Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

There are 14732 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.

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

#11133 May 23, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
Sartre was smarter than all of us, eventually he would not be drawn on the subject of god, he considered it beneath him, like talking at length about used q-tips.
Consider the following passage, from Jean-Paul Sartre's 1960 existentialist blockbuster "The Critique of Dialectical Reason":

Quote:

"But it should be noted that this regulatory totalisation realises my immanence in the group in the quasi-transcendence of the totalising third party; for the latter, as the creator of objectives or organiser of means, stands in a tense and contradictory relation of transcendence-immanence, so that my integration, though real in the here and now which define me, remains somewhere incomplete, in the here and now which characterise the regulatory third party. We see here the re-emergence of an element of alterity proper to the statute of the group, but which here is still formal: the third party is certainly the same, the praxis is certainly common everywhere; but a shifting dislocation makes it totalising when I am the totalised means of the group, and conversely."

There are a number of valid responses to these arguments. One might be: They sure don't make public intellectuals like they used to. Another might be: I'm not sure Sartre's arguments constitute more than a footnote to his work in "L'être et le Néant." A third might be: What was he on?

It's a good question. When he wrote the "Critique," Sartre, a lifelong caffeine fiend and serious drinker, was also frying his brains on corydrane, a form of amphetamine mixed with, of all things, aspirin. The philosopher was using corydrane on a daily basis, first to cut through the fug of the barbiturates he was taking to help him sleep—and he was having trouble sleeping not least because of all the corydrane he was putting away—but also to keep him at his desk, churning out the "Critique." "To put it briefly," he told Simone de Beauvoir some time later, "in philosophy, writing consisted of analysing my ideas; and a tube of corydrane meant 'these ideas will be analysed in the next two days.' " Or, as the Ramones used to put it, Gabba Gabba Hey.

We hear a lot these days about drug abuse, but there is also such a thing as drug use—a utilitarian attitude to our body chemistry in which drugs are simply aids to productivity. That's how Sartre treated them, and Marcus Boon argues that "several of Sartre's works show the influence of speed," including "The Idiot of the Family," his incomplete and close to definitively unreadable five-volume study of Flaubert, and "Saint Genet," which, Boon relates, "began as a 50-page preface to Genet's writings, and ended up an 800-page book." Sartre was therefore a recognizable type of speed freak, the type dedicated to obsessive, unfinishable, and, to the neutral observer, pointless toil—the sort who, several hours after taking the drug, can usually be found sitting on the floor, grinding his teeth and alphabetizing his CDs by the name of the sound engineer.

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php...

I read that Sartre liked shrooms too and that he would talk to his delusions--little crabs that crawled on his legs and slept on his bed--and that he missed his dear little friends when his delusions stopped.

Oh yeah, that Sartre was sooooooooooo smart......

Bwaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahaha
Thinking

Sturminster Newton, UK

#11134 May 23, 2013
On prime time BBC1 when I was very young we had a comedic character called "Cupid Stunt".

Givemeliberty wrote:
What screen name rhymes with stupid?
<quoted text>

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#11135 May 23, 2013
Wow! Lmfao! That is hilarious!

I figured Buck saw that guy give a speech at his church and now tries to emulate him. Sadly I think ultra Christian Joe King is a liar as well. I went to some Bengals pages and the only Joe King they ever had was a 6'2" black dude.

I guess Buck got mixed up between Joe saying he was a Bengal vs a Steeler. Oh and Joe in 2009 says his son is 11 Buck said his son is now 17.
Guess ole fatass messed up again :))

Thanks so much for the video!
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>I have no idea of the connection but...Mr `Crick` is living vicariously through the eyes of the man in the following video, I think perhaps they were lovers once.

https://www.youtube.com/tv...

The gentleman in the video quit the Bengals. He has sunk even lower after being `saved` by the `winningest coach there ever was` in the prison laundry.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#11136 May 23, 2013
Lol :))
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>On prime time BBC1 when I was very young we had a comedic character called "Cupid Stunt".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =jxf8Sf_Hyk4XX
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#11137 May 23, 2013
R Hill wrote:
Wow .. where to begin?

01 'Prophecy' is a necessary part of any religion. It's one of the few 'miracles' that can be made to happen all within the covers of the same book. Prophesied in Chapter 2, comes true in Chapter 12 ... ohhhhh, magic! Of course,'knowing the future' is a necessary power of any god worth his salt. Our gods have to be able to perform tricks otherwise we'd look pretty silly worshiping them. Clever writing, the innate gullibility of godbots and their pitiful desperation for the divine combine to make this particular 'miracle' all too easy. The pity is that all the predictions, by all the prophets and soothsayers and astrologers give us nothing useful. 100% of the time, events unfold and are 'cut and pasted' to fit 'predictions' so vague they must 'come true' over and over again as generations of godbots come and go.

Has any disaster been averted, life been saved, train not derailed, building been made not to collapse, war not been fought based on prophecy? No. In fact, you poor godbots are so anxious for your scriptures to be fulfilled, you'll actually go out of your way to make things happen. Pitiful really. That would be the true measure of a prophet and they all fall short. But, that's just the way it is. You see, Nature has rules ... one of them is "nobody can predict the future". Nobody ever has, nobody ever will. End of story.

02 I have no need to camouflage anything. How would that profit me? How has the young lives lost or the National Treasure squandered profited my country? Are we safer now, from mad Jihadists? Has our stature in the world community increased? Have we met any goals, real or imagined? No. Mistakes, folly, foolishness ... and people scurry to hide their mistakes. Who has profited? The people who make bullets and bandages? The weapons makers and brokers? Is our government so evil as to place these interests above the welfare of the citizens they were sworn to protect? Perhaps. I would prefer to think not. I would prefer to believe they are bumblers and fools but ultimately just 'trying to do the right thing'. They are Human, after all and that's what we do best.
Ans.

01. I think you are confused and do not know what you want to say.

We see so many miracles of these kinds almost every day. So many people fell from high buildings and survived.

So many people were alive after fall of buildings while many others die. There have been some survivors even in some plane crashes.

You call them as “chance”, you could call them as “Miracles”!!

02. The second part of your post is no better than the first.

You do not know what you want to say.

As for miracles, millions of them are taking place every day, right before our eyes, but we consider them as “Just natural”!!
Thinking

Sturminster Newton, UK

#11138 May 24, 2013
No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%93...
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Ans.
01. I think you are confused and do not know what you want to say.
We see so many miracles of these kinds almost every day. So many people fell from high buildings and survived.
So many people were alive after fall of buildings while many others die. There have been some survivors even in some plane crashes.
You call them as “chance”, you could call them as “Miracles”!!
02. The second part of your post is no better than the first.
You do not know what you want to say.
As for miracles, millions of them are taking place every day, right before our eyes, but we consider them as “Just natural”!!

Since: May 11

UK

#11139 May 24, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Wow! Lmfao! That is hilarious!
I figured Buck saw that guy give a speech at his church and now tries to emulate him. Sadly I think ultra Christian Joe King is a liar as well. I went to some Bengals pages and the only Joe King they ever had was a 6'2" black dude.
I guess Buck got mixed up between Joe saying he was a Bengal vs a Steeler. Oh and Joe in 2009 says his son is 11 Buck said his son is now 17.
Guess ole fatass messed up again :))
Thanks so much for the video!
<quoted text>
Mr `Crick` simply assumed the identity of this unfortunate, rape victim/alcoholic/crack addict/armed robber/convict...who has since returned to prision after being `saved` and after the video you just watched. His descent can be seen by the number of `mugshots` which are online.

Maybe he`s[Crick] an ex-lover, maybe he`s David or Greg the alleged rapist violating him again from afar; or maybe he`s just an obsessive, like Robert De Niro`s character in "The Fan".

I wonder how Mr `Crick` feels when he hears Mr King state quite categorically that he doesn`t like football and that it`s a stupid game?

I have to say though...it`s not normal and very very creepy.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#11140 May 24, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you give a shit what it was called?
I don't.
The lying creationist cornered, squirming and flailing yet again

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#11141 May 24, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
Consider the following passage, from Jean-Paul Sartre's 1960 existentialist blockbuster "The Critique of Dialectical Reason":
Quote:
"But it should be noted that this regulatory totalisation realises my immanence in the group in the quasi-transcendence of the totalising third party; for the latter, as the creator of objectives or organiser of means, stands in a tense and contradictory relation of transcendence-immanence, so that my integration, though real in the here and now which define me, remains somewhere incomplete, in the here and now which characterise the regulatory third party. We see here the re-emergence of an element of alterity proper to the statute of the group, but which here is still formal: the third party is certainly the same, the praxis is certainly common everywhere; but a shifting dislocation makes it totalising when I am the totalised means of the group, and conversely."
There are a number of valid responses to these arguments. One might be: They sure don't make public intellectuals like they used to. Another might be: I'm not sure Sartre's arguments constitute more than a footnote to his work in "L'être et le Néant." A third might be: What was he on?
It's a good question. When he wrote the "Critique," Sartre, a lifelong caffeine fiend and serious drinker, was also frying his brains on corydrane, a form of amphetamine mixed with, of all things, aspirin. The philosopher was using corydrane on a daily basis, first to cut through the fug of the barbiturates he was taking to help him sleep—and he was having trouble sleeping not least because of all the corydrane he was putting away—but also to keep him at his desk, churning out the "Critique." "To put it briefly," he told Simone de Beauvoir some time later, "in philosophy, writing consisted of analysing my ideas; and a tube of corydrane meant 'these ideas will be analysed in the next two days.' " Or, as the Ramones used to put it, Gabba Gabba Hey.
We hear a lot these days about drug abuse, but there is also such a thing as drug use—a utilitarian attitude to our body chemistry in which drugs are simply aids to productivity. That's how Sartre treated them, and Marcus Boon argues that "several of Sartre's works show the influence of speed," including "The Idiot of the Family," his incomplete and close to definitively unreadable five-volume study of Flaubert, and "Saint Genet," which, Boon relates, "began as a 50-page preface to Genet's writings, and ended up an 800-page book." Sartre was therefore a recognizable type of speed freak, the type dedicated to obsessive, unfinishable, and, to the neutral observer, pointless toil—the sort who, several hours after taking the drug, can usually be found sitting on the floor, grinding his teeth and alphabetizing his CDs by the name of the sound engineer.
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php...
I read that Sartre liked shrooms too and that he would talk to his delusions--little crabs that crawled on his legs and slept on his bed--and that he missed his dear little friends when his delusions stopped.
Oh yeah, that Sartre was sooooooooooo smart......
Bwaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahaha
Creationist trolls that say "bwaahahah" when outsmarted:

Buck Crick
Educated What
Lincoln
KJV
ezdzit

Maybe saying "Bwahaha" in the face of damning evidence against your cult is part of the trained reaction for brainwashed creationist lunatics online?

Since: May 11

UK

#11142 May 24, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
Consider the following passage, from Jean-Paul Sartre's 1960 existentialist blockbuster "The Critique of Dialectical Reason":
Quote:
"But it should be noted that this regulatory totalisation realises my immanence in the group in the quasi-transcendence of the totalising third party; for the latter, as the creator of objectives or organiser of means, stands in a tense and contradictory relation of transcendence-immanence, so that my integration, though real in the here and now which define me, remains somewhere incomplete, in the here and now which characterise the regulatory third party. We see here the re-emergence of an element of alterity proper to the statute of the group, but which here is still formal: the third party is certainly the same, the praxis is certainly common everywhere; but a shifting dislocation makes it totalising when I am the totalised means of the group, and conversely."
There are a number of valid responses to these arguments. One might be: They sure don't make public intellectuals like they used to. Another might be: I'm not sure Sartre's arguments constitute more than a footnote to his work in "L'être et le Néant." A third might be: What was he on?
It's a good question. When he wrote the "Critique," Sartre, a lifelong caffeine fiend and serious drinker, was also frying his brains on corydrane, a form of amphetamine mixed with, of all things, aspirin. The philosopher was using corydrane on a daily basis, first to cut through the fug of the barbiturates he was taking to help him sleep—and he was having trouble sleeping not least because of all the corydrane he was putting away—but also to keep him at his desk, churning out the "Critique." "To put it briefly," he told Simone de Beauvoir some time later, "in philosophy, writing consisted of analysing my ideas; and a tube of corydrane meant 'these ideas will be analysed in the next two days.' " Or, as the Ramones used to put it, Gabba Gabba Hey.
We hear a lot these days about drug abuse, but there is also such a thing as drug use—a utilitarian attitude to our body chemistry in which drugs are simply aids to productivity. That's how Sartre treated them, and Marcus Boon argues that "several of Sartre's works show the influence of speed," including "The Idiot of the Family," his incomplete and close to definitively unreadable five-volume study of Flaubert, and "Saint Genet," which, Boon relates, "began as a 50-page preface to Genet's writings, and ended up an 800-page book." Sartre was therefore a recognizable type of speed freak, the type dedicated to obsessive, unfinishable, and, to the neutral observer, pointless toil—the sort who, several hours after taking the drug, can usually be found sitting on the floor, grinding his teeth and alphabetizing his CDs by the name of the sound engineer.
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php...
I read that Sartre liked shrooms too and that he would talk to his delusions--little crabs that crawled on his legs and slept on his bed--and that he missed his dear little friends when his delusions stopped.
Oh yeah, that Sartre was sooooooooooo smart......
Bwaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahaha
...and you`re so smart that you had to plagiarise a passage from "The Road of Excess" by Marcus Boon.

I`ve read Sartre and Heidegger and I enjoyed the experience, although existential philosophy is not my particular field. I`m more geared towards legal philosophy and jurisprudence. Rawls and Dworkin are my constant companions.

Don`t be embarrassed that you don`t get Sartre, it takes more than reading part of a book review from the New Yorker to study philosophy, I for one know that I couldn`t do it for a job.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#11143 May 24, 2013
You notice he leaves out the rapes Joe King suffered. I would say he saw Joe's church speeches and went from there.

Notice the only Joe pictures he can get is the ones off google images? Oh and let's not forget his Jeff Chase picture lol!
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>Mr `Crick` simply assumed the identity of this unfortunate, rape victim/alcoholic/crack addict/armed robber/convict...who has since returned to prision after being `saved` and after the video you just watched. His descent can be seen by the number of `mugshots` which are online.

Maybe he`s[Crick] an ex-lover, maybe he`s David or Greg the alleged rapist violating him again from afar; or maybe he`s just an obsessive, like Robert De Niro`s character in "The Fan".

I wonder how Mr `Crick` feels when he hears Mr King state quite categorically that he doesn`t like football and that it`s a stupid game?

I have to say though...it`s not normal and very very creepy.

Since: May 11

UK

#11144 May 24, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
You notice he leaves out the rapes Joe King suffered. I would say he saw Joe's church speeches and went from there.
Notice the only Joe pictures he can get is the ones off google images? Oh and let's not forget his Jeff Chase picture lol!
<quoted text>
He was posting last year when Mr King was incarcerated(all day and every day), apparently the jail had given him unlimited internet access as a condition of him surrendering to authorities(or some such nonsense..I forget).

It came to a point when some posters, myself included said that we were going to write to Mr King in his correctional institution and send him some material aid and comfort(NOT PRAYERS).

Lets face it he`s had a difficult life and is a very engaging public speaker. Who knows what future he would have had if he had not suffered such early untreated abuse and decades of self loathing.

I found/find it deeply disturbing that some fool who is probably here watching the thread right now(because he`s always here in some form or another) is cherrypicking the parts of Mr Kings life he likes in order the cultivate an image of machismo while disregarding the parts of his life which created him as the shell of a man we see today.

Naturally Mr `Crick` professes to be a religious man who invokes "Christ", "god", "The Galilean" when it suits him but laying indignity upon indignity to a criminal who was made a criminal by being a victim.

Even Joe King(if I had the opportunity to talk to him) could not possibly think that his train crash of a life was part of a gods grand plan.

BTW, he likes this picture too, this is his `intellectual pig farmer` incarnation. I think we can all see his taste in men.

Since: May 11

UK

#11145 May 24, 2013
Sorry glaring omission there...

this is his intellectual pig farmer face.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_i8ZxNGHz77Y/RZ1C8JQ...

Real purty...he likes `em BIG.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#11146 May 24, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Ans.
01. I think you are confused and do not know what you want to say.
We see so many miracles of these kinds almost every day. So many people fell from high buildings and survived.
So many people were alive after fall of buildings while many others die. There have been some survivors even in some plane crashes.
You call them as “chance”, you could call them as “Miracles”!!
02. The second part of your post is no better than the first.
You do not know what you want to say.
As for miracles, millions of them are taking place every day, right before our eyes, but we consider them as “Just natural”!!
"What we got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach."

<from movie "Cool Hand Luke" 1967>

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#11147 May 24, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
Mr `Crick` simply assumed the identity of this unfortunate, rape victim/alcoholic/crack addict/armed robber/convict...who has since returned to prision after being `saved` and after the video you just watched. His descent can be seen by the number of `mugshots` which are online.
Maybe he`s[Crick] an ex-lover, maybe he`s David or Greg the alleged rapist violating him again from afar; or maybe he`s just an obsessive, like Robert De Niro`s character in "The Fan".
I wonder how Mr `Crick` feels when he hears Mr King state quite categorically that he doesn`t like football and that it`s a stupid game?
I have to say though...it`s not normal and very very creepy.
It is seldom safe to assume motivations, particularly when you rely on large bodies of facts not in evidence.

I find it comical that you have read through this forum and I am the one you find "creepy".

I suspect most residents in these parts are here for entertainment. My contribution stands out.

I myself am among the most entertained, as I routinely embarrass such as the physicists, mathematicians, and lawyers in their own fields.

You might recall I entertained myself quite well by doing that very thing with you, as you tried to ascribe to the authors of our Constitution the present-day basis of jurisprudence regarding the "Separation of Church and State".

I hope we have not seen the last of your flailings.

Since: May 11

UK

#11148 May 24, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
It is seldom safe to assume motivations, particularly when you rely on large bodies of facts not in evidence.
I find it comical that you have read through this forum and I am the one you find "creepy".
I suspect most residents in these parts are here for entertainment. My contribution stands out.
I myself am among the most entertained, as I routinely embarrass such as the physicists, mathematicians, and lawyers in their own fields.
You might recall I entertained myself quite well by doing that very thing with you, as you tried to ascribe to the authors of our Constitution the present-day basis of jurisprudence regarding the "Separation of Church and State".
I hope we have not seen the last of your flailings.
Cool, I see you want me to go the whole way.

so be it q-tip.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#11149 May 24, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
Cool, I see you want me to go the whole way.
so be it q-tip.
I find you most arrogant and disagreeable.

Given that,

Why are you letting muslims take over your country?

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#11150 May 24, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen to this prophesy repeated three times in Quran:
"It is He (i.e. Allah) who sent His Messenger (I.e. prophet Mohammad) With Guidance (I.e. Quran) and Religion of Truth (i.e islam, so as to proclaim over all other ways of life".
This verse was revealed when islam was limited to small city of Madina and all around was a sea of his enemies.
But since that day, Islam is growing and no day passes when its followers do not increase. there is not a single day when some one in some part of world does not enter into the religion of islam.
And for close to 700 years, there was no one who could stand before islam and its arguments.
And you say it was some sort of 'common prophesy" which people make. To prophesize that Islam would even survive was having an odd of 1 to 100!!
But you people who do not know anything about world and its history, armed with hate messages and some hearsay which you pick up from here and there, pose yourself as authority on Islam and post foolish messages.
best for you is to continue your one liners and be content.
Allah didn't write it.

Mohamed (the pedophile) wrote it.
Mohamed (the pedophile) wrote it.
Mohamed (the pedophile) wrote it.

... and you idiots fell for it, with out seeing a god write a damned thing.

Since: May 11

UK

#11151 May 24, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I find you most arrogant and disagreeable.
Given that,
Why are you letting muslims take over your country?
You find me arrogant?

...how my heart doth bleed purple pi$$ for you.

My arrogance can only be matched by your humilty.

"why are you letting muslims take over your country"...there it is, the old Buck Crick flair for the non sequitur deflection.

Why are you letting mental bastards have guns to kill your children at their desks?- see how that works?

Sorry can`t chat, in the middle of a letter to the Federal Probation Service in your country.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#11152 May 24, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
You find me arrogant?
...how my heart doth bleed purple pi$$ for you.
My arrogance can only be matched by your humilty.
"why are you letting muslims take over your country"...there it is, the old Buck Crick flair for the non sequitur deflection.
Why are you letting mental bastards have guns to kill your children at their desks?- see how that works?
Sorry can`t chat, in the middle of a letter to the Federal Probation Service in your country.
Tell them I said "hi". With the Obamic regime, they might tap your phone, though.

Mine was not a non sequitur. You are, in fact, letting muslims take over your country.

Killing with firearms is way down in the U.S. It coincides with more people having guns.

Killing BY firearms is where it has always been - nearly zero.

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 Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 18 min ChristineM 18,888
News Speaking for God 28 min True Christian wi... 76
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 40 min Critical Eye 6,261
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 hr Insults Are Easier 253,671
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Richardfs 27,467
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 5 hr Knowledge- 8,262
Good News for atheists (May '13) 11 hr thetruth 68
More from around the web