Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

There are 14714 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.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#7200 Mar 11, 2013
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.

#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.

#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

#7203 Mar 11, 2013
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

#7204 Mar 11, 2013
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

#7205 Mar 11, 2013
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

#7206 Mar 11, 2013
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

#7207 Mar 11, 2013
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

#7208 Mar 11, 2013
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

#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

#7210 Mar 11, 2013
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

#7211 Mar 11, 2013
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

#7212 Mar 11, 2013
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

#7213 Mar 11, 2013
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

#7214 Mar 11, 2013
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?
TEAPARTY CHURCHGOER

Sonoma, CA

#7215 Mar 11, 2013
EVILUTION is satans work and the party proves it by telling you all the CREATINISM is the way to go and if you don go along then you gotta go. Bless the teaparty and we will stop the communists and hubert chavez and socialits security and medicaire from hell.

Since: May 11

UK

#7216 Mar 11, 2013
TEAPARTY CHURCHGOER wrote:
EVILUTION is satans work and the party proves it by telling you all the CREATINISM is the way to go and if you don go along then you gotta go. Bless the teaparty and we will stop the communists and hubert chavez and socialits security and medicaire from hell.
Teabaggers are funny...

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#7217 Mar 11, 2013
I kind of simplify evolution and the origin of species to this:

There was and IS only ONE "life form" on Earth ... DNA. Whatever it's origins, whether in a 'puddle' on this planet or some other, the molecule has a single imperative ... REPRODUCE. And reproduce it does, adding whatever accessories that help it meet it's imperative. Clearly, such a molecule would eventually fill every hospitable ecological niche on a planet.

That is exactly what we see. From deep hydro-thermal vents to hardy lichens clinging to rocks on high mountains ... life. One thing in common to it all ... DNA. Every living thing on Earth is related, we are all direct ancestors to that first viable molecule. Encoded in modern DNA is all the tricks and techniques and variations that have served the molecule well over billions of years. We call it 'junk' or 'non-encoding' but it has a purpose ... sort of a molecular library.

The library has been burned numerous times. The chains broken, but the resilient molecule lives on. That's why some relatively simple organisms have incongruously huge genomes, they've survived relatively unchanged, their 'libraries' haven't been reset in a long time.

If correct, this brings up interesting possibilities. One being that the original DNA synthesis did not necessarily have to occur on Earth. We might all be aliens. Another being that given the very slow transport mechanisms available and the well established time frames involved, we can set limits on how far the 'parent' molecule might have traveled. I really can't see anything hitching a ride on impact ejecta making it to another star. But hey, never say never ... right?

When we learn to 'read' the books in some of these libraries they're gonna tell us one hell of a story. So I say to the Geneticists and Molecular Biologists out there ... get busy!

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#7218 Mar 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://catholicism.about.com/b /2007/08/04/evolution-and-cath olicism-compatible-pope-says.h tm
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.
It's swell that some kind of an organized religion deigns to acknowledge that our (humanity's) hard won "new knowledge" is valid. Thanks for the bone, Organized Religion. It's regrettable that nothing in our "new knowledge" tends to validate organized religion, else we would return the favor.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#7219 Mar 11, 2013
TEAPARTY CHURCHGOER wrote:
EVILUTION is satans work and the party proves it by telling you all the CREATINISM is the way to go and if you don go along then you gotta go. Bless the teaparty and we will stop the communists and hubert chavez and socialits security and medicaire from hell.
Why do you people feel the need to mix politics and religion? We really DON'T want to mix the two up again. Bad move. Just look at some of MUQ's posts. Scary. Y'all have really pissed in the brew and ruined the Tea Party's original agenda, which I pretty much agreed with (smaller government, less regulation, etc.). I don't even want to be on the same INTERNET with you people now, you messed up everything.

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) 8 min Frijoles 230,577
News Pagans Out Of The 'Broom Closet' In Southwest R... (Jan '10) 6 hr indano 241
News Annual Savannah Pagan Pride Day set for Emmet Park 12 hr Pop the Weasel 1
News Si Robertson, 'Duck Dynasty' Star, Says Atheist... Sat thetruth 59
Doris w/ Spells4free Aug 25 Redd 1
News Looking for a Pagan community in Kentucky? (Mar '12) Aug 19 Dude 12
News Nigeria: Religion, morality and politics Aug 12 jinxi 1
More from around the web