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

#11149 Jan 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeppers. I just acknowledged that rape could be a moral good, albeit only in a very contrived hypothetical situation, as when you one winds up with Abstinence Only Alice in some post-apocalyptic scenario in which the fate of the species depends on her fertilization. You need to just take that woman.
Here's worse: if the child were a girl, and you had good reason to believe that the mother will commit filicide if she get s the chance, you need to stop her even if that means murdering her.
Shocked? Don't be. Ethics are situational. Even very dearly held values such as to not rape or murder can be trumped by higher ones. such as don't let the human race go extinct.
It is clear that you allow that rape is appropriate given the right circumstances.

Of course, you are driven to this absurd conclusion, rather than jettisoning your bankrupt worldview founded on illogical and contradictory premises.

And this by itself should be warning enough to you.

But there is no absurdity you will not go to in your pursuit of the denial of God.

And the longer you debate on this, the more this will become apparent to any rational person, not completely hung up on their presupposition that God is not allowed to exist...

I am just warning you ahead of time so you can spare yourself further embarrassment..

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#11150 Jan 23, 2013
Ah ad Homs and strawman argument. Have you seem waterboy with Adam Sandler? You sound like his mom.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
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...

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#11151 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you will find the principle of "first cause" is quite well known in physics and accepted by most of the scientific mainstream community.
Time, energy and matter all had a cause.
And that cause by basic logical inference must be outside of time, energy and matter...
Otherwise that would need a cause...
Do you not understand that?
I assume you do not, if you think it is nonsense.
No. "First cause" is a failed theological argument also know as the "cosmological argument" as defined by Aquinas (or the Kalam variant).

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11152 Jan 23, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you accept everything the Bible says?
Or just the bits you want to accept?
You are asking the wrong question.

You are really asking this:

Do you accept my extreme interpretation of the Bible, unaided by the Holy Spirit, and prejudiced by my extreme antagonism towards God?

I think you know what my answer to that will be...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11153 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
You just stated that your absolute standard of morality is social convention.
Not exactly. I wish that you would not make me correct the word "absolute" in every other post. I haven't identified an absolute standard of morality in myself or the universe.
mtimber wrote:
You have now stated that you have a superior moral standard to those in the bible.
That's not so much me bragging as rejecting your bible's moral positions. Most people I know have superior moral standards to those embodied by the words and deeds of the Christian god.
mtimber wrote:
What is the absolute standard? Social convention, or you?
I have no absolute standard.

My relative standard is what I presently judge to be the means for attaining my present desires, which are consistent with the standards of the culture at large. I don't want to do anything that they don't want me to do. There is no conflict.

What you might not know or believe is that you can bet your life that I will always do the right thing by you as I and many other people judge it, and that many other people are just like me.

That is, although many Christians seem to be unaware that it is the case, you actually can trust a community of educated and morally trained humanists to mostly do the right thing most of the time relative to any competing system such as Christian communities.

In fact, I'd say that a nation of humanists would have rejected Hitler and Bush both, something Christian nations didn't quite manage.

I don't expect you to accept that.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11154 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
You need to make up your mind, as your arguments are inconsistent and irrational..
I think that they're your arguments that you're attributing to me.
mtimber wrote:
How do you reconcile this obvious logical contradiction?
The conflict between relative and absolute? I reconcile it by identifying that the absolute part is yours - part of your straw man - and showing that without it, there is no contradiction.

It was only an obvious (apparent) contradiction to you because you seem to be unable to conceive of ethics without absolutism.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11155 Jan 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I suspect that your destination is to reveal that my worldview rest on no less shaky and arbitrary a house of cards than does yours. I have considered it, and there is some validity to the position, but only partially. We're back to existential assumptions again.
In the end, we know no more than Descartes did - himself as a conscious agent in the theater of his own mind, experiencing a panorama of phenomena including an awareness of himself experiencing himself. The rest is less certain.
But even if I knew for a fact that this was all a matrix reality,what better choice do I have than to play the game according to the apparent rules.
No my destination is to reveal the only worldview to you that is actually logically sound and accountable.

But the problem you have, is that you live in a house that is full of idols that you like.

And the house I live in is bereft of your idols.

So you look at my house and you turn from it in disdain.

To which I point you to your foundations and show you they are built on shifting sand.

And then I show that mine are built on the Rock.

But the problem is, you are not really interested in looking at your foundations, but rather defending them.

But as much as you defend them, they are shifting sand, and they will change and adapt to whatever your will dictates.

Unless you are willing to accept that your will is not the absolute standard of truth and reality, then you will always be busy building sand castles, which are easy to kick over.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11156 Jan 23, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. We all know that if you thought your god was telling you to slit the throat of the little girl next door, you'd do it without question.
Do you?

Wow, how did you come to that particular absolute statement of truth?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11157 Jan 23, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
How does one apply standard 2 to the Old Testament, where God commands his people to commit atrocities and gives them brutal laws that are utterly lacking in compassion, empathy, or mercy?
The basis of your question, is that you seem to refute Gods right to judge His creation and all that is in it.

Do you live in a society, where there are consequences to your actions?

Do you accept that is a rational society?

If you do, then you have answered your question here.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11158 Jan 23, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Lmfao whoosh that went way over the retard's head didn't it?
Nobody is selling anything retard! We don't need to even try! You keep coming to the atheism forums so you must love it!
You forsake the Christian threads to bow at our feet.
<quoted text>
I am sorry, I didn't see the "atheists club" sign.

Would you point that out to me?

I was under the misguided assumption that this was a discussion about atheism and religion.

But if this was just a thread for you all to back slap each other and tell each other what wonderful atheists you all are and how dumb everyone else is, I apologise for my intrusion.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11159 Jan 23, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
I see.
So you've extracted these two moral standards from the Bible as being the ones that count?
No...

Jesus pointed them out as the absolute standards of morality.

I am just sharing what the Son of God shared with humanity.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11160 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
If morality is a social convention, and God and the rest of the universe decided man was immoral to the point of near hopelessness, would it be immoral for God to destroy mankind?
What? If man was a threat to the universe, the universe would have the moral right to neutralize the threat. I doubt that destruction of man would necessary for gods.

And if a gods existed, morality by social convention might not be feasible. It would depend on the gods.

Why make this weird? We're just trying to make the best lives we can for as many of us as we can.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11161 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
According to your own argument, it would not be immoral, as the great.er society took action against the lesser society, so why are you condemning the flood?
No, it wouldn't necessarily be immoral. But it would be necessary that man be a credible threat to them or the universe, and that nothing less than destruction would suffice in order for the destruction of mankind to be a moral choice by my reckoning.

Regarding the flood, it wasn't the destruction of man that was my main criticism. The flood as described involved gratuitous cruelty to effect a hare brained plan that was known to be inadequate in advance. Is that enough reason to condemn it?

As for killing everything, there are better ways for omnipotent gods to correct their errors. Of course, perfect gods don't make errors, do they?
mtimber wrote:
You are not being consistent with your own professed worldview.
I think I am.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11162 Jan 23, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Ah ad Homs and strawman argument. Have you seem waterboy with Adam Sandler? You sound like his mom.
<quoted text>
He says with ad hominem soaking every word...

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#11163 Jan 23, 2013
Are you still trying the Eric Hovind argument? Sad!

Here's a better one demonstrate that your god is something more than your imagination.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
No my destination is to reveal the only worldview to you that is actually logically sound and accountable.
But the problem you have, is that you live in a house that is full of idols that you like.
And the house I live in is bereft of your idols.
So you look at my house and you turn from it in disdain.
To which I point you to your foundations and show you they are built on shifting sand.
And then I show that mine are built on the Rock.
But the problem is, you are not really interested in looking at your foundations, but rather defending them.
But as much as you defend them, they are shifting sand, and they will change and adapt to whatever your will dictates.
Unless you are willing to accept that your will is not the absolute standard of truth and reality, then you will always be busy building sand castles, which are easy to kick over.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11164 Jan 23, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
No. "First cause" is a failed theological argument also know as the "cosmological argument" as defined by Aquinas (or the Kalam variant).
It is not failed by any means.

As the second law of thermodynamics reveals.

You can reject that if you want to, but you will find that it carries on regardless of your adherence to it or not...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11165 Jan 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Not exactly. I wish that you would not make me correct the word "absolute" in every other post. I haven't identified an absolute standard of morality in myself or the universe.
<quoted text>
That's not so much me bragging as rejecting your bible's moral positions. Most people I know have superior moral standards to those embodied by the words and deeds of the Christian god.
<quoted text>
I have no absolute standard.
My relative standard is what I presently judge to be the means for attaining my present desires, which are consistent with the standards of the culture at large. I don't want to do anything that they don't want me to do. There is no conflict.
What you might not know or believe is that you can bet your life that I will always do the right thing by you as I and many other people judge it, and that many other people are just like me.
That is, although many Christians seem to be unaware that it is the case, you actually can trust a community of educated and morally trained humanists to mostly do the right thing most of the time relative to any competing system such as Christian communities.
In fact, I'd say that a nation of humanists would have rejected Hitler and Bush both, something Christian nations didn't quite manage.
I don't expect you to accept that.
I applaud you for adopting the second great absolute moral standard that God decreed:

Love thy neighbour as thyself.

Now if you will just adopt the first, most of your irrationality, which results from you rejection of it, will disappear:

Love the Lord thy God will all thy heart, all thy mind, all thy strength and all they soul.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#11166 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you?
Wow, how did you come to that particular absolute statement of truth?
It's plainly obvious.

You've spent the past few days telling us how wonderful and absolute your god is and that whatever he says/does is to be obeyed without question.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11167 Jan 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that they're your arguments that you're attributing to me.
<quoted text>
The conflict between relative and absolute? I reconcile it by identifying that the absolute part is yours - part of your straw man - and showing that without it, there is no contradiction.
It was only an obvious (apparent) contradiction to you because you seem to be unable to conceive of ethics without absolutism.
You cannot conceive of that which does not exist.

Unless you want to come to the place where rape is permissible and so is every other crime known to man, if expediency demands it...

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#11168 Jan 23, 2013
Atheism forum clear for all to see. All you are presenting is the tired old stale Eric Hovind arguments and what you stole from other how to debate an atheist sites. Sorry but it has been done dozens of times before. All you have presented is logical fallacies and ad hom attacks.

You also seem to think bashing science somehow proves a god? Wtf? Even if science was incorrect about everything which not even your lord Hovind would say, that still doesn't mean we would automatically jump to some supernatural cause being responsible.

Again you are worried some invisible sky wizard will doom you to hell yet you can't demonstrate that said sky wizard even exists!

Lmfao!

You want to debate religion and atheism fine. Start with why anyone should believe in your god.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I am sorry, I didn't see the "atheists club" sign.
Would you point that out to me?
I was under the misguided assumption that this was a discussion about atheism and religion.
But if this was just a thread for you all to back slap each other and tell each other what wonderful atheists you all are and how dumb everyone else is, I apologise for my intrusion.

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