Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Aug 27, 2012 Full story: News24 14,391

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

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#1049 Dec 12, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Only 2000 years of Christian history to back up Christian teachings.
No, they do not. They just show you can fool a lot of people.
downhill246 wrote:
You may be a fundamental atheist if...
You become upset when a Christian says that not everything in the Bible should be taken literally.
That doesn't upset me at all.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#1050 Dec 12, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
"Information's mystery is not a proof for God's existence, but God's existence is consistent with the mystery."
"The existence of a genome and a genetic code divides living organisms from nonliving matter. There is nothing in the physical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence in a code."
"The sequence hypothesis set forth above means that the sequence is consistent with but independent of the laws of physics and chemistry. The complex sequences are not contrary to the laws of physics, but they cannot be generated by the laws of physics."
A Case for the Existence of God –(2010)
Dean Overman is a distinguished lawyer of International Affairs and a Templeton Scholar of Oxford University.
The "laws" of physics are just codifications of observations.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#1051 Dec 12, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
1. If god existed, there would be evidence of his existence.
2. There is no evidence of his existence.
3. There is no god.
Two people are walking in the woods and come across bear droppings.One believes it is evidence that a bear had passed by recently while the other believes it is evidence that it isn't always a smart idea to walk barefooted in the woods while looking for birds.

"Why do I believe in God? As a physicist, I look at nature from a particular perspective. I see an orderly, beautiful universe in which nearly all physical phenomena can be understood from a few simple mathematical equations. I see a universe that, had it been constructed slightly differently, would never have given birth to stars and planets, let alone bacteria and people. And there is no good scientific reason for why the universe should not have been different. Many good scientists have concluded from these observations that an intelligent God must have chosen to create the universe with such beautiful, simple, and life-giving properties."
William D. Phillips, a Nobel Laureate in physics, is a fellow of the Joint Quantum Institute of the University of Maryland and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#1052 Dec 12, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they do not. They just show you can fool a lot of people.
<quoted text>


Take you for example.

“Overall, at least seventeen non-Christian writings record more than fifty details concerning the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus, plus details concerning the early church."

Gary R. Habermas,“Why I Believe the New Testament is Historically Reliable,” Why I am a Christian, eds Norman L. Geisler & Paul K. Hoffman (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001), 150.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#1053 Dec 12, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
The "laws" of physics are just codifications of observations.
And???

"The actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics."
Stephen Hawking

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#1054 Dec 12, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Two people are walking in the woods and come across bear droppings.One believes it is evidence that a bear had passed by recently while the other believes it is evidence that it isn't always a smart idea to walk barefooted in the woods while looking for birds.
"Why do I believe in God? As a physicist, I look at nature from a particular perspective. I see an orderly, beautiful universe in which nearly all physical phenomena can be understood from a few simple mathematical equations. I see a universe that, had it been constructed slightly differently, would never have given birth to stars and planets, let alone bacteria and people. And there is no good scientific reason for why the universe should not have been different.
It wasn't.
downhill246 wrote:
Many good scientists have concluded from these observations that an intelligent God must have chosen to create the universe with such beautiful, simple, and life-giving properties."
William D. Phillips, a Nobel Laureate in physics, is a fellow of the Joint Quantum Institute of the University of Maryland and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
That's not evidence for god. Just evidence of the human tendency to what I call "constellationize", that is impose meaning and patterns on randomness.(Like finding creatures, characters and meanings in the random pattern of stars in the sky.)My guess is people who mistook random patterns of leaves for lions lived to produce more offspring than those who mistook lions for random patterns of leaves.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#1055 Dec 12, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
And???
"The actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics."
Stephen Hawking
Yep. We haven't observed the actual point of creation.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#1056 Dec 12, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Take you for example.
“Overall, at least seventeen non-Christian writings record more than fifty details concerning the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus, plus details concerning the early church."
Gary R. Habermas,“Why I Believe the New Testament is Historically Reliable,” Why I am a Christian, eds Norman L. Geisler & Paul K. Hoffman (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001), 150.
Really? What non-Christian writing talks about his resurrection?

Since: Nov 12

San Jose, CA

#1057 Dec 12, 2012
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism is saying unicorns have not been proven to exist so therefore one does not accept their existence.
Agnosticism is saying that unicorns may exist but no evidence has occurred to prove it.
It is not much of a philosophical difference.
Wow, I didn't even have to say anything more than no wonder you're an atheist, you don't know what sort of creatures are in our world as your atheist lack of knowledge forgets all about one horned rhinoceroses and several extinct one-horned species, even a rodent one. And I can't post images here but do a Google search on one horn animals and see that they pop quite frequently within horned animal species. Thus agnosticism proves to be the true scientific method of inquiry while you demonstrate how the fundamentalist atheist mindset ignores any facts that contradict the belief system. Thanks for you help in making this fatal flaw of atheist ideology so clear to everyone.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#1058 Dec 12, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep. We haven't observed the actual point of creation.
"The Big Bang was not, evidently, any old bang, but an explosion of exquisitely arranged magnitude."

Physicist Paul Davies

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#1059 Dec 12, 2012
biomystic wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, I didn't even have to say anything more than no wonder you're an atheist, you don't know what sort of creatures are in our world as your atheist lack of knowledge forgets all about one horned rhinoceroses and several extinct one-horned species, even a rodent one. And I can't post images here but do a Google search on one horn animals and see that they pop quite frequently within horned animal species. Thus agnosticism proves to be the true scientific method of inquiry while you demonstrate how the fundamentalist atheist mindset ignores any facts that contradict the belief system. Thanks for you help in making this fatal flaw of atheist ideology so clear to everyone.
I think emperorjohn's point went over your head.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#1060 Dec 12, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? What non-Christian writing talks about his resurrection?
If they believed in the Resurrection they most likely wouldn't be non Christian writings.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#1061 Dec 12, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
It wasn't.
<quoted text>
That's not evidence for god. Just evidence of the human tendency to what I call "constellationize", that is impose meaning and patterns on randomness.(Like finding creatures, characters and meanings in the random pattern of stars in the sky.)My guess is people who mistook random patterns of leaves for lions lived to produce more offspring than those who mistook lions for random patterns of leaves.


Lol. The simplest cell is more sophisticated than a Lamborghini and I doubt you would confuse the actual auto with a leaf that might look like a car but really wasn't.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#1062 Dec 12, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yawn....
" Religions and science answer different questions about the world.... Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral."
Teaching about Evolution and Science,
The American National Academy of Sciences (NAS)(1998)
"Scientism, the view that science can explain all human conditions and expressions, mental as well as physical, is a superstition, one of the dominant superstitions or our day; and it is not an insult to science to say so."
The New York Times, Leon Wieseltier ,American writer, critic, and magazine editor.
Ouch!
"Neutral" is way too strong a word in this context. Outside of colorful anecdotes, there is nothing to suggest the existence of a "supernatural". Science isn't neutral, or stymied or struck speechless by the supernatural ... it's laughable, a joke, ridiculous. The only reason you may have escaped this realization is that science lovers tend to be polite. Surely you realize that some anecdotes have no rational explanation simply because they are not originating in fully rational minds.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#1063 Dec 12, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep. We haven't observed the actual point of creation.
I think they mean "point" as in the why or reason for the act of creation. Since The Creator exists outside of the realm of science so to must his or her motivations. Godbots abhor pointless existence more than Nature hates a vacuum. After all, each and every one of them thinks there's something "oh so special" about themselves that they deserve to exist literally FOREVER (which happens to be a very long time). I say ... Good luck with that!! Take a couple books, maybe a deck of cards. LOL

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#1064 Dec 12, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
"The Big Bang was not, evidently, any old bang, but an explosion of exquisitely arranged magnitude."
Physicist Paul Davies
Who's to say there hasn't been an infinite series of Big Bangs and the current one just happens to suit us? Paul Davies? LOL. He's already blown all his credibility in this single statement.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#1065 Dec 13, 2012
Yes Christianity was the official state religion and the overwhelming majority of French people at that time were Christians. It was a bloody battle with both sides suffering heavy losses and it all stemmed from the Catholics in that area not wanting to accept the law.

Nowhere in the actual historical accounts do you read atheists attacking Christians. The catholic apologetics to gain support said the people were attacked for their catholic faith. In actuality even one bishop begged them to see reason and put down their weapons but other bishops pushed for them to keep fighting. Sad really.
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Christian fighting Christian? LOL
"The people of France were running headlong into Atheism, and I had the work(age of Reason} translated and published in their own language to stop them in that career, and fix them to the first article of every man's creed, who has any creed at all—I believe in God."
Thomas Paine
That was easy.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#1066 Dec 13, 2012
There are also more toilet scrubbers than surgeons. Why? The cream rises to the top.

Just because many low IQ people fall for the indoctrination of their parents proves nothing.

Did you even have a point here? Didn't think so.
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
The abrahamic religions have three billion followers. The Pew Forum's massive religious study in 2008 said atheists made up 1.6% of the US population.Another of their studies states that 21% of Americans that claim they are atheists said they believed in God. So 21% of 1.6% is about .34% meaning 1.26% of Americans are actual atheists. Think of the advantage of those numbers. You can all go to the national meeting of atheists on the same bus or have a sit in without interfering with traffic.
Thinking

Andover, UK

#1067 Dec 13, 2012
No, I'm saying you prefer paedophiles, rapists and murderers to Atheists.
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are saying half the English population rates lower than the other half. Seems reasonable.
2007 Gallup poll
Likelihood of voting for-
Catholic--------95%
Black----------94%
Woman--------88%
Jew----------92%
homosexual-55%
Atheist--------45%
http://www.data360.org/sources.aspx...
http://www.data360.org/report_slides.aspx...
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#1068 Dec 13, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
If they believed in the Resurrection they most likely wouldn't be non Christian writings.
You wrote:

1.“Overall, at least seventeen non-Christian writings record more than fifty details concerning the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus,

2. If they believed in the Resurrection they most likely wouldn't be non Christian writings.

Which one is it then?

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
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 9 min Catcher1 230,908
Evidence for God! 46 min Uncle Sam 41
Heaven 4 hr susanblange 41
Former Atheist Academic Who Rejected God and Be... 8 hr tha Professor 76
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 8 hr Chiclets 23,039
Our world came from nothing? 10 hr _Bad Company 1,103
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 23 hr Dally Mama 5,583

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE