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
8,221 - 8,240 of 14,385 Comments Last updated Nov 23, 2013
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8512
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8514
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8515
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8516
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

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.

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8517
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8518
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8519
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8521
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8523
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8524
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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...

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8527
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Most atheists are non confrontational and fit in well in American Society.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8529
Apr 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8530
Apr 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8531
Apr 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>All scientific evidence supports atheism and nothing so far refutes it.

Fact.
How?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••