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
10,601 - 10,620 of 21,406 Comments Last updated 15 min ago

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11285
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11286
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11287
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11289
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11290
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you are stating that you now deny the validity of philosophy?
Most philosophers don't know enough to accurately reason about the universe. From what I have read, they tend to make very basic mistakes in their assumptions or the application of their assumptions.
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?
No, I simply require actual demonstrations rather then the very poor logic given by theologians and philosophers.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11291
Jan 24, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
So you are a pro-lifer I assume and against abortion?

Based on what moral standard?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11292
Jan 24, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I get it, don't worry.
A fetus has less value to you than a dog.
Before the brain is developed and if it is inside someone who doesn't want it, yes.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11293
Jan 24, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know when a line is curvy?
Irrelevant to the discussion, but I'd look at the second derivative.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11294
Jan 24, 2013
 
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
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
Jesus was quoting the old testament...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11295
Jan 24, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So you deny the law of non-contradiction then?
As *you* stated it, yes. If appropriately stated and used, then no. Socrates had a number of discussions based on this law showing its misuse.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11296
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed, submit to rationality and reason.
One does not 'submit' to rationality and reason. One *applies* reason to find the rational.
Do you have a problem with that?
Of course you do, as revealed in Genesis.
Your belief in a deity has nothing to do with rationality nor reason.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11297
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Your argument collapses, because until you can account for the origin of the universe, you have no ultimate standard from which to argue...

To use knowledge absolutely, you have to account for knowledge absolutely.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11298
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not say that. I said that it is meaningless to talk about the cause of time.
That is not what you stated.

But leaving that aside.

Why is it meaningless to talk about the cause of time, it is a question that has engaged the minds of many people throughout time, in their search for answers...

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

11 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 5 min waaasssuuup 224,553
Introducing The Universal Religion 18 min Thinking 736
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 1 hr Electrical Engineer 842
Our world came from nothing? 2 hr Thinking 252
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 2 hr Carchar king 23
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 2 hr Thinking 396
What does "Atheism" mean? 9 hr Buck Crick 37
•••
•••