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.

MUQ

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

#21648 Mar 3, 2014
DonPanic wrote:
<quoted text>
You are confusing Paul of Tarse with Paul of Samosate which denied full divinity of Jesus.
<quoted text>
Yes, it's easy, it means created by God's will
<quoted text>
Do you mean that virgin birth fairy tale ?
I am saying about Paul whose epistles are included into the existing NT.

He is his epistles equated Jesus with God Almighty, his creator.

It is he, who started this idea of Original Sin and Vicarious atonement.

It is he, who abolished Torah and its laws.

It is he, who is the originator of Christianity and not Jesus Christ.

It is he, who invented "Risen Christ", a fictitious figure and broke all link with "Historical Jesus, a living man".

And the beauty is, he did all this "posing" as an Apostle of jesus, whom he never met while Jesus was alive and he did not learn anything from the Chosen Disciples of Jesus.

One wonders at the gullibility of those who accept all his claims, without asking for any proof of his authority!!
MUQ

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

#21649 Mar 3, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
What an absurd statement.
"Atheism is just another kind of faith" is a response to an atheist characterizing faith as a pejorative, and puts the accused on the same plane as the accuser. It is not to argue that the opponent is misguided, just not superior in this one sense.
Ms. Marcotte is an idiot.
Athiesm is no faith at all, it is a negative definition, nothing positive and you cannot make any thing with only negation.

There is nothing "positive" in Athiesm, that is why they are unable to create any civlization, any code of living or any thing.

They are actually parasites living off the people of faith.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#21650 Mar 4, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
It's factually incorrect. "Evolution" is not a branch of biology. It is a biological process.
Would you prefer "evolutionary biology"?
Buck Crick wrote:
It's factually incorrect.it also does not "explain biodiversity". It offers a reasonable explanation for some observations in biodiversity.
If by that you mean that the issue is still unsettled, I disagree. For most biologists, the mechanisms accounting for biodiversity are understood in the main and can be found in textbooks on evolution.. If you are simply being contrarian and referring to some linguistic quibble, well, I don't really care about such things
Buck Crick wrote:
It is also not true that it has no dogma, leaders, or defenders. It is also not true that it holds nothing sacred. It is not true that there is no fashion. It is not true that it says nothing about what happens after we die.
See above.
Buck Crick wrote:
The passage would make me more inclined to call it a religion than I was before.
That explains a lot, Buck. This contrarian quality of yours must give you some satisfaction - scratch some itch - but it can't serve you well either intellectually or socially. Understanding and emphasizing the difference between science and faith based systems of thought has been one of the most important ideas in human history. Attempting to blur the distinctions between evolution and religion simply isn't a useful idea for understanding the world, nor for interacting optimally with evidence based thinkers.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#21651 Mar 4, 2014
MUQ wrote:
You are right, evolution is not branch of biology, it in also not a branch of science!! It is semi scientific, semi philosophical theory to "some how" explain bio diversity on our planet. It owes much due to "creative artists" to turn these single bones and teeth into complete figures with scales and flesh and sound!! Just like Harry Potter and Hogwarts!!
You're projecting the deficiencies of religion onto science. Harry Potter has more in common with Allah, who also never lived, than with Australopithecus, Ardipithicus, and Paranthropus, who did.

Faith has damaged your ability to think well. Your willingness to believe the erroneous tenets of your religion on no evidence interferes with your ability to come to the proper conclusions about the evidence that we do have.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#21652 Mar 4, 2014
MUQ wrote:
He is his epistles equated Jesus with God Almighty, his creator. It is he, who started this idea of Original Sin and Vicarious atonement. It is he, who abolished Torah and its laws. It is he, who is the originator of Christianity and not Jesus Christ. It is he, who invented "Risen Christ", a fictitious figure and broke all link with "Historical Jesus, a living man". And the beauty is, he did all this "posing" as an Apostle of jesus, whom he never met while Jesus was alive and he did not learn anything from the Chosen Disciples of Jesus. One wonders at the gullibility of those who accept all his claims, without asking for any proof of his authority!!
Where does Harry Potter fit in?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#21653 Mar 4, 2014
MUQ wrote:
Athiesm is no faith at all, it is a negative definition, nothing positive and you cannot make any thing with only negation. There is nothing "positive" in Athiesm, that is why they are unable to create any civlization, any code of living or any thing. They are actually parasites living off the people of faith.
You've got that backward. You and your faith are part of the problem. Atheism is the rejection of both of you, and a necessary first step in sweeping away your sterile ideology to make room for one that man can use to make life better. No good ideas at all have come from faith - not one - while dozens of horrible ones have. All of the best ideas have come from elsewhere.

You and your faith are just a passing phase in history. The religious period will be remembered as the transitional phase in the history of mankind that connected the time when he was first able to wonder about where the universe came from, how it works, and what his place is in it, with the time when he found satisfactory answers. You represent man's past, and we its future. It's a fascinating thing to witness.

http://nirmukta.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/1...

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#21654 Mar 4, 2014
MUQ wrote:
Athiesm is no faith at all, it is a negative definition, nothing positive and you cannot make any thing with only negation.
You can do plenty of things when you reject magical thought, a limitation of intelligence
MUQ wrote:
There is nothing "positive" in Athiesm, that is why they are unable to create any civlization, any code of living or any thing.
They are actually parasites living off the people of faith.
Largest parasites living off the people of faith are princes of oil
Muslims states cannot be said examples of good governance,
For centuries, peoples of Islam discovered very little, didn't get indutrialised because "Inch'Allah" turned them into passive peoples more inclined to pray than to act.
With no Allah to help atheists, they help themselves
With no Allah to guide atheists, they make their way
Code of living doesn't forbid right now to see terrorists self-saying better muslims than any, They blast even mosquees while shouting "Allah Akbar"

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#21655 Mar 4, 2014
MUQ wrote:
I am saying about Paul whose epistles are included into the existing NT.
He is his epistles equated Jesus with God Almighty, his creator.
It is he, who started this idea of Original Sin and Vicarious atonement.
It is he, who abolished Torah and its laws.
It is he, who is the originator of Christianity and not Jesus Christ.
It is he, who invented "Risen Christ", a fictitious figure and broke all link with "Historical Jesus, a living man".
And the beauty is, he did all this "posing" as an Apostle of jesus, whom he never met while Jesus was alive and he did not learn anything from the Chosen Disciples of Jesus.
One wonders at the gullibility of those who accept all his claims, without asking for any proof of his authority!!
Idea of original sin is in OT, Genesis
I can read

Edinburgh, UK

#21656 Mar 4, 2014
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Just twisting the words, are you?
The disciples of a prophet are those who follow his teachings. The true disciples. Persons like Judas were traitors and hypocrites that were with Jesus.
Again you are playing your broken record. All prophets were Muslims and all their true followers were Muslims.
Because they all submitted themselves to their True Lord and Creator.
You should not live in Arabia to be a Muslim, you should not speak Arabic to be a Muslim.
I can't help but notice you deliberately avoided every single one of my questions.

I'll try another that you'll also deliberately avoid:

Why do you claim jesus was a muslim while he claims he was a jew? Do you think you know better than one of the prophets?

“BAS in Electrical Engineering”

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#21657 Mar 4, 2014
I can read wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't help but notice you deliberately avoided every single one of my questions.
I'll try another that you'll also deliberately avoid:
Why do you claim jesus was a muslim while he claims he was a jew? Do you think you know better than one of the prophets?
SSSHHH, they hate it when you point out contradictions!

Since: Mar 12

Mumbai, India

#21658 Mar 4, 2014
Electrical Engineer wrote:
<quoted text>
SSSHHH, they hate it when you point out contradictions!
Yes my fellow engineer.
MUQ

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

#21659 Mar 4, 2014
I can read wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't help but notice you deliberately avoided every single one of my questions.
I'll try another that you'll also deliberately avoid:
Why do you claim jesus was a muslim while he claims he was a jew? Do you think you know better than one of the prophets?
Did you read what definition of a Muslim I posted?

I said every one who submits himself to Lord and Creator of Universe is a Muslim.

Jew is a racial definition and not a religious definition. All Jewish prophets were Muslims, because they submitted themselves to their Lord and Creator.

Our prophet was also a Muslim and his followers, if they follow in his footsteps, are also Muslims.

Why can't you understand simple things and try to confuse yourself and others?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#21660 Mar 4, 2014
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you read what definition of a Muslim I posted?
I said every one who submits himself to Lord and Creator of Universe is a Muslim.
So.

Anyone who lived before your pedophile-prophet is automagically "muslim"?

LMAO!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#21662 Mar 5, 2014
MUQ wrote:
I said every one who submits himself to Lord and Creator of Universe is a Muslim.
I don't think you realize how the non-Muslim community views your faith. You're offending observant Jews and Christians using the word "Muslim" that way. They don't want to be called that.

Why? You have a horrible public relations problem. Cool it with the honor killings, the acid in the face, the shootings in the face, the stonings, the genital mutilations, the suicide bombings and the flying of airplanes into buildings for a few generations, and that may change.

Also, the ululation has to go. It makes you seem unstable.

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#21663 Mar 5, 2014
MUQ wrote:
Did you read what definition of a Muslim I posted?
I said every one who submits himself to Lord and Creator of Universe is a Muslim.
Jew is a racial definition and not a religious definition. All Jewish prophets were Muslims, because they submitted themselves to their Lord and Creator.
Our prophet was also a Muslim and his followers, if they follow in his footsteps, are also Muslims.
Why can't you understand simple things and try to confuse yourself and others?
I understand that you lie, all peoples who revere an Unique God are not Muslims

Being a Muslim needs more than "sumitting to the creator, being a Muslim needs to submit the way your prophet says,

Unique creator God believers do not all revere your prophet nor take him and his stances as sacred, therefore many are not muslims

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#21664 Mar 5, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>

Why? You have a horrible public relations problem. Cool it with the honor killings, the acid in the face, the shootings in the face, the stonings, the genital mutilations, the suicide bombings and the flying of airplanes into buildings for a few generations, and that may change.
Also, the ululation has to go. It makes you seem unstable.
Thanks, man. I'll work on it. Do I have to give up sex with goats?

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#21665 Mar 5, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think you realize how the non-Muslim community views your faith. You're offending observant Jews and Christians using the word "Muslim" that way. They don't want to be called that.
Why? You have a horrible public relations problem.
Not at all,. The MUQs are on the marketing and recruiting mode, as for all the monotheist whinch insist on what is the same with the other religion beliefs, it's the syncretism strategy,
Any School of trade teach that trick
You have sample of islamo-marketing, that's all
CrimeaRiver

UK

#21666 Mar 5, 2014
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you read what definition of a Muslim I posted?
I said every one who submits himself to Lord and Creator of Universe is a Muslim.
Jew is a racial definition and not a religious definition. All Jewish prophets were Muslims, because they submitted themselves to their Lord and Creator.
Our prophet was also a Muslim and his followers, if they follow in his footsteps, are also Muslims.
Why can't you understand simple things and try to confuse yourself and others?
So you accept that Allah is not necessarily the Lord and Creator. It could be God, Vishnu or Jehovah?

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#21667 Mar 5, 2014
CrimeaRiver wrote:
So you accept that Allah is not necessarily the Lord and Creator. It could be God, Vishnu or Jehovah?
The one with the longest beard should be the most eternal, shouldn't he ?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#21668 Mar 5, 2014
DonPanic wrote:
<quoted text>
The one with the longest beard should be the most eternal, shouldn't he ?
If they go by the one with the longest dick, I'm in.

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) 8 min positronium 87,319
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) Feb 17 superwilly 5,811
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Feb 14 ChristineM 4,032
Christianity almost did not happen Feb 12 Quatsch22 1
News Egypt's parliament takes serious actions to com... Feb 12 dollarsbillmom 19
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Feb 10 superwilly 5,154
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) Feb 9 Eagle 12 - 257
More from around the web