Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Apr 25, 2012 Full story: Psychology Today 23,072

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: 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.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#11179 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You have either not understood the argument, or are willfully ignorant of it.
Either way, your misrepresentation is to be rejected as such.
Nice dodge, bro.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#11180 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So people do not communicate who they are and what they believe through language?
If that is true, isn't your current engagement with this forum a little futile?
Nice dodge, bro.

Point to the chapter and verse of the bible that predicts "exactly" the behavior of the specific poster to whom you were speaking.

We'll wait.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11181 Jan 23, 2013
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...
We've been down this road already.

I reject your worldview because it is absurd. Your bible is self-refuting, meaning that it is inauthentic - not the word of a deity - and that therefore the god described in it is mythological, the religion based on it is false including its moral code, and the church that deploys it to its own benefit is fraudulent.

And you continually mischaracterize my worldview. It's not interesting for me. I really only am willing to explain myself to you and not much more. I think that I have done that.
mtimber wrote:
I could not invent a more ludicrous and illogical worldview...
I'm sure that's true, or I'd have seen it.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#11182 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
Yes, the same answer you always give...a dodge.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#11183 Jan 23, 2013
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.
Your house is bringing down the value of the rest of the neighborhood...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11184 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You do not understand the principle of presuppositions and that all worldviews have them.
An absolute truth is self attesting.
By the fact that all of knowledge, both phsyical and transcendentant will attest to it, if it is in fact absolutely true...
If you do not subscribe to that, then knowledge is impossible and you cannot know anything.
There is no such self-attesting fact. But I disagree that this means that knowledge is then impossible. Yes,*certainty* is impossible, but *knowledge* is possible through testing. We cannot have absolute certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow or that things will fall due to gravity, but with enough testing, we can have a high degree of confidence. From a strict solipsistic viewpoint, we cannot even know that *we* are the ones thinking our thoughts. But it is a reasonable assumption for further work.

So, if we do a test 1000 times (assuming our memory is reliable-a definite assumption) and the result comes up the same way each time, is it *reasonable* to guess it will come up the same way next time? The answer is *yes*, even though it is not certain.

What we *can* do is show some general principles are *false*. All we need is one counter-example to show a general principle is false. So, we do testing and eliminate all the principles that fail some test, keeping those (provisionally) that have passed every test so far. We also attempt to design tests that will show the principles we have so far are wrong. That way, if they still pass the tests, we have even more confidence in them.

Guess what? By making guesses, subjecting them to tests, keeping only those that pass, and attempting to find tests where the principles fail, you are doing science.

This also suggests that any general principle about the real world that cannot be tested, or that doesn't have a test that could, theoretically, show it wrong is not a principle worth worrying about. If NOTHING can show the principle wrong, even in theory, that principle carries no information and can be dispensed with.

So, by this method, we go from a lack of knowledge to provisional knowledge backed up by observation and testing. We also eliminate all the worthless stuff that leads to much discussion but no conclusions.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11185 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
I will bet that you cannot state the second law of thermodynamics accurately without the use of the term 'entropy'. I would also bet that you cannot state how that principle is affected by curved spacetime.

No wikipedia, please.:)

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11186 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
The answers aren't unknown, they have been revealed to both of us by the God that communicates to both of us.
Unshared premise.

No god has revealed itself to me.
mtimber wrote:
To claim ignorance as a defense, would only be acceptable if you was not reduced to such glaring inconsistencies in your worldview as you have revealed over and over.
Another unshared premise. My position appears consistent to me.

And I am not defending anything when I say, "I don't know"
mtimber wrote:
Then you go on to deny faith, whilst publicly ascribing to it! When you say you "hope" that the universe came from other multiverses, then you are engaging in faith.
Actually, I didn't say that.

But even if I did, hope is not faith, notwithstanding your bible's contrary claim.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11187 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
You have no empirical evidence for that [a multiverse hypothesis].
I think that there is a little, but I'll stipulate to your point, as the hypothesis is still highly speculative.

So what? Do you want me to abandon it and accept a god hypothesis? Even if none of the competing origins hypothesis has any evidence, the god hypothesis goes at the bottom of the list. Occam puts it there. A god is the least parsimonious of all of the competing hypotheses.
mtimber wrote:
It is about time you faced up to this and started to be intellectually honest with your arguments and conclusions. Your inconsistencies and contradictions betray the truth of the matter, which both you and I know.
No, we don't.

I think you've gone off into the woods by yourself on this one.
mtimber wrote:
You know of God and will do anything to suppress that knowledge so that you are only accountable to yourself.
You can't even conceive that I might be telling the truth, can you? You can't imagine conscious thought without a god belief. Well, you're wrong.
mtimber wrote:
Denying God, does not remove your accountability to Him...
Another unshared premise. That's mythology to me.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#11188 Jan 23, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
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!
<quoted text>
Give him a break... he's a practicing religious douche. 250 more posts and he gets upgraded from a plain water douche to a holy water douche. 1500 more and he can add vinegar!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11189 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
The problem you have, is that conclusion obviously brings us to God, which you do not like.
"I had no need of that hypothesis"

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11190 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.
Really? I have never seen it mentioned in any of my graduate level physics classes. Nor in any chemistry classes. I *have* seen it claimed in *philosophy* classes, but those are not science.
Time, energy and matter all had a cause.
Time certainly did NOT have a cause, because causality is based on the concept of time. I do not know whether matter and energy had initial causes. probably not, but this is still an open question.
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.
Yes, I understand the claim and I do think it is nonsense. Time cannot be caused by the nature of causality.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11191 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
You have no evidence!
You have:
1. amultiversedidit
2. arockandhisbuddiesdidit
3. wedontknowwhatdidit.
Where is your empirical evidence to support your assertions?
You are flying on blind faith, that is painfully obvious.
But did you know, that you are duty bound, to continue to deny the plausible, so that you can continue believing the implausible?
Redundant. You've said it all, and I've rejected it. Please don't keep repeating yourself.
mtimber wrote:
The Bible predicts your behaviour exactly...
That's a little more interesting. Go on.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#11192 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
YOU led with insult. WHAT convinces your pathetic excuse for logic I shouldn't follow suit?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11193 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
So why do you believe a multiverse did it?
I don't.

But it seems plausible. Something it would seem needs to be self-created or eternal, and the multiverse option answers the fine-tuning objection with minimal abuse of Occam.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11194 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
Moral absolute standards are the absolute moral standard that you define morality by.
Tautology.
mtimber wrote:
And those standards are defined in the Bible:
1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, all your strength and all your soul.
2. Love thy neighbour as thyself.
What makes these absolute?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11195 Jan 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Shame on you for being an apologist for your god's defective morality.
Hey, you approve rape in certain situations, I don't think you should be any judge of morality...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11196 Jan 23, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
No I am not being evasive, you didn't understand my point.:-)

You see, you seem to have the idea that love precludes judgement.

You see God performing judgement and you assume it is unloving.

I wondered how you came to that faulty conclusion or indeed how you justify it?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11197 Jan 23, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
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?
<quoted text>
Oh dear.

I think you will find that it was Jesus, Moses, Solomon and Paul who lay down the basis of this argument.

But hey, if you want to believe Eric Hovind was the source of it, then you are an atheist, you can believe any nonsense you want to...

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) 17 min River Tam 232,038
God' existence 40 min Willy2Willy 2
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 11 hr tha Professor 1,051
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 19 hr Morse 30
Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) Thu Ooogah Boogah 14,456
Young atheists: The political leaders of tomorrow Thu thetruth 6
Why Christians should stick up for atheists Thu thetruth 8

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE