Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Aug 27, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: News24

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.

Comments (Page 54)

Showing posts 1,061 - 1,080 of14,385
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Thinking

Zeals, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1109
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bollocks.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not what I said. Learn to read English.
I said gene mutation is not always required for development of drug resistant populations, and I am correct.
If you like, I can explain it in more detail, and you can apologize - again - for being wrong as you have in the past.
Breeding longer-haired dogs is a "change in gene frequency of a gene pool over time". But there is no evolution there. None whatsoever.
Natural (or artificial) selection is not evolution. You get carried away easily.

“Go ahead.”

Since: Mar 11

Make my day.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1110
Dec 14, 2012
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
"Intelligent Design people" understand evolution far better than you, because they look at it critically, not as a matter of religious faith as you do.
Natural selection is not evolution. Natural selection is a process that can be involved in evolution, but not always. They are two different phenomena. That's why we have two terms - "natural selection" and "evolution".
Read the Peppered Moth story. Learn to think logically. Or continue as you are - I don't care.
Wow. It's impossible for me to parody people like you, you do such a fantastic job yourself.

"natural selection is not evolution."

Pick up any introductory textbook in biology. Read a bit. Education yourself.

It's like you're saying "stuff that happened 200 years ago is not history."

“Go ahead.”

Since: Mar 11

Make my day.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1111
Dec 14, 2012
 
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
I never wrote that people should free themselves from ideology, only that freedom from the need to defend it puts the sense of wonder back into seeking knowledge about the fabulous planet that we inhabit and the universe of which it is such a tiny part; that the need to debate limits one's thinking because the focus on ideas that support one's argument leads to a sort of intellectual tunnel vision. Letting go of the need to defend one's ideology frees the mind to see ideas in their full context. Such are the rewards for letting go of the ego's need to "win."
Buck doesn't come across as a very educated person in this thread. Anyone who writes that natural selection isn't evolution doesn't know the first thing about biology and shouldn't be trying to explain it to others.

So it's not surprising that he didn't understand your writing.

“Go ahead.”

Since: Mar 11

Make my day.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1112
Dec 14, 2012
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I look at it more as a case of intellectual analysis leading to my ideology, not vice-versa. The debate then is a contest of intellect and knowledge, not of the resultant worldview.
This is to make a modest point - that it is irksome when one side claims it is not operating from a worldview. It's kinda' a modern puritanism.
Everyone has a worldview.

Where's the intellectual analysis on your part?

“There are other issues.”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1113
Dec 14, 2012
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
<quoted text>So now you are saying atheists make up 6% of the US population. Great we can put the 2.3% claim to bed one and for all.

Atheists tend to be better educated, make more money, have better jobs this is a comfy life and those who live a comfy life are less likely to commit crimes, hence why we see fewer atheists in prisons. Atheists live by reason and reason shows you that breaking the law gets you slammed in prison so it's best not to do that. Whereas religious people tend to this this life is just a dress rehearsal for the next better life so they are far more likely to throw caution to the wind. It's no mystery.
Nope, not necessarily true. I am very wealthy, own several businesses, have a degree, and believe in God. You in the other hand pretend to be wealthy. Carlos Slim Helu is the wealthiest man on earth I believe and is Christian. I have a lot if friends who are also in business and range from Jewish, Catholics, Christians, to Mormon. I haven't broken any laws or killed anyone but have faith in God. Let me ask, if many atheists are rich, why do they vote democrat and get taxed higher? Me believing is not going to change and nobody can change my point of view. I don't think there is actual evidence to prove who is richer. But hey, your the smart one that knows everything.(Cough: bullsh!t!)

“Go ahead.”

Since: Mar 11

Make my day.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1114
Dec 14, 2012
 
Colin The Zionist wrote:
From Wiki.....
"In everyday speech, the word "theory" is used as a "best guess". In modern science, a scientific theory is a tested and expanded hypothesis that explains many experiments and fits ideas together in a framework. If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out."
Based on this obscure and twisted meaning of the word theory evolution is still in the to be changed or thrown out basket.
What's obscure about it?

"Theory" in science is a testable, disprovable explanation for phenomena. Theory links phenomena together under one explanatory umbrella. Further, theory produces testable and disprovable hypotheses. Hypotheses explore the nature of reality - we discard those that don't work, aren't explanatory, and keep those that do.

Clearly, you don't understand the first thing about science. You know dogma well, though. You want religious dogma to explain the world around you - that's why you're uncomfortable with science.

This is why you are incapable of understanding science.

“There are other issues.”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1115
Dec 14, 2012
 
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>christ you're thick.

OK. Say x% of a population are believers, y% are non-believers.

If less than y% of people in prison are non-believers, they are under represented.
That's what Givethemliberty's wife told me when I started to penetrate her. I am so thick. Lol!

“Go ahead.”

Since: Mar 11

Make my day.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1116
Dec 14, 2012
 
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
So the tag team tags back in no three welcome back no three, the rest of your cohorts are still running.
I really enjoyed (laughed at) your post, I fully agree with the opening line, but if we disagree why does that automatically make me wrong and you right? I have another question, Why has no one on the evolution tag team been able to stand to any of the challenges posted, by the way merely saying “because evolution says so” is a faith answer not a scientific one. Are you perhaps skipping my posts because you have no real answers to give, pretty much like the rest of your tag team except “Hidingfromyou” she at least put up a fight until she admitted in a post to being a totally ignorant zoologist. Pit I was enjoying that past of the debate.
Even you scurried away when challenged I though you would do better, so now tag team member three are you going to raise to the challenge.
False. I'm not an ignorant zoologist. I'm not a zoologist. I never admitted to being an ignorant zoologist. I told you exactly where my specialty is and where it is not - you are the one who delusionally pretends to have answers when you do not. Based on your words here, it's clear you either are incapable of being precise or you fail with reading comprehension.

You, against all reason, make pretense to understanding phenomena that you have absolutely no expertise in whatsoever - you don't even have an amateur understanding of anything you write about here. It's quite pathetic. I've been trying to teach you how science works and the entire while you've been asking ridiculously uninformed questions while, amazingly, thinking you've got interesting answers. If you had read the smallest amount of science at any time in your life, you wouldn't be so absurd in your questions and reasoning.

“Go ahead.”

Since: Mar 11

Make my day.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1117
Dec 14, 2012
 
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
I fully agree a local flood is not the same as a regional flood nor a world wide fold, but I do have to disagree both the Egyptians and the Chinese have world wide flood stories in their culture. Look them up you will be amazed.
Neither of their cultures have a worldwide flood myth like the Christian one.

The Christian one got theirs from Mesopotamian mythology. It's a borrowed myth you believe in.

“Go ahead.”

Since: Mar 11

Make my day.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1118
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
So do you KNOW what happens once you die?
You only GUESS that NOTHING happens when you die?
Your guess work is as good as mine?
Why should you say "NOTHING Happens" is "More Scientific" than what we say?
Scientifically we are both in the same boat!!
I wonder why Scientists claim your view is "More Scintific"?
When we die, the world will continue.

You will be over. You are your brain. Your brain's support mechanisms, and your brain itself, will fail. That's it. Turned off.

There is no "what happens after we die." After you die, the rest of the world continues - the party is over and you have to leave.

Grow up and deal with it.

“Go ahead.”

Since: Mar 11

Make my day.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1119
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not what I said. Learn to read English.
I said gene mutation is not always required for development of drug resistant populations, and I am correct.
If you like, I can explain it in more detail, and you can apologize - again - for being wrong as you have in the past.
Breeding longer-haired dogs is a "change in gene frequency of a gene pool over time". But there is no evolution there. None whatsoever.
Natural (or artificial) selection is not evolution. You get carried away easily.
You are incorrect. All genes arise by mutation. Mutation is absolutely required for the evolution of drug resistance.

You are utterly and wholly incorrect about "breeding longer-haired dogs" being "a change in gene frequency of a gene pool over time" and "not being evolution."

That is evolution. Evolution IS a change in gene frequencies in gene pools over time.

If you can't understand that, you can't understand biology. And, Buck, you don't. You have, sometimes patiently, sometimes impatiently, explained in great detail just how little you understand biology.

“Go ahead.”

Since: Mar 11

Make my day.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1121
Dec 14, 2012
 
One of the lessor intellects here is trying to say that drug resistance in bacteria is not a product of evolution. He's uneducated in biological science.

Here are some research papers:

"Drug concentration heterogeneity facilitates the evolution of drug resistance."

Pathogenic microorganisms use Darwinian processes to circumvent attempts at their control through
chemotherapy. In the case of HIV-1 infection, in which drug resistance is a continuing problem, we show that in onecompartment systems, there is a relatively narrow window of drug concentrations that allows evolution of resistant variants. When the system is enlarged to two spatially distinct compartments held at different drug concentrations with transport of virus between them, the range of average drug concentrations that allow evolution of resistance is significantly increased. For high average drug concentrations, resistance is very unlikely to arise without spatial heterogeneity. We argue that a quantitative understanding of the role played by heterogeneity in drug levels and pathogen transport is crucial for attempts to control re-emergent infectious disease."

http://www.pnas.org/content/95/20/11514.full....

"Evolution of Drug Resistance in Experimental Populations of Candida albicans"

"Adaptation to inhibitory concentrations of the antifungal agent fluconazole was monitored in replicated experimental populations founded from a single, drug-sensitive cell of the yeast Candida albicans and reared over 330 generations. The concentration of fluconazole was maintained at twice the MIC in six populations; no fluconazole was added to another six populations. All six replicate populations grown with fluconazole adapted to the presence of drug as indicated by an increase in MIC; none of the six populations grown without fluconazole showed any change in MIC. In all populations evolved with drug, increased fluconazole resistance was accompanied by increased resistance to ketoconazole and itraconazole; these populations contained ergosterol in their cell membranes and were amphotericin sensitive. The increase in fluconazole MIC in the six populations evolved with drug followed different trajectories, and these populations achieved different levels of resistance, with distinct overexpression patterns of four genes involved in azole resistance: the ATP-binding cassette transporter genes, CDR1 and CDR2; the gene encoding the target enzyme of the azoles in the ergosterol biosynthetic pathway, ERG11; and the major facilitator gene, MDR1. Selective sweeps in these populations were accompanied by additional genomic changes with no known relationship to drug resistance: loss of heterozygosity in two of the five marker genes assayed and alterations in DNA fingerprints and electrophoretic karyotypes. These results show that chance, in the form of mutations that confer an adaptive advantage, is a determinant in the evolution of azole drug resistance in experimental populations of C. albicans."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9...

"Evolution of Drug Resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis: Clinical and Molecular Perspective"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1...

There are hundreds of thousands of such scientific research.

Buck, you're too uninformed to argue with me. It's cute that you try, though. I'm sure everyone here enjoys the laugh.
Thinking

Zeals, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1122
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

(christian bluster mode on)
Yeah, but, it wasn't, like, wasn't history 201 years ago. Or something.
(christian bluster mode off)
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. It's impossible for me to parody people like you, you do such a fantastic job yourself.
"natural selection is not evolution."
Pick up any introductory textbook in biology. Read a bit. Education yourself.
It's like you're saying "stuff that happened 200 years ago is not history."

“Go ahead.”

Since: Mar 11

Make my day.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1123
Dec 14, 2012
 
Thinking wrote:
(christian bluster mode on)
Yeah, but, it wasn't, like, wasn't history 201 years ago. Or something.
(christian bluster mode off)
<quoted text>
hahaha!

It's seriously disturbing to see what these people post - more clear examples of failed education systems I cannot imagine.

“Go ahead.”

Since: Mar 11

Make my day.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1124
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Educated What wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, not necessarily true. I am very wealthy, own several businesses, have a degree, and believe in God. You in the other hand pretend to be wealthy. Carlos Slim Helu is the wealthiest man on earth I believe and is Christian. I have a lot if friends who are also in business and range from Jewish, Catholics, Christians, to Mormon. I haven't broken any laws or killed anyone but have faith in God. Let me ask, if many atheists are rich, why do they vote democrat and get taxed higher? Me believing is not going to change and nobody can change my point of view. I don't think there is actual evidence to prove who is richer. But hey, your the smart one that knows everything.(Cough: bullsh!t!)
.
hahaha!!!
.
Every single theist poster on here claims what you just claimed - you're all "very wealthy, in great shape, own your own business, hire PhDs who educate you differently than we do, have several girlfriends" and, my personal favorite, "have an IQ of 183 and a 9 inch cock."
.
Whatever, dude, we've heard it before. You have a crappy job if one at all, you're uneducated, have all the time in the world and really, really hate that you can't get anyone to agree to your insane ideas so you post here like crazy because people will respond to you.
Thinking

Zeals, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1126
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

How do you know?
How do I know that's true?
Why should either party care?
Educated What wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't get offended because I do better than you and I'm a theist.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1127
Dec 14, 2012
 
http://www.topix.com/forum/science
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes some liquids wet, and other liquids not wet ?

“Go ahead.”

Since: Mar 11

Make my day.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1128
Dec 14, 2012
 
Educated What wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove I have a crappy job. Atheists claim the same thing so should I refer to your post for them? Don't get offended because I do better than you and I'm a theist. Do you respond to me?
I don't care if you have a crappy job or actually own a company. It doesn't make a difference to me - it's your wording and logic I'm looking at. The thing is, almost all of you creationists claim to have your own companies. So whatever, I've heard it before.

In fact, I hope you're doing well. I hope you have lots of money and never need to worry. I hope you have a loving spouse and a wonderful family.

I really and truly hope you aren't miserable but instead have a fulfilling life and are completely satisfied in your spirituality.

Why would I ever be bothered by your success? I hope you have it! Your success doesn't affect my life. In fact, if you're successful and own several businesses, all the better! I hope they're all doing well - if so, you're helping the world be a better place. I hope you're employing as many people as possible! In that case, you're helping the economy. Great!

I just don't believe you. Sorry. I don't. Heard it all before so many times - I used to believe everyone. But the same story, over and over "I own a business and make lots of money" etc., etc. Whatever.

But if you sincerely do, great. Your success does not hurt me. It only makes me happy for you.

“Go ahead.”

Since: Mar 11

Make my day.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1129
Dec 14, 2012
 
Educated What wrote:
Don't get offended because I do better than you and I'm a theist.
You don't do better than me. I'm the best at being me out of all the people in the world. No one is better than being me, than me.

And in my fields of expertise, I'd say I'm doing well. If you were in my field, you couldn't do this well. How do I know? Well...you're a creationist and I work in one of the fields of evolutionary science. So in my field, you can't compete with me. You'd be laughed right out of work.

But don't feel bad. I couldn't do your job. Especially, iff by chance, your job requires that you be some sort of religious person, I super can't do it. So you don't have to worry on this account. We'd both outcompete each other in our respective fields.

That's not an issue for me.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1130
Dec 14, 2012
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Do you have even a shred of proof for this? Because atheists are almost nonexistent in any us jail or prison.
<quoted text>


Really?

Catholic 29,267 31.432%
Protestant 26,162 28.097%
None/Atheist/Unknown 18,537 19.908%
Muslim 5,435 5.837%
American Indian 2,408 2.586%
Nation of Islam 1,734 1.862%
Rastafarian 1,485 1.595%
Jewish 1,325 1.423%
Church of Christ 1,303 1.399%
Pentecostal 1,093 1.174%
Moorish 1,066 1.145%
Buddhist 882 0.947%
Jehovah's Witnesses 665 0.714%
Adventist 621 0.667%
Eastern Orthodox 375 0.403%
Latter-day Saints 298 0.320%
Scientology 190 0.204%
Hindu 119 0.128%
Santeria 117 0.126%
Sikh 14 0.015%
Baha'i 9 0.010%
ISKCON 7 0.008%
----------
Total 93,112 100.000%

http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1,061 - 1,080 of14,385
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

9 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 17 min Patrick 21,376
The numbers are in: America still distrusts ath... 47 min Patrick 6
Our world came from nothing? 52 min Buck Crick 175
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 hr Buck Crick 224,012
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 2 hr Buck Crick 356
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 4 hr Thinking 831
Atheism Destroyed At Last! - The Debate Of The ... 6 hr Patrick 1,285
•••
•••