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

Macclesfield, UK

#10619 May 12, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do atheists always try to change the subject whenever their "facts" are exposed as unsupported opinions?
The age of this planet aka Earth and everything else in this galaxy is estimated to be 4.5 to 4.6 billion years old.
Not quite, the age of all the matter matches the age of when matter first formed in our universe, over 13 billion years ago. While the Earth itself formed around 4.5 billion years ago, the actual elements that go to make it up (including those that make up your body) are FAR older.
ezdzit wrote:
What "human ape"? FYI the fabled missing link between apes and humans has never been found, bubba. The DNA and mtDNA evidence says homo sapiens arose between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago which means homo sapiens have had religious beliefs from the beginning of their existence on this planet.
Yes, human ape. Since humans ARE apes by definition. And you have a creationist to thank for that, by the way.

But well done for using an argument that was invalid about a century ago:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

Sorry bub, but you can't claim evidence that demonstrates evolution actually somehow falsifies evolution. That's why you can't mention DNA at all. If there ever was a time when the validity of evolution was considered no longer **scientifically** controversial it was when they discovered DNA. And that status has not changed since.

Most educated people are aware of this.(shrug)

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

#10620 May 12, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Not quite, the age of all the matter matches the age of when matter first formed in our universe, over 13 billion years ago. While the Earth itself formed around 4.5 billion years ago, the actual elements that go to make it up (including those that make up your body) are FAR older.
<quoted text>
Yes, human ape. Since humans ARE apes by definition. And you have a creationist to thank for that, by the way.
But well done for using an argument that was invalid about a century ago:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
Sorry bub, but you can't claim evidence that demonstrates evolution actually somehow falsifies evolution. That's why you can't mention DNA at all. If there ever was a time when the validity of evolution was considered no longer **scientifically** controversial it was when they discovered DNA. And that status has not changed since.
Most educated people are aware of this.(shrug)
The age of all matter in the universe is totally irrelevant as it was not the question posed by "Brit Expat", bubba.
Brit Expat wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidence would be nice! But! Do you agree the planet is around 4.7 billion years old and the human ape is a mere 2 million years old at the most?
FYI "Planet of the Apes" was just science fiction fantasy. It wasn’t real. You do realize that, don’t you?

There is zero evidence that humans descended from apes and no "missing link" between apes and humans has ever been discovered. Zero, zip, nada, zilch. And FYI, science still hasn’t discovered what DNA is or does so your claims are nothing but hyperbole. 5

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#10621 May 12, 2013
Christian ignorance on display here.
ezdzit wrote:
The age of all matter in the universe is totally irrelevant as it was not the question posed by "Brit Expat", bubba.

Brit Expat wrote, "<quoted text>
Evidence would be nice! But! Do you agree the planet is around 4.7 billion years old and the human ape is a mere 2 million years old at the most?"

FYI "Planet of the Apes" was just science fiction fantasy. It wasn’t real. You do realize that, don’t you?

There is zero evidence that humans descended from apes and no "missing link" between apes and humans has ever been discovered. Zero, zip, nada, zilch. And FYI, science still hasn’t discovered what DNA is or does so your claims are nothing but hyperbole. 5
Thinking

Wigton, UK

#10623 May 13, 2013
You're wrong as usual, blubber.

The Milky Way is estimated to be almost three times that of the Earth - 13.2 billion years.
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do atheists always try to change the subject whenever their "facts" are exposed as unsupported opinions?
The age of this planet aka Earth and everything else in this galaxy is estimated to be 4.5 to 4.6 billion years old.
What "human ape"? FYI the fabled missing link between apes and humans has never been found, bubba. The DNA and mtDNA evidence says homo sapiens arose between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago which means homo sapiens have had religious beliefs from the beginning of their existence on this planet.
Thinking

Wigton, UK

#10624 May 13, 2013
The same goes for the bible.
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
FYI "Planet of the Apes" was just science fiction fantasy. It wasn’t real. You do realize that, don’t you?

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#10625 May 13, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
And FYI, science still hasn’t discovered what DNA is or does so your claims are nothing but hyperbole.
Bahahahahahahahaha!
Lincoln

United States

#10627 May 13, 2013
Brit Expat wrote:
HELL EXPLAINED
The following is an actual question given on a University of Arizona chemistry mid term, and an actual answer turned in by a student.
The answer by one student was so 'profound' that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well :
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.
One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving, which is unlikely. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today.
Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it?
If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that,'It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,' and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct........leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting 'Oh my God.'
Amusing
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#10628 May 13, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
The age of all matter in the universe is totally irrelevant as it was not the question posed by "Brit Expat", bubba.
Doesn't matter, I corrected you anyway just to demonstrate your scientific ignorance.
ezdzit wrote:
FYI "Planet of the Apes" was just science fiction fantasy. It wasn’t real. You do realize that, don’t you?
Yes. That's why science fiction has nothing to do with evolution.
ezdzit wrote:
There is zero evidence that humans descended from apes and no "missing link" between apes and humans has ever been discovered. Zero, zip, nada, zilch.
Of course not. That's why I gave you fifteen, with links to more. Plus other stuff. And I hadn't even **mentioned** ERV's yet. And all you can do is say "NO WAY JUST BECAUSE OKAY?!?"

This is why science works whether you fundies pay attention or not. It does not care what you have to say because ultimately your uneducated opinions are unimportant.
ezdzit wrote:
And FYI, science still hasn’t discovered what DNA is or does so your claims are nothing but hyperbole.
Actually it was discovered back in the fifties. DNA is made up of four chemicals: adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine, IIRC. It's responsible for what we are and is the proof positive of evolution. Before then MAYBE you had an argument. But since six decades ago at the very least the scientific community only laughs at people like you now. With good reason.

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

#10629 May 13, 2013
Thinking wrote:
You're wrong as usual, blubber.
The Milky Way is estimated to be almost three times that of the Earth - 13.2 billion years.
<quoted text>
No, you're wrong, bubba.

Estimates for the age of the Milky Way galaxy range from 800 million to 13.5 billion years old.

And, yeah, I should have used the words "solar system" instead of "galaxy" to describe our neighborhood in the universe.

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

#10630 May 13, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't matter, I corrected you anyway just to demonstrate your scientific ignorance.
<quoted text>
Yes. That's why science fiction has nothing to do with evolution.
<quoted text>
Of course not. That's why I gave you fifteen, with links to more. Plus other stuff. And I hadn't even **mentioned** ERV's yet. And all you can do is say "NO WAY JUST BECAUSE OKAY?!?"
This is why science works whether you fundies pay attention or not. It does not care what you have to say because ultimately your uneducated opinions are unimportant.
<quoted text>
Actually it was discovered back in the fifties. DNA is made up of four chemicals: adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine, IIRC. It's responsible for what we are and is the proof positive of evolution. Before then MAYBE you had an argument. But since six decades ago at the very least the scientific community only laughs at people like you now. With good reason.
The so-called "Theory of Evolution" IS just science fiction, bubba.

And apparently you didn't get the memo. It's the 21st century. Science has discovered that prions evolve but don't use DNA, so WHOOPS DNA can no longer be posited to be the mechanism for evolution. Looks like this is just another one of those "inconvenient truths" atheists refuse to face.......

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#10631 May 13, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you're wrong, bubba.
Estimates for the age of the Milky Way galaxy range from 800 million to 13.5 billion years old.
And, yeah, I should have used the words "solar system" instead of "galaxy" to describe our neighborhood in the universe.
It's incredible how voluntarily stupid you are.
The Earth is 4.54 billion years old, our sun is 4.57 billion years old, the Milky Way is our home galaxy.

To say the estimates start at 800 million years is pure stupidity.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#10632 May 13, 2013
Forgot to mention: The estimate of how old the Milky Way is is set at 13.2 billion years old, just as Thinking said.

Your input is invalid and useless.
Thinking

Taunton, UK

#10633 May 13, 2013
So you say the Milky Way galaxy may be significantly younger than the Earth?

You're wrong and mental, blubber.
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you're wrong, bubba.
Estimates for the age of the Milky Way galaxy range from 800 million to 13.5 billion years old.
And, yeah, I should have used the words "solar system" instead of "galaxy" to describe our neighborhood in the universe.
Thinking

Taunton, UK

#10634 May 13, 2013
I should've read your post first... I'm amazed that ezfuckwit can be that dumb.

Oh yeah, but he is only talking about the solar system(!)
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
It's incredible how voluntarily stupid you are.
The Earth is 4.54 billion years old, our sun is 4.57 billion years old, the Milky Way is our home galaxy.
To say the estimates start at 800 million years is pure stupidity.

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

#10635 May 13, 2013
Lacez wrote:
Forgot to mention: The estimate of how old the Milky Way is is set at 13.2 billion years old, just as Thinking said.
Your input is invalid and useless.
Wrong. Look it up, bubba.

The youngest star in the Milky Way cluster is estimated to be 800 million years old.
Thinking

Taunton, UK

#10636 May 13, 2013
My house is 30 years old.
But I replaced some doors last year.
Therefore my house is only 1 year old.

Are you being this dumb for a bet, blubber?
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Look it up, bubba.
The youngest star in the Milky Way cluster is estimated to be 800 million years old.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#10637 May 13, 2013
Lol! He isn't very smart is he? Oh well at least he comes on here to make a jackass out of himself for our amusement :))
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>My house is 30 years old.
But I replaced some doors last year.
Therefore my house is only 1 year old.

Are you being this dumb for a bet, blubber?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10638 May 13, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Look it up, bubba.
The youngest star in the Milky Way cluster is estimated to be 800 million years old.
First, that age is *way* too long for the age of the youngest star. The more massive, hot stars tend to last a very 'short' period of time: less than 50 million years for many.

Second, even if the number were accurate, that would not be the 'age of the Milky Way'. You see, stars form continuously in spiral galaxies like the Milky Way. We even see this process happening today. The question of the age of the Milky Way is more when the star forming process *started* and when the galaxy became a spearated part of the universe. THis was about 13 billion years ago.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10639 May 13, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you're wrong, bubba.
Estimates for the age of the Milky Way galaxy range from 800 million to 13.5 billion years old.
And, yeah, I should have used the words "solar system" instead of "galaxy" to describe our neighborhood in the universe.
Anyone who confuses the terms 'solar system' and 'galaxy' should not be discussing astronomy.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10640 May 13, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
And FYI, science still hasn’t discovered what DNA is or does so your claims are nothing but hyperbole. 5
Complete and utter garbage. We actually know the composition of DNA quite accurately: it consists of two backbones of alternating phosphate and deoxyribose going in opposite directions with one of the four nucleic acids: adenosine, guanine, cytosine, thymine. The nucleic acids code for proteins by having three acids in a row code for an amino acid in the protein. This translation is done in steps, first with the DNA translated into RNA (which differs from DNA in having ribose instead of deoxyribose in the backbone and uracil instead of thymine in the neucleic acids). Then the RNA is run through a ribozyme which does the actual translation into amino acids.

So yes, we do know what DNA is and what it does. I could easily go into much more detail than what I did above, but I bet you will ignore what I have written, so why write more?

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) 1 hr Regolith Based Li... 75,476
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 2 hr John 6,109
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 2 hr John 209
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 12 hr Nemesis 4,070
Majority of Scots now have no religion (May '16) 13 hr John 164
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 15 hr Eagle 12 - 32,055
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 18 hr Eagle 12 - 581
More from around the web