Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Apr 25, 2012 Full story: Psychology Today 23,490

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.

Full Story

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11058 Jan 23, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me put it this way: is the only reason you don't rape because you think that some big daddy in the sky says you shouldn't? If your answer is yes, then *please* keep believing in the big daddy in the sky. You have then shown yourself incapable of true moral judgment. If your answer is no, then you have shown that morality has nothing to do with the existence of deities.
Rape is wrong because it is contrary to Gods character.

You are an evolutionist how can you argue that rape is absolutely right or wrong?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11059 Jan 23, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Lmfao and are you so stupid you actually fell for this?
<quoted text>
Do you have a rational response to make?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11060 Jan 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
As you just saw, I'd have to sacrifice commonsense and common decency to join you and worship such a god.
<quoted text>
Your god is less moral than you or I, assuming that you would also never torture anybody.
No, you just have to sacrifice the lies you are hiding behind:

1. nothingexploded
2. arockdidit

Once you get past these false propositions, which are obviously illogical, you might be able to reason your way around morality etc.

Because whilst you are hiding behind them, you cannot account for logic, rationality, personal identity and indeed morality amongst others...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11061 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So in the evolutionary requirement for reproduction, rape is okay?
No. The harm done to the woman (including the responsibility to take care of the child alone) far outweighs the 'benefit' to society.

Once again: is the only reason you refrain from rape because your sky-daddy says so? if so, you have shown yourself incapable of true moral judgment. if not, you have shown that deities are irrelevant to morality.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11062 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Rape is wrong because it is contrary to Gods character.
You are an evolutionist how can you argue that rape is absolutely right or wrong?
I am saying that any society that condones rape denigrates humans and is therefore immoral. We are a social species, so we have morality to organize behaviors productive of happiness of those in the society.

Once again: is the only reason you don't rape because your sky-daddy says not to? If so, then you are incapable of true moral judgment. if not, you have shown that deities are irrelevant to morality.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11063 Jan 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't.
How do you account for a god?
Exactly, you cannot account for the universe, life, mind, morality and individuality.

Because the only thing that accounts for them is the one thing you want to avoid above all others.

It is not about you cannot, it is will not.

But as you have now admitted you cannot account for much, upon what basis do you reject the absolute truth of christianity?

Do you want to present the idea there is something intellectually superior about arguing from a position of ignorance?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11064 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Rape is wrong because it is contrary to Gods character.
And if it were in God's character it would be right? No, in that case, God would be wrong.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11065 Jan 23, 2013
jacktheladat1 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
So you think that as an atheist, you have the absolute moral authority to demand I apologise to you for offending your atheistic lack of moral absolutes?

And you then support that with an insult?

Really?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11066 Jan 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
At last after several days, an attempt at a rational argument!

Someone, hopefully, beginning to understand the implications of this discussion...

Only one God, revealed to man does indeed answer all the questions.

An impersonal distant God does not fulfill the requirements for the source of intelligibility, especially in the field of morality.

Only an Absolute God, who prescribes morality, who communicates that personally and introduces Himself fulfills that model.

So your model, the denial of the person of God as revealed in Christ, does not work because it fails to account for ALL preconditions of intelligibility...

It cannot account for morality, or the problem of immorality...

So where does your argument go from here?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11067 Jan 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong for what? You need to state a purpose. If your purpose is to maximize satisfaction in a community, then yes, it is wrong.
<quoted text>
Because rape doesn't serve that purpose, and shouldn't be tolerated.
You seem to consider these posers. This stuff isn't as difficult for me as it seems to be for you. But I suspect that is because of what is likely our different upbringings, our differing philosophies, and our different life paths since then. Rational ethics is really not that hard, but you have to learn how to do it. I don't see where a theist would have the opportunity to learn, given your metaphysics.
A man and a woman alone on an island, the last survivors of humanity.

The only chance of extending the species is by procreation.

The man wants to, the woman doesn't.

The man therefore rapes the woman.

Is he wrong, according to your worldview?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11068 Jan 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you hoping to accomplish here? A little entertainment for yourself?
If your purpose is more than that, you are wasting your time. You are not going to flip a mature rational skeptic at this stage of his or her intellectual and moral development. You have nothing to offer.
FYI, we define ourselves, not our ideological enemies.
To share some logical conclusions with people that want to deny the source of logical absolutes...

In the hope that someone else can see the foolishness of the atheistic denial of God.

Or that indeed one of you, has just imbibed the religion of atheism, without ever actually challenging their religious convictions.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11069 Jan 23, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, pleasure is one of the factors, everyone makes their own morals, choosing a cookie cutter moral system does not mean you did not make those choices either, it just means you liked the morals of another person.
If everyone makes their own morals, why is your moral position superior to mind if we disagree diametrically?

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#11070 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
It boggles the mind that people still believe that "arockdidit" or "nothingexploded" is literally true...
Your point being?
You do realize that the ONLY people that make those "claims" are godbots just like you, don't you?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11071 Jan 23, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>"Atheistic religion"? Those two words are cancel each other out. A religion is a theism, and if someone has a religion, they cannot be atheist. An atheist is not theist, that is what the "a" means.
You are not very smart, are you?
Does not a widespread belief in a particular worldview, that cannot be proven empirically, constitute a religion?

A faith in something not observed?

I.E.

1. nothingexploded
2. arockdidit

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11073 Jan 23, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>The person you described is a non-believer. Maybe you should really learn something before shooting off your mouth. The word atheist means not theist, and that it is also used as a substitute for non-believer, does not change the meaning of the word.
And btw, your truth, is not truth, not even for you. It is also word salad, and >>> wrong <<<.
You define an athiest as someone who lacks a belief in gods.

The bible describes an atheist as someone who suppress a knowledge of God, who suppress a belief in God, so that they can be wise in their own eyes. And this activity reduces them to foolishness.

As a biblical christian, I have to accept that basis for identifying atheism.

Coupled to that, the atheists complete inability to account for obvious absolute truth, or even acceptance of that, proves the case...

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#11074 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Amidst the ad hominem, I think I detect your main argument is "an argument from ignorance is always preferable"...
LOL! My argument is based on the posts you supply and the willful ignorance displayed therein... hardly an argument from ignorance. But you can keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#11075 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, so your absolute standard for defining your empathy is the Bible?
Argument done...
ahhh yes... typical pigeon chess master

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11076 Jan 23, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No. The harm done to the woman (including the responsibility to take care of the child alone) far outweighs the 'benefit' to society.
Once again: is the only reason you refrain from rape because your sky-daddy says so? if so, you have shown yourself incapable of true moral judgment. if not, you have shown that deities are irrelevant to morality.
Following your reasoning then you must also oppose abortion then?

As the harm to the baby far outweighs the harm to the mother?
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#11077 Jan 23, 2013
Could you live a day without a straw man?
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
It boggles the mind that people still believe that "arockdidit" or "nothingexploded" is literally true...
Your point being?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11078 Jan 23, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am saying that any society that condones rape denigrates humans and is therefore immoral. We are a social species, so we have morality to organize behaviors productive of happiness of those in the society.
Once again: is the only reason you don't rape because your sky-daddy says not to? If so, then you are incapable of true moral judgment. if not, you have shown that deities are irrelevant to morality.
Why is condoning rape wrong?

If it promulgates the survival of the strongest physical specimen?

I don't understand why you are arguing against atheistic doctrine?

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
High rate of cancer in area Tue UNESCO dont care 1
Mars Exploration Fast Facts Tue asteroid-fly-by 1
Fuck This Shit O'Clock Tue tony 1
Australia Day Super Quiz Jan 24 Goats milk Australia 1
Rochester region adds jobs in December Jan 24 Diamond Daisy 1
200 Chart Moves: Taylor Swift's '1989' Hits 4 M... Jan 24 TheAfroHedgehog 1
Vietnam hub offers $84k salaries to reverse bra... Jan 16 SpongeBob 19
More from around the web