Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

[rio]

Andre wrote:

<quoted text>Not trying to be funny, but there is hardly anything to worship if you do not even know much about this "god", apart from the fact that he is apparently the creator.
May I venture to say that your view may be based on apparent "dislikes" of "organized religion" rather than conviction of the truth of deism? Just a question.

That's the position of deists; they belive there was a creator at the origin of the universe, but they don't feel the need to worship him.
Google "deism" for more explanation.

[rock white]

rio wrote:

<quoted text>
That's the position of deists; they belive there was a creator at the origin of the universe, but they don't feel the need to worship him.
Google "deism" for more explanation.

you appear to be a well known gay troll. now away you go off this site. You and your kind are not wanted.

[rio]

rock white wrote:

<quoted text>
you appear to be a well known gay troll. now away you go off this site. You and your kind are not wanted.

Humberman999 is Jason Norris, also known as joewale, johnsheaperd, rock white, mick rock or mike 483
Here are his views on women

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/united-kingd...

#52
“you certainly do get worked up. Have noted the dates. Menstrual problems obviously so we will not take you too seriously.”

#54
“As a menstrual debilating hypochondriac you have a retardation and should seek medical advice.
My advice to you is to get laid as often as possible.”

#66
“There is a partnership between normal men and women, stress the word "normal". That partnership does not extend to abnormals, so one assumes you speak for the abnormals.
The word "misogynist", as used by you, is now the "in" word to be used against men who do not like lesbians. Well, wrong again, because they provide normal men with good entertainment value, nothing nicer than a couple of buth bull dykes trying to emulate men. Real turn on.»

#67
« dykes do not like getting pregnant.”

#70
“Millions upon millions of normal women are proud to be called housewife.”

#80
“you are an unrepentant dyke. No law against it, just admit it.”

#82
“Please let either the pmt"pre", the pmt"post", or the hormonal unbalance clear before you enter into a serious post like this.
Not your fault, just female nature. Bless you.»

#106
« The message is quite clear. You are a bull dyke with menstrual problems.
Please see a medic.
Bless you.»

#117
« how do you profess all this when you are not a woman. But a dyke with menstrual problems which remind you on a monthly basis of your sex. Go see a medic.»

#119
« We will know in a few days whether you have passed the menstrual problems you have.”

#122
“You are just a stupid female with hormonic problems.”

#125
“It is obvious that your family were incestuous, probably Nazi, and you are trying to alleviate the guilt you harbour.»

#131
“You are a female. You sit to pee and you bleed monthly. You have not the same physical strength as a male, and you have penis envy.”

#137
“I never have stated that women should be subjected to mens control, because they are naturally that.”
“Sit down and pee.»

#143
« not only can men do what you say they cannot do, they can also juggle female breasts as well. Now that is what I call control.»

#147
« I love uterus envy. Not a day goes past whenever I explore at least one.
No point in talking to a dyke about that though. Might get you worked up.»

[Andre]

albtraum wrote:

<quoted text>
Ahh, but of course I have to beg to disagree.
In recent history you only have to look at the Scopes Trial and today's heated controversy of TOE vs ID to get an idea of the situation. In my lifetime the RCC has "pardoned" Gallileo....only 500 years too late.
I am not sure that you quite understand the difference between astrology and astronomy or alchemy and chemistry.
Also, have you checked out the more recent studies? Nearly half of all scientists in the 2009 Pew Research Center poll (48%) say they have no religious affiliation, compared with only 17% of the public. This does not mean that 52% of scientists have a religious affiliation, there are the usual fence sitters and some more deistic beliefs in some sort of higher power, not the personal god of the bible.
But you say my assumptions do not support the "facts". By all means, present your facts;0)
P.S., did these early scientists from the heart of the Christian West make their progress because of their religion or were they scientists who happened to be Christians??? No disrespect to Whitehead, but there is a VAST difference, you know.
Looking forward to your reply.

The suggestion (claim?) to which I responded was 1)“Religion debilitates knowledge”,
I asked for proof of this claim and suggested that proof to the contrary exists with a number of (even prominent) Christians actively participate in science (that is a fact, as you admit – see below).
2) it's very nature is to not question and accept answers from others on faith.”
The aspect that religion is supposed to be contrary to investigation and based on (blind?) faith is also refuted by the very fact that Christians actively participate in science. You yourself provide further support for my argument by acknowledging that there are scientists that claim some form of religious affiliation.

In the case of Christianity at least, you should somehow make a distinction between the convictions that people hold and what the Bible actually states. In both the points above, the Bible does not oppose science. To the contrary, people are encouraged to believe with their "minds" as well.(Mat 22:37 And Jesus said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.")

[Grumpy Guy]

ONe nice thing about being Religious is we live longer.
http://longevity.about.com/od/longevitybooste...
I live in a very Religious town here in California( Loma Linda) and we outlive everyone one else here in the USA.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7...

[Just Think]

Grumpy Guy wrote:

ONe nice thing about being Religious is we live longer.
http://longevity.about.com/od/longevitybooste...
I live in a very Religious town here in California( Loma Linda) and we outlive everyone one else here in the USA.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7...

Maybe that means god is trying to avoid you for as long as possible...

[Hedonist]

Grumpy Guy wrote:

ONe nice thing about being Religious is we live longer.
http://longevity.about.com/od/longevitybooste...
I live in a very Religious town here in California( Loma Linda) and we outlive everyone one else here in the USA.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7...

First off, according to your cited reference "the benefits may have more to do with social contact than religion itself". In fact, the study is itself religiously generic and extremely anecdotal.

Both of your cited references have no direct causal link to Christianity, or even any of the Abrahamic faiths. Loma Linda fares no better than Okinawa with it's Shinto religion.

[Andre]

rio wrote:

<quoted text>
That's the position of deists; they belive there was a creator at the origin of the universe, but they don't feel the need to worship him.
Google "deism" for more explanation.

Thanks Rio. The reason for accepting deism is still a bit unclear.

[Andre]

Just Think wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe that means god is trying to avoid you for as long as possible...

Or giving you the benefit? lol

[Hedonist]

Andre wrote:

<quoted text>Or giving you the benefit? lol

What benefit?

If one really and truly believes in a place such as heaven, why would they also consider it a good thing to be kept away from it by a long life span? Only someone who really, deep down, doesn't believe that an afterlife really exists would think this is good.

[KittenKoder]

Grumpy Guy wrote:

ONe nice thing about being Religious is we live longer.
http://longevity.about.com/od/longevitybooste...
I live in a very Religious town here in California( Loma Linda) and we outlive everyone one else here in the USA.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7...

"Because these studies are observational studies (studies that simply watch what happens in the real world without actively controlling any of the conditions or randomizing the participants), it cannot be said that religious attendance increases life expectancy or that it doesn't. We can only conclude that there is an association between religious attendance and increased life expectancy. They are linked, but we don't know why. "

From your first article. This is called a correlation to causation fallacy, yes, it's a fallacy. It means next to nothing in reality.

[rio]

Andre wrote:

<quoted text>Thanks Rio. The reason for accepting deism is still a bit unclear.

Why is it unclear?
Once you have rejected all religions, there is one question left:
Is there a god or not?
Atheists say vehemently NO.
Agnostics say MAYBE, or I DON'T KNOW.
Deists think there is one, without saying more than that!

[KittenKoder]

rio wrote:

<quoted text>
Why is it unclear?
Once you have rejected all religions, there is one question left:
Is there a god or not?
Atheists say vehemently NO.
Agnostics say MAYBE, or I DON'T KNOW.
Deists think there is one, without saying more than that!

... and you're wrong, spouting creationist nonsense. We don't say there is "no" god, we just don't buy into any of the gods proposed by humanity. Many of us are agnostic, do you know what that big word means?

[rio]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
... and you're wrong, spouting creationist nonsense. We don't say there is "no" god, we just don't buy into any of the gods proposed by humanity. Many of us are agnostic, do you know what that big word means?

Agnostic atheism is something I have never understood.
To me, you are atheist OR agnostic; you cannot be both.
You deny, or you doubt.
Although I am sure that you are about to tell us that you don't agree with that.
Most of the atheists I have met, all of them in fact, in life or in writting, have strongly denied the existence of god (or God), To them, there was no compromise on that position.
I have never met an atheist who admitted doubting his position regarding the non-existence of god. Their whole philosophy is based on it!
Agnostic atheists must be a " US sect" among atheists, no? You like the joke?

[KittenKoder]

rio wrote:

<quoted text>
Agnostic atheism is something I have never understood.
To me, you are atheist OR agnostic; you cannot be both.
You deny, or you doubt.
Although I am sure that you are about to tell us that you don't agree with that.
Most of the atheists I have met, all of them in fact, in life or in writting, have strongly denied the existence of god (or God), To them, there was no compromise on that position.
I have never met an atheist who admitted doubting his position regarding the non-existence of god. Their whole philosophy is based on it!
Agnostic atheists must be a " US sect" among atheists, no? You like the joke?

Agnostic is a concession of not knowing, atheist is a lack of believing. The two are different concepts, and you are still using creationist definitions for them both instead of actually learning something. Until you learn the basics, you can never learn the reality if the matter, ever. There are no "sects" of atheism, it's not a religion, that's more creationist nonsense and not even rooted in any reality. Agnostic doesn't mean "doubting," it simply means that you are admitting to no knowing more than you do know, you know, being honest, something no theist is. The more you post, the easier it is to see that you are a christian attempting to discredit deists, or attempting to create a divide between deists and atheists. Won't happen, deists do not buy your creation mythology at all, and they know the scientific information as well as us atheists. You have repeatedly made stupid mistakes, and continually offer more evidence that you are a christian, and your lying is getting old.

The reality, no one alive knows, and can know. The mythology, all of it, that people call "religion" is nothing more than wishful thinking, written to con people. If you cannot provide evidence, you cannot assert that you know, nor can you assert that it's fact.

[rio]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Agnostic is a concession of not knowing, atheist is a lack of believing. The two are different concepts, and you are still using creationist definitions for them both instead of actually learning something. Until you learn the basics, you can never learn the reality if the matter, ever. There are no "sects" of atheism, it's not a religion, that's more creationist nonsense and not even rooted in any reality. Agnostic doesn't mean "doubting," it simply means that you are admitting to no knowing more than you do know, you know, being honest, something no theist is. The more you post, the easier it is to see that you are a christian attempting to discredit deists, or attempting to create a divide between deists and atheists. Won't happen, deists do not buy your creation mythology at all, and they know the scientific information as well as us atheists. You have repeatedly made stupid mistakes, and continually offer more evidence that you are a christian, and your lying is getting old.
The reality, no one alive knows, and can know. The mythology, all of it, that people call "religion" is nothing more than wishful thinking, written to con people. If you cannot provide evidence, you cannot assert that you know, nor can you assert that it's fact.

I don't know why you keep insisting that I am christian when I rejected that organised religion more than 50 years ago, and have never subscribed to any other religion since.

Your explanation about atheism as "lack of believing" contrasts sharply with atheism as it is understood here in Europe by most of the philosophers; they categorically deny the existence of god. Read Camus, Sartre and others there is no doubt in their opinions!

Why would I try to discredit deists, when I am one of them. And why also would I try to create a "divide" between deists and atheists? I don't think I have that power, do you? Also, I really couldn't see any sense in it. So stop being so paranoid!
We are all against "revealed religions", so why start querelling when we are soppose to fight them and their pernicious influence on society

The deists I know are in full agreement weith me regarding the original creation of the universe, contrary to your assertion (mythology as you call it). Where we differ is on the afterlife; some believe in it, some don't. Maybe you should look once more a the definition of deism.

[KittenKoder]

rio wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know why you keep insisting that I am christian when I rejected that organised religion more than 50 years ago, and have never subscribed to any other religion since.
Your explanation about atheism as "lack of believing" contrasts sharply with atheism as it is understood here in Europe by most of the philosophers; they categorically deny the existence of god. Read Camus, Sartre and others there is no doubt in their opinions!
Why would I try to discredit deists, when I am one of them. And why also would I try to create a "divide" between deists and atheists? I don't think I have that power, do you? Also, I really couldn't see any sense in it. So stop being so paranoid!
We are all against "revealed religions", so why start querelling when we are soppose to fight them and their pernicious influence on society
The deists I know are in full agreement weith me regarding the original creation of the universe, contrary to your assertion (mythology as you call it). Where we differ is on the afterlife; some believe in it, some don't. Maybe you should look once more a the definition of deism.

First point, because you use creationist language and definitions.

Second point is funny, because it was actually a bunch of atheists in the UK, and many from other parts of Europe, who actually have to remind people like you what atheism means, all the time. So either you don't get out much, or you only associate with creationists or complete morons who live inside caves.

You can't pretend to be something you are not when you are online, it's easy to tell when you're lying, very easy, thanks to the internet we actually talk to the people all the time. There's a local deist in my area, he does a vlog on YouTube, he'd agree with me on this matter.

[Hedonist]

rio wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know why you keep insisting that I am christian when I rejected that organised religion more than 50 years ago, and have never subscribed to any other religion since.
Your explanation about atheism as "lack of believing" contrasts sharply with atheism as it is understood here in Europe by most of the philosophers; they categorically deny the existence of god. Read Camus, Sartre and others there is no doubt in their opinions!
Why would I try to discredit deists, when I am one of them. And why also would I try to create a "divide" between deists and atheists? I don't think I have that power, do you? Also, I really couldn't see any sense in it. So stop being so paranoid!
We are all against "revealed religions", so why start querelling when we are soppose to fight them and their pernicious influence on society
The deists I know are in full agreement weith me regarding the original creation of the universe, contrary to your assertion (mythology as you call it). Where we differ is on the afterlife; some believe in it, some don't. Maybe you should look once more a the definition of deism.

Even Prof. Dawkins only contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist -- "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there". He's position is "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."

How about Isaac Asimov -- "I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow, it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."

[rio]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
First point, because you use creationist language and definitions.
Second point is funny, because it was actually a bunch of atheists in the UK, and many from other parts of Europe, who actually have to remind people like you what atheism means, all the time. So either you don't get out much, or you only associate with creationists or complete morons who live inside caves.
You can't pretend to be something you are not when you are online, it's easy to tell when you're lying, very easy, thanks to the internet we actually talk to the people all the time. There's a local deist in my area, he does a vlog on YouTube, he'd agree with me on this matter.

I shall leave you to your erroneous conclusions.
I don't spend my life trying to convice people, or do defend myself from wrong accusations.

So, if you are concluded that I am a closet catholic coming here just to "create a divide between deists and athgeists" so be it!

I find it quite amusing...

[rio]

Hedonist wrote:

<quoted text>
Even Prof. Dawkins only contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist -- "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there". He's position is "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."
How about Isaac Asimov -- "I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow, it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."

Humm, all that looks quite moderate compared to the militant atheism professed since the 19th century by the Marx-inspired philosophes and writers in Europe. There was no doubt in their assertion that there was no god. No doubt at all!!

Later in government in Russia, Eastern Europe and China, marxist atheists instaured totalitarian regimes and physically tried to eliminate religion to create an atheist society. There was also no dout in their mind!

Also, the liberation from communist totalitarism and atheism came from ... believers - orthodox in Russia, Catholics in Poland, Protestants in East Germany).

In a way, that was a setback for atheism.
In many people's mind, atheism will always ring with communism (in Europe at least).

So people have seen both; the evils of organised religion and the evil of state atheism as well.