Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

There are 23814 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.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#10072 Dec 30, 2012
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
"Innocent" in our discussion is one who has not broken any law of the land or done any crime which involves interference from the state.
I am not on a "legal" or "literary" discussion about innocence. This is lay man's forum mind you.
So, in your layman's opinion, who does the law serve?
The state or the people?
If there is a conflict between the state and the people, which is more important?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#10075 Dec 30, 2012
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
And I also said that you know "too much" about Physics, Material Science and Math.
Too Much knowledge is "as dangerous" as too Little, so we are on the same boat!!
That's just pure stupidity. You are embarrassed for not knowing something so you try to make it sound like those who do know something you don't are just as bad off? That's making excuses for your ignorance and nothing more.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#10076 Dec 30, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Odd, why do you assume I know something I readily admit I don't know?
Appears to me like you're just dodging the burden of proof, really. So, from now on I can legitimately consider you a liar, so can anyone else, since you continue to play these childish games.
I have no burden to prove what you already know.

If you say you don't know it, you are either stupid or lying, or both.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#10077 Dec 30, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no burden to prove what you already know.
If you say you don't know it, you are either stupid or lying, or both.
Um, it's your claim, not mine. I'm asking for evidence of your claim. It's your burden of proof, so prove your claim, otherwise your claim is meaningless, end of story.

Richardfs

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#10079 Dec 30, 2012
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
And I also said that you know "too much" about Physics, Material Science and Math.
Too Much knowledge is "as dangerous" as too Little, so we are on the same boat!!
If ignorance is bliss you are oonnee happy camper.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#10080 Dec 30, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, it's your claim, not mine. I'm asking for evidence of your claim. It's your burden of proof, so prove your claim, otherwise your claim is meaningless, end of story.
My claim is true, and known to be true by you. You are pretending you need proof.

Therefore, it is your request that is meaningless.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#10081 Dec 30, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
My claim is true, and known to be true by you. You are pretending you need proof.
Therefore, it is your request that is meaningless.
I said I don't know, how are you attributing an admission of not knowing to one knowing? I don't know, so show me. Show me anything to suggest what you are saying, anything at all. I don't know, I really don't, I'm clueless. Where is this "atheist agenda?" I don't know, you tell me and provide your sources so I can know, because until I know something, I can't know it.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#10082 Dec 30, 2012
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
What is state?
How can a state be formed if there are no people?
So there are "no interests of state" which are not concerned with the people?
How can there be conflict between interest of state and interest of people?
I do not know if you mean that interests of "an individual" who wants to "usurp the interests of other individual"?
A poor attempt at deflecting the questions at hand. How about another try. Here's the original questions to you:

So, in your layman's opinion, who does the law serve?
The state or the people?
If there is a conflict between the state and the people, which is more important?

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#10084 Dec 30, 2012
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
And I also said that you know "too much" about Physics, Material Science and Math.
Too Much knowledge is "as dangerous" as too Little, so we are on the same boat!!
So... would you say having lightening rods on buildings is "too much knowledge"?

How about Polio vaccines?

Is thwarting God's wrath from storms and disease "too much knowledge"?
jacktheladat1

Plymouth, UK

#10085 Dec 31, 2012
Just one (good) reason why my atheism is so absolutely rock solid, immovable and stubbornly unshakable is; IF there was a sky fairy, who made us in its image, who gave his only son to save us (I've never figured from what), who loves us without boundaries, who reserves each of us a place in 'Heaven,' WHY would it appear that it gave man a brain and a p@nus, but unfortunately it didn't give enough blood to run both at the same time?
Further, WHY would the creator (See above) know all the answers, yet childishly reveal none?

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#10086 Dec 31, 2012
jacktheladat1 wrote:
<quoted text>In UK we are legally obliged to posses a licence to watch TV, either on-line or otherwise. At this time of the year I would simply love to be in a country Oliver Cromwell had visions of - NO religions. Roll-on 6th Jan, the official end of Christmas. And we profess to be an intelligent species? Not even a poor joke!
Also reminds me of the Late, Great John Lennon....Imagine.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#10089 Jan 1, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not criticise people for having knowledge that I do not know about.
I criticize when they try to "Misuse" that knowledge, to deny the presence of Creator of the Universe.
They are misusing their knowledge, that is only my plea. Now why they have knowledge. I hope you get my message.
No, you attack people who know more than you only when it opposes what you think you already know. It's relatively the same thing, just a different angle. So yes, you do criticize people who have more knowledge than you, you think it's wrong to know something. Denying that which has no evidence is sanity, not intelligence.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#10090 Jan 1, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not criticise people for having knowledge that I do not know about.
I criticize when they try to "Misuse" that knowledge, to deny the presence of Creator of the Universe.
They are misusing their knowledge, that is only my plea. Now why they have knowledge. I hope you get my message.
What you do not know about someone else's knowledge, is that you also would not know whether they were misusing, what you are not capable of even understanding.
Tradition

Woodbridge, VA

#10091 Jan 1, 2013
U.K Islamic schools teaching hatred of non-Muslims.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/01/uk-islamic-...
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#10092 Jan 1, 2013
jacktheladat1 wrote:
<quoted text>... At this time of the year I would simply love to be in a country Oliver Cromwell had visions of - NO religions...
Oliver Cromwell invisioned what?? He was the ultimate religious fanatic who thought he was sent by God...
"...An intensely religious man—a self-styled Puritan Moses—he fervently believed that God was guiding his victories...(Wiki)

The "Lord Protector" was a puritan and more oppressive than the King. That's why there was almost unanimous cheering on the restoration of 1660. Cromwell was a violent revolutionary and an intolerant fantatic who's son wasn't as prepared to enforce his will with the violence necessary to maintain the puritanical "republic" he inherited from his Dad, the dictator. England from 1653-1660 being called a 'republic' puts me in mind of some more recent dictatorships that have 'republic' and 'democratic' in the title while being equally authoritarian.

I have read widely on this subject in the 70's and '80s and even the notoriously pro-parliamentary British histories seem to confirm that it was more an interegnum than anything like a true republic,(far less a democracy, or period of freedom or progress) The 'Book of Sports' was necessary in 1633 just so people could go out on Sundays thanks to religious fundamentalists like Cromwell.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#10093 Jan 1, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Ans.
1. I am not trying to deflect the question. My answer is same as my last post.
2. Seeking Knowledge is always encouraged in Islam. In fact the "First Word" which was revealed to the "Unlettered Prophet" was "IQRA" (which means, Read or Recite or proclaim).
Prophet encouraged his followers to read and write and learn wisdom from every source, he said "seeking knowledge is obligatory on every Muslim, male or female" and he also said 'Wisdom is like a lost treasure of every Muslim, he grabs it wherever he finds it"
Our prophet did not base his religion on "Miracles and extra terrestrial powers" but on reason and logic. From his time "Age of reason and logic" started which engulfed wherever Muslims went and lived.
In Quran there are innumerable passages, reflecting on nature and its phenomenon and it tells Muslims and Non Muslims to see and reflect on them.
So there is nothing wrong in investigating nature and try to find out "How" things are working and organized in this Universe.
But to seek knowledge "In order to disprove the existence of God" shows immaturity and illogical nature of the person. Such knowledge and such arguments therefore are bad fruits of acquiring knowledge.
Any knowledge which instills "false pride and arrogance" in any human is a bad knowledge. In fact acquiring more and more knowledge should bring "humility and feeling of knowing too little" to any sincere seeker of knowledge.
The cures and drugs are "also" created by the "Same God" who created these diseases. So to find cures and medicines is "No Sin".
One should all help to protect one' self and property from natural disasters, but should have "faith" that what God Wills shall be done in the end.
It's difficult to believe proven liars.
Andre

South Africa

#10095 Jan 2, 2013
jacktheladat1 wrote:
Just one (good) reason why my atheism is so absolutely rock solid, immovable and stubbornly unshakable is; IF there was a sky fairy, who made us in its image, who gave his only son to save us (I've never figured from what),
Hi, let me try and answer this the best way I can:

(I've never figured from what):
– Sin is the answer to that. The law was given to show us our transgressions/sin (stealing, lying, adultery, fornication etc). He has given us the ability to choose whether we would rather follow our lusts (see examples mentioned), or follow his commands. So what happens?– we sin – all of us, without exception.
The penalty for sin is death.(including spiritual – which is separation from God). As God loves us (even as we are sinners) Jesus took our sins on himself – to make us right with God, remove our sins and make us clean and without blemish.
Thus by his blood were we saved from damnation for our sins.

This is not “automatic”, but we have to repent of our sins, turn from it and live each day following Jesus. We will fail , but know that the penalty has been paid.

Continue in sin? No – if the desire to continue sinning is present, it shows that there has not been regeneration and we are still in our sin.
Further, WHY would the creator (See above) know all the answers, yet childishly reveal none?
I would hesitate to claim “reveal none” as the Bible provides answers to all questions that has to do with eternal life in heaven and holy living.

To claim that followers of Jesus always has all the “right” answers to all possible questions, is rather presumptuous. There are difficult questions – such as reconciling predestination with our ability to choose.

However, what we need to know, has been revealed. Enough to grant us entry into the Kingdom of God.

It may be argued "These are the same old answers we always get". That should be as 1 + 1 always remains 2.

Trust this brief response will help a bit.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#10096 Jan 2, 2013
MUQ "Prophet encouraged his followers to read and write and learn wisdom from every source". Then maybe you should study history of religion, science and evolution, so that you can learn about real things in the real world, instead of the superstition of a 7th century preacher.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#10097 Jan 2, 2013
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi, let me try and answer this the best way I can:
(I've never figured from what):
– Sin is the answer to that. The law was given to show us our transgressions/sin (stealing, lying, adultery, fornication etc). He has given us the ability to choose whether we would rather follow our lusts (see examples mentioned), or follow his commands. So what happens?– we sin – all of us, without exception.
The penalty for sin is death.(including spiritual – which is separation from God). As God loves us (even as we are sinners) Jesus took our sins on himself – to make us right with God, remove our sins and make us clean and without blemish.
Thus by his blood were we saved from damnation for our sins.
This is not “automatic”, but we have to repent of our sins, turn from it and live each day following Jesus. We will fail , but know that the penalty has been paid.
Continue in sin? No – if the desire to continue sinning is present, it shows that there has not been regeneration and we are still in our sin.
<quoted text> I would hesitate to claim “reveal none” as the Bible provides answers to all questions that has to do with eternal life in heaven and holy living.
To claim that followers of Jesus always has all the “right” answers to all possible questions, is rather presumptuous. There are difficult questions – such as reconciling predestination with our ability to choose.
However, what we need to know, has been revealed. Enough to grant us entry into the Kingdom of God.
It may be argued "These are the same old answers we always get". That should be as 1 + 1 always remains 2.
Trust this brief response will help a bit.
It's difficult to believe proven liars.
jacktheladat1

Plymouth, UK

#10100 Jan 2, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>Oliver Cromwell invisioned what?? He was the ultimate religious fanatic who thought he was sent by God...
"...An intensely religious man—a self-styled Puritan Moses—he fervently believed that God was guiding his victories...(Wiki)
The "Lord Protector" was a puritan and more oppressive than the King. That's why there was almost unanimous cheering on the restoration of 1660. Cromwell was a violent revolutionary and an intolerant fantatic who's son wasn't as prepared to enforce his will with the violence necessary to maintain the puritanical "republic" he inherited from his Dad, the dictator. England from 1653-1660 being called a 'republic' puts me in mind of some more recent dictatorships that have 'republic' and 'democratic' in the title while being equally authoritarian.
I have read widely on this subject in the 70's and '80s and even the notoriously pro-parliamentary British histories seem to confirm that it was more an interegnum than anything like a true republic,(far less a democracy, or period of freedom or progress) The 'Book of Sports' was necessary in 1633 just so people could go out on Sundays thanks to religious fundamentalists like Cromwell.
Forgive my APPARENT error - I was in school over 55 yrs ago since when I have always believed Cromwell banned the stupidity of what's known as Christmas. That scenario would be my dream-land.

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) 15 min One way or another 27,291
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 31 min Just Saying 3,981
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Hidingfromyou 253,350
News Atheism has no moral dimension 1 hr Thinking 148
Morality is Subjective Without God 1 hr Thinking 52
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Brian_G 5,998
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 5 hr Gary Coaldigger 8,101
More from around the web