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.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#21506 Feb 24, 2014
DonPanic wrote:
<quoted text>
Before any belief of a Creator God, I'm already very embarrased with such concepts as infinity,
or eternity, things with no measure or unmeasurable the theists need.
I guess you weren't here for the infinite donut debate.

Atheist Darwin's Stepchild and Atheist Polymath embrace infinity in the physical world.

They claim a donut is infinite in length, and you can slice a pizza into infinite pieces of area greater than zero, then put it back in the same box it came in.

Those are atheists, remember. Not theists.

Do you know how much space infinite slices of pizza, of any size, would require?

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#21507 Feb 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I do not know why they bother, the guy is merely a hired gun and a pansy at that.

He trots out the worn list of theistic poop and supports it with incredulity.

To think that pompous no-nothing passes for the greatest apologist of our time; certainly a demonstration of how far christianity has fallen.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#21508 Feb 24, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>

And what would that be? Their most fundamental idea is faith based. Faith is lying to yourself.
I can't understand how you draw such a conclusion.

Let's take one of your favorite endeavors - science. Science involves faith; not just incidentally, or occasionally, but intimately.

Science and the scientific method make a huge assumption on faith - that nature is uniform, that its behavior in the past will be its behavior in the future. They "believe" it will continue in subsequent events as it has continued thus far.

As Hume pointed out, that is not something we could ever know or prove.

Science, like philosophy and everything else, is a limited enterprise. It relies on belief in certain assumptions.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#21509 Feb 24, 2014
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
What THAT has to do with Islam's teachings?
And who claimed Islam is a NEW religion? It is the same old religion of all prophets of God, from Adam to the least and final prophet.
You yourself are making claims on behalf of Islam and you are then refuting it, what sort of discussion is this?
Islam is the most recent addition to the list of filthy abrahmic faiths.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#21510 Feb 24, 2014
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not know why they bother, the guy is merely a hired gun and a pansy at that.
He trots out the worn list of theistic poop and supports it with incredulity.
To think that pompous no-nothing passes for the greatest apologist of our time; certainly a demonstration of how far christianity has fallen.
That's probably what Hitchens and Lawrence Krauss thought.

Till Craig embarassed them on stage.
DonPanic

Paris, France

#21511 Feb 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
The third category, "agnostic", is empty on this thread. Every poster on this thread who makes the claim of simply rejecting beliefs, in very short order, exposes the contrary - that they do in fact hold a belief - that gods do not exist.
You didn't read all posts.
I've already said here that each time I did admit the existence of a God, that lead to contradictive propositions. And each time that I've asked for more precisions about Gos's properties, there were no answers, or irrelevant answers from believers.
Now, just try to expose your own concept instead of answering that your god isn't the one I criticise the concept.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#21512 Feb 24, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I never made that claim Oh Most Stupid Of All Stupid People.
I am continually amazed that you can display such utter and complete stupidity, as in the above.
But this is hardly surprising: you **are** a wife beater and a child abuser.
You're confused, Blob. I have never abused a woman or child.

It's too bad you can't say such things to my face.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#21513 Feb 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you weren't here for the infinite donut debate.
Atheist Darwin's Stepchild and Atheist Polymath embrace infinity in the physical world.
They claim a donut is infinite in length, and you can slice a pizza into infinite pieces of area greater than zero, then put it back in the same box it came in.
Those are atheists, remember. Not theists.
Do you know how much space infinite slices of pizza, of any size, would require?
I told you before

you are such an uneducated ninny

leave the pizza in the box, and then slice it into an infinite number of pieces, it must fit in the box, because you never removed it.

YOu are such an ass
CrimeaRiver

UK

#21514 Feb 24, 2014
I can read wrote:
<quoted text>
The big bang was when time started. There was nothing before it.
It is self evident, so what is it you are having problems with?
The laws of physics are based on time. No time means no laws of physics which means no physical properties.
The only thing which can possibly have no physical properties is nothingness.
SO that's me proved it in two ways.
To me, the concept of eternity might explain this.

What if the universe has always existed. What if the universe continually expands and contracts.

We are witnessing the expansion of the universe right now. But what if at some point the universe starts to contract back to critical mass and then expand again with a big bang.

That would answer the theist notion of how did it all start, it didn't. It always was and always will be.

That would also deal with the concept of time starting at the big bang.

I'm not a scientist so don't know if this is even possible. But it would quell any arguments that start with 'who created the big bang?'
DonPanic

Paris, France

#21515 Feb 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Let's take one of your favorite endeavors - science. Science involves faith; not just incidentally, or occasionally, but intimately.
Science and the scientific method make a huge assumption on faith - that nature is uniform, that its behavior in the past will be its behavior in the future. They "believe" it will continue in subsequent events as it has continued thus far.
As Hume pointed out, that is not something we could ever know or prove.
Science, like philosophy and everything else, is a limited enterprise. It relies on belief in certain assumptions.
The difference bitwin science and religious faith is that if assumptions reveals false, then Science replaces them with new theories, while religious faith assumptions are supposed to be undiscutable.
I can read

Edinburgh, UK

#21516 Feb 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No part of what you wrote here is scientifically correct.
Then you'll no doubt be able to prove that things can have physical properties without time or that time existed before the big bang..

I won't hold my breath.
DonPanic

Paris, France

#21517 Feb 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Do you know how much space infinite slices of pizza, of any size, would require?
Infinite is just a mathemathic symbol that is to be eliminated in physical sciences and calculations,
so that this question is pointless
CrimeaRiver

UK

#21518 Feb 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't understand how you draw such a conclusion.
Let's take one of your favorite endeavors - science. Science involves faith; not just incidentally, or occasionally, but intimately.
Science and the scientific method make a huge assumption on faith - that nature is uniform, that its behavior in the past will be its behavior in the future. They "believe" it will continue in subsequent events as it has continued thus far.
As Hume pointed out, that is not something we could ever know or prove.
Science, like philosophy and everything else, is a limited enterprise. It relies on belief in certain assumptions.
But in science that is not called faith. It is a hypothesis.

You enter into an experiment/study with a hypothesis of the result.

If the experiment/study does not deliver the pre-determined hypothesis then it has failed.

But the results can still be used to make a new hypothesis.

What you fail to accept is that a successful hypothesis has to be re-created over and over again before it can be called a LAW.

Take Newtons laws of motion. They are still accepted today because they can be tested repeatedly under lab conditions with exactly the same result everytime.

That is not Faith - that is fact.

Again, I'm not a scientist but did study psych and sociology. We use the same methodology as physical scientists
I can read

Edinburgh, UK

#21519 Feb 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
There are only 3 categories with regard to belief in gods - agnostic, atheist, and theist.
Your classification system is in error, as it attempts to subclassify based on what the belief-holder claims to know. Atheism and theism are about conclusions of belief, not conclusions of what is claimed to be known.
You place yourself in false category [1] Agnostic atheist – Does not accept the claim that gods exist, but doesn't claim to know that none do for a fact.
What category [1] describes is an agnostic, not an atheist.
I place you in the category of "atheist". This is because you demonstrate that you believe gods do not exist, though you do not claim to know.
I place myself in the category of "theist". This is because I believe a god does exist, though I do not claim to know.
It wouldn't matter if I claimed to know. I would still be a theist. It wouldn't matter if you claimed to know. You would still be an atheist.
The third category, "agnostic", is empty on this thread. Every poster on this thread who makes the claim of simply rejecting beliefs, in very short order, exposes the contrary - that they do in fact hold a belief - that gods do not exist.
The erroneous term "agnostic atheist" is a hedge. To the person who believes gods do not exist, it gives a timorous cover from the non-rational component of his belief claim. It allows him to sidestep the issue of belief and simply claim a rejection of the belief claims of others.
It's a very clever rhetorical dodge. But a dodge, nonetheless.
If there are only 3 categories with regard to belief in gods, maybe you could tell us how long you've worshipped kali, the hindu goddess of death?
DonPanic

Paris, France

#21520 Feb 24, 2014
CrimeaRiver wrote:
What if the universe has always existed. What if the universe continually expands and contracts.
We are witnessing the expansion of the universe right now. But what if at some point the universe starts to contract back to critical mass and then expand again with a big bang.
Big crunh is the most stupid theory some scientists did propose.
If Universe was so much denser in the past, then it was more likely to chrunch, expansion means that gravitation has been beaten by some repulsive force

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#21521 Feb 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
There are only 3 categories with regard to belief in gods - agnostic, atheist, and theist.
That may have been the general consensus once, but it is not longer the case.
Buck Crick wrote:
Your classification system is in error, as it attempts to subclassify based on what the belief-holder claims to know. Atheism and theism are about conclusions of belief, not conclusions of what is claimed to be known.
What are conclusions of belief? We believe or we don't. and we assign a semi-quantitative probability to that belief similar to Dawkin's categories: definitely true (certain), overwhelmingly or very likely true, likely, either/or, possible but unlikely, very or overwhelmingly unlikely, and impossible (certain).

Gnostics are on either end of this spectrum, whatever the belief may be, with agnostics in between.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#21522 Feb 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
You place yourself in false category [1] Agnostic atheist – Does not accept the claim that gods exist, but doesn't claim to know that none do for a fact.
What category [1] describes is an agnostic, not an atheist.
That's no longer true. People are using the language as I have described. Let me demonstrate:

[1] "Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge ...Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism." http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/...

[2] "Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

[3] Chart http://snipurl.com/28md8rl

[4] " The agnostic holds that human knowledge is limited to the natural world, that the mind is incapable of knowledge of the supernatural. Understood this way, an agnostic could also be a theist or an atheist....The agnostic atheist simply finds no compelling reason to believe in God."

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#21523 Feb 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
I place you in the category of "atheist". This is because you demonstrate that you believe gods do not exist, though you do not claim to know.
The first part makes me an atheist - a statement of belief or unbelief. The second part makes me agnostic - a statement of certitude or doubt. Either could have been the opposite
Buck Crick wrote:
I place myself in the category of "theist". This is because I believe a god does exist, though I do not claim to know.
You are different from those who claim to know that there is a god. Why shouldn't we use different language to describe you and them? I call them gnostic theists and you an agnostic theist. It's a very reasonable and descriptive schema. The old theist-agnostic-atheist schema cannot do the job. It groups us together as agnostics without noting the difference between us as theist and atheist, or the difference beteen us and other types of theists or atheists. How can that be preferable?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#21524 Feb 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
It wouldn't matter if I claimed to know. I would still be a theist. It wouldn't matter if you claimed to know. You would still be an atheist.[]/QUOTE]

Agreed.

[QUOTE who="Buck Crick"] The third category, "agnostic", is empty on this thread. Every poster on this thread who makes the claim of simply rejecting beliefs, in very short order, exposes the contrary - that they do in fact hold a belief - that gods do not exist.
We don't call ourselves atheist because we have no beliefs at all. I have beliefs, and some are about gods. For example, I believe that if gods exist, they haven't revealed themselves to us, don't require our prayer or worship, and don't require that we submit to any prescribed ethics or to read any book attributed to them.

That makes mean agnostic atheist. Like all atheists, I reject theism, but am agnostic in my understanding of that choice..
Buck Crick wrote:
The erroneous term "agnostic atheist" is a hedge. To the person who believes gods do not exist, it gives a timorous cover from the non-rational component of his belief claim. It allows him to sidestep the issue of belief and simply claim a rejection of the belief claims of others. It's a very clever rhetorical dodge. But a dodge, nonetheless.
What you call a dodge I call the only reasonable position possible for a rational skeptic given the current state of knowledge.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#21525 Feb 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
I guess you weren't here for the infinite donut debate. Atheist Darwin's Stepchild and Atheist Polymath embrace infinity in the physical world. They claim a donut is infinite in length
What we claim is that the circular path that an ant, for example, traverses while standing at the highest elevation on a donut and walking in circles around its center hole, is unbounded, meaning not finite, meaning infinite. No matter how long that ant walks, or how many generation of its offspring carry on for it, it never hits a point where there is no more track, and that after any amount of walking, it still has as far to go as it did when it started.

These are the qualities of the infinite, like the infinite series of positive integers. However many you enumerate, there are always more (unbounded = not finite = infinite) and that there are no fewer remaining than when you started.

What we do not claim is that the donut has infinite mass or circumference.

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
Atheism is a mental illness 1 hr Reason Personified 9
Good arguments against Christianity 1 hr Reason Personified 204
News How 'new atheists' are just as dangerous as the... 2 hr Eagle 12 141
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Chimney1 43,191
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 4 hr Eagle 12 256,555
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr Eagle 12 18,514
For Atheists: Why do You Call Theories "Scient... 4 hr Eagle 12 751
A Universe from Nothing? 5 hr u196533dm 510
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 15 hr Thinking 5,688
More from around the web