Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

There are 14735 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.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#10764 May 15, 2013
DaBroad wrote:
Boy, go away for a year, come back and it’s still the same little group playing slap and tickle with each other. Wars aren’t a religious or atheist problem, they are a human problem. Greed, jealousy, fear…those are the things that produce war. A person cannot be forced to believe, or cease to believe, in the idea of deity, or the nature of that deity. It’s not a matter of superiority or inferiority, that goes back to the things that produce war. Nobody is going to change anyone’s mind here, and what you guys are doing is merely to prop up your own beliefs. Nobody knows the “truth”. There IS no “truth” when it comes to the possibility of the existence of deity, except the truth that we do not know, and can never know, because there is no proof one way or another. The existence of a deity can neither be proven nor disproven. No books, no experiments, nothing can prove or disprove it. Lack of proof is not proof that something doesn’t exist.
"Truth" is what comes out of the Scientific Method after it voids it's bowels. It ain't much, but it's something and something's better than nothing ... it's just gonna have to do. If it's a subject or conjecture not worthy of processing by The Method, then it's probably just Poppycock anyway. Hell, our Universe would be filled to bursting by things that don't exist, by your estimation! Jeez. Where were you for the last year? In some kind of coma? There's been a lot of progress made, conversions confirmed and ideas kicked around here on Topix.
DaBroad

Minneapolis, MN

#10765 May 15, 2013
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
"Truth" is what comes out of the Scientific Method after it voids it's bowels. It ain't much, but it's something and something's better than nothing ... it's just gonna have to do. If it's a subject or conjecture not worthy of processing by The Method, then it's probably just Poppycock anyway. Hell, our Universe would be filled to bursting by things that don't exist, by your estimation! Jeez. Where were you for the last year? In some kind of coma? There's been a lot of progress made, conversions confirmed and ideas kicked around here on Topix.
No, this proves it - nothing changes on Topix.
I just wandered back in here accidentally, while reading a story that linked in to Topix. I normally don't have time to waste on the BS that passes for progress on these boards. No, I have a job, several hobbies, and am getting a degree. As well as a whole lot of other things that occupy my time. I don't have the time or the energy to spend on conversing with the willfully ignorant and stubbornly self-gratifying.
And, no, you're not nearly as witty as you think you are.
Hey, I got a broken lightbulb and a red x! Haven't lost my touch.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#10766 May 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Darwin's Stepchild is another Mathematician. Fossil Bob (more common on the Evolution forum) is a Geologist. There are actually quite a few people who are scientifically trained around here.
Erasmus05, chemist. Haven't seen him in an age. Katydid, biologist. Nuggin had something like an archaeology or anthropology degree if I recall.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#10767 May 15, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
Of course, this historical misfire comes from the same book, "The God Delusion," that insists, "I do not believe there is an atheist in the world who would bulldoze Mecca -- or Chartres, York Minster or Notre Dame." As Alistair McGrath points out, that would surprise anyone who is aware of the fact that the explicitly atheistic Soviet regime destroyed the vast majority of churches (and priests) between 1918-1941. The Tamil Tigers (again, atheistic, and the inventors of suicide vests) leveled countless Buddhist sites of worship. While it is true to say that atheists would not have built Notre Dame, it is not true to say none would ever destroy it.
Your god habitually killed kids, ordered mass genocides and destroyed an entire planet - twice. And fundies say that all bad things are good as long as God okays it. Coincidentally all the same things they hate happen to be the same things their god hates. Plus their only motivation for anything at all whatsover is fear of hell or desire of eternal paradise, making true charity impossible for them.

Sorry, KJV. You can't win this one. You worship an ahole.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#10768 May 15, 2013
MUQ wrote:
Ans.
01. Yes the definitions are in your control, you can remove any thing and every thing from that moral list.
The basics will not change, just because you change the definition and "remove" homosexuality from the list of immoral acts.
Morals are subjective. ESPECIALLY so in fundamentalist theism.
MUQ wrote:
02. I do not have any "grudge" against Homos as such. The Topic of thread was "Is homosexuality is a Sin"? And I gave my logic that it is a Sin from whichever angle you look at it.
And quite simply your "logic" is flawed.(shrug)
MUQ wrote:
03. I have no interest in your personal life and what you were and what you are now.
I am not going to judge you.
Too late, you already did. You have committed the sin of hubris.
MUQ wrote:
And neither we are interested what you do inside your bedrooms.
Like all perverts, Homos should live the life in the margin and be happy with their lives.
But when we see that a Compaign being mounted that Homos are a Natural Specie and there is "Nothing wrong" in being a Homo, and their "marriages" be given same status as normal marriages….we feel that our rights are threatened.
There's no such thing as a "normal" marriage. It has NEVER been constantly defined as union between one man and one woman only, throughout history. There have been gay marriages. There have been marriages involving multiple wives. There have been marriages involving two men and two women. Your religion promotes in the fam bumpedy bumpety.
As well as arranged marriages with minors.

Hence "marriage" need not be "redefined".

Or another alternative is to make marriage legally worthless and just have legal unions which apply to any consenting adult. Sure, you can still have a religious church/mosque/whatever wedding. It just won't mean shite legally.
MUQ wrote:
How can you equate perverts with normal people?
You can't help it. You're a fundie. And fundies are grossly perverted.
MUQ wrote:
How can you treat ones who are tools in preserving and continuing human race with those who are working at "cross purpose"?
There is some thing very wrong in you logic, my poor little thing.
Some thing very, very wrong indeed.
Same-sex relations do not hinder the preservation of the human race in any way whatsoever. What DOES is forcing your bigotry onto all others. Thankfully you are not, and will never be in the position to do that.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#10769 May 15, 2013
MUQ wrote:
There is no specie in the world which is Homosexual. How it would survive?
Easy, same way ours does. Homosexual members of a species do NOT represent the whole of said species. Hence no danger of dying out.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#10770 May 15, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
The Soviet Union was the first state to have, as an ideological objective, the elimination of religion and its replacement with universal atheism. The communist regime confiscated religious property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in schools. The confiscation of religious assets was often based on accusations of illegal accumulation of wealth.
The vast majority of people in the Russian empire were, at the time of the revolution, religious believers, whereas the communists aimed to break the power of all religious institutions and eventually replace religious belief with atheism.
"Science" was counterposed to "religious superstition" in the media and in academic writing. The main religions of pre-revolutionary Russia persisted throughout the entire Soviet period, but they were only tolerated within certain limits. Generally, this meant that believers were free to worship in private and in their respective religious buildings (churches, mosques, etc.), but public displays of religion outside of such designated areas were prohibited. In addition, religious institutions were not allowed to express their views in any type of mass media, and many religious buildings were demolished or used for other purposes.
Interesting though that they actually allowed the churches to re-open later. All the hoo-haa over it eventually led to a schism in the Russian Orthodox Christian Church, much like the Catholics and Protestants, which still lasts to this day. It's also interesting to point out that the Commies of the time were also anti-science - while the West enjoyed the benefits of Darwinian evolution such as increased crop yields in agriculture, they rejected it in favour of the failed hypotheses of Lamarck. This was but one of the many factors which eventually led to the inevitable economic collapse of the USSR. Of course any scientists who knew they were barking up the wrong tree had to keep their mouths shut in case they got shot. A little like any dissenting opinions in a theocracy could incur the "Wrath Of God".
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#10771 May 15, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
It is revealing how? This is once again a failure to express a point in proper English on your part.
I know you lack proper English comprehension skills but let's try this anyways.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany
East Germany is historically 90% Protestant and the church remained strong even throughout the time of Stalin. They even cordially invited more Catholics to move there.
Any friction was caused when certain churches would not go along with political leaders, not because of their faith.
90% Protestant historically.
Do you deny history or just not comprehend it?
<quoted text>
Fundies deny reality, period.(shrug)

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#10772 May 15, 2013
No problem bud it's all good for laughs although you do have to pity them.
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>You drop off the grid a few days and this is what happens! Sorry if I belabored a point already well thrashed. It's just amazing how ... how ... DUMB ... godbots can be. It's a pity their blinders don't work both ways.

Hey godbots! We can still see you!!!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#10773 May 15, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
"Therefore their attitude toward religion also varied from a total ban on some religions to official support of others."
Under Atheist Stalin 20 Million were killed.
Read a 20th century history and atheism and murder will appear hand in had.
Read the Bible and mass murder will appear hand in hand. Enough to put all the world's tyrants in history combined to shame. Oh wait - it's okay as long as god okays it. Then it's "righteous".

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#10774 May 15, 2013
DaBroad wrote:
<quoted text>
No, this proves it - nothing changes on Topix.
I just wandered back in here accidentally, while reading a story that linked in to Topix. I normally don't have time to waste on the BS that passes for progress on these boards. No, I have a job, several hobbies, and am getting a degree. As well as a whole lot of other things that occupy my time. I don't have the time or the energy to spend on conversing with the willfully ignorant and stubbornly self-gratifying.
And, no, you're not nearly as witty as you think you are.
Hey, I got a broken lightbulb and a red x! Haven't lost my touch.
Well, thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule and coming in and telling us your take on "truth". I guess we'll have to wait till next year to learn what you think about Justice or The American Way.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#10775 May 15, 2013
So religion was kept in it's proper place and allowed. Many churches thrived during the soviet years as well as Jewish synagogues all being painstakingly renovated and new ones built.
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>The main religions of pre-revolutionary Russia persisted throughout the entire Soviet period, but they were only tolerated within certain limits. Generally, this meant that believers were free to worship in private and in their respective religious buildings (churches, mosques, etc.),

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_...

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#10776 May 15, 2013
Many of the great russian heroes of the revolution still honored today were priests and other men of faith.
CunningLinguist wrote:
<quoted text>You should have read more from your site ...

Although Lenin believed that eventually all nationalities would merge into one, he insisted that the Soviet Union be established as a federation of formally equal nations. In the 1920s, genuine cultural concessions were granted to the nationalities. Communist elites of various nationalities were permitted to flourish and to have considerable self-government. National cultures, religions, and languages were not merely tolerated but, in areas with Muslim populations, encouraged.

Soviet officials identified religion closely with nationality. The implementation of policy toward a particular religion, therefore, depended on the regime's perception of the bond between that religion and the nationality practicing it, the size of the religious community, the extent to which the religion accepted outside authority, and the nationality's willingness to subordinate itself to political authority. Thus the smaller the religious community and the more closely it identified with a particular nationality, the more restrictive were the regime's policies, especially if the religion also recognized a foreign authority such as the pope.

In 1929, with the onset of the Cultural Revolution in the Soviet Union and an upsurge of radical militancy in the Party and Komsomol, a powerful "hard line" in favor of mass closing of churches and arrests of priests became dominant and evidently won Stalin's approval. Secret "hard line" instructions were issued to local party organizations, but not published. When the anti-religious drive inflamed the anger of the rural population, not to mention that of the Pope and other Western church spokesmen, the regime was able to back off from a policy that it had never publicly endorsed anyway.

Although all Soviet leaders had the same long-range goal of developing a cohesive Soviet people, they pursued different policies to achieve it. For the Soviet regime, questions of nationality and religion were always closely linked.

Therefore their attitude toward religion also varied from a total ban on some religions to official support of others.

Now what were you saying again?

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#10777 May 15, 2013
He probably didn't comprehend the English in that statement.
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>You already agreed that Atheism can't be blamed for atrocities, remember?

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#10778 May 15, 2013
What would you like me to prove? Atheism is not believing in gods, that's it.

Sweden has a mainly non believer government. Care to discuss their crimes against humanity?

Perhaps if you took an English as a second language class first?
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>When you prove anything regarding atheism let us know?:-)
Lincoln

United States

#10779 May 15, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Your god habitually killed kids, ordered mass genocides and destroyed an entire planet - twice. And fundies say that all bad things are good as long as God okays it. Coincidentally all the same things they hate happen to be the same things their god hates. Plus their only motivation for anything at all whatsover is fear of hell or desire of eternal paradise, making true charity impossible for them. KJV. You can't win this one. You worship an ahole.
Reviews for Baz Luhrmann's new version of The Great Gatsby have been mixed. But his adaptation is faithful to the plot of Scott Fitzgerald's novel published in 1925.

The story takes place mainly on Long Island, a playground for America's super-rich 90 years ago. Everything the Hamptons are now, northern Long Island was then.

It's been a cold spring in Port Washington and there have been fewer tourists than usual. It's only in the past couple of weeks that Matt Meyran has begun the annual Great Gatsby boat tours. He's hoping the new movie will bring in the custom.

Port Washington is an attractive town on Long Island's north shore - 45 minutes from New York on the Long Island Railroad. Before World War II it was where flying boats arrived after crossing the Atlantic.
F Scott Fitzgerald F Scott Fitzgerald moved to Long Island in 1922 with his wife Zelda

These days the most dramatic form of transport is Meyran's water taxi service, taking commuters and tourists out onto the sparkling waters of Manhasset Bay and Long Island Sound.

Visitors learn about the astounding past wealth of Long Island's Gold Coast, taking in areas such as Sands Point and Glen Cove. The area's wealth exploded in the late 19th Century because of its proximity to New York and the availability of land.

By the time Scott Fitzgerald came to write his book the area contained almost 2,000 mansions, many with large and well-tended estates.

Life on those estates was opulent. The names that dominated the Gold Coast constituted the upper reaches of America's rich list: Guggenheim, Whitney, Vanderbilt.

The families already had magnificent homes in Manhattan. They came to Long Island for the season, or for a summer weekend away from the disease and clamour. They arrived by yacht from lower Manhattan or by chauffeur-driven limousine - or even by private train.

Matt Meyran says there was a small industry in the Port Washington area building and maintaining yachts for the wealthy.

"Long Island Sound and its pleasures were why the Buchanans in the book would have had a home in East Egg (as Fitzgerald calls Sands Point). Gatsby wasn't quite their class."
Artistic licence

Much brain-power has been expended trying to match up real-life Long Island locations with those in Fitzgerald's book.

A couple of years ago there was an outcry when a Colonial Revival house by the shore was demolished to make way for five smaller homes.

Land's End had once belonged to New York journalist (and keen 1920s party-giver) Herbert Bayard Swope. Some claim it inspired Tom and Daisy Buchanan's home in The Great Gatsby.
Long Island property from The Great Gatsby Private ownership of the Long Island mansions was mostly killed off by the 1929 crash

In fact there is insufficient evidence to make connections with certainty, according to historian and architect Gary Lawrance.

"It's fun to speculate which was the model for Daisy Buchanan's house or Gatsby's place. But Fitzgerald wasn't writing a travel guide: you have to allow him his creativity.

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

#10780 May 15, 2013
Thinking wrote:
islamic countries may have ratified this treaty but many ignore it, blubber.
e.g. Saudi Arabia executes child criminals by waiting until they are 18.
e.g. Iran's laws take precedence over the UN treaty.
<quoted text>
Saudia Arabia and Iran execute child molesters, rapists and murderers instead of turning them loose to prey on more innocent children like the US does....

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#10781 May 15, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
Saudia Arabia and Iran execute child molesters, rapists and murderers instead of turning them loose to prey on more innocent children like the US does....
Saudi Arabia is an apartheid theocracy that persecutes women,limits all personal freedoms, prohibits religious freedom, controls the press and uses state police called mutaween to enforce religious law. Iran is on the verge of a revolution that they cannot seem to stop.

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

#10782 May 15, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
What's your point and how does the link support it, bubba?
Imhotep

United States

#10783 May 15, 2013
waleed sadat wrote:
<quoted text>
Saudi Arabia is an apartheid theocracy that persecutes women,limits all personal freedoms, prohibits religious freedom, controls the press and uses state police called mutaween to enforce religious law. Iran is on the verge of a revolution that they cannot seem to stop.
Is it truly a theocracy rather than a kingdom?

http://www.mofa.gov.sa/sites/mofaen/aboutKing...

Does the king pander to the imams?

It is an odd culture that frankly...
I don't understand. Modern-day dinosaurs.

But admittedly there are some 1.7 billion Muslims on the planet, So somebody is buying all of this Superstitious nonsense.

If the women had equal rights and could vote and the press were free - how long would their society remain closed and aloof to the outside world?

Would European Asian or western culture then dominate?

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) 7 hr Regolith Based Li... 93,375
News Scientific, Philosophical Case for God's Existe... Fri blacklagoon 3 78
News American Atheists terminates its president over... Fri Eagle 12 - 19
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Apr 14 blacklagoon 3 4,141
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Apr 14 Into The Night 258,515
News The Anti-Christian Movement Apr 10 blacklagoon 3 11
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) Apr 9 Wisdom of Ages 6,048