Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Apr 25, 2012 Full story: Psychology Today 23,199

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.

Full Story

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

Lexington, KY

#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

Nottingham, 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

Lexington, KY

#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.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11169 Jan 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
There you go, that is the issue in the Great Controversy.

Satan is a threat to the cohesion of the universe.

Humanity serves him.

God has to deal with that.

But first He gives man the opportunity to come over to Him.

Using your standard of morality, God is perfectly in His rights to judge mankind and issue punishment.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#11170 Jan 23, 2013
Jesus and Paul approved of slavery so that is your absolute standard of morality?
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
No...
Jesus pointed them out as the absolute standards of morality.
I am just sharing what the Son of God shared with humanity.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#11171 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have a rational response to make?
YOUR next will be your first.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11172 Jan 23, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Are you still trying the Eric Hovind argument? Sad!
Here's a better one demonstrate that your god is something more than your imagination.
<quoted text>
Are you claiming that Eric Hovind wrote the Bible?

That is where I draw my argument...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11173 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
In the context of the times, slavery was a preferred solution to outright destruction.
Shame on you for being an apologist for your god's defective morality.

Plus, it's a false dichotomy. Was an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly loving god able to offer any other options, like freedom, milk and honey?
mtimber wrote:
But as an atheist, I am still not sure why you have an issue with a society having a moral standard.
I don't have an issue about a society having a moral standard. I expect societies to have value systems.
mtimber wrote:
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.
Whatever.

I'm not clear what you're referring to any more, and you haven't stopped erecting straw men since you started.

Plus, I think I've said everything that I have to say twice. And I'm not expecting more from you than this kind of argumentation ad infinitum, so maybe we've exhausted this already.

Frankly, I couldn't even read this last part. You seem to be arguing with your straw man caricature of me and atheism.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#11174 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You're being evasive.

My question was not related to judgment of creation. There is a clear contradiction between your 2nd principal and what we find in the Old Testament.

Why?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#11175 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You cannot conceive of that which does not exist.
Of course you can. I can conceive of an absolute moral code that says that killing all children born on Mondays is good. Does that absolute moral exist?

I can conceive of a dragon living within my computer. Does that dragon exist?

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#11176 Jan 23, 2013
Fck you retard you lie badly! Really badly! You are stealing his absolute argument word for word retard!

How about you prove your retarded god exists?
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you claiming that Eric Hovind wrote the Bible?
That is where I draw my argument...

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#11177 Jan 23, 2013
Here you go retard! Why not just post this link and save yourself the time and humiliation?

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

Oops! Thought we hadn't seen this right?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah a!
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you claiming that Eric Hovind wrote the Bible?
That is where I draw my argument...

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#11178 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
No...
Jesus pointed them out as the absolute standards of morality.
I am just sharing what the Son of God shared with humanity.
No.

You're cherry-picking what you think is relevant.

I guess you've heard of "The Golden Rule"?

It's all about ethical goodness on a reciprocal basis and you'll see it manifested in numerous religions in many different words. Jesus mentions it in the NT although he was far from being the first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule

I'm sure you'll agree that wishing no harm or suffering on others is understandably a good thing. Yet harm is exactly what your god wishes on people and he expects his followers to obey him and break the Golden Rule.

Surely the merit of any religion isn't what you believe in but more about what you do? In other words, it's all about how you treat your fellow human beings. Extending the same treatment to other people that you would expect them to extend to you is undoubtedly the pinnacle of human ethical behaviour.

Also, if God/Allah/Brahma/Shiva/etc, really do exist, yet they insist that we humans must break the Golden Rule to get to Heaven; then they aren't worth thinking about.

Let's look at the god of the Bible: His main condition for us to get our pass for Heaven is not about treating our fellow humans decently and respectfully. Oh no, the Golden Rule doesn't matter to God. All that matters to him is that we love Jesus more than anyone else and with every fibre of our being.

You may like the idea of spending eternity with such a vain, egotistical, self-centred deity but not me.

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
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 18 min Rosa_Winkel 232,897
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 21 min Richardfs 2,274
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 13 hr Yiago 148
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 19 hr _Bad Company 141
Islam is the Enemy (Sep '12) 19 hr thetruth 34
God' existence 19 hr thetruth 67
Yes, atheists can be fundamentalists Fri Crazy Mess 1
More from around the web