Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Aug 27, 2012 Full story: News24 14,477

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. Full Story

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

#8452 Apr 8, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
People like you; the wrong side of intelligence.
That says it all for sure.

Since: Mar 11

Lawrenceville, GA

#8453 Apr 8, 2013
When did that happen? Sean Hannity show?

Lol!
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>

Charles Darwin was a deist who believed that God set in motion the physical laws.

Since: Mar 11

Lawrenceville, GA

#8454 Apr 8, 2013
Why do Muslims chop off the noses of little girls Muq?
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>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!!
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#8455 Apr 8, 2013
Polymath wrote:
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.
I
Once again, the *fact* of evolution: that species change over geological time, as known long before
Ans.

First of all Brother, I do not like this "Line by Line Response".

You might think that it is very thorough and you have covered every point, but to me it breaks the continuity.

If I also provide line by line comments to your post, the discussion would become hotch potch.

So please summarise your answer in a text format, so I can also

Just because some people had started observing changes and commonalities in specie before Darwin, would justify him proposing a theory about which he did not have sufficient knowledge?

Did he have enough fossil records? Had he discovered any "Intermediatory life forms?

Just read his book "Origin of Species" it is filed with "predictions and what would be discovered from Fossil Records" etc.

How can any one call that as a Scientific book? Or a scientific theory at all.

You said that Darwin knew nothing about Genetics, He knew nothing about Cell and its structures, He knew very little about Fossil Records and what they would reveal in future.

So we can say that we "speaking like an Astrologer" Making Prediction about what Science would discover in future.

All in all, this TOE did not serve any scientific purpose, it only wasted time and efforts of so many people on a useless quest and misguided so many people.

The more our knowledge about Life and its complexities would increase, the more stupid this TOE would look to us.

The ONLY advantage of TOE is that it gives a toe hold to Atheists to be in the limelight and pose as scientists.

It is a malafied theory with malafied intentions and with dishonest use of science and its principles.

If people were honest, Darwin's book of Origin of Species should have been placed in "Science Fiction" category and not as Book on Biology!!

PS:

Do not expect reply from me, if you answer again line by line.
MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#8456 Apr 8, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
Darwin's name, work, and personal beliefs have been grossly misrepresented by atheists.
Charles Darwin was a deist who believed that God set in motion the physical laws of the universe, which he proposed included laws of "natural selection" and the mutability of the species.
IMO one of Darwin's greatest discoveries was the indigenous people of Terra Del Fuego who had physically adapted to their cold environment.
I do not know how people misrepresented Darwin. It is true he believed in God and did not support Atheism.

His Book Origin of Specie was neither a Scientific Treatise nor a text book of Biology.

It was just his comments on what he observed and how was his explanation about abundance of life forms.

It was a "personal memoir" type of book, but atheists world over greeted the book as if Manna had fallen from Sky.

They praised it too much calling it epoch breaking, most revolutionary book written in past 150 years and what not.

This book is certainly over rated and any one reading it now, can find mistakes upon mistakes in both facts and conclusions drawn from it.

They made Darwin a sort of giant, while in reality he was like a common man. No genius of any kind.

Since: Mar 11

Lawrenceville, GA

#8457 Apr 9, 2013
Why are you avoiding the subject of Muslim child brides? This is commanded in the Quran and practiced to this day in Islam correct?

When you refuse to answer these questions it really makes you look bad Muq.
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>I do not know how people misrepresented Darwin. It is true he believed in God and did not support Atheism.

His Book Origin of Specie was neither a Scientific Treatise nor a text book of Biology.

It was just his comments on what he observed and how was his explanation about abundance of life forms.

It was a "personal memoir" type of book, but atheists world over greeted the book as if Manna had fallen from Sky.

They praised it too much calling it epoch breaking, most revolutionary book written in past 150 years and what not.

This book is certainly over rated and any one reading it now, can find mistakes upon mistakes in both facts and conclusions drawn from it.

They made Darwin a sort of giant, while in reality he was like a common man. No genius of any kind.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#8458 Apr 9, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Why are you avoiding the subject of Muslim child brides? This is commanded in the Quran and practiced to this day in Islam correct?
When you refuse to answer these questions it really makes you look bad Muq.
<quoted text>
This is is something else they NEVER comment on:-


gutless I think is the word.
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#8459 Apr 9, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Why are you avoiding the subject of Muslim child brides? This is commanded in the Quran and practiced to this day in Islam correct?
When you refuse to answer these questions it really makes you look bad Muq.
<quoted text>
An all too familiar tactic. Christians do the same thing, when Q raised about polygamous marriages and concubinage in the Bible. Solomon was reported to have had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Which makes Muhammed with his child bride and a dozen? other wives seem like an role model of chastity :D Spare a thought for these "prophets", having 700 mother in laws would be a nightmare :D and how do you remember all those names??? Erm who are you again, ah yes, concubine number 8.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#8460 Apr 9, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not know how people misrepresented Darwin. It is true he believed in God and did not support Atheism.
His Book Origin of Specie was neither a Scientific Treatise nor a text book of Biology.
It was just his comments on what he observed and how was his explanation about abundance of life forms.
It was a "personal memoir" type of book, but atheists world over greeted the book as if Manna had fallen from Sky.
They praised it too much calling it epoch breaking, most revolutionary book written in past 150 years and what not.
This book is certainly over rated and any one reading it now, can find mistakes upon mistakes in both facts and conclusions drawn from it.
They made Darwin a sort of giant, while in reality he was like a common man. No genius of any kind.
Religious liar with no proof of god, trying to convert atheists and failing miserably at it.

Since: Mar 11

Lawrenceville, GA

#8461 Apr 9, 2013
Honor killings are standard fare in Islam and Muq knows it. This is how they keep their numbers high, by the very real threat of violence and death for stepping out of line.

This is another fact of Islam that Muq will refuse to discuss and probably say it's a nonsense subject. However thousands of honor killings happen each year this is not a rare isolated incident.
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>This is is something else they NEVER comment on:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =2rgSH0h45EoXX

gutless I think is the word.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#8462 Apr 9, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
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!!
As I said, after you take the time to study Biology, Physics and Math then you might have something to talk about. Until then talking to you is like talking to a goldfish.
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#8463 Apr 9, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said, after you take the time to study Biology, Physics and Math then you might have something to talk about. Until then talking to you is like talking to a goldfish.
Why do you not this advise and stop acting and talking like a Goldfish?

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#8464 Apr 9, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Honor killings are standard fare in Islam and Muq knows it. This is how they keep their numbers high, by the very real threat of violence and death for stepping out of line.
This is another fact of Islam that Muq will refuse to discuss and probably say it's a nonsense subject. However thousands of honor killings happen each year this is not a rare isolated incident.
<quoted text>
Yep, all godbots are gutless, ignorant, uneducated and lie straight in bed.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#8465 Apr 9, 2013
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.
Just as GivemeLiberty noted, you made that up.
There is no proof that what you're saying is true, only on-the-spot attempts to make up excuses in order to make you look smart.
News flash: it only shows how stupid and ignorant you are.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#8466 Apr 9, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you not this advise and stop acting and talking like a Goldfish?
You may talk like Yoda but are far far below him.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8467 Apr 9, 2013
Jumper The Wise wrote:
Look back in history on all the powerful nations lead by self-confessed Atheists.
They all self destructed out of vanity and greed.
Indeed. Like Rome.

:-)

Oh, wait...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8468 Apr 9, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not ran away to anywhere. I have posted on scribd as I have done on these threads.
Always to be on service, should you need any info on Islam and its teachings.
Not interested, I find it on a par with fundamentalist Christianity. Only difference is they think Jesus is the coolest dude in the universe instead of Mohammed. Other than the petty details it's exactly the same religion.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8469 Apr 9, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, bubba, there is no "theory of evolution". None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Period. Get it?
Of course there is. It's change in allele frequency over time. It is observed. Like so:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

It is rejected only by ignorant fundies with theological (rather than scientific) objections, and the occasional crank.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8470 Apr 9, 2013
ezdzit wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no such thing as a "theory of evolution". None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Period. What part of no, none, zero, zip or nada do you not understand, bubba?
All the wishful thinking in the world isn't going to turn your pile of ideas, speculations, claims, hypothesis etc into something that can pass the test of a REAL scientific theory until somebody actually writes one, then has it published and peer reviewed. How could a science genius like yourself not know that very basic fact?
Perhaps you are unaware of the literally HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS of peer-reviewed published science papers on the subject? In fact a quick search on PubMed shows around 300,000. So since you're spouting COMPLETE ignorance on the subject, are you just lacking any sort of science education whatsoever or were you simply LYING FOR JESUS like 99.999999999% of all the other fundies around here?(shrug)

I mean even the bosses of the creationist movement admit that evolution has the support of the science community. And they're dumb-as-f ck YEC's.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8471 Apr 9, 2013
Ygbk wrote:
So where did the micro bacteria come form, in your analogy what laid the egg. Why don't you admit it you believe it rained on the rock, the rain formed a puddle and out sprang life.
Straw-man. The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis for reasons already explained.
Ygbk wrote:
Yet I am still waiting for someone to post this wonderful 100% factual scientific evidence that supports the lie that you lot have been pushing on the world. YOUR EVOLUTION IS A LIE IT IS A MYTH IT HAS NO GROUNDING IN SCIENCE, WHEN IT DOES I WILL GLADLY LOOK AT THE FACTUAL EVIDENCE UNTILL THEN..........I AM WAITING
If this really was the case you would have addressed the evidence. So far you haven't.
Ygbk wrote:
Any evidence is circumstantial at best, what mistake did I make. Point it out please.
Again?(shrug)
Ygbk wrote:
As baseless as any of those made for evolution
Not at all.
Ygbk wrote:
I am yet to see any of all this 100% factual evidence you all claim to have. I do not want to have to see or read any more lies or speculation I want your FACTS

I am still waiting to see these so called facts where are they. POST YOU FACTS.
But you're not interested. So why lie and ask for something which both of us know you don't give a crud about?
Ygbk wrote:
I do not deny the facts of gravity only that it is a theory, this I have pointed out multiple times already.
You deny gravity because you said that mass has nothing to do with it.
Ygbk wrote:
Now we come to the crux of your entire stance, 1) you are anti-Semitic, 2) you are anti-enlightenment 3) you are just plain brainwashed.
Projection.
Ygbk wrote:
If you were in any way involved in the scientific community you would know that there are in fact very few who actually claim the myth to be fact.
On the contrary, evolution has the support of the scientific community. Even the main creo organizations know this.
Ygbk wrote:
So where is all this evidence you keep pointing to, I am yet to see any.
That's because you're an ignorant fundie liar for Jesus who ignores reality.(shrug)
Ygbk wrote:
Things change over time yes, things are born and things die but change has never brought a new species nor has it ever added anything of use to any DNA.
SETMAR. Case closed.
Ygbk wrote:
Change is adaptation an inbuilt design feature. Not evolution as believed to have formed new species.
Your "design" claim is undemonstrated. What's the "scientific theory" of IDC?
Ygbk wrote:
So where is this observation who was there when the first live 'evolved' to observe it, who was walking around '25 million' years ago taking notes.
Ah, the "How do YOU know? Where you THERE?!?" argument.
Ygbk wrote:
There you go again claiming gravity is only a theory, what a crock.
It IS a theory. Remember Newton's "law"? Replaced by the THEORY of Relativity. In turn being replaced by quantum physics. Bub, you don't even understand the basic definitions of science and what they mean, much less have the slightest grasp of science in general. You're walking into a military bunker with a water pistol. You're getting laughed at. With good reason.

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
Who Is Allah? (Aug '07) 11 min MUQ1 209,661
'Monotheism inevitable but wasn't a break with ... Jan 26 MAAT 3
Pastors agree: Being gay not a sin, Bible says ... (Jun '08) Jan 25 true fact 81
"Juggalos" Speak Out After Arson Arrests (Sep '07) Jan 20 Hillbilly 49
My friendly neighbourhood witches (Jul '08) Jan 18 Kaitlin the Wolf ... 454
Satanists Unveil Design for Statehouse Statue (Jan '14) Jan 12 You big dummy 20
Kwanzaa 2014, Day 7, Imani means faith; find th... Jan 4 Ceocailleach 1
More from around the web