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 (Page 408)

Showing posts 8,141 - 8,160 of14,394
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8429
Apr 8, 2013
 
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>Please don't, your ignorance is embarassing.
Do the Stephen Fry thing;
No no no, don't do that, you'll give me an erection.

Since: Mar 11

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8430
Apr 8, 2013
 
Hard to ignore the nightly news though lol!
spudgun wrote:
<quoted text>Very old testament. Its the same psychology as Christians, Muslims I think pick and chose which bits to believe in, and ignore the stuff which is obviously cruel and barbaric. They then can create a god for themselves which is a projection of their beliefs in their own minds.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8431
Apr 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

MUQ wrote:
Now coming to Theory of Evolution, in my view, this was a very Non Scientific approach from its very beginning!!
1. First of all, there was not sufficient data available to suggest any change from one specie to another. And there was no "pressing need" to make such a theory.
This is false. Decades before Darwin, scientists were noticing that species were different was we move back in time in the geological strata. The question wasn't whether evolution occurred, but rather the mechanism of the changes seen.
2. Then there was no rule or pattern why some species evolved and some did not evolve.
Again, a falsehood. It was noticed that species in the past that were similar to those in the present were always geographically close and that for longer periods of time, things like land bridges affected the time of dispersal of new species.
3. There was zero evidence of seeing this evolution of species in nature.
Once again, a falsehood. Adaptation, which is simply evolution over short time periods, was well observed. Larger scale evolution was seen by comparing fossils and modern animals, or fossils from one time with fossils from another.
4. Read the book or Darwin, it is full of assumptions and half truths and saying things about which he had no knowledge.
Of course. Darwin knew nothing about genetics. That flaw in his theory was later corrected when we started to understand the mechanisms of inheritance and the nature of DNA.
5. It was a sort of "fictional writing" and not conforming to scientific method.
Actually, this sort of speculative writing was quite common at the time and necessary because of the lack of data except from small localities. Darwin makes very clear were his observations stop and his speculation begins, as any good scientist would.
It was "picked up" by Zealot Scientists, only because it gave them "some argument" to answer the religious people that "God created everything in this Universe"
Once again, the *fact* of evolution: that species change over geological time, as known long before Darwin and was discovered by scientists who were also religious.
6. So the Theory was formed first and then the data was collected to corroborate that theory.
This is historically inaccurate.
7. And to say that TOE does not deal with beginning or origin of life is again misleading. Just calling it by a jargon name,(Abiogenesis) would not remove it from purview of TOE.
Evolution deals with how biological species change over geological time. It does not address the questions surrounding how life got started. Those, as I have pointed out, are very different questions and it is common in science to separate the two.
8. What happens to complex life forms, should also happen to simple life form and how they originated.
One useful definition of life in the topic of abiogenesis is when evolution gets started.

Since: Mar 11

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8432
Apr 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Sane Muslims in Kazakhstan, krygistan, Azerbaijan accept evolution and even teach it in schools.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>This is false. Decades before Darwin, scientists were noticing that species were different was we move back in time in the geological strata. The question wasn't whether evolution occurred, but rather the mechanism of the changes seen.

[QUOTE]2. Then there was no rule or pattern why some species evolved and some did not evolve."

Again, a falsehood. It was noticed that species in the past that were similar to those in the present were always geographically close and that for longer periods of time, things like land bridges affected the time of dispersal of new species.

[QUOTE]3. There was zero evidence of seeing this evolution of species in nature."

Once again, a falsehood. Adaptation, which is simply evolution over short time periods, was well observed. Larger scale evolution was seen by comparing fossils and modern animals, or fossils from one time with fossils from another.

[QUOTE]4. Read the book or Darwin, it is full of assumptions and half truths and saying things about which he had no knowledge."

Of course. Darwin knew nothing about genetics. That flaw in his theory was later corrected when we started to understand the mechanisms of inheritance and the nature of DNA.

[QUOTE]5. It was a sort of "fictional writing" and not conforming to scientific method."

Actually, this sort of speculative writing was quite common at the time and necessary because of the lack of data except from small localities. Darwin makes very clear were his observations stop and his speculation begins, as any good scientist would.

[QUOTE] It was "picked up" by Zealot Scientists, only because it gave them "some argument" to answer the religious people that "God created everything in this Universe""

Once again, the *fact* of evolution: that species change over geological time, as known long before Darwin and was discovered by scientists who were also religious.

[QUOTE]6. So the Theory was formed first and then the data was collected to corroborate that theory."

This is historically inaccurate.

[QUOTE]7. And to say that TOE does not deal with beginning or origin of life is again misleading. Just calling it by a jargon name,(Abiogenesis) would not remove it from purview of TOE."

Evolution deals with how biological species change over geological time. It does not address the questions surrounding how life got started. Those, as I have pointed out, are very different questions and it is common in science to separate the two.
[QUOTE]
8. What happens to complex life forms, should also happen to simple life form and how they originated."

One useful definition of life in the topic of abiogenesis is when evolution gets started.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8433
Apr 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

1

1

MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
I would not discredit science. Science is a tool , and every tool has its limitation.
If you use a wrong tool for the job, it is your problem not the problem of the tool.
Science is basically a set of rules which humans formed to explain and find out how things in nature are working.
As the knowledge of ours increase, we modify our rules and laws to keep pace with new facts observed.
This is positive aspect of science and no reasonable man denies it.
But when we start using science to say that "There is no Creator of this Universe"....we are indeed misusing science.
It is neither the job, nor the position and not the purpose of science to deal on these subjects.
Science gets a bad name for the over zealous behaviour of these Pseudo Scientists.
They put Sceince and religion as opponents of each other, while in reality there is no conflict between them. True Sceince and True religion always support each other.
Incorrect! True Science endeavors to fit the conclusion to the available evidence. True Religion endeavors to fit the evidence to the preferred conclusion. They will never support each other.

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8434
Apr 8, 2013
 
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect! True Science endeavors to fit the conclusion to the available evidence. True Religion endeavors to fit the evidence to the preferred conclusion. They will never support each other.
Indeed.
Jumper The Wise

Owensboro, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8435
Apr 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Atheism will never dictate woman's right too choose what to do with her own body!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8436
Apr 8, 2013
 
Jumper The Wise wrote:
Atheism will never dictate woman's right too choose what to do with her own body!
Atheism = lack of belief in god. Why would it do that you creationist fool?

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8437
Apr 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Yes we seek to empower women to do as she wishes with her own body and frankly it's long overdue.
Jumper The Wise wrote:
Atheism will never dictate woman's right too choose what to do with her own body!

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8438
Apr 8, 2013
 
Jumper The Wise wrote:
Atheism will never dictate woman's right too choose what to do with her own body!
Probably not.
The Male Gaze

Cummington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8439
Apr 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Givemeliberty wrote:
Yes we seek to empower women to do as she wishes with her own body and frankly it's long overdue.
<quoted text>
Yes, irresponsible behavior and expecting others to pay for it is soooo American. But in all honesty nobody has been denying women to degrade and demean themselves for many years now. I mean after all, treating yourself as a sexual object or piece of meat has no affect on other women right? How they "mistreat" their own body has no impact on how women are viewed by young boys, teens, or men, correct? Ya see, that's another huge problem in America that liberals wish to totally ignore. Much of which has been done through 'sexuality' and pornography.
That IS the war on women, and you are an idiot!
The Male Gaze

Cummington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8440
Apr 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

1

Lesbianism and pornography, the war on women, the war on family.
Cha-Ching!

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8441
Apr 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

The Male Gaze wrote:
Lesbianism and pornography, the war on women, the war on family.
Cha-Ching!
People like you; the wrong side of intelligence.
Uves Soul

Cummington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8442
Apr 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
People like you; the wrong side of intelligence.
Much of the domesic violence and other violence against women in general is by men that have had extensive exposure to pornography. Especially violent serial killers. Talk about the wrong side of intelligence.

Since: Mar 11

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8443
Apr 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Proof? Oh ya you just made it up. Government reports show there is no correlation at all between porn and violence or rape.

Plus women are just as likely to buy porn as men these days in several cases more likely.

Fact.
Uves Soul wrote:
<quoted text>Much of the domesic violence and other violence against women in general is by men that have had extensive exposure to pornography. Especially violent serial killers. Talk about the wrong side of intelligence.

Since: Mar 11

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8444
Apr 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Women should be viewed by young boys an teens as mom, teacher, clerk or lady walking in the store.

If a woman choses to take a part in an adult movie and is lucky enough to win the spot in a highly competitive market good for her as thousands are turned down. Many of those women go on to start highly profitable businesses and are doing very well for themselves.

You are making a compete jackass out of yourself.
The Male Gaze wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, irresponsible behavior and expecting others to pay for it is soooo American. But in all honesty nobody has been denying women to degrade and demean themselves for many years now. I mean after all, treating yourself as a sexual object or piece of meat has no affect on other women right? How they "mistreat" their own body has no impact on how women are viewed by young boys, teens, or men, correct? Ya see, that's another huge problem in America that liberals wish to totally ignore. Much of which has been done through 'sexuality' and pornography.
That IS the war on women, and you are an idiot!
Imhotep

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8445
Apr 8, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Women should be viewed by young boys an teens as mom, teacher, clerk or lady walking in the store.
If a woman choses to take a part in an adult movie and is lucky enough to win the spot in a highly competitive market good for her as thousands are turned down. Many of those women go on to start highly profitable businesses and are doing very well for themselves.
You are making a compete jackass out of yourself.
<quoted text>
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In an outburst that shocked many onlookers at the Supreme Court today, Justice Antonin Scalia said that it made him “angry beyond belief” that he had to listen to people talking about gay couples all week.

As Justice Anthony Kennedy questioned whether it was appropriate for the Court to hear a case about same-sex marriage at this time, Mr. Scalia stunned observers with an emotional outburst.

“O.K., could we just stop talking about this stuff right now?” Justice Scalia snapped at Justice Kennedy.“I’ve told you all how I feel about this topic, and I don’t understand why we’re going on and on about it unless you all hate me.”

As the courtroom froze in dead silence, Justice Scalia seemed to gather steam, shouting,“For two days, it’s been gay this, gay that. You’re all just talking about this stuff as if it’s the most normal thing in the world. Well, it’s not, O.K.? It’s weird and it’s wrong. And just talking about it like it’s O.K. and whatnot is making me angry beyond belief.”

As the other justices averted their eyes, Justice Scalia broke down, sobbing that he wished “things were normal, the way they used to be.”

(The Borowitz Report)—As the Supreme Court prepared to hear two cases involving same-sex marriage this week, Justice Antonin Scalia said that he would not allow his votes to be influenced “in any way” by his lifelong fear of gays.

“As Justices of the Supreme Court, we have a sacred duty to check our personal feelings at the door,” he told the Fox News Channel.“In my case, that means putting aside my longstanding and profound fear of homosexuals.”

Justice Scalia added that he was committed “to safeguarding the rights of all Americans—even those I personally find terrifying.”

“I take my role as an impartial arbiter very seriously,” he said.“So when I hear a case, I put all feelings of abhorrence, disgust, and revulsion completely out of my mind.”

The Justice said that when it came to the issue of same-sex marriage he would rely on the Constitution,“which makes no mention of gays whatsoever.”

“Remember, when the framers wrote the Constitution, there were no gays in America,” he said.“They didn’t come here until the nineteen-sixties.”

All in all, he said, advocates of same-sex marriage should rest assured that he will listen to this week’s arguments with an open mind:“I’m going to apply the same robust sense of fairness that I’ve brought to cases involving blacks and women.”

Lol
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8446
Apr 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
We can start a debate the moment you deside to learn something about Biology, Physics and Math. Until then we may as well be talking to a brickwall.
So you accepted defeat even before the debate started!!

It was not difficult to know that.

Most of those who believe in TOE, do not even know the basic facts about TOE.

How it started and why so many people "Jumped in to prove this Non Scientific theory as Scientific" and how much time and efforts have been wasted in making it look Scientific!!
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8447
Apr 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect! True Science endeavors to fit the conclusion to the available evidence. True Religion endeavors to fit the evidence to the preferred conclusion. They will never support each other.
Unless you have sizable evidence to prove your assumptions, you should keep on collecting Data.

Darwin made a very non scientific thing to propose a theory without sufficient data available to him.

It is strange how it caught the imagination of Pseudo Scientists, otherwise, he would have been blackballed by True Scientists!!

“Liberty & Justice For All”

Since: Aug 11

United States of America

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8448
Apr 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect! True Science endeavors to fit the conclusion to the available evidence. True Religion endeavors to fit the evidence to the preferred conclusion. They will never support each other.
LOL

That's just a variant of Flew's example of the "no true Scotsman" argument.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries”(Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, p. 107)

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 8,141 - 8,160 of14,394
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

Other Recent Pagan/Wiccan Discussions

Search the Pagan/Wiccan Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Who Is Allah? (Aug '07) 16 min El Cid 193,555
Wiccan Atheists and Agnostics (Aug '13) 13 hr PINCH111 284
Paganism still suffering from wounds inflicted ... 14 hr PINCH111 5
Ex-Disney Star Renounced Christianity and Becam... 14 hr PINCH111 54
Wiccan Threefold Law Is Overrated 14 hr PINCH111 8
What is Ritual Sex? (Nov '11) 15 hr PINCH111 72
Create A Potted Plant Altar Wed Drake_Burrwood 1
•••
•••
•••
•••