Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

There are 24178 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

#11068 Jan 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you hoping to accomplish here? A little entertainment for yourself?
If your purpose is more than that, you are wasting your time. You are not going to flip a mature rational skeptic at this stage of his or her intellectual and moral development. You have nothing to offer.
FYI, we define ourselves, not our ideological enemies.
To share some logical conclusions with people that want to deny the source of logical absolutes...

In the hope that someone else can see the foolishness of the atheistic denial of God.

Or that indeed one of you, has just imbibed the religion of atheism, without ever actually challenging their religious convictions.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11069 Jan 23, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, pleasure is one of the factors, everyone makes their own morals, choosing a cookie cutter moral system does not mean you did not make those choices either, it just means you liked the morals of another person.
If everyone makes their own morals, why is your moral position superior to mind if we disagree diametrically?

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#11070 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
It boggles the mind that people still believe that "arockdidit" or "nothingexploded" is literally true...
Your point being?
You do realize that the ONLY people that make those "claims" are godbots just like you, don't you?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11071 Jan 23, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>"Atheistic religion"? Those two words are cancel each other out. A religion is a theism, and if someone has a religion, they cannot be atheist. An atheist is not theist, that is what the "a" means.
You are not very smart, are you?
Does not a widespread belief in a particular worldview, that cannot be proven empirically, constitute a religion?

A faith in something not observed?

I.E.

1. nothingexploded
2. arockdidit

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11073 Jan 23, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>The person you described is a non-believer. Maybe you should really learn something before shooting off your mouth. The word atheist means not theist, and that it is also used as a substitute for non-believer, does not change the meaning of the word.
And btw, your truth, is not truth, not even for you. It is also word salad, and >>> wrong <<<.
You define an athiest as someone who lacks a belief in gods.

The bible describes an atheist as someone who suppress a knowledge of God, who suppress a belief in God, so that they can be wise in their own eyes. And this activity reduces them to foolishness.

As a biblical christian, I have to accept that basis for identifying atheism.

Coupled to that, the atheists complete inability to account for obvious absolute truth, or even acceptance of that, proves the case...

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#11074 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Amidst the ad hominem, I think I detect your main argument is "an argument from ignorance is always preferable"...
LOL! My argument is based on the posts you supply and the willful ignorance displayed therein... hardly an argument from ignorance. But you can keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#11075 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, so your absolute standard for defining your empathy is the Bible?
Argument done...
ahhh yes... typical pigeon chess master

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11076 Jan 23, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No. The harm done to the woman (including the responsibility to take care of the child alone) far outweighs the 'benefit' to society.
Once again: is the only reason you refrain from rape because your sky-daddy says so? if so, you have shown yourself incapable of true moral judgment. if not, you have shown that deities are irrelevant to morality.
Following your reasoning then you must also oppose abortion then?

As the harm to the baby far outweighs the harm to the mother?
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#11077 Jan 23, 2013
Could you live a day without a straw man?
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
It boggles the mind that people still believe that "arockdidit" or "nothingexploded" is literally true...
Your point being?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11078 Jan 23, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am saying that any society that condones rape denigrates humans and is therefore immoral. We are a social species, so we have morality to organize behaviors productive of happiness of those in the society.
Once again: is the only reason you don't rape because your sky-daddy says not to? If so, then you are incapable of true moral judgment. if not, you have shown that deities are irrelevant to morality.
Why is condoning rape wrong?

If it promulgates the survival of the strongest physical specimen?

I don't understand why you are arguing against atheistic doctrine?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11079 Jan 23, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And if it were in God's character it would be right? No, in that case, God would be wrong.
Really, are you now the determiner of absolute moral standards?

Is your character so perfect that you can determine absolute morality for everyone else including God?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11080 Jan 23, 2013
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>You do realize that the ONLY people that make those "claims" are godbots just like you, don't you?
So what do you believe, as a rockbot, caused the universe to come into existance and also life to come into existance?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11081 Jan 23, 2013
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>LOL! My argument is based on the posts you supply and the willful ignorance displayed therein... hardly an argument from ignorance. But you can keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better
Your argument is essentially the same as Dawkins:

I am intellectually superior because I say "I don't know".

As if that lends you some moral supremacy...

But in reality, you are just saying you "do know", because you are precluding an answer in your presuppositions...

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#11082 Jan 23, 2013
Well at least we have proof for rocks automatically making it more feasible than your invisible sky wizard.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
It boggles the mind that people still believe that "arockdidit" or "nothingexploded" is literally true...
Your point being?
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#11083 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So what do you believe, as a rockbot, caused the universe to come into existance and also life to come into existance?
Not answering for others, but myself. I think that our beliefs should be based on decent evidence.

The best evidence we have at present is that the universe was created 13.7b ya in the big bang and that life evolved over the last 3.8 billion years.

The causes are unknown. But not good reason to assign supernatural entities to their creation.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11084 Jan 23, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Well at least we have proof for rocks automatically making it more feasible than your invisible sky wizard.
<quoted text>
What is your "proof"?

I think you are accussing faith with proof.

Do you have empirical evidence that rocks became life?

No?

Didn't think so.

So why is your atheistic worldview something you want to sell to others?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11085 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
Define "good" objectively.
The term is inherently subjective. "Good" in the context of rational ethics refers to what people want - what they say makes them happy. It is a consensus opinion, and may change with time, new information, and circumstances.
mtimber wrote:
So what is the basis?
What is the basis of rational ethics?

I used to be surprised whenever a Christian seemed unable to understand this. Apparently if someone has been involved in religion all of his life, where values are simply downloaded and accepted uncritically, he won't understand this, which becomes apparent whenever one ask us what stops us from wilding and berserking in the absence of a god belief.

To those who have had to come to their moral positions over a lifetime of rational thought and compassion, however, it's quite clear how this is done. We combine reason and compassion to set goals and attempt to achieve them. Here's how we do it in more detail:

People decide how they would like to live. Most want to be happy as they understand it, which means that they want what it takes to achieve that state. They want to feel safe, to have enough, to feel loved, to express themselves, and to have the opportunity to pursue those things that make them happy, and to experience self-respect and the respect of others.

That means having leisure time, good health, sufficient means, the wisdom to pursue worthy the goals, and the skills to achieve them. We've learned from our own lives and from reading about the past that most of us want those things.

So how do we get it? By being rational and compassionate. No universal values exist to be plucked out the air, so we need to determine them ourselves. We decide which values embody those goals - kindness, tolerance, freedom, peace, integrity, etc - and we attempt to create rules that embody them. Some of these rules are laws, such as 'don't kill or steal' and some are customs and traditions, such as sharing and cheerfulness.

To the extent that we fail to achieve our goals, whether because of choosing wrong goal or method, we tweak our process and see if we have improved total happiness or not. This is the empirical aspect of the process. It provides the evidence that we are right here or wrong there.

Prohibition of alcohol is a good illustration. The intentions were good, but the goal of criminalizing alcohol turned out to be paradoxically counterproductive, and actually increased the misery in the world. So, using reason and compassion, prohibition was lifted.

If rationalists had access to the American drug policy, which is clearly counterproductive, they would apply the lessons of the past to the War on Drugs and curtail it. Instead, a faith based approach to the War on Drugs prevails.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11086 Jan 23, 2013
It Aint Necessarily So wrote:
How much empathy are you looking for?
I'll tell you what: I promise to ALWAYS exceed your church's empathy for unbelievers. Here's some now :
[1] "The fool says in his heart,'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good" - Psalm 14:1
[2] "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." - Revelation 21:8 And the result of such hate speech is predictable:
I'm not sure that I buy into the expectation that unbelievers unilaterally show respect to Christians whose holy bible calls us fools, no good, corrupt, abominable, the moral equivalent of murderers and whoremongers, and fit for to me dropped conscious into a burning fire to suffer forever.

Wouldn't you agree that that is unreasonable to ask for our empathy?

If you consider those words holy, and authored by a perfectly loving and just god, then you've already gotten just about all of the empathy you deserve from unbelievers.
mtimber wrote:
Oh, so your absolute standard for defining your empathy is the Bible? Argument done...
Why so pissy? Because I told you that I would exceed your bible in empathy?

And who are you arguing with besides yourself? I never said any such thing. But you did. You seem to be agreeing that it wouldn't be very empathetic if I only matched the level of empathy in your bible. Is that correct?

And what is your obsession with "absolutism"? Life is often more nuanced than that.

And I guess that you had no comment then on those hateful little snippets from your bible? I guess that they don't really require any comment, do they?

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#11087 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
It boggles the mind that people still believe that "arockdidit" or "nothingexploded" is literally true...
Your point being?
That you're something of an idiot...

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#11088 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
A man and a woman alone on an island, the last survivors of humanity.
The only chance of extending the species is by procreation.
The man wants to, the woman doesn't.
The man therefore rapes the woman.
Is he wrong, according to your worldview?
Wow...you really hate women.

But, then, you're a religious nut job, so I guess it is to be expected....

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) 5 hr Dogen 81,862
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 10 hr Science 2,196
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 10 hr Science 33,086
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Oct 18 Eagle 12 - 3,978
News Atheist inmate wins right to practice his faith... (Aug '15) Oct 11 old_moose 233
News People's forum - Get off the fence of religious... (May '10) Oct 10 blacklagoon 3 94
Deconversion (Feb '17) Oct 10 Eagle 12 - 145
More from around the web