Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

There are 24178 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.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#12209 Feb 5, 2013
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I think she misread it and thought it was a valid point, ie. "deny the obvious" which has an entirely different meaning to her.
But then, she is easily confused. No wonder Sam Harris bores her...
I know. I was hoping she would elaborate but I think she re-read it and decided to forget she ever posted it. The godbots are quite adept at shooting themselves in the feet.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#12210 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
We did not magically appear in time and space by accident. We have a divine source. We are spiritual beings expressing as humans. We are not born blank slates, we bring a history with us.
What, exactly, do you mean by the term 'accident'. There was no intentionality to how life came about: it was a physical process (just as it remains today). To be an 'accident' means that some intelligence intended it to be one way and it came out different. That is not the case here. No intelligence was involved.

There is no such thing as a supernatural. It is a self-contradictory term. To the extent that humans are 'spiritual', It is because they have the *emotions* of awe, feeling connected, and compassion. Nothing supernatural in any of those.

No, we are not born as 'blank slates'. Our brains are formed by genetic processes that have been molded by their environments for millions and millions of years.
insidesecrets

Santa Fe, NM

#12211 Feb 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
But, in physics, biology, geology, chemistry, etc, the method *is* reliable and the facts are becoming more and more reliable. The social 'sciences' have problems because they often do not follow the scientific method. They should.
Which facts do you consider to be unreliable? Solid state physics, which supports the creation of the computer on which you type? Quantum mechanics, which has unified areas as diverse as subatomic particles, gas dynamics, and solid state? The dating of the meteor that hit about the time that the dinosaurs died off?
Each scientific theory in each field is packaged and sold as true and complete and verified, although it never is. Each theory is an embryonic theory, full of holes, and verified only in small part, if at all. But of course we aren't told any of this.

Two examples. The theory of evolution is a theory, not of creation or birth or incipience. It proposes a mechanism for how life changes, not how it begins. To be a variant answer to Genesis, it would have to propose a mechanism for the beginnings of life, which it does not do. For this reason alone, it is completely illogical for atheists to hold up evolution as a counter-explanation to the biblical version of creation just because it is a "scientific" theory.

The Big Bang theory, or the origin of life from a primordial soup of dead matter is far more irrational and unbelievable than the narrative found in Genesis. Science tells us with great superiority that the DNA strand itself is built and replicated not by Intelligent Design, but by enzymes. Yet what tells the enzymes what to do? Even more significantly, what propels enzymes in the proper direction, at the proper time to do the proper thing? Science does not know, but atheists accept this theory as more believable because it is a "scientific" theory.
insidesecrets

Santa Fe, NM

#12212 Feb 5, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, lets assume we have a divine source. What can you conclude about this divine entity? Is it good or bad or indifferent? Is it one powerful God or many lesser gods?
You are made in the image of God. You are spirit made flesh, or god-stuff incarnate. If you would know God then study yourself... both objectively and subjectively.
insidesecrets

Santa Fe, NM

#12213 Feb 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
What, exactly, do you mean by the term 'accident'. There was no intentionality to how life came about: it was a physical process (just as it remains today).


A tentative theory, not a fact.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
To be an 'accident' means that some intelligence intended it to be one way and it came out different. That is not the case here. No intelligence was involved.
An accident is anything that happens by chance.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no such thing as a supernatural. It is a self-contradictory term. To the extent that humans are 'spiritual', It is because they have the *emotions* of awe, feeling connected, and compassion. Nothing supernatural in any of those.
What is called supernatural is divine thought, which exists within and behind all of creation.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, we are not born as 'blank slates'. Our brains are formed by genetic processes that have been molded by their environments for millions and millions of years.
A tentative theory, not a fact.
rio

London, UK

#12214 Feb 5, 2013
rio wrote:
What happens at an atheist church?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21319945
See, atheists form communities, gather in places, collect money, just like churches.

I wonder if they pay taxes on the funds collected.

I wonder if they also pay royalties on the pop music they sing too...

It that catches on, it won't be long before they pay guest speakers at their meetings, create a hierarchy, invest in properties, and claim tax exemption, just like churches.
insidesecrets

Santa Fe, NM

#12215 Feb 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
How does any of this show the scientific method is obsolete? It is through hypothesis formation and testing that we update our models to include new data. That is *why* we had to update Newtonian physics to relativistic and quantum physics. That is *why* physics moves to higher dimensional speculation: that is what is required (as far as we can see) to explain the data we have. And all that speculation is just that, speculation, until there is a test to determine its effectiveness.
<quoted text>
Once again, how does this make the scientific method obsolete? If anything, it shows exactly how it works in practice. Science works by obtaining successive approximations that explain more and more of the data as we accumulate even more data. So, while Mendelian genetics is simplistic, it is useful in a great many cases. For those cases where it is not, we have our updated theories that encompass it also. those new theories are based on *data* and *testing*. That seems to me to be exactly as it should be.
<quoted text>
Do you have another way of measuring reality? Any other method of *reliably* obtaining information about the universe around us?
Part of the 'mental faculties' part allows us to detect radio, infra-red, ultra-violet, x-rays, gamma-rays, ultra-sound, neutrons, neutrinos, electrons, etc, etc, etc. As we learn more, we learn how to use new methods to probe the universe around us. And those new methods allow us to extend our senses to learn even more. Once again, this seems to be as it should be.
You seem to be complaining that science has changed over the last 100 years when that is actually a very good thing: science changes based on data and new techniques. Each stage is an approximation, but as we progress, the approximations get better and better.
The scientific method ignores the spiritual nature of all life. As a result, it will never discover or understand the transcendent patterns behind what it perceives to be reality. It will simply go inventing one theory after another unable to prove any of them.
insidesecrets

Santa Fe, NM

#12216 Feb 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Scientific fraud is almost exclusively discovered by other scientists attempting to replicate results. Journalists, while useful for political fraud, do not understand the basics of science enough to uncover scientific fraud.
But scientists who have a conscience do, and to preserve the integrity of science and expose the charlatans within their own ranks, they are not above whistle blowing to sources outside of the scientific community.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#12217 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
Each scientific theory in each field is packaged and sold as true and complete and verified, although it never is. Each theory is an embryonic theory, full of holes, and verified only in small part, if at all. But of course we aren't told any of this...
Actually we are. Scientists understand this as common knowledge about how science works.

It is only those who have no understanding of science that make this illogical inference.
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
...Two examples. The theory of evolution is a theory, not of creation or birth or incipience. It proposes a mechanism for how life changes, not how it begins. To be a variant answer to Genesis, it would have to propose a mechanism for the beginnings of life, which it does not do. For this reason alone, it is completely illogical for atheists to hold up evolution as a counter-explanation to the biblical version of creation just because it is a "scientific" theory.
The Big Bang theory, or the origin of life from a primordial soup of dead matter is far more irrational and unbelievable than the narrative found in Genesis. Science tells us with great superiority that the DNA strand itself is built and replicated not by Intelligent Design, but by enzymes. Yet what tells the enzymes what to do? Even more significantly, what propels enzymes in the proper direction, at the proper time to do the proper thing? Science does not know, but atheists accept this theory as more believable because it is a "scientific" theory.
Neither biological evolution nor cosmology are foundations for atheism. Again it is the people who don't know what they are talking about who make this argument.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#12218 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
The scientific method ignores the spiritual nature of all life. As a result, it will never discover or understand the transcendent patterns behind what it perceives to be reality. It will simply go inventing one theory after another unable to prove any of them.
Can you provide any real, independently verifiable evidence of this "spiritual nature"?

Or should I just take your word for it?

And, if I am to just take your word for it, how do I then decide whose claims are valid and whose aren't?
insidesecrets

Santa Fe, NM

#12219 Feb 5, 2013
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
No, there will be only the myths of gods, crutches for those who can't stand on their own two feet.
As long as people believe there are loopholes to get out of death, they will waste time worshipping the fabricators of these promises.
As long as people believe in the promise of heaven and the threat of hell, they will be frightened, weak people who drink the kool-aid of the latest fad in theology.
The skewed perspectives of peoples experiences is what parents will try to shove down their children's throats to perpetuate the myth.
Again, those that can't square off with reality will cling to myth.....their crutch.
What does science offer, if not a collection of tentative theories?

Everybody dies...nobody gets out of it, but some of us can see beyond the veil of physicalities.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#12220 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
Each scientific theory in each field is packaged and sold as true and complete and verified, although it never is.
Garbage. many theories are 'packaged' as verified, because they have been. For example, quantum mechanics is extensively verified by many different lines of evidence. To the extent a theory has been verified, it is true (by definition). But a scientific theory is *never* described as 'complete', because that is something we can never know: it is *always* possible that new evidence will require a change in some aspect.
Each theory is an embryonic theory, full of holes, and verified only in small part, if at all.
Again, garbage. Many theories have been extensively challenged and verified. They mature over time and some, like quantum theory are very mature at this stage and very well verified.
But of course we aren't told any of this.
If you aren't hearing that scientific theories are not known to be complete, then you are not listening.
Two examples. The theory of evolution is a theory, not of creation or birth or incipience. It proposes a mechanism for how life changes, not how it begins.
Right. And it does very well with this.
To be a variant answer to Genesis, it would have to propose a mechanism for the beginnings of life, which it does not do. For this reason alone, it is completely illogical for atheists to hold up evolution as a counter-explanation to the biblical version of creation just because it is a "scientific" theory.
Again, garbage. Science has no goal to be a 'variant answer to Genesis'. The goal is to figure out the truth via testable hypotheses. To the extent that Genesis has been tested, it has been shown to be false. The times and processes of that myth are simply known to be wrong.
The Big Bang theory, or the origin of life from a primordial soup of dead matter is far more irrational and unbelievable than the narrative found in Genesis.
Your problem, not science's. The actual *data* shows that the universe is expanding and was once hot and dense enough for nuclear reactions to happen everywhere. Whether that boggles your mind or not is irrelevant. Genesis in no way accounts for the data we actually see. As for the origin of life, there are many questions still to be answered (of course), but the progress made over the last 50 years shines a light that religion never has.
Science tells us with great superiority that the DNA strand itself is built and replicated not by Intelligent Design, but by enzymes. Yet what tells the enzymes what to do? Even more significantly, what propels enzymes in the proper direction, at the proper time to do the proper thing?
Chemical attraction. Different atoms react in different ways, which means that different parts of the molecules react in set ways. The enzymes are molecules that follow the laws of chemistry when they react to DNA or other proteins. That is the subject of biochemistry if you would like to study it further.
Science does not know, but atheists accept this theory as more believable because it is a "scientific" theory.
Another heap of garbage. yes, science *does* know what the forces producing chemical reactions are and how they differ from atom to atom. ALL that is going on with DNA is chemistry applied to a particular collection of molecules. In fact, life itself is known to be a complex collection of chemical reactions, all obeying the same laws of chemistry as anything else, just more elaborated.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#12221 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
You are made in the image of God. You are spirit made flesh, or god-stuff incarnate. If you would know God then study yourself... both objectively and subjectively.
Prove it.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#12222 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
A tentative theory, not a fact.
<quoted text>
An accident is anything that happens by chance.
Is it 'chance' when the laws of physics and chemistry are active?
<quoted text>
What is called supernatural is divine thought, which exists within and behind all of creation.
Tentative theory, not a fact. Not even testable.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#12223 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
The scientific method ignores the spiritual nature of all life. As a result, it will never discover or understand the transcendent patterns behind what it perceives to be reality. It will simply go inventing one theory after another unable to prove any of them.
Of course it ignores such stuff: there is no evidence for it. Proof is not something that happens in reality. Evidence and deduction are what happen in reality.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#12224 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
But scientists who have a conscience do, and to preserve the integrity of science and expose the charlatans within their own ranks, they are not above whistle blowing to sources outside of the scientific community.
Exactly. That is how science polices itself. And this is exactly what *should* happen.
insidesecrets

Santa Fe, NM

#12225 Feb 5, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually we are. Scientists understand this as common knowledge about how science works. It is only those who have no understanding of science that make this illogical inference.
What science understands only works in physical reality, but does not work in non-physical reality. It is only those who ignore the greater mental dimensions of reality who are unable to comprehend them.
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither biological evolution nor cosmology are foundations for atheism. Again it is the people who don't know what they are talking about who make this argument.
Which doesn't explain why atheists learn heavily on scientific explanations to justify their assertion that God can't exist because they lack a belief in God.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#12226 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
What does science offer, if not a collection of tentative theories?
They are tentative theories that explain the available evidence better as we iterate through the process.
Everybody dies...nobody gets out of it, but some of us can see beyond the veil of physicalities.
Yes, everybody dies. That is what the evidence says. You haven't even shown there is a veil, let alone that there is something beyond it.
Thinking

Uckfield, UK

#12227 Feb 5, 2013
Boo hoo, poor little rio, the taqiyya nut is upset by people enjoying themselves and learning something useful.

If muslim taxi drivers didn't fill their heads with all that unnecessary koran nonsense, maybe they'd be able to drive better.
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
See, atheists form communities, gather in places, collect money, just like churches.
I wonder if they pay taxes on the funds collected.
I wonder if they also pay royalties on the pop music they sing too...
It that catches on, it won't be long before they pay guest speakers at their meetings, create a hierarchy, invest in properties, and claim tax exemption, just like churches.
insidesecrets

Santa Fe, NM

#12228 Feb 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it ignores such stuff: there is no evidence for it. Proof is not something that happens in reality. Evidence and deduction are what happen in reality.
It is just this sort of thinking that imprisons science, limits its comprehension of reality. The religious know that life is a spiritual unfolding that is both transcendent and personal. They don't need science to tell them it is real, they have experience.

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 Scher, Montrose physician and convicted murdere... (Jan '11) Dec 10 dan273 14
News High-speed chase brings Salem man jail time, de... Dec 8 Earl 4
News Why is Miguels Jr. The Most Popular Mexican Res... (Feb '10) Dec 3 Truth 33
News 3 Homebuilders To Avoid, 1 To Consider Now (Feb '12) Nov 30 treason watch 14
News Popa Wu (Wu-Tang) Ends Rumours Of DLAH (Hellkey... (Feb '12) Nov 15 OnyxGodAllahblackman 2
News Boulder police conducting additional interviews... (Oct '10) Nov 15 PelicanBreefs 279
News Kevin Spacey scandal: A complete list of the 13... Nov '17 Ex Senator Stillb... 7
More from around the web