Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

There are 14730 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.

Lincoln

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#8214 Apr 5, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>Same old nonsense. Communists weren't motivated by a lack of religion and religious people have been equally evil. The simple fact is that religion is irrelevant to morality altogether. We now know that people are the product of nature and nurture.
Just look at the nonsense posted on these boards by religionists and 'people of faith',(as I believe Lincoln describes himself). If they had their way Creationism would be taught in schools as if it were science. Where would undermining secularism in that way leave the USA? The UK has its problems too due to religionism and religious superstition.
Religion is divisive and based on superstitions. There is no more evidence of god(s) than of pixies. People should only believe anything to the extent the belief is justified by reason and evidence.
One might be entitled to one's beliefs, but they can affect one's attitude and affect outcomes...
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.h...
Lack of religion didn't cause communism, or 'make it worse'. Communism or Stalin (unlike Nazism or Hitler) couldn't find a use for religion.
Communist were/are material atheists.
Atheists had the power to enforce atheism and we saw the results in East Germany.

“Can't help being fabulous”

Since: Dec 10

Sparkle <3

#8215 Apr 5, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
There's a very well known shot taken by the Hubble Telescope. I'm sure you've heard of it; it's known as "The Ultra Deep Field" and it represents both our longest look out into the cosmos, as well as our furthest look back in time. This awesome shot of a small piece of the night sky (about the size of a postage stamp) reveals over 1500 galaxies at varying stages of evolution as they whirl and spin in the vastness of space.
Science, not religion, has revealed this wonder of our natural universe to us, and speaking for myself, when I look at this awesome sight, I feel very small and humble indeed. I need no god to inspire such wonder.
Was it all created by a supreme being(s)? I very much doubt it.
However, I can accept the possibility that I could be wrong and maybe there is an omnipotent being(s) who created everything.
If there is such a being(s) then how arrogant and foolish is it for humans to claim it for their man-made religions! They want sole ownership of a supreme being(s) for their religion alone.
Any supreme being(s) is going to be far beyond the limits, petty jealousies and uneasy vanities that some men of faith claim it possesses.
Perhaps the supreme being(s)(if there is one) will favour the atheists for not labeling him as theirs or for carrying out all sorts of deeds in his name.
The pictures that Hubble shot are beautiful and stunning.

I agree with you, it's highly unlikely that any omnipotent being created this universe and all it's wonders, particularly considering how arrogant human religions are (where God is only concerned with the human 'soul').

Personally I believe that it's 99.9% likely there is nothing out there, and that there isn't some flying spaghetti monster in the sky ruling over us all. But because i'm unable to scientifically disprove it, there is always the 0.01% chance for error, hence my agnosticism.

In modern day, science has given us more reasons to doubt religion and think of the after-life and God to be unlikely concepts. However, we haven't yet disproved them, so it would be foolish to laugh at the idea completely.

Plus, many scientific thoughts have been wrong in the past.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#8216 Apr 5, 2013
His-truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, come-on !!... speak his name .. what you got to hide
He doesn't know the name, or why the phase is used or by whom. He heard it, he repeated it, there is nothing more to it, than that.

“Can't help being fabulous”

Since: Dec 10

Sparkle <3

#8217 Apr 5, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Fair do's.
From where I stand, I fail to see how the Bible can be the perfect writings of a perfect god.
Consider this:
A perfect and omniscient entity like the god of the Bible (who we hear is positively overflowing with love for his people) creates a primitive and barbaric justice system and expects his creation to enact it.
or
A primitive and barbaric people produce tales of a primitive and barbaric god who wants his followers to follow a primitive and barbaric justice system. Which, co-incidentally, is the only kind of justice these people know.
Which is more likely?
The latter of course, and I agree with you fully.

Personally I believe that if there WAS some kind of omniscient God out there, and if there was a spiritual meaning to life, I don't believe it would be Christianity.

If there is some deep purpose and religion, I don't think humanity has coined it yet.

As I doubt that our barbaric and primitive religions with slater homosexuality, women and children would prove correct.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#8218 Apr 5, 2013
You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
Change with in species is all that happens it is called adaptation not evolution, as I have said so many time adaptation is an inbuilt design feature, designed by GOD, and inserted during creation.
Evolution is the same as adaptation extended over longer times.
And again the myth of evolution does need to have an origin, you need a starting point. With out it there is no evolution.
Right. Without life there is no evolution. But it doesn't matter how life got started. Species still change over time and *that* is evolution.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#8219 Apr 5, 2013
You gotta be kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
What 50 million year evidence do you have?
Quite a lot. Look up the Miocene epoch.
What species existed then and does not exist now?
Humans, for example. Also, dogs, cats, elephants, lions, polar bears, cows, etc.
How is this speculation any 100% factual proof for evolution.
You ask for 100% proof. What science can provide is 99.999% proof. Proof beyond any reasonable doubt. We have many fossils from the Miocene and the animals that lived then are quite different than those that live today. Most of the animals that live today did not live then. So, biological species change over time and *that* is evolution.

“Can't help being fabulous”

Since: Dec 10

Sparkle <3

#8220 Apr 5, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Again with the creationist website talking points? <quoted text>
Ok this is actually getting really annoying.

How have I used ANY creationist talking points when I openly denounce both creationist ideas and Christianity?

I'm a strong believer in Darwin's theory of evolution BECAUSE THERE IS EVIDENCE FOR IT.

Just because I am open to the idea that PERHAPS humans have got it WRONG ENTIRELY and that no religion or faith (including atheism) is correct and we just haven't coined what the correct religion is, DOES NOT MEAN I AM CREATIONIST.

Creationism is the idea Christian God made the world in 7 days. That is an absolute farce!
Givemeliberty wrote:
Okay last time and honestly I shouldn't have to hold your hand and explain this yet again.
We have no observable evidence for any god, none, whatsoever and I think you would agree with that. So since we have no evidence we don't have knowledge of a god so in that regards I would be an agnostic. Now seeing as how we have no evidence god is even there let alone what they/he/she would expect of us I have no reason to believe in a god so in that regards I am an atheist. Atheism is merely the default position. <quoted text>
And I agree, hence why I lean towards athiesm, however... I am saying that we also have no proof that a God, or at least spiritual being, does not exist, and in all fairness people from every culture throughout time have at least devised some form of religion / afterlife concept which holds VERY SIMILAR THEMES in each single one. I.e bad guy devil, Good God, heaven, Hell, after lives etc.

Athiesm is a default position I agree with you, which is why 99.9% of the time I agree with you (despite your repeated insistance that you are against me). However, until we can physically revive someone from the dead and ask them about their experience, we will never know for sure whether God or any after life exists or not.

Why are you so closed to the idea that there could be SOMETHING out there. I dont believe the human race has it correct because it seems absured to base a religion around our existence, as it is arrogant and foolish.
Givemeliberty wrote:
So how is not believing in a fact free made up assertion being a zealot all rigid in your belief?
Show me evidence of a god and I will consider believing until then I have no reason to believe.
It sounds like being reasonable to me.
<quoted text>
Because we don't know for sure that it is a made up assertion, and while all current religions may be incorrect or at most laughable, there isn't any reason why we shouldn't be open to the idea that there could be something.

"Show me evidence of God", EXACTLY, this is my point, we can't prove or disprove it either way, all our theories about how the universe began are either scientific or religious. The idea of a big bang if you go back a step further makes the concept hard to believe - where did the protons come from to begin with? The matter couldn't have ALWAYS been there could it?

I think you are reasonable to an extent, it would just be nice if you had a more open mind rather than hell bent on atheism.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#8221 Apr 5, 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....
"World's Most Notorious Atheist", by whose standards? His own? And that designation, from his wife, it didn't come from us? LOL!

Since: Mar 11

United States

#8222 Apr 5, 2013
God is just as likely as the kraken and should get the same amount of consideration.
Kesla15 wrote:
<quoted text>The pictures that Hubble shot are beautiful and stunning.

I agree with you, it's highly unlikely that any omnipotent being created this universe and all it's wonders, particularly considering how arrogant human religions are (where God is only concerned with the human 'soul').

Personally I believe that it's 99.9% likely there is nothing out there, and that there isn't some flying spaghetti monster in the sky ruling over us all. But because i'm unable to scientifically disprove it, there is always the 0.01% chance for error, hence my agnosticism.

In modern day, science has given us more reasons to doubt religion and think of the after-life and God to be unlikely concepts. However, we haven't yet disproved them, so it would be foolish to laugh at the idea completely.

Plus, many scientific thoughts have been wrong in the past.

Since: Dec 10

Fogelsville, PA

#8223 Apr 5, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
Theists in denial.
Atheist crimes in the 20th and 21st century are well known
LOL!! And what would they be?

Since: Dec 10

Fogelsville, PA

#8224 Apr 5, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Communist were/are material atheists.
Atheists had the power to enforce atheism and we saw the results in East Germany.
Do you know the difference between political, and atheism? I'll tell you what... You give me one example of someone who was convicted of a crime againt the state in East Germany, but was released or spared punishment because they were an atheist. Than we'll talk. Untill than, you have no point.

Since: Dec 10

Fogelsville, PA

#8225 Apr 5, 2013
Kesla15 wrote:
<quoted text>
The pictures that Hubble shot are beautiful and stunning.
I agree with you, it's highly unlikely that any omnipotent being created this universe and all it's wonders, particularly considering how arrogant human religions are (where God is only concerned with the human 'soul').
Personally I believe that it's 99.9% likely there is nothing out there, and that there isn't some flying spaghetti monster in the sky ruling over us all. But because i'm unable to scientifically disprove it, there is always the 0.01% chance for error, hence my agnosticism.
In modern day, science has given us more reasons to doubt religion and think of the after-life and God to be unlikely concepts. However, we haven't yet disproved them, so it would be foolish to laugh at the idea completely.
Plus, many scientific thoughts have been wrong in the past.
Let me jump in here if I may...

I see your point, but I do not consider myself agnostic. Since there is no more reason to believe that any particular made up god is any more real than any other made up god throughout history, or that any other made up thingy(unicorns, centaur, etc...) are any more real or have any more evidence to support them, by being agnostic on one, would almost require me to be agnostic on anything!! If someone claims that there are sock gremlins, I would have to be agnostic on sock gremlins simply because I can not 100% rule them out!! The fact that a whole bunch of people believe in a particular thing(god), does not give that thing any more credability. There is as much evidence for a god as there is for a pink, flying unicorn. And I am not agnostic on either.:)

Since: Dec 10

Fogelsville, PA

#8226 Apr 5, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
You can simply go to your local museum to see the copies they've made of fossils and other things. It's a shame that none of these people even look at the evidence though. They claim that they want evidence, yet whatever evidence you point them to, they say is not evidence and continue their ignorance.
I fear you are correct. BUT, every now and then, you find someone who is honest enough to really look.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#8228 Apr 5, 2013
Some if the arguments and talking points are taken directly from creationist websites, and you know it.

Again you were the one who attacked me for my statement that death is a natural thing so that being said we clearly see your level of reason.

That being verified, how is atheism a religion again?

As I have said before I am as open to the assertion of a god as I am the kraken. Do you see any reason why any supernatural god deserves more consideration than the kraken?

And again how am I hell bent on atheism? Atheism is merely not actively believing in a god. It is the reasonable default position as you have clearly said in your own words. That is kind of like saying someone is hell bent on homeostasis isn't it?
Kesla15 wrote:
<quoted text>Ok this is actually getting really annoying.

How have I used ANY creationist talking points when I openly denounce both creationist ideas and Christianity?

Just because I am open to the idea that PERHAPS humans have got it WRONG ENTIRELY and that no religion or faith (including atheism) is correct and we just haven't coined what the correct religion is, DOES NOT MEAN I AM CREATIONIST. I am saying that we also have no proof that a God, or at least spiritual being, does not exist, and in all fairness people from every culture throughout time have at least devised some form of religion / afterlife concept which holds VERY SIMILAR THEMES in each single one. I.e bad guy devil, Good God, heaven, Hell, after lives etc.

Athiesm is a default position I agree with you, which is why 99.9% of the time I agree with you (despite your repeated insistance that you are against me). However, until we can physically revive someone from the dead and ask them about their experience, we will never know for sure whether God or any after life exists or not.

Why are you so closed to the idea that there could be SOMETHING out there. Because we don't know for sure that it is a made up assertion, and while all current religions may be incorrect or at most laughable, there isn't any reason why we shouldn't be open to the idea that there could be something.

"Show me evidence of God", EXACTLY, this is my point, we can't prove or disprove it either way, all our theories about how the universe began are either scientific or religious. The idea of a big bang if you go back a step further makes the concept hard to believe - where did the protons come from to begin with? The matter couldn't have ALWAYS been there could it?

I think you are reasonable to an extent, it would just be nice if you had a more open mind rather than hell bent on atheism.

“Can't help being fabulous”

Since: Dec 10

Sparkle <3

#8229 Apr 5, 2013
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me jump in here if I may...
I see your point, but I do not consider myself agnostic. Since there is no more reason to believe that any particular made up god is any more real than any other made up god throughout history, or that any other made up thingy(unicorns, centaur, etc...) are any more real or have any more evidence to support them, by being agnostic on one, would almost require me to be agnostic on anything!! If someone claims that there are sock gremlins, I would have to be agnostic on sock gremlins simply because I can not 100% rule them out!! The fact that a whole bunch of people believe in a particular thing(god), does not give that thing any more credability. There is as much evidence for a god as there is for a pink, flying unicorn. And I am not agnostic on either.:)
I see your point,

However it doesn't quite work like that for the majoriy of agnostics :)

My agnosticism is based upon evidence and fact.

I believe in evolution because of how likely it is and because of how obvious it is, and that we see it in day to day life, therefore I completely rule out creationism.

I've ruled out modern religions and ancient religions because I don't believe that any God would base the purpose of the universe around one tiny planet or one very simplistic organism. To think that would just be arrogant.

However,

Just becaus I am very 'athiest minded' to all of the worlds religions, and because I believe there PROBABLY ISN'T a 'God', doesn't mean i'm completely closed minded to the idea. What if we're all wrong? What if there is a flying pink unicorn? I can't prove it either way.

I don't accept the fact there could be a God just because a bunch of people believe in one, that would give credability to the idea that just because Joe Bloggs jumps off a cliff I should aswell.

I give some credibility to the idea of God, in the same way I do to other philosophies, as it is a reasonable idea to presume that we are here and conscious for a reason. For instance; why are WE here? Why am I ME? Other than the obvious reasons of biological interactions and mixture of genotypes giving the resultant phenotype.

“Can't help being fabulous”

Since: Dec 10

Sparkle <3

#8230 Apr 5, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Some if the arguments and talking points are taken directly from creationist websites, and you know it.
<quoted text>
Again you are being nothing but irritating.

State exactly what arguments I have used that are "creationist".

I have said REPEATEDLY on this forum that I DO NOT BELIEVE IN CREATIONISM, and that I DENOUNCE CHRISTIANITY AND THE IDEA OF A CHRISTIAN GOD IN GENERAL.

“Can't help being fabulous”

Since: Dec 10

Sparkle <3

#8231 Apr 5, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
And again how am I hell bent on atheism? Atheism is merely not actively believing in a god. It is the reasonable default position as you have clearly said in your own words. That is kind of like saying someone is hell bent on homeostasis isn't it?
<quoted text>
Apologies my wording probably wasn't clear.

What I mean is that you are acting like your opinion is the only one that is correct and you make a mockery of anyone who thinks differently, hence your statement calling me a child and offering tuition.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#8232 Apr 5, 2013
Stop avoiding my questions and I will, fair enough?
Kesla15 wrote:
<quoted text>Again you are being nothing but irritating.

State exactly what arguments I have used that are "creationist".

I have said REPEATEDLY on this forum that I DO NOT BELIEVE IN CREATIONISM, and that I DENOUNCE CHRISTIANITY AND THE IDEA OF A CHRISTIAN GOD IN GENERAL.

Since: Dec 10

Fogelsville, PA

#8233 Apr 5, 2013
Kesla15 wrote:
<quoted text>
I see your point,
However it doesn't quite work like that for the majoriy of agnostics :)
My agnosticism is based upon evidence and fact.
I believe in evolution because of how likely it is and because of how obvious it is, and that we see it in day to day life, therefore I completely rule out creationism.
I've ruled out modern religions and ancient religions because I don't believe that any God would base the purpose of the universe around one tiny planet or one very simplistic organism. To think that would just be arrogant.
However,
Just becaus I am very 'athiest minded' to all of the worlds religions, and because I believe there PROBABLY ISN'T a 'God', doesn't mean i'm completely closed minded to the idea. What if we're all wrong? What if there is a flying pink unicorn? I can't prove it either way.
I don't accept the fact there could be a God just because a bunch of people believe in one, that would give credability to the idea that just because Joe Bloggs jumps off a cliff I should aswell.
I give some credibility to the idea of God, in the same way I do to other philosophies, as it is a reasonable idea to presume that we are here and conscious for a reason. For instance; why are WE here? Why am I ME? Other than the obvious reasons of biological interactions and mixture of genotypes giving the resultant phenotype.
I understand your point, and even agree to a certain extent. My point was simply that I would not call myself an agnostic for .0001% of possibility. It seems pretty obvious to me that you are WAAAAY over toward the atheist side of the equation.
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#8234 Apr 5, 2013
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand your point, and even agree to a certain extent. My point was simply that I would not call myself an agnostic for .0001% of possibility. It seems pretty obvious to me that you are WAAAAY over toward the atheist side of the equation.
I agree. I think of myself as the agnostic type. Which I think more is about saying that we cannot know if there is a God or not, cause you cannot prove or disprove something which is a) invisible, and b) silent.

Some days I can be more of a deist, and like to think that something may exist out there, and others hear something on the news or whatever, and think that there cannot possibly be a God.

What I am confident on after a lot of research is that the Abrahamic Christian God as described in the Bible is man cruel and made.

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) 11 min KAB 254,004
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 2 hr Patrick 4,831
News Remembering a Christian and a Jew who traced an... 6 hr Frijoles 15
News Athiest tells high schoolers God is evil (May '11) 10 hr Eagle 12 804
Anyone still at this forum Aug 23 Sarah Good 1
When do you know if you are truly Wiccan? (Nov '07) Aug 11 Tekmoses 137
Convert me from Agnostic to Atheist Jul '16 ATHEOI 2
More from around the web