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.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10652 Jan 17, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
You were the one talking about moral absolutes.
I just pointed out that they're not as perfect as you seem to think they are.
No, you committed the fallacy of bifurcation.

A logical fallacy, that demands a limited set of responses by stipulating premises that only allow certain responses.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10653 Jan 17, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
But it is NOT a philosophical view. It is nothing but a general category to define any and all people who are not in the category theism.
Of course it is a philosophical view, a catch all for people who agree on certain broad pre-suppositions that they assume as a given as their ultimate standard of truth.

I.E.

There is no God.

Atheists of course realise the implications of this, so try to redefine it, as they are uncomfortable with making a truth claim they know they cannot prove.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#10654 Jan 17, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you committed the fallacy of bifurcation.
A logical fallacy, that demands a limited set of responses by stipulating premises that only allow certain responses.
Nope

I simply demonstrated the flaw in your moral standards.

You'll be defending genocide next.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#10655 Jan 17, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I know that there are absolute moral standards, just as you do.
As God has revealed them to humanity, through our conscience and through the Scriptures.
I can prove you know they exist as whilst you deny them, you keep picking them up and using them.
And when I point that out to you, you drop them as a guilty child would drop a stolen toy.
If you do not believe in absolute moral standards, why do you keep appealing to them and using them?
So you are claiming a religious foundation for moral precepts which cannot be shown to originate from religion.

How do you account for how societal morals have changed over time? Or do you still kill witches? Keep slaves? Think women are subservient to men? Stone children who sass their parents?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#10656 Jan 17, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it is a philosophical view, a catch all for people who agree on certain broad pre-suppositions that they assume as a given as their ultimate standard of truth.
I.E.
There is no God.
Atheists of course realise the implications of this, so try to redefine it, as they are uncomfortable with making a truth claim they know they cannot prove.
So then all theistic philosophies can be lumped into one. Those that believe in Quetzalcoatl or Shiva or Satan or Allah or Jehovah or Baal or Thor or ??? can all be considered the same? Really?

Buddhism is an atheistic philosophy, as is Humanism.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10657 Jan 17, 2013
Well said.
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
You apparently don't understand what atheism is (or is not). But it seems to scare you.
I'm a Humanist.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10658 Jan 17, 2013
Straw man BSer.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I reject your arbitrary claim of having superior scientific comprehension.
Why?
Because you still assert a "rock did it" without being able to supply any empirical evidence for it.
Why would I accept your authority if you cannot rationally establish a basis for your claim to greater knowledge on such a simple matter as this.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10659 Jan 17, 2013
Prove it.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not sure why you would think atheism would scare someone, especially when they understand it is a bankrupt philosophical viewpoint that cannot account for morality, logic and scientific law.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10660 Jan 17, 2013
I think f**king under 10s is wrong. Religion does not. My values are better.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I am sorry, upon what basis are you claiming these acts are absolutely wrong?
As an atheist, there is no absolute moral standard, so I am not sure why you are appealing to absolute moral standards over and over again to support your arguments.
I have assumed you are, but maybe you are not a atheist?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10661 Jan 17, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope
I simply demonstrated the flaw in your moral standards.
You'll be defending genocide next.
Doesn't matter how you deny it, it is a standard fallacy of bifurcation you committed.

A little bit of research will show you that.

Why would you be concerned about genocide being something that is indefensible?

You are an atheist, you have no absolute moral standards to appeal to.

If one society decides to kill another for the sake of survival, why would you deem that wrong?

Why do you keep appealing to absolute moral standards?

We both know why.

You live in a universe created by God, which includes absolute moral standards.

Which makes sense as to why you appeal to them.

But knowing that you would have to acknowledge God if you recognise them, you will deny them, whilst using them.

Showing your inconsistency and revealing that you do really know the truth on this matter...

It is not a question of God existing or not, it is a question of Gods authority over you that you take the real issue with.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10662 Jan 17, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are claiming a religious foundation for moral precepts which cannot be shown to originate from religion.
How do you account for how societal morals have changed over time? Or do you still kill witches? Keep slaves? Think women are subservient to men? Stone children who sass their parents?
No, I am claiming absolute morality proceeds from Gods very nature.

The God revealed in the Bible.

You are not going to get very far if you cannot understand my most basic argument.

You can argue all day long with a strawman if you want to, but it will be quite a futile exercise.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10663 Jan 17, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
So then all theistic philosophies can be lumped into one. Those that believe in Quetzalcoatl or Shiva or Satan or Allah or Jehovah or Baal or Thor or ??? can all be considered the same? Really?
Buddhism is an atheistic philosophy, as is Humanism.
It is quite common to refer to varying levels of a belief with qualifying names.

Philosophy can be used in broad as well as narrow strokes to define differing belief systems.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10664 Jan 17, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Straw man BSer.
<quoted text>
Do you have a rational argument to make?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10665 Jan 17, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Prove it.
<quoted text>
I have been doing...

By showing the inconsistencies in atheistic thinking, particularly in the realm of morality.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#10666 Jan 17, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I am claiming absolute morality proceeds from Gods very nature.
The God revealed in the Bible.
You are not going to get very far if you cannot understand my most basic argument.
You can argue all day long with a strawman if you want to, but it will be quite a futile exercise.
Yes, if you claim that morals come from an invisible supernatural sky deity without any evidence what-so-ever to substantiat your claim or at least differentiate it from all the other deity claims, then you are right.

I do try to be patient with stupidity, but not with those that are so proud of it as you are.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#10668 Jan 17, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I have been doing...
By showing the inconsistencies in atheistic thinking, particularly in the realm of morality.
Do you still kill witches?

Religious morality is the most inconsistent morality imaginable.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10667 Jan 17, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I think f**king under 10s is wrong. Religion does not. My values are better.
<quoted text>
So you are your own absolute standard when it comes to defining morality?

What if your neighbour believes they are also their own absolute standard and they disagree with you.

Who is right, them or you?

You are making arbitrary claims about absolute morality, based on your own perceived authority.

But are you omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and eternal in nature?

Because that is what you need to be if you want to set yourself as the final authority on absolute morality...

Do you understand your own reasoning on this point and the absurd conclusion it takes you to?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10669 Jan 17, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, if you claim that morals come from an invisible supernatural sky deity without any evidence what-so-ever to substantiat your claim or at least differentiate it from all the other deity claims, then you are right.
I do try to be patient with stupidity, but not with those that are so proud of it as you are.
So you come back to this argument.

Stupid: God did it.

Intelligent: A Rock did it.

Do you really want to chase that cat up the tree again?

This is also not a question of evidence, it would not matter what evidence I showed you, you already have a priori position, that denying God is essential for you to justify your own personal choices in life.

Evidence will never convince you, because you are not really open to evidence.

Your presuppositional worldview precludes it.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10670 Jan 17, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you still kill witches?
Religious morality is the most inconsistent morality imaginable.
Why would you care?

Atheists embrace inconsistent morality.

They promote the idea of subjective morality.

So why are you contending that it is wrong to be inconsistent morally?

Are you using Gods laws of morality to argue that God doesn't exist again and has no claim on you?
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10671 Jan 17, 2013
You have been doing what?
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I have been doing...
By showing the inconsistencies in atheistic thinking, particularly in the realm of morality.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 min Regolith Based Li... 23,543
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 42 min scientia potentia... 48,729
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 1 hr Uncle Sam 72
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 3 hr Richardfs 5,706
News In defense of faith 9 hr karl44 6
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 13 hr Thinking 21,881
News Louisiana Christians reclaim safe space by runn... 18 hr Amused 3
More from around the web