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
821 - 840 of 14,385 Comments Last updated Nov 23, 2013

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#859
Dec 9, 2012
 
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
Those adjectives are cute, but not entirely descriptive. I'd prefer to think of "weak atheism" as the more broad, or general description which covers everybody who is not a theist. There's nothing inherently "weak" about this position.

And, yes, "weak atheism" is very close to agnosticism. For some reason humans prefer nice neat little boxes to categorize the world, but reality isn't always that black-and-white. In fact, most of the time it's varying degrees of gray. Sloppy, but more accurate.

The difference between agnosticism and atheism is simply one of degrees of probability one assigns to the possibility of the existence of a given deity.

Although I can't prove Thor doesn't exist, I, like most everybody else (including you) probably consider the existence of Thor to border on an absurd consideration. Still, I can't prove Thor doesn't exist. Atheist or Agnostic mindset about Thor?

The idea that there could exist a fundamentalists mindset type of atheist is erroneously labeled "strong atheism". There's nothing "strong" about it. Close-minded is still close-minded no matter what label you slap on it.

I've been a non-theists (a-theists) for over 35 years and have honestly only met one (1) person who was so adamant that I would call him a "strong atheist".

I can't say this mindset does not exist, but I can say it is not prevalent enough to spend any appreciable amount of time on.

So, am I really an atheist or am I an agnostic. To quote Azimov "I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."

(For purposes of full disclosure, I am ignostic.)

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#860
Dec 9, 2012
 
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.
Small world, I went to UCSF back in the '70s.

You say you were a former anthropology major. I think I understand why it's FORMER. It's a shame Bezerkeley never taught you that rash generalization about a whole group of people is immature and more often than not, a sign of bigotry. I used to respect that school a lot.

I don't suppose you took enough classes in cultural anthropology to understand that ALL religions have those kinds of revealed mysticisms and none of them can be substantiated. And I'm sure you know how much credence science gives anecdotal information - none.

Since you have such an interest in left/right brain studies, you should check out some of the work of Dr. Ramachandran -- "
&list=FLAmJMW89IFfHJvk52XA p35A&index=7"

Since: Nov 12

San Jose, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#861
Dec 9, 2012
 
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>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
Then you only define yourself further as another reformed drunk syndrome person only your diatribe ideology is aimed at the religion that failed you instead of the bottles of booze. When you have a real profound religious awakening you never go backwards into a lesser consciousness so whatever childhood Christian religious indoctrination in you that you're still in teenage rebellion against was never the real deal. So come back when you've actually experienced what I'm talking about because until you do, you're like so many others who judge with a total lack of experience and therefore comprehension of spiritual consciousness and spiritual reality.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#862
Dec 9, 2012
 
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
How did that alchemy research work out? Are you selling much stock in the Richardfs Gold Creation Corporation?

"Even many scientists do not understand the distinctions between DNA, which is material, and the genome and the genetic code, which are non-material."
Nuclear physicist and bioinformatician Dr. Hubert P. Yockey

"The origin of life is unsolvable as a scientific problem."
Nuclear physicist and bioinformatician Dr. Hubert P. Yockey
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#863
Dec 9, 2012
 
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Those adjectives are cute, but not entirely descriptive. I'd prefer to think of "weak atheism" as the more broad, or general description which covers everybody who is not a theist. There's nothing inherently "weak" about this position.
And, yes, "weak atheism" is very close to agnosticism. For some reason humans prefer nice neat little boxes to categorize the world, but reality isn't always that black-and-white. In fact, most of the time it's varying degrees of gray. Sloppy, but more accurate.
The difference between agnosticism and atheism is simply one of degrees of probability one assigns to the possibility of the existence of a given deity.
Although I can't prove Thor doesn't exist, I, like most everybody else (including you) probably consider the existence of Thor to border on an absurd consideration. Still, I can't prove Thor doesn't exist. Atheist or Agnostic mindset about Thor?
The idea that there could exist a fundamentalists mindset type of atheist is erroneously labeled "strong atheism". There's nothing "strong" about it. Close-minded is still close-minded no matter what label you slap on it.
I've been a non-theists (a-theists) for over 35 years and have honestly only met one (1) person who was so adamant that I would call him a "strong atheist".
I can't say this mindset does not exist, but I can say it is not prevalent enough to spend any appreciable amount of time on.
So, am I really an atheist or am I an agnostic. To quote Azimov "I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."
(For purposes of full disclosure, I am ignostic.)
From my research many atheists preferred the 'weak' definition because claiming God does not exist puts them in the same boat trying to prove God does not exist as the believer who claims God does exist. Both ideas are statements of fact(God does not exist, God does exist) so the smart atheist softened his position by saying he sees no evidence of the existence of God which shifts the burden of proof back on the believer.

Here is a quote from one who many consider a "strong' atheist.

"the agnostic is gutless and prefers to keep one safe foot in the god camp."
Madalyn Murray O’Hair

Ironically, her son abandoned his mothers ideology and turned to Christianity. William Murray(O'Hair)is the founder of the Christian ministry, The Religious Freedom Coalitionand author of the book,My Life Without God.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#864
Dec 9, 2012
 
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>From my research many atheists preferred the 'weak' definition because claiming God does not exist puts them in the same boat trying to prove God does not exist as the believer who claims God does exist. Both ideas are statements of fact(God does not exist, God does exist) so the smart atheist softened his position by saying he sees no evidence of the existence of God which shifts the burden of proof back on the believer.

Here is a quote from one who many consider a "strong' atheist.

"the agnostic is gutless and prefers to keep one safe foot in the god camp."
Madalyn Murray OÂ’Hair

Ironically, her son abandoned his mothers ideology and turned to Christianity. William Murray(O'Hair)is the founder of the Christian ministry, The Religious Freedom Coalitionand author of the book,My Life Without God.
There is no god.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#865
Dec 9, 2012
 
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
Don't forget all the other talents bestowed on humans by their respective gods.
<quoted text>
Science wasn't possible without Christianity? LOL
So you want a bit more credentials?

"Faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology."
Science and the Modern World, Alfred North Whitehead

Alfred North Whitehead was an English mathematician and philosopher. He wrote on algebra, logic, foundations of mathematics, theology, philosophy of science, physics, metaphysics, and education.

In his 1925 lectures, Alfred North Whitehead had said that Christianity is the mother of science because of "the medieval insistence on the rationality of God". Because of the confidence of the early scientists in this rationality, they had an "inexpungable belief that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its antecedents in a perfectly definite manner, exemplifying general principles."

"The metaphysical cornerstone of modern science is often overlooked. We take it for granted and we do not worry about why people began studying nature in the first place…Medieval scholars thought that nature followed the rules that God had ordained for it. Because God was consistent and not capricious, these natural laws were constant and worth scrutinizing."
The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution,
Dr. James Hannam , Physics degree from Oxford, PhD in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge

'The Roman Catholic Church gave more financial aid and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, than any other, and, probably, all other, institutions.' The Church's true role in the development of modern science remains one of the best-kept secrets of modern history."
Professor J.L. Heilbron of the University of California at Berkeley

"How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" (Regnery Publishing, Washington 2005).
Thomas E. Woods Jr,. professional historian with degrees from Harvard and Columbia
Woods is the author of thirteen books including The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History (2004)

"The Jesuits themselves were more Copernican than Galileo was; it is now well recognized that the reason why Chinese astronomy advanced more rapidly than European astronomy was simply because Jesuit missionaries communicated to them their Copernican views."

Custance, A.C., The medieval synthesis and the modern fragmentation of thought; in: Custance, A.C., Science and Faith, The Doorway Papers VIII, Grand Rapids, MI, pp. 99–216, here chapter 3: History Repeats Itself, pp. 152–167, 1978.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#867
Dec 9, 2012
 
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Dodge all you lie they all fall under that same general heading, evolution and the origin of species, so go ahead and answer.
No, they do NOT fall under the same header any more than looking at how planets orbit the sun is under the same header as how they were originally formed.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#868
Dec 9, 2012
 
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't need to deviate form any real standard science because science is all based on and around created matter, so here is my prediction based on creation, tonight when I see the moon while standing in my back garden the sun will be shining over London England.
Now here is a prediction based on my hopes for the future, this week end the Pittsburgh Steelers will win again. This I do not know for sure but I am sure hoping they do and based on the historical data they should.:)
In sum, you refuse to do the basic requirements for science. your prediction is no different than that for standard science. Can you come up with a testable prediction that *differs* from what standard science would predict?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#869
Dec 9, 2012
 
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all there is justifiable killing i.e. WAR, capital punishment and so on. And unjustified killing i.e. beating ones child to death, killing while drunk driving, and so on, for example.
And, of course, any killing dictated by God is justified.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#870
Dec 9, 2012
 
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Who wrote the laws of rock mechanics? What pressures were three on the rocks during a world wide flood?
Easily calculated and not even close to enough to cause *plastic* deformations of rocks, but are brittle under short acting forces.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#871
Dec 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

God is unproven :)
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
From my research many atheists preferred the 'weak' definition because claiming God does not exist puts them in the same boat trying to prove God does not exist as the believer who claims God does exist. Both ideas are statements of fact(God does not exist, God does exist) so the smart atheist softened his position by saying he sees no evidence of the existence of God which shifts the burden of proof back on the believer.
Here is a quote from one who many consider a "strong' atheist.
"the agnostic is gutless and prefers to keep one safe foot in the god camp."
Madalyn Murray O’Hair
Ironically, her son abandoned his mothers ideology and turned to Christianity. William Murray(O'Hair)is the founder of the Christian ministry, The Religious Freedom Coalitionand author of the book,My Life Without God.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#872
Dec 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
The definition of evolution not from a creationist but form an evolutionist,“thought to have developed”
The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the...
The gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form
To have developed it must have come from somewhere, so evolutionary biology does not concern its self with origins just how things change now, in other words how created organism adapt to their environment, but does biological evolution concern it’s self with new species developing over time YES it does now that becomes a issue of faith because you do not know nor have you observed any new species in nature or in the lab.
You admit that evolutionists do not know how life begun yet you dismiss out of hand the possibility of a creator, you have never seen a new species evolve yet you dismiss a creator. Sounds like you have great faith on the writings of men.
Intelligent design is the only intelligent answer.
Actually, I do automatically reject the idea of a creator. I simply don't find any evidence actually supporting such a proposition.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#873
Dec 9, 2012
 
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no god.
Prove it.

“The supreme function of reason is to show man that some things are beyond reason”

Blaise Pascal

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#874
Dec 9, 2012
 
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.
So the right-side brain handles spiritual "reality"?? LOL. At least you recognize that all this religious stuff, rather belief or non-belief, takes place right there in the old cranium! I'm sure you can have profound religious experience without leaving the comfort of your own sofa. Our brains evolved to ensure survival of our species. Religious experience is some of the detritus from this process, as are the various other forms of insanity. We are, gratefully, learning to deal with it.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#875
Dec 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did all the elements originate form?
Most of the elements were formed inside the cores of stars from nuclear fusion. Some are produced during supernovas by neutron capture, then decay.
and how did they combine to form water to rain and to the rocks?
Well, hydrogen and oxygen will combine chemically to make water. Both hydrogen and oxygen are common elements (formed in cores of stars). Most rocks are made from silicon, aluminum, iron, magnesium, sodium, and potassium.
and how did life spontaneously erupt form wet rocks?
That is an incredibly simplistic (and largely incorrect) view of what happened. For example, it ignores the effects of the atmosphere and how it was different 4.5 billion years ago than it is now. For example, the oxygen level at that time was very, very low (debates are still ongoing as to how low). The atmosphere has methane, carbon dioxide, ammonia, water, and other very simple molecules (produced chemically from hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen--all small elements produced in star cores).

Most of the carbon in life probably was derived from the atmosphere (carbon dioxide and methane). The basic elements of life are hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, ALL of which existed in abundance on the early earth (coming from the cloud of gas and dust that the solar system collapsed from).

Next, under the chemistry between the basic compounds, the basic molecular building blocks of life were formed: amino acids, nucleotides, lipid, sugars, etc. These are all KNOWN to form spontaneously from the materials known to exist on the early earth. They even spontaneously form polymers, leading to simple proteins, simple nucleic acids (small strands of DNA and RNA).

Next, it is KNOWN that small strands of RNA can catalyze many of the essential reactions for life: the decomposition of glucose, the formation of polymers, etc.
, why if evolution is a science has this process not been reproduced on observed in the lab today?
Several reasons: the formation of the elements happened in the cores of stars which is difficult to reproduce in the lab. We *do*, however, know how the reactions happen through our studies at accelerators.

Next, we *do* see the basic molecules for life (amino acids, etc) in interstellar clouds today. These are available during planet formation.

We *do* see the formation of the other building blocks for life when we recreate the conditions on the early earth (even in a wide variety of possible environments for the early earth).

Next, we get to a basic question: how do we determine when a system is alive? This is not nearly as simple of a question as one might think at first. We already have spontaneously formed cell-like structures that reproduce and catalyze some basic reactions for life.

Finally, the formation of the first life on earth took at least hundreds of millions of years. We have been working in the lab for at most 60 years. Why would you *expect* to see a process that takes hundreds of millions of years repeated in a mere 60 in the lab?
Do you know with 100% certainty that your belief is correct?
There is a list for you to ponder.
Of course we don't know with 100% certainty. In fact, even if life is made in the lab, there will still be the question of whether the process we discover is the same as the one that originally happened. That is a question that will be very difficult, if not impossible, to establish given the available evidence from that time.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#876
Dec 9, 2012
 
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>Prove it.

Blaise Pascal
No.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#877
Dec 9, 2012
 
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>We were debating evolution so if you have nothing to add go away.
There is no debate.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#878
Dec 9, 2012
 
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>What makes it flawed. Is seven days any less feasible than 15 billion years.
Immensely.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#879
Dec 9, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I do automatically reject the idea of a creator. I simply don't find any evidence actually supporting such a proposition.
Yet many scientists do see what they consider evidence of a creator. As an example,we have the simplest life form that turns out to be more sophisticated than the most complex machine created by modern man and it comes complete with its own instructional manual.We know the odds on the random creation of life is so low that it far exceeds what is considered impossible. Statistically you could win the grand prize in Super Lotto fifty two weeks in a row but realistically we both know it is impossible to do.When you have such great odds against a hypothesis logic says look elsewhere.The problem is many scientists are locked into naturalism and will follow the lemmings off a cliff before excepting that a super intelligence is thecause of all we know. But don't take my word for it, take their word for it.

"When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: Creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: That life arose spontaneously by chance!
One has to only contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet we are here–as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."
Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate, George Wald

That quote is equivalent to a person walking through a cage with 200 hungry lions and walking out the other end untouched and claiming the reason he survived is because he is still alive.

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concept that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door"
Evolutionist Richard Lewontin

Confession is good for the soul.

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.

•••