Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

[It aint necessarily so]

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!

[It aint necessarily so]

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...

[It aint necessarily so]

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

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.

[It aint necessarily so]

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.

[It aint necessarily so]

Just Think wrote:

<quoted text>
"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...

No kidding. That was disgusting.

And talk about false advertising: They tell us that we are made in the image of a perfect and merciful god, whose gift of perfect love freed us from the bondage of sin.

Then they go on to describe the human race in the most contemptible of terms, they describe a petty, jealous, vengeful, capricious, genocidal god that has prepared a torture pit from which there is no parole for most of us, and as your citation attests, they teach us to feel guilt and contrition for being human.

The the basic emotional state is shame, fear, and dependency, and the cardinal message is submission.

[Tide with Beach]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

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.

I would need the situation to be real in order to make the decision.

As a distilled hypothetical, I don't have a "correct" answer. If you start filling in the blanks, the rape could get very unethical very fast.

[albtraum]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

They dug up a 50's style bunker, refurbished it (staying true to the era) and put it on display.

They've got much more sophisticated and many times larger underground living quarters for survival now....only corporations and federal agencies can afford them.....drat the luck;0)

I live in Missouri, I'm heading for the caves.

[albtraum]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I find them by accident. The hard part is remembering that I have them bookmarked.

Eeek! A Planter's Peanut fetus.....

[Charlie Chaplin]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>I think I lost brain cells just skimming that.

Sorry to hear that. You have so few to spare.

[Charlie Chaplin]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>No kidding. That was disgusting.

And talk about false advertising: They tell us that we are made in the image of a perfect and merciful god, whose gift of perfect love freed us from the bondage of sin.

Then they go on to describe the human race in the most contemptible of terms, they describe a petty, jealous, vengeful, capricious, genocidal god that has prepared a torture pit from which there is no parole for most of us, and as your citation attests, they teach us to feel guilt and contrition for being human.

The the basic emotional state is shame, fear, and dependency, and the cardinal message is submission.

Thank God he chose to do things the way he did it. Really draws a line of separation doesn't it? This way you don't have to spend eternity with people like us and we don't have to spend it with people like you. It's so brilliant that you can't understand the reason for it.

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

Henry wrote:

<quoted text>
The garden of eden is just a myth like so many biblical phenomenons!

Of course.

It's an UGLY myth, though.

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

Henry wrote:

<quoted text>
Unfortunately in the nuclear age the hope of survival is dwindling!

Oh, I think life itself is far more hardy than most folk give credit-- after all, we found life 18,000 feet down in solid rock.

We found it thriving in extremely salty mud-pools, some at 180 degrees and more.

We found it doing fine in year-round ice-- tiny little ice-worms, eking out a living in glaciers, eating bacteria and algae.

Life does fine at the bottom of the sea, too-- where oxygen is scarce and sunlight non-existent--yet, there's life aplenty.

I think human life will be around, in one form or another, for a long, long time-- it just may not be civilized humans as we know the word.

But we have proven to be hard to kill as a species. Even atomic bombs won't wipe is out completely-- some humans will survive one way or another.

But one thing is sure-- if there is an atomic holocaust? No modern >>religion<< will survive that-- people pretty quickly toss out complicated religions in favor of very naturalistic/simple ones, when things go all pear-shaped.

So neither Islam nor Christianity would survive such an event-- which >>almost<< makes it worth while to contemplate....

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

Henry wrote:

<quoted text>
Not in these nuclear age. We are belated in our ideology, which means the hope for survival is very low!

I'm more optimistic than you are, clearly.

Nothing wrong with a little pessimism, I always say-- just don't let it make you unhappy.

:)

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

Indeed. Free speech must be cut back to just include speech, written, spoken, sung or the like. Artistic expression should always fall under this too.

But that should be then end of it--money should never be included, except as a side issue. The raw spending of money is not speech, per say, it is >>purchase<<. Which is vastly different from speech.

Thus the artist may make a painting that sells or not, but his painting is protected. The sale of the same? Is not--it either does or it does not, having no bearing on the painting itself.

Same for speech.

But corporations, being a convenient legal fiction? Cannot actually speak, having no actual corpus to do the speaking. Speaking by proxy should only be permitted, provided the proxy takes 100% of the responsibility >>in addition<< to the person being spoken for also takes 100% of the responsibility-- they each must share the same fate (whatever it may be).

But again, I would strip all free speech "rights" from corporations, immediately. They are not people-- it is a convenient legal fiction, only. Moreover, I would make it impossible for officers in any corporation to be individually protected from misdeeds the corporation might do-- these officers would each and every one, to 100%, be accountable, personally, for any and all things the corporation may do.

That would put a halt to about 87.5% of corporate evil doings.

:)

Ain't I a stinker?:D

[Very Cynical Person]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =0D9XyuT-DB8
<quoted text>
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.

I would love to see the whole show.

Yes it just floored me when they answered the big bang.

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

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.

We are self-aware beings.

As such, we have both a choice and a responsibility to behave within a moral framework, regardless of the situation.

Were that framework to be discarded simply because it becomes inconvenient, or even at extreme times? Then what means the framework in the first place? It is then reduced to zero value.

So, if for whatever reason, the sole surviving female human finds it repugnant to reproduce with the sole surviving males? Then the final choice of extinction or survival rests entirely in her hands-- it is her body, her choice. Period.

The men can say what they will, to try to be convincing, sure-- free speech being what it is.

But within the framework of free will, the woman gets the final say--it's >>her<< womb, her choice.

The same would be true if the situation were reversed: suppose there are 3 women and one man, as the survivors (ignore the genetic bottle neck for this one--again :D ).

And suppose the solitary man found all three women repugnant such that he wants no part of them, or sharing offspring with any of them.(for whatever reason-- it's his choice, here, so the details do not matter)

If the women tricked him, got him drunk, and had their way? That would be rape-- and equally wrong as the earlier case.

In this, stood-on-it's-head version, the sole choice falls to the male, and it is his sperm, his choice.

Of course-- if the 3 women can figure out how to reproduce without him? Say, merging ova in a lab? More power to them--they will always have girls (no Y chromosome), of course.

Same thing for the earlier one-- if the men can figure out how to produce an offspring in an artificial womb? More power to them, as well.

----------

Bottom line: the moral framework >>must<< survive the worst situation we can imagine--and more.

Otherwise, it's empty.

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

RAmen!

And please pass the sauce.

:)

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

Spot-on, Poly! Spot-on.

Just as with science, which due to it's fundamental nature, is automatically self-correcting (even if sometimes it takes a generation or two... heh).

In direct contrast to all religion, which >>only<< changes when forced too by circumstance. And usually the force-changes are ugly--people die, or worse.

If we base our moral framework on logic, reason and observation? Then we admit that we may change it, if superior logic, or additional facts(observation) come to be known.

For example, the US Constitution's framers recognized that it could not possibly be all encompassing, as written. And deliberately put in methodologies to modify it, as new ideas, new information became available.

Again, in direct contrast with >>all<< religion, which by it's very absolutist nature, fights tooth-and-nail any and all changes.

Fortunately? Religions that succeed in resisting change? Eventually die out... being left behind by the ever-expanding universe of knowledge.

Flat Earthers, anyone?:D

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

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 ...

Yes! The son of man has been breathing real hard, for quite a while now.

And Mary is making those "ogodohgodohgodogod" noises for some time too.

Any day now, we can expect a Coming of the Sone of Man.

It ought to be... gooey.

... I kind feel sorry for Mary, though... I mean, 2000 years? She must be sore as hell...

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

Just Think wrote:

<quoted text>
"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...

Yep.

Sin: Self-Inflicted Nonsense.