Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

There are 23869 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.

“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...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11198 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>
Oh, so now you think Sye proposed this argument originally?

Okay, if you really want to believe that, then knock yourself out.

You might also want to check out Greg Bahnsen, Van Till and a few others that presented this ontological argument.

But of course, you might pause to notice that they all quote the same bible passages as their foundation.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11199 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
So rape is acceptable.
Yes, rape is acceptable under the circumstances described.
mtimber wrote:
You have just proven the rational conclusion that atheism must go to. Case closed.
What constitutes proof to you is not even persuasive to me.

But before you close the case, and since rape is such an "absolute" deal killer for you, perhaps you can go back and address my questions about your god commanding rape in Deuteronomy and committing rape in the New Testament that you seem to have overlooked at http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11200 Jan 23, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You have missed the fact that there are two aspects and not one.

Love God.

Love your neighbour.

Now as God is in fact the Creator, then of course He is the originator.

But your prejudiced worldview will suppress the obvious, just so you can carry on being wrong as long as you want.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11201 Jan 23, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice dodge, bro.
It is not a dodge.

If you want me to respond to a point you make, you must provide a rational basis for that point and actually address the point I made and not a strawman that I did not make.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#11202 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
No I am not being evasive, you didn't understand my point.:-)
Your 'point' was not relevant to my argument.
mtimber wrote:
You see, you seem to have the idea that love precludes judgement.
No, I do not.
mtimber wrote:
You see God performing judgement and you assume it is unloving.
Only some of the atrocities found in the Bible are related to judgment. For instance, God demands genocide of the Canaanites. You could perceive this as a form of judgment, though explaining how Canaanite children, who are younger than the age of accountability, is a problem.

Atrocities within the laws would include the idea that a rapist should marry his victim. Any person with the slightest amount of empathy would see that this is further punishment for the victim; an excellent example of not loving thy neighbor.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11203 Jan 23, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
So now, you are trying to demand I back up a claim I never made.

Next you will be asking me to tell you what he had for breakfast this morning...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11204 Jan 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
I'm sure that's true, or I'd have seen it.
Your argument rests on arbitrary claims, what is absurd about a worldview that accounts for morality, logic, rationality, science and the meaning of life?

You do not accept that, not because it is false, but because it contains something that you have pre-determined to reject and that is your accountability to God.

Because of your worldview and presuppositions, you can never really come to the evidence and comprehend.

Because basically, you don't really want to...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11205 Jan 23, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
Your house is bringing down the value of the rest of the neighborhood...
No, your house is bringing down the value of the rest of the neighbourhood.

Do you see how arbitrary claims work?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11206 Jan 23, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no such self-attesting fact...

...Yes,*certainty* is impossible,
Are you certain about that?

;-)

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11207 Jan 23, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
So what you are saying is that it is impossible to know anything absolutely?

If that is true, how can you deny Gods existence absolutely?

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#11208 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is condoning rape wrong?
If it promulgates the survival of the strongest physical specimen?
I don't understand why you are arguing against atheistic doctrine?
HOW does rape promulgate the survival of the Blue Whale? Really!

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) 3 min Aura Mytha 34,950
News The Atheist Delusion': Ray Comfort's Masterpiece 51 min thetruth 77
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr thetruth 20,068
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 1 hr ChristineM 3,703
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr thetruth 14,933
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 2 hr thetruth 5,605
News How 'new atheists' are just as dangerous as the... 2 hr thetruth 137
More from around the web