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
841 - 860 of 14,385 Comments Last updated Nov 23, 2013
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#880
Dec 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
Aerobatty doesn't exist.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#881
Dec 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow aren't you just mature. If you are an example of what the evolution tag team have left then I guess I win Game - Set and Match.
So far no one on the evolution tag team has been able to post the most basic proof for evolution. Instead we have belated the meaning of the words adaption, theory, evolution and science, I have been personally attacked and there have been failed attempts to belittle me. All have failed, as evolutionist came and fell one at a time I have stood and won at each turn. I have not faltered under the attacks I have stood strong and correct through it all. So now that the evolution tag team have gone from trying to discuss science to trying to attack me personally to trying to attack the Bible the end has come. This discussion started about the pagan faiths vs traditional Jewish/Christian faith and rightly went on to evolution but now the evolution tag team have dragged it into the mud. So no more, enough time wasted. Kudos to those who have actually debated and a lemon to the rest.
Some basic proofs of evolution:
1) The fossil record. We see that species change over time with even new classes and orders happening within the fossil record.
2) Genetics. We can determine via genetics how related various species are and the results agree with those obtained from morphology.
3) In particular, the nested hierarchy of relatedness of proteins, DNA sequences, morphology, etc ALL show the same patterns. This is strong evidence of ancestry.
4. ERVs: Certain viruses will integrate themselves into the genome. They do so in random locations. But related species (such as humans and chimps) have identical ERVs in identical locations. This is again strong evidence of common ancestry.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#882
Dec 9, 2012
 
downhill246 wrote:
<f 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!
It was shown >100 years ago that life doesn't spontaneously form in the oxygen-filled and life filled environment of the modern earth. But the environment of the early earth was not at all the same as the environments currently seen on earth. At the very least, the oxygen levels were far smaller. The atmosphere had methane and ammonia in it.

We have learned a lot in the past 100 years about the chemical foundation for life. We know that the basic chemicals of life existed on the early earth and that these chemicals spontaneously form more complicated structures like those seen in living things. This was unknown during the time of Pasteur. So, while his results disproved the spontaneous generation theory current at the time (mice spontaneously forming from dirty rags, for example), his methods do not apply to the situation that existed on the early earth.
Spocko

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#883
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.
Huh? Why don't you ask your little sister to help you out - perhaps we could understand what it is you’re trying to say ... you say you’re an educated person but can not comprehend the difference with God and spirituality? Atheists focus on the essence of a person; the part which makes them an individual, the part which allows for spirituality as well as abstract thinking. Atheism is a sort of minimalist spirituality with the entire religious BS stripped away, atheist believe in Nature and Love as God clearly is man-made – now go back to your cave :-).

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#884
Dec 9, 2012
 
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The problem is no one has any idea what the actual statistical probabilities might be given the paucity of our information. That's why finding liquid oceans on some of our frozen moons or evidence of exo-planets in the habitable zones of their stars is so exciting. We might be able to add a few data points and draw some reasonable conclusions. It is very clear that life has infiltrated every available ecological niche on our planet and that it all shares a common ancestry. That means replicating DNA probably only happened (spontaneously) once, but once started was an unstoppable juggernaut of life. We need more information. We need missions to explore the brine ocean under Europa's frozen crust. We need to find out why Enceladus is squirting organic compounds out of fissures in its icy shell. Let science do it's job. Help fund and support the exploration. Then you can talk.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#885
Dec 9, 2012
 
biomystic wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Ok, we will have to change that from a liar, to both an idiot and a liar. Works for me.

Your god will make you eat your children, it is in the bible. Go push that filth elsewhere, we know it for what it is, and you can't sell it here.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#886
Dec 9, 2012
 
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Aerobatty doesn't exist.
Really? There is more concrete evidence for his existence, than there is for any god.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#887
Dec 9, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
It was shown >100 years ago that life doesn't spontaneously form in the oxygen-filled and life filled environment of the modern earth. But the environment of the early earth was not at all the same as the environments currently seen on earth. At the very least, the oxygen levels were far smaller. The atmosphere had methane and ammonia in it.
We have learned a lot in the past 100 years about the chemical foundation for life. We know that the basic chemicals of life existed on the early earth and that these chemicals spontaneously form more complicated structures like those seen in living things. This was unknown during the time of Pasteur. So, while his results disproved the spontaneous generation theory current at the time (mice spontaneously forming from dirty rags, for example), his methods do not apply to the situation that existed on the early earth.


So you are saying the the environment on early earth was much more hostile to the creation of life as we know it.

"Making the building blocks of life is easy—amino acids have been found in meteorites and even in outer space. But just as bricks alone don’t make a house, so it takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. Like house bricks, the building blocks of life have to be assembled in a very specific and exceedingly elaborate way before they have the desired function."
Davies, Paul. 1999. Life force. New Scientist. 163(2204): 27–30.

Again it is the information required to create and sustain life that abiogenesis can not explain.

“The argument has been repeatedly made that given sufficient time, a genetic instruction set and language system could have arisen. But extended time does not provide an explanatory mechanism for spontaneously generated genetic instruction. No amount of time proposed thus far, can explain this type of conceptual communication system. It is not just complex. It is conceptually complex.”

Biologists J. T. Trevors and D. L. Abel

downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#888
Dec 9, 2012
 
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is no one has any idea what the actual statistical probabilities might be given the paucity of our information. That's why finding liquid oceans on some of our frozen moons or evidence of exo-planets in the habitable zones of their stars is so exciting. We might be able to add a few data points and draw some reasonable conclusions. It is very clear that life has infiltrated every available ecological niche on our planet and that it all shares a common ancestry. That means replicating DNA probably only happened (spontaneously) once, but once started was an unstoppable juggernaut of life. We need more information. We need missions to explore the brine ocean under Europa's frozen crust. We need to find out why Enceladus is squirting organic compounds out of fissures in its icy shell. Let science do it's job. Help fund and support the exploration. Then you can talk.
I believe statisticians can give rough probabilities since it is their field of expertise and many have. None believe abiogenesis is statistically possible.

“There is no god.”

Since: Jan 12

USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#889
Dec 9, 2012
 
Why? Because truth will prevail.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#890
Dec 9, 2012
 
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Really? There is more concrete evidence for his existence, than there is for any god.
Concrete evidence? If a guy uses an alias such as Mary on Topix is that concrete proof that Topix Mary now exists? If so if a poster used the alias God on Topix does God now exist?
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#891
Dec 9, 2012
 
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Ok, we will have to change that from a liar, to both an idiot and a liar. Works for me.
Your god will make you eat your children, it is in the bible. Go push that filth elsewhere, we know it for what it is, and you can't sell it here.
Heck Jeffrey Dahmer ate other people's children and he was an atheist. Governments that promoted atheism to further their ideology killed over 100 million people. Atheism has never had the moral high ground and never will.

"Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics. This is why, when pressed, the atheist will often attempt to hide his lack of conviction in his own beliefs behind some poorly formulated utilitarianism, or argue that he acts out of altruistic self-interest. But this is only post-facto rationalization, not reason or rational behavior."
-Vox Day

“There is no god.”

Since: Jan 12

USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#892
Dec 9, 2012
 
The kjv god does exist, delusions are real, to the delusional.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#893
Dec 9, 2012
 
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe statisticians can give rough probabilities since it is their field of expertise and many have. None believe abiogenesis is statistically possible.
Statisticians are ... statisticians, not biologists, not chemists, not astrophysicists. They deal with numbers and there's only so much analysis you can do with a set containing only one member. Don't be discouraged. We know abiogenesis happened at least once and that we are in no way 'special' so it has no doubt happened many millions of times in a Universe as vast as ours!

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#894
Dec 9, 2012
 
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Heck Jeffrey Dahmer ate other people's children and he was an atheist. Governments that promoted atheism to further their ideology killed over 100 million people. Atheism has never had the moral high ground and never will.
"Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics. This is why, when pressed, the atheist will often attempt to hide his lack of conviction in his own beliefs behind some poorly formulated utilitarianism, or argue that he acts out of altruistic self-interest. But this is only post-facto rationalization, not reason or rational behavior."
-Vox Day
Boogie-man threats usually stop working for behavior modification when a person grows up. Some of you clearly need something big and scary to make you behave. Most of us do not.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#896
Dec 9, 2012
 
God is unproven. Carry on Down syndrome.
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Aerobatty doesn't exist.

“Handsome white and black men”

Since: Jan 10

Interracial love

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#897
Dec 9, 2012
 
biomystic wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I have experienced what you are talking about. I remember praying for Jesus to come and save me. I remember believing that Jesus did saved me.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#898
Dec 9, 2012
 
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are saying the the environment on early earth was much more hostile to the creation of life as we know it.
No, that is exactly the *opposite* of what I said. In fact, for the initial stages, oxygen would be poisonous, like it is for many types of bacteria today. An atmosphere without it is much more likely to allow the types of reactions required for polymerization that lead to life.
"Making the building blocks of life is easy—amino acids have been found in meteorites and even in outer space. But just as bricks alone don’t make a house, so it takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. Like house bricks, the building blocks of life have to be assembled in a very specific and exceedingly elaborate way before they have the desired function."
Agreed. We do not have all the specifics. But 70 years ago, it wasn't known whether the basic building blocks could even be made spontaneously. Now we know that they are made and in abundance.
Davies, Paul. 1999. Life force. New Scientist. 163(2204): 27–30.
Again it is the information required to create and sustain life that abiogenesis can not explain.
And that is true at this stage of the game. part of the issue is how the polymers formed that were able to catalyze the main reactions for life. Information comes directly from structure.
“The argument has been repeatedly made that given sufficient time, a genetic instruction set and language system could have arisen. But extended time does not provide an explanatory mechanism for spontaneously generated genetic instruction. No amount of time proposed thus far, can explain this type of conceptual communication system. It is not just complex. It is conceptually complex.”
Biologists J. T. Trevors and D. L. Abel
And what we have found over the last couple of decades is that early life was unlikely to have used the DNA-protein link we have in today's life. There is strong evidence of an RNA world that would be much more accessible for abiogenesis. Once again, we do not have all of the answers. But the way to *find* the answers is through scientific investigation of the conditions needed for life and the chemical basis for life. Religion has little to offer in the quest for real understanding of the process.
Thinking

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#899
Dec 9, 2012
 
List all of them.
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe statisticians can give rough probabilities since it is their field of expertise and many have. None believe abiogenesis is statistically possible.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#900
Dec 9, 2012
 
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe statisticians can give rough probabilities since it is their field of expertise and many have. None believe abiogenesis is statistically possible.
And I believe, as a mathematician, that you are wrong here. We simply do not have enough basic information to do anything even close to a calculation for the probability of life arising spontaneously. many of the calculations that creationists promote are clearly wrong because they assume the probabilistic independence of stages that biologists and chemists KNOW are not probabilistically independent. Also, assumptions tend to be made that there is only one 'solution' when the biology and chemistry also show there are many, many different solutions for most of the basic issues. I have yet to see a calculation that took these things into account in any serious way and I strongly doubt that I will because they are *far* more complex than simply multiplying a bunch of numbers together (the typical method).

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

5 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 hr Catcher1 224,351
Our world came from nothing? 2 hr NightSerf 240
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 5 hr Patrick 385
What does "Atheism" mean? 7 hr Reason Personified 10
Introducing The Universal Religion 7 hr Reason Personified 733
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 12 hr DonPanic 21,400
Talking some sense into you people... 14 hr religionisillness 24
•••
•••