Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Aug 27, 2012 Full story: News24 14,385

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. Full Story

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#396 Dec 3, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Great post. Colin, when treated with respect, isn't such a jerkface, so that's nice. But he is deeply committed to his belief system. So, I wonder how much he actually considers what we write.
As with many of my posts, the final paragraph is the one I hope people will think about--the rest of the essay leads up to it, however circuitous the path may be. In this case, it is a statement of core belief and addressed to all readers, not just Colin:

The world is so much more fascinating when you study it without the need to defend your ideology. As I suggested before, look past the debate if you want to understand the huge ideas that underlie it. The need to debate produces limited thinking. Do you really want to limit yours?

One of the things I like about your posts is that you rarely, if ever, allow "debate fever" to overwhelm your mind. Even when countering posts like Colin's, your focus is more on the science than on the argument. That makes your posts interesting even when my poor brain has trouble keeping up.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#397 Dec 3, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The articles you cited do not explain the evolution of the eye. They describe the sequence of appearance of the eye in time, and on that basis assume the rest. There is no actual pathway for the emergence of the mammalian eye offered which contains the necessary mechanisms for innovation that are required. Particularly difficult is the lack of a plausible theory for how the various components arose separately while dependent upon the other.
They're Wikipedia article and, as such, only summarize the topic for popular audiences. To get to the nitty-gritty, you have to read the source material found in the bibliography and the reference page. To find out about current research, you have to gain access to the various journals in which researchers describe ongoing progress.

I offered it to Colin as a starting point, not to score points in any debate. I don't like debate, but prefer discussions that combine genuine interest in the subject and mutual respect. To repeat:

The world is so much more fascinating when you study it without the need to defend your ideology. As I suggested before, look past the debate if you want to understand the huge ideas that underlie it. The need to debate produces limited thinking. Do you really want to limit yours?

“My hand is over my crotch.”

Since: Jan 10

It's time to put it to use

#398 Dec 3, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
A pleasure, dear Emperor! Did you look up the answers?
No, not yet, I have to remind myself to do so.

“My hand is over my crotch.”

Since: Jan 10

It's time to put it to use

#399 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.
Forgive me for my ignorance, science, esp biology was never my thing. I always thought that in order to go through natural selection, a species had to adapt/evolve, hence the term "evolution." I was always of the opinion that natural selection was one of the strongest proofs of the theory of evolution.

“My hand is over my crotch.”

Since: Jan 10

It's time to put it to use

#400 Dec 3, 2012
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Look up the definition of religion, neither meets the criteria. And they are based on theories that are based on many facts and evidence that has been discussed.

“My hand is over my crotch.”

Since: Jan 10

It's time to put it to use

#401 Dec 3, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Galileo was not excommunicated so try again.
"One of the little fictions that planetarium lecturers like to tell is that of Galileo confronting the Inquisition. Accused of holding the heretical belief that the Earth moves around the sun, Galileo stands defiantly—the enlightened man of science—facing the entrenched dogma of the Church. It is a story told so often that we have come to believe it ourselves.
Unfortunately, history does not support such a picture. Galileo may not have been guilty of heresy, but he was guilty of several other things:(l) some of his scientific "facts" were wrong; (2) he claimed to have proof when no proof existed; (3) he was unaware of Kepler's exposition of planetary motion, though Kepler's book was in his own bookcase; and (4) he had made enemies—bitter enemies—quite needlessly."
John Appledoorn, Savannah Science Museum
Planetarian, Vol 19 #4, pages 15-17 & 19, December 1990.
The Planetarian is the quarterly journal of the International Planetarium Society
"The story of Galileo is an interesting one. But I think it might be fair to say that Galileo’s greatest mistake was being a bit arrogant in the way he presented his own views and insulting the pope who, prior to that, had been fairly sympathetic with Galileo’s conclusions. Basically the pope couldn’t let Galileo get away with this kind of insult".
Dr Francis Collins, Former Director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute, currently Director of National Institutes of Health
Galileo was imprisoned by the pope. The pope was at first sympathetic, until the other church leaders complained, then he began to demand that Galileo cease promoting his theory. Galileo responded by putting his work in a satirical, hypothetical work. That is when the pope ordered him arrested and imprisoned.

“Israel for Ever and Ever”

Since: Nov 08

Right Here with my feet up

#402 Dec 3, 2012
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Look up the definition of religion, neither meets the criteria. And they are based on theories that are based on many facts and evidence that has been discussed.
Both evolutions and dawinism are based on faith, no fact just the sacred writing of the faithful.

“My hand is over my crotch.”

Since: Jan 10

It's time to put it to use

#403 Dec 3, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
"And that was the ultimate source of Galileo’s conflict with the church: he was teaching as fact what still at that time had only the status of theory. When church officials asked Galileo in 1616 to teach heliocentrism as theory rather than as fact, he agreed; however, in 1632 he published a new work, Dialogue on the Great World Systems, in which he presented heliocentrism as fact again."
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_galil...
And that was so serious a issue that the church jailed him for it.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#404 Dec 4, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand antibiotic resistance. It's not evolution. The surviving members possessed an advantage for survival, and survived. Therefore they became more numerous, relatively speaking, in the population.
Absolutely nothing evolved.
Natural selection is not evolution. A wider phenomenon can be described which uses natural selection as a component of evolution.
But no - what you described in natural selection is not evolution.
If you want to argue about evolution, you might benefit from learning what it is.
It is evolution. Change in gene frequencies in a gene pool over time.

It also involves mutation of the genes that produce the adaptation that deals with the antibiotics.

If you think that the evolution of drug resistance isn't evolution, you don't understand evolution.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#405 Dec 4, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Your view of "evolution is fact" can never be disproven because it is not susceptible to proof. If you define antibiotic resistance as evolution, which you did, then it is fact. But when you speak of "evolution" in other contexts, it means much more than is evident in antibiotic resistance. It is such an elastic term, as you use it, that it is essentially devoid of any susceptibility to confirming or disconfirming evidence.
This elasticity is a potent propaganda tool. Whether or not every claim of evolutionary scientists is true, such claims are exempt from critical evaluation in the body of the public because of the success of the propaganda campaign that uses such silly-ass proof as antibiotic resistance on the unsophisticated observer. It has become largely a social and political campaign, rather than a scientific one.
I am constantly defining evolution for people like you on these threads. It is, once again, change in gene frequencies in gene pools, over time.

For some reason you fail to understand that - hence you fail to build up from it. That's why in your last post you would write something so wrong as "natural selection isn't evolution." That's ridiculous in the extreme.

But it comes as no surprise as you seem to have learned everything you know about evolution from "intelligent design" people. They, like you, fail to understand evolution.
Thinking

Saffron Walden, UK

#406 Dec 4, 2012
BS
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Both evolutions and dawinism are based on faith, no fact just the sacred writing of the faithful.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#407 Dec 4, 2012
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Clear as mud. The "A" means without, minus, having none. It does not mean, does not believe in whatever is following the "A"!

The atheist is not trying to prove there are no theist, nor is the abookist trying to prove there are no books. Clearly there are both theist and books.

I will make this easy for you, while I am an atheist, meaning that I am not theist, I also am an agodist, meaning that I have no gods. I also am a non believer, meaning I do not believe that there are any gods, not a single one ever.

Now I realize that to you, your Ju-Ju man's (completely unfounded)beliefs on who I am are more valid than my beliefs on who I am, but this is the way it is ... the atheist is not theist. Nothing more!

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#408 Dec 4, 2012
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Yeah, there is much for you to overcome ... and ignorance is at the top of that list. Denying evolution is like denying sunshine or water.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#409 Dec 4, 2012
Colin The Zionist wrote:
<quoted text>
Your post only goes to prove that yes you are a Theophobic
If I were afraid of theology, I could not have studied it for decades. You should learn the meaning of words before trying to use them as weapons. Understanding a words meaning would clue you in to whether it could be effectively used as cannon fodder, or not.
Since my post showed no fear of theology, you are not yet capable of critiquing that which you are reading. Maybe a few more years of primary school and you will be ready to actually participate here.
Thinking

Saffron Walden, UK

#410 Dec 4, 2012
I very rarely disagree with you, but Colin looks like he's just trying to burn cycles.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Colin, when treated with respect, isn't such a jerkface,

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#411 Dec 4, 2012
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>They're Wikipedia article and, as such, only summarize the topic for popular audiences. To get to the nitty-gritty, you have to read the source material found in the bibliography and the reference page. To find out about current research, you have to gain access to the various journals in which researchers describe ongoing progress.
I offered it to Colin as a starting point, not to score points in any debate. I don't like debate, but prefer discussions that combine genuine interest in the subject and mutual respect. To repeat:
The world is so much more fascinating when you study it without the need to defend your ideology. As I suggested before, look past the debate if you want to understand the huge ideas that underlie it. The need to debate produces limited thinking. Do you really want to limit yours?
No discussion or study of this subject is "free from ideology". It is only an advantage for a particular claim to propose that the contrary position is ideological, while the claimant's is ideology-free.

That fallacy runs true through most atheistic reasoning, or attempts thereof. The "god-belief" is ideological or religious, it is said, while the "no-god belief" is objective. It is a false premise. This explains modern attempts to change the definition of atheism from a belief to a lack of one.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#412 Dec 4, 2012
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text> Forgive me for my ignorance, science, esp biology was never my thing. I always thought that in order to go through natural selection, a species had to adapt/evolve, hence the term "evolution." I was always of the opinion that natural selection was one of the strongest proofs of the theory of evolution.
A lugnut is a strong proof that an automobile existed. It is not definitive proof.

A lugnut is not an automobile. If we call a lugnut an automobile, then the term "automobile" is rendered meaningless.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#413 Dec 4, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
It is evolution. Change in gene frequencies in a gene pool over time.
It also involves mutation of the genes that produce the adaptation that deals with the antibiotics.
If you think that the evolution of drug resistance isn't evolution, you don't understand evolution.
I don't just think it, I know it.

No evolution is required for drug resistance. Mutation of a gene is not even required always.

To say this is "evolution" just means you see evolution everywhere, whether it's there or not.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#414 Dec 4, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
I am constantly defining evolution for people like you on these threads. It is, once again, change in gene frequencies in gene pools, over time.
For some reason you fail to understand that - hence you fail to build up from it. That's why in your last post you would write something so wrong as "natural selection isn't evolution." That's ridiculous in the extreme.
But it comes as no surprise as you seem to have learned everything you know about evolution from "intelligent design" people. They, like you, fail to understand evolution.
"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.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#415 Dec 4, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No discussion or study of this subject is "free from ideology". It is only an advantage for a particular claim to propose that the contrary position is ideological, while the claimant's is ideology-free.
That fallacy runs true through most atheistic reasoning, or attempts thereof. The "god-belief" is ideological or religious, it is said, while the "no-god belief" is objective. It is a false premise. This explains modern attempts to change the definition of atheism from a belief to a lack of one.
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."

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
Who Is Allah? (Aug '07) 2 hr Eric 202,290
Respecting belief: why should you? And why shou... Sun thetruth 21
I...(gulp) am a Pagan Agnostic Taoist Sep 19 Son of God 1
Pagan caught performing naked ritual with teena... (Nov '12) Sep 8 Kathwynn 14
Bloomfield woman behind Ten Commandments monume... Sep 7 Kathwynn 2
Who exactly was Gjoub, and should I trust him? (Mar '09) Sep 1 Kathwynn 503
SHADOW PEOPLE... i need help (May '07) Aug 25 Only1Likeme212 347
•••

Pagan/Wiccan People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••