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: Nov 11

Location hidden

#9623 Dec 11, 2012
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
Sooo, when did you first disbelieve? ;0)
I do not recall ever believing in something I can NOT see, smell, touch, taste or hear. I have always sort LOGIC from a very early age - nuf said!
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#9624 Dec 11, 2012
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
So, it never occured to you that circumcision was introduced in 2 religions coming from the Middle East because of hygiene - same for ablutions, etc.... The best way to enforce it among ordinary folks was to make it part of the religion.
Yes, that's Obvious. Please read my post.
rio

Bromley, UK

#9625 Dec 11, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Circumcision makes it harder to come. Anything that makes sex "somebody else's business" is controlling.
<quoted text>
Really? So circumcision makes it harder to reach climax, according to you. Are you speaking from experience? Because I never noticed it myself!

But even if it was true, how does that give control over a man's sexuality. Please explain.

For your information, circumcision of boys at birth has been common practice in some places for decades, regardless of religion. That method was adopted for prophylastic reasons in many German, Swiss, Austrian, French hospitals and is still common practice in many maternities.
Thinking

Cirencester, UK

#9626 Dec 11, 2012
Circumcision desensitises a whole bunch of nerves in the glans.

If you look at the islamic child grooming culture in Northern England, that is not only due to a dislike of women's rights, it is also due to the inability of many muslims to enjoy a normal sex life.
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? So circumcision makes it harder to reach climax, according to you. Are you speaking from experience? Because I never noticed it myself!
But even if it was true, how does that give control over a man's sexuality. Please explain.
For your information, circumcision of boys at birth has been common practice in some places for decades, regardless of religion. That method was adopted for prophylastic reasons in many German, Swiss, Austrian, French hospitals and is still common practice in many maternities.
rio

Bromley, UK

#9627 Dec 11, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Circumcision desensitises a whole bunch of nerves in the glans.
If you look at the islamic child grooming culture in Northern England, that is not only due to a dislike of women's rights, it is also due to the inability of many muslims to enjoy a normal sex life.
<quoted text>
This is getting even more bizarre by the minute!!

Do you know what you are talking about? I don't think so, so I suggest you read this:

Circumcision

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

You will learn that circumcision is the partial removal of the foreskin. It is supposed to leave the gland intact!

Also, you think that only Muslims get circumcised? Don't you know that up to 1/3 of the male population WORLDWIDE is circumcised? I don't think there is any proof of inability to enjoy a normal sex life!! LMFAO
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#9628 Dec 11, 2012
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? So circumcision makes it harder to reach climax, according to you. Are you speaking from experience? Because I never noticed it myself!
But even if it was true, how does that give control over a man's sexuality. Please explain.
For your information, circumcision of boys at birth has been common practice in some places for decades, regardless of religion.
The fact that it was done in the past doesn't justify it now or in the future. And it is seldom required for purely clinical and non-religious reasons in the UK's temperate climate.

There is some evidence that it does reduce erogenous sensation.

Should one allow a baby to be tattooed? Often cricumcision is inflicted at the instigation of the parents on 6-9 month olds simply to mark the child for traditional or religious reasons.
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
That method was adopted for prophylastic reasons in many German, Swiss, Austrian, French hospitals and is still common practice in many maternities.
From:
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Circumcision/Pag...
"Routine circumcision may offer a number of potential benefits, such as reducing the risk of some types of infections. However, most healthcare professionals now agree that the risks associated with routine circumcision, such as infection and excessive bleeding, outweigh any potential benefits."

Quote from one politician, "following consultation with relevant stakeholders, which included the medical, nursing and midwifery unions and Royal Colleges, faith groups and the services, the Scottish Government agreed to incorporate religious circumcision for male children into the routine waiting list arrangements, following the abolition of the Availability Status Codes at the end of 2007."

In the less responsibly run health trusts, British taxpayers fund male child mutilation on the NHS for non-clinical reasons - and often for simply religious or 'cultural' ones.

There are seldom clincial reasons in the UK and the fact that people 'have always done it' is no excuse for this assault on children too young to concent or understand what is happening. It certainly is no part of traditional British culture.

Child circumcision for non-clinical reasons is mutilation and child abuse.
rio

Bromley, UK

#9629 Dec 11, 2012
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>Child circumcision for non-clinical reasons is mutilation and child abuse.
Here we go!
I knew it would come to that!

Well, I am so glad my non-Jewish and non-Muslim parents had me circumcised after birth. I never felt the least "mutilated" nor "abused", and I thank them for that! It was common practice at the -private- hospital where I was born.

I have learnt since that circumcision was routine on the continent; I don't know if it still is. I certainly insisted that my boys were circumcised also. Not out of religious tradition, but because of prophylactic reasons. The hospital agreed, and there was no disapproval among my entourage either.

Now, I suppose it's considered non-PC to "operate without his consent" on a child. Or maybe it's the religious connotation that is undesirable to some. Awh well...
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#9630 Dec 11, 2012
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
....Now, I suppose it's considered non-PC to "operate without his consent" on a child. Or maybe it's the religious connotation that is undesirable to some. Awh well...
Nonsense. Nothing 'PC' about it and I justified what I said fairly well.

And I think child mutilation (esp at taxpayer expense) will be another nail in the coffin of organised religion in the UK.
(JMHO)

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#9631 Dec 11, 2012
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
So, it never occured to you that circumcision was introduced in 2 religions coming from the Middle East because of hygiene - same for ablutions, etc.... The best way to enforce it among ordinary folks was to make it part of the religion.
"Oh what a beautiful baby boy! Now, hand me that knife while I mutilate his genitals."

Sorry, it's barbaric and has no place in today's culture.

If a man wants to get circumcised, let him but don't mutilate your babies genitals. Let them decide whether they want it done.
rio

Bromley, UK

#9632 Dec 11, 2012
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>

And I think child mutilation (esp at taxpayer expense) will be another nail in the coffin of organised religion in the UK.
Really and truly pathetic!

And what about non-believers, atheists even, who want their boys circumcised?

I can also think of plenty of instances where the taxpayers' money is wasted; want to talk about that?
Thinking

Cirencester, UK

#9633 Dec 11, 2012
Do keep up. I said the glans gets desensitised (by constant exposure) not removed.
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
This is getting even more bizarre by the minute!!
Do you know what you are talking about? I don't think so, so I suggest you read this:
Circumcision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
You will learn that circumcision is the partial removal of the foreskin. It is supposed to leave the gland intact!
Also, you think that only Muslims get circumcised? Don't you know that up to 1/3 of the male population WORLDWIDE is circumcised? I don't think there is any proof of inability to enjoy a normal sex life!! LMFAO
rio

Bromley, UK

#9634 Dec 11, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Do keep up. I said the glans gets desensitised (by constant exposure) not removed.
<quoted text>
Well, I never noticed. My boys never mentioned it.
I have never heard about that either.

There must be a 1/3 of men on earth who must be loosing out, according to you! LOL
rio

Bromley, UK

#9635 Dec 11, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
"Oh what a beautiful baby boy! Now, hand me that knife while I mutilate his genitals."
Sorry, it's barbaric and has no place in today's culture.
If a man wants to get circumcised, let him but don't mutilate your babies genitals. Let them decide whether they want it done.
The whole point of having babies circumcised is to get the benefit during their childhood and teen age.

By the time they reach adulthood, the benefit isn't so obvious.
Thinking

Cirencester, UK

#9636 Dec 11, 2012
It's "losing", btw.
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I never noticed. My boys never mentioned it.
I have never heard about that either.
There must be a 1/3 of men on earth who must be loosing out, according to you! LOL
Thinking

Cirencester, UK

#9637 Dec 11, 2012
Why? What are they doing at that age?
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
The whole point of having babies circumcised is to get the benefit during their childhood and teen age.
By the time they reach adulthood, the benefit isn't so obvious.
rio

Bromley, UK

#9638 Dec 11, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Why? What are they doing at that age?
<quoted text>
For hygenic reasons, it's better to be circumcised than not when you are a kid. Later, when you are teenager and begin to have sex, it's a lot safer against STD as well. Or maybe you pretend these things don't exist.

The case for circumcision has been made centuries ago.
I don't see the point of revisiting the issue myself, to pander to the whim of some people who call it "mutilation" and "abuse".

We aren't talking about child cruaulty here, but prophylatic methods.

But some people object because they think it's too religious. Rubbish!
Thinking

Cirencester, UK

#9639 Dec 11, 2012
According to Dr Christian Jessen (of Channel 4 fame) the foreskin also has antibiotic properties. So, unless you're a really dirty scutter, your argument is pants.

The rest of your diatribe is projection.
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
For hygenic reasons, it's better to be circumcised than not when you are a kid. Later, when you are teenager and begin to have sex, it's a lot safer against STD as well. Or maybe you pretend these things don't exist.
The case for circumcision has been made centuries ago.
I don't see the point of revisiting the issue myself, to pander to the whim of some people who call it "mutilation" and "abuse".
We aren't talking about child cruaulty here, but prophylatic methods.
But some people object because they think it's too religious. Rubbish!
rio

Bromley, UK

#9640 Dec 11, 2012
Thinking wrote:
According to Dr Christian Jessen (of Channel 4 fame) the foreskin also has antibiotic properties. So, unless you're a really dirty scutter, your argument is pants.
The rest of your diatribe is projection.
<quoted text>
Well, I leave you to agree with Dr Christian Jessen (of Channel 4 fame) and I keep my opinion, OK?
USA Huh

Colonial Heights, VA

#9641 Dec 11, 2012
Anton Heinrich wrote:
In the atomic age there is not the slightest chance for humanity to survive in capitalism.
Will do our part in the US by tearing down Capitalism.
Thinking

Cirencester, UK

#9642 Dec 11, 2012
Of course. No skin off my nose.
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I leave you to agree with Dr Christian Jessen (of Channel 4 fame) and I keep my opinion, OK?

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
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 6 min Chazofsaints 357
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 9 min Regolith Based Li... 20,316
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 2 hr ChristineM 21,413
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 2 hr ChristineM 10,363
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 2 hr ChristineM 555
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 6 hr Eagle 12 257,140
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 7 hr SoE 45,560
More from around the web