Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

There are 23814 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.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10860 Jan 21, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I have been presenting logical arguments like the argument:
That the atheist in their desperation to deny God, ends up having to deny all the transcendent laws that govern the universe, in particular those relating to morality and logic.
On the contrary, it is the religious nuts that deny the basic logic of requiring evidence before belief. It is the religious that deny that morality is primarily about making humans happy and fulfilled in their lives. It is the religious that think that morality has to be a universal absolute (as opposed to being about humans and their happiness) to have relevance and meaning.
So much so that they are reduced to logical absurdity, clearly showing their worldview has some major issues that precludes them even engaging in logical discussions...
Funny, that is exactly my opinion about many believers in deities.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10861 Jan 21, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
BS. Morality is a function of society. If there were only one person on earth, morality would be irrelevant. The fact that we are a social species dictates that we will live together. There are better and worse ways to live together (as determined by the happiness of the people involved, the art and science produced, etc). Morality is simple the optimal way of living together.
I would not expect a species from another planet to have the same morality as we do simply because their biology would be different: the things that make them happy and that are important for their societies because of their biology will be different. So our morality is certainly NOT absolute: it is a local thing restricted to humans.
If morality is a function of biology and one persons biology urges them to rape, your argument grants them that right...

Do you realise that?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10862 Jan 21, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
On the contrary, it is the religious nuts that deny the basic logic of requiring evidence before belief. It is the religious that deny that morality is primarily about making humans happy and fulfilled in their lives. It is the religious that think that morality has to be a universal absolute (as opposed to being about humans and their happiness) to have relevance and meaning.
<quoted text>
Funny, that is exactly my opinion about many believers in deities.
Ah...

You see, this is where you misunderstand how a persons epistemology is constructed...

Let me show you how this works.

You are an atheist.

You believe that life came from non-life.

That rocks evolved into living creatures.

Did you observe that?

No.

You have no empirical data to confirm that.

So upon what basis would you defend that presupposition?

Everyones ultimate standard has to be assumed at some point, everyone has many presuppositions that they assume.

Then from there an examination of that standard should take place.

This is of course absolutely true, unless you were there when the rocks decided to turn into life?

Then of course you would have empirical data to match your witnessing the event of abiogenesis.

Short of that, you assumed, or presupposed that happened and then argued from there...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#10863 Jan 21, 2013
mtimber wrote:
If morality is a function of biology and one persons biology urges them to rape, your argument grants them that right...
Do you realise that?
That is incorrect. Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but a rapist is NOT granted that right.

You should probably ask unbelievers what their moral conclusions are rather than telling them and then condemning them for it.

Besides, if we used the values of your bible, we would find that there are times when we may be commanded to rape by the author of those perfected moral laws.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10864 Jan 21, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
That is incorrect. Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but a rapist is NOT granted that right.
You should probably ask unbelievers what their moral conclusions are rather than telling them and then condemning them for it.
Besides, if we used the values of your bible, we would find that there are times when we may be commanded to rape by the author of those perfected moral laws.
Obviously I do not accept your twisted interpretation of the Bible on this matter.

But to the main point:

You think that rape is wrong.

That is because you are appealing to a greater absolute moral standard than you can account for in your atheism.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10865 Jan 21, 2013
Thank you.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Spoken like a true atheist...
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10866 Jan 21, 2013
Bollocks.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
If morality is a function of biology and one persons biology urges them to rape, your argument grants them that right...
Do you realise that?
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10867 Jan 21, 2013
That's why priests f**k kids. The bible's cool with paedophilia so long as its heterosexual paedophilia.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
That is incorrect. Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but a rapist is NOT granted that right.
You should probably ask unbelievers what their moral conclusions are rather than telling them and then condemning them for it.
Besides, if we used the values of your bible, we would find that there are times when we may be commanded to rape by the author of those perfected moral laws.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10868 Jan 21, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Bollocks.
<quoted text>
Again, spoken like a true atheist.

I hope your fellow atheists realise that your behaviour is probably the most reflective of the central doctrine of the atheistic religion?

Assertion of self...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10869 Jan 21, 2013
Thinking wrote:
That's why priests f**k kids. The bible's cool with paedophilia so long as its heterosexual paedophilia.
<quoted text>
Prejudiced emotive faulty appeal...
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10870 Jan 21, 2013
Partridge carnival handbag underlay.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Prejudiced emotive faulty appeal...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10871 Jan 21, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Partridge carnival handbag underlay.
<quoted text>
Indeed...

That is where atheism takes the individual.

To irrationality...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10872 Jan 21, 2013
It doesn't seem like atheism is defeating much around here, except itself...
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10873 Jan 21, 2013
Irrational numbers exist.
There was a believer that posted on Topix that root 2 was a fraction.
He wasn't even a Poe.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed...
That is where atheism takes the individual.
To irrationality...
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10874 Jan 21, 2013
Like you, Hitler also thought he was a winner.
mtimber wrote:
It doesn't seem like atheism is defeating much around here, except itself...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10875 Jan 21, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
If morality is a function of biology and one persons biology urges them to rape, your argument grants them that right...
Do you realise that?
No, morality is about living in a society and the happiness of those in the society. Rape does not contribute to the happiness of those in the society. Empathy is a fundamental aspect of human biology. Morality is based on empathy.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10876 Jan 21, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah...
You see, this is where you misunderstand how a persons epistemology is constructed...
Let me show you how this works.
You are an atheist.
You believe that life came from non-life.
That rocks evolved into living creatures.
Did you observe that?
No.
You have no empirical data to confirm that.
So upon what basis would you defend that presupposition?
Everyones ultimate standard has to be assumed at some point, everyone has many presuppositions that they assume.
Then from there an examination of that standard should take place.
This is of course absolutely true, unless you were there when the rocks decided to turn into life?
Then of course you would have empirical data to match your witnessing the event of abiogenesis.
Short of that, you assumed, or presupposed that happened and then argued from there...
Since you clearly don't understand even the basics of what science says, let alone how science and atheism differ, I would recommend not commenting on things you do not understand.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10877 Jan 21, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously I do not accept your twisted interpretation of the Bible on this matter.
But to the main point:
You think that rape is wrong.
That is because you are appealing to a greater absolute moral standard than you can account for in your atheism.
No, we appeal to the empathy that is central to social species like ours. The progress of morality is the progress of empathy towards those who religion and other doctrines say are subhuman.
McNeil

Duluth, GA

#10878 Jan 21, 2013
Why shouldn't there be a God is my question? What's there to look forward to after you die? Why would you fight so hard to to prove that a person does not exist, when that same person is willing to offer you salvation? Doest make sense..

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#10879 Jan 21, 2013
McNeil wrote:
Why shouldn't there be a God is my question? What's there to look forward to after you die? Why would you fight so hard to to prove that a person does not exist, when that same person is willing to offer you salvation? Doest make sense..
Because the price you extract is too high. Your religion is one of hate, oppression and abuse.

It does not matter which of the supernatural woo you are victimized by currently-- they all abuse their followers.

Finally? I must ask... "salvation"... from ... what? Death is death--there is nothing beyond it as far as you (or anyone) can prove.

That's it. Finis.

So, no-- your mewlings here make no sense in the least.

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 Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 18 min Eagle 12 8,060
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 19 min ATHEOI 27,263
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 29 min Richard 18,773
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 39 min Richard 5,943
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 1 hr ChristineM 3,072
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 3 hr superwilly 253,294
News Atheism has no moral dimension 7 hr Eagle 12 143
More from around the web