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

#10924 Jan 22, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but I don't see a logical argument there. I don't see any kind of argument. These are merely unsupported claims. You haven't established that atheists are desperate, that we deny any law, that our position is logically absurd, or that our worldviews preclude engaging in logical discussion. You have merely claimed these things. You haven't even defined them.
In fact, this reply defeats your claim. This is a well reasoned rebuttal.
Were you aware that atheism is not a worldview?
Were you aware that a perfect god that makes mistakes is logically impossible? Such a thing would violate the law of noncontradiction.
What is "God"? Is that Jehovah-Jesus to you? That god is impossible for many reasons, including the one just given. Of course I deny it. It would be unreasonable to do otherwise.
Reason is on the side of the rational skeptics, not faith based thinkers. Faith itself, which is a repudiation of reason, is a logical error.
“Humanity's first sin was faith; the first virtue was doubt.”- Mike Huben
How do you account for logic in an atheistic universe?

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#10925 Jan 22, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
The evidence for God is self attesting.
If He did not exist, you would not be able to account for reason, you would not be able to account for morality and would not be able to account for scientific processes.
You're not very good at this... but then very few of the fundamentally religious that post here are

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10926 Jan 22, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Atheists are people who do not believe in deities after that it varies person to person.
You Christholes need to stop telling us what we think or believe and start asking us. Gasp! What a concept!
<quoted text>
And you atheists need to evolve some manners...

Oh wait, as an atheist you are not required to have manners as morality is just a subjective choice.

Carry on then...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10927 Jan 22, 2013
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>I'd guess that like me, he's not willing to give up logic and reason in order to persue fantasy as fact.
Yes, he will be just like you and any other atheist.

Unable to account for the existance of the laws of logic.

But insisting that you own them...

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#10928 Jan 22, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
It does if you let the Bible explain it.
Man has been in rebellion since Eve's sin in the Garden of Eden.
Since that time, mankind has been trying to suppress the knowledge of God.
Usually by lying to themselves and convincing themselves the lie is true.
They got so successful that at one point, God flooded the earth.
They are also getting to the same point again, which is a sign that Jesus Second Coming is about here.
As in the days of Noah etc...
So it all makes perfect sense.
That is what they all say, right up to the moment their god demands they eat their children. "Makes perfect sense".
So are you the "linger and savor" or the "gulp and get it over with" type of cannibal?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10929 Jan 22, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
You feel this is logical?
Absolutely.

A circular argument is not necessarily an invalid argument, if everything outside of the circle confirms the circle...

Every epistemology, at its base, has a circular absolute standard.

That includes atheistic epistemologies.

But that has to be then tested by all information outside that circle.

If it can pass that test, then it is logically valid.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10930 Jan 22, 2013
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>You're not very good at this... but then very few of the fundamentally religious that post here are
I supsect you do not understand the argument and do not realise that a self attesting argument is valid only if it accounts for everything.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#10931 Jan 22, 2013
William Tyndale wrote:
Great scientists, great philosophers, great mystics, all have in common a deep respect, a deep sense of awe for the mystery of what is. Theists try to describe the indescribable. Atheists try to deny it.
Nonsense.

I'm an atheist, and those are the very words I use. In fact, to the sense of mystery and awe I add the sense of connection and gratitude. From last week :

"If you'd like to discuss spirituality, I'd be glad to do so. For starters, it has nothing to do with spirits or ghosts. It is my opinion that spirituality eludes those of you with a hostility to science, "the world," and even your own flesh. Spirituality is about connectedness to your world. It is a psychological experience that combines a sense of mystery, awe and gratitude.

"If you have those feelings, you have touched onto your spiritual faculty. But if you lack the sense of connection to your universe, your experience is inauthentic. You see yourself as an alien in this world, a ghost that belongs elsewhere. If your attention is diverted to nonexistent realms, and to the time after your demise, you are the opposite of spiritual."
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T0N0LOR...

If you're interested,here is the follow-up to that post:
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T0N0LOR...

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#10932 Jan 22, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, he will be just like you and any other atheist.
Unable to account for the existance of the laws of logic.
But insisting that you own them...
No one owns the "laws of logic"... I just don't refuse to use them

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#10933 Jan 22, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I supsect you do not understand the argument and do not realise that a self attesting argument is valid only if it accounts for everything.
Your argument doesn't account for anything. You simply attribute everything to your 'god' the same way every other religion, past and present, attribute everything tho their 'gods'.

"GOD"... the answer for everything and the explanation of nonhing

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#10934 Jan 22, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
And the opening statement proves the point.
The reason you reject the gospel is because it demands more than you are willing to give up.
Your sins in other words...
To justify that, you try to attribute Gods character as immoral, using His standards of absolute morality, which you cannot account for as an atheist, to try to justify your own sin.
But you know of God, as He has revealed Himself to you.
You are just in denial.
Thursdays are my favorite days, and have been since I was a child.

when When my first child was born on a Thursday, it just made me happy, the second child was born on a Thursday, it was wonderful, but then I found a calendar from my birth year. I too was born on Thursday, as was my third child, and ten years later my last child was born on Thursday too. I have no choice but to consider this a revelation from Thor, that proves him to be the true god. I am no longer in denial.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10935 Jan 22, 2013
Something would have to give the whole population pleasure to be acceptable to a Humanist, and if it that something did, it wouldn't be rape. QED.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
What if committing rape gives people pleasure in the society?
What then?
If pleasure is the deciding factor, as you have stated.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#10936 Jan 22, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, he will be just like you and any other atheist.
Unable to account for the existance of the laws of logic.
But insisting that you own them...
The theist has theism, the atheist doesn't. Satanist are not atheist, anyone with any type of theism, is not atheist.

All newborns, toddlers and most children are atheist. All are right up until they are indoctrinated, then they are atheist no more. Sunday school's primary purpose: converting atheist to theist at the most vulnerable time of their lives. It's easier to scare children than adults.

Btw, teaching a toddler that Jesus loves him, is an effective lie. But then teaching him that god would make his parents eat him, would sort of defeat the purpose wouldn't it? He'd have no future goal of supporting the spell casters. He'd be much more likely to run screaming from that church, and let those lazy clergy get up and get a job.

So do you get yet that atheism is but the lack of theism? The atheist just not theist? And there are no criteria to be met in not being theist. You simply aren't, until you are. Nothing more to it.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#10937 Jan 22, 2013
Thinking wrote:
That said, I don't see how the Republicans are going to get voted in again until they adopt a more centrist position- but any change will dismay their core vote.
In my opinion, American voters are more pathological that you might guess. Compare them to Americans from the past. The original political conservatives were called Federalists. From Wiki:

"The Federalist Party was the first American political party, from the early 1790s to 1816, the era of the First Party System, with remnants lasting into the 1820s. The Federalists controlled the federal government until 1801 ... The Federalists, too wedded to an upper-class style to win the support of ordinary voters,[original research?] grew weaker year by year. They recovered some strength by intense opposition to the War of 1812; they practically vanished during the Era of Good Feelings that followed the end of the war in 1815."

This is what happens to a brand when it becomes too unpopular. It needs to change names. Conservatives abandoned the Federalist brand, and returned to power as the Whigs, Also from Wiki:

"The Whig Party was a political party active in the early 19th century in the United States. Considered integral to the Second Party System and operating from the early 1830s to the mid-1850s the party was formed in opposition to the policies of President Andrew Jackson and his Democratic Party. In particular, the Whigs supported the supremacy of Congress over the presidency ...

"In its two decades of existence, the Whig Party had two of its candidates, William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor, elected president. Both died in office. John Tyler succeeded to the presidency after Harrison's death but was expelled from the party. Millard Fillmore, who became president after Taylor's death, was the last Whig to hold the nation's highest office. The party was ultimately destroyed by the question of whether to allow the expansion of slavery to the territories."

The particulars aren't as important as the fact that in the past, once tarnished, voters became uninterested in a party, and the philosophy - conservatism in these cases - had to repackage itself. And as you can see, the circumstances that would destroy a party weren't that extreme in the past.

Now fast forward to the twenty-first century and the latest incarnation of the conservatives: the Republicans. Look at what George Bush put America through. Te nation was so terrified by that that even states like Indiana (headquarters of the Klan), Virginia (capital of the Confederacy) and North Carolina all chose the black Obama over McCain. That's voter trauma!

Yet the party survived relatively unscathed, and was even competitive four years later against a popular incumbent. I think that's significant. Isn't it?

The voters seem to be unable to think critically or analytically any more. The Republicans should have ceased to exist. Certainly the Americans of the days of the Federalists and Whigs would have rejected the Republicans forever. They would have had to go away for a while and come back in a new package. Not in 2012.

I think that's significant and disheartening. You've got a democracy of sorts populated with too great a fraction of citizens who no longer seem capable of governing themselves.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10938 Jan 22, 2013
Interesting... The UK Whigs ran from 1680 to 1850ish and then evolved into the Liberal party. Now that's a brand name difficult to sell to the US.

Today's Liberal Democrats currently form part of s ruling coalition with the larger Conservatives.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
In my opinion, American voters are more pathological that you might guess. Compare them to Americans from the past. The original political conservatives were called Federalists. From Wiki:
"The Federalist Party was the first American political party, from the early 1790s to 1816, the era of the First Party System, with remnants lasting into the 1820s. The Federalists controlled the federal government until 1801 ... The Federalists, too wedded to an upper-class style to win the support of ordinary voters,[original research?] grew weaker year by year. They recovered some strength by intense opposition to the War of 1812; they practically vanished during the Era of Good Feelings that followed the end of the war in 1815."
This is what happens to a brand when it becomes too unpopular. It needs to change names. Conservatives abandoned the Federalist brand, and returned to power as the Whigs, Also from Wiki:
"The Whig Party was a political party active in the early 19th century in the United States. Considered integral to the Second Party System and operating from the early 1830s to the mid-1850s the party was formed in opposition to the policies of President Andrew Jackson and his Democratic Party. In particular, the Whigs supported the supremacy of Congress over the presidency ...
"In its two decades of existence, the Whig Party had two of its candidates, William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor, elected president. Both died in office. John Tyler succeeded to the presidency after Harrison's death but was expelled from the party. Millard Fillmore, who became president after Taylor's death, was the last Whig to hold the nation's highest office. The party was ultimately destroyed by the question of whether to allow the expansion of slavery to the territories."
The particulars aren't as important as the fact that in the past, once tarnished, voters became uninterested in a party, and the philosophy - conservatism in these cases - had to repackage itself. And as you can see, the circumstances that would destroy a party weren't that extreme in the past.
Now fast forward to the twenty-first century and the latest incarnation of the conservatives: the Republicans. Look at what George Bush put America through. Te nation was so terrified by that that even states like Indiana (headquarters of the Klan), Virginia (capital of the Confederacy) and North Carolina all chose the black Obama over McCain. That's voter trauma!
Yet the party survived relatively unscathed, and was even competitive four years later against a popular incumbent. I think that's significant. Isn't it?
The voters seem to be unable to think critically or analytically any more. The Republicans should have ceased to exist. Certainly the Americans of the days of the Federalists and Whigs would have rejected the Republicans forever. They would have had to go away for a while and come back in a new package. Not in 2012.
I think that's significant and disheartening. You've got a democracy of sorts populated with too great a fraction of citizens who no longer seem capable of governing themselves.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10939 Jan 22, 2013
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>No one owns the "laws of logic"... I just don't refuse to use them
But you accept their are absolute universal laws of logic?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10940 Jan 22, 2013
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>Your argument doesn't account for anything. You simply attribute everything to your 'god' the same way every other religion, past and present, attribute everything tho their 'gods'.
"GOD"... the answer for everything and the explanation of nonhing
Would that be the same as the atheistic religion, which attributes everything to a rockdidit?

Because you have to assert the same principle and then test it logically.

Of course if you reject this basic fundamental logical truth, you have just denied your own worldview...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10941 Jan 22, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Thursdays are my favorite days, and have been since I was a child.
when When my first child was born on a Thursday, it just made me happy, the second child was born on a Thursday, it was wonderful, but then I found a calendar from my birth year. I too was born on Thursday, as was my third child, and ten years later my last child was born on Thursday too. I have no choice but to consider this a revelation from Thor, that proves him to be the true god. I am no longer in denial.
Oh that old false analogy.

You are a tease...:-)

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10942 Jan 22, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Something would have to give the whole population pleasure to be acceptable to a Humanist, and if it that something did, it wouldn't be rape. QED.
<quoted text>
But many men do get pleasure from rape, otherwise, why do they do it?

There are enough evidences in history to show that many societies practiced rape.

Now here is the question you won't be able to answer:

Was it wrong for that person in that society to rape.

If so why?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10943 Jan 22, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>The theist has theism, the atheist doesn't. Satanist are not atheist, anyone with any type of theism, is not atheist.
All newborns, toddlers and most children are atheist. All are right up until they are indoctrinated, then they are atheist no more. Sunday school's primary purpose: converting atheist to theist at the most vulnerable time of their lives. It's easier to scare children than adults.
Btw, teaching a toddler that Jesus loves him, is an effective lie. But then teaching him that god would make his parents eat him, would sort of defeat the purpose wouldn't it? He'd have no future goal of supporting the spell casters. He'd be much more likely to run screaming from that church, and let those lazy clergy get up and get a job.
So do you get yet that atheism is but the lack of theism? The atheist just not theist? And there are no criteria to be met in not being theist. You simply aren't, until you are. Nothing more to it.
Actually that is not true.

As an atheist is merely someone who denies the knowledge of God, that has been revealed to him, then an atheist does not in reality exist beyond the realm of lies in their own mind.

You of course define atheism holding the lie to be a truth.

I define it by the truth.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 min Into The Night 48,654
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 9 min Richardfs 5,698
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 1 hr JustASkeptic 40
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 7 hr scientia potentia... 23,511
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 9 hr Thinking 21,875
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 11 hr ChristineM 258,041
News Louisiana Christians reclaim safe space by runn... 12 hr Mikko 1
More from around the web