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.

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

#8517 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"
01. I agree.

02. His own writings indicate he was was faithful to the scientific method. He made predictions about the success or failure of his hypothesis being dependent on later scientific discoveries so, yes. he was honest .

Don't confuse Darwin with Dawkins. Darwin was a scientist and a truthseeker. Dawkins is just another flim-flam man who makes a money scamming gullible people with unresolved daddy issues.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#8518 Apr 10, 2013
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing is for free my friend, nothing!
True! Life is hard, but as you should well know, it is harder when you are stupid.
Thinking

Bolton, UK

#8519 Apr 10, 2013
Actually, Dawkins has been writing scientific texts since the 70s, long before the religitard community targeted him.
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
01. I agree.
02. His own writings indicate he was was faithful to the scientific method. He made predictions about the success or failure of his hypothesis being dependent on later scientific discoveries so, yes. he was honest .
Don't confuse Darwin with Dawkins. Darwin was a scientist and a truthseeker. Dawkins is just another flim-flam man who makes a money scamming gullible people with unresolved daddy issues.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8520 Apr 10, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
01. I agree.
02. His own writings indicate he was was faithful to the scientific method. He made predictions about the success or failure of his hypothesis being dependent on later scientific discoveries so, yes. he was honest.
And successful.

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

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#8521 Apr 10, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
01. I agree.
02. His own writings indicate he was was faithful to the scientific method. He made predictions about the success or failure of his hypothesis being dependent on later scientific discoveries so, yes. he was honest .
Don't confuse Darwin with Dawkins. Darwin was a scientist and a truthseeker. Dawkins is just another flim-flam man who makes a money scamming gullible people with unresolved daddy issues.
I am not confusing Darwin with Dawkins.

If Darwin made "predictions"....the n he was not speaking as a True Scientist.

If you have read his book...you will find he made lots and lots of assumptions and predicted so many things, about which he did not have any knowledge.

He draw big conclusions based on very limited personal knowledge which he had.

To be true to him, he never asserted that what he is predicting is absolute truth,.....he uses indefinite and undetermined phrases Like "I think", "I believe" "Most probably etc"

His book is filled with such phrases...

But it was his sycophant supporters, who raised his status to a giant and showered so much praise on his book that it became "The Truth".

I doubt how many people have actually read his book from cover to cover.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#8522 Apr 10, 2013
You are confusing barbaric actions like child brides and chopping the nose and ears off a child bride who runs away as the actions of an enlightened people though.
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>I am not confusing Darwin with Dawkins.

If Darwin made "predictions"....the n he was not speaking as a True Scientist.

If you have read his book...you will find he made lots and lots of assumptions and predicted so many things, about which he did not have any knowledge.

He draw big conclusions based on very limited personal knowledge which he had.

To be true to him, he never asserted that what he is predicting is absolute truth,.....he uses indefinite and undetermined phrases Like "I think", "I believe" "Most probably etc"

His book is filled with such phrases...

But it was his sycophant supporters, who raised his status to a giant and showered so much praise on his book that it became "The Truth".

I doubt how many people have actually read his book from cover to cover.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#8523 Apr 10, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not confusing Darwin with Dawkins.
If Darwin made "predictions"....the n he was not speaking as a True Scientist.
If you have read his book...you will find he made lots and lots of assumptions and predicted so many things, about which he did not have any knowledge.
He draw big conclusions based on very limited personal knowledge which he had.
To be true to him, he never asserted that what he is predicting is absolute truth,.....he uses indefinite and undetermined phrases Like "I think", "I believe" "Most probably etc"
His book is filled with such phrases...
But it was his sycophant supporters, who raised his status to a giant and showered so much praise on his book that it became "The Truth".
I doubt how many people have actually read his book from cover to cover.
January 1862 while researching insect pollination of orchids, Charles Darwin received a package of orchids from the distinguished horticulturist James Bateman, and in a follow up letter with a second package Bateman's son Robert confirmed the names of the specimens, including Angraecum sesquipedale from Madagascar.[2][3] Darwin was surprised at the defining characteristic of this species: the "astonishing length" of the whip-like green spur forming the nectary of each flower, and remarked to Joseph Hooker "I have just received such a Box full from Mr Bateman with the astounding Angræcum sesquipedalia with a nectary a foot long— Good Heavens what insect can suck it"[?][4] The spur of the flower is 20–35 cm (7.9–14 in) from its tip to the tip of the flower's lip. The name "sesquipedale" is Latin for "one and a half feet," referring to the spur length.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanthopan_morgan...

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#8524 Apr 10, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not confusing Darwin with Dawkins.
If Darwin made "predictions"....the n he was not speaking as a True Scientist.
If you have read his book...you will find he made lots and lots of assumptions and predicted so many things, about which he did not have any knowledge.
He draw big conclusions based on very limited personal knowledge which he had.
To be true to him, he never asserted that what he is predicting is absolute truth,.....he uses indefinite and undetermined phrases Like "I think", "I believe" "Most probably etc"
His book is filled with such phrases...
But it was his sycophant supporters, who raised his status to a giant and showered so much praise on his book that it became "The Truth".
I doubt how many people have actually read his book from cover to cover.
From his observations and experiments with pushing a probe into the spur of the flower, Darwin surmised in his 1862 book Fertilisation of Orchids that there must be a pollinator moth with a proboscis long enough to reach the nectar at the end of the spur.[5] In its attempt to get the nectar at the end of the spur the moth would get pollen rubbed off on its head. The next orchid it visited would then be pollinated in the same manner.[1]

In 1903, such a moth was discovered in Madagascar. It was described as a sub-species of the African hawk moth and named Xanthopan morganii praedicta. The subspecific epithet "praedicta" was given in honor of the fact that Darwin had predicted its existence, though the subspecies was later determined to be invalid (it is identical to the mainland form of the species). The moth approaches the flower to ascertain by scent whether or not it is the correct orchid species. Then the moth backs up over a foot and unrolls its proboscis, then flies forward, inserting it into the orchid's spur.[citation needed]

The larvae feed on Annona senegalensis, Hexalobus crispiflorus, Uvaria, Ibaria and Xylopia species.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanthopan_morgan...

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#8525 Apr 10, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>01. I agree.

02. His own writings indicate he was was faithful to the scientific method. He made predictions about the success or failure of his hypothesis being dependent on later scientific discoveries so, yes. he was honest .

Don't confuse Darwin with Dawkins. Darwin was a scientist and a truthseeker. Dawkins is just another flim-flam man who makes a money scamming gullible people with unresolved daddy issues.
In other words, you don't like what he says because it rings too true.

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

#8526 Apr 10, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not confusing Darwin with Dawkins.
If Darwin made "predictions"....the n he was not speaking as a True Scientist.
If you have read his book...you will find he made lots and lots of assumptions and predicted so many things, about which he did not have any knowledge.
He draw big conclusions based on very limited personal knowledge which he had.
To be true to him, he never asserted that what he is predicting is absolute truth,.....he uses indefinite and undetermined phrases Like "I think", "I believe" "Most probably etc"
His book is filled with such phrases...
But it was his sycophant supporters, who raised his status to a giant and showered so much praise on his book that it became "The Truth".
I doubt how many people have actually read his book from cover to cover.
Darwin was one of the pioneers in the field of biology. His research and discoveries changed the paradigm regarding how people viewed the world around them. He has inspired millions of people to pursue science studies, build on the foundation of knowledge he and others laid. Science is all about gathering evidence, analyzing evidence,making logical assumptions about the evidence, and making predictions to test a scientific hypothesis so I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from on this...???
Lincoln

United States

#8527 Apr 10, 2013
Most atheists are non confrontational and fit in well in American Society.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#8528 Apr 11, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
Most atheists are non confrontational and fit in well in American Society.
Why don't you try having a conversation with atheists instead of taking these cowardly potshots you weasel.

How about you start by proving your f*cking god? do that first, there's a good troll.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8529 Apr 11, 2013
MUQ wrote:
I am not confusing Darwin with Dawkins.
If Darwin made "predictions"....the n he was not speaking as a True Scientist.
If you fundies weren't famous for saying monumentally stupid things your statement could be in the top 100. As it is the list is too large they had to devote an entire website to it.(shrug)
MUQ wrote:
If you have read his book...you will find he made lots and lots of assumptions and predicted so many things, about which he did not have any knowledge.
He draw big conclusions based on very limited personal knowledge which he had.
And the part you're leaving out is that his predictions bore fruit.
MUQ wrote:
To be true to him, he never asserted that what he is predicting is absolute truth,.....he uses indefinite and undetermined phrases Like "I think", "I believe" "Most probably etc"
His book is filled with such phrases...
Indeed, the mark of a good scientist. He made tentative predictions which he was not sure of since he did not have all the evidence available to him at the time. He never proclaimed "absolute truth" because that is forever unknowable.
MUQ wrote:
But it was his sycophant supporters, who raised his status to a giant and showered so much praise on his book that it became "The Truth".
I doubt how many people have actually read his book from cover to cover.
And we know you have not read the slightest bit of info that demonstrates evolution is correct, just as he predicted. That's why you ignore anything theologically inconvenient in favour of fundamentalist religious apologetics.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#8530 Apr 11, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
All scientific evidence supports atheism and nothing so far refutes it.

Fact.

“There are other issues.”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#8531 Apr 11, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>All scientific evidence supports atheism and nothing so far refutes it.

Fact.
How?
Imhotep

Stuart, FL

#8532 Apr 11, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
Most atheists are non confrontational and fit in well in American Society.
Ya Think?

"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
~George Herbert Walker Bush

I'd say this explains why his son 'Mission accomplished' Dubya Is so mentally deficient

Ya think? ;)
Lincoln

United States

#8533 Apr 11, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya Think?
"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
~George Herbert Walker Bush
I'd say this explains why his son 'Mission accomplished' Dubya Is so mentally deficient
Ya think? ;)
President Obama 50.5 % popular vote
Gov. Romney 47%:-) just as the video :-)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8534 Apr 11, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
All scientific evidence supports atheism and nothing so far refutes it.
Fact.
Not correct. At best you could say atheism is a reasonable scientific hypothesis based on current evidence. You should just be happy enough with that (we know you're not because you're a fundie). But since no-one's been able to to observe past our current universal boundaries you cannot state state for certain that your position is 100% correct.

That's the thing about science. It does not make absolute statements. There is always the possibility that new evidence discovered later on down the road requires us to modify, or occasionally completely replace, current scientific knowledge. This is what distinguishes science from dogma.
You gotta be kidding

Christchurch, New Zealand

#8535 Apr 11, 2013
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
You have been given more evidence than you deserve, but have ignored it.
That makes you a troll.
!!
All I ask for is to see the supposed evidence, none has ever been posted. All I get is this kind of answer, yet you nor anyone else has ever actually posted any.

NOW BE SO KNID AS TO POST SOME>
You gotta be kidding

Christchurch, New Zealand

#8536 Apr 11, 2013
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
God... LOL!!!! How childish. Any proof for that god of yours? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Let me help..... The answer is NO!! It is jsut a myth like all the other god myths before it. Face it troll. You believe in a silly little fairytale because you are afraid of the unknown. Your mommy and daddy told you a little god story, just like the Santa story, but forgot to tell both of them are make-believe. You have no more proof for Santa than God. That's why we laugh at you.
Of course, if you want to present some real evidence, I would LOVE to see it.
Go ahead, start will the excuses. LOL!!
Typical diversion from evotwot once again. post you evidence if you actually have any. I seriously doubt if you do.

All I have been asking for is 100% factual evidence that will once and for all prove that evolution is factual as you claim. WHERE IS it evotwot.

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 Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 8 min emperorjohn 12,708
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 3 hr woodtick57 47,808
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 3 hr dollarsbill 247,450
News As an atheist, how do I maintain my relationshi... 5 hr Eagle 12 22
News Atheism, the Bible and sexual orientation 5 hr Eagle 12 8
Proof of God for the Atheist 8 hr Shizle 126
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 13 hr ChristineM 2,353
More from around the web