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
10,421 - 10,440 of 21,382 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11098
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
Where did you get that I think that your god exists or that I am rebelling against it?
From God, through the Bible.

And as God cannot be wrong, I have to accept His opinion over yours.

I hope you don't mind me being consistent with my worldview?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11099
Jan 23, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
Rape is wrong because it is contrary to Gods character.
Which god? Certainly you don't mean Jehovah. He sanctions rape, often preceded by genocide.

"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you." - Deut 20:10-14

And didn't Jehovah impregnate a minor?
mtimber wrote:
You are an evolutionist how can you argue that rape is absolutely right or wrong?
There's your absolutism again.

That may fly in authoritarian ethical systems based in alleged divine revelation, but you need to drop that in a discussion of rational ethics. It's not apart of the philosophy or the process.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11100
Jan 23, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Following your reasoning then you must also oppose abortion then?
As the harm to the baby far outweighs the harm to the mother?
A fetus is not a moral agent.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11101
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
If a deity supports rape and murder of humans, then that deity is not moral. if that isn't clear to you, then there is something wrong with your morality.
Henry

Gräfentonna, Germany

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11102
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

mtimber wrote:
<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?
Atheists don`t have to "sell" anything to people, because any religions are myths or worse. Faith is of course phantasm! I don`t have any empirical evidence about rocks. Science may have an answer!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11103
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

mtimber wrote:
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.
Those aren't my claims. Frankly, I've never seen those claims except from Christian apologists, although I've seen that many times:

[1] KJV wrote: "So where did life come from if not from rain falling rocks?"
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/T9260G2B6...

[2] RiversideRedneck wrote: "Truer than it "poofed" from nothingness.(or is it those rocks that started all life?)"
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE...

[3] lightbeamrider wrote; "A rock produced a frog? No intelligence involved?"
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TU9NRDA...

[4] Colin the Zionist wrote: "So there we have a kind of an answer, the "primordial soup" so it rains on the rocks and out sprang life."
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/TSQMQC5MFMPD...

[5] Jesse wrote: " i have been through many years of college and still believe in intelligent design through irreducible complexity oppossed to the idea that all life came from a rock"
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TVP...

[6] George wrote: "No, the burden of proof is on you to prove that man was created from rocks"
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/utica-ny/T828...

This is obviously some meme generated by a Christian source that has been rattling around the echo chamber for years now. And as you can see, it is only Christians making the claim.

Science says that life probably arose from a primordial soup. containing not just minerals, but other elements and molecules, including organic molecules. Rocks have nothing to do with it apart from serving as a source of some mineral elements after their erosion.

========

Regarding the Bag Bang, there is no "nothing" and no "explosion." There is a singularity and it expands. It's origin is unknown,but an eternal multiverse from which it may have budded is a very good hypothesis with some support already.
mtimber wrote:
Because whilst you are hiding behind them, you cannot account for logic, rationality, personal identity and indeed morality amongst others...
I cannot account for logic/rationality. Evolution accounts for the rest, and for the reasoning faculty.

Did you think that the default position for such a state of affairs is a god belief? I can't account for a god, either. Neither can you.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11104
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

mtimber wrote:
How do you account for logic in an atheistic universe?
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I can't. How do you account for a god?
mtimber wrote:
Exactly, you cannot account for the universe, life, mind, morality and individuality.
You went a little further than I did. We have working hypotheses for all of the above. But I have no idea why the world appears rational.
mtimber wrote:
Because the only thing that accounts for them is the one thing you want to avoid above all others.
Special pleading.

You evaded my question: How do you account for a god? How could one possibly exist?
mtimber wrote:
But as you have now admitted you cannot account for much
No, you admitted that for me.
mtimber wrote:
upon what basis do you reject the absolute truth of christianity?
Its bible. It refutes itself and the claim that it was authored by a perfect deity, which it calls perfect, but describes as imperfect, and does so imperfectly.

Also, its creation myth is wrong. That pretty much rules it out right there.
mtimber wrote:
Do you want to present the idea there is something intellectually superior about arguing from a position of ignorance?
When the answers are unknown, there is no more honest position than to admit ignorance, and there is no argument nor any more intellectually superior position possible until more is known.

Do you want to argue that there is something superior about asserting that faith based claims are facts?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11105
Jan 23, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
At last after several days, an attempt at a rational argument! Someone, hopefully, beginning to understand the implications of this discussion...
Please don't patronize me. You're hardly in a position to be the arbiter of what is rational. Your thought is faith based.
mtimber wrote:
Only one God, revealed to man does indeed answer all the questions.
Disagree. All god hypotheses create a more intractable problem than they solve. They leave a god to be accounted for.

What is the least likely thing to exist uncreated? I'll give you a multiple choice:

[a] A singularity
[b] A multiverse
[c] A biological cell
[d] an sui generis, infinite, immortal, sentient, volitional, omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly moral being

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11106
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

mtimber wrote:
An impersonal distant God does not fulfill the requirements for the source of intelligibility, especially in the field of morality.
Why not?
mtimber wrote:
Only an Absolute God, who prescribes morality, who communicates that personally and introduces Himself fulfills that model.
How did you arrive at that conclusion? Faith?
mtimber wrote:
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...
Not for me.

And as I said, your "solution" creates more metaphysical problems than it solves.
mtimber wrote:
It cannot account for morality, or the problem of immorality...
Biological evolution accounts for the existence of the conscience, and cultural evolution accounts for specific human moral codes.
mtimber wrote:
So where does your argument go from here?
Disneyland!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11107
Jan 23, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
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?
No.

He would be wrong to let her end the human race. Assuming that she is not known to be infertile, if he can't convince her or seduce her, he must rape her.

This really isn't hard.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11108
Jan 23, 2013
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
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.
mtimber wrote:
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.
OK. Good luck with that.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11109
Jan 23, 2013
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Which god? Certainly you don't mean Jehovah. He sanctions rape, often preceded by genocide.
"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you." - Deut 20:10-14
And didn't Jehovah impregnate a minor?
<quoted text>
There's your absolutism again.
That may fly in authoritarian ethical systems based in alleged divine revelation, but you need to drop that in a discussion of rational ethics. It's not apart of the philosophy or the process.
In the context of the times, slavery was a preferred solution to outright destruction.

But as an atheist, I am still not sure why you have an issue with a society having a moral standard.

According to your own worldview, they are consistently following the morality of their own society.

I am not sure why you have a problem with this?

Unless you are not actually being consistent with your own worldview?

What is wrong with this, from your own perspective?

Nothing.

Because you cannot condemn a society that practices a morality if you truly do believe society sets morality.

The only thing I can think, is that you do not actually really believe that societies set morality, but ascribe to an absolute standard.

But knowing where that will lead, you deny it with your arguments, but pronounce it with your judgments...

That is called hypocrisy.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11110
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
A fetus is not a moral agent.
I do not agree with that.

But let me ask you a couple of questions based on this argument you want to present:

1. Is a dog a moral agent?

If not, is it wrong to just shoot a dog if it suits your lifestyle to do so?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11111
Jan 23, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
If a deity supports rape and murder of humans, then that deity is not moral. if that isn't clear to you, then there is something wrong with your morality.
Yes, I know that you hold that you are the sole arbiter of absolute morality, by the answer you have supplied here.

But how did you come to that conclusion, what is the absolute standard you appeal to, to confirm your own omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and eternal right to define morality?

Is it your character?

Is it the fact you can speak?

What gives you the right to make any absolute moral judgement over another, including God?
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11112
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

god's so sh!t he can't even defeat iron chariots.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
From God, through the Bible.
And as God cannot be wrong, I have to accept His opinion over yours.
I hope you don't mind me being consistent with my worldview?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11113
Jan 23, 2013
 
Henry wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheists don`t have to "sell" anything to people, because any religions are myths or worse. Faith is of course phantasm! I don`t have any empirical evidence about rocks. Science may have an answer!
Then I applaud your faith Henry...
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11114
Jan 23, 2013
 
?
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not agree with that.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11115
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Does not a widespread belief in a particular worldview, that cannot be proven empirically, constitute a religion?
No.

Nothing needs to be proven,just supported by more evidence than competing hypotheses. The worldview with the most evidential support is the best one. It is to be held tentatively, pending contradictory evidence.

My most basic assumption after existential assumptions - that I exist, that there is word to perceive outside of mind, that it contains other minds, etc.- is that of rational skepticism: that nothing should be believed without evidence.

And that position is supported by evidence: the success of the assumption. When we have depended on faith, we had theocracies and alchemy. When we removed faith from these areas and substituted reason and skepticism, we produced the modern liberal, secular democratic state and chemistry.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11116
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

It aint necessarily so wrote:
Science says that life probably arose from a primordial soup. containing not just minerals, but other elements and molecules, including organic molecules. Rocks have nothing to do with it apart from serving as a source of some mineral elements after their erosion.
========
Regarding the Bag Bang, there is no "nothing" and no "explosion." There is a singularity and it expands. It's origin is unknown,but an eternal multiverse from which it may have budded is a very good hypothesis with some support already.
<quoted text>
I cannot account for logic/rationality. Evolution accounts for the rest, and for the reasoning faculty.
Did you think that the default position for such a state of affairs is a god belief? I can't account for a god, either. Neither can you.
So lets recap.

1. Science speaks.
2. A rock and its buddies created life probably.
3. A singularity, which cannot be accounted for, but probably came from a multiverse which has never been observed, is responsible, probably.
4. Rationality and logic have no rational explanation in your universe and cannot be accounted for.

And you think to condemn a worldview that answers all of these question succinct and completely?

You have faith, that you are right about stuff you are not even sure about, and yet you think to condemn christianity as irrational?

Come on.

You are reduced to absurdity, because you have to deny the First Cause that is logically obviously required...

I could not invent a more ludicrous and illogical worldview...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11117
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>ahhh yes... typical pigeon chess master
Bobby Fisher of Men

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

14 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Our world came from nothing? 8 min Patrick 186
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 15 min Buck Crick 224,039
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 1 hr Patrick 832
The numbers are in: America still distrusts ath... 1 hr Patrick 16
Of Interest InTheNews 1 hr Patrick 3
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 1 hr Patrick 359
Atheism Destroyed At Last! - The Debate Of The ... 22 hr Patrick 1,285
•••
•••