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
9,961 - 9,980 of 21,499 Comments Last updated 46 min ago

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10622 Jan 17, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's have another look at what I posted this morning...
<quoted text>
Fourth sentence down, I asked you a question.
It remains unanswered.
Looks like you're scared to answer it.
Again, you have just re-presented what I already rejected.

You want to define the argument in a very narrow way as to produce an answer that only allows for the conlusions that you want.

Your basic premise is however wrong, that one breaking of a commandment justifies another breaking of a commandment.

You assume to hold that acting contrary to that position is morally wrong.

But upon what basis do you evaluate morality and claim if something is right or wrong/

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#10623 Jan 17, 2013
Henry wrote:
<quoted text>
We need none and we have none, god is not!
You may think you don't need God, but you are composed of his energy regardless. If you weren't, you wouldn't be here to tell me about it.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10625 Jan 17, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No one has stated "a rock did it" except creationists, it's called a strawman, and it's one of the most over used ones. I have no faith in anything that has not presented evidence, therefore, I remove the need for blind faith. You rely on being gullible, you have to be gullible to buy anything without evidence the way you have. You are also projecting your delusional state onto me, you should get seen by a professional.
So you don't believe non life caused life?

"A rock did it"

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#10624 Jan 17, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I appreciate you have great faith that one day it will be proven that "a rock did it".
But whilst you maintain that faith posiition, you cannot claim to operate solely on reason and logic.
Again, more inconsistencies.
Your wordlview is clearly disfunctional, by the myriads of inconsistencies it keeps displaying under the lightest of examinations...
Faith is belief in something without evidence.

There is evidence for abiogenesis as a working hypothesis.

My confidence in the finding of science is in direct proportion to the amount of available independent verification and amount of testable predictive results available.

So, have you got ANY independently verifiable evidence for something other than abiogenesis? Anything at all to consider?

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#10626 Jan 17, 2013
Henry wrote:
<quoted text>
Religion is the blanket for the ruling exploiting classes. The exploiters have to be extinquished by the toiling classes. In the nuclear age this can only be done by a revolution, which may cost the life of humanity.
The same could be said of scientific dogma. We need a division of scientific proclamations from national policy-making so that those "values" not considered by science can be given some voice in issues involving public well-being. An authoritative god coupled with an aggressive science sanctioned by national policy tends to have disastrous results.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10627 Jan 17, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
What I said was "at least we have some evidence to hypothesize various scenarios for abiogenesis." And I suggested that if you really wanted to discuss this aspect of science, there is a Topix Forum for that.
But thank you for going out of your way to show that you intend to misrepresent my posts so readily. Obviously bearing false witness isn't a problem for you.
You are confusing the blind act of faith reaching out for evidence to justify it with empirical evidence...

You have assumed a rock did it and then will cast about for any evidence to support this absurd notion, that is clearly nonsense.

Rocks dont reason, they dont care and they dont organise information intelligently..

But you insist they do and one day their will be evidence to prove it.

Now that is an incredible leap of faith...

But why would it matter to you if I had lied?

You are an atheist, lying is just a choice dictated by expediency...

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#10628 Jan 17, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You are confusing the blind act of faith reaching out for evidence to justify it with empirical evidence...
You have assumed a rock did it and then will cast about for any evidence to support this absurd notion, that is clearly nonsense.
Rocks dont reason, they dont care and they dont organise information intelligently..
But you insist they do and one day their will be evidence to prove it.
Now that is an incredible leap of faith...
But why would it matter to you if I had lied?
You are an atheist, lying is just a choice dictated by expediency...
I assume no such thing. I "insist" on no such thing.

I await evidence and testable results. Got any?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10629 Jan 17, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Faith is belief in something without evidence.
There is evidence for abiogenesis as a working hypothesis.
My confidence in the finding of science is in direct proportion to the amount of available independent verification and amount of testable predictive results available.
So, have you got ANY independently verifiable evidence for something other than abiogenesis? Anything at all to consider?
There is no evidence that a rock did it.

Making faith based arbitrary claims that there is, does not make your point valid...

As to alternative that is verifiable:

In the beginning God...

Without that absolute truth claim, you cannot account for life, logic, reasoning and morality.

The fact it is logically testable and that the alternative is demonstrably illogical is attestation that this is indeed true...

But that is not the issue.

I do not have to prove to you that God exists, you already know that, deep down in your heart of hearts.

What you are doing is suppressing that truth because you reject Gods authority over you.

And that can be clearly shown, when your worldview is examined and can be seen to be a series of arbitrary authority claims and inconsistencies that cannot account for the preconditions of intelligibility.

It is also verified again, when you then use Gods laws, which you deny, to shore up your own rickety worldview.

You are like a guilty kleptomaniac.

You keep picking up Gods laws of logic, morality and science and dropping them when you see someone watching you.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#10630 Jan 17, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
...But why would it matter to you if I had lied?
You are an atheist, lying is just a choice dictated by expediency...
And there the resort to ad hominem. A clear admission that you have no argument on point.

You even took it to the next level and made a bigoted slur against a whole group of people. Should I assume that this is a typical representation of Christianity?

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#10631 Jan 17, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you have just re-presented what I already rejected.
You want to define the argument in a very narrow way as to produce an answer that only allows for the conlusions that you want.
Your basic premise is however wrong, that one breaking of a commandment justifies another breaking of a commandment.
You assume to hold that acting contrary to that position is morally wrong.
But upon what basis do you evaluate morality and claim if something is right or wrong/
I asked a question.

You can't answer it.

That's all there is to it.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10632 Jan 17, 2013
That was actually the religious consensus in christianity and islam in years gone by. Of course they didn't call it child abuse, they just thought it was normal. Thank f**k we can ignore religitards today.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So if the consensus was that child abuse was ok, you would go with that?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10633 Jan 17, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
I assume no such thing. I "insist" on no such thing.
I await evidence and testable results. Got any?
You will not get any evidence or testable results to prove a rock did it.

How long are you prepared to wait for it?

You see, you claim you only believe that which is testable and observable.

Yet abiogenesis is not testable and observable, but you openly claim your accept it.

These inconsistencies in your worldview are mounting up.

If you are going to be an atheist, at least be honest and say that you cannot account for life and you cannot account for morality.

And we haven't even begun on logic itself yet...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10634 Jan 17, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
And there the resort to ad hominem. A clear admission that you have no argument on point.
You even took it to the next level and made a bigoted slur against a whole group of people. Should I assume that this is a typical representation of Christianity?
Why would you care or appeal to an absolute moral standard that bigotry is wrong?

I thought you were an atheist?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10635 Jan 17, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked a question.
You can't answer it.
That's all there is to it.
You asked a question in a certain way as to allow only two conclusions or limited conclusions.

It is called the fallacy of bifurcation...
DJ Hewlet

UK

#10636 Jan 17, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Faith is belief in something without evidence.
There is evidence for abiogenesis as a working hypothesis.
My confidence in the finding of science is in direct proportion to the amount of available independent verification and amount of testable predictive results available.
So, have you got ANY independently verifiable evidence for something other than abiogenesis? Anything at all to consider?
The production of amino acids under laboratory conditions is touted as proof of abiogenesis, but there's a hitch. All experiments producing some amino acids, do so only as a result of using an atmosphere specifically engineered to yield amino acids. Instead of searching for existing evidence that would support the idea of abiogenesis, researchers manufacture it. This is not science. This is called rigging the results

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10638 Jan 17, 2013
Thinking wrote:
That was actually the religious consensus in christianity and islam in years gone by. Of course they didn't call it child abuse, they just thought it was normal. Thank f**k we can ignore religitards today.
<quoted text>
That is a sweeping fallacious presumption you have indulged in here.

Again, arbitrary and illogical, notwithstanding emotionally laden with unsubstantiated rhetoric.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10637 Jan 17, 2013
If you can't do the right thing without a religion you are a sad and evil f*ck.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would you care or appeal to an absolute moral standard that bigotry is wrong?
I thought you were an atheist?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#10639 Jan 17, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You will not get any evidence or testable results to prove a rock did it.
How long are you prepared to wait for it?
You see, you claim you only believe that which is testable and observable.
Yet abiogenesis is not testable and observable, but you openly claim your accept it.
These inconsistencies in your worldview are mounting up.
If you are going to be an atheist, at least be honest and say that you cannot account for life and you cannot account for morality.
And we haven't even begun on logic itself yet...
No, I didn't. I tacitly accept the biochemistry hypothesis only to the extent there is real evidence.

Whine all you want about "a rock did it". That's a straw man fallacy which has nothing to do with what the science says. Every time you spout this nonsense you are showing everybody how much you don't know.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10641 Jan 17, 2013
So why are there "child abuse is normal" stories in the bible?
Why did mohammed f**k an under ten?

Substantiated.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a sweeping fallacious presumption you have indulged in here.
Again, arbitrary and illogical, notwithstanding emotionally laden with unsubstantiated rhetoric.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#10640 Jan 17, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would you care or appeal to an absolute moral standard that bigotry is wrong?
I thought you were an atheist?
You apparently don't understand what atheism is (or is not). But it seems to scare you.

I'm a Humanist.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 35 min ChristineM 900
Should Uninformed Opinion Be Respected? 1 hr Reason Personified 13
The Ultimate Evidence of God 1 hr Thinking 53
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Thinking 226,248
Our world came from nothing? 1 hr Thinking 403
100% Faith Free 1 hr Reason Personified 10
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 1 hr Patrick 41
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••