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.

spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#8235 Apr 5, 2013
typo man made

“Can't help being fabulous”

Since: Dec 10

Sparkle <3

#8236 Apr 5, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Stop avoiding my questions and I will, fair enough?
<quoted text>
Sure.

So; how am I being a creationist when i've openly said that i'm against the whole concept of creationism?

“Can't help being fabulous”

Since: Dec 10

Sparkle <3

#8237 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.
Fair enough
Thinking

UK

#8238 Apr 5, 2013
Where do you place yourself on the Dawkins scale of belief?
I'm a 6 (or 6 point something :D).

http://christophersisk.com/dawkins-belief-sca...
Kesla15 wrote:
<quoted text>
Fair enough

Since: Dec 10

Fogelsville, PA

#8239 Apr 5, 2013
spudgun wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Agreed.
As I said before, I consider myself an atheist simply because I have seen zero proof of a god. This doesn't mean that I am not open to some evidence if it is ever presented. The reason I shy away from the whole agnostic thing, is because I don't feel I should call myself agnostic about a god that is as unproven as little green goblins. If I say that I am agnostic about a god that I have zero proof of, than I would have to say I am agnostic about every crackpot theory/imagined thing that comes up.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#8240 Apr 5, 2013
After you called me an idiot or did you forget that? If you live in a glass don't be throwing rocks.

My opinion is backed by observable demonstrable fact and I have no reason to be shy or apologetic about that. So if an atheist dares to express their opinion they are being religious?

This is what I find interesting, people it seems want atheists to just be quiet, don't make waves, you may upset a theist and so on.

All gods were created by ancient people who sometimes felt alone, scared, awestruck or just didn't have the resources available to explain the world around them. It was a comforting measure. Soon though it was used by those seeking power as a control device over their fellow man. As time and innovations progress the gods have shrunk more and more in our collective eye. We as a species are growing up and the time has come to put away childish things.
Kesla15 wrote:
<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

Scottsburg, IN

#8241 Apr 5, 2013
Now go back and answer my questions.... Waiting.
Kesla15 wrote:
<quoted text>Sure.

So; how am I being a creationist when i've openly said that i'm against the whole concept of creationism?

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#8242 Apr 5, 2013
Norman or Harry Osborne?:)
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>Agreed.
As I said before, I consider myself an atheist simply because I have seen zero proof of a god. This doesn't mean that I am not open to some evidence if it is ever presented. The reason I shy away from the whole agnostic thing, is because I don't feel I should call myself agnostic about a god that is as unproven as little green goblins. If I say that I am agnostic about a god that I have zero proof of, than I would have to say I am agnostic about every crackpot theory/imagined thing that comes up.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#8243 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.
I guess there are degrees of wrongness. These aren't my words but I think they put it well...

Suppose you have a length of wood and you want to measure it. First, you use a yard stick with markings only on the feet, and find that the wood is 7 feet long. Then you decide to use a better ruler and find the wood is 7 feet 2 inches long. Then you decide to use a better one and find it is 7 feet 2 1/4 inches long. You can never reach the truth (the exact size) because you don't have a prefect measuring device, but are all the measurements *false*? No, they are better and better approximations to the truth.

This is how science works: you figure things out at one level of accuracy and see how far you can understand things there. Then, after you get better instruments and better techniques, you look again and see if what you previously did works at the new level of accuracy.

Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. If it doesn't, you have to modify your ideas, but the lower level of accuracy still works! So rather than being completely wrong, the older scientific ideas are actually just good approximations and have been refined by new abilities.

This has happened multiple times in science. Newtonian physics gives a very good description of how planets move, how buildings stand, and many phenomena at the ordinary level of human existence. But, as we probed deeper, we found that it doesn't work for very small things (like atoms and smaller) or very fast things (close to the speed of light) or very strong gravitational fields (like around black holes). So, it had to be refined to account for these new observations. This lead to relativity and quantum mechanics.

Did this make Newton's theories *false*? In one sense, yes, but in a practical sense not. We still use Newtonian physics to send probes to the moon, to design cars, etc, because it is an extremely good *approximation*.

This is the strength of science: it can adjust to new and more refined observations while preserving the work previously done. We can realize that we *never* have the exact truth, but can find better and better approximations as we study more.

Religion, on the other hand, claims an absolute truth at the beginning. It either ignores new evidence, or modifies its beliefs (silently!) while claiming nothing has changed. By refusing to acknowledge ignorance and adapt to new information, it becomes dogmatic and dangerous. By insisting that all those who believe other things are evil, it, itself, becomes evil. By claiming certain knowledge, it gives up on the path of wisdom all together.

“There are other issues.”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#8244 Apr 5, 2013
Kesla15 wrote:
<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.
And calls people trannies and she-males. Very immature person.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#8245 Apr 5, 2013
Educated What wrote:
<quoted text>
And calls people trannies and she-males. Very immature person.
not as immature as the person who believes that jesus rode on the backs of dinosaurs.

“There are other issues.”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#8246 Apr 5, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>not as immature as the person who believes that jesus rode on the backs of dinosaurs.
Lets get things corrected here. I believe your mother rode a donkey and you were born. Now get it right next time.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#8247 Apr 5, 2013
Educated What wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets get things corrected here.
So remove the parts of the bible that say hateful things about atheists.

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

#8248 Apr 5, 2013
spudgun wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Food for thought: Even with the best seats on the planet and state of the art optics, less than 1% of the universe is visible to the human eye and far far less than that to the human ear. The other 99% is both " a) invisible, and b) silent " Do you really believe that means the existence of the universe cannot be proved or disproved?
Lincoln

United States

#8249 Apr 5, 2013
See no signs that atheism will replace religion.
Country is secular by the constitution with many exceptions.

UK is different
UK atheist pay taxes to the church?

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#8250 Apr 5, 2013
Then how did ancient man with feces running down his leg observe god?
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>Food for thought: Even with the best seats on the planet and state of the art optics, less than 1% of the universe is visible to the human eye and far far less than that to the human ear. The other 99% is both " a) invisible, and b) silent " Do you really believe that means the existence of the universe cannot be proved or disproved?

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

#8251 Apr 5, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Then how did ancient man with feces running down his leg observe god?
<quoted text>
My first guess would be the same way you manage to type words on a keyboard with feces for brains, bubba.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#8252 Apr 5, 2013
They used their fingers on god?

Ewwwwww you have some strange fantasies there!

Jesus got fingered!

Bwahahahahahahahbahahahahahaha hahabahahahaha!
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>My first guess would be the same way you manage to type words on a keyboard with feces for brains, bubba.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#8253 Apr 5, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet another lie. You just can't help yourself, can you?
Professor Flew taught Analytical Philosophy and Evidentialism at Oxford, both of which have been classified as sciences since Bertrand Russell's time and are required courses for anyone seeking a science degree.
<quoted text>
Yeah. Whitehead's Theory of Actual Occasion, Jung's Theory of Synchronicity, Quantum Entanglement Theory, Gaia Theory....
Ah, you're a new ager. Why didn't you just say so?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#8254 Apr 5, 2013
His-truth wrote:
Since 1996 .. it has been Science Against Evolution's objective to make the general public aware that the theory of evolution is not consistent with physical evidence and is no longer a respectable theory describing the origin and diversity of life ... When we talk about "evolution" .. we don't mean .. "any kind of change." .. Nor do we mean minor variations that result from natural selection ... We use the term "evolution" to mean ..“The doctrine that unguided natural forces caused chemicals to combine in such a way that life resulted .. and that all living things have descended from that common ancestral form of life.”........ http://www.ic r
Your source (liars for Jesus) openly admits it doesn't care about science and that evidence is irrelevant.

What's the "scientific theory" of IDC?

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) 1 hr Qatari 256,009
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Dec 3 Eagle 12 4,907
omens of dead animals (Aug '08) Nov 25 Jillifitz 115
News Paganism no better than Atheism (May '10) Nov 17 Amused 30
News Why All Jews Should Hate Halloween - And So Sho... Oct '16 Hecate 1
Beauty spell worked last year but not anymore Oct '16 Prettyicy 1
Wiccan Coven Secrets Anyone? Oct '16 Julius the Jules 1
More from around the web