Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Aug 27, 2012 Full story: News24 14,391

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

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#5036 Feb 1, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would you insult the good people of the Hindu faith behind their backs?
Does it make you feel superior?
I've said that very same thing directly to them concerning circular reasoning and the sentences they employ in doing that. They found it amusing and agreed.

They understand many things about their religion that Christians do not.

Have you ever noticed you don't see too many Hindus proselytizing?

Ever thought to ask yourself why?

Maybe you should.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#5037 Feb 1, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"There is no verifiable evidence for the existence of God"
Wrong, Dead Wrong.
What is this evidence?
Free clue:
Telling us you've already posted the evidence doesn't count as evidence.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#5038 Feb 1, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
If oral traditions were so great, why did we need to have writing?
There is an age old classroom exercise, you get a circle of kids (it works with adults too) of 20 or more people. Whisper something complex that you have in writing into the ear of one person. Have them repeat it to the person on the left as a whisper til it gets back to you. By the time it gets back, it will most likely not resemble what you said at all. This happens virtually without exception.
That's why oral traditions are not a good means of transmitting ideas and that's why we needed writing. Nowadays we have videos and audio recordings, so maybe we can dispense with writing now, but then, it was crucial.
I remember doing that in school! We called it "operator", because if you weren't sure you understood that the person had whispered to you, you'd say, "operator" to get them to say it again.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#5039 Feb 1, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not here to prove anything. I've got nothing TO prove. I don't need your permission to believe the way I do, and I've never indicated that you need mine.
Born Yosef ben Matityahu (Flavius Josephus) was a 1st century Romano-Jewish historian who wrote Antiquities of the Jews which RECOUNTED the history of the world from a Jewish perspective for an ostensibly Roman audience. Antiquities meaning ancient past. These works provide valuable insight into 1st century Judaism and the background of Early Christianity.(as per Wikipedia) The history of oral tradition dates back to the beginning of human history. Did Josephus base his writings primarily upon oral accounts? Doubtful. Jews have scribes for a reason. Said scribes are really good at documenting.
Question for you. Let's say you are convicted of a crime. The evidence the prosecution used against you in the case was of the same type you use to claim that your god exists. The only hard evidence is a written account of the incident... but it was written by multiple people and there is no way to know who wrote what or even who the writers really were.

Contained in the written account are "eye-wittness tesimonies" that speak against you. Some claim "I saw it happen"... other claim to have heard it from a reliable source... yet there is no way to prove they were anywhere near the 'crime scene' until 3 or 4 weeks later at a minimu, and no way to prove the wittnesses even existed in the first place... but their names are in the written account. A few more people that have read the wtitten account, swore to it's accuracy because on the second page one of the wittnesses said you were to blame. That claim is backed up a few pages later by another writer, and yet again a few pages later by another writer.

Your defense attorny asks for proof. The prosecutor opens the written account to page 2 and reads your name and the claim against you.

Would you accept the judgment from someone that based your criminal conviction on THAT type of evidence?
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#5040 Feb 1, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
No matter where he got the information, it was not first hand and therefore hear say. There have been other that speculated that Josephus *may* have gotten the information from prior writings. But with no reference to these writings by Josephus or anyone else of the time, it is only speculation.
The short of it, you've only got what Josephus had, which is nothing.
It seems that Josephus has become the "Most Important Person" in Judeo Christian history.

I think his value has become more than Jesus'!!

Because he is often quoted as "One who confirmed" that Jesus existed!!

Can you beat it!!

A Historian "confirming" that God came to earth to see them!!

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#5041 Feb 1, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>IOW, you don't have any evidence at all that god exists. If you did, you'd post it.
Posted earlier by Derek4

Is that the question you kept referring to? No wonder I couldn't remember, it's the same old question that atheists ask all the time – nothing sets it apart from the run-of-the-mill atheist questions we hear every day asking for proof of God. So why do you bother to ask it?

It's already been answered for you time and again in many different ways by Christians. If you choose not to accept the answers you've already been given over and over and over and over and over, then why do you need more answers? Are you just plain dense?[YES]

God is the Creator of heaven and earth and everything else. The Bible was not written by “someone”(s) imagination. It has many authors, spanning centuries. None of it has ever been proven untrue. People try all the time, and fail, because there are valid explanations for anything that on the surface appears to be a discrepancy. One part of it refers to another, confirms another, and all can be reconciled. Why would so many authors from so many centuries create an imaginary story? How could they confer with one another to do so when their lives did not overlap? Why would they endure persecution and die for an imaginary belief? What was to be gained?

Science is your god. It has failed you so many times.

Why should anyone accept science and it's fraud? Why should anyone believe Darwin, a sick bodied, sick minded man who conspired with fraudulent scientists to produce this “theory” back in the 1850's? What peer review groups checked out his work? How credible were the peer review groups? What of the unanswered or badly answered questions evolution has never resolved that have been posted here? You put your faith in all that? You truly live in a faith filled imaginary world full of potholes, fake evidence, and lies.

What about all the people like you who believed what Lamarck told them? They believed he was right, just as you believe Darwin was right. Lamarck was wrong. His followers were wrong. Darwin was wrong, and you are wrong.

http://www.arn.org/docs/dardoc1.htm

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#5042 Feb 1, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>IOW, you don't have any evidence at all that god exists. If you did, you'd post it.
"Evolutionists generally believe that although the spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter was a highly improbable event, the amount of time available is long enough to overcome this problem. This fallacy is because they (and most of us, really) just haven’t gotten around to some actual calculating on some of these problems.
The difficult thing is to conceive the size of some of the figures obtained. James F. Coppedge in the bookEvolution: Possible or Impossible? has given some fascinating examples, one of which is here presented. Consider first this statement from the evolutionist George Wald writing on The Origin of Life in the Scientific American (1954):
Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless there. Given so much time, the “impossible” becomes possible; the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself performs the miracles.
Now using Coppedge’s figures, let’s take a look at the time it would take for one simple gene to arrange itself by chance. Remember, natural selection cannot operate until a self-replicating system is produced. Of course, this gene by itself is still only a dead molecule in the absence of other genes and other complex chemicals all perfectly arranged in time and space. Nevertheless, let us use as many sets as there are atoms in the universe. Let us give chance the unbelievable number of attempts of eight trillion tries per second in each set! At this speed on average it would take 10^147 years to obtain just one stable gene. What does this number really mean? Let’s look at Coppedge’s example; assume we have an amoeba—and let’s assume that this little creature is given the task of carrying matter, one atom at a time from one edge of the universe to the other (though to be about thirty billion light years in diameter). Let’s further assume that this amoeba moves at the incredible slow pace of one Angstrom until (about the diameter of a hydrogen atom) every fifteen billion years (this is the assumed age of the universe assigned by many evolutionists). How much matter could this amoeba carry in this time calculated to arrange just one usable gene by chance? The answer is that he would be able to carry 2 x 10^21 complete universes!
This means that all the people living on earth, man, woman and child, counting day and night, would be counting for five thousand years just to count the number of entire universes which this amoeba would have transported across a distance of thirty billion light years, one atom at a time.
Coppedge’s book makes fascinating reading in other respects and is one of the few works that really comes to grips with this matter of molecular biology and probability mathematics.
Evolutionists would have us believe that modern molecular biology lends its support to their world view, but the more information comes to hand, the more preposterous the whole idea of a naturalistic origin of life becomes."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v...

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#5043 Feb 1, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Posted earlier by Derek4
Is that the question you kept referring to? No wonder I couldn't remember, it's the same old question that atheists ask all the time – nothing sets it apart from the run-of-the-mill atheist questions we hear every day asking for proof of God. So why do you bother to ask it?
It's already been answered for you time and again in many different ways by Christians. If you choose not to accept the answers you've already been given over and over and over and over and over, then why do you need more answers? Are you just plain dense?[YES]
God is the Creator of heaven and earth and everything else. The Bible was not written by “someone”(s) imagination. It has many authors, spanning centuries. None of it has ever been proven untrue. People try all the time, and fail, because there are valid explanations for anything that on the surface appears to be a discrepancy. One part of it refers to another, confirms another, and all can be reconciled. Why would so many authors from so many centuries create an imaginary story? How could they confer with one another to do so when their lives did not overlap? Why would they endure persecution and die for an imaginary belief? What was to be gained?
Science is your god. It has failed you so many times.
Why should anyone accept science and it's fraud? Why should anyone believe Darwin, a sick bodied, sick minded man who conspired with fraudulent scientists to produce this “theory” back in the 1850's? What peer review groups checked out his work? How credible were the peer review groups? What of the unanswered or badly answered questions evolution has never resolved that have been posted here? You put your faith in all that? You truly live in a faith filled imaginary world full of potholes, fake evidence, and lies.
What about all the people like you who believed what Lamarck told them? They believed he was right, just as you believe Darwin was right. Lamarck was wrong. His followers were wrong. Darwin was wrong, and you are wrong.
http://www.arn.org/docs/dardoc1.htm
Thanks for sharing your religious mythology and belief.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#5044 Feb 1, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"Evolutionists generally believe that although the spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter was a highly improbable event, the amount of time available is long enough to overcome this problem. This fallacy is because they (and most of us, really) just haven’t gotten around to some actual calculating on some of these problems.
The difficult thing is to conceive the size of some of the figures obtained. James F. Coppedge in the bookEvolution: Possible or Impossible? has given some fascinating examples, one of which is here presented. Consider first this statement from the evolutionist George Wald writing on The Origin of Life in the Scientific American (1954):
Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless there. Given so much time, the “impossible” becomes possible; the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself performs the miracles.
Now using Coppedge’s figures, let’s take a look at the time it would take for one simple gene to arrange itself by chance. Remember, natural selection cannot operate until a self-replicating system is produced. Of course, this gene by itself is still only a dead molecule in the absence of other genes and other complex chemicals all perfectly arranged in time and space. Nevertheless, let us use as many sets as there are atoms in the universe. Let us give chance the unbelievable number of attempts of eight trillion tries per second in each set! At this speed on average it would take 10^147 years to obtain just one stable gene. What does this number really mean? Let’s look at Coppedge’s example; assume we have an amoeba—and let’s assume that this little creature is given the task of carrying matter, one atom at a time from one edge of the universe to the other (though to be about thirty billion light years in diameter). Let’s further assume that this amoeba moves at the incredible slow pace of one Angstrom until (about the diameter of a hydrogen atom) every fifteen billion years (this is the assumed age of the universe assigned by many evolutionists). How much matter could this amoeba carry in this time calculated to arrange just one usable gene by chance? The answer is that he would be able to carry 2 x 10^21 complete universes!
This means that all the people living on earth, man, woman and child, counting day and night, would be counting for five thousand years just to count the number of entire universes which this amoeba would have transported across a distance of thirty billion light years, one atom at a time.
(Edited For Space)
All of the above is based on 25+ year old data, and much of the data used then has been disproved and shown to be in error.

Rebuttals can be found within these sources:

Alan W. Schwartz, "Biology and Theory: RNA and the Origin of Life," in The Chemistry of Life's Origins, edited by J.M. Greenberg, et al.(1993): pp. 323-44.

"Specific Interaction Between Self-Splicing of RNA of Tetrahymena and Its Guanosine Substrate," in Nature 308 (1984), p. 820; T.R. Cech, et al., "In Vitro Splicing of the Ribosomal RNA Precursor of Tetrahymena" in Cell 27 (1981), p. 487; for a critical analysis, see R. Shapiro, "Prebiotic Ribose Synthesis" in Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 18 (1988), p. 71.

T.R. Cech, "RNA chemistry: Ribozyme self-replication?" Nature 339 (June 15, 1989), pp. 507-8.

D.H. Lee, et al., "A Self-Replicating Peptide," Nature 382 (1996), pp. 525-528; T. Tjivikua, et al., "A Self-Replicating System," Journal of the American Chemical Society 112.3 (1990), pp. 1249-50.\

A full discussion of Coppedge's mistakes can be found here http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richar... , and here http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richar...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#5045 Feb 1, 2013
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>Question for you. Let's say you are convicted of a crime. The evidence the prosecution used against you in the case was of the same type you use to claim that your god exists. The only hard evidence is a written account of the incident... but it was written by multiple people and there is no way to know who wrote what or even who the writers really were.

Contained in the written account are "eye-wittness tesimonies" that speak against you. Some claim "I saw it happen"... other claim to have heard it from a reliable source... yet there is no way to prove they were anywhere near the 'crime scene' until 3 or 4 weeks later at a minimu, and no way to prove the wittnesses even existed in the first place... but their names are in the written account. A few more people that have read the wtitten account, swore to it's accuracy because on the second page one of the wittnesses said you were to blame. That claim is backed up a few pages later by another writer, and yet again a few pages later by another writer.

Your defense attorny asks for proof. The prosecutor opens the written account to page 2 and reads your name and the claim against you.

Would you accept the judgment from someone that based your criminal conviction on THAT type of evidence?
Is that really how you feel? That the Bible is full of judgement? That's so...sad. In answer to your hypothetical question: No. Nobody in their right mind would accept that judgement. It saddens me to hear that's how you perceive the Bible. There's so much beauty and love written within the pages of it. Yet all you seem to notice is the negative. Not the message as a whole. So so so sad. I mean heartbreakingly sad. I honestly don't know what to say to that.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#5046 Feb 2, 2013
It seems that most atheists are so narcissistic that they would have a very difficult time believing in anything greater than themselves. They rely a lot on intellect, which is definitely a less risky approach to life. To see the beauty of a sunset, or the miracle of a child being born, or the amazing transformation when one experiences unconditional love, and to still believe that life begins and ends with only human beings and no divinity seems utterly ridiculous. Most atheists seem to live on intellectual high ground that makes them appear to be superior to those of us who dare to have some belief system other than science. It seems that they get their kicks out of belittling those who have faith in God. To tout that faith and logic cannot coexist is short sighted. Basing your life only on hard facts and evidence leaves out a whole other dimension to life which includes intuition, spirituality, and the energy that exists between all living things. The unbelief of an atheist doesn't prove anything about the existence of God, it just proves the small mindedness of humans.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#5047 Feb 2, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Of which there is no Biblical account. Or historical account for that matter. Very creative of you, though.:)
Really the drinking blood and eating flesh, doesn't come from the "risen from the dead" Buybull Rabbi, Jewsus??

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#5048 Feb 2, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Really the drinking blood and eating flesh, doesn't come from the "risen from the dead" Buybull Rabbi, Jewsus??
Give me a reason to report your ass again.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#5049 Feb 2, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
ROFLMAO! Lady, you are a piece of work. Let's address your obvious fascination with zombies. Do I believe in Hollywood zombies? No. They're only meant to frighten and entertain. Do I believe that someone could be turned into a Zombie through witchcraft? Sure. Was Jesus a zombie? No. If you think he was, then prove it. Believing in God is not the same as practicing witchcraft. It's not even remotely related. Humanity has scientifically proven for years that there is a God. Honestly, I could list all the many ways to prove (scientifically) the existence of God, but that would take a while and I don't have that much space. Look it up. I ain't your momma. You, however, have yet to answer my simple question. What proof or evidence do you have to support your BELIEF that there is no God?
Magic and incantations you believe in? But you want me to prove the thing you lot claimed arose from his grave was not a result of magic and incantations? LOL! It didn't happen! But it is nothing less than magic or incantations which are credited with it. The incantations are but an appeal to some mythological magic sky monkey god or another. You know "prayer".

BTW, I don't believe in either the Hollywood, the Vodun or even the buybull version of the risen from dead zombie "Jewsus".

No evidence, as I said many times before, lack of evidence. If it were real there would be evidence. You say you have that evidence, but don't have time to post it all, so try for just one bit of proof. Just one thing that proves without doubt a god exists, any god will do.

You see proving a god would not eliminate we atheist, we still would be without theism, even if we did believe that a god existed. If the god that was proven to exist was the bible god, our own sense of right and wrong would not let us kneel to that filthy monster. I think most of us would be willing to go all out to bring it to trial for it's crimes against humanity. I know I would, if it existed.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#5050 Feb 2, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>I know that in your mind, you're trying to prove a point. But in my mind, I'm just having a conversation. I'm not here to prove a point. Nor am I looking for evidence. Because I know that science will never be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists or doesn't exist. There is no mathematical equation that will ever prove or disprove the existence of God. I get the questioning things bit. How else are we ever gonna learn anything? I just think you're going about it the wrong way. I think your analytical minds are overbaking it. It's not the quest for proof of the existence of God (even if only to try and disprove it), I don't think, that's the problem. It's the way you go about it that I think is the issue. Let's be honest. If science could prove or disprove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does or doesn't exist, don't you think someone would have done it by now? Or at least come close? Be it far from me to tell anyone how to do anything. I'm only stating my own humble opinion. I don't care if others choose to believe in Hercules or Zeus or Krishna or whoever. Their beliefs don't affect me one bit. I don't feel threatened by them at all. I sure as hell don't judge em for it. I just don't believe that way myself.
If god exists, he could easily prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he exists.

I'd think that with all the conflict and suffering in this world directly related to whether or not he exists, and what defines him, he'd show himself.

Otherwise, he'd just be a sadistic god.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#5051 Feb 2, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
If another religion believed in the nonsense they do, they would be the first to call it a satanic cult.
Exactly, just ask them about the Vodun, or Dracula. They do believe in and are sure that they can stop cannibalism, that of the native peoples anyway. Their missionaries wouldn't even leave the natives their symbolism yet none of them will do anything to stop the symbolic and very Pagan practices among their own kind.

We all have heard of the Pagan practice of acquiring the psychical attributes (strength and power) of someone who is admired by eating the flesh of that admired one. No difference, they want to be like Jewsus.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#5052 Feb 2, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Not splitting hairs on this issue. Answer my question. What proof or evidence do you have to support your BELIEF that God does not exist?
Lack of evidence! Does a jet plane not being in the sky, still leave a trail across that sky? And the snail not moving over the porch steps, leaves no slime trail?. You god's slime trail is missing.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#5053 Feb 2, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
No. No. No. It doesn't work that way. You asked me to scientifically prove why I believe in God, and I did. I asked you to scientifically support your belief that God doesn't exist, and you give me misdirection, and fairies, and hogwash. That's not very "logical" at all. Answer my question please. It is only one, and I have answered all of the questions you've asked me. Fair is fair. What proof or evidence do you have to support your BELIEF that God is not real?
Unless I missed one of your posts, you claimed you could prove it, but you didn't have the time to. That is not the same as proving it.
We don't claim it, you do. You prove it, and until then we have "lack of evidence" that proves it not to be real.
MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#5054 Feb 2, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
If god exists, he could easily prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he exists.
I'd think that with all the conflict and suffering in this world directly related to whether or not he exists, and what defines him, he'd show himself.
Otherwise, he'd just be a sadistic god.
WHY should He prove to you that He exists?

If you are so dumb, that even after seeing this whole Universe, you cannot see Him, then what are chances that you will recognize Him, when He appears to you "In Person"?

(Knock, Knock

Who is there?

It is God the Creator of this Universe?

Go and come tomorrow, I am busy right now!!)

Who you think you are?

Do you understand what the word Sadistic means? How can you use such a word for One who has provided all that for you?

Ungrateful Brat!!

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#5055 Feb 2, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
If you die an Atheist you will be an Atheist far longer then a Christian.
That would depend on how long I live, and not that I have died as an atheist.

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) 48 min El Cid 203,999
Handfasting - Is it final, or can it be repeate... Oct 26 Kathwynn 2
Bloomfield woman behind Ten Commandments monume... Oct 10 Liam R 3
Wiccan Arrested on Child Rape Charges (Apr '10) Oct 9 Lee County NC 46
I...(gulp) am a Pagan Agnostic Taoist Sep '14 Ol Fuddy Duddy 2
Respecting belief: why should you? And why shou... Sep '14 thetruth 21
Pagan caught performing naked ritual with teena... (Nov '12) Sep '14 Kathwynn 14

Pagan/Wiccan People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE