Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Aug 27, 2012 Full story: News24 14,385

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. Full Story

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#901 Dec 9, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet many scientists do see what they consider evidence of a creator.
Funny that they don't publish this evidence in professional journals.
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.
No, we do NOT know this. In fact, the probability calculation is far, far more complicated than the simplistic 'multiply numbers together' strategies most often seen. For example, the steps involved are not independent and there are many more possible solutions than just one.

Now, the question of how to determine if something is created by an intelligence or not is an interesting and useful one (especially for anthropology). Complexity of a structure is not even close to being sufficient to show intelligent action. Natural phenomena are often complex and produce artifacts that can be similar to those produced by intelligence. A few questions are important to consider before attempting to assign an artifact to intelligent agency:

1) What are the natural processes in the environment?

2) Could the natural processes form similar structures?

2) Are intelligent agents known for the area in question?

3) Is there some known technology that could produce the artifact?

4) Are the intelligent agents in the area known or suspected to have such technology?

These are off the top of my head, so I am sure there are a lot more that should be *routinely* considered. Also, awareness that intelligent agency often is shown by *simplicity* rather than complexity.

In the case of a designer for the universe, we don't even have the first question adequately answered. The answer to 2 is NO; the answer to 3 is NO, which leaves 4 moot.

In the case of design of life, again question 1 is unanswered and is actively being studied (that *is* the study of abiogenesis). Once again, the answer to 2,3,and 4 are all NO.

So why would you default to an intelligent agency when there is literally NO evidence for such? If anything the evidence is that only natural processes were involved, but that we simply don't know which.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#902 Dec 9, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
I usually think of Audrey Hepburn.
Ah yes, she's on my lost of famous Belgians.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#903 Dec 9, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Can anyone name a famous Belgian? Georges Lemaître is a name I'll always rattle off in response to that particular question.
I'm sure most of us have heard of Lemaître and his work in astronomy and physics. Yet, whatever you think about Lemaître, one certainty is that his theories owe absolutely nothing to Christianity and everything to science.
Lemaître used scientific methodology (observation, measurement, peer testing, etc) in his quest to uncover real and tangible truths about the universe. He ignored the superstitious mumbo jumbo of his beliefs and applied the rational logic and reasoning of science.
Without science, you'd never have heard of Georges Lemaître. He'd have been just another of many nondescript priests, shuffling around their patch, spouting their inane ju-ju.
Even more so, LeMaitre wrote a letter to the Pope at this time chastising him for using the Big Bang theory as support for the Biblical creation. LeMaitre pointed out that the truth or falsity of the Big Bang cosmology should be determined by the scientific evidence and not because of faith.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#904 Dec 9, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
God is unproven. Carry on Down syndrome.
<quoted text>
Abiogenesis is still unproven despite the Frankenstein bobble head recently installed on your scooter.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#905 Dec 9, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Christianity is the mother of science?

You are kidding, aren't you?

Science is based on observation, testing, measuring and most definitely putting the empirical ahead of magic and unproveable cosmic mega-beings. You know, everything that Christianity isn't.

Even at the hypothesis level science is always questing and probing for answers, and if found, they will replace the ones that are currently in place. A good adjective to use here is "analogous" - something that certainly applies to science but never to Christianity.

This explains why in nearly 1500 years of Christianity, there was no scientific revolution. Science advanced in the Muslim world and also in China, but Europe under Christianity stagnated.

If not for Christianity, the scientific revolution may well have taken place a thousand years earlier than it actually did.

Yes indeed, in those days Christianity definitely hindered scientific progress. Give it half a chance and it would still do so today.

Unfortunately for Christianity, it no longer has any teeth.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#906 Dec 9, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Even more so, LeMaitre wrote a letter to the Pope at this time chastising him for using the Big Bang theory as support for the Biblical creation. LeMaitre pointed out that the truth or falsity of the Big Bang cosmology should be determined by the scientific evidence and not because of faith.
Well done, Lemaître!

Perhaps downhill should steer clear of using Lemaître as an example - it doesn't help his case.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#907 Dec 9, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Abiogenesis is still unproven despite the Frankenstein bobble head recently installed on your scooter.
Does it matter?

Your god is most definitely unproven but that doesn't stop you believing in magic.

Biogenesis may not be "proven" as you say, but then, very little is actually proven in this reality and that most certainly includes your god and indeed all the other gods that people worship.

Remember, the success rate of science is spectacular and we expect it go on succeeding with even greater successes.

Abiogenesis is a better explanation than magic.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#909 Dec 9, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>Aerobatty doesn't exist.
Prove it.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#910 Dec 9, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Do you think the Christain god could register with topix.com , or maybe manage to get himself an email address? If some guy does, then he exists doesn't he, but your god doesn't. I think the number of iron chariots on this planet has scared the god into never returning. Here, he is whooped and he knows it. Being a god, he could have anticipated the need for some real evidence, don't cha think?

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#911 Dec 9, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Christianity is the mother of science?
You are kidding, aren't you?
Science is based on observation, testing, measuring and most definitely putting the empirical ahead of magic and unproveable cosmic mega-beings. You know, everything that Christianity isn't.
Even at the hypothesis level science is always questing and probing for answers, and if found, they will replace the ones that are currently in place. A good adjective to use here is "analogous" - something that certainly applies to science but never to Christianity.
This explains why in nearly 1500 years of Christianity, there was no scientific revolution. Science advanced in the Muslim world and also in China, but Europe under Christianity stagnated.
If not for Christianity, the scientific revolution may well have taken place a thousand years earlier than it actually did.
Yes indeed, in those days Christianity definitely hindered scientific progress. Give it half a chance and it would still do so today.
Unfortunately for Christianity, it no longer has any teeth.
Religion assumes absolute truths to which all adherents must align and with which all knowledge must agree. Facts that don't conform to dogma must be incorrect or be altered to accommodate it.

Science assumes that there are no absolute truths. New knowledge and understandings provide insights that may change or alter previously believed "truths".

Religion selectively finds facts to fit its unchangeable beliefs.

Science uses facts for the very purpose of changing its understandings.

Since: Nov 12

South San Francisco, CA

#912 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.
You can always tell when someone has no reasoned argument to present to counter critics: they resort to infantile name-calling and slander, e.g. "Your god will make you eat your children." That's such a pathetic attempt to slander me as to be utterly laughable. And I don't have to sell anything because God's written my religion in the sky and you can't do a thing about it. And you don't even know what I'm talking about because you're really very ignorant of the subject of your criticism. It's not only lack of spiritual experience your ideas about spirituality stem from but also your great lack of historical information about Christianity which isn't just the traditional version you and atheist rail against because it's so easy to do, them being fundamentalist believers like you atheists and both thereby vulnerable to rational logic that destroys every fundamentalist belief system.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#914 Dec 9, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Even more so, LeMaitre wrote a letter to the Pope at this time chastising him for using the Big Bang theory as support for the Biblical creation. LeMaitre pointed out that the truth or falsity of the Big Bang cosmology should be determined by the scientific evidence and not because of faith.
Yet Lemaitre still was of the firm belief that God created the universe and apparently all his research did not shake that belief.

"He (the Christian researcher) knows that not one thing in all creation has been done without God, but he knows also that God nowhere takes the place of his creatures....."
Georges Lemaitre

"There were two ways of arriving at the truth. I decided to follow them both. Nothing in my working life, nothing I ever learned in my studies of either science or religion has ever caused me to change that opinion. I have no conflict to reconcile. Science has not shaken my faith in religion and religion has never caused me to question the conclusions I reached by scientific methods."
Georges Lemaitre

He conceived of the Space-Atom he nicknamed the Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of creation. His theory was derisively called the Big Bang by Fred Hoyle because he and other scientists felt it was a reminder of Genesis and "let there be light"

In an unpublished paper written in 1922,Lemaitre wrote that he believed that the universe had begun in light "as Genesis suggested it."
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#915 Dec 9, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Christianity is the mother of science?
You are kidding, aren't you?
Science is based on observation, testing, measuring and most definitely putting the empirical ahead of magic and unproveable cosmic mega-beings. You know, everything that Christianity isn't.
Even at the hypothesis level science is always questing and probing for answers, and if found, they will replace the ones that are currently in place. A good adjective to use here is "analogous" - something that certainly applies to science but never to Christianity.
This explains why in nearly 1500 years of Christianity, there was no scientific revolution. Science advanced in the Muslim world and also in China, but Europe under Christianity stagnated.
If not for Christianity, the scientific revolution may well have taken place a thousand years earlier than it actually did.
Yes indeed, in those days Christianity definitely hindered scientific progress. Give it half a chance and it would still do so today.
Unfortunately for Christianity, it no longer has any teeth.
China??? LOL

"In truth, if China was the entire world, I could undoubtedly call myself the principal mathematician and philosopher of nature, because it is ridiculously and astonishingly little what they know; they are preoccupied with moral philosophy, and with elegance of discourse, or to say more properly, of style."
Jesuit Matteo Ricci.(1595)

"About the learned among the Chinese, let me say that this: the Chinese have no science at all; one may say that only mathematics is cultivated, and the little they know of it is without foundation.....They just manage to predict eclipses and in that they make many mistakes. All are addicted to the art of divination, which is most unreliable and also completely false. Physics and metaphysics, including logic, is unknown among them....Their literature consists wholly in beautiful and stylish compositions all of which correspond to our humanities and rhetoric."
Jesuit Matteo Ricci.(1597)

Concerning those who predicted eclipses:
"they know nothing more than to make computations, without any insight into the rules, and when the result does not come out right, all they say is that they kept to the rules of their forebears."
Jesuit Matteo Ricci.(1605)

"Probably no European name of past centuries is so well known in China as that of Li-ma-teu (Ricci Matteo)."
The Encyclopedia Britannica

"From about 1600 until the suppression in 1773, Jesuits were practically the sole source of Chinese knowledge about Western astronomy, geometry and trigonometry. Appointments in the Astronomical Bureau provided the Jesuits with access to the ruling elite, whose conversion was their main object. Mathematical and astronomical treatises demonstrated high learning and proved that the missionaries were civilized and socially acceptable. While trigonometry became an analytic science in Europe, in the Orient it remained primitive until the Jesuits came.

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/jmac/sj/scie...

You've been busted.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#916 Dec 9, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Does it matter?
Your god is most definitely unproven but that doesn't stop you believing in magic.
Biogenesis may not be "proven" as you say, but then, very little is actually proven in this reality and that most certainly includes your god and indeed all the other gods that people worship.
Remember, the success rate of science is spectacular and we expect it go on succeeding with even greater successes.
Abiogenesis is a better explanation than magic.


You are confused .We have the law of biogenesis, life from life, so it is "proven" .

It is life created randomly from non living matter that is naturalism's attempt at magic and many scientists agree that you will never pull the rabbit out of the hat.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#917 Dec 9, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Well done, Lemaître!
Perhaps downhill should steer clear of using Lemaître as an example - it doesn't help his case.


Of course it does. Lemaitre was a firm believer that God did it and said so.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#918 Dec 9, 2012
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Do you think the Christain god could register with topix.com , or maybe manage to get himself an email address? If some guy does, then he exists doesn't he, but your god doesn't. I think the number of iron chariots on this planet has scared the god into never returning. Here, he is whooped and he knows it. Being a god, he could have anticipated the need for some real evidence, don't cha think?


No I don't. He has enough followers without having to resort to hitting the extremely dense with a locomotive to prove that they were standing on the tracks.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#919 Dec 9, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Christianity is the mother of science?
You are kidding, aren't you?
Science is based on observation, testing, measuring and most definitely putting the empirical ahead of magic and unproveable cosmic mega-beings. You know, everything that Christianity isn't.
Even at the hypothesis level science is always questing and probing for answers, and if found, they will replace the ones that are currently in place. A good adjective to use here is "analogous" - something that certainly applies to science but never to Christianity.
This explains why in nearly 1500 years of Christianity, there was no scientific revolution. Science advanced in the Muslim world and also in China, but Europe under Christianity stagnated.
If not for Christianity, the scientific revolution may well have taken place a thousand years earlier than it actually did.
Yes indeed, in those days Christianity definitely hindered scientific progress. Give it half a chance and it would still do so today.
Unfortunately for Christianity, it no longer has any teeth.


Now to your Muslim world.

When Arabs and Islam swept through the Middle East in 630 A.D., they encountered 600 years of Assyrian Christian civilization, with a rich heritage, a highly developed culture, and advanced learning institutions. It is this civilization that became the foundation of the Arab civilization.

http://www.ninevehsoft.com/fiorina.htm

The more one studies the history of "Islamic civilization," the less impressive do its claims appear.

For a few centuries the Islamic world served as a conduit (of Chinese papermaking, of Hindu numbers and algebra, of Greek philosophy rendered first into Syriac, then into Arabic, often by Christian or Jewish translators). There were some very minor achievements and a handful of figures, their names repeated over and over and over: Al-Rhazi, Averroes, Avicenna, Al-Farabi, and a dozen others -- compared to the tens of thousands of similar figures in the Western world, not to mention those in the civilizations of China, or those unknown creators of Inca or Mayan civilization..........

On the civilizational resume of Islam, there is roughly a thousand-year blank.


1000-2000 A.D. Painted Mughal miniatures, built some mosques in Constantinople, quarried the stone from tens of thousands of destroyed churches and Hindu temples for Muslim structures." Really, no serious science for the past thousand years, no music, no sculpture, no paintings save for some un-Islamic Indo-Persian miniatures, no philosophy outside the limits of an 8th-century text composed in part of pagan Arab lore, and stories from both the Hebrew and Christian texts, imperfectly recalled-- well, that just won't do. Islam just doesn't get the job as Permanent Solution for All Mankind.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archive...
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#920 Dec 9, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Christianity is the mother of science?
You are kidding, aren't you?
The Vatican had a direct practical interest in supporting astronomical research when it reformed the calendar in 1582 - a work headed by the Jesuit mathematician Christopher Clavius. There's a prominent crater on the Moon named for him... along with two dozen other craters named for Jesuit astronomers. No surprise; the fellow who drew the map and named the craters, the basis of all modern Moon maps, was himself the Jesuit priest Francesco Grimaldi.(He also invented the wave theory of light.)
http://dziowgo.blogspot.com/2006/01/reason-vs...

It was a Jesuit, Fr. J.B. Macelwane, who wrote Introduction to Theoretical Seismology, the first seismology textbook in America, in 1936. To this day, the American Geophysical Union, which Fr. Macelwane once headed, gives an annual medal named after this brilliant priest to a promising young geophysicist.

By the eighteenth century, the Jesuits

had contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes and microscopes, to scientific fields as various as magnetism, optics and electricity. They observed, in some cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter’s surface, the Andromeda nebula and Saturn’s rings. They theorized about the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical possibility of flight, the way the moon effected the tides, and the wave-like nature of light. Star maps of the southern hemisphere, symbolic logic, flood-control measures on the Po and Adige rivers, introducing plus and minus signs into Italian mathematics – all were typical Jesuit achievements, and scientists as influential as Fermat, Huygens, Leibniz and Newton were not alone in counting Jesuits among their most prized correspondents [Jonathan Wright, The Jesuits, 2004, p. 189].

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods40.html

That was fun.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#921 Dec 9, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it.


Prove what?
Evolution sucks

Auckland, New Zealand

#923 Dec 9, 2012
What this entire thread proves is that no one is willing to commit and say "YES, EVOLUTION IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT" But you all keep on acting like a bunch of retards, arguing over nothing, never putting forward facts just your own private beliefs. You evolutionists don't even agree with each other, maybe it is time for some real sit down talking to work out what you lot actually know, what you think you know and what you just take for granted but don't really know at all. There is a huge difference between knowing the facts of science and speculating and a dead theory. All you do all day is try to keep your crap alive to protect your jobs and grants.

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
Our world came from nothing? 10 min Reason Personified 479
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 38 min MUQ1 22,289
Becoming a parent changed everything. 1 hr Givemeliberty 16
The problem of evil and hate (Oct '13) 1 hr Patrick 332
Respecting belief: why should you? And why shou... 1 hr Patrick 14
Atheist Babies 1 hr Patrick 39
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 2 hr Patrick 194
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 3 hr Aura Mytha 227,688
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••