Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

There are 24099 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.

rio

Bromley, UK

#21446 Feb 22, 2014
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
What should you REALLY worry is about your own self and leave others.
That sounds like a good advice anyone should heed.

After all, most people never get convinced after heated debates on forums, and it is pointless exchanging insults.

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
MUQ

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

#21447 Feb 22, 2014
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
That sounds like a good advice anyone should heed.
After all, most people never get convinced after heated debates on forums, and it is pointless exchanging insults.
Yes , this is what most people do.

They would make endless debates about others and what will happen to them while they forget themselves.

The choice they make and the reasons could be same for others too.... so they should first worry about themselves and once they are on the right side, they could worry about others.
I can read

Edinburgh, UK

#21448 Feb 23, 2014
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Ans.
01. I did not say Allah COULD NOT forgive sin of associating any one with Him, I said he WILL NOT forgive that sin.
And It is not me who is saying it, it is Allah who is saying that in Quran.
02. There is no contradiction any where. The "Finest Souls" whom you think, may not be the so Fine in the eyes of Creator.
He has a different standard of fineness, He does not look at the bodies and wealth and rank and position of individuals, He looks at their hearts and their actions and their humility.
Many of these "Finest souls" whom you look so awed, might score very low on the standard of God' likings.
It is only a matter of standards according to which they will be judged.
All prophets before our prophets were Muslims and so were their followers. Each of them shall be rewarded as true MuslimsÂ….you should not worry about them.
What should you REALLY worry is about your own self and leave others.
So despite islam not existing in the time of jesus you are still going to claim him as a muslim?

Budhha on the other hand goes to hell.

Also, you seem to have fallen into the god bot trap of claiming your god wrote your holy book. Does this mean you deny mohammed wrote the koran? You seem to be full of contradictions.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#21449 Feb 23, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
And, yes, denigrating people is one of the manipulation techniques that Christianity has used since its inception. "You are all lower than whale dung, and only WE can help you." One of the earlier parts of the Psychology of Belief series talks about that one in part, though it puts it in a different framework. They point out that most people would not agree right away that they are lower than whale dung. The proselytizer starts with an innocuous question that you will agree with. And psychological tests have shown that after you have agreed once, you are more likely to agree again. So the proselytizer asks a second, less innocuous question to which you will agree. And so on, until you WILL agree that you are lower than whale dung. This doesn't work on everyone, of course. But it does work on an amazingly large percentage of people.
Yes, that was Part I <
> beginning at about 0:38 in with reference to the question how two billion people can be wrong (about Christianity).

You might recall that only 25% of tested subjects refused to go along with the group at least once, coincidentally about the same fraction that answered "none" in the most recent American religious self-identification surveys.

You may also recall these words at the end of the video: "Even the presence of a single dissenting ally is enough to reduce conformity by 80%. So stand up for yourself. Express your doubts. And ask tough questions. Others may often secretly agree, needing only your example before speaking out"

=======

I'll repost the links to that series for those interested, in part because I have added to it, and wanted to share those links as well:

The Psychology of Belief from AntiCitizenX

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch...
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch...
[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch...
[4] http://www.youtube.com/watch...
[5] http://www.youtube.com/watch...
[6] http://www.youtube.com/watch...
[7] http://www.youtube.com/watch...
[8] http://www.youtube.com/watch...
[9] http://www.youtube.com/watch...
[10] http://www.youtube.com/watch...

I found nine more videos from the same source comprising two more series bundled here
http://www.youtube.com/watch... (all 9 parts), which are also available unbundled. The last four are a response to objections to the first five.

Philosophical Failures of Christian Apologetics from AntiCitizenX

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch...
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch...
[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch...
[4](unable to find separately)
[5] http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Responding to Objections from AntiCitizenX

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch...
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch...
[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch...
[4] http://www.youtube.com/watch...

I'm only about a third of the way through all of this myself, but have learned from it, enjoyed it, and intend to see it all eventually.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#21450 Feb 23, 2014
MUQ wrote:
What should you REALLY worry is about your own self and leave others.
And there is the basic psychology of Christianity and Islam encapsulated for us. The purpose of life is to save yourself. It doesn't get any more self.centered than that.

Note also that the deity is just as selfish. We are told that it created our universe and all of us only to identify the fraction of us that would agree to worship it.
MUQ wrote:
I did not say Allah COULD NOT forgive sin of associating any one with Him, I said he WILL NOT forgive that sin.
Your god sounds even more petty and vengeful that the Christian's god, who is said to be unable to abide sin - no choice.
MUQ wrote:
He has a different standard of fineness, He does not look at the bodies and wealth and rank and position of individuals, He looks at their hearts and their actions and their humility.
Look at your god's heart and actions as you and your faith present them. What he wants is to be worshiped.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#21451 Feb 23, 2014
I can read wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought you said you couldn't say what compassion really was, you could only tell your perception of it.
Do try and make up your mind.
There is no conflict there - in lacking complete knowledge of compassion and rejecting someone's claim of its absence.

You don't seem to understand the discussion.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#21452 Feb 23, 2014
I can read wrote:
<quoted text>
So how many gods are there?
The relevance to the discussion would be for you to ask "how many gods are there not?"

The answer is infinte.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#21453 Feb 23, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
I've been watching the live Sean Carroll - William Craig debate.
Craig is debating that "cosmology gives evidence of the likelihood of God".
Craig's method is to spout a lot of very high-powered physics which very few of the listeners understand. And that he (Craig) is incredulous that the universe could not have a creator.
Carroll's points all boiled down to...Craig is misrepresenting what physics says. And that Craig's incredulity is not an argument.
Craig's argument is not from incredulity, and trying to dismiss it as such is the dodge of a simpleton.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#21454 Feb 23, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Craig is a modern-day snake-oil salesman. He thinks that using polysyllables will make his points more believable.
He is a master of endless collections of $64 dollar words-in-a-row, all of which add up to nada.
I actually have more respect for Ken Hamm (which is very little) than William Craig.
Hamm is far more honest, he freely admits he puts 100% of his faith in the silly bible. Craig tries to pretend he likes science, all the while denying what science concludes.
Blob, did you provide your research on your claim that southern states resisted abolition of slavery for fear slaves would engage in same-sex relations?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#21455 Feb 23, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Craig is a modern-day snake-oil salesman. He thinks that using polysyllables will make his points more believable.
He is a master of endless collections of $64 dollar words-in-a-row, all of which add up to nada.
I actually have more respect for Ken Hamm (which is very little) than William Craig.
Hamm is far more honest, he freely admits he puts 100% of his faith in the silly bible. Craig tries to pretend he likes science, all the while denying what science concludes.

It is a comical show to watch you and Darwin's DogPoop critique William Lane Craig.

Kinda' like watching a cage fight between Dakota Fanning and Lennox Lewis.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#21456 Feb 23, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite true about Craig. He is definitely a slick speaker, but not a speaker of the truth.
He kept saying (paraphrasing here) "I am only saying that cosmology points to the likelihood of God, not that it is proof of God."
But you know that he expects the rubes to hear "This is proof of God."
Much of his presentation was intended to confuse the issue, obfuscating what science actually had to say. A lot of it amounted to "Don't believe what Carroll has to say. Listen to MY interpretation of science."
You don't have the slightest clue what inductive reasoning is, do you?

You should not watch or comment on such debates. You look like a fool.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#21457 Feb 23, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, tran, but it is YOU that is making a claim. You are claiming that this God character exists. The burden of proof is upon you.
Do you have to provide proof that Santa Claus does not exist? Or would the burden of proof be upon the person claiming Santa Claus exists. The same is true for claiming God exists.
The only claim we atheists are making is that there is no evidence for your God, or any other god. You could prove us wrong by providing such evidence. But no one ever has.
(BTW...the Bible is not evidence. The Bible is the claim. And "flowers are pretty" isn't evidence either.)
No, that is NOT the claim atheism makes. It is not even the claim you make.

Atheism makes the claim there is no god.

Same burden of proof.

Since: Feb 14

Tejgaon, Bangladesh

#21458 Feb 23, 2014
Religion has been With man since the stoneages,but who have come so far now. There are still People thinking it'd be so much better to be on the side of religion then rather bothering progress, yes some may deny that religion won't stop progress, and it has doen a lot to help it, but I and many are sure of that it has stopped progress more then it has helped.

Who knows maybe religion might stay for couple decades and completely disappear in the yearhundreds too come. Well some madman might still believe in it then... But only time will tell, I just hope religion won't hinder progress anymore and just slowly disappear because it doesn't just hinder progress, but also causes so much pain and hatred towards different people.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#21459 Feb 23, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Buck doesn't understand atheism. Buck doesn't WANT to understand atheism. Buck only wants to obfuscate.
Buck didn't write the academic references.

What you are really saying, Dumbass, is these people do not understand athesim:

Academic American Encyclopedia
Random House Encyclopeda
Oxford Companion to Philosophy
Dictionary of Philosophy
World Book Encyclopedia
Encyclopedia Americana
The New Encyclopedia Britannia
The Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Encyclopedia of Religion
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics
Funk and Wagnall's New Encyclopedia

There is you claim - none of these understand atheism, but you, a low-intellect Topix hack, do understand it, and we should take what you say over them.

Sorry, little feller. No dice.

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#21460 Feb 23, 2014
I can read wrote:
So despite islam not existing in the time of jesus you are still going to claim him as a muslim?
It's a strategy described in muslim sites "how to display Islam to non-muslims"
Same as the Christians who were saying to Isis, Demeter, Gaia and other mother earth cults believers "you revere Mother Earth, well we have quite the same, Santa Maria"
To the Christians, Muslims say, "Jesus is also among our prophets, therefore be a muslim"

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#21461 Feb 23, 2014
MUQ wrote:
The "Finest Souls" whom you think, may not be the so Fine in the eyes of Creator.
He has a different standard of fineness, He does not look at the bodies and wealth and rank and position of individuals, He looks at their hearts and their actions and their humility.
Islam didn't invent anything, the ancient Egyptians believed that their gods were weighting the mens' heart after they died, the heart was to be lighter than a single feather to allow men to have eternal life.

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#21462 Feb 23, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
No, that is NOT the claim atheism makes. It is not even the claim you make.
Atheism makes the claim there is no god.
Atheists say that there is no proof of God, no proof of any eternal life
Buck Crick wrote:
Same burden of proof.
It is impossible to demonstrate the inexistence of something. Asking for such a demonstration is a full lack of intelligence and logic.
One can only demonstrate the existence of something.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#21463 Feb 23, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Atheism makes the claim there is no god. Same burden of proof.
I'm an atheist, and I don't make that claim. I claim that there may be no gods, and that I choose to live without theism..

An atheist is anybody that is not a theist the same way that an asymmetric object is anything lacking symmetry, or an atypical thing is anything lacking typicality.

You are theistic, I am not, so I am atheistic.

I understand that you don't approve of that usage, but we use the word that way anyway, which is reflected by the fact that some dictionaries include that meaning as one of the entries under atheism. It wouldn't appear in dictionaries if the lexicographers responsible weren't finding examples of that usage.

You can choose not to use a certain way that others use it, as I choose not to use the word "faith" to mean provisional trust commensurate with experience or other evidence. But that's the limit of my control on the matter apart from anybody that I can convince to agree and do the same.

Likewise with you in this matter. You can choose not to use the word atheist to describe people like me, but you have no control over the rest of us or over the dictionaries.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#21464 Feb 23, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Buck didn't write the academic references. What you are really saying, Dumbass, is these people do not understand athesim:
Academic American Encyclopedia
Random House Encyclopeda
Oxford Companion to Philosophy
Dictionary of Philosophy
World Book Encyclopedia
Encyclopedia Americana
The New Encyclopedia Britannia
The Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Encyclopedia of Religion
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics
Funk and Wagnall's New Encyclopedia
There is you claim - none of these understand atheism
If their treatments of the subject don't acknowledge that atheism means the absence of a god belief without a concomitant assertion that gods definitely do not exist, then they are incomplete and out of date,

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#21465 Feb 23, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Craig's argument is not from incredulity, and trying to dismiss it as such is the dodge of a simpleton.
You can only say this if you didn't listen to the debate, or else didn't pay any attention to what Craig said.

There were any number of times in Craig's rebuttal to Carroll, and in the Q&A session, where Craig responded to some point that Carroll had made by saying (something like) "I just don't see how that can be." And would leave it at that.

In other words, Craig was expressing his incredulity, and was using his incredulity as an argument.

And only a simpleton would claim it was otherwise.

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 min Into The Night 43,347
A Universe from Nothing? 33 min u196533dm 596
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr superwilly 256,598
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 1 hr Thinking 4,829
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr karl44 21,218
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Igor Trip 18,650
For Atheists: Why do You Call Theories "Scient... 2 hr ChristineM 777
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 3 hr ChristineM 10,075
More from around the web