Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

There are 23584 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.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11300 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So you deny the law of non-contradiction then?
A poodle is both a dog and not a dog.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11301 Jan 24, 2013
Why are you here philosophising polymath257?

You have just denied that it is a rational means for acquiring knowledge?

Engaging in rational thought to answer transcendentant questions is of no value to you?

Then why are you then arguing that reason is circular and self attesting?

You realise these are philosophical issues you are engaging in.

Another inconsistency in your worldview.

You are not selling your atheism very well.

I have to abandon reason and philosophy, to be on the same intellectual level as you...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11302 Jan 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
One does not 'submit' to rationality and reason. One *applies* reason to find the rational.
<quoted text>
Your belief in a deity has nothing to do with rationality nor reason.
Where do the laws of logic come from?

Don't know, probably don't exist?(saved you some time here).

Thats what I thought...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11303 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not what you stated.
But leaving that aside.
Why is it meaningless to talk about the cause of time, it is a question that has engaged the minds of many people throughout time, in their search for answers...
As I have said, causality requires time in its definition. So it is meaningless to talk about the cause of time or about causality in the absence of time.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11304 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
Why are you here philosophising polymath257?
You have just denied that it is a rational means for acquiring knowledge?
Again, what I *actually* said is that most philosophers don't know enough to do it correctly. They tend to make assumptions that are, at best, questionable and then derive nonsense from those assumptions.
Engaging in rational thought to answer transcendentant questions is of no value to you?
I am not sure I have a good definition of the word 'transcendent' in this context.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11305 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Where do the laws of logic come from?
Don't know, probably don't exist?(saved you some time here).
Thats what I thought...
We invented them to help us understand the universe. They have shown themselves helpful in this endeavor.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#11306 Jan 24, 2013
David Cameron, PM UK: Islam is a great religion. And a peaceful one.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#11307 Jan 24, 2013
Muslim Patrol - Enforcing Sharia Law on the Streets of London
Muslims confronting members of the public and demanding they give up alcohol and women cover their flesh
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11308 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
How can you argue using logic?
You have just denied the first law of logic.
The law of non-contradiction...
More precisely, I have said that it is very often misused.

Let's precisely state the law as it is most often used: An object cannot have a property P and also have the negation of that same property,~P.

In order to use this law, the property P must be precisely defined: no fuzziness is allowed. So, phrases like 'a lot' are to be avoided since they are ambiguous. Second, the *exact* negation of the property P needs to be in the latter phrase. many times people misuse this law by not having that precise negation. For example, the property P might be 'is in the location given by x at the time t'. The negation is then 'not being in the location x at the time t'. This is different than 'being in a different location x' or at a different time t''

Finally, the same property P needs to be used throughout. In my poodle example, the property of 'being a dog' changed in the sentence (as well as being ambiguous).

So, make an argument from the law of non-contradiction that proves your deity exists. Let's see if you can do it.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#11309 Jan 24, 2013
When did you last visit the garden of eden?
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Love God, garden of Eden.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#11310 Jan 24, 2013
You're not just talking on handsfree are you? I always check before branding someone a mental.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Where do the laws of logic come from?
Don't know, probably don't exist?(saved you some time here).
Thats what I thought...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11311 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not what you stated.
What I *said* is that time, matter, and energy are most likely to be coterminous. In other words, whenever any of them have existed, so have the others. That is specifically a negation to the claim that time was before the other two.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#11312 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a bible study here that you can use if you so wish:
http://bible.org/seriespage/deuteronomy-21
Or you can of course just render the most extreme atheistic rendering of the text that you want to...
Nothing on that page exonerates the Bible. Israelite soldiers capture and rape women and it is supported by your god.

How do you explain this?
mtimber wrote:
The real question is, why is any of the above wrong in an atheistic worldview?
Doesn't even matter. I can show that your moral system is self-contradictory without appealing to an alternative system.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#11313 Jan 24, 2013
True true :))
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>Give him a break... he's a practicing religious douche. 250 more posts and he gets upgraded from a plain water douche to a holy water douche. 1500 more and he can add vinegar!

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11314 Jan 24, 2013
I will continue my discussion on this thread:

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TUGI0DV...

As it is pretty much the same subject, it does not make sense to deal with it in two places.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#11315 Jan 24, 2013
You are word for word stealing their argument and you know it. You can lamely claim they got it from the bible but then you have to explain away all the rape incest and putting infants to the sword as your god commanded.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, so now you think Sye proposed this argument originally?
Okay, if you really want to believe that, then knock yourself out.
You might also want to check out Greg Bahnsen, Van Till and a few others that presented this ontological argument.
But of course, you might pause to notice that they all quote the same bible passages as their foundation.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#11316 Jan 24, 2013
So your god if reason love and logic dooms trillions of people to suffering death and war because a woman was tricked by a talking snake into eating a magical apple? Planes are flown into buildings because of Eve's dietary habits and you thinks this makes perfect sense?

Don't strike down Eve noooooo cause trillions of people to suffer instead. I mean it's not like god swore that on the day of eating the magical apple that Adam and Eve would die or something.....

Oops that's exactly what he said!

If that is how your god operates he is indeed retarded.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
In Eden, Eve was offered the opportunity to reason apart from God.
Foolishly, she decided that that was desirable.
.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#11317 Jan 24, 2013
You mean you'll continue to dodge and avoid questions there retard?
mtimber wrote:
I will continue my discussion on this thread:
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TUGI0DV...
As it is pretty much the same subject, it does not make sense to deal with it in two places.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#11318 Jan 24, 2013
Have you checked out Pat Condell's polemics on islam?
They're on youtube and patcondell.net
Adam wrote:
Muslim Patrol - Enforcing Sharia Law on the Streets of London
Muslims confronting members of the public and demanding they give up alcohol and women cover their flesh
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Henry

Hartenstein, Germany

#11319 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus was quoting the old testament...
Why should Jesus something quoting, since he is dead for something like 2000 years ago?

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 Free Library gets into papal game, opens religi... 13 hr flame of truth 1
News Family speaks out in deadly South Lake Tahoe of... Sun Let us be real 3
News Vickers sentenced to 17 years for murder (Nov '09) Aug 29 Friend 23
News The urban prepper: Learning from Atlantic City'... Aug 26 SurvivalsEverything 1
News Conservative Canadian leader seeks another mandate Aug 16 JUSTIN TRUDEAU ERA 1
News Trevor Bacquet: While real, climate change pred... Aug 16 SpaceBlues 1
News Why is Miguels Jr. The Most Popular Mexican Res... (Feb '10) Aug 13 Savvyloveee 32
More from around the web