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.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11249 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the guy who believes arockandhisbuddiesdidit...
But to your main point.
Only something eternal and outside of time could create that which is in time.
Clearly false as stated. We create things that are in time all the, um, time.
The problem you have, is that conclusion obviously brings us to God, which you do not like.
No, the problem is that your argument is so far from being logical that it boggles the mind to think about it.

Causality requires time. Time is part of the universe. So the universe cannot be caused. The only way around this is if time is NOT part of the universe. That is the case in multi-verse theories, but then simply replace 'universe' by 'multi-verse' and you can run the same argument.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#11250 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I doubt your rendering of those laws are balanced and unbiased...
So would not engage your premises.
I have seen too many of these arguments based on an extremist atheistic rendering of the scripture to know a red herring when I see one...
Oh dear, another dodge.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11251 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
Hey, you approve rape in certain situations, I don't think you should be any judge of morality...
But I'm right.

Are you saying that if you had to rape an unwilling woman to preserve the human race, that you wouldn't do it? What is the moral basis for that judgment?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11252 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
Your argument rests on arbitrary claims
What arbitrary claims?
mtimber wrote:
what is absurd about a worldview that accounts for morality, logic, rationality, science and the meaning of life?
It requires you to account for something much harder to account for: an intelligence that crafted those things.

With the will to believe comes the willingness to filter input to support the belief: confirmation bias. What that does to you, but not me, is allow you to accept special pleading that supports your willingness to believe. So, universes absolutely, positively need first causes, and anybody who thinks otherwise is irrational.

But when it comes to the god, well, it gets a pass fromsuch rigorous scrutiny - often excused by some ad hoc qualifier such as that the god exists in a privileged reality where nothing needs to make sense.

The will to believe permits that.

What you call my stubborn rebelliousness and deliberate blinding of myself to the obvious truth of god - a need to disbelieve - is really not that at all. It's merely the lack of a preference for believing - such as your will to believe. You've decided to believe. That's what faith is - deciding to believe.

I haven't done that, at least not in thirty-something years.

Without the will to believe, the god hypothesis adds nothing, and at great cost. If a universe looks like it needs a designer, a designer looks like it needs a designer. Obviously. If a cell looks designed, and if a universe looks designed, a god, whatever its qualities, would by contrast scream for a designer.

But not to you, right? That's what I see. And I can't show you. The condition prevents you from seeing it. Faith defends itself against evidence and argument, and I have nothing else to offer.

Look at this shocking admission from William Lane Craig, who plainly states here that the scripture is correct to him, no matter what evidence arises to contradict it:

"...And my view here is, that the way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit. In my heart. And that this gives me a self-authenticatin g means of knowing that Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, if in some historically contingent circumstances, the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I don't think that that contraverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right"

How close-minded is that? How strong a confirmation bias is that? How do you reach that mind? You don't.

Anyway, your arguments seem tortured to me, and you see them as airtight. We're at an impasse.
mtimber wrote:
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...
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11253 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
It does not matter whether you confess it or not. God has revealed Himself to you. But you suppress that truth in unrighteousness.
Why do you think you know that?
mtimber wrote:
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.
I don't have a choice. I don't have a reason to do that to myself, and therefore cannot, just as I cannot chop off a hand for no reason. It's not an option for me to disregard reason and arbitrarily take a leap of faith on your say so. That can't happen.

If you were correct, I'd be doomed.
mtimber wrote:
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?
I can't tell you anything that will appeal to you. You seem as firmly ensconced in faith as I am in reason. Faith defends against reason the way that reason defends against faith. We should probably not expect to convert one another.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#11254 Jan 23, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
Muhammed knew which buttons to press. Gardens of paradise, fresh fruit and dates, shade underneath palm trees, free flowing wine, slaves on hand to see to every whim, 72 virgins a man to indulge every sensual whim and pleasure. A fantasy of your average 7th century desert nomad. And brainwashed ppl like Muq believe such fairy tales are literally true.

And the Christian version is to endless sing hallelujahs and praises to Yahweh the blood thirsty God of the Old Testament. A celestial North Korea. Whilst the majority of humankind is suffering horrific torment burning in hell. Very sick minds indeed.
Without a doubt-- as sick as you can be, and still barely qualify as "civilized".

If we are going to indulge in after-life fantasies?

I, for one, rather like the Flying Spaghetti Monster's. Who can argue with beer volcanoes? That automatically dispense the beverage you really wanted, not always the one you asked for either.:)

It's FSM heaven for me.:D

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#11255 Jan 23, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Is North Korea an excellent example of atheists in power?
Atheists excellent at making fun of religion, some of it very funny.- "Life of Brian"
When atheist time in power is criticized ....,
Hitler suddenly becomes a Christian.
And the Dark Ages is the best example of Genuine Christians™ in power.

So?

North Korea is a cult of personality-- not a cult of not-believing-in-gods.

That is a distinct difference, but I doubt one you can get-- what with your binary brains and all.

Sad, really.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#11256 Jan 23, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
I am in a minority here in not believing Hitler was a Christian. But then you have to ask yourself would a loving God allow his chosen people to be gassed to death, and 60 million people to die in a world war. The answer is of course, no because such an entity, a God that answers prayers, does not exist.
Hitler was provably catholic-- he even had the sitting pope's blessings on his government.

Proof? Here: " http://anticlerical.multiply.com/photos/album... ;

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#11257 Jan 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
... but I been to Oklahoma. Well they tell me I was born there, but I really don't remember.
Hey, Bob. Nice to see you.
:D

Love it-- I could hear the music in my head as I read what you wrote.

:)

I've been quite well-- I trust all is good at your heathen end, yes?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#11258 Jan 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed.
I'd take it a step further and say that the campaigns should be brief, inexpensive, and publicly funded, which each candidate having access to free media such as a web site and public television.
Exactly. Remove the corporate donations 100%-- corporations do not get the same rights as real, breathing citizens.

They should not be allowed to influence the vote, either.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#11259 Jan 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Very few atheists are totalitarian. And such people would be unlikely to succeed in a humanist society.
You need an example of secular humanism in power. Are you aware of any secular humanist governments that we could examine?
You just blew out what's left of his mind.

Sad for him, isn't it? His binary brain is only capable of zero or one, you see... sad.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#11260 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
From God, through the Bible.
And as God cannot be wrong, I have to accept His opinion over yours.
I hope you don't mind me being consistent with my worldview?
So.

Your god is okay with mass-murder of innocent babies?

This was not a wrong act?

Wow-- your god is a baby-killer. Not good, bub.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#11261 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Does not a widespread belief in a particular worldview, that cannot be proven empirically, constitute a religion?
A faith in something not observed?
I.E.
1. nothingexploded
2. arockdidit
"1. nothingexploded
2. arockdidit " <<< strictly religitard views.

In other words, if it didn't come from you loons, we would have never heard either of them.

And I know your imagination, probably won't be able to handle this, but atheist and evolutionist are not the same.

I am atheist, there are others who are evolutionists, and that man created himself some imaginary gods doesn't answer a single question. Unfortunately though there are people who are comforted by the thought of a sky monkey who would make them eat their children. I guess they don't feel so small if they imagine that they are pet to such a monster.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#11262 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You define an athiest as someone who lacks a belief in gods.
The bible describes an atheist as someone who suppress a knowledge of God, who suppress a belief in God, so that they can be wise in their own eyes. And this activity reduces them to foolishness.
As a biblical christian, I have to accept that basis for identifying atheism.
Coupled to that, the atheists complete inability to account for obvious absolute truth, or even acceptance of that, proves the case...
I described an atheist, as not a theist.

The word theist refers to the person infected by theism, which can, but does not necessarily include god beliefs. I wrote that too, the word atheist is used also as a substitute for non-believer. Now why you choose to completely turn my words around and then ask me to account for your duplicity, I don't even care to know.

Again the "a" makes the word "atheist" mean "not theist".

What the bible calls an atheist is something you do not know, because the bible refers to the person who is rejecting the damn idiocy in it, but makes no mention, of the person who is simply not theist. Though it does make sure that even the bible writers understood that it was smarter to not believe than it is to believe. As a biblical Christain, you are to be stoning those sinners who live around you, who would dare to wear mixed fibers or work on the Sabbath. It is foolishness to profess your god, and not live as commanded. The reason being, because we can see that you do not believe anymore than we do. You absolutely know that there is no penalty for not obeying your god, and we absolutely know that you know it.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#11263 Jan 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
He would be wrong to let her end the human race. Assuming that she is not known to be infertile, if he can't convince her or seduce her, he must rape her.
This really isn't hard.
And on that island, the rapist is absolutely positive that they are the last two of mankind, and this info was god revealed, of course?

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#11264 Jan 23, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Are you sure about that?

Contrast someone who loves their neighbour and denies your god, with someone who loves your god but denies their neighbour.

Which one gets their ticket to heaven?

In any event, why did it take your god tens of thousands of years before he got around to telling people to love their neighbours?

After all, an omniscient cosmic mega-being like yours must have known about the Golden Rule and how it is one of the highest measures of good ethical behaviour. Yet your god chose to ignore it until the New Testament.

Of course, while your god was ignoring the Golden Rule, other gods from other belief systems (Hinduism, Jainism) were advocating its use.

In summary, the New Testament tells us that the way to get into Heaven is not that we observe the Golden Rule. Instead, it's that we love Jesus, and to your god, that is more important than following the Golden Rule. It's not nice to harm your fellow humans but as long as you end up loving Jesus with all your heart then you'll be OK for your ticket to Heaven

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#11265 Jan 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
But I'm right.
Are you saying that if you had to rape an unwilling woman to preserve the human race, that you wouldn't do it? What is the moral basis for that judgment?
I think Asimov addressed that scenario....but it didn't turn out well....oh well.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#11266 Jan 24, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
But I'm right.
Are you saying that if you had to rape an unwilling woman to preserve the human race, that you wouldn't do it? What is the moral basis for that judgment?
I disagree. It is not his choice, it is hers. Just as it would be her choice to continue to carry the pregnancy, or to nourish and shelter the infant after it's birth. This rapist simply will not repopulate the earth, without her allowing it.

Meanwhile he would be forever a rapist, and respecting her judgement, and her reasons for those conclusions should have been factored into the choice he made, otherwise him sleeping at any time after he has raped her, puts him at risk of her retaliation, which could result in her being the last human on earth.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11268 Jan 24, 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.
OK, thanks. I really shouldn't try to think for myself then, right? I guess that it would be better to let the priests substitute their judgment for my own. Of course, they are just conduits for the Lord, so it's OK.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11269 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
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.
What you call "God" - the principle god in the West - can be ruled out, so no foot in the door for that god.

But that is not true for all possible gods as a class. Not yet, anyway. They still have a toenail in the door.

I'm working on it, however. I am considering an argument that borrows from the intelligent design people, who offer statistical arguments like Hoyle's fallacy - the unlikeliness of a junkyard 747 forming from a tornado - as evidence that irreducibly complex entities can't form uncreated.

What could be more complex than a god? How could it exist uncreated? What argument for a god doesn't collapse when applied to the god itself? You say that we need a god to account for the laws of logic or the laws of physics. What laws must exist for a god to exist and to continue to exist without falling apart? Where did those laws come from?

I suspect that gods are impossible, but I don't think that a statistical argument is proof against the existence of one, even though the Christians like to say that something less likely to occur than one chance in 10E-50 is impossible: http://ncse.com/rncse/20/4/creationism-pseudo...

This might be an example of the kind of thing that you, your bible, and two thousand years of Christianity warn us about: thinking for ourselves. I can see why the priests don't care for it.

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 Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 3 min ChristineM 21,394
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 6 min Eagle 12 10,336
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 49 min Into The Night 45,535
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Eagle 12 257,128
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 2 hr ChristineM 546
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 6 hr Eagle 12 20,246
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 7 hr Paul WV-Uncle Sam 306
More from around the web