Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Apr 25, 2012 Full story: Psychology Today 22,414

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.

Full Story

“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

Nottingham, 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.

“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

Bad Langensalza, 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.

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
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 3 min Gordon 227,865
Can atheists pray? Gretta Vosper on Andrew W.K.... 1 hr Reason Personified 7
Our world came from nothing? 1 hr Patrick n Angela 492
Indiana Governor Mike Pence Stands Up to Atheis... 1 hr nOgOd 1
After brutal persecution, Albania 'reopened' to... 2 hr sava 3
Noah's flood real (Oct '12) 3 hr Patrick n Angela 4,511
The problem of evil and hate (Oct '13) 5 hr hpcaban 348
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••