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 (Page 520)

Showing posts 10,381 - 10,400 of21,369
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11052
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
It boggles the mind that people still believe this is literally true...
It boggles the mind that people still believe that "arockdidit" or "nothingexploded" is literally true...

Your point being?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11053
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>There is no such thing as an "atheistic religion"... but then you already know that. Your need to try and equate atheism to your religion is quite telling. BTW... as an atheist, I am perfectly comfortable in saying "I don't know" to something for which I have no real knowledge of. I don't feel the need to attribute things I don't know about to some 'god' and claiming it "truth". THAT is the purview of the overly religious and their deep seated need to feel "special". It must really suck to have to try and drag everything else down to your level in order to make yourself feel somehow superior. I can tell you really don't believe in your 'god' as much as you claim. If you did, lying to support your views would be something you'd be deathly afraid of since bearing false witness is one of the Top 10 no-no's
Amidst the ad hominem, I think I detect your main argument is "an argument from ignorance is always preferable"...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11054
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Pleasure is not the deciding factor, and pleasure for one at the expense of another is most definitely not a part of the humanist moral calculus.
So what is the basis?

Define "good" objectively.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11055
Jan 23, 2013
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Oh, so your absolute standard for defining your empathy is the Bible?

Argument done...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11056
Jan 23, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
As with many things in morality, the pleasure of one person is balanced by the harm done to another and the necessity of that harm. In this case, the harm done is severe, the necessity low. So the morality is clearly against rape.
On the other hand, there are many species where rape seems to be a necessary aspect of reproduction, so for those species (assuming such could become conscious, another requirement for morality), rape would be moral. For example, it would be moral for intelligent spiders to eat their mates.
So in the evolutionary requirement for reproduction, rape is okay?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11057
Jan 23, 2013
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would anybody believe that? That flood part describes a moronic and incompetent god. He allegedly was unhappy with mankind, which he was wholly responsible for, and whose future he could allegedly see before he built them.
When they turned out to be sinful as he knew they would be, he decided to nearly sterilize the earth with an impossible rainstorm that caused the miserable and terrifying torture of not just almost all men, but almost all life.
Can you picture the puppies and kitten seeking higher ground until there was no escape, and then, while in a state of sheer terror, have the water level cover their little noses and snuff the life out of them? He could have just "poofed" them away in the manner he created them, but he preferred this.
But wait - besides being senselessly cruel, it's a stupid plan doomed to failure.
To repair the problem, that god reseeded the earth using the exact same breeding stock - a drunk and his family.
Sorry, but that's just not plausible. It's all nonsense. There never was a Noah, nor an Eve, nor a Jehovah. And there is no such thing as sin, nor any need for redemption.
Your first premise is based on what?

The whole point of the bible is that man is in rebellion against God.

Are you arguing that your rebellion against him is His fault?

So you argue for a lack of self determination in life?

You don't believe you can choose anything and you are not responsible for anything because of that?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11058
Jan 23, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me put it this way: is the only reason you don't rape because you think that some big daddy in the sky says you shouldn't? If your answer is yes, then *please* keep believing in the big daddy in the sky. You have then shown yourself incapable of true moral judgment. If your answer is no, then you have shown that morality has nothing to do with the existence of deities.
Rape is wrong because it is contrary to Gods character.

You are an evolutionist how can you argue that rape is absolutely right or wrong?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11059
Jan 23, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Lmfao and are you so stupid you actually fell for this?
<quoted text>
Do you have a rational response to make?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11060
Jan 23, 2013
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
As you just saw, I'd have to sacrifice commonsense and common decency to join you and worship such a god.
<quoted text>
Your god is less moral than you or I, assuming that you would also never torture anybody.
No, you just have to sacrifice the lies you are hiding behind:

1. nothingexploded
2. arockdidit

Once you get past these false propositions, which are obviously illogical, you might be able to reason your way around morality etc.

Because whilst you are hiding behind them, you cannot account for logic, rationality, personal identity and indeed morality amongst others...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11061
Jan 23, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So in the evolutionary requirement for reproduction, rape is okay?
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.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11062
Jan 23, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Rape is wrong because it is contrary to Gods character.
You are an evolutionist how can you argue that rape is absolutely right or wrong?
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.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11063
Jan 23, 2013
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't.
How do you account for a god?
Exactly, you cannot account for the universe, life, mind, morality and individuality.

Because the only thing that accounts for them is the one thing you want to avoid above all others.

It is not about you cannot, it is will not.

But as you have now admitted you cannot account for much, upon what basis do you reject the absolute truth of christianity?

Do you want to present the idea there is something intellectually superior about arguing from a position of ignorance?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11064
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Rape is wrong because it is contrary to Gods character.
And if it were in God's character it would be right? No, in that case, God would be wrong.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11065
Jan 23, 2013
 
jacktheladat1 wrote:
<quoted text>What EVER other people do isn't the issue here. YOU insult my intelligence, therefore YOU SHOULD apologize. I couldn't care LESS what the bible agrees or disagrees, its a load of BS, so WHY should I? I base my worldview on real, not virtual, unlike you. WTF do you perpetually refer to absolute this/that/other? That's yet another words' meaning that eludes you. You're nothing more than someone trying his damnedest to mimic a uni don, whilst having failed to understand Enid Blyton.
So you think that as an atheist, you have the absolute moral authority to demand I apologise to you for offending your atheistic lack of moral absolutes?

And you then support that with an insult?

Really?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11066
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you mean by absolute? Do they transcend your god? If not, they're arbitrary, aren't they - the whim of a god?
Is it your hope that if you can append the qualifier "absolute" onto something, that it will then point to your god? It can't.
The most you can do with these types of arguments - the axiological argument, the ontological argument, etc.- is suggest the existence of "a god," not your god.
What if we cut to the chase and I stipulate to a god. OK. There was a creator god. I say that it's a god that has never communicated with us and has no demands of us. It does not ask to be worshiped or prayed at.
With such an understanding, my life would continue as before - no bibles, not praying, no worshiping, no churches, no priests, no tithing, etc.
And if that were the case - that there is a god that we don't know - America needs to divest itself of all of the Jesus stuff, such as the scapegoating and persecuting of atheists and gays that Jesus seems to require. The real god might not approve.
Furthermore, the real god hasn't given you permission to your currency as religious tracts, or to call it "God," so I'd suggest that you remove that word from the money. And the Pledge. And the courthouse walls.
Are you good with that, or do you need this god to be Jehovah-Jesus? If so, perhaps you should skip all of this "absolute laws of logic" stuff and present your argument that that god must be Jehovah-Jesus. How are you planning to do that?
At last after several days, an attempt at a rational argument!

Someone, hopefully, beginning to understand the implications of this discussion...

Only one God, revealed to man does indeed answer all the questions.

An impersonal distant God does not fulfill the requirements for the source of intelligibility, especially in the field of morality.

Only an Absolute God, who prescribes morality, who communicates that personally and introduces Himself fulfills that model.

So your model, the denial of the person of God as revealed in Christ, does not work because it fails to account for ALL preconditions of intelligibility...

It cannot account for morality, or the problem of immorality...

So where does your argument go from here?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11067
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong for what? You need to state a purpose. If your purpose is to maximize satisfaction in a community, then yes, it is wrong.
<quoted text>
Because rape doesn't serve that purpose, and shouldn't be tolerated.
You seem to consider these posers. This stuff isn't as difficult for me as it seems to be for you. But I suspect that is because of what is likely our different upbringings, our differing philosophies, and our different life paths since then. Rational ethics is really not that hard, but you have to learn how to do it. I don't see where a theist would have the opportunity to learn, given your metaphysics.
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?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11068
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11069
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11070
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11071
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 10,381 - 10,400 of21,369
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••