Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

There are 14736 comments on the News24 story from Aug 27, 2012, titled Why Atheism Will Replace Religion. In it, News24 reports that:

Please note that for this article "Atheism" also includes agnostics, deists, pagans, wiccans... in other words non-religious.

You will notice this is a statement of fact. And to be fact it is supported by evidence (see references below). Now you can have "faith" that this is not true, but by the very definition of faith, that is just wishful thinking.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at News24.

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#10167 May 2, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong its a chemical reaction (like all feelings) and can be measured in a lab very definitely.
love lasts for about 3 years on average, its very real and is proven by science through biology and chemistry if you go into it (most people won't because they are lazy and would prefer to read stuff that supports their own views).
Next apologist point to crush?
Hey Skippy.

Take a look at the specific quoted of me you just posted just now. Very good.

Now take a look at the VERY FIRST two words of that quote. Very good.

Okey-doke?

Very good.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#10168 May 2, 2013
"biologically measurable emotion then I already addressed this by pointing out that it is therefore an abstract concept, no more scientifically detectable than "adventure"."

wrong dude. next point?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#10169 May 2, 2013
its only as abstract as you try tor describe it.

point is is 100% more real than a god for which there is zero evidence.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#10170 May 2, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
"biologically measurable emotion then I already addressed this by pointing out that it is therefore an abstract concept, no more scientifically detectable than "adventure"."
wrong dude. next point?
Not wrong. I said the first two words. You started above with the fifteenth.

Apparently you can't even count to two.
-Skeptic- wrote:
its only as abstract as you try tor describe it.
It's called leading the fundies through the logical consequences of their own arguments to demonstrate why they fail.
-Skeptic- wrote:
point is is 100% more real than a god for which there is zero evidence.
And I agree. Still doesn't stop you from being stupid.(shrug)

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#10171 May 2, 2013
Epic epic post!

You have just won the Internet!:)
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>Another christian fantasist lawyer.

...JURISDICTION.

"Hello Mr Judge, I am anonymous poster on a website called topix and another anonymous poster is saying things I don`t like can I have his personal details please?"

"Hello Mr Plaintiff, so you were anonyomous and now you want to forego your anonymity to ask the court to provide a court order which has no legal standing in California where this court does not have jurisdiction because someone on a website who cannot personally identify you other than your online persona has said things which you do not like...did I get that right?"

"Yes Mr Judge, that`s right"

"Can you tell me what your pecuniary and non pecuniary losses were as a result of these postings and the substantial harm done to your personal reputation as a result of these postings?"

"Well...none really, they just make me mad".

"Mr Plaintiff, have you ever received medical attention for mental illness......"

"Your Honour...I plead the 5th"

"Mr Plaintiff, no one knew who you were and by filing here you have voluntarily given up your anonymity. My court has no Jurisdiction in California and you may plead the 5th...but the poster with whom you have issues is sure to plead the 1st if there`s a Judge who will hear you. If you have the financial muscle to fund an interstate case which is for the most part...trivia, my son has recently passed the bar and could use the billable hours, he has expensive tastes...Clerk of the Court, what`s next on the docket.....you can leave now,"

"BURN IN HELL YOU FAKE JEW, YOU STOLE ISRAEL....there`s blood in your crackers!....YOU`RE not Yehudim....you`re not Yehudiiimmmm*sobs*

"Bailiff take this fruitloop down, I`m holding him in contempt....and I want a psych-eval`....".

"It`s the SYNAGOGUE OF SATAAAAAAAAAANNNNNnnnnnnnnnnnn ....."

"Must be a full moon...next case..."

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#10172 May 2, 2013
Do all of this for an infidel.
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>Disbelief in a deity is again a negative action.

Please define what is Atheism and who is an atheist.

It should be a positive definition. Saying that atheist is one who REJECTS all religion is again a negative action.

You can not have a system which is only based on negation, you have to have an assertion also.

If there is no God, then who or what has taken His place?

Be positive, be brave, do not feel shy.

Define what is Atheism and who is an Atheist!!

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#10173 May 2, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>I wouldn't agree with much of what that clown posted, but Zionist atheist is not a stretch.
Jewish atheist is actually an acceptable category where one continues the traditions without a god belief.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism
Zionism is a form of nationalism of Jews and Jewish culture that supports a Jewish nation state in the territory defined as the Land of Israel. While it doesn't necessarily lend itself to atheism, it is not a stretch to consider that a Jewish atheist would support a Jewish identity in Israel, thus making them a soft Zionist.
Of course, using Zionist atheist as an insult is ridiculous.
Well, I stand corrected!
Interesting to say the least.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#10174 May 2, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
most people who drop quantum mechanics into a conversation don't know what the f*ck their are talking about. fact.
Couldn't agree more. I'm sure if our thoughts could 'collapse quantum wave functions' or whatever it would be in all the papers. I know it's not in the papers science fans read, but seems common in the papers godbots read.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#10175 May 2, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Disbelief in a deity is again a negative action.
Please define what is Atheism and who is an atheist.
It should be a positive definition. Saying that atheist is one who REJECTS all religion is again a negative action.
You can not have a system which is only based on negation, you have to have an assertion also.
If there is no God, then who or what has taken His place?
Be positive, be brave, do not feel shy.
Define what is Atheism and who is an Atheist!!
So the definition of disbelief isn't the definition of disbelief?
Where did you get the idea that a definition has to be a positive?

You're half-right when you say "you can not have a system which is only based on negation" because atheism doesn't have a system.
You either believe in a god or you don't.
You're either a theist, or an atheist.

We need not anything to take the place of a god because there is no god, so there is nothing to replace.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#10176 May 2, 2013
What Muq wants you to say is that you replaced god with evolution and Jesus/Muhammad with the Big Bang and abiogenesis.

But for atheists it's not about replacing one myth concept with a factual one. It's about disbelieving supernatural god claims that are devoid of observable evidence.

You notice he cannot come up with his so called positive definition of an infidel.

That's why he cowers from that question.
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>So the definition of disbelief isn't the definition of disbelief?
Where did you get the idea that a definition has to be a positive?

You're half-right when you say "you can not have a system which is only based on negation" because atheism doesn't have a system.
You either believe in a god or you don't.
You're either a theist, or an atheist.

We need not anything to take the place of a god because there is no god, so there is nothing to replace.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#10177 May 2, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
Another christian fantasist lawyer.
...JURISDICTION.
"Hello Mr Judge, I am anonymous poster on a website called topix and another anonymous poster is saying things I don`t like can I have his personal details please?"
"Hello Mr Plaintiff, so you were anonyomous and now you want to forego your anonymity to ask the court to provide a court order which has no legal standing in California where this court does not have jurisdiction because someone on a website who cannot personally identify you other than your online persona has said things which you do not like...did I get that right?"
"Yes Mr Judge, that`s right"
"Can you tell me what your pecuniary and non pecuniary losses were as a result of these postings and the substantial harm done to your personal reputation as a result of these postings?"
"Well...none really, they just make me mad".
"Mr Plaintiff, have you ever received medical attention for mental illness......"
"Your Honour...I plead the 5th"
"Mr Plaintiff, no one knew who you were and by filing here you have voluntarily given up your anonymity. My court has no Jurisdiction in California and you may plead the 5th...but the poster with whom you have issues is sure to plead the 1st if there`s a Judge who will hear you. If you have the financial muscle to fund an interstate case which is for the most part...trivia, my son has recently passed the bar and could use the billable hours, he has expensive tastes...Clerk of the Court, what`s next on the docket.....you can leave now,"
"BURN IN HELL YOU FAKE JEW, YOU STOLE ISRAEL....there`s blood in your crackers!....YOU`RE not Yehudim....you`re not Yehudiiimmmm*sobs*
"Bailiff take this fruitloop down, I`m holding him in contempt....and I want a psych-eval`....".
"It`s the SYNAGOGUE OF SATAAAAAAAAAANNNNNnnnnnnnnnnnn ....."
"Must be a full moon...next case..."
Ah reality...they just can't get a hang of it.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#10178 May 2, 2013
The hang of it*

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#10179 May 2, 2013
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. Not much at judging character, are you Mr Buck? I consider Reason Personified one of the noblest among us, doubly so now, considering how deep her submersion in the morass of religion.
I am so honored (deep curtsy), thank you.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#10180 May 2, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
What Muq wants you to say is that you replaced god with evolution and Jesus/Muhammad with the Big Bang and abiogenesis.
But for atheists it's not about replacing one myth concept with a factual one. It's about disbelieving supernatural god claims that are devoid of observable evidence.
You notice he cannot come up with his so called positive definition of an infidel.
That's why he cowers from that question.
<quoted text>
MUQ is just another immoral pedophile from the area that smiles upon his kind.
I don't expect him to understand because he lacks that comprehension skill.

I write for other people who read through the posts and for my own entertainment.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10181 May 2, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
And yet quantum physicists, including Bohr, Heisenberg and Wigner, concluded after exhaustive scientific experiments that consciousness, i.e. thoughts causes quantum state reduction, that consciousness, i.e. thoughts collapses wave function. Are you saying you are right and science is wrong?
LOL
No, I am saying that Bohr, Heisenberg, and Wigner were wrong. But so was Einstein (in a different way). The problem is that there were no experiments establishing that consciousness collapses the wave function. There was an *interpretation* of QM that *suggested* thast consciousness was responsible. But that interpretation is internally inconsistent (requiring a separate, non-linear, non-unitary collapse due to a classical measuring device).

What has been discovered over the last 30 years (note: after all those scientists you listed had died) is that no collapse in the traditional sense is required. Instead of consciousness being the key, the actual factor responsible is the surrounding environment. The point is that any classical device cannot be separated from it environment and that environment selects the possible observable states via an information transfer corresponding to an entropy increase in the system being measured. This process is described quite well by quantum mechanics and is called decoherence. Unlike the Copenhagen interpretation of Bohr, it turns out that the decoherence (collapse) happens over a period of time instead of instantly. Furthermore, the length of that time interval can be calculated and compared to experiments that have been done.

The overall conclusion is that the 'collapse' happens far before any consciousness actually looks at the results. Instead, the collapse happens due to interaction with an environment that selects certain einstates. If you want references to both the theoretical or the experimental results, I can supply them.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10182 May 2, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
most people who drop quantum mechanics into a conversation don't know what the f*ck their are talking about. fact.
And, unfortunately, that is also true of most journalists that write popular articles about quantum mechanics. That means there is a *lot* of BS out there on this subject.

Here is a good way to test if someone could *possibly* have any understanding of QM: ask them to solve the differential equation y''+4y=0. If they cannot do so *instantly*, then they do not understand QM.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#10183 May 2, 2013
Agreed he is by far unable to comprehend even basic debate no matter how we dumb it down for him. He in the process makes Islam look worse and worse by the post.

:)
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>MUQ is just another immoral pedophile from the area that smiles upon his kind.
I don't expect him to understand because he lacks that comprehension skill.

I write for other people who read through the posts and for my own entertainment.

“In God we trust”

Since: Dec 12

Cape Town, South Africa

#10184 May 2, 2013
Christianity is growing faster than atheism, if you haven't noticed.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#10185 May 2, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Agreed he is by far unable to comprehend even basic debate no matter how we dumb it down for him. He in the process makes Islam look worse and worse by the post.
:)
<quoted text>
Ezdit is probably the one "judging" your posts.
He sympathizes with pedophiles, did you know?

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#10186 May 2, 2013
Carchar king wrote:
Christianity is growing faster than atheism, if you haven't noticed.
You'd better double check your figures, you are in for a huge disappointment.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

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

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 22 min Regolith Based Li... 76,870
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) 58 min The FACTory 4,299
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 1 hr The FACTory 710
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 hr Aerobatty 258,475
hell is a real place. so.. ahtiesm is a faux li... 9 hr Ben Avraham 11
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Jul 18 John 4,952
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Jul 18 John 32,164
More from around the web