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
10,521 - 10,540 of 21,498 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

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!

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11209 Jan 23, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.:)
I don't need to, plenty of able physicists have expounded on it enough for it to be generally accepted that it is a fundamental law of the universe...

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#11210 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, you approve rape in certain situations, I don't think you should be any judge of morality...
What is your reaction the events in the OT in which

1) God commands the Israelites, after defeating foreign nations, to kill the men and take their women as wives. Surely no one could reasonably believe that women would consent to marrying their husband's murderers, so the consummation of such marriages would surely be rape.

2) God commands that rapists, as punishment, must marry their victims. Again, we can be sure that no women would reasonably want to marry her attacker, so any subsequent sexual encounters would also be rape.

In both instances, God's commands result in approved sexual assaults.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11211 Jan 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Unshared premise.
No god has revealed itself to me.
<quoted text>
Another unshared premise. My position appears consistent to me.
And I am not defending anything when I say, "I don't know"
<quoted text>
Actually, I didn't say that.
But even if I did, hope is not faith, notwithstanding your bible's contrary claim.
Thats the point.

It does not matter whether you confess it or not.

God has revealed Himself to you.

But you suppress that truth in unrighteousness.

If you persist long enough, God will hand you over to the reprobate reasoning that you want to hold onto and you will suffer the consequences of your own choices.

Remember, the Bible is the basis for my worldview.

You are an atheist that cannot account for the most basic transcendental arguments in philosophy, why would I reject the basis of my worldview and believe you instead?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11212 Jan 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
No, we don't.
I think you've gone off into the woods by yourself on this one.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
Another unshared premise. That's mythology to me.
The existance of God, is a conclusion the universe demands logically.

The pot has the Potters fingerprints all over it...

As much as you try to explain them away by claiming "arockandhisbuddiesdidit ".

The fingerprints, if examined, clearly reveal the Potter.

You just don't really want to examine the evidence.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11213 Jan 23, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
Yes, I understand the claim and I do think it is nonsense. Time cannot be caused by the nature of causality.
So time existed before matter and energy existed?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11214 Jan 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Redundant. You've said it all, and I've rejected it. Please don't keep repeating yourself.
<quoted text>
That's a little more interesting. Go on.
In Eden, Eve was offered the opportunity to reason apart from God.

Foolishly, she decided that that was desirable.

Since then, man has been wise in his own eyes, setting himself up as being able to reason apart from God.

To reason above God.

It is this condition, that you are displaying.

You want to reason apart from God, to sit in judgment on God.

This theme is spread throughout the Bible and is the essence of the sinful nature.

A created being, who fancies himself more powerful than the Creator and thinks he can sit in judgment of the Creator.

Because of that, your reasoning is separated from Gods reasoning and ends up being reduced to foolishness.

aka:

arockdidit
etc...

You see if you reject the source of logic and reason, you end up rejecting logic and reason.

This is manifested in a contradictory and arbitrary worldview, which you are displaying.

Proof is in the pudding etc.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11215 Jan 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
So you don't know.

If you don't know, how can you deny God indeed Created the universe?

It seems your argument is anything is plausible except God.

Roughly translated, meaning, God is not allowed a foot in the door.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11216 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.
OK.

Could you say it again in other words? For example, what does "An absolute truth is self attesting" mean? What is an absolute truth, and how does it attest about itself?

I don't think that I need to even consider absolutes or the transcendent to have knowledge, let alone ascribe (anything) to them (a better word than "subscribe"). I'm pretty that sure my dog has knowledge, and rarely considers such things.

Let's look at the "-scribes" :

ascribe - attribute something to a cause or person
conscribe - to enlist or enroll
prescribe - advise and authorize the use of (a med or treatment)
proscribe - forbid, esp. by law; denounce or condemn.
describe - give an account in words
circumscribe - restrict within limits, draw a figure around
inscribe - write or carve words or symbols on something
subscribe - arrange to receive something regularly by paying in advance.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11217 Jan 23, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Your 'point' was not relevant to my argument.
<quoted text>
No, I do not.
<quoted text>
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.
Man was given responsibility over all the earth.

When man rebelled everything suffered the consequence.

Sin does that, it doesn't just affect you, it affects everyone, including your children.

Love does not struggle with responsibility, but selfishness does.

So when mankind does something that brings judgement on them and their family, rather than take responsibility for it, they shake their hands at God and accuse Him of wrong doing...

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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) 40 min well 226,244
Should Uninformed Opinion Be Respected? 4 hr Patrick 10
100% Faith Free 4 hr Patrick 8
Richard Dawkins in a nutshell 4 hr Patrick 26
Atheists that tout free thinking use bully tact... 6 hr Patrick 10
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 9 hr USN Atheist 39
Our world came from nothing? 10 hr NightSerf 399
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••