Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

There are 14736 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.

spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#8459 Apr 9, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Why are you avoiding the subject of Muslim child brides? This is commanded in the Quran and practiced to this day in Islam correct?
When you refuse to answer these questions it really makes you look bad Muq.
<quoted text>
An all too familiar tactic. Christians do the same thing, when Q raised about polygamous marriages and concubinage in the Bible. Solomon was reported to have had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Which makes Muhammed with his child bride and a dozen? other wives seem like an role model of chastity :D Spare a thought for these "prophets", having 700 mother in laws would be a nightmare :D and how do you remember all those names??? Erm who are you again, ah yes, concubine number 8.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#8460 Apr 9, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Religious liar with no proof of god, trying to convert atheists and failing miserably at it.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#8461 Apr 9, 2013
Honor killings are standard fare in Islam and Muq knows it. This is how they keep their numbers high, by the very real threat of violence and death for stepping out of line.

This is another fact of Islam that Muq will refuse to discuss and probably say it's a nonsense subject. However thousands of honor killings happen each year this is not a rare isolated incident.
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>This is is something else they NEVER comment on:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =2rgSH0h45EoXX

gutless I think is the word.

Richardfs

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#8462 Apr 9, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
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!!
As I said, after you take the time to study Biology, Physics and Math then you might have something to talk about. Until then talking to you is like talking to a goldfish.
MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#8463 Apr 9, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said, after you take the time to study Biology, Physics and Math then you might have something to talk about. Until then talking to you is like talking to a goldfish.
Why do you not this advise and stop acting and talking like a Goldfish?

Richardfs

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#8464 Apr 9, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Honor killings are standard fare in Islam and Muq knows it. This is how they keep their numbers high, by the very real threat of violence and death for stepping out of line.
This is another fact of Islam that Muq will refuse to discuss and probably say it's a nonsense subject. However thousands of honor killings happen each year this is not a rare isolated incident.
<quoted text>
Yep, all godbots are gutless, ignorant, uneducated and lie straight in bed.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#8465 Apr 9, 2013
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.
Just as GivemeLiberty noted, you made that up.
There is no proof that what you're saying is true, only on-the-spot attempts to make up excuses in order to make you look smart.
News flash: it only shows how stupid and ignorant you are.

Richardfs

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#8466 Apr 9, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you not this advise and stop acting and talking like a Goldfish?
You may talk like Yoda but are far far below him.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8467 Apr 9, 2013
Jumper The Wise wrote:
Look back in history on all the powerful nations lead by self-confessed Atheists.
They all self destructed out of vanity and greed.
Indeed. Like Rome.

:-)

Oh, wait...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8468 Apr 9, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not ran away to anywhere. I have posted on scribd as I have done on these threads.
Always to be on service, should you need any info on Islam and its teachings.
Not interested, I find it on a par with fundamentalist Christianity. Only difference is they think Jesus is the coolest dude in the universe instead of Mohammed. Other than the petty details it's exactly the same religion.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8469 Apr 9, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, bubba, there is no "theory of evolution". None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Period. Get it?
Of course there is. It's change in allele frequency over time. It is observed. Like so:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

It is rejected only by ignorant fundies with theological (rather than scientific) objections, and the occasional crank.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8470 Apr 9, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no such thing as a "theory of evolution". None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Period. What part of no, none, zero, zip or nada do you not understand, bubba?
All the wishful thinking in the world isn't going to turn your pile of ideas, speculations, claims, hypothesis etc into something that can pass the test of a REAL scientific theory until somebody actually writes one, then has it published and peer reviewed. How could a science genius like yourself not know that very basic fact?
Perhaps you are unaware of the literally HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS of peer-reviewed published science papers on the subject? In fact a quick search on PubMed shows around 300,000. So since you're spouting COMPLETE ignorance on the subject, are you just lacking any sort of science education whatsoever or were you simply LYING FOR JESUS like 99.999999999% of all the other fundies around here?(shrug)

I mean even the bosses of the creationist movement admit that evolution has the support of the science community. And they're dumb-as-f ck YEC's.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8471 Apr 9, 2013
Ygbk wrote:
So where did the micro bacteria come form, in your analogy what laid the egg. Why don't you admit it you believe it rained on the rock, the rain formed a puddle and out sprang life.
Straw-man. The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis for reasons already explained.
Ygbk wrote:
Yet I am still waiting for someone to post this wonderful 100% factual scientific evidence that supports the lie that you lot have been pushing on the world. YOUR EVOLUTION IS A LIE IT IS A MYTH IT HAS NO GROUNDING IN SCIENCE, WHEN IT DOES I WILL GLADLY LOOK AT THE FACTUAL EVIDENCE UNTILL THEN..........I AM WAITING
If this really was the case you would have addressed the evidence. So far you haven't.
Ygbk wrote:
Any evidence is circumstantial at best, what mistake did I make. Point it out please.
Again?(shrug)
Ygbk wrote:
As baseless as any of those made for evolution
Not at all.
Ygbk wrote:
I am yet to see any of all this 100% factual evidence you all claim to have. I do not want to have to see or read any more lies or speculation I want your FACTS

I am still waiting to see these so called facts where are they. POST YOU FACTS.
But you're not interested. So why lie and ask for something which both of us know you don't give a crud about?
Ygbk wrote:
I do not deny the facts of gravity only that it is a theory, this I have pointed out multiple times already.
You deny gravity because you said that mass has nothing to do with it.
Ygbk wrote:
Now we come to the crux of your entire stance, 1) you are anti-Semitic, 2) you are anti-enlightenment 3) you are just plain brainwashed.
Projection.
Ygbk wrote:
If you were in any way involved in the scientific community you would know that there are in fact very few who actually claim the myth to be fact.
On the contrary, evolution has the support of the scientific community. Even the main creo organizations know this.
Ygbk wrote:
So where is all this evidence you keep pointing to, I am yet to see any.
That's because you're an ignorant fundie liar for Jesus who ignores reality.(shrug)
Ygbk wrote:
Things change over time yes, things are born and things die but change has never brought a new species nor has it ever added anything of use to any DNA.
SETMAR. Case closed.
Ygbk wrote:
Change is adaptation an inbuilt design feature. Not evolution as believed to have formed new species.
Your "design" claim is undemonstrated. What's the "scientific theory" of IDC?
Ygbk wrote:
So where is this observation who was there when the first live 'evolved' to observe it, who was walking around '25 million' years ago taking notes.
Ah, the "How do YOU know? Where you THERE?!?" argument.
Ygbk wrote:
There you go again claiming gravity is only a theory, what a crock.
It IS a theory. Remember Newton's "law"? Replaced by the THEORY of Relativity. In turn being replaced by quantum physics. Bub, you don't even understand the basic definitions of science and what they mean, much less have the slightest grasp of science in general. You're walking into a military bunker with a water pistol. You're getting laughed at. With good reason.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#8472 Apr 9, 2013
Many Muslims in FSU countries not only accept evolution but teach it to children starting in the 4th grade!

Had to believe but yes in the 4th grade these children are taught the basics of evolution. Yet here we have American grown ups shouting about it not being real.

:Smh:
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>Of course there is. It's change in allele frequency over time. It is observed. Like so:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

It is rejected only by ignorant fundies with theological (rather than scientific) objections, and the occasional crank.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8473 Apr 9, 2013
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow here we go again... post what ever you have that makes evolution a fact. Is it too much to ask for this to be done, all we want is to see this proof.
No you don't.(shrug) That's why the scientific community at large is still waiting for this amazing fundie with great scientific knowledge to appear on the front of Time magazine for ushering in a new era of biology having falsified evolution.

You could have simply gone back a few pages and looked at what Ygbk missed. Or even further gone and looked it up yourself. You didn't. Hence you're not interested.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8474 Apr 9, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
I would not discredit science. Science is a tool , and every tool has its limitation.
If you use a wrong tool for the job, it is your problem not the problem of the tool.
Science is basically a set of rules which humans formed to explain and find out how things in nature are working.
As the knowledge of ours increase, we modify our rules and laws to keep pace with new facts observed.
This is positive aspect of science and no reasonable man denies it.
But when we start using science to say that "There is no Creator of this Universe"....we are indeed misusing science.
It is neither the job, nor the position and not the purpose of science to deal on these subjects.
Science gets a bad name for the over zealous behaviour of these Pseudo Scientists.
They put Sceince and religion as opponents of each other, while in reality there is no conflict between them. True Sceince and True religion always support each other.
Science does not say that a God did not do it. Maybe it did. Or maybe it doesn't exist. Problem with the concept is that it's non-falsifiable. If it's not falsifiable then it's not scientific. Ergo Goddidit with magic is useless to science, period.

What's more, you fundies claim Goddidit with magic in a completely different way to what reality shows us even though you're unable to demonstrate your god even exists in the first place.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8475 Apr 9, 2013
You gotta be kidding wrote:
That would be....
Creation and Intelligent Design: 158,
evolution: nil
Need I say more.
Sure. Which is why ID (Goddidit with magic) is not taken seriously by the scientific community and evolution is. You can even take us to court and you STILL lose.

Must suck to be you.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8476 Apr 9, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
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, you demonstrated 3 years ago that you didn't know the basics of science in general, much less evolution in particular.(shrug)

Nothing matters to you except Islamic apologetics. Which just so happens to be the same as fundamentalist Christian apologetics, just with Jesus at teh top instead of Mo.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#8477 Apr 9, 2013
MUQ wrote:
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.
Yes, of course, seeing that species change over time requires a scientific theory to understand those changes. Darwin's proposal was not the first (Lamarck had a different proposal). That is how science works: we make some observations, we formulate hypotheses about those observations, we make predictions based on the hypotheses, and we test those predictions by observation.

Darwin had enough fossils to know that the species in the past were different than those now and that those in the more distant past were more different. This was the basic information that both he and Lamarck were attempting to explain. The difference is that Darwin's, in spite of all his ignorance of gewnetics, gave a more coherent and predictive hypothesis. It was later extended to include the modern theory of genetics, so the theory as it iexists today is not the same as that proposed by Darwin.

As for 'speaking like an astrologer', it is a foundational aspect of science that it makes predictions. Unlike astrology, those predictions are then compared to actual observations, are required to be specific, and if the observations do not correspond with the prediction, the theory needs to be modified or discarded.

What we have found through the last 160 years, is that the basic model of natural selection works very well for many of the evolutionary changes we actually see, both in the fossil record and in the lab. So, yes, genetics had to be included in evolutionary theory (and was in the Modern Synthesis) and there are still alternative ways for species to change (genetic drift, for example), but Darwin's basic idea has stood the test of time.

And no, TOE and atheism are NOT related directly. Many atheists are sceintific in their outlook and evolution is part of science, but there are many theists that also understand evolution as a fact. The goal of evolutionary theory is to understand how biological species change over time. That they do was well established before Darwin.

I disagree that line-by-line is ackward and un-natural. In fact, I prefer to see the responses directly next to the topic requiring comment. For me, that flows much better. I would prefer you to write in a line-by-line fashion for my convenience and I will write in the other fashion for yours.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8478 Apr 9, 2013
MUQ wrote:
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.
He admitted he hadn't. Subsequent discoveries vindicated his predictions. As I've already shown.
MUQ wrote:
How can any one call that as a Scientific book? Or a scientific theory at all.
Because it made successful predictions.
MUQ wrote:
The ONLY advantage of TOE is that it gives a toe hold to Atheists to be in the limelight and pose as scientists.
Including the evolutionary biologists who are theists? You forgot about those, right?

Science makes no theological claims.
MUQ wrote:
If people were honest
If people were honest they wouldn't be creationists. But we already know you're dishonest because you lied three years ago when your theology was threatened so you ran away to Scribd and refused to speak to anyone anymore. Now you just preach and ignore what anyone else says.
MUQ wrote:
Do not expect reply from me, if you answer again line by line.
Translation - MUQ can't handle reality.

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 Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... 6 min Rose_NoHo 1,177
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 4 hr Eagle 12 - 1,429
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 17 hr u196533dm 32,462
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) 23 hr Ben Avraham 100
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) Mon Dogen 78,757
what science will NEVER be able to prove Aug 11 Eagle 12 - 5
News What Ever Happened to the New Atheists?by Ellio... Aug 7 nanoanomaly 1
More from around the web