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.

rio

UK

#10301 Jan 13, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
No, its really not. You know, there are entire libraries of books you could read to educate yourself. Good luck with that...
Have you had experience of living in a communist country?

I gather not!

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#10302 Jan 13, 2013
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
As bad as it is, what they do in their country isn't our business.
You wouldn't like it if any country proposed to invade the US to stop the mass shooting happening in your schools, would you?
It's the pot calling the kettle black, eh?
Every country has its fanatics, and that gives no one an excuse to attack it. Well, unless you live in the White House that is. Then, you can even ignore the UN and pursue an aggressive foreign policy, of course.
I'm not in the US and yes, the war in Afghanistan did not receive UN approval, which (as backward and barbaric as the Taliban are) makes it illegal.

While I agree with you, there surely must come a tipping point (not that it was reached in Afghanistan) when force is warranted.

jacktheladat1

Northampton, UK

#10303 Jan 13, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
You lie like its a hobby.
He lies as a commercial business, pity he won't be bankrupt.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#10304 Jan 13, 2013
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
As bad as it is, what they do in their country isn't our business.
You wouldn't like it if any country proposed to invade the US to stop the mass shooting happening in your schools, would you?
It's the pot calling the kettle black, eh?
Every country has its fanatics, and that gives no one an excuse to attack it. Well, unless you live in the White House that is. Then, you can even ignore the UN and pursue an aggressive foreign policy, of course.
By the way

The school shootings in America were carried out by lone whackjobs and not by a movement that would, given the chance be the government.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#10307 Jan 13, 2013
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you had experience of living in a communist country?
I gather not!
I thought you said they were atheist countries? You're getting tangled up in your lies...

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#10308 Jan 13, 2013
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
They are fanatic in the defense of their country mostly, and the maintainance of their culture and traditions.
You have a problem with that?
You are a fanatic against Muslims!
do i have a problem with men who want to murder young girls for wanting an education?
of course i do, you fool.

i am a fanatic against Muslims? no
do i think Islam is a bad influence in the world? yes

as we are discussing MUSLIM men who want to murder would-be school girls i have a point don't i?
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#10309 Jan 13, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not in the US and yes, the war in Afghanistan did not receive UN approval, which (as backward and barbaric as the Taliban are) makes it illegal...
This doesn't seem right?
Nato do have a UN mandate now and the intervention in Afghanistan wasn't and isn't illegal. It was done initially (as I understand it) for reasons of US national security and the UN mandate for continued presence obtained later as a matter of necessity.

Anyway, it is probably a good thing NATO are there now or the Taliban could have oppressed people for heaven knows how long. At least there is a chance of re-establishing an educated population in a stable country in the comparatively near future now. Women's rights now stand a chance too - a key ingredient to a stable and prosperous society.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#10310 Jan 13, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>This doesn't seem right?
Nato do have a UN mandate now and the intervention in Afghanistan wasn't and isn't illegal. It was done initially (as I understand it) for reasons of US national security and the UN mandate for continued presence obtained later as a matter of necessity.
Anyway, it is probably a good thing NATO are there now or the Taliban could have oppressed people for heaven knows how long. At least there is a chance of re-establishing an educated population in a stable country in the comparatively near future now. Women's rights now stand a chance too - a key ingredient to a stable and prosperous society.
Hi Ed. The invasion is authorised now but it wasn't authorised then..

"The military campaign in Afghanistan was not specifically mandated by the UN, but was widely (although not universally) perceived to be a legitimate form of self-defence under the UN Charter. The ISAF force, of which British forces in Afghanistan form a part, is fully mandated by the UN."

http://democracyresourcecenter.wordpress.com/...

The issues of women's rights is certainly relevant but I don't think that alone justifies our involvement otherwise we'd be in Saudi Arabia, Somalia and every other nation where women are treated appallingly.

Still, there's no getting away from the fact that Islam is the common denominator here.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#10311 Jan 13, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Ed. The invasion is authorised now but it wasn't authorised then..
"The military campaign in Afghanistan was not specifically mandated by the UN, but was widely (although not universally) perceived to be a legitimate form of self-defence under the UN Charter. The ISAF force, of which British forces in Afghanistan form a part, is fully mandated by the UN."
http://democracyresourcecenter.wordpress.com/...
The issues of women's rights is certainly relevant but I don't think that alone justifies our involvement otherwise we'd be in Saudi Arabia, Somalia and every other nation where women are treated appallingly.
Still, there's no getting away from the fact that Islam is the common denominator here.
Yes, but the intervention didn't require a specific mandate. The UN Charter allows 'self-defence' under article 51. It might be correct to argue that majority opinion is that wasn't justified under article 51. A legal and moot point now.

One never really knows what happened until it's over and the books are published.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#10312 Jan 13, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, but the intervention didn't require a specific mandate. The UN Charter allows 'self-defence' under article 51. It might be correct to argue that majority opinion is that wasn't justified under article 51. A legal and moot point now.
One never really knows what happened until it's over and the books are published.
Yeah, that makes sense.

I guess like a lot of things, the bondaries get a bit blurred.

Was the west defending itself against the people of Afghanistan, or perhaps Saudi Arabia, as 15 of the hijackers were from that nation?

In the exceedingly unlikely event of the NRA destroying the Shanghai WFC.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9MIKk1_hhYQ/Sumaqw4...

I wonder whether China would get UN support to invade America.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#10313 Jan 13, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, that makes sense.
I guess like a lot of things, the bondaries get a bit blurred.
Was the west defending itself against the people of Afghanistan, or perhaps Saudi Arabia, as 15 of the hijackers were from that nation?
In the exceedingly unlikely event of the NRA destroying the Shanghai WFC.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9MIKk1_hhYQ/Sumaqw4...
I wonder whether China would get UN support to invade America.
I don't think anyone would suggest the West was defending itself from the people of Afghanistan. I thought the idea was to defend the people of Afghanistan and the West from Al-Q and Taliban oppression and violence?

People say things like "The West invaded Afghanistan and Iraq" as if the attack was on the nation or the people instead of oppresive regimes therein. The aim was obviously to defend them and us. Talk about things getting blurred - that is exactly right. That is why when I was in the Army I always mistrusted the UK politicians and public as much as any enemy to the front,(for different reasons obviously!:-)

Everyone does their best from their own viewpoint, but it is a fairly chaotic and ignorant world. People talk of the Taliban as if they are an homogenous group, but they range from the lad who just thinks his family is in danger at lashes out at 'the foreign invaders' all the way to the ideologues and fanatics like senior Al-Q leaders. Most of the Taliban we can probably work with quite well and the very first of the early movement seem to have been fine men.

Someone once said that it only took 50,000 armed men to lay-waste to a nation of 20 millions. As I see it, the majority of us need to establish some solidarity against the violent minority. It doesn't matter if one is Western, Afghan, Muslim or atheist. The important thing is to establish peace and democracy as far as possible. Perhaps we have learned from past interventions how very badly such interventions can go wrong? However, many Syrians don't currently think so and see the West as self-interested and at best and uncaring or perfidious at worst.
Lincoln

United States

#10314 Jan 13, 2013
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
They are fanatic in the defense of their country mostly, and the maintainance of their culture and traditions.
You have a problem with that?
You are a fanatic against Muslims!
they have traditions which we tolerate.

We hang murders, one of our traditions.
Lincoln

United States

#10315 Jan 13, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way
The school shootings in America were carried out by lone whackjobs and not by a movement that would, given the chance be the government.
Valid, but not exactly a comfort.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10316 Jan 13, 2013
Syria is descending into the usual sunni/shiite shitfest. Like Northern Ireland but with kilodeaths.
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>I don't think anyone would suggest the West was defending itself from the people of Afghanistan. I thought the idea was to defend the people of Afghanistan and the West from Al-Q and Taliban oppression and violence?
People say things like "The West invaded Afghanistan and Iraq" as if the attack was on the nation or the people instead of oppresive regimes therein. The aim was obviously to defend them and us. Talk about things getting blurred - that is exactly right. That is why when I was in the Army I always mistrusted the UK politicians and public as much as any enemy to the front,(for different reasons obviously!:-)
Everyone does their best from their own viewpoint, but it is a fairly chaotic and ignorant world. People talk of the Taliban as if they are an homogenous group, but they range from the lad who just thinks his family is in danger at lashes out at 'the foreign invaders' all the way to the ideologues and fanatics like senior Al-Q leaders. Most of the Taliban we can probably work with quite well and the very first of the early movement seem to have been fine men.
Someone once said that it only took 50,000 armed men to lay-waste to a nation of 20 millions. As I see it, the majority of us need to establish some solidarity against the violent minority. It doesn't matter if one is Western, Afghan, Muslim or atheist. The important thing is to establish peace and democracy as far as possible. Perhaps we have learned from past interventions how very badly such interventions can go wrong? However, many Syrians don't currently think so and see the West as self-interested and at best and uncaring or perfidious at worst.
MUQ

Qatif, Saudi Arabia

#10317 Jan 13, 2013
Is it not strange?

When I mentioned the analogy of a speeding train hitting some one standing on track with eyes closed shut, I got 6 or 7 responses.

When I mentioned about a beautiful painting found on a street, there were 4 or 5 responses.

Now I mentioned a strange case of a "professor from outer space" solving the "mystery" of "complex mode of transportation" on this earth....and there is no one commenting on it!!

Very strange phenomenon indeed!!

Since: Mar 11

United States

#10318 Jan 13, 2013
Flew in his old age mentally declined and became a deist, he most likely didn't write the majority of his last book on God. And this is persuasive how?

Even if he still had his marbles when he became a deist, so what? His concept of God is a more philosophical proposition rather than an actual sky wizard anyways.

Again, why should anyone accept god as anything more than the figment of someone's imagination?
Andre wrote:
<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.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#10319 Jan 13, 2013
It had more to do with people yawning at your extremely bad logical fallacy arguments. So will you finally tell us about the holy she-camel of Allah that the prophet Muhammad foretold?
MUQ wrote:
Is it not strange?
When I mentioned the analogy of a speeding train hitting some one standing on track with eyes closed shut, I got 6 or 7 responses.
When I mentioned about a beautiful painting found on a street, there were 4 or 5 responses.
Now I mentioned a strange case of a "professor from outer space" solving the "mystery" of "complex mode of transportation" on this earth....and there is no one commenting on it!!
Very strange phenomenon indeed!!

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#10320 Jan 13, 2013
MUQ wrote:
Is it not strange?
When I mentioned the analogy of a speeding train hitting some one standing on track with eyes closed shut, I got 6 or 7 responses.
When I mentioned about a beautiful painting found on a street, there were 4 or 5 responses.
Now I mentioned a strange case of a "professor from outer space" solving the "mystery" of "complex mode of transportation" on this earth....and there is no one commenting on it!!
Very strange phenomenon indeed!!
Because we have gotten use to ignoring you now. Until you start actually using logic and reason, you should get use to it.
rio

Bromley, UK

#10323 Jan 13, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought you said they were atheist countries? You're getting tangled up in your lies...
Communist countries were atheist, dumbass.
Marxism is atheist!

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#10324 Jan 13, 2013
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"!!
What you have told (difficult part?) is meaningless. It has no bearing on anything pertaining to myself.

Maybe you should explain to master painter that if he wants all the focus on himself, next time he should leave the paintings inside the house and lay his own carcass as bait out in the road.
That way everyone would know that master baiter needs everyone's attention, approval and thier agreement that he alone is the master painter.

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
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 7 min Scaritual 87
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 17 min SoE 48,863
What are the best arguments against religion? 1 hr Igor Trip 4
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Into The Night 258,047
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Into The Night 23,579
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 1 hr Into The Night 5,718
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 2 hr ChristineM 21,888
More from around the web