Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

There are 23770 comments on the Psychology Today story from Apr 25, 2012, titled Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038. In it, Psychology Today reports that:

My blog posts on religion have attracted a lot of controversy. Religious people are annoyed by my claim that belief in God will go the way of horse transportation, and for much the same reason, specifically an improved standard of living.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Psychology Today.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#10965 Jan 22, 2013
Lmfao and are you so stupid you actually fell for this?
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
It does if you let the Bible explain it.
Man has been in rebellion since Eve's sin in the Garden of Eden.
Since that time, mankind has been trying to suppress the knowledge of God.
Usually by lying to themselves and convincing themselves the lie is true.
They got so successful that at one point, God flooded the earth.
They are also getting to the same point again, which is a sign that Jesus Second Coming is about here.
As in the days of Noah etc...
So it all makes perfect sense.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#10966 Jan 22, 2013
mtimber wrote:
The reason you reject the gospel is because it demands more than you are willing to give up.
As you just saw, I'd have to sacrifice commonsense and common decency to join you and worship such a god.
mtimber wrote:
To justify that, you try to attribute Gods character as immoral, using His standards of absolute morality, which you cannot account for as an atheist, to try to justify your own sin.
Your god is less moral than you or I, assuming that you would also never torture anybody.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10967 Jan 22, 2013
Try that again without the errors.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
But it gave others societies pleasure, where they acting immorally if they defined their own standard?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#10968 Jan 22, 2013
mtimber wrote:
According to your worldview, he is just a distant relation to a rock.
None of us has made that comment - just you.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#10969 Jan 22, 2013
mtimber wrote:
How do you account for logic in an atheistic universe?
I can't.

How do you account for a god?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#10970 Jan 22, 2013
mtimber wrote:
And you atheists need to evolve some manners...
Toward you or your church?

As for you, you're just na´ve and presumptuous. Yours are ancient arguments refuted many times by many people. You don't deserve more than a gentle correction.

But your church? It deserves all of the contempt that can be mustered for it.
William Tyndale

Clearlake, CA

#10971 Jan 22, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Nonsense.
I'm an atheist, and those are the very words I use. In fact, to the sense of mystery and awe I add the sense of connection and gratitude. From last week :
"If you'd like to discuss spirituality, I'd be glad to do so. For starters, it has nothing to do with spirits or ghosts. It is my opinion that spirituality eludes those of you with a hostility to science, "the world," and even your own flesh. Spirituality is about connectedness to your world. It is a psychological experience that combines a sense of mystery, awe and gratitude.
"If you have those feelings, you have touched onto your spiritual faculty. But if you lack the sense of connection to your universe, your experience is inauthentic. You see yourself as an alien in this world, a ghost that belongs elsewhere. If your attention is diverted to nonexistent realms, and to the time after your demise, you are the opposite of spiritual."
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T0N0LOR...
If you're interested,here is the follow-up to that post:
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T0N0LOR...
you are projecting on to me something that isn't there.

Atheism is the opposite of theism. theism studies the concept of god.("theo" = "god" ) Atheism does not. Some atheists are understandably turned off by the magical thinking of mainstream religion and it's study of that which man projects, and turn off to anything that smacks of the word "god", knowing that if it comes from religion it is simply an anthropomorphism.

But the word "awe" applies to the mystical experience had by scientists, philosophers, and ordinary people. If it is a valid mystical experience it is consistent with the definition of mysticism being conscious awareness of the reality of what is without the blinders of religion.

This is something that can not be labeled in linear language. The mystical experience is a form of experiential knowledge and perhaps the only word that comes close to expressing it is "awe". True mysticism has nothing to do with the occult and is simply an expanded awareness of what is.

The word "god" is problematic. But the consciousness that is the foundation of all that exists is real whatever you chose to call it. To most people the only word that seems to fit is "god".

And in discussing spirituality the best we can do is to point out what it isn't. True spirituality can not be expressed in any linear language.

But I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on spirituallity.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#10972 Jan 22, 2013
mtimber wrote:
Unable to account for the existance of the laws of logic. But insisting that you own them...
We all own them to the extent that we master them.

Why do you hope to prevail using an argument that you wouldn't accept?

"Account for the existence of a god. You can't? Then become an atheist."

Do you reject that argument? Then why do you offer it? Is that intellectually honest?
Kosovogirl

London, UK

#10973 Jan 22, 2013
Why do atheist talk about religions forcing god upon people when atheist are forcing people not to believe in god?

If a person wishes to believe in god let them believe, if they don't then don't bother them.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#10974 Jan 22, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
Thursdays are my favorite days, and have been since I was a child. When my first child was born on a Thursday, it just made me happy, the second child was born on a Thursday, it was wonderful, but then I found a calendar from my birth year. I too was born on Thursday, as was my third child, and ten years later my last child was born on Thursday too. I have no choice but to consider this a revelation from Thor, that proves him to be the true god. I am no longer in denial.
Brilliant, my sister.

July 4th, 1776 was a Thursday.

http://easycalculation.com/date-day/day-of-ye...
[I was a Saturday baby.]

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#10975 Jan 22, 2013
Kosovogirl wrote:
Why do atheist talk about religions forcing god upon people when atheist are forcing people not to believe in god?
If a person wishes to believe in god let them believe, if they don't then don't bother them.
How do you see atheists forcing the religious not to believe in their myth of choice?? Seriously.... how?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#10976 Jan 22, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Interesting... The UK Whigs ran from 1680 to 1850ish and then evolved into the Liberal party. Now that's a brand name difficult to sell to the US. Today's Liberal Democrats currently form part of s ruling coalition with the larger Conservatives.
Perhaps coalitional governments and parliaments are superior to their American counterparts. Something has gone terribly wrong in America that doesn't seem to be plaguing the other Western democracies. Their problems, when they have them, seem to be economic. America has to deal with the worst political parties, the worst church, the least effective schools, and the worst gun problems in the West.

And the economic problems, which it largely caused for itself and much of the world.

I really don't understand that.
Kosovogirl

London, UK

#10977 Jan 22, 2013
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>How do you see atheists forcing the religious not to believe in their myth of choice?? Seriously.... how?
Erm it's obvious by this site... Some athiests call people who believe in god "stupid" that's I'd a way of forcing them to not believe.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10978 Jan 22, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, the Bible disagrees with you, it says you do know God, but that you have denied and suppressed that truth so that you can carry on living a sinful life.
I base my worldview on the Bible, not your opinion.
As to why I should apologise, are you saying there is an absolute standard of morality you are pointing to, which I should adhere to?
And do you also think that the atheists on this thread that have insulted christians, should also apologise based on that same absolute standard?
No?
I thought not...
What EVER other people do isn't the issue here. YOU insult my intelligence, therefore YOU SHOULD apologize. I couldn't care LESS what the bible agrees or disagrees, its a load of BS, so WHY should I? I base my worldview on real, not virtual, unlike you. WTF do you perpetually refer to absolute this/that/other? That's yet another words' meaning that eludes you. You're nothing more than someone trying his damnedest to mimic a uni don, whilst having failed to understand Enid Blyton.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#10979 Jan 22, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps coalitional governments and parliaments are superior to their American counterparts. Something has gone terribly wrong in America that doesn't seem to be plaguing the other Western democracies. Their problems, when they have them, seem to be economic. America has to deal with the worst political parties, the worst church, the least effective schools, and the worst gun problems in the West.
And the economic problems, which it largely caused for itself and much of the world.
I really don't understand that.
All of America's problems are caused by the rise of liberalism. It began with Woodrow Wilson.

All economic recessions have been caused by liberal governance. Every single one.

...and America has no gun problems, except for needing more people with guns. Liberals want more criminals to have guns. Law-abiding citizens should arm themselves to shift the balance of power more heavily toward the peaceful people.

But that's not a gun problem. The guns work pretty well, generally. Usually, a problem-gun gets discarded.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#10980 Jan 22, 2013
mtimber wrote:
But you accept their are absolute universal laws of logic?
What do you mean by absolute? Do they transcend your god? If not, they're arbitrary, aren't they - the whim of a god?

Is it your hope that if you can append the qualifier "absolute" onto something, that it will then point to your god? It can't.

The most you can do with these types of arguments - the axiological argument, the ontological argument, etc.- is suggest the existence of "a god," not your god.

What if we cut to the chase and I stipulate to a god. OK. There was a creator god. I say that it's a god that has never communicated with us and has no demands of us. It does not ask to be worshiped or prayed at.

With such an understanding, my life would continue as before - no bibles, not praying, no worshiping, no churches, no priests, no tithing, etc.

And if that were the case - that there is a god that we don't know - America needs to divest itself of all of the Jesus stuff, such as the scapegoating and persecuting of atheists and gays that Jesus seems to require. The real god might not approve.

Furthermore, the real god hasn't given you permission to your currency as religious tracts, or to call it "God," so I'd suggest that you remove that word from the money. And the Pledge. And the courthouse walls.

Are you good with that, or do you need this god to be Jehovah-Jesus? If so, perhaps you should skip all of this "absolute laws of logic" stuff and present your argument that that god must be Jehovah-Jesus. How are you planning to do that?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#10981 Jan 22, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
How much empathy are you looking for?
I'll tell you what: I promise to ALWAYS exceed your church's empathy for unbelievers. Here's some now :
[1] "The fool says in his heart,'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good" - Psalm 14:1
[2] "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." - Revelation 21:8 And the result of such hate speech is predictable:
I'm not sure that I buy into the expectation that unbelievers unilaterally show respect to Christians whose holy bible calls us fools, no good, corrupt, abominable, the moral equivalent of murderers and whoremongers, and fit for to me dropped conscious into a burning fire to suffer forever.
Wouldn't you agree that that is unreasonable to ask for our empathy?
If you consider those words holy, and authored by a perfectly loving and just god, then you've already gotten just about all of the empathy you deserve from unbelievers.
He didn't say anything about empathy for a church.

He said empathy for "non-atheists".

Your bigotry carried you away again.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#10982 Jan 22, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would anybody believe that? That flood part describes a moronic and incompetent god. He allegedly was unhappy with mankind, which he was wholly responsible for, and whose future he could allegedly see before he built them.
When they turned out to be sinful as he knew they would be, he decided to nearly sterilize the earth with an impossible rainstorm that caused the miserable and terrifying torture of not just almost all men, but almost all life.
Can you picture the puppies and kitten seeking higher ground until there was no escape, and then, while in a state of sheer terror, have the water level cover their little noses and snuff the life out of them? He could have just "poofed" them away in the manner he created them, but he preferred this.
But wait - besides being senselessly cruel, it's a stupid plan doomed to failure.
To repair the problem, that god reseeded the earth using the exact same breeding stock - a drunk and his family.
Sorry, but that's just not plausible. It's all nonsense. There never was a Noah, nor an Eve, nor a Jehovah. And there is no such thing as sin, nor any need for redemption.
Sheer awesomeness!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#10983 Jan 22, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
As with many things in morality, the pleasure of one person is balanced by the harm done to another and the necessity of that harm. In this case, the harm done is severe, the necessity low. So the morality is clearly against rape.
On the other hand, there are many species where rape seems to be a necessary aspect of reproduction, so for those species (assuming such could become conscious, another requirement for morality), rape would be moral. For example, it would be moral for intelligent spiders to eat their mates.
A spider cannot be moral or immoral. Morality is an abstract idea which is beyond the capability of spider cognition.

Your definition concerning the morality of rape is absurd. "Necessity", in the sense you used it, is a subjective term. It is not a "necessity" to reproduce. It is not a "necessity" to experience pleasure.

You use a subjective standard to try and construct an objective standard.

Enroll in a class on logic.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#10984 Jan 22, 2013
...and one on arachnids.

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.

9 Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Richland County Council Shake-up Inevitable Apr 14 Mary Anne 1
News Fire chief makes his case for size of staff, pa... Apr 11 Goose 13
News Columbus hits eight-year low in most serious cr... Apr 7 Truth B Told 4
News Part 1 -- Louisiana Third Circuit Affirms Conno... (Jul '09) Mar '16 Commonsense 10
News not Guilty (Sep '12) Mar '16 keep sending money 3
News A look at significant dates in the life of form... Mar '16 Nathan 2
News Appleton sees "alarming" spike in forcible rape... Mar '16 Margaret 2
More from around the web