Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

There are 14659 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.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#334 Dec 3, 2012
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not want to be taught by the ignorant. Now we do actually agree on one thing here adaptation is a problem solving mechanism, I agree 100%. Now adaptation is a design feature in all living organisms, the design is able to adapt to its surroundings, but adaptation does not add new genetic information. In the case of TB and other such organism they adapt to suit their environments, we try to kill them or render them harmless, they try to stop us doing so. They do not add new information they adapt.
The replacement for the evolution lie has been there all the time. It is called intelligent design or creation. For more information refer to the Torah.
You're correct in that adaptation is designed by natural selection and that adaptation doesn't add new genetic information.

Your error, the one you constantly make, is calling the evolution of bacterial resistance "adaptation." That's false. Bacteria didn't adapt to our medicines, they evolved adaptation to deal with our medicines. This is an important point that seems to sophisticated for you.

Once again, adaptation is the mechanism of problem solving produced by natural selection. Adaptations evolve in response to environmental problems.

If you cannot understand this, you cannot understand evolution. It's that simple.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#335 Dec 3, 2012
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok here goes:
The sharing of genetic material proves creation 100%
Birds and bats were both created easy as that, you need to do better than this. By the way planes also use flight.
What hole in creation? God created man corrupted, what we call parasites were not always bad.
TB has mutated due to the degradation of the gene pool no more no less.
How does evolution explain the bacterial flagellum?
Wrong again evolution cannot be test and proved in a lab, new technologies use created matter such a carbon to manufacture there is nothing new under the sun.
There it comes out the insults again, there are in fact many scientists who have put aside the “everything cam form nothing” notion and accept intelligent design.
I tend to use 6000 year old medicine they are called plants and herbs, next time you go to the market you by some newly developed genetically new product, guess what there are none. There is nothing new under the sun.
Oh and by the way next time you meet an evolutionary scientist ask him or her the proof that they have to prove evolution and post it here because no one else can. Proof = 100% fact
So I already destroyed your framework above, mainly based on your inability to understand DNA.

Importantly, you didn't actually construct a theoretical framework here. Let's look at evolution as an example.

Evolution is "change in allelic frequency in gene pools, over time." It's the simplest statement of evolution we can make. It is at once explanatory and allows us to draw predictions from it, unlike what you wrote above.

Evolution predicts that all species evolved over time to get to where they are now. Hence, they have evolutionary relationships. The more genetically related two species are, the more related the are. We can draw testable, disprovable hypotheses from this prediction. For example, I can take a monkey, a tree shrew, a bird and an insect and make the prediction that the monkey and the tree shrew will be most related, both will be equally related to the bird and monkeys, tree shrews and birds will all be equally related to the insect.

And this is borne out. We can draw up phylogenetic relationships for all species - and, indeed, we have. And they hold up under scrutiny.

You can't make these kinds of predictions with what you wrote above. Your guess above isn't even explanatory - why are monkeys and tree shrews more related to each other than to a bird?

Why are all birds more related to each other than any bird is to a bat? Why are all bats more related to, say, all dogs, than to all birds? Why do humans share greater genetic similarity with Pan than with, say, Gorilla? You can't explain that. Evolution can. No problem.

Further, your comment about species "degrading" into pathogens because of "sin" is ridiculous.

First, the vast majority of parasites on the planet don't live on humans, but on other species.

Second, parasites aren't degraded. They're highly derived (another word you don't know) and full of adaptations to survive and reproduce well. Some parasites have incredibly complex life cycles, infecting several free living species.

Third - a huge problem for creationists living in the 1800s - you have to explain extinction and pathogens if you believe in a Perfect, All-loving deity. I don't, it's not a problem for evolution to explain these things.

But your claim is that God wants malaria. He must have Created it in your view. Malaria is the number one killer of children under 5 worldwide. Again, not a problem from an evolutionary explanation. But for you, we're about to hear some remarkable mental gymnastics if you try to explain malaria under a Christian Creationists framework.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#336 Dec 3, 2012
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a good example of how you evolutionists reason.
- why are the old world monkeys more related to great apes than to prosimians?

- why are howler monkeys more closely related to spider monkeys than to cebus monkeys?

- why are all of the above three monkeys more related to each than to, say, baboons?

- why is a howler monkey as genetically related to a parrot as a human is?

- why is a howler monkey more closely related to a bat than to any bird?

- why are bats more closely related to tree shrews than to, say, horses?

- why are whales more closely related to humans than they are to fish?

- why are all land animals, including whales, equally related to the coelecanth and less related to the piranha?

- why are there 4 times as many parasite species as free living ones?

- why did the gene that produces glucose-6 phosphate dehydrogenase disorder in humans suddenly appear 12000 years ago in wet rice farmers but not in European populations?

- why did the gene for the retention of the ability to digest milk into the adult phase suddenly appear in European populations around 12-15000 years ago? Why is it absent in many Asian peoples?

- why do people's skin colors differ?

- why do people have fever and what should the treatment be?

- why do malaria victims have intense fever and what should the treatment be?

- why do malaria victims "dump" iron and become anemic? What should the treatment be?

I can explain all of the above using evolutionary theory. Your "creationism" is a joke - a dangerous, worthless joke. It cannot explain any of the above. It cannot produce testable, disprovable hypotheses. Evolution can and does, and that is why it is the framework theory for all biological sciences.

“I'm out hunting”

Since: Jan 10

For your mind and soul

#337 Dec 3, 2012
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Theophobics? Ha ha, what a dolt, you are. Most of us have studied theology quite extensively, and some of us have found in theology, the impetus for our walking away from the entire mess. Consider the bible, it's contradictions and outright fallacies are enough to start even the most devout of godbots wondering whether or not, the damned thing was originally translated correctly. Then when the translations pan out to be as shown in the book, we rethink the lot.
Exactly. Why the hell would I see any book as "holy" when it cannot tell the truth to itself. Judge Judy often says "Only liars need to have a good memory. The biblical scholars are not good liars. They should have gone over their works to take out any inconsistencies, but they did not. Even authors know to catalog things so that the characters and stories in their book do not contradict each other.
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>
How can any thinking human not question a god who might make you eat your own children? Believe me, I turned and ran from the idiocy, and I did not indoctrinate my children in the manner in which I had been indoctrinated. A child hearing "Jesus loves you", is primed to hand over his future earnings to the tune of not less than 10%, but start that same child with "God might make Mum and dad cook and eat you". Well the child will not be pulled kicking and screaming back into that freak show. Honesty is the best policy isn't it, well maybe the children should know at the beginning, what they are really getting into.
The God of the buybull would be one of the worst murderers in history if it he was real.

“I'm out hunting”

Since: Jan 10

For your mind and soul

#338 Dec 3, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>

- why are there 4 times as many parasite species as free living ones?
- why did the gene that produces glucose-6 phosphate dehydrogenase disorder in humans suddenly appear 12000 years ago in wet rice farmers but not in European populations?
- why did the gene for the retention of the ability to digest milk into the adult phase suddenly appear in European populations around 12-15000 years ago? Why is it absent in many Asian peoples?
I did not know these facts. Thanks for the info.
Thinking

Saffron Walden, UK

#339 Dec 3, 2012
priests f**k kids

Less is more.
Prop 8 is Law wrote:
<quoted text>You must understand that this Hiding character will soon leave, because she can not deceive here. Her statement “If evolutionary theory was incorrect, species would not be related to each other”, it is the illogic of evolution debate.
They do this:
Rule 1: All cars are red.
Rule 2: All cars have wheels.
Conclusion 1: A blue Toyota with no wheels is not a car.
Conclusion 2: A red 18 wheeler is a car.
Then they will debate this circular nonsense ad nauseum.
Thinking

Saffron Walden, UK

#340 Dec 3, 2012
When I visited English friends working in Singapore, the locals kindly told us they could smell the dairy on our bodies no matter how much we washed.
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text> I did not know these facts. Thanks for the info.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#341 Dec 3, 2012
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a good example of how you evolutionists reason.
But no one in the course of this discussion has attempted the fallacy cited, certainly not Hiding, to whom it was ascribed. A good logician points out faulty logic even when it is used by someone on the same side of an argument to support a point to which he agrees. You failed to do that, meaning that either your grasp of logic is weaker than you have claimed or your basic honesty is questionable at best.

Which is it?

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#342 Dec 3, 2012
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text> I did not know these facts. Thanks for the info.
A pleasure, dear Emperor! Did you look up the answers?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#343 Dec 3, 2012
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Finally someone who admits that evolution cannot be scientifically proven. THANK YOU. So if it is not a fact that makes it a myth, why are so many billions of dollars spent trying to prove a lie? GOOD QUESTION.
Proof is a very scientific term all real science is based on proof,“can you reproduce it in the lab yes = proof” easy as that.
This is clearly and obviously wrong if you know anything at all about science.

Let's take a relatively neutral example: the theory of gravity.
What, exactly, can we 'prove' in the lab? Well, we can show that whenever we have measured two pieces of matter, there is a force between them. That 'proves' that gravity exists, but it does NOT prove the 'theory of gravity'. You see, the theory of gravity states that the force exists between *every* two masses in the universe and depends on those masses and the distances in a very specific way. While we can verify this to within the limits of our ability to measure, we cannot *prove* that every two pieces of matter exhibit this force, nor can we show this force *exactly* matches the predictions of the theory.

And that is the way of ALL scientific theories: we can often show that some general phenomenon happens (gravity, allele change in populations, species changing over time), but the details of the theory (the exact mechanisms, the universality of the ideas, the precision of the predictions, etc) cannot be *proven*. They can only be demonstrated in every specific case we can test.

Evolution has been shown to exist: alleles change in frequency in populations over time AND species change over geological time. There are multiple lines of evidence for both of these propositions, from the degree of relatedness of the DNA in different species, to the geological record showing different species at different geological times, to protein studies that match the nested hierarchy seen in morphological studies.

What cannot be proved is the details. In exactly the same way that the theory of gravity cannot be proved in detail (because it is universal and precise--and our measurements are local and imprecise), it is impossible to map out each and every generation showing how one species transitions to another. But that isn't an indictment of evolution: it is simply how science works. Instead, we ask if our theories can predict new results and test alternative theories in their ability to make such predictions that hold up under observation.

So, what *precise* predictions can your 'theory of creation' make that are superior to those made by the 'theory of evolution'?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#344 Dec 3, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You're correct in that adaptation is designed by natural selection and that adaptation doesn't add new genetic information.
Your error, the one you constantly make, is calling the evolution of bacterial resistance "adaptation." That's false. Bacteria didn't adapt to our medicines, they evolved adaptation to deal with our medicines. This is an important point that seems to sophisticated for you.
Once again, adaptation is the mechanism of problem solving produced by natural selection. Adaptations evolve in response to environmental problems.
If you cannot understand this, you cannot understand evolution. It's that simple.
The bacteria "evolved adaptations"??

The one that got killed is dead. The one that didn't get killed isn't dead.

That's not evolution. Natural selection and artificial selection are not "evolution".

If it is, then "evolution" is a meaningless term.





“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#345 Dec 3, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The bacteria "evolved adaptations"??
The one that got killed is dead. The one that didn't get killed isn't dead.
That's not evolution. Natural selection and artificial selection are not "evolution".
If it is, then "evolution" is a meaningless term.
If you'd read my earlier explanation you might understand these issues better.

The bacteria that had mutations to their adaptive mechanisms of detoxification of antibiotics survived. They were under selection pressure to become more efficient at detoxifying antibiotics. "Selection pressure" means that those bacteria that could not cope with the toxin left fewer offspring behind than those that could.

Evolution is allelic frequency change in gene pools, over time. Buck...the evolution of drug resistance is evolution, plain and simple.

Yes, Buck, natural selection and artificial selection are evolution. They cannot not be. Your comment here is nonsensical, meaningless, lacking in every possible way. How can natural selection not be evolution?!? It changes gene frequencies - those that cannot survive, because of their DNA, die without issue, thereby changing the gene frequency of the gene pool. Those that do survive, because of their genes, leave offspring behind. From that point on, those bacteria with mutations that increase their abilities to survive and reproduce in the presence of antibiotics are better represented in the gene pool and so outcompete other bacteria, lacking such mutation.

Evolution.

Quite clearly not intelligent design.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#346 Dec 3, 2012
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text> Evolution is not a religion. It is a scientific theory based on years and years of studying facts, not on the teachings of pre historic men.
Evolution is one part of the religions of evolutionism, humanism and darwinism. It is not based on any facts it is based on theory and requires faith of great magnitude to believe.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#347 Dec 3, 2012
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>No they don't.………………………
The theist has some form of theism, the atheist does not. Maybe you should direct your negative vibes toward the person who really denies your paltry god ... the non-believer.
Lease see above for my response to your religion.
Your illustration of atheism would be right if it stopped there but it does not it goes like this:
A man has a book (I will use your analogy) he is a bookist, his book is 1000 pages long, it has a glued red binding with hard cover front and back, and it has no illustrations. There is a second man who calls himself a abookist because he does not have a 1000 page, glued red bound hard cover book, his is blue 250 pages and soft cover. He is trying very hard to prove that there are no 1000 page, glued red bound hard cover books in circulation. If there is a man with no book at all then he has a news paper. He too is an abookist.
Much clearer illustration and much more real.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#348 Dec 3, 2012
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>First of all, there is no religion of atheism, anywhere past that you are just lost to any trace of reality.
Your game has apparently been played out, the players have left the field, the stadium has been sold, new sponsers of new sports are sending in new teams and you are insisting that we return to your lost archaic game.
The players have run away with their tails between their legs, they tried to sell the field but failed because they don't own it.

I really don't care if the failed evolutionists never return there are more for me to over come.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#349 Dec 3, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>(Edited for special reasons only)
First, thanks. No one has ever taken me up on that.
1. Why?
2. Mutations aren't shared,………………
Huh? How did you determine…………………..
No? What was malaria before it became malaria…………………..
It's gene pool has not "degraded." Why on earth would you propose that it did?
<quoted text>
The same way it explains everything………… on the flagellum, actually.
Evolution is tested over and over again in the lab.……………….
For the record,………………………
Those herbs you are using were designed by evolution…………………………
I am an evolutionary scientist.…………………….
I can post study after study demonstrating evolution in the laboratory.
Evolution = change in gene frequencies in gene pools, over time.
Common designer = common design foundation.
Mutations are generally the loss of data not the magical gaining of data. I like the monkey to ape line but it proves not evolution but it proved my point above, Common designer = common design foundation.

Yes but planes do share a common trait they fly that was your reason why birds and bats share a common ancestor. Also reproduction does not make new species it make the same species possibly there may be adaptations, like taking an organism into an extremely hot environment some live and adapt they have not evolved. It is like taking a fresh water gold fish and slowing adding salt to the water it will adapt and live in the salt water environment, I know this works I have done it. The gold fish has not evolved into a new species it is still a gold fish and can and does go back the other way.
It was malaria it just did not have the effects it does today.
The problem that those trying to figure out how the flagellum evolved keep on running into the same problem, it needed to evolve in one fully functioning step otherwise it could not have evolved. I know that many in science are trying to figure it out, I have read many papers and discussed this with many well meaning people but the same conclusion is always reached, and not be me either. The flagellum is the most efficient electrical motor in existence it need both rotor and stator to function it also need a reliable power source and a driven load all need to be present.
Yes evolution is tested over and over in many labs but there are never verifiable evidential results, I love reading those papers and attending those talks they go like this, we think…… we might be able to………………in the future………………we possibly may be able too, and so on. Speculation stated as fact but not backed up by linguistics.
Wrong I do know a lot about biological science and many other fields of science, I am not a fully funded scientist who sites in committee meeting all day and gets paid to do research on very little, who has like minded friends and colleges review his/ her work. By the way calling someone ignorant is an insult as it infers full ignoramus status not subject related ignoramus. In the same vain I did not insult anyone unless calling someone a janitor is an insult, tell that to the janitor of your lab see how he feels.
Herbs and plants were created to be of help to man they did not co-evolve, your vit C example is wonderful but tell me how did the fruit know that we may lack vit C in our diet to evolve vit C. Sounds far more like Intelligent Design to me.
If all you can post as proof of evolution is adaptation then hay yes God designed the ability for all species to adapted no evolution but Intelligent Design.
“Evolution = change in gene frequencies in gene pools, over time” this is adaptation.(microevoilution as I have called it, which by the way is not my term it is a very common term used in science) no new species nor new life have ever evolved, have ever seen to evolve or have ever been made in the lab. No proof no evolution.

Thank you for your intelligent posts much fun to read and yes it did make me go back a do some more reading.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#350 Dec 3, 2012
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Theophobics? Ha ha, what a………………..
.
Your post only goes to prove that yes you are a Theophobic

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#351 Dec 3, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
……………Bacteria didn't adapt to our medicines, they evolved adaptation to deal with our medicines.
.
This is mere word play they do not evolve they adapt easy as that. Adaptation is a design feature sorry but you are sadly mistaken.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#352 Dec 3, 2012
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do godbots only ever quote from long dead scientists?
So the assbots would prefer modern scientists? Okay.

"In my view, the question of origin seems to be left unanswered if we explore from a scientific view alone. Thus, I believe there is a need for some religious or metaphysical explanation. I believe in the concept of God and in His existence."
Charles Townes, Nobel Prize winner. Engineer, Scientist, and Co-Inventor of the Laser.


"There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the Big Bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing." Nobel Prize winner, George Smoot—co-discoverer of the Great Galaxy Seeds

"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.

"The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming."
Freeman Dyson,theoretical physicist and mathematician, famous for his work in quantum field theory, solid-state physics, astronomy and nuclear engineering. Dyson is a member of the Board of Sponsors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

"The belief that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter, is simply a matter of faith in strict reductionism and is based entirely on ideology."
Nuclear physicist and bioinformatician Dr. Hubert P. Yockey

Happy now?

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#353 Dec 3, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
So I already destroyed your framework above, mainly based on your inability to understand DNA.
Second, parasites aren't degraded. They're highly derived (another word you don't know) and full of adaptations to survive and reproduce well. Some parasites have incredibly complex life cycles, infecting several free living species.
.
No, no destruction of frame work, let’s take this back to be basics here is what you believe, out of nonliving organic matter came life, due to the fact that it cannot be scientifically explained you need to add the “billions of years”
There it is “testable, disprovable hypotheses” what is a “testable, disprovable hypotheses” first lest examine “hypotheses” come from the word “hypothetical” meaning to presume, not to know. So now we throw the word “disprovable” in the mix and we get this “you cannot disprove what I presume, if you try you are wrong because I presume myself to be right”.
Funny I don’t have a problem explaining things by creation you “presume” I do so you post it as fact; word Play: I don’t have that issue so perhaps your presumption is incorrect. In fact YES it is incorrect.

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.

Pagan/Wiccan Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Who Is Allah? (Aug '07) 3 min Frijoles 220,168
News the Beheading Sura: Robert Spencer's Blogging t... May 23 Dragnet52 5
Covertly clearing negative energy from the office (Sep '07) May 21 Debra 49
News No, American Christianity is not dead May 19 New Perspective 1
News POLL: Americans Turning Away from Religion May 15 Bible boy 1
News Carl Sagan as prophet of neo-Pagan Atheism May 12 geezerjock 1
Who exactly was Gjoub, and should I trust him? (Mar '09) May 11 garnetten 502
More from around the web