Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Aug 27, 2012 Full story: News24 14,456

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
You gotta be kidding

Auckland, New Zealand

#6993 Mar 10, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
...so where did everyone come from if it was after the flood?
As I said; they (WE) are all descendant for the son's of Noah. I am very sure that was what I said in my first post.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#6994 Mar 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"Where you from boy?"
"Texas, SIR!"
"Only two things come out of Texas, steers and....."
Sorry, couldn't resist.:)
Moo

Since: May 11

UK

#6995 Mar 10, 2013
You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes zero sense is your post.
The time speculated as the ‘Egyptian Middle Kingdom” was after the flood.
Like every other race in the world the Egyptians are descendant form one of Noah’s sons. Not form Avraham to father of the Hebrews.
Flood 2348 BCE(allegedly)

Egyptian Middle Kingdom 2000 - 1700 BCE

if the starting population of the earth is 8 persons in 350years at a growth rate of 1.2% which is a modern factor not allowing for high infant mortality or lack of medical care...

the GLOBAL population at the time of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom would be a grand total of....*drumroll*

508!
You gotta be kidding

Auckland, New Zealand

#6996 Mar 10, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
Flood 2348 BCE(allegedly)
Egyptian Middle Kingdom 2000 - 1700 BCE
if the starting population of the earth is 8 persons in 350years at a growth rate of 1.2% which is a modern factor not allowing for high infant mortality or lack of medical care...
the GLOBAL population at the time of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom would be a grand total of....*drumroll*
508!
Flood 2348 BCE
Egyptian Middle Kingdom 2000 - 1700 BCE (allegedly)
Why would you use a modern 1.2% calculation we know that they figure did not even apply 50 years ago. We know historically that there was far less infant mortality and virtually no decease needing medical care. The vast majority of decease is due to modern life style as is your population growth figure.

So do your math again.

Since: May 11

UK

#6997 Mar 10, 2013
You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
Flood 2348 BCE
Egyptian Middle Kingdom 2000 - 1700 BCE (allegedly)
Why would you use a modern 1.2% calculation we know that they figure did not even apply 50 years ago. We know historically that there was far less infant mortality and virtually no decease needing medical care. The vast majority of decease is due to modern life style as is your population growth figure.
So do your math again.
...so in your reality life expectancy has worsened over time?

Now I get it, you do not believe there is a reality separate from the one inside your head.

Have a nice day.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#6998 Mar 10, 2013
You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
The same can be said about evolutionists.
Not really, because evolutionists get their arguments about science from a science website.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#6999 Mar 10, 2013
You gotta be kidding wrote:
Darwin disproved himself when he wrote "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

Science in general admits that evolution is wrong they just wont tell fools like you, so they can continue to receive your tax dollars to fund their work.
You're crazy

Here's what Darwin actually said...

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

More to come...

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#7000 Mar 10, 2013
Darwin also said...

"Organs of extreme perfection and complication. To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.

In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition. Amongst existing Vertebrata, we find but a small amount of gradation in the structure of the eye, and from fossil species we can learn nothing on this head. In this great class we should probably have to descend far beneath the lowest known fossiliferous stratum to discover the earlier stages, by which the eye has been perfected.

In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism; and from this low stage, numerous gradations of structure, branching off in two fundamentally different lines, can be shown to exist, until we reach a moderately high stage of perfection. In certain crustaceans, for instance, there is a double cornea, the inner one divided into facets, within each of which there is a lens shaped swelling. In other crustaceans the transparent cones which are coated by pigment, and which properly act only by excluding lateral pencils of light, are convex at their upper ends and must act by convergence; and at their lower ends there seems to be an imperfect vitreous substance. With these facts, here far too briefly and imperfectly given, which show that there is much graduated diversity in the eyes of living crustaceans, and bearing in mind how small the number of living animals is in proportion to those which have become extinct, I can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class."

More to come

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#7001 Mar 10, 2013
Continued...

"He who will go thus far, if he find on finishing this treatise that large bodies of facts, otherwise inexplicable, can be explained by the theory of descent, ought not to hesitate to go further, and to admit that a structure even as perfect as the eye of an eagle might be formed by natural selection, although in this case he does not know any of the transitional grades. His reason ought to conquer his imagination; though I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be surprised at any degree of hesitation in extending the principle of natural selection to such startling lengths.

It is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye to a telescope. We know that this instrument has been perfected by the long-continued efforts of the highest human intellects; and we naturally infer that the eye has been formed by a somewhat analogous process. But may not this inference be presumptuous? Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man? If we must compare the eye to an optical instrument, we ought in imagination to take a thick layer of transparent tissue, with a nerve sensitive to light beneath, and then suppose every part of this layer to be continually changing slowly in density, so as to separate into layers of different densities and thicknesses, placed at different distances from each other, and with the surfaces of each layer slowly changing in form. Further we must suppose that there is a power always intently watching each slight accidental alteration in the transparent layers; and carefully selecting each alteration which, under varied circumstances, may in any way, or in any degree, tend to produce a distincter image. We must suppose each new state of the instrument to be multiplied by the million; and each to be preserved till a better be produced, and then the old ones to be destroyed. In living bodies, variation will cause the slight alterations, generation will multiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection will pick out with unerring skill each improvement. Let this process go on for millions on millions of years; and during each year on millions of individuals of many kinds; and may we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to those of man?

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to my theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we look to an organ common to all the members of a large class, for in this latter case the organ must have been first formed at an extremely remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct."

More to come..

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#7002 Mar 10, 2013
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
Moo
Chuckle....funny...movie trivia time....what movie was that from?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#7003 Mar 10, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
...so where did everyone come from if it was after the flood?
Jersey

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#7004 Mar 10, 2013
Continued..

"We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind. Numerous cases could be given amongst the lower animals of the same organ performing at the same time wholly distinct functions; thus the alimentary canal respires, digests, and excretes in the larva of the dragon-fly and in the fish Cobites. In the Hydra, the animal may be turned inside out, and the exterior surface will then digest and the stomach respire. In such cases natural selection might easily specialise, if any advantage were thus gained, a part or organ, which had performed two functions, for one function alone, and thus wholly change its nature by insensible steps. Two distinct organs sometimes perform simultaneously the same function in the same individual; to give one instance, there are fish with gills or branchiae that breathe the air dissolved in the water, at the same time that they breathe free air in their swimbladders, this latter organ having a ductus pneumaticus for its supply, and being divided by highly vascular partitions. In these cases, one of the two organs might with ease be modified and perfected so as to perform all the work by itself, being aided during the process of modification by the other organ; and then this other organ might be modified for some other and quite distinct purpose, or be quite obliterated.

There is more but I've said enough to demonstrate how a turd like you is so desperate you'll cheat and lie to further your superstitious mumbo jumbo.

Lying for your god, eh?

You know he likes that.
You gotta be kidding

Auckland, New Zealand

#7005 Mar 10, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
...so in your reality life expectancy has worsened over time?
Now I get it, you do not believe there is a reality separate from the one inside your head.
Have a nice day.
Oh boy do I need to go this far back to basics to teach the ignorant once again,
Life expectance has very little to do with population growth, birth rate is the primary calculator. Yes we may have a longer life span that 100 even 500 years ago but birth rate have dropped over the past years to a point where they are now negative in some countries. We know that family sizes have dropped dramatically. to the 1.2% you used to skew the facts.
You gotta be kidding

Auckland, New Zealand

#7006 Mar 10, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
You're crazy
Here's what Darwin actually said...
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
More to come...
I was so hoping that some fool would post this then accuse me of lying, NO I DID NOT LIE< NO I DID NOT EVEN MISS-QUOTE ONE OF YOUR HIGH PRIESTS. I quoted exactly what he said and you simply added some more.

Let us not forget that he said (which you so proudly posted):

“Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life”
Now let’s count the “Ifs” in this statement = 3 (in 3 lines), then there are other indecisions like “can be shown”,“should be useful” and so on throughout the entire gospel of the book of darwin.
The entire book is a joke it is made up of the ramblings of a mad man who had spent too much time alone on a ship away from his family where his rightful place was.
I wonder if the same can be said for the chicken (or any other egg). Just perhaps the first egg evolved without shell, yolk or membrane, I wonder what held it together…..nothing is just went plop, splat and of species. Evolution at it’s all time best.
You gotta be kidding

Auckland, New Zealand

#7007 Mar 10, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really, because evolutionists get their arguments about science from a science website.
That is called circular reasoning, You say it is right because someone put it on a web site, they put it there because people like you said it was right, that is not good science or good logic.

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

#7008 Mar 10, 2013
You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes mother of a pervert the BIBLE is correct, the world is about 6000 years old.
Nonsense. You mean to tell me you believe it? Let me give you one example. The nearest galaxy is the Andromeda Galaxy. It is around 2.4 million light years away. This proves the Biblical estimate of 6,000 years to be false.

You lose!!!

Try again sometime.

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

#7009 Mar 10, 2013
You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
No the Bible I trust in was established well before the RCC corrupted the Word of GOD to meet their own perverted needs.
Faith in GOD and his Word does not need me to go out and buy a bull.
GOD demands of us to be open minded it is the society that people like you made up that required a closed mind to blindly follow the errant writing of mere men who change their mind every time they want more funding.
Answer me this one question that should be so easy for an intellectual like you. Recently it was announced that the first mammal had been identified, OK so now tell me what was it's granddaddy?
The Catholics had the first Canonized Bible. Your protestant Bible came about hundreds of years later. You don't appear to know any of the historical circumstances surrounding the Bible do you.

Since: May 11

UK

#7010 Mar 10, 2013
You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh boy do I need to go this far back to basics to teach the ignorant once again,
Life expectance has very little to do with population growth, birth rate is the primary calculator. Yes we may have a longer life span that 100 even 500 years ago but birth rate have dropped over the past years to a point where they are now negative in some countries. We know that family sizes have dropped dramatically. to the 1.2% you used to skew the facts.
I used a 1.2% constant and made no allowance for Culture, infant mortality, quality of health care, life expectancy, availability of birth control, illiteracy, education, war and/or pestilence.

my numbers were generous, but what I`ll do just to be polite is to put the rate of increase at a CONSTANT level of the 1950-60`s during the baby boomer years and no one will die OF ANYTHING.

The GLOBAL population would be *drumroll*...

15,559
You gotta be kidding

Auckland, New Zealand

#7011 Mar 10, 2013
LuLu Ford wrote:
<quoted text>
Nonsense. You mean to tell me you believe it? Let me give you one example. The nearest galaxy is the Andromeda Galaxy. It is around 2.4 million light years away. This proves the Biblical estimate of 6,000 years to be false.
You lose!!!
Try again sometime.
Yes I believe the BIBLE.

How does light prove actual age, it does not, light travels to earth form a distant planet at a set speed, so by the lie you promote that plant must be really really far away. However GOD put the planets in the sky for us to be able to see, enjoy, navigate by and tell time by therefore he put them there plus he put the light for us to see.
The BIBLE is not wrong you are.
You gotta be kidding

Auckland, New Zealand

#7012 Mar 10, 2013
LuLu Ford wrote:
<quoted text>
The Catholics had the first Canonized Bible. Your protestant Bible came about hundreds of years later. You don't appear to know any of the historical circumstances surrounding the Bible do you.
We JEWS had our BIBLE long before your RCC perversion was dreamed up by anyone.

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) 18 min JOEL 205,920
Satanists Unveil Design for Statehouse Statue (Jan '14) Nov 22 buckwheat 12
Student expelled for casting a spell (Jan '14) Nov 22 Stay6c 6
Is reincarnation real?? (Feb '11) Nov 15 holysupremacy 70
Looking to correspond with Pagan's Nov 12 GordonM 1
drawing with pen Nov 11 scribbles 1
Shadow Energy / Shadow Magic (Feb '08) Nov 11 scribbles 25

Pagan/Wiccan People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE