. Darwin knew nothing about genetics. That flaw in his theory was later corrected when we started to understand the mechanisms of inheritance and the nature of DNA.
5. It was a sort of "fictional writing" and not conforming to scientific method.
Actually, this sort of speculative writing was quite common at the time and necessary because of the lack of data except from small localities. Darwin makes very clear were his observations stop and his speculation begins, as any good scientist would.
I
Once again, the *fact* of evolution: that species change over geological time, as known long before
Ans.

First of all Brother, I do not like this "Line by Line Response".

You might think that it is very thorough and you have covered every point, but to me it breaks the continuity.

If I also provide line by line comments to your post, the discussion would become hotch potch.

So please summarise your answer in a text format, so I can also

Just because some people had started observing changes and commonalities in specie before Darwin, would justify him proposing a theory about which he did not have sufficient knowledge?

Did he have enough fossil records? Had he discovered any "Intermediatory life forms?

Just read his book "Origin of Species"… it is filed with "predictions and what would be discovered from Fossil Records" etc.

How can any one call that as a Scientific book? Or a scientific theory at all.

You said that Darwin knew nothing about Genetics, He knew nothing about Cell and its structures, He knew very little about Fossil Records and what they would reveal in future.

So we can say that we "speaking like an Astrologer" … Making Prediction about what Science would discover in future.

All in all, this TOE did not serve any scientific purpose, it only wasted time and efforts of so many people on a useless quest and misguided so many people.

The more our knowledge about Life and its complexities would increase, the more stupid this TOE would look to us.

The ONLY advantage of TOE is that it gives a toe hold to Atheists to be in the limelight and pose as scientists.

It is a malafied theory with malafied intentions and with dishonest use of science and its principles.

If people were honest, Darwin's book of Origin of Species should have been placed in "Science Fiction" category and not as Book on Biology!!

PS:

Do not expect reply from me, if you answer again line by line.
MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#8456 Apr 8, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
Darwin's name, work, and personal beliefs have been grossly misrepresented by atheists.
Charles Darwin was a deist who believed that God set in motion the physical laws of the universe, which he proposed included laws of "natural selection" and the mutability of the species.
IMO one of Darwin's greatest discoveries was the indigenous people of Terra Del Fuego who had physically adapted to their cold environment.
I do not know how people misrepresented Darwin. It is true he believed in God and did not support Atheism.

His Book Origin of Specie was neither a Scientific Treatise nor a text book of Biology.

It was just his comments on what he observed and how was his explanation about abundance of life forms.

It was a "personal memoir" type of book, but atheists world over greeted the book as if Manna had fallen from Sky.

They praised it too much calling it epoch breaking, most revolutionary book written in past 150 years and what not.

This book is certainly over rated and any one reading it now, can find mistakes upon mistakes in both facts and conclusions drawn from it.

They made Darwin a sort of giant, while in reality he was like a common man. No genius of any kind.

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 hr dollarsbill 247,749
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr thetruth 12,901
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 1 hr thetruth 47,896
News As an atheist, how do I maintain my relationshi... 1 hr thetruth 57
News Atheism, the Bible and sexual orientation 1 hr thetruth 29
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Thu Thinking 2,357
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) Wed macumazahn 20,900
More from around the web