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.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11270 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
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...
... and the god then makes innocents take responsibility, including those not yet born.

Tell me more about this kind love, please. This is transcendent love, right? And transcendent justice and mercy. It only appears the opposite to our puny minds, correct?

How could anybody accuse your god of doing wrong?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11271 Jan 24, 2013
The_Box wrote:
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.
mtimber wrote:
I doubt your rendering of those laws are balanced and unbiased...
Yeah. To be balanced and unbiased, he should have said something more like "arockdidit" or "nothingexploded."
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11272 Jan 24, 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.
But when allowed to be tested against all knowledge, it is seen to be true.
It points to its own authority as its authority claim and then everything outide of that assumption or presupposition attests that claim.
Hence it is self attesting, yet valid...
Understand and accept this and your conclusion will bring you to God...
OK. Perhaps you meant axiomatic https://www.google.com/search...
Henry

Germany

#11273 Jan 24, 2013
P_Smith wrote:
As I just posted on the site:
-----
Religion will continue to exist as long as these two things also exist:
(1) Uneducated masses who can't think rationally (especially in regard to their biases).
(2) Biased, corrupt and opportunistic "leaders" who see religion as a short cut to wealth, power, sex and social status.
Because those two things are likely to always be with us, we will unfortunately never see the demise of the demented deists.
.
Capitalism has to be abrogated in order to rise atheism!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11274 Jan 24, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
Exactly. Remove the corporate donations 100%-- corporations do not get the same rights as real, breathing citizens.
They call influencing elections and legislation with money "free speech." We have that here in México too, where we can try to influence bureaucrats to expedite paperwork and cops not to write tickets with 200 pesos of free speech. I guess free speech, like freedom, isn't always free.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11275 Jan 24, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>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?
I accepted mtimber's conditions: they were the last two people in the world, and she was unwilling to procreate. It was a pretty simple ethical problem,although mtimber thinks I made the wrong choice.

Let's test our ethical IQs with a moral dilemma as an exercise in ethics. What would you do? This test only has one question, but a difficult one. Please don't answer it without giving it careful thought. By giving your most honest answer, you will discover where you stand on the moral spectrum.

The test features a fictional situation, one in which you will have to make a difficult decision. Your answer should be spontaneous - given within a few seconds of reading the question.

Ready? Begin!

You're in New Orleans in 2005, and there is chaos everywhere around you caused by hurricane Katrina and the resultant flooding. You are a photojournalist working for a major newspaper caught in the middle of this great disaster. The situation is overwhelming, and you're trying to shoot career-making photos, as houses and people swirl around you, some disappearing under the water.

Then you see a man in the water fighting for his life, trying not to be swept away with the water and debris. You move closer. Somehow the man looks familiar. Suddenly, you know who it is ... it's George W. Bush! At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take him under, forever.

You have two options. You can save him, or you can take the most dramatic photos of your career. You can save George W. Bush's life, or you can shoot a sure Pulitzer Prize winning photo of him dying.

Here's the dilemma: Color, or would you rather go with the classic simplicity and aesthetic value of black and white?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11276 Jan 24, 2013
albtraum wrote:
I think Asimov addressed that scenario....but it didn't turn out well....oh well.
Really? I'd like to see what he wrote. Can you direct me to that?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11277 Jan 24, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
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.
Thanks for that.

I see the practical problems - the rape might not produce the desired outcome.

But as a matter of principle, I don't think a woman in such a position has a right to refuse. Wouldn't you agree that there are times when survival trumps autonomy, such as somebody putting an airplane full of passengers at risk? Wouldn't it be ethical to do things to such a person that would otherwise be unethical?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11278 Jan 24, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me paraphrase that for you: Submit. That really is the essence of the Good News.
Indeed, submit to rationality and reason.

Do you have a problem with that?

Of course you do, as revealed in Genesis.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11279 Jan 24, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Love God, garden of Eden.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11280 Jan 24, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Do you know whether Jesus make any original contributions to moral theory - moral values unheard of before he spoke them?
Jesus' is the source of morality.

He created humanity...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11281 Jan 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
So you first statement that time existed before energy and matter was not correct then?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11282 Jan 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
The 'transcendental arguments' of philosophy can all safely be ignored as they are all meaningless.
So, you are stating that you now deny the validity of philosophy?

So why are you discussing it on here then?

Is there any absurd position you will not assume, so that you can maintain in your own mind that you are right to reject God?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11283 Jan 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
Your God is a figment of your imagination. At best, it is you talking to yourself.
So you deny the law of non-contradiction then?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11284 Jan 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
How do you know when a line is curvy?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11285 Jan 24, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Who's fault is that? Who let him loose into it?
<quoted text>
For a guy with unlimited power, your god has a very sociopathic way of dealing with "problems".
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
That must be your standard. I said the opposite:
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T0N0LOR...
You want to present the idea that the problem is a lack of evidence for God.

That is not the case.

The problem is, is that your mind is at enmity against Him.

You are at war with Him.

This is obviously true and revealed by the antagonism of your posts in regard to Him.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11286 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 guess the question then is whether the human race deserves to survive. You also have to consider the fact that an initial population of just two individuals will produce some massive inbreeding difficulties.

I'd say let the human race die out and let another intelligent species evolve somewhere else (or even on earth).

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11287 Jan 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
No, I get it, don't worry.

A fetus has less value to you than a dog.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11288 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So you first statement that time existed before energy and matter was not correct then?
I did not say that. I said that it is meaningless to talk about the cause of time.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11289 Jan 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly false as stated. We create things that are in time all the, um, time.
<quoted text>
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.
How can you argue using logic?

You have just denied the first law of logic.

The law of non-contradiction...

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 38 min River Tam 23,590
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr scientia potentia... 48,864
What are the best arguments against religion? 3 hr IB DaMann 6
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 4 hr IB DaMann 5,720
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 4 hr Scaritual 92
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 4 hr Mintz4004 21,889
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 6 hr Into The Night 258,047
More from around the web