Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

There are 14671 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.

Lincoln

United States

#8497 Apr 9, 2013
A soldier returns from Iraq and places a cross on the military base at camp Pendelton to memorialize his fallen comrades.

atheist-fundamentalists sue to remove it because it is on public property.:-)

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#8498 Apr 9, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
A soldier returns from Iraq and places a cross on the military base at camp Pendelton to memorialize his fallen comrades.
atheist-fundamentalists sue to remove it because it is on public property.:-)
Have they been to Arlington?

Since: Apr 13

Bellevue, WA

#8499 Apr 9, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
A soldier returns from Iraq and places a cross on the military base at camp Pendelton to memorialize his fallen comrades.
atheist-fundamentalists sue to remove it because it is on public property.:-)
I'm an atheist.. but if they want to put a cross on a grave i'm all in support
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#8500 Apr 10, 2013
Dude wrote:
01. 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)

2.

02. 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.

03. 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.
Ans.

01. It is your choice to believe in truth or not. Our job is to tell the truth.

Everybody can make claims, there is no restriction for that, but what you need is proofs.

Jesus never claimed that he was a Universal Messenger and that he was the Last of Prophets. Christians make claims themselves on behalf of Jesus.

02. Science is a dumb tool and it is not its job to confirm or deny the presence or absence of God.

This is an issue of Philosophy where we take stock of available info and use reason and logic to decide.

What I can say is that Scientists should not reject God, they should reject the "Models of God" that so many religions put forward.

If they use their brains and power of reasoning , all these Models of "Triune God, Racial God, Human God and God with Multiple heads and arms and shape…" all will vanish and replaced with a Unique, Powerful, Wise, Merciful and Knowledgeable Creator of this Universe…

He is The and Only God of this Universe. He is the only one which fulfills all and answers all our available info.

Most of people and scientists are confused between God and Models of God which different religions put forward.

04. Islam never says "How" God did it, it keeps clear of this controversy. It is other scriptures who put out their neck and get it chopped.
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#8501 Apr 10, 2013
Polymath wrote:
01. Yes, of course, seeing that species change over time requires a scientific theory to understand those changes. Darwin's proposal was not the first

02. 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..

03. 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.

04. 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,

05. And no, TOE and atheism are NOT related directly. Many atheists are scientific in their outlook and evolution is part of science, but there are many theists that also understand evolution as a fact.

06. I disagree that line-by-line is awkward and un-natural.
Ans.

First of all I thank you for answering me in "proper format" and not that "idiotic" line by line response. You might not find it awkward, but how would you feel, if I answered you line by line?

Now coming to Theory of Evolution and how Scientific it is and what should have been the scientific approach.

Science really should be blind and dumb in certain aspects. It is a study of Natural Phenomenon and try to understand it and explain as much as it can.

It should never "predict" any thing, because this is not its field.

The data at the time of Darwin was not enough to propose such thing as revolutionary that "One Specie evolves into another" just by period of time.

It was a very non scientific method by any standard.

And the second question, is not about evolution, the real question is "why species should evolve"….and is the evolution process blind?

Our Atheists tried to answer that by proposing some thing as "natural selection"…. How does natural selection works no one knows.

The real question is that "is this entire complex operation is working without any Plan, without any Design and without any Purpose"?

These questions are as important as "how species evolve"…. But most of our scientists shrug their shoulders and say "we do not care"?

You can explain rain, by the water vapour rising from earth, getting condensed in the cool atmosphere, and making clouds, clouds driven over to distant lands by winds and causing fresh water to fall down on earth.

If you have explained each and every process of the chain, have you done your job as a scientist? Why should not your mind turn as to "How this wonderful system came into being"?

Could it happen by itself? How beautiful way to bring fresh and potable water is such a simple and perfect way to each and every human on the earth?

The same rain process which provides "ammunition to an Atheist that there is no God"…..provides proof to a believer that "This is the handiwork of Merciful, Wise and Powerful God"!!

If you see from pure Scientific angle, Believers have more sound reasoning than the Athiests,

But most of our Present day scientists would side with Athiests. It shows their non Scientific approach and that they are misusing science for their own purpose.

The real question is not Evolution, It is Why it is happening? There is nothing like Randomness and Chance happening in this Universe.

To say otherwise is to misuse Science and reason and logic.
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#8502 Apr 10, 2013
eczdit wrote:
01. The Christian religion created a mythological Jesus in the same way the atheist religion created a mythological Darwin, and for the same reasons: to create false authorities to sell their propaganda to their sheeple followers.

02. Darwin was a courageous and very humble truth seeker. He deserves a great deal of credit for his actual contributions to science.
Ans.

01. There is some truth in what you say. Atheists created a "Mythological Darwin" and attributed their own logic and theories to justify in his name.

02. How honest was Darwin really, I cannot say, if he would have limited himself to what he actually knew, he would have called honest.

But the "predictions and assumptions" what he made were really far fetched and non Scientific. As a scientist you should not "prophesize or predict" and future fossil finds would prove what you propose.

It was a non scientific approach, which Zealots from Atheists took as a War Cry and accepted as "Truth and nothing but truth"

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#8503 Apr 10, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Ans.
01. It is your choice to believe in truth or not. Our job is to tell the truth.
Everybody can make claims, there is no restriction for that, but what you need is proofs.
Jesus never claimed that he was a Universal Messenger and that he was the Last of Prophets. Christians make claims themselves on behalf of Jesus.
02. Science is a dumb tool and it is not its job to confirm or deny the presence or absence of God.
This is an issue of Philosophy where we take stock of available info and use reason and logic to decide.
What I can say is that Scientists should not reject God, they should reject the "Models of God" that so many religions put forward.
If they use their brains and power of reasoning , all these Models of "Triune God, Racial God, Human God and God with Multiple heads and arms and shape…" all will vanish and replaced with a Unique, Powerful, Wise, Merciful and Knowledgeable Creator of this Universe…
He is The and Only God of this Universe. He is the only one which fulfills all and answers all our available info.
Most of people and scientists are confused between God and Models of God which different religions put forward.
04. Islam never says "How" God did it, it keeps clear of this controversy. It is other scriptures who put out their neck and get it chopped.
What have you to say about:-

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#8504 Apr 10, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Ans.
First of all I thank you for answering me in "proper format" and not that "idiotic" line by line response. You might not find it awkward, but how would you feel, if I answered you line by line?
Now coming to Theory of Evolution and how Scientific it is and what should have been the scientific approach.
Science really should be blind and dumb in certain aspects. It is a study of Natural Phenomenon and try to understand it and explain as much as it can.
It should never "predict" any thing, because this is not its field.
The data at the time of Darwin was not enough to propose such thing as revolutionary that "One Specie evolves into another" just by period of time.
It was a very non scientific method by any standard.
And the second question, is not about evolution, the real question is "why species should evolve"….and is the evolution process blind?
Our Atheists tried to answer that by proposing some thing as "natural selection"…. How does natural selection works no one knows.
The real question is that "is this entire complex operation is working without any Plan, without any Design and without any Purpose"?
These questions are as important as "how species evolve"…. But most of our scientists shrug their shoulders and say "we do not care"?
You can explain rain, by the water vapour rising from earth, getting condensed in the cool atmosphere, and making clouds, clouds driven over to distant lands by winds and causing fresh water to fall down on earth.
If you have explained each and every process of the chain, have you done your job as a scientist? Why should not your mind turn as to "How this wonderful system came into being"?
Could it happen by itself? How beautiful way to bring fresh and potable water is such a simple and perfect way to each and every human on the earth?
The same rain process which provides "ammunition to an Atheist that there is no God"…..provides proof to a believer that "This is the handiwork of Merciful, Wise and Powerful God"!!
If you see from pure Scientific angle, Believers have more sound reasoning than the Athiests,
But most of our Present day scientists would side with Athiests. It shows their non Scientific approach and that they are misusing science for their own purpose.
The real question is not Evolution, It is Why it is happening? There is nothing like Randomness and Chance happening in this Universe.
To say otherwise is to misuse Science and reason and logic.
What have you to say about:-

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#8505 Apr 10, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Ans.
01. There is some truth in what you say. Atheists created a "Mythological Darwin" and attributed their own logic and theories to justify in his name.
02. How honest was Darwin really, I cannot say, if he would have limited himself to what he actually knew, he would have called honest.
But the "predictions and assumptions" what he made were really far fetched and non Scientific. As a scientist you should not "prophesize or predict" and future fossil finds would prove what you propose.
It was a non scientific approach, which Zealots from Atheists took as a War Cry and accepted as "Truth and nothing but truth"
What have you to say about:-

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#8506 Apr 10, 2013
Muq is just mindlessly spamming from his scribd page. Google Muq scribd and you can see everything he spams on here.

Typical arrogant Islamic nonsense.
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>What have you to say about:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =2rgSH0h45EoXX

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#8507 Apr 10, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
A soldier returns from Iraq and places a cross on the military base at camp Pendelton to memorialize his fallen comrades.
atheist-fundamentalists sue to remove it because it is on public property.:-)
Hitler grows up a Catholic....

second world war
Imhotep

Stuart, FL

#8508 Apr 10, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Ans.
01. There is some truth in what you say. Atheists created a "Mythological Darwin" and attributed their own logic and theories to justify in his name.
02. How honest was Darwin really, I cannot say, if he would have limited himself to what he actually knew, he would have called honest.
But the "predictions and assumptions" what he made were really far fetched and non Scientific. As a scientist you should not "prophesize or predict" and future fossil finds would prove what you propose.
It was a non scientific approach, which Zealots from Atheists took as a War Cry and accepted as "Truth and nothing but truth"
This coming from someone who believes in talking reptiles talking livestock unicorns Angels Devils miracles and magic.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry

Sometimes willful ignorance is so obvious I feel compelled to make a comment

Promptly answer these two simple questions.

1) Provide evidence that your God is the only true God in a way that religions other than yours cannot do.

2) Provide evidence that your holy book is true in a way that religions other than yours cannot do with theirs.

I assume sufficient education and intelligence are present to accept the fact that… Neither Egyptian nor Roman history records any persons known as Moses or Jesus. These individuals exist only in holy books, which themselves are copied from previous legends and myths.

Take your time

“A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.”~Saul Bellow
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8509 Apr 10, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
300,000 papers, huh? So that's a rough estimate of maybe about 15,000,000+ pages? Were any of those written before it was discovered that prions reproduce and mutate WITHOUT having any DNA?
Hmmmmm.....?
That's nice bub. But since they don't prevent life from changing over time, and it does, then evolution still occurs.
ezdzit wrote:
There is no "theory of evolution", bubba. Doesn't mean that someday someone won't come up with a viable theory. It just means it has happened yet. Get it?
Yes, I get it. It HAS happened. Just like you just said above. And it works, just as already been demonstrated. Like every other fundie you ignore reality instead of dealing with it.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8510 Apr 10, 2013
MUQ wrote:
It is your choice to believe in truth or not. Our job is to tell the truth.
No it isn't. Your job is to lie for Mohammed just as it's a fundie Christian's job to lie for Jesus.
MUQ wrote:
Everybody can make claims, there is no restriction for that, but what you need is proofs.
Actually what you need is facts and evidence. "Proof" is for math and alcohol.
MUQ wrote:
Jesus never claimed that he
Holeeeee crud I cannot tell you how much I don't care.
MUQ wrote:
Science is a dumb tool
Then trash your car, stop taking modern medicine, stop using your computer and go back to living in a cave foraging for your own chickens.
MUQ wrote:
and it is not its job to confirm or deny the presence or absence of God.
Science makes no theological claims. I have pointed this out already numerous times. Science doesn't say whether there is or is a God or not. Your problem is that the concept is not scientific, for the very same reason that the Cosmic Sheep from dimension Zog is not scientific. That's NOT our problem.
MUQ wrote:
This is an issue of Philosophy where we take stock of available info and use reason and logic to decide.
Your philosophy is relevant to you. That doesn't make it relevant to everybody.
MUQ wrote:
What I can say is that Scientists should not reject God
Sure they should. It's their choice. Some however don't. There are scientists who are still theists. And because many of them still accept science they would STILL say you're full of sh t.(shrug)
MUQ wrote:
they should reject the "Models of God" that so many religions put forward.
MUQ wrote:
If they use their brains and power of reasoning , all these Models of "Triune God, Racial God, Human God and God with Multiple heads and arms and shape…" all will vanish and replaced with a Unique, Powerful, Wise, Merciful and Knowledgeable Creator of this Universe…
He is The and Only God of this Universe. He is the only one which fulfills all and answers all our available info.
Except you have no scientific evidence. There may or may not be a god. But since the big fella don't put his arm down for a blood test on a regular basis there's no way to tell. In fact since he doesn't do that, it's also perfectly possible the thing is just a figment of your imagination.
MUQ wrote:
Most of people and scientists are confused between God and Models of God which different religions put forward.
Slight problem - you don't know more about God than anyone else on the entire planet does. Period. Your proposal is no more valid than the Christian ideas or the Hindu ones or whatever. And remember that as "models", none of them come close to being the same as scientific models.
MUQ wrote:
Islam never says "How" God did it, it keeps clear of this controversy. It is other scriptures who put out their neck and get it chopped.
Actually all others are just the same as yours. Since they don't say how it did it either. They just provide a WHO, not a HOW, and they do so based on zero scientific evidence. Without a "how" that we can test via scientific means, the concept remains nothing more than philosophical mastrubation.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8511 Apr 10, 2013
MUQ wrote:
But the "predictions and assumptions" what he made were really far fetched and non Scientific. As a scientist you should not "prophesize or predict" and future fossil finds would prove what you propose.
Scientists should NOT make scientific predictions yet future fossil discoveries should prove your ideas? Aside from your childish previous argument from ignorance this sentence of yours alone demonstrates you don't have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about. Darwin made predictions, science validated them. That's how science works - it makes scientific predictions.

Then you whiny fundies come along that no-one takes your claims of an invisible magical Jewish wizard seriously even though (as you agreed) that makes no scientific predictions.
MUQ wrote:
It was a non scientific approach, which Zealots from Atheists took as a War Cry and accepted as "Truth and nothing but truth"
Science and atheism are separate concepts. Science does not "prove" atheism. However atheists are certainly correct when they point out that Goddidit with magic has no scientific evidence.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8512 Apr 10, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Have they been to Arlington?
Have the IDCers come up with a "scientific theory" of IDC yet?

Thought so.
Imhotep

Stuart, FL

#8513 Apr 10, 2013
A word of about intelligent design

In fact it is neither

Intelligent implies knowledge of the latest scientific discoveries this is absent in ID

Design?

The alleged designer was so inept at 'design' he had to destroy the first attempt and start over

This simply does not compute

It enters into the realm of J.R.R. Tolkien's middle earth

Excellent fantasy

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#8514 Apr 10, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Ans.
First of all I thank you for answering me in "proper format" and not that "idiotic" line by line response. You might not find it awkward, but how would you feel, if I answered you line by line?
Like I said, I would prefer that you do so. I find it much easier to read the answers in context.
It should never "predict" any thing, because this is not its field.
The data at the time of Darwin was not enough to propose such thing as revolutionary that "One Specie evolves into another" just by period of time.
It was a very non scientific method by any standard.
And the second question, is not about evolution, the real question is "why species should evolve"….and is the evolution process blind?
Our Atheists tried to answer that by proposing some thing as "natural selection"…. How does natural selection works no one knows.
The real question is that "is this entire complex operation is working without any Plan, without any Design and without any Purpose"?
These questions are as important as "how species evolve"…. But most of our scientists shrug their shoulders and say "we do not care"?
On the contrary, the very heart of the scientific endeavor is the ability to predict what happens in new situations. The scientific method works as follows:
1. We observe some phenomenon. In the case of evolution, we see the fossils and their differences as we go to lower strata.
2. We make a hypothesis hoping to explain these observations. In the case of evolution, we hypothesize that the same adaptations that we see every day also explain how species change over time.
3. We use the hypothesis to mnake specific predictions about future observations. This is crucial because it affords an actual test for our ideas. In the case of evolution, many predictions have been made as to the form of the form of species that would be discovered in the fossil record in the future.
4. We go to the lab or the field and obtain more observations to see if our predictions actually hold up in practice. If they do, then our ideas are supported (at least in part). If they do not, then we have to modify or discard our hypothesis (depending on how central the prediction was to our hypothesis).

So, yes, prediction, whether it be of the location of planets in the sky, or the form of new fossils, is central to the scientific process.

And yes, the data at the time of Darwin was quite sufficient to show that species change over geological time (that *is* evolution). What Darwin proposed was a *mechanism* for that change. That mechanism is known as natural selection and yes, we *do* know how it works. In fact, it is a quite easy idea: whether an individual is able produce viable children is partly dependent on genetics and partly on the environment. Those individuals that are better adapted to their environment are more likely to produce viable offspring, so the genes of adpated individuals are more likely to appear in the next generation. This means that the genes in the population change because of the environment. As the environment change, the species adapts and so changes. This *is* evolution.

As to your claim that the *real* question is whether there is a plan, it turns out that this question has served very little is actually explaining how things behave in the real world. It has little predictive value and so is not testable in the way that a scientific idea has to be testable. In other words, the hypothesis that there is a plan is a dead-end when it comes to understanding the universe. As one scientists told Napolean when he ssked about where God appeared in his book; I have no need of that hypothesis. And that is precisely why we do not care.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#8515 Apr 10, 2013
MUQ wrote:
Everybody can make claims, there is no restriction for that, but what you need is proofs.
Exactly. This is why science requires its hypotheses to give precise predictions that can be tested. Without a way to check to see if we are wrong, we can easily go off in the wrong direction. Testability is what insures we do not.
02. Science is a dumb tool and it is not its job to confirm or deny the presence or absence of God.
But is can affirm or deny the claims made by religious people when those claims are testable. The only reason science has no say about God is precisely because God is not testable. That is also why the hypothesis that there is a God is ignorable.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#8516 Apr 10, 2013
MUQ wrote:
If you have explained each and every process of the chain, have you done your job as a scientist? Why should not your mind turn as to "How this wonderful system came into being"?Could it happen by itself? How beautiful way to bring fresh and potable water is such a simple and perfect way to each and every human on the earth?
The same rain process which provides "ammunition to an Atheist that there is no God"…..provides proof to a believer that "This is the handiwork of Merciful, Wise and Powerful God"!!
If you see from pure Scientific angle, Believers have more sound reasoning than the Athiests,
But most of our Present day scientists would side with Athiests. It shows their non Scientific approach and that they are misusing science for their own purpose.
The real question is not Evolution, It is Why it is happening? There is nothing like Randomness and Chance happening in this Universe.
To say otherwise is to misuse Science and reason and logic.
The question of origins is an interesting and often difficult one. And scientists *do* look at such questions. For example, when we ask how the solar system formed, we can look at other planetary sysytems and situations where such are forming *today*. This allows us to test our models and see which ones fit the data and which do not.

But you go one step further and postulate a plan beyond that workings of the natural laws we can test. So, when we see the natural laws working to form the water cycle, we can see how such does, in fact, form by itself from the conditions when it started. No extra intelligence is required to get things working.

You also make the basic mistake of thinking that the absence os a plan or an intelligence means that everything would be chaotic and random. This is a very common mistake among theists and I have never quite understood why they think it is the case. There *are* natural laws, those of physics and chemistry, and biology and those laws are not random. They naturally provide structure and a highly *non-random* set of how things can interact.
Once again, no intelligence is required, just those natural laws.

And that is why we fully expect to be able to understand how life developed on earth using the natural laws of organic chemistry. Life is a natural phenomenon, based on physics and chemistry. We know that manf of the material necessary for life are abundant in the universe (and even know how they are formed), and that they were common on the early earth.

So, the question for you is what additional explanatory power does the hypothesis that there is a God give us? What testable ideas does it have? In particular, what test would conclusively show it is wrong if things go a different way than what the hypothesis says? If there is no such test, then the hypothesis is not scientific and can be safely ignored.

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) 3 min ChristineM 245,271
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 15 min Thinking 20,751
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr ChristineM 11,098
John 3:16 12 hr thetruth 101
Hitler was Catholic 13 hr Shizle 1
Atheists and the "Moses Syndrome" Mon Shizle 23
Atheists should stop feeding the stereotypes Mon Thinking 19
More from around the web