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

#11229 Jan 23, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Deuteronomy 21
"10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her."
Go to war, find a captive woman you like, she becomes your wife - no consent required.
Numbers 31
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."
Keep the women as prizes of war.
Deuteronomy 22
"28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
Rape a women, you must marry her - her consent is irrelevant. No concern is shown here for the victim, who is punished by having to marry her attacker.
Please tell me where my interpretations are unfair. Women were viewed as property. You took them as wives, and at that point, since they were your property, rape was impossible.
Deuteronomy 22 gives two scenarios in which rape is punished.
1) You rape a girl promised to another man - you die.
2) You rape a girl not promised to anyone - you pay her father 50 silver and must marry her.("you break it, you bought it")
There is a bible study here that you can use if you so wish:

http://bible.org/seriespage/deuteronomy-21

Or you can of course just render the most extreme atheistic rendering of the text that you want to...

The real question is, why is any of the above wrong in an atheistic worldview?

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#11230 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
So its all Eve's fault.

No wonder you hate women so much...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11231 Jan 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
It's an ancient argument also already refuted elsewhere.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_arg...
[2] http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.mx/2010/05/wil... [number 1.]
Refuted or opposed?

There are some people that believe they are lizards, doesn't mean they have refuted the fact we are not...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11232 Jan 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you. I try to be clear.
<quoted text>
I'd be attempting to save the human race. Anything less would be bankrupt.
<quoted text>
Thanks for the heads up. You're a prince of a guy.
No problem, here to serve.:-)

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11233 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
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.
OK. Thanks for your interest.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#11234 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
So the first two people created by your god screwed up royally and, therefore, billions of people have suffered ever since.

I sense a design flaw from your perfect god...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11235 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you certain about that?
;-)
Not completely. But I have yet to see any way to obtain certainty.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11236 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So what you are saying is that it is impossible to know anything absolutely?
Yes.
If that is true, how can you deny Gods existence absolutely?
I don't. I simply don't see enough evidence to believe in a deity.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11237 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
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.
Let me paraphrase that for you: Submit. That really is the essence of the Good News.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#11238 Jan 23, 2013
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.
When are you leaving?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11239 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
I applaud you for adopting the second great absolute moral standard that God decreed: Love thy neighbour as thyself.
Jesus was a johnny-come-lately regarding the Golden Rule:

ANCIENT GOLDEN RULES ANTEDATING CHRIST:

"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." – Confucius (c. 551–479 BCE)

"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." – Lao Tzu

"Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you." - Ancient Egyptian concept of Maat(c. 2040–1650 BCE)

"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." – Thales (c. 624 BC – c. 546 BCE)

"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." - Siddhartha Gautama,(c. 563-483 BCE)

"One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Other behavior is due to selfish desires." - The Hindu Mahabharata [book] circa 400 BCE

[Others at http://www.thebelovedcommunity.net/golden-rul... ]

Do you know whether Jesus make any original contributions to moral theory - moral values unheard of before he spoke them?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11240 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
Which physicists have done so? Einstein? No. Schrodinger? No. Feynman? No. Fermi? No. Maxwell? No.

Perhaps you are mistaking philosophers for physicists. The only principle of causality I have seen in *any* physics course is the one that says that the position operators for events outside of each other's light cones are anti-commutative. In other words, if two events in spacetime are far enough apart that light cannot travel between them, then they are independent. That is the *only* version of causality up to PhD level physics.

In fact, I have never seen a coherent definition of causality in general. The attempts are *all* based on concepts like 'one things following necessarily from another' which are old, Aristotelian philosophy and not a part of any modern system of physics.

The 'First Cause' argument is NOT an argument from physics. It is purely philosophical and is, in fact, based on incorrect assumptions.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11241 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
You cannot conceive of that which does not exist.
Why not? You do.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11242 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So time existed before matter and energy existed?
As far as we know, they are coterminous. it is possible that all go infinitely into the past, but that is not known. It is also possible they all started at some point in the past.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11243 Jan 23, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
You want to debate religion and atheism fine. Start with why anyone should believe in your god.
I tried that. I stipulated to the existence of a creator god and asked him to argue for it being his god.

He wasn't interested.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11244 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Yes, I know that to maintain your belief system, you have to believe this. But it is false. No deity has 'revealed himself' to me.
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?
The 'transcendental arguments' of philosophy can all safely be ignored as they are all meaningless.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11245 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is an example from the laws of logic:
The law of non-contradiction.
A dog cannot be a dog and not be a dog at the same time.
What is the basis for that logical claim?
The law itself.
it is possible for something to feel both hot and cold at the same time. It is possible for an electron to be both at a location and not at a location at the same time. It is possible for a bacterium to be both disease-causing (in one species) and not disease-causing (in another) at the same time.
Understand and accept this and your conclusion will bring you to God...
Your God is a figment of your imagination. At best, it is you talking to yourself.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11246 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Your argument rests on arbitrary claims, what is absurd about a worldview that accounts for morality, logic, rationality, science and the meaning of life?
But it does none of those.

Morality has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of deities. This is trivial to see: ask yourself if it is logically possible to have an evil creator of the universe. Clearly, such a proposition *is* logically possible, so saying morality is determined by what a creator says is simply wrong.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11247 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
There you go, that is the issue in the Great Controversy. Satan is a threat to the cohesion of the universe.
Who's fault is that? Who let him loose into it?
mtimber wrote:
Humanity serves him. God has to deal with that.
For a guy with unlimited power, your god has a very sociopathic way of dealing with "problems".
mtimber wrote:
But first He gives man the opportunity to come over to Him.
If he cares about that, he needs to show his face - unless he is specifically excluding those of us that use our faculties of reason. From Bill Maher:

"I’m open to anything for which there is evidence. Show me a god and I will believe in him. If Jesus Christ comes down from the sky during the halftime show of this Sunday’s Super Bowl and turns all the nachos into loaves and fishes, I’ll think ...“Oh look at that, I was wrong. There he is. My bad. Praise the lord!"

Some of us were built to respond to evidence.
mtimber wrote:
Using your standard of morality, God is perfectly in His rights to judge mankind and issue punishment.
That must be your standard. I said the opposite:
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T0N0LOR...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11248 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
If it is okay to destroy something that is not a moral agent.
And fetus' and dogs are not moral agents.
Then it is okay to destroy both.
I am not sure why you would disagree with that simple logical argument?
First, there is a scale of the degree to which morality applies to an action. For example, destroying a piece of wood that nobody owns and in a way that affects nobody else carries no moral weight. Destroying a bacterium also carries no moral weight even though that bacterium is alive. Destroying living things that are conscious carries some moral weight, but that can be outweighed by other factors such as the need to eat. Destroying self-conscious beings that reason morally carries a great deal of moral weight and should only be done under severe circumstances (self-defense, for example).

A dog is conscious, so there is some moral weight, so arbitrarily destroying a dog would be wrong. But, for example, killing a do for food would be morally allowed.

A fetus before about the 20th week of pregnancy cannot feel pain, is not conscious and cannot suffer. So the destruction of a fetus at that stage carries no moral weight. Once the parts of the brain processing pain are in place, though, I *do* think there is a moral weight that comes with the destruction of a fetus. But there is also a competing immorality which denies a woman the right to control her own body. The woman has the right to demand the fetus be removed from her body even if that removal kills the fetus. I do think that for fetuses of a late enough stage that pain is a real thing, there is a possible moral responsibility on the part of the doctor to attempt to preserve the life of the fetus while removing it from the woman's body. If that is impossible, it should still be removed, though.

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) 6 min Dogen 48,677
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 37 min scientia potentia... 23,521
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr Thinking 21,881
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 2 hr Into The Night 5,705
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 5 hr Igor Trip 69
News Louisiana Christians reclaim safe space by runn... 6 hr Amused 3
What are the best arguments against religion? 11 hr Igor Trip 2
More from around the web