Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

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

Please note that for this article "Atheism" also includes agnostics, deists, pagans, wiccans... in other words non-religious.

You will notice this is a statement of fact. And to be fact it is supported by evidence (see references below). Now you can have "faith" that this is not true, but by the very definition of faith, that is just wishful thinking.
Comments
6,941 - 6,960 of 14,385 Comments Last updated Nov 23, 2013

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7195
Mar 10, 2013
 
I was lucky enough to work with people who would 99% of the time sigh and roll their eyes if you mentioned god,church,creationism in any way shape or form at work.
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>
I've seen the same trend over the past 23 years. but religion is stiil pretty rampant. I too am in the Bible belt.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7196
Mar 11, 2013
 
You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
ERROR 1:“using the differences in brightness to show the differences in distance” who is to say they present the same luminosity.
ERROR 2:” we can make sure that the stars are of intrinsically the same brightness by making sure they are at the same temperature” Temperature is defined by colour, colour is defined by the type of gas burning to make the colour, no comparison can accurately be made by colour unless the exact gas type and concentration is known.(Have you been there to tale a sample?)
ERROR 3:“determined by which elements are emitting light at what wavelengths” see above for explanation
ERROR 4:“because we saw a supernova (an exploding star) and watched its reflection from nearby gas clouds” that same light would have taken too many light years to reach earth to measure in our time so you are using speculation and extrapolation not factual measurement.
ERROR 5:“? It is all consistent with a distance and time of 160,000 years, and definitely NOT consistent with a time of less than 10,000 years” as I stated GOD put the stars in the heavens for us to use in various ways He would not have put them there without showing us their light or they would have been useless to us. So 6000 years is perfectly feasible.
ERROR 6:“Conclusion: The Bible is wrong” no the BIBLE is not wrong you are.
So many obvious errors in one such small post you really should do better than that.
Then like the bible says, your god really did get his azz whooped by the iron chariot?

Since: May 11

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7197
Mar 11, 2013
 
You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
If it takes 4.468 billion years for Uranium 238 to decay and form the daughter product of Thorium 234 it has never been observed or measured so it cannot be a defined as fact. It is speculation and extrapolation not fact
ahh I see, you suffer from the mental illness they call:

"Everything exists(and is possible no matter how unlikely) which supports my god until proven otherwise" You simply exist to make excuses for the lawd, it`s your...raison d'être.

Talking to you is a pointless pursuit, you`re a liar, a poe, mental and/or all of the above.

ta-ta.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7198
Mar 11, 2013
 
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
ahh I see, you suffer from the mental illness they call:
"Everything exists(and is possible no matter how unlikely) which supports my god until proven otherwise" You simply exist to make excuses for the lawd, it`s your...raison d'être.
Talking to you is a pointless pursuit, you`re a liar, a poe, mental and/or all of the above.
ta-ta.
D. All of the above.

But then aren't all godbots.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7199
Mar 11, 2013
 
You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>Far to many "thinks" and "believes" in there to be fact.
Yeah, sure.

Religion is all "believes" and no "thinks".

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7200
Mar 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>Evolution is taught in schools for one reason only and that is to brainwash and control the masses, unlike you I did not fall for the brainwashing I have an open mind and am able to explore everything and dismiss the rubbish like evolution and atheism.
Oh, you've fallen for the brainwashing.

You've fallen big time.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7201
Mar 11, 2013
 
Atheist Silurist wrote:
<quoted text>I call POE.
It's so hard to tell these days.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7202
Mar 11, 2013
 
You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>100% incorrect the oldest known tree is about 4000 years old fitting in the flood account well.
Explain this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/9066393/An...

Of course, you will just dismiss it as a lie perpetrated by atheists who hate god, but that's YOUR problem.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7203
Mar 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok now explain how the spectrum was devised without knowing the gas makeup. You are using a spectrum that presumes that gas that is burning to emit the light is the same gas as omits that light on the spectrum, as different gas mixtures burn as different rates and temperatures without knowing the mixture or nature of the gas you cannot use the current spectrum. The spectrum overlaps in every flammable gaseous mixture so you presume a mixture or type and then use that to run your determinations. This is a very common error, presumption.
Clearly you do not understand how a spectrum actually works. First, the gases are not *burning*, they are *glowing*. Each individual element glows in a different way. The temperature is also a variable, but we can establish *on earth* exactly how each element glows and how that varies with temperature.
Secondly you use the spectrum to determine the gas and the gas to determine the spectrum, cannot work that way due to circular reasoning.
Wrong. We look at the spectra that gases produce *on earth* in a reproducibly and unique way. We then look at the spectra of stars and use it to determine which gases are in that star. This is NOT circular reasoning. It is the reasoning of establishing a connection here on earth through many, reproducible experiments and then using that knowledge to determine the composition of the stars.
Thousand of light years away from earth are planets and suns that we do not know the composition of, again one ahs to speculate, there may be (I would say there are) chemical elements both solid and gas that we do not know of these may very well not behave in any way like what we would expect chemicals to behave.
Again, contrary to what we know. Chemical elements are made from protons neutrons and electrons, so we can actually make the different possibilities here on earth and determine their spectra. The spectral lines do NOT overlap and are quite unambiguous. This was, in fact, how helium was first discovered: by its presence in the spectrum of the sun.
You do not know the composition of any distant stars you speculate, you use known earthly elements to determine it. No one actually knows until we have real, tangible, physical samples to evaluate.
yes, we use known earthly samples to discover properties that we can detect in the stars through their light. These properties are used consistently and consistently on earth to determine compositions. We see exactly the same characteristics in stars. That means we do not need a sample to actually know the composition. If anything, once we obtained a sample, we would use spectral techniques to determine the composition anyway.

You are essentially denying the possibility of scientific knowledge of the stars. The knowledge we acquire on earth turns out to be consistent with what we see in the stars. It could easily have been different: it is possible (in an alternate universe) that the spectra from stars would not match anything on earth. But, in fact, those spectra *are* consistent with what we see on earth. That happens to the place that we can even discover elements in the sun and then find and verify the identity of the element on earth.

So, we know the composition and intrinsic brightnesses of the stars. This, plus a little geometry, tells us their distances. And this shows the universe is much, much more than a mere 10,000 years old.

Your Bible is wrong.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7204
Mar 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never declared all modern science wrong I do declare evolution wrong, no real science is based on evolution.
Of course you will continue to use what GOD created for man kind to use you would die without oxygen.
But in order for the earth and universe to be less than 10,000 years old, all modern science has to be wrong.

So, yes, you *do* declare all modern science to be wrong.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7205
Mar 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok then here it is Biology is the study of living organisms both plant and animal. so what is the big deal.
You left out fungi, bacteria and archaea. There are more than two divisions of life.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7206
Mar 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you failed to read the pervious posts I was responding to, YOU LOSE FOOL>
By the way if plants need oxygen to live how did they evolve without it.
They evolved *after* oxygen was released by precursors to the algae.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7207
Mar 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy evolution says this are dead, Biology studies life. There is no need to guess where things came form unless you intend to make it all up.
Ok now you explain why evolution is needed to study Biology.
But it is natural, when studying biology, to compare different organisms and notice that there are patterns of related species. Instead of wildly different species, there are groups of related species: felines, canines, ursines, etc. We also notice that even these groups are grouped together: mammals, birds, reptiles, etc. And, even more, these groups are grouped together: vertebrates, arthropods, segmented worms, etc. And then these groups are again grouped: animals, plants, fungi, etc. And even these groups are grouped together: eucaryotes, procarytotes, and archaea.

It is then natural to classify and compare species based on this discovered hierarchy. We then find that even extinct species found in the fossil record also can be placed in this hierarchy. But we also find that as we go further into the past with our fossils, we lose aspects of that hierarchy: no grasses before a certain point, no flowering plants before a time, no primates before a different time. But we aways find related plants or animals, even if they are not identical to any today.

This leads to the conclusion that species change over time. That *is* evolution.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7208
Mar 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
When the "message" is delivered by a biased group, it is obviously false.
Does that reasoning apply to groups whose bias you agree with?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7209
Mar 11, 2013
 
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe you ought to tell us where heaven and hell are hidden. We all know that since the Tower of Babel, the god is on extra secure lockdown, because man can build a tower that will access heaven, and the god is freaked by that. Now helicopters and airplanes really don't exist right, because if they do the god can't.
The existence of flying machines have many hundreds of thousands of times breeched heavens gates, and quite literally blew them away.
Huh? What does that have to do with the joke I posted?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7210
Mar 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
According to all scientific evidence gravity is a fact. Now you may call it what you want but it will remain a fact as long as the earth exists.
Yes, gravity is a fact. But the theory of gravity describing exactly how gravity works, is a theory. Species change over geological time. That is evolution and evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution which describes how and why species change over time is a theory attempting to explain and understand that fact.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7211
Mar 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again I have removed you expectative.
Why then do you dismiss the BIBLE out of hand at least it is factual
The Bible is fact, mixed with legend, mixed with propaganda, mixed with superstition, mixed with poor philosophy, etc. It has some historically accurate facts. It also has a lot of historically inaccurate claims.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7212
Mar 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

http://catholicism.about.com/b/2007/08/04/evo...

Almost 11 years ago, Pope John Paul II, in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, caused quite a stir by declaring that "new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis." Some Catholics, particularly traditionalists, believed that the Holy Father was stepping outside of his competence in making judgments on scientific matters. Others, including Catholic scientists, welcomed Pope John Paul's reaffirmation of the traditional Catholic principle that "Truth cannot contradict truth." In other words, to the extent that the theory of evolution has a solid scientific basis, it must be compatible with Catholic doctrine.

A decade before, the secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, delivered a series of homilies that were published in 1990 under the title In the Beginning ...: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall. In those homilies, he made a similar argument: The creation story in Genesis is a spiritual history. It simply doesn't matter what physical means God used to create the world and all living creatures therein; what matters is that man is both body and soul, and his creation is not complete until God has breathed the breath of life into him. And about the creation of the soul (and, thus, of the complete man), science can tell us nothing.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7213
Mar 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
Dated by carbon dating inaccurate not even close to real.
It is accurate when used correctly. Don't use it on mollusks that get their carbon from ancient chalk instead of the open atmosphere. Use the calibration methods that have been established.

Since: Mar 11

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7214
Mar 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I personally go with sources that rely on observable demonstrable facts. Their only bias is to bullsht.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Does that reasoning apply to groups whose bias you agree with?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

7 Users are viewing the Pagan/Wiccan Forum right now

Search the Pagan/Wiccan Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
The Coming Christian Revolt 7 min Dan 215
Who Is Allah? (Aug '07) 10 min bmz 200,037
Monday Night Murder Mystery: Cursed in the Act:... 13 hr Jumper The wise 1
Speaking of religion: Pagans stir a fuss in Beebe Jul 22 selatla 105
Pagan ritual bid to find Brighton and Hove lott... (Nov '13) Jul 20 abukar 3
Pagan High Priest Claims Discrimination by City... Jul 16 Travis Frey 28
Pat Robertson Blames 'Witchcraft In The Family'... Jul 15 Gremlin 2
•••
•••