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 41)

Showing posts 801 - 820 of14,394
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Spocko

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#837
Dec 8, 2012
 
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Dear Ignoramus,
Surely you know the difference between ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’, the extensive evidence in support of both fact and theory of evolution comes primarily from studies of the fossil record, molecular sequences, and comparative anatomy. I can't really say there is one "best" piece of evidence for evolution. There are many, many different lines of evidence, and each of them fits together to make an entire picture. But if you had to hold me down with a hot poker, I'd say that the most powerful evidence is the homology of form and DNA shown not only in adult organisms, but in their developing embryos, which pass through more similar stages the more closely related they are. You can read more about this here:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/...

And for an incredibly user friendly and entertaining tutorial on evolution and its mechanisms, visit:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu

Hope that helps!

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#838
Dec 8, 2012
 
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Dear Ignoramus,
Surely you know the difference between ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’, the extensive evidence in support of both fact and theory of evolution comes primarily from studies of the fossil record, molecular sequences, and comparative anatomy. I can't really say there is one "best" piece of evidence for evolution. There are many, many different lines of evidence, and each of them fits together to make an entire picture. But if you had to hold me down with a hot poker, I'd say that the most powerful evidence is the homology of form and DNA shown not only in adult organisms, but in their developing embryos, which pass through more similar stages the more closely related they are. You can read more about this here:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/...
And for an incredibly user friendly and entertaining tutorial on evolution and its mechanisms, visit:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu
Hope that helps!
He will stick his fingers in his ears shut his eyes and go la la la la.

Since: Mar 11

Dowagiac, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#840
Dec 8, 2012
 
Evolution is a tested and retested fact. Sadly you just lack the IQ to even understand what evolution is as you make clear with your questions.
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
We were debating evolution so if you have nothing to add go away.
Abdalla Ovadia Cohen

Israel

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#841
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.
It is much more than that .
Take it easy , I know it's hard to understand so you laugh .
You probably can't even imagine how it works ... in english you can't write this kind of book . You think about it in English and that's the gap that makes you feel addled .
You people will never understand ... unless you learn hebrew ...
I'm not the f.cked one . you stuck .

Since: Nov 12

Sonoma, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#843
Dec 8, 2012
 
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
The you don't understand what atheism is, but thank you for such a funny strawman argument.
Atheists don't claim that deities could not possibly exist. Atheists claim that there is is not now, nor has there ever been, any evidence for the existence of any deities, so consideration of such is meaningless.
Yeah, I do. I was an atheist until age 35, a former anthropology major at UC Berkeley so I do know what I'm talking about. It's you atheists who haven't a clue because none of you knows what they're talking about, none of you has ever had a profound religious experience because atheist brains are frozen in the left-brain hemisphere with poor access to the right where spiritual reality is processed. You guys are half-wits and don't know your own disability as I didn't either until God stepped in and woke me up with a religious experience no science could begin to explain.

As I said and will always say, atheism is a fundamentalist mindset that makes atheists behave exactly like fundamentalist believers which they are--a belief in an ideology that says human knowledge never advances, never discovers new things such as explanations for invisible forces which is why atheism is not and can never be a scientific inquiry ideology. It's made up its mind by refusing to look at any facts contradicting the fundamentalist belief system, in this case, there is no spiritual reality, no gods or God, and yet science finds our very brains have evolved to process these supposedly non-existent phenomena.

Watch, and see atheists resort to the tried and true defense of the those without reasoned argument: slander and name-calling and no rational answers to my critique of the failed atheist philosophy.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#844
Dec 8, 2012
 
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
One day you godbots will start to read 21st century books.
Here is one 21st century book I am about to read.
Edward Feser's,“The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism”(2012)
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#845
Dec 8, 2012
 
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
The you don't understand what atheism is, but thank you for such a funny strawman argument.
Atheists don't claim that deities could not possibly exist. Atheists claim that there is is not now, nor has there ever been, any evidence for the existence of any deities, so consideration of such is meaningless.
Thanks for the definition of weak atheism. Now let's go a bit further.

Weak atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Strong atheism is the belief that gods do not exist.

https://sites.google.com/site/alexisbrookex/s...

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#846
Dec 8, 2012
 
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is one 21st century book I am about to read.
Edward Feser's,“The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism”(2012)
How about a real scientist like Stephen Hawking.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#847
Dec 8, 2012
 
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
Stupid, me? I am not the one who thinks the world is 6000 years old or believes in world wide floods or that errors in the bibull don't matter.
But you do believe in abiogenesis which is a myth of naturalism.
It is like being a member of the Frankenstein cult.

"The belief that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter, is simply a matter of faith in strict reductionism and is based entirely on ideology."
Nuclear physicist and bioinformatician Dr. Hubert P. Yockey

"What should be taught in science classes is why the origin of life is one of science’s unsolvable problems. Information theory and coding theory show why life could not originate proteins first, RNA first, in a pond or ocean, on a rock or on other planets."
Dr Hubert P Yockey

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#848
Dec 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

biomystic wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I do. I was an atheist until age 35, a former anthropology major at UC Berkeley so I do know what I'm talking about. It's you atheists who haven't a clue because none of you knows what they're talking about, none of you has ever had a profound religious experience because atheist brains are frozen in the left-brain hemisphere with poor access to the right where spiritual reality is processed. You guys are half-wits and don't know your own disability as I didn't either until God stepped in and woke me up with a religious experience no science could begin to explain.
As I said and will always say, atheism is a fundamentalist mindset that makes atheists behave exactly like fundamentalist believers which they are--a belief in an ideology that says human knowledge never advances, never discovers new things such as explanations for invisible forces which is why atheism is not and can never be a scientific inquiry ideology. It's made up its mind by refusing to look at any facts contradicting the fundamentalist belief system, in this case, there is no spiritual reality, no gods or God, and yet science finds our very brains have evolved to process these supposedly non-existent phenomena.
Watch, and see atheists resort to the tried and true defense of the those without reasoned argument: slander and name-calling and no rational answers to my critique of the failed atheist philosophy.
I am calling you a liar. What you know about being an atheist is almost nothing. There is no atheist philosophy, there is only the lack of theism, in being atheist. If you were indeed an atheist, you would have known that being a non believer is very different than being atheist.

Most of us were once believers, we were good Christains who studied our bibles, we worked hard to serve our lord god. Then we read the buybull, and that itself is why I am now a non believer. I was indoctrinated as a child, I was taught that a god loved me. The buybull told me that wasn't true, the bible told me that I was a worthless being, only meant to serve the needs of the liaisons* to the gods.

*the spell casters, the Ju-Ju men, the priests, the witch doctors, the preachers and ministers

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#849
Dec 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
“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
Can anyone name a famous Belgian? Georges Lemaître is a name I'll always rattle off in response to that particular question.

I'm sure most of us have heard of Lemaître and his work in astronomy and physics. Yet, whatever you think about Lemaître, one certainty is that his theories owe absolutely nothing to Christianity and everything to science.

Lemaître used scientific methodology (observation, measurement, peer testing, etc) in his quest to uncover real and tangible truths about the universe. He ignored the superstitious mumbo jumbo of his beliefs and applied the rational logic and reasoning of science.

Without science, you'd never have heard of Georges Lemaître. He'd have been just another of many nondescript priests, shuffling around their patch, spouting their inane ju-ju.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#850
Dec 8, 2012
 
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
But you do believe in abiogenesis which is a myth of naturalism.
It is like being a member of the Frankenstein cult.
"The belief that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter, is simply a matter of faith in strict reductionism and is based entirely on ideology."
Nuclear physicist and bioinformatician Dr. Hubert P. Yockey
"What should be taught in science classes is why the origin of life is one of science’s unsolvable problems. Information theory and coding theory show why life could not originate proteins first, RNA first, in a pond or ocean, on a rock or on other planets."
Dr Hubert P Yockey
How many times in the past have so called experts have said something is impossible only to be proven wrong, lets see... heavier than air flight, space flight, moon landings.....
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#851
Dec 8, 2012
 
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Can anyone name a famous Belgian? Georges Lemaître is a name I'll always rattle off in response to that particular question.
I'm sure most of us have heard of Lemaître and his work in astronomy and physics. Yet, whatever you think about Lemaître, one certainty is that his theories owe absolutely nothing to Christianity and everything to science.
Lemaître used scientific methodology (observation, measurement, peer testing, etc) in his quest to uncover real and tangible truths about the universe. He ignored the superstitious mumbo jumbo of his beliefs and applied the rational logic and reasoning of science.
Without science, you'd never have heard of Georges Lemaître. He'd have been just another of many nondescript priests, shuffling around their patch, spouting their inane ju-ju.
"Great are the works of the Lord; they are pondered by all who delight in them"
(Psalm 111:2)

Of course he put his God given talents to good use and was carrying on a long Catholic tradition.

"What we need to do now is take a deep breath, and take a step out of today's overwhelmingly secularized intellectual climate, and consider this: Modern science arose among avowedly Christian clerics, theologians, monks, and professors of medieval and renaissance Catholic universities and monasteries."

http://www.rae.org/jaki.html

“Christian theology was necessary for the rise of science.” Science only happened in areas whose worldview was shaped by Christianity, that is, Europe. Many civilizations had alchemy; only Europe developed chemistry. Likewise, astrology was practiced everywhere, but only in Europe did it become astronomy. That’s because Christianity depicted God as a “rational, responsive, dependable, and omnipotent being” who created a universe with a “rational, lawful, stable” structure. These beliefs uniquely led to “faith in the possibility of science.”
"For the Glory of God," Rodney Stark (2004)

"Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above else, of the glory of God."
Johannes Kepler
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#852
Dec 8, 2012
 
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
How many times in the past have so called experts have said something is impossible only to be proven wrong, lets see... heavier than air flight, space flight, moon landings.....
How many times in the past have so called experts said something is impossible only to be proven right? Let's see....supplying a natural cause for the big Bang, abiogenesis, winning the Super Lotto 52 weeks in a row, a cow jumping over the moon....

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#853
Dec 8, 2012
 
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
How many times in the past have so called experts said something is impossible only to be proven right? Let's see....supplying a natural cause for the big Bang, abiogenesis,.....
That's why we do research. You just want them to give up so you can't proved wrong.

Once they find those answers your god of the gaps gone.

“If God was real”

Since: Jan 10

He would look like this

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#854
Dec 8, 2012
 
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes it flawed. Is seven days any less feasible than 15 billion years.
Yes. we may not know the whole story of the creation and evolution of life, but it is clear from fossil evidence that we did not develop overnight.
Even your bible can't agree on who was created first, animals or man.

“If God was real”

Since: Jan 10

He would look like this

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#855
Dec 8, 2012
 
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Genesis 2 is a summary of what was told in Genesis 1 not a chronological retelling of creation.
Genesis 1:27 does not indicate that God made male and female humans at the same time it says.(after the creation of the land animals) God made Man (singular) in the image of God created He (YHVH) him (man)it then says he made male and female animals, not humans. Verse 27 is a continuation of the pervious verse, verse 26 (verse division were added by humans) and the use of the semi colon shows a continuation of subject matter from Verse 26.
Genesis 2 is not a summary of gGenesis 1. Genesis one says that animals were created before mankind, Genesis 2 says that man was created before and that God created animals to please man

<quoted text>
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.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#856
Dec 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

downhill246 wrote:
"Great are the works of the Lord; they are pondered by all who delight in them"
(Psalm 111:2)
Think how dismissive you would be if a Hindu quoted his holy book by way of praising Ganesh. Then perhaps you'll have an inkling of how I feel when you quote yours.
downhill246 wrote:
Of course he put his God given talents to good use and was carrying on a long Catholic tradition.
Don't forget all the other talents bestowed on humans by their respective gods.
downhill246 wrote:
"What we need to do now is take a deep breath, and take a step out of today's overwhelmingly secularized intellectual climate, and consider this: Modern science arose among avowedly Christian clerics, theologians, monks, and professors of medieval and renaissance Catholic universities and monasteries."
http://www.rae.org/jaki.html
“Christian theology was necessary for the rise of science.” Science only happened in areas whose worldview was shaped by Christianity, that is, Europe. Many civilizations had alchemy; only Europe developed chemistry. Likewise, astrology was practiced everywhere, but only in Europe did it become astronomy. That’s because Christianity depicted God as a “rational, responsive, dependable, and omnipotent being” who created a universe with a “rational, lawful, stable” structure. These beliefs uniquely led to “faith in the possibility of science.”
Science wasn't possible without Christianity? LOL

I guess you'll agree that all the disciplines around before Christianity existed (geometry, trigonometry, anatomy, botany, hydrostatics, etc) would not have been possible without paganism.

I looked up your Rodney Stark and he's certainly not a historian so you'd be better looking elsewhere for information on history.
Here's what he has to say about Greek learning...

"Greek learning stagnated of its own inner logic. After Plato and Aristotle, very little happened beyond some extension of geometry"
Rodney Stark- "Victory of Reason" page 20

This is utter nonsense. Stark neglects to mention people like Aristoxenus, Archytas, Hippocrates, Eudoxus, Callistratus, etc.
Theoprastus, Strato of Lamsacus, Philo, Herophilus, Erasistratus, Archimedes, Aristarchus, Hipparchus, Hero, Dioscorides, Galen, Ptolemy, etc. All of these people existed after Aristotle and produced a wealth of varied work and scientific advances.

Want some evidence of Greek science? Just look at what is now regarded as the world's oldest astronomical computer that was built around 100 CE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mech...

Putting the science of the Ottomans and Chinese to one side. Here in the west, modern science developed under and also in spite of Christianity. It took nearly 1500 years of Christian suppression o before people began to realise that the pagan Greeks had something after all.
Thinking

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#857
Dec 9, 2012
 
The US bank rolls the 4 by 2s.
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
May be you missed it I told you I don't know nor do I care as I have very little to do with the US

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#858
Dec 9, 2012
 
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Can anyone name a famous Belgian? Georges Lemaître is a name I'll always rattle off in response to that particular question.
...
I usually think of Audrey Hepburn.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 801 - 820 of14,394
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••