Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Apr 25, 2012 Full story: Psychology Today 22,251

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.

Full Story
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#9613 Dec 10, 2012
Thinking wrote:
islamic Female Genital Mutilation casts shame over your religion...
<quoted text>
Male mutilation (circumcision) may be less physically damaging and even beneficial (in some climates, or for certain, exceptional clinical reasons). However, ALL child mutilation for non-clinical reasons is equally wrong. It is clearly wrong when driven by religion or 'cultural beliefs'.

Religion = superstition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20639699
The UK has many problems. One is the disproportionate number of blacks and Muslims in our prisons.

(This thread is on both UK and Atheist Topix forums)

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#9614 Dec 10, 2012
One lesson in verbal communication.
"Send reinforcements we're going to advance." After a number of repeated versions down the line, the message read; "Send 3 & four-pence (UK old currency) we're going to a dance." So much for the Gospels being handed-down 'by word of mouth.' Am I a believer? What do you think?

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#9615 Dec 10, 2012
jacktheladat1 wrote:
One lesson in verbal communication.
"Send reinforcements we're going to advance." After a number of repeated versions down the line, the message read; "Send 3 & four-pence (UK old currency) we're going to a dance." So much for the Gospels being handed-down 'by word of mouth.' Am I a believer? What do you think?
Sooo, when did you first disbelieve? ;0)
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#9616 Dec 11, 2012
MUQ wrote:
It is correct that OT books were written many centuries after their original writers does not mean that they are fiction. They might not be revealed word of God, but they do contain words of God.
Quran confirms many things for OT and NT books and those can be treated as authentic.
Sounds like circular reasoning.

The QUran tells us it is the word of Allah. The word of Allah is perfect. Therefore the Quran is perfect. There the Quran is the word of ALlah. And so on.

A implies B which implies A, etc.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#9617 Dec 11, 2012
MUQ, you agree the OT writers wrote stories centuries after they were supposed to occur. And the NT writers wrote stories decades after they were supposed to have happended.

Word of mouth stories do not trasmit well in the space of days, never mind decades or centuries!!

We can be very sure that the stories in the OT were made up, or at most loosely based around some events in the distant past, and heavily fictionised.

This is also why can say the Quran is not reliable. Because it is largelt based on the re-telling of the same stories found in the Bible. For example Moses is mentioned 136 times in the Quran, and the stories about him are probably the mostly fiction and legend.
rio

Beckenham, UK

#9618 Dec 11, 2012
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>Male mutilation (circumcision) may be less physically damaging and even beneficial (in some climates, or for certain, exceptional clinical reasons). However, ALL child mutilation for non-clinical reasons is equally wrong. It is clearly wrong when driven by religion or 'cultural beliefs'.
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.
Thinking

Andover, UK

#9619 Dec 11, 2012
It also made it harder to get off, which makes people easier to control.
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.
rio

Beckenham, UK

#9620 Dec 11, 2012
Thinking wrote:
It also made it harder to get off, which makes people easier to control.
<quoted text>
What do you mean by that?
Thinking

Andover, UK

#9621 Dec 11, 2012
Circumcision makes it harder to come. Anything that makes sex "somebody else's business" is controlling.
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you mean by that?

Since: Mar 11

United States

#9622 Dec 11, 2012
Exactly. If you think the historical Proof for Jesus is light the proof for Moses doesn't exist outside of legends told centuries later.
Adam wrote:
MUQ, you agree the OT writers wrote stories centuries after they were supposed to occur. And the NT writers wrote stories decades after they were supposed to have happended.
Word of mouth stories do not trasmit well in the space of days, never mind decades or centuries!!
We can be very sure that the stories in the OT were made up, or at most loosely based around some events in the distant past, and heavily fictionised.
This is also why can say the Quran is not reliable. Because it is largelt based on the re-telling of the same stories found in the Bible. For example Moses is mentioned 136 times in the Quran, and the stories about him are probably the mostly fiction and legend.

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

Beckenham, 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

Andover, 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

Beckenham, 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

Beckenham, 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

Nottingham, 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

Beckenham, 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?

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 requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 7 min waaasssuuup 227,605
Our world came from nothing? 9 min NightSerf 474
Stump a theist with 2 questions 1 hr TheHeadlines 64
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 2 hr Jaimie 78
An atheist returns to Christ (Jan '09) 3 hr Patrick n Angela 4,105
Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns 4 hr yup 105
Introducing The Universal Religion (Feb '14) 15 hr Patrick 762
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••