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.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#21526 Feb 24, 2014
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
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
You mean it gets bigger when you take it out of the box?

How did that happen?



“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#21527 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.
Two things:

First, those ideas are provisional. They are hypotheses. If any data surfaces to contradict them, then the thinking on the matter will change to accommodate the new knowledge.

Second, their assumption has borne fruit, which is evidence of their utility. If an idea has evidence supporting it, its provisional acceptance is not (religious) faith. Religious faith is distinct from evidence based belief for its lacks of that empirical foundation.

If the belief in god produced a better understanding of the world in terms of our ability to predict and at times control it, and if our lives were better for it in some way the way that the belief in rational skepticism and empiricism do - perhaps longer lives, safer lives, more leisurely lives, live with less disease or other suffering, etc.- then there would be evidentiary support for the validity of the god belief.

In my own case, life has been much better without a god belief than it was with it, when I loved in fear of hell, was asked to believe unbelievable and cruel things on faith, and was convinced that I was a member of a failed and hopeless species; Throw in the thousands of hours and thousand of dollars.diverted to the pursuit of that lesser life, and you have a worse life.

Yes, that is anecdotal, but millions agree. Furthermore, we can see the lives of theists and don't find them enviable.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#21528 Feb 24, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Nonsense.

You are imagining something infinite. There is nothing infinite in existence.

The ant's walking distance, at any time, is finite. The distance walked by his successive generations, at any time, is finite.

It will always be finite. The only "infinite" in the story is what you imagine to be the infinite continued walking, but it never occurs. It cannot occur. It is impossible.

If you imagine the ant walking for infinite time, the imagined path is infinite. So if you imagine "infinite", you imagine "infinite".

There is no infinite path associated with the donut. There is nothing infinite associated with the donut.

The only infinite is in your head. That's the only place something infinite can be - imagination.

That's because "infinite" is an imaginary idea. It doesn't exist, and cannot exist.

Same for the pizza. We can imagine it being sliced into infinite slices. But it's impossible.

Infinite slices of pizza, of any size, would fill the planet and its atmosphere, and you would still have as much pizza to dispose of as when you started.

It would definitely not fit back in the box.

Infinite anything is impossible, and cannot exist.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#21529 Feb 24, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Two things:
First, those ideas are provisional. They are hypotheses. If any data surfaces to contradict them, then the thinking on the matter will change to accommodate the new knowledge.
Second, their assumption has borne fruit, which is evidence of their utility. If an idea has evidence supporting it, its provisional acceptance is not (religious) faith. Religious faith is distinct from evidence based belief for its lacks of that empirical foundation.
If the belief in god produced a better understanding of the world in terms of our ability to predict and at times control it, and if our lives were better for it in some way the way that the belief in rational skepticism and empiricism do - perhaps longer lives, safer lives, more leisurely lives, live with less disease or other suffering, etc.- then there would be evidentiary support for the validity of the god belief.
In my own case, life has been much better without a god belief than it was with it, when I loved in fear of hell, was asked to believe unbelievable and cruel things on faith, and was convinced that I was a member of a failed and hopeless species; Throw in the thousands of hours and thousand of dollars.diverted to the pursuit of that lesser life, and you have a worse life.
Yes, that is anecdotal, but millions agree. Furthermore, we can see the lives of theists and don't find them enviable.
It's a false dilemna to characterize the necessary approach as a choice between empiricism and theism. It further distorts the question to equate belief with religion. What I believe about God makes me reject religion. I was worse off for religion, but I feel I am better off for Belief, as it provides me perspective on who I am and why I am here.

And whether the assumptions about what will be are provisional or not, science proceeds as if they are not. It assumes what it cannot know. This is not a religious faith, but it is faith.

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#21530 Feb 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Infinite anything is impossible, and cannot exist.
If so, Eternal God doesn't exist.
Thanks for your flower sending in the atheists' garden

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#21531 Feb 24, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
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..
I believe the same things you list here. Am I an agnostic atheist? No.

Are you, like me, a theist? No.

The seminal distinction is as I said - you believe there is no god; I believe there is.

Interesting, don't you think, that neither of us fall very far on either side of the line?

(Assuming you agree we do not) I suppose a short distance makes a big difference on these matters.

Good discussion.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#21532 Feb 24, 2014
DonPanic wrote:
<quoted text>
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 have no religion, and no religious faith.

So what is the difference, given I have faith that a god exists, but do not know it to be true, between my faith and that of science?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#21533 Feb 24, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
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
<quoted text>
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?
For simplicity and honesty sake, we should call each other atheist and theist.

Instead of distorting communication with "gnostic" prefixes, we already have a word - fanatic. That's much more useful.

On the honesty front, I still maintain that the alleged classification you refer to as "new" is only a rhetorical convention invented for advantage -

... escaping any burden of proof, and placing atheism into the default position, belief-wise, as having no belief, just rationality.

It's an attempt to win a debate, not through argumentation, but by changing the terms.



Since: May 10

Location hidden

#21534 Feb 24, 2014
I can read wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
I just started.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#21535 Feb 24, 2014
CrimeaRiver wrote:
<quoted text>
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
No, it's not a hypothesis. You employ many hypotheses, all with the common assumption.

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#21536 Feb 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
I have no religion, and no religious faith.
So what is the difference, given I have faith that a god exists, but do not know it to be true, between my faith and that of science?
No experimental confirmation of faith possible, while scientific theories can be confirmed or denied with experimentation or confirmed predictions

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#21537 Feb 24, 2014
DonPanic wrote:
<quoted text>
Infinite is just a mathemathic symbol that is to be eliminated in physical sciences and calculations,
so that this question is pointless
Tell that to those who argue with me that infinite quantities exist in nature.

You're talking to the wrong guy.
I can read

Edinburgh, UK

#21538 Feb 24, 2014
Wasn't buck crick going to be trying to explain how things can have physical properties without the existence of time and also how it's possible to have a time before time even started?

I was really looking forward to that, I imagine it'll be hillarious.
CrimeaRiver

UK

#21539 Feb 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell that to those who argue with me that infinite quantities exist in nature.
You're talking to the wrong guy.
So, everlasting paradise in the afterlife is finite?

How long should a devout Chritian expect to bask in the splendour of everlasting paradise.

Is God's presence also finite? Can God die?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#21540 Feb 24, 2014
CrimeaRiver wrote:
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?'
Good post,and a provocative topic.

The expanding-contracting universe can't be declared impossible. An eternally Banging-Crunching oscillating universe is one of several competing hypotheses offered as a solution to the origins problem

Another is that the universe is a zero-energy universe < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_univ... > that arose spontaneously and uncreated as a singularity. This is how you get something from nothing, like teasing zero apart into +5 and +5.

Another is that the universe budded from a timeless multiverse, one of a transfinite or infinite number of such universes.

Another is an intelligent designer.

These aren't all equally likely.

The multiverse hypothesis is probably the best one because of its ability to handle the fine tuning argument, which asks why the physical constants that define this universe are compatible with life and mind. If there were bazillions of universes, this being but one, it would not be surprising that some were just right to support life wherever a variety of other conditions were met, such as rocky planets with relatively stable climates, liquid water, organic molecules, and liquid cores.(Liquid cores are necessary for generating the magnetic fields that protect life from excessive cosmic particle and radiation bombardment, and protect the atmosphere from being blown off by the solar wind).

The intelligent designer hypothesis is the worst one, as it is a severe violation of Occam's Razor by positing unnecessary complexity. If an unconscious multiverse can generate this world, why posit a living creature with fantastic powers to do it?

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#21541 Feb 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Tell that to those who argue with me that infinite quantities exist in nature.
You're talking to the wrong guy.
It's rather god's believer who think that infinite exists,
or mahematicians who invent dots without any dimension, so that in a segment, they have infinite number of dots.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#21542 Feb 24, 2014
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
You will be please to know that I marked down all your posts.
I hope that gives you an ulcer, pompous fart ...
How long did it take you to icon my posts, Oh Most Moronic Of All Morons?

An hour? Two hours?

LMAO!

It takes me 30 seconds-- and **one** mouse-click, to put your posts back into the negative.

30 seconds.

LMAO!

You are **seriously** an idiot.

I bet it took you 3 hours, and hundreds of clicks per post...

LMAO!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#21543 Feb 24, 2014
trandiode wrote:
<quoted text> You are right on something at least ! Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine ! You have not only closed your mind but you have locked it just to make sure nothing creeps in ! Nothing really to brag about :)
You could not be more incorrect, if you said white was black, and light was dark.

Seriously.

I do not deny the existence of gods-- I simply ask for **proof** that they exist.

And until such proof is given? They are not real,**by**default**.

You have given no proof--therefore? Your god is-- BY DEFAULT-- not real.

That is **not** denial on my part.

That **is** a 100%**FAIL** on YOUR part to show proof.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#21544 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.
Oh, Butt Cheeks-- The Most Stupid Of all Stupid People, you could not be more wrong, if you said the earth was the center of the universe.

Your attempt to re-define "atheism" into your STRAW MAN nondefinition always fails.

Why do you keep lying?

Don't you know any better?

LMAO!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#21545 Feb 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Not only are you a systematic abuser?

I would bet a new $20, that you abused every single woman who was unfortunate to have to deal with your abusive person.

Including **all** children and anyone smaller than you.

And you are Still The Most Stupid Of All Stupid People.

And I would cheerfully tell that to your abusive face-- for you, being The Most Stupid, thinks that your violence can settle something.

LMAO!

I laugh in your general direction, Oh Most Stupid Person.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Thinking 20,292
What is of greater value for humanity: Chrisita... 1 hr Thinking 440
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 2 hr Paul WV-Uncle Sam 334
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 2 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 10,347
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 5 hr ChristineM 21,405
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 5 hr Thinking 549
News A Strong Muslim Identity Is the Best Defense Ag... 6 hr naman 10
More from around the web