Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Apr 25, 2012 Full story: Psychology Today 23,565

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
rio

UK

#10292 Jan 13, 2013
mikev483 wrote:
<quoted text>
bullshit!
you refer to the Taliban as "freedom fighters",you don,t think they are fanatics?
No.
They defend their conutry from a foreign invasion.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#10293 Jan 13, 2013
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
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!!
Drama queen.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#10294 Jan 13, 2013
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!
Yawn...it wasn't done in the name of atheism, it was done in the name of communism.

Honestly, you're making yourself look ridiculous.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#10295 Jan 13, 2013
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
They defend their conutry from a foreign invasion.
They also try to kill 14-year-old girls for wanting an education.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#10296 Jan 13, 2013
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
They defend their conutry from a foreign invasion.
there you have it,RIO thinks that men who attempt to murder a 15 yr old schoolgirl for wanting to get an education are NOT "fanatics"

strange ideas on fanatics indeed.
rio

UK

#10297 Jan 13, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
Yawn...it wasn't done in the name of atheism, it was done in the name of communism.
.
Communism is only an atheist get-together under a marxist banner, old boy!

We have been there (some of us) and bought the T-shirt...
rio

UK

#10298 Jan 13, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
They also try to kill 14-year-old girls for wanting an education.
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.
rio

UK

#10299 Jan 13, 2013
mikev483 wrote:
<quoted text>
there you have it,RIO thinks that men who attempt to murder a 15 yr old schoolgirl for wanting to get an education are NOT "fanatics"
strange ideas on fanatics indeed.
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!

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#10300 Jan 13, 2013
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
Communism is only an atheist get-together under a marxist banner, old boy!
We have been there (some of us) and bought the T-shirt...
No, its really not. You know, there are entire libraries of books you could read to educate yourself. Good luck with that...
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

Nottingham, 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

Plymouth, 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

Nottingham, 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

Nottingham, 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

Nottingham, 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.

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
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 4 min ChristineM 4,804
The Consequences of Atheism 48 min Lumajuice 741
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr ChristineM 16,714
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr ChristineM 235,624
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 2 hr ChristineM 6,034
Is Religion Childish? 2 hr ChristineM 138
Richard Dawkins - God is evil, pedophilesa not ... (Sep '13) 2 hr ChristineM 3,036
More from around the web