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
7,821 - 7,840 of 14,385 Comments Last updated Nov 23, 2013
You gotta be kidding

Auckland, New Zealand

#8105 Apr 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you have been unable to demonstrate that:
1 - he was wrong.
2 - he was lying even if he was wrong.
<quoted text>
Yes they have. In fact I just did. Plus I can also provide more, but you haven't been able to address the info I just presented to you yet. Life changes over time. Fact. These changes accumulate. Fact. Ergo, evolution occurs. Fact.
This is why so many creationists find Young Earth Creationism so attractive, because if the Earth is only say, about 6,000 years old, then they can claim that there would not be enough time for evolution. However that is not only denying the entire field of biology, but also physics and chemistry along with it. In short, ALL of science. And this is why the scientific community doesn't take creationist claims seriously.
Creation and logic prove he and his grandfather were wrong, he lied to uphold the family name and to pay for his trips aboard.

If changing is an inbuilt design feature from GOD's creation, I will never deny adaptation, you know like getting a suntan, or blond hair darkening with sunlight or to be technical drug resistant TB. That is adaptation and as I has said adaptation has never produces a new species. If that is your version of evolution then OK change and adaptation happens, thanks for agreeing that it can not produce new species.

Creationism does not deny biology, physics, geology or any other science that is based on scientific fact only the rubbish put forward by those who worship at the foot of evolution.

No one has ever been able to post any fact that upholds evolution if you know any why don't you be the first to post it.
You gotta be kidding

Auckland, New Zealand

#8106 Apr 4, 2013
[QUOTE who="The DudeThis is why so many creationists find Young Earth Creationism so attractive, because if the Earth is only say, about 6,000 years old, then they can claim that there would not be enough time for evolution. However that is not only denying the entire field of biology, but also physics and chemistry along with it. In short, ALL of science. And this is why the scientific community doesn't take creationist claims seriously.[/QUOTE]

The truth of time span is that the evolutionists keep on stretching it out so that they can sound believable to the masses they are tying to brainwash, are you a brainwasher or one brainwashed.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8107 Apr 4, 2013
You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
The evolution need a beginning it needs the myth of abiogenesis or all you have is well nothing. Actually that is all you have anyway.
Evolution needs a beginning, yes. But since evolution happens then we know something started it. However the THEORY of evolution need not address abiogenesis. The theory of gravity works without having to reference the origin of mass. The germ theory of disease works without having to reference the origin of germs (which technically would also be abiogenesis). The theory of evolution works without having to reference the origin of life. Hence the theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.

Now there is at least one thing that both supporters of science AND creationists agree on - the universe is finite. Therefore the Earth is finite. Therefore life is finite. Therefore it had a beginning: Abiogenesis. Now, there are currently four possibilities as to how this happened:

1 - Naturally occurring chemical processes.

2 - Aliens.

3 - Goddidit with magic.

4 - An unknown fourth option which no-one has thought of yet.

None of which is relevant to the scientific veracity of the current modern evolutionary synthesis. As long as any one of these four options occurred, then evolution can occur. Since life IS here we know that at least one of these has occurred. The question is which one.

So far the only option that provides a testable hypothesis is option 1.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8108 Apr 4, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Why do you ask?
<quoted text>
Indeed. He enjoys to tease us ever so smugly with some amazing point that he understands but is unable to articulate. It's just a shame that whenever he DOES make any claims they always turn out to be wrong.(shrug)
You gotta be kidding

Auckland, New Zealand

#8109 Apr 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
It is not an unfair caricature since you refer to evolution as originating from water and rocks. This is because fundies are unable to address what the actual concepts themselves entail.
<quoted text>
I didn't ignore it but addressed it directly. You failed to address it. So perhaps you can answer something for me:
Why are you asking for evidence that both of us know you will reject no matter what is presented? In short, why is it always creationists who are intellectually dishonest?
Yet you claim life sprang form a puddle that means in your mind you evolved form a rock, why don't you admit to that.

I deal in real science almost everyday of my working life, I reject evolution simply because it is rubbish and has no grounding in science or logic. I have asked for 100% factual evidence, if provided I would not ignore it at all. However it is yet to be provided, all I ever get it answers like you have posted. No real proof no factual evidence nothing.

So why not use your extensive knowledge and post the factual evidence that prove evolution. I am still waiting for it.

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

#8110 Apr 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is, if Flew did happen to come across such overwhelming evidence, he took it with him to his grave.
:-/
No, the problem is you are just totally ignorant of the fact that Professor Antony Flew’s wrote a book about his epiphany called "There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed his Mind" BEFORE he went to his grave. Typical atheist....
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8111 Apr 4, 2013
You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
Creation and logic prove he and his grandfather were wrong, he lied to uphold the family name and to pay for his trips aboard.
Creationism is undemonstrated. Logic is not a prerequisite of creationism.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
If changing is an inbuilt design feature from GOD's creation
"God" and "design" are undemonstrated.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
I will never deny adaptation, you know like getting a suntan, or blond hair darkening with sunlight
That's not adaptation. That is your body taking damage. The body can heal (such as sun-tan fading), or it can stay, or get worse (like skin cancer due to way too much suntanning). But thanks for demonstrating your complete lack of understanding of biology.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
or to be technical drug resistant TB. That is adaptation
Yes, drug resistance is an example.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
and as I has said adaptation has never produces a new species.
No, new species develop from accumulative changes to the genome.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
If that is your version of evolution then OK change and adaptation happens, thanks for agreeing that it can not produce new species.
I'm sorry, I do not accept the creationist caricature of "micro" and "macro"-evolution. Both are evolution. "Macro" is just lots of "micro" changes.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
Creationism does not deny biology, physics, geology or any other science that is based on scientific fact only the rubbish put forward by those who worship at the foot of evolution.
If you're an Old Earth Creationist (OEC) it denies the entirety of biology at the very least. But unintended consequences usually means they end up denying other fields too. If you're a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) then it is an unavoidable fact that it is a complete and total utter denial of all scientific reality itself.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
No one has ever been able to post any fact that upholds evolution if you know any why don't you be the first to post it.
I have. You have yet to address it.

Also the interesting part here is that you do not even grasp your own hypocrisy. You claim Goddidit with magic (without evidence). The "God" concept is not scientific. But if taken to be a valid argument in a debate, even if evolution WAS incorrect, we could then easily say well evolution is still right cuz MAGIC!

Therefore you can never win. The BEST you could ever achieve would be a stalemate. There is no point in your being here. You'd may as well go home.
You gotta be kidding

Auckland, New Zealand

#8112 Apr 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution needs a beginning, yes. But since evolution happens then we know something started it. However the THEORY of evolution need not address abiogenesis. The theory of gravity works without having to reference the origin of mass. The germ theory of disease works without having to reference the origin of germs (which technically would also be abiogenesis). The theory of evolution works without having to reference the origin of life. Hence the theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.
Now there is at least one thing that both supporters of science AND creationists agree on - the universe is finite. Therefore the Earth is finite. Therefore life is finite. Therefore it had a beginning: Abiogenesis. Now, there are currently four possibilities as to how this happened:
1 - Naturally occurring chemical processes.
2 - Aliens.
3 - Goddidit with magic.
4 - An unknown fourth option which no-one has thought of yet.
None of which is relevant to the scientific veracity of the current modern evolutionary synthesis. As long as any one of these four options occurred, then evolution can occur. Since life IS here we know that at least one of these has occurred. The question is which one.
So far the only option that provides a testable hypothesis is option 1.
Gravity does not address the origin mass because gravity and mass are not related, if you remove the origin of life form the myth of evolution you have no beginning therfroe no evolution which would be a good thing. Germ and disease have nothing to do with evolution so you once again shoot amiss.

Your attempt to belittle creation by calling it magic and using the other term you use to belittle GOD proves that you have no grounding in truth and no matter how much is presented you will never accept the fact that GOD created everything. Evolution cannot occur within the frame work of creation as it does not need to.

I love it when I see the words “testable hypothesis” that really says I will test what I think I know to find out that I think I am right, thinking what I don’t know. What a lovely example of circular reasoning.

By the way I am still waiting for my 100% factual proof for evolution you have now responded 5 times since I asked yet have produced none.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8113 Apr 4, 2013
You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
The truth of time span is that the evolutionists keep on stretching it out so that they can sound believable to the masses they are tying to brainwash, are you a brainwasher or one brainwashed.
Ah, so then you ARE a reality denying YEC. Oh well.(shrug)

This means that you are unaware that the Earth was considered FAR older than what you fundies claimed it was BEFORE evolution was taken seriously by the scientific community. Therefore evolution is not only a big evil atheist Darwinist evolutionist science conspiracy, but a big evil atheist Darwinist evolutionist TIME-TRAVELLING science conspiracy.

And you guys wonder why you're not taken seriously.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8114 Apr 4, 2013
You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you claim life sprang form a puddle that means in your mind you evolved form a rock, why don't you admit to that.
Because as I pointed out that's a fundamentalist caricature. Either way, the theory of evolution is not dependent on abio.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
I deal in real science almost everyday of my working life
Yes you do. As do most people. That does not mean you are not ignorant of it.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
I reject evolution simply because it is rubbish and has no grounding in science or logic.
No you don't. You reject it because you were told by your parents to believe in an invisible magic Jewish wizard.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
I have asked for 100% factual evidence, if provided I would not ignore it at all. However it is yet to be provided, all I ever get it answers like you have posted. No real proof no factual evidence nothing.
You're lying. You're a creationist. That is why you continually ignore the linky I provided.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
So why not use your extensive knowledge and post the factual evidence that prove evolution. I am still waiting for it.
No you're not. You cannot wait for something which happened in the past. I am now waiting for you to address it.
You gotta be kidding

Auckland, New Zealand

#8115 Apr 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Not later. Not ever. It doesn't matter how many times I ask you will categorically refuse to answer my question:
What is the "scientific theory" of IDC?
Thanks in advance for never answering.
There is no scientific "THEORY" of Intelligent Design Creationism. Simply because there does not need to be a "THRORY" for the fact of creation. Every true branch of real science demonstrates this fact.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8116 Apr 4, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the problem is you are just totally ignorant of the fact that Professor Antony Flew’s wrote a book about his epiphany called "There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed his Mind" BEFORE he went to his grave. Typical atheist....
1 - I couldn't care less about atheism.

2 - Lots of theists write books on apologetics. That doesn't make them scientific.
You gotta be kidding

Auckland, New Zealand

#8117 Apr 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, so then you ARE a reality denying YEC. Oh well.(shrug)
This means that you are unaware that the Earth was considered FAR older than what you fundies claimed it was BEFORE evolution was taken seriously by the scientific community. Therefore evolution is not only a big evil atheist Darwinist evolutionist science conspiracy, but a big evil atheist Darwinist evolutionist TIME-TRAVELLING science conspiracy.
And you guys wonder why you're not taken seriously.
Once again you have diverted,(that would be 7 times now). I have never, nor will I ever, deny that the earth is about 6000 years old. Nor have I ever called anything a "Darwinist evolutionist TIME-TRAVELLING science conspiracy".

Now where is my 100% factual scientific proof for the myth of evolution?

Why do you keep me waiting? perhaps it is because you, like everyone else, have none. Just admit it.
You gotta be kidding

Auckland, New Zealand

#8118 Apr 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Because as I pointed out that's a fundamentalist caricature. Either way, the theory of evolution is not dependent on abio.
<quoted text>
Yes you do. As do most people. That does not mean you are not ignorant of it.
<quoted text>
No you don't. You reject it because you were told by your parents to believe in an invisible magic Jewish wizard.
<quoted text>
You're lying. You're a creationist. That is why you continually ignore the linky I provided.
<quoted text>
No you're not. You cannot wait for something which happened in the past. I am now waiting for you to address it.
That makes it eight and counting.
Dealing in science is a large part of my current job, I am not ignorant of science in many of its forms. So for example I know that evolution relies on the foundation of the origins of life and species with out it it has no beginnings and nowhere to progress through the “Evolutionary Tree of Life”:

I am a creationist yes and did not lie about that fact, again scraping the bottom of the barrel again I see. Being a creationist does not mean I will ignore 100% factual evidence for anything, if provided I am more than able to analyse it, test it and agree or throw it out.

So you cannot provide any proof for evolution because it happened in the past Very clever way of saying “I DON’T KNOW”. So you won’t provide the evidence I asked for. I thought not.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8119 Apr 4, 2013
You gotta be kidding wrote:
Gravity does not address the origin mass because gravity and mass are not related
O...

M...

FSM...

:-O
You gotta be kidding wrote:
if you remove the origin of life form the myth of evolution you have no beginning therfroe no evolution which would be a good thing.
Yes, I already explained that if life did not start then evolution could not occur. But also that life DID start, therefore evolution can and does occur.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
Germ and disease have nothing to do with evolution so you once again shoot amiss.
First of all, it was not my intent to claim all three theories were linked. I merely point out that if the theory of evolution must address the origin of life then the theory of gravity must also address the origin of gravity and the germ theory of disease must also address the origin of germs. To hold evolution to your demands for origins and not the other two is gross hypocrisy on your part.

As an aside though, since the germ theory of disease DOES in fact account for antibiotic resistance then it DOES have something to do with evolution.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
Your attempt to belittle creation by calling it magic
It IS magic.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
and using the other term you use to belittle GOD
I have NEVER belittled God. I HAVE belittled people's OPINIONS of what they think God is, but that is something ENTIRELY different.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
proves that you have no grounding in truth
"Truth" is subjective. That's why all religions lay claim to it. I'm only interested in facts and evidence.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
and no matter how much is presented you will never accept the fact that GOD created everything.
It might have. But if it did, it used evolution. Or God is a liar.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
Evolution cannot occur within the frame work of creation as it does not need to.
You are correct in that evolution does not have to occur within any framework of fundamentalist fantasy.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
I love it when I see the words “testable hypothesis” that really says I will test what I think I know to find out that I think I am right, thinking what I don’t know. What a lovely example of circular reasoning.
Not at all. I've demonstrated how evolution passes the scientific method and you still haven't addressed it yet.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
By the way I am still waiting for my 100% factual proof
First of all, science doesn't deal with "proof". Proof is only for math and alcohol. Science deals with facts and evidence.

In science, theories NEVER get "proven" to become "laws". Science is ALWAYS tentative, for there is ALWAYS the possibility that new evidence may be discovered that falsifies current theories. This is what's called falsifiability. It's how theories make scientific predictions. Without falsifiability, the concepts are not scientific.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
for evolution you have now responded 5 times since I asked yet have produced none.
You're lying again, just as all good liars for Jesus do. I already provided it and am waiting for you to address it. And while we're at it, it is only fair that I too ask you to back up HT with his claims since you share them:

What is the "scientific theory" of creationism?

Thanks in advance for never answering.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8120 Apr 4, 2013
You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no scientific "THEORY" of Intelligent Design Creationism. Simply because there does not need to be a "THRORY" for the fact of creation. Every true branch of real science demonstrates this fact.
Your post makes zero sense in the context of science. You cannot call creationism a fact if you are unable to demonstrate it scientifically.

Well you CAN, but then everyone else can point out it's BS.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8121 Apr 4, 2013
You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again you have diverted,(that would be 7 times now). I have never, nor will I ever, deny that the earth is about 6000 years old.
That's because you're a reality-denying creationist.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
Nor have I ever called anything a "Darwinist evolutionist TIME-TRAVELLING science conspiracy".
Yes you did. Not directly, but fundies are notorious for not grasping the consequences of their own claims. The age of the Earth comes from physics and chemistry. Evolution deals with biology. They did NOT arbitrarily "extend the age of the Earth" just to allow for evolution.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
Now where is my 100% factual scientific proof
The fact that you keep asking for this demonstrates you lack even the very most basic of science education.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
for the myth of evolution?
It's a myth that it's a myth.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
Why do you keep me waiting? perhaps it is because you, like everyone else, have none. Just admit it.
I don't have to admit to not supplying you with what is required, since I have done exactly that. Take your time getting around to it. You always do.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8122 Apr 4, 2013
You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
That makes it eight and counting.
Dealing in science is a large part of my current job, I am not ignorant of science in many of its forms. So for example I know that evolution relies on the foundation of the origins of life and species with out it it has no beginnings and nowhere to progress through the “Evolutionary Tree of Life”
Then you know nothing about science.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
I am a creationist yes and did not lie about that fact
No, but you can lie about anything else though.(shrug)
You gotta be kidding wrote:
again scraping the bottom of the barrel again I see. Being a creationist does not mean I will ignore 100% factual evidence for anything, if provided I am more than able to analyse it, test it and agree or throw it out.
You have not demonstrated such.
You gotta be kidding wrote:
So you cannot provide any proof for evolution because it happened in the past Very clever way of saying “I DON’T KNOW”. So you won’t provide the evidence I asked for. I thought not.
I cannot provide "proof", but rather plenty of evidence. And have. Still waiting for you to address it.
You gotta be kidding

Christchurch, New Zealand

#8123 Apr 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
O...
M...
FSM...(/////? what????
.
Thanks in advance for never answering.
NINE AND COUNTING, still no 100% factual evidence for evolution.
Perhaps you should read post #8115, which should help educate you. As I have already pointed out to you simple adaptation is not evolution if it was there would be multiple species of TB, antibiotic resistance does not prove evolution.
You use terms designed by the anti-GOD league to belittle God yet you claim not to do so. Perhaps it is time you actually read your own posts.
So now where is my 100% factual proof for evolution, I AM STILL WAITING. You have not even demonstrated “how evolution passes the scientific method” as claimed. Your grasp on science is based on the myth of evolution not on science that is obvious by your statement that “theories NEVER get "proven" to become "laws"’ Yes that is because theory is just that theory and not fact.

So I guess you are backing out of providing the facts you claim to have. Oh well another one bites the dust.
You gotta be kidding

Christchurch, New Zealand

#8124 Apr 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Your post makes zero sense in the context of science. You cannot call creationism a fact if you are unable to demonstrate it scientifically.
Well you CAN, but then everyone else can point out it's BS.(shrug)
So you make the same claim for evolution do you. Come on use the same test for evolution as you do for creation.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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) 4 min JOEL 201,256
SHADOW PEOPLE... i need help (May '07) Aug 25 Only1Likeme212 347
Speaking of religion: Pagans stir a fuss in Beebe Aug 25 Ernie 117
Pagan community northern kentucky? (Nov '12) Aug 25 scorpion123 27
Reagan appointee sides with Wiccans: NM town mu... Aug 20 Kathwynn 5
Looking for a Pagan community in Kentucky? (Mar '12) Aug 13 Lady shay 8
Satanists Unveil Design for Statehouse Statue (Jan '14) Aug 9 Kathwynn 11
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Pagan/Wiccan People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••