Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

There are 24182 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.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11455 Jan 26, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Khatru wrote:
Lol! Where do you get them from?
I find them by accident. The hard part is remembering that I have them bookmarked.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11456 Jan 26, 2013
Henry wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately in the nuclear age the hope of survival is dwindling!
Truthfully, it is a LOT better than it was 30 years ago! I lived when the threat of nuclear annihilation was an every-day worry. Now, we worry that a terrorist or two will get a nuke and destroy a city. Then, we worried about tend of thousands of nukes destroying civilization.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11457 Jan 26, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
Excellent analysis.
Thanks, Bob.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
If there are some sort of "higher god-laws" that permit a god or gods to exist? From whence came these higher laws? A higher god? What allowed the higher-order of god or gods? A higher-order of laws? From whence came those? And so on, ad infinitum, an infinite regression upwards, ever-higher laws requiring ever-higher gods to implement them. It never ends well, does it?
Correct.

The transcendent physical law argument fails in the same way that the uncaused (first) cause argument, the transcendent moral laws, and the probability arguments fail when applied to the god.

These arguments can only be salvaged with special pleading: the universe, for example, absolutely, positively needs a first causes, and anybody who thinks otherwise is irrational. But the god gets a pass from such rigorous scrutiny - often excused by some ad hoc qualifier such as that the god exists in a privileged reality where nothing needs to make sense. The will to believe permits that.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11458 Jan 26, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
They fail again: free speech can only (and always) apply to the individual, never to the group.
The group can express free speech through the individual only.
The same ought to apply to corporations-- they can express free speech >>only<< through the individual. And as such, the individual so expressing, bears all the responsibility of any evil that stems from said expression: you cannot yell "fire" in a crowd, without consequences.
The same should apply to free speech-- we, as a group, have limited the free expression of free speech; such that you cannot express free speech without limits.
Agreed. And the limit probably should be that you are free to express ideas verbally to those interested in hearing them, meaning that you cannot be systematically suppressed from doing so. The rule exists to keep the marketplace of ideas open, not for the wealthiest interests to pervert the democratic process, wherein "One man, one vote" becomes "One dollar, one vote."

The problem seems to be that freedom of speech has been expanded to freedom of expression, and dumping money into elections or lobbying legislators is called speech. Obviously, some forms of expression are not acceptable, such as bribery and extortion.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11459 Jan 26, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
You have to walk carefully there-- the group's fate does not >>automatically<< trump that of the individual's.
If that were the case, we'd still have slavery in the US, as the majority of the south, correctly claimed that much of it's economy depended on slavery for survival.
You're the third person I respect that has disagreed with me. Perhaps I'm wrong on this matter. I wasn't expecting any dissent. I thought that preserving the human race was a high enough moral good to trump an individual's right to dissent about reproducing. I'll have to rethink it.
Henry

Bad Langensalza, Germany

#11460 Jan 26, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>I think such remarks are off-topic, but capitalism is established and is more likely to be adapted than ended. Is there an ideology you favour?
I don't see as an ideology. If it is, it isn't a narrow one. It's just a regulated economic system. It won't end as long as it is sufficiently regulated. How can one have money and not capitalism? Minor and local currencies exist alongside major ones.
What do you think capitalsim is?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capita...
Quite easy, capitalism is a suicidal system in the end of the atomic age!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11461 Jan 26, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
None of these can compare the FSM's origin stories, I always say.
Who can refute pasta? I mean, really?:D
Bless our Savory, born of extra virgin olive oil, and anointed with Cheese's Crust - how grated thou art!

He, who came for our salivation when we were thrown out of the Olive Garden, was twirled on a giant fork and unceremoniously flung onto a wall instead, where he stuck and dried for our sins.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11462 Jan 26, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you are another devil worshiper.
Proof?
You just gave your devil more power than your god!
For clearly, your god is powerless to be ... convincing.
But not your devil...
... too FUNNY, really!
:D
Good observation.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11463 Jan 26, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the third person I respect that has disagreed with me. Perhaps I'm wrong on this matter. I wasn't expecting any dissent. I thought that preserving the human race was a high enough moral good to trump an individual's right to dissent about reproducing. I'll have to rethink it.
And here's the point that the godbots will never understand: we can *think* about moral issues, discuss them, and perhaps come to a consensus. Even if we are wrong, we can learn and correct our errors. Believing you have an 'absolute truth' doesn't allow for fixing mistakes because you never allow that you can *make* a mistake.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#11464 Jan 26, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
That was a fun video. Thanks.
Did you notice how they framed the two pairs of teams? Here they are, with their scores
The Liberal Media Elites (248) vs. The Young Conservatives (27)
and
The Agnostic Scholars (327) vs. The Young Believers (0)
I did notice that, and I was particularly pleased to hear that the first group hung around in the green room for a couple of hours chatting amiably. People don't have to agree with each other to get along well. I'm sure that most of us see that in our personal lives.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#11465 Jan 26, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
One gets the impression not so much that the Christian believes that he is right, but that he doesn't care if he is wrong. What would be the honest answer to the question, "If you were wrong, would you want to know"?
As you note, once you have invested as much of yourself to an ideology as these people have, and you believe that there is no harm in being wrong, what's the incentive to learn that you are wrong? Unless you experience cognitive dissonance at the idea of being wrong, I'd say that there is none.
I'd guess that for you to have burrowed out, you must have experienced some sort of cognitive dissonance over the possibility of being wrong. Being correct - a love of truth - still had to matter to you, or why would you have bothered?
Christian dogma devotes a lot of energy to preventing that. Reason is demeaned, and its opposite, accepting ideas without reason, is praised with a pretty word, "faith." The believers own mind is said to be Satan speaking to him, the and listening to ones own mind is framed as a moral failure: losing faith. Those that do leave are described as being weak.
Does any of that sound familiar?
I just made two polls based on the question...
He is Coming Soon

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#11466 Jan 26, 2013
"Nevertheless when the Son of Man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8
www.scribd.com/doc/31322017 ...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11467 Jan 26, 2013
He is Coming Soon wrote:
"Nevertheless when the Son of Man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8
www.scribd.com/doc/31322017 ...
I think I lost brain cells just skimming that.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#11468 Jan 26, 2013
He is Coming Soon wrote:
"Nevertheless when the Son of Man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8
www.scribd.com/doc/31322017 ...
"Each and everyone of us must personally, individually come to the full and complete comprehension that we are condemned as sinners right where we stand,here and now."

Man...that is a very degrading faith you follow...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11469 Jan 26, 2013
MUQ wrote:
I think it is "literal interpretation" of Genesis and Bible that has contributed towards this Atheist movement in Western countries.Neither Bible nor book of Genesis should be interpreted literally, because these books were not "dictated by God"
Then why read them? They aren't very good as literature, nor reliable as history or science.
MUQ wrote:
The Church's illogical stand has been a major factor for origin and rise of Atheism in the West.
That's how it should be, just like a bad business should fail. If they were doing things properly, they would not be wasting away. If you don't function properly and you can't adapt, you perish.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11470 Jan 26, 2013
MUQ wrote:
And the problem is that when they start rejecting Bible, they reject all scriptures, because in their view, there can never be any book or scripture better or more authentic than their Bible.
You just said that the scriptures should not be interpreted literally. Once you open that door, you lose control of thought, which is essential to the church. Freethinking is poison to any thought control system.

If people are free to interpret scripture figuratively, the next thing you know, hell is a metaphor, sin is a metaphor, crucifixion is a metaphor, and resurrection is a metaphor. Without a literal Adam defying a literal god by eating a literal apple, there is no original sin, and no need for salvation or Christ. How can you tell the people that Adam, the snake and the apple were allegory, but not the god?

And without a literal hell and the fear it invokes, Christianity has no appeal. The carrot - eternity praising a black hole of narcissistic need - isn't much of a draw. I'd probably rather be unconscious for eternity than be stuck doing that. You couldn't get me to church without the stick - hellfire.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11471 Jan 26, 2013
MUQ wrote:
So the church has caused more people to go away from religion and then reject all religions and all books of God.
They have a crappy product. Once they lost control of the spread of information, they were finished. When you could stigmatize atheism to the point that people were afraid to even think such thoughts, let alone express them aloud, nobody criticized the church much. The Internet put an end to that. We speak freely here, without worry about being ostracized, having our cars keyed, our children harassed, or our pets executed.

And anybody interested in hearing what people like us have to say have easy access to the information. When I was a young person, there was zero information available to me on the subject, and I didn't know a single person that called himself an atheist. That's all changed with the Internet and the various best sellers from prominent atheists.

When you could hush up priestly pedophilic crimes with settlements tied to secrecy, you could go on diddling little boys with impunity. The Internet allowed these boys to find one another, and for the world to see the magnitude of the problem, and the church's complicity in it. Bam!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11472 Jan 26, 2013
MUQ wrote:
our prophet was not able to read or write, that is why he "Was told to memorize what was revealed to him". He memorized the verses he heard the Angel of God speak to him and then he asked "some of his scribe to write it down".
Then it's fourth hand - Allah to the angel to Mohammed to the scribe? And unless you're looking at the original scribes manuscript, it's fifth or sixth generation information.

Why can't Allah write?

BTW, do you know the game telephone?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Game+of+tele...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11473 Jan 26, 2013
Very Cynical Person wrote:
<quoted text>
That is the thing one group of people takes the time to learn, understand, and educate themselves on many levels while other groups lack the drive to learn, understand, and educate themselves. If all a person will do is take what they are told at face value then they lose face.
The contrast was striking.

When the question was, "Name a reason to have an abortion" (the format was like Family Feud), the conservatives answered first, got control of the board, and answered life of the mother and rape. Then, they ran out of answers and kept missing, finally losing control of the board when they answered incest. So, the liberals got a chance to steal, and they answered "None." They realized that that would be many people's answer.

When the question was, "Name the most intriguing aspect of Darwin's theory," the liberals took control by winning the toss-up, and after three correct answers, ran out of answers, which gave the conservative the chance to steal back. They answered "The Big Bang." At least two of them blurted that answer out confidently, even nodding while speaking.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11474 Jan 26, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
I just made two polls based on the question...
Great! Thanks.

I found one at http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... , but not the other.

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 Judge sends former Gouverneur resident to priso... (Feb '13) Dec 7 Wow 40
News Tompkins defeats Darr for Muscogee County sheri... Dec 7 Will Dockery 1
News 3 Homebuilders To Avoid, 1 To Consider Now (Feb '12) Dec 2 zionist swamp 7
News Exit Poll: Americans cast ballots while holding... Dec 1 Forgiver in Chief 75
News At suicide hotlines, the first 24 hours of Trum... Nov 17 Is Don Is Good 42
News Norfolk man gets prison for DWI, probation viol... Nov 14 searching 1
News Trump victory increases uncertainties for globa... Nov 13 Conner 2
More from around the web