Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Apr 25, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Psychology Today

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.

Comments (Page 482)

Showing posts 9,621 - 9,640 of21,374
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
rio

Bromley, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10270
Jan 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism is a lack of belief in god. Can you point out where the intolerance part is in this definition?
In fact its theist that are intolerant of atheists. Just look what your bible has to say about atheists, that no christian has ever had the balls to correct.
Read my previous posts about atheism intolerence and other people's posts also.

The examples of atheist societies in the 20th century have been one of intolerence, genocide, persecution, mass murder, etc...

When atheists get in power in a country, they end up being even worse than the rulers of theocracies like Iran or saudi Arabia.

Just look at the USSR, China, Cambodia, Cuba, etc... where the state was atheist. Atheism is more risky to individual freedom than religion now.

I am not Christian and I do not have a religion, so talking to me about the Bible is like pissing in the wind. I just maintain that atheist militants are just as intolerent as religious zealots.

We need a mixture of different opinions, and not one in control.

Also, why atheists keep on refering to the Bible as if Christianity was the only belief on earth, and their only opposition? What about Buddhism, Sikhism, Paganism, etc...?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10271
Jan 13, 2013
 
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
Read my previous posts about atheism intolerence and other people's posts also.
The examples of atheist societies in the 20th century have been one of intolerence, genocide, persecution, mass murder, etc...
Like I said before, show us with your mighty intelligence where in the defintion of "lack of belief in god" is your example of intolerance & mass murder?

The answer is that it is not, because you are a liar, lying about atheism.
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
When atheists get in power in a country, they end up being even worse than the rulers of theocracies like Iran or saudi Arabia.
Just look at the USSR, China, Cambodia, Cuba, etc... where the state was atheist. Atheism is more risky to individual freedom than religion now.
Once again, show us where in the definition of atheism is asks us all to commit mass murder...
LIAR.
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not Christian and I do not have a religion, so talking to me about the Bible is like pissing in the wind. I just maintain that atheist militants are just as intolerent as religious zealots.
It's probably because you're an idiot who doesn't actually know the definition of atheism is.

If you did you would realise that nobody kills in the name of atheism. There are no instructions within atheism that say we must kill hundred of thousands of people - this is where you are lying.. On the other hand religion is the cause of many many proven atrocities throughout history.
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
We need a mixture of different opinions, and not one in control.
Also, why atheists keep on refering to the Bible as if Christianity was the only belief on earth, and their only opposition? What about Buddhism, Sikhism, Paganism, etc...?
Reality is not formed upon opinion, reality is formed by science, evidence and experimentation.

Religion is pure fiction and has no intellectual merit or value to society.

The problem is that most people in the world are uneducated about science, like yourself, and seem to think that religion and science are equal, when they are not.
Skeptic

Northwich, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10272
Jan 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

rio wrote:
<quoted text>
Read my previous posts about atheism intolerence and other people's posts also.
The examples of atheist societies in the 20th century have been one of intolerence, genocide, persecution, mass murder, etc...
When atheists get in power in a country, they end up being even worse than the rulers of theocracies like Iran or saudi Arabia.
Just look at the USSR, China, Cambodia, Cuba, etc... where the state was atheist. Atheism is more risky to individual freedom than religion now.
I am not Christian and I do not have a religion, so talking to me about the Bible is like pissing in the wind. I just maintain that atheist militants are just as intolerent as religious zealots.
We need a mixture of different opinions, and not one in control.
Also, why atheists keep on refering to the Bible as if Christianity was the only belief on earth, and their only opposition? What about Buddhism, Sikhism, Paganism, etc...?
I repeat, Atheism is a lack of belief in god. Can you point out where the intolerance part is in this definition?

You can't because you're a liar, lying about atheism. Fact.
rio

Bromley, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10273
Jan 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said before, show us with your mighty intelligence where in the defintion of "lack of belief in god" is your example of intolerance & mass murder?
The answer is that it is not, because you are a liar, lying about atheism.
<quoted text>
Once again, show us where in the definition of atheism is asks us all to commit mass murder...
LIAR.
<quoted text>
It's probably because you're an idiot who doesn't actually know the definition of atheism is.
If you did you would realise that nobody kills in the name of atheism. There are no instructions within atheism that say we must kill hundred of thousands of people - this is where you are lying.. On the other hand religion is the cause of many many proven atrocities throughout history.
<quoted text>
Reality is not formed upon opinion, reality is formed by science, evidence and experimentation.
Religion is pure fiction and has no intellectual merit or value to society.
The problem is that most people in the world are uneducated about science, like yourself, and seem to think that religion and science are equal, when they are not.
You can deny it as much as you want; atheism fanatics are just as dangerous as religious fanatics.

The best explanation you can find is to look at the society in USSR under Stalin, China under Mao and Cambodia under pol pot, where atheism was in control of society.

Atheists in power are just as dangerous as religionists in power.
End of story.

A balanced society, one that is happy with itself, is one where different beliefs cohabit with atheism too.

The rethoric of most atheists, including on this forum, and even you, is that they would like to eradicate religion.
Atheists are aggressive, they think they are morally superior. Their aim is not to keep their philosophy to themselves, but to destroy religion, and given a chance, to persecute believers.
This is why I say that atheist fanaticism is just as dangerous as religious zeal.
rio

Bromley, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10274
Jan 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Skeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
I repeat, Atheism is a lack of belief in god. Can you point out where the intolerance part is in this definition?
You can't because you're a liar, lying about atheism. Fact.
"Atheism is a lack of belief in god." that's the soft definition.

In fact, atheism is the denial of the existence of god and the hostility against those who are believers.

Atheists are not happy to have their own philosophical opinion, they just cannot tolerate any other opinion!

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10275
Jan 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

rio wrote:
<quoted text>
"Atheism is a lack of belief in god." that's the soft definition.
In fact, atheism is the denial of the existence of god and the hostility against those who are believers.
Atheists are not happy to have their own philosophical opinion, they just cannot tolerate any other opinion!
they can not tolerate any other opinion?

have you tried calling them racist yet?

that your usual reaction to anyone who as an opinion YOU can not tolerate.

true RIO/RONAN?
rio

Bromley, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10276
Jan 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

mikev483 wrote:
<quoted text>
they can not tolerate any other opinion?
have you tried calling them racist yet?
This conversation is well above your head, scumbag, and there is no mention of paedophilia or genital mutilation, your 2 favourites fantasies.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10277
Jan 13, 2013
 
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
You can deny it as much as you want; atheism fanatics are just as dangerous as religious fanatics.
The best explanation you can find is to look at the society in USSR under Stalin, China under Mao and Cambodia under pol pot, where atheism was in control of society.
Atheists in power are just as dangerous as religionists in power.
End of story.
A balanced society, one that is happy with itself, is one where different beliefs cohabit with atheism too.
The rethoric of most atheists, including on this forum, and even you, is that they would like to eradicate religion.
Atheists are aggressive, they think they are morally superior. Their aim is not to keep their philosophy to themselves, but to destroy religion, and given a chance, to persecute believers.
This is why I say that atheist fanaticism is just as dangerous as religious zeal.
Why not cite Sweden or Japan or other modern secular societies where atheists are the majority? Wouldn't fit in with your bigoted straw man argument now would it?

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10278
Jan 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

rio wrote:
<quoted text>
This conversation is well above your head, scumbag, and there is no mention of paedophilia or genital mutilation, your 2 favourites fantasies.
strange man.

why don,t you tell the people in this thread that the vile crimes you mention,are two things YOU have defended during your defense of all things Islamic?

while you are at it why don't you tell them why you think the Taliban are "freedom fighters" and how you defend their right to murder young girls for the crime of wanting an education?
Lincoln

Rutherfordton, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10279
Jan 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

rio wrote:
<quoted text>
"Atheism is a lack of belief in god." that's the soft definition.
In fact, atheism is the denial of the existence of god and the hostility against those who are believers.
Atheists are not happy to have their own philosophical opinion, they just cannot tolerate any other opinion!
Depends on the atheist.
Different atheists. different beliefs. There is no atheist Pope :-)
Can You tolerate other opinions?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10280
Jan 13, 2013
 
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
You can deny it as much as you want; atheism fanatics are just as dangerous as religious fanatics.
The best explanation you can find is to look at the society in USSR under Stalin, China under Mao and Cambodia under pol pot, where atheism was in control of society.
Atheists in power are just as dangerous as religionists in power.
End of story.
A balanced society, one that is happy with itself, is one where different beliefs cohabit with atheism too.
The rethoric of most atheists, including on this forum, and even you, is that they would like to eradicate religion.
Atheists are aggressive, they think they are morally superior. Their aim is not to keep their philosophy to themselves, but to destroy religion, and given a chance, to persecute believers.
This is why I say that atheist fanaticism is just as dangerous as religious zeal.
I repeat, Atheism is a lack of belief in god. Can you point out where the intolerance part is in this definition?

You can't because you're a liar, lying about atheism. Fact.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10281
Jan 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Depends on the atheist.
Different atheists. different beliefs. There is no atheist Pope :-)
Can You tolerate other opinions?
Hypocrite, this point disproves your false generalisation that all atheists are dangerous.

You fail, keep your ignorant opinions to yourself.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10282
Jan 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

rio wrote:
Atheists in power are just as dangerous as religionists in power.
End of story.
In other words, secular societies are the way forward.
Andre

Durban, South Africa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10284
Jan 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Givemeliberty wrote:
So you copied and pasted a whole slew of apologetic arguments used logical fallacies like strawman, bandwagon,appeal to authority, and AD Hom. You try to purposely twist and change definitions to fit your liking.
Hey here's a better idea, tell us why anyone should accept god as anything more than a figment of someone's imagination?
Oh and seriously did you think those scriptures are good for anything other than laughing at the idiots who made it up? Better yet start off with why anyone should care about what the bible says?
<quoted text>
I will respond to your posts if they contain any indication of logical argument. Thus far it has shone by its absence. You are welcome to study why Antony Flew, The World's Most Notorious (ex)Atheist came to the conclusion that there is a god. But then, he was not intelligent to start with. OH no!! being an atheist, he must have been. So..... confusion reigns my friend and you know it.
rio

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10285
Jan 13, 2013
 
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not cite Sweden or Japan or other modern secular societies where atheists are the majority? Wouldn't fit in with your bigoted straw man argument now would it?
It is not obvious that atheism is in majority in Sweden. Have you been there? Many people still attend the Lutheran church, for example.

Plus, the atheists there haven seized power with the intention of eradicating religion. Sweden is a liberal society.
rio

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10286
Jan 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Depends on the atheist.
Different atheists. different beliefs. There is no atheist Pope :-)
Can You tolerate other opinions?
Atheists are ok when they are in a minority, but dangerous when they reach power in a society.

Could you imagine the US with 200 millions of KittenKoders? That would be a dictature of atheists, and they would persecute, discriminate and kill any sort of believers!!

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10287
Jan 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

rio wrote:
<quoted text>
You can deny it as much as you want; atheism fanatics are just as dangerous as religious fanatics.
The best explanation you can find is to look at the society in USSR under Stalin, China under Mao and Cambodia under pol pot, where atheism was in control of society.
Atheists in power are just as dangerous as religionists in power.
End of story.
A balanced society, one that is happy with itself, is one where different beliefs cohabit with atheism too.
The rethoric of most atheists, including on this forum, and even you, is that they would like to eradicate religion.
Atheists are aggressive, they think they are morally superior. Their aim is not to keep their philosophy to themselves, but to destroy religion, and given a chance, to persecute believers.
This is why I say that atheist fanaticism is just as dangerous as religious zeal.
Fanatics megalomaniacs, psychopaths, sociopaths, etc. are ALL dangerous.

This has nothing to do with atheism or theism.

The rest of your rant is nothing but straw man fallacy that only shows how much you hate what you don't understand.
rio

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10288
Jan 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Fanatics megalomaniacs, psychopaths, sociopaths, etc. are ALL dangerous.
This has nothing to do with atheism or theism.
The rest of your rant is nothing but straw man fallacy that only shows how much you hate what you don't understand.
Hate? never.

I am just very warry of fanatics, which ever side they come from, theism or atheism. Any belief of doctrine pushed to its paroxism is dangerous.

I think a lot of Western "atheists" should have visited the Soviet Union 3 or 4 decades ago and seen with their own eyes what can be done in the name of atheism!

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10289
Jan 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

rio wrote:
<quoted text>
Hate? never.
I am just very warry of fanatics, which ever side they come from, theism or atheism. Any belief of doctrine pushed to its paroxism is dangerous.
I think a lot of Western "atheists" should have visited the Soviet Union 3 or 4 decades ago and seen with their own eyes what can be done in the name of atheism!
bullshit!

you refer to the Taliban as "freedom fighters",you don,t think they are fanatics?
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10290
Jan 13, 2013
 
If only you knew of an all powerful god that could stop sunni and shiite blowing each other up. They are "dumb people" in any class room. They have no imagination.
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Ans.
I got four replies on my "Painting Analogy", here I Post a common reply to those:
01. Thinking:
For him, the idea of God killing people by hitting them with trains is itself ridicules. These are "dumb people" in any class room. They have no imagination.
And in fact people dieing and making room for others is also a "mercy" from God..
02. GM:
He tried to sound Wise by making a sort of wise crack on the post. Such people are what we used to call as "court jesters". They would not take any issue seriously.
03. KK:
He / She (I do not know if the avatar posted on thread is real or to mislead the people) tries to prove that "Group A" were very wise.
The "reason" why painting was left in the street was that people should search and come to meet the Master Painter … but these wise guys got so much engrossed in analyzing the painting that they forgot the main purpose.
It is like some one called to King's banquet and when reaches there is "busy" in looking at the artworks, statues, furnishing….etc. that he "has no time: to look at the King standing next to him and looking at him!!
These "wise people" got so much info about painting but so little about the Master Painter….so much so that they even started saying "No Master Painter made it, it just came here by chance!!
04. RP
I told many times that people choose names to get over with the "difficult part". What they write has no connection to their names. And the answer justifies my claim.
I clarified that "Wise Group" got to know so much about the painting that they had "No time" for the "master painter", while the "Dumb Group" came near to the Master Painter and fulfilled the "purpose" for which the painting was left in the street.
The Painter did not want people to not give any attention to the painting, but the intent was "not to get so much engrossed in the painting that to forget the Master Painter"!!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 9,621 - 9,640 of21,374
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

10 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 10 min Thinking 831
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 17 min Buck Crick 224,005
Atheism Destroyed At Last! - The Debate Of The ... 2 hr Patrick 1,285
Our world came from nothing? 2 hr Patrick 161
The numbers are in: America still distrusts ath... 2 hr Carchar king 4
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 2 hr Buck Crick 351
Introducing The Universal Religion 3 hr Thinking 729
•••
•••