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: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#11351 Jan 24, 2013
Thinking wrote:
As a thought, do you know of a single religion that states: "I haven't a bloody clue where all this Universe stuff came from! I am totally nonplussed."
Is a fixed creation myth a prerequisite, I wonder?
<quoted text>
Good point.

I honestly can't think of a single religion that doesn't admit to not knowing the origins of our universe.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#11352 Jan 24, 2013
You going to finally start answering questions there or keep playing dodgeball?

I guess Eric Hovind's website didn't tell you how to answer actual questions yes Derek?
mtimber wrote:
Just to re-iterate, if anyone wants to continue the debate, I have moved to the other thread as it makes no sense to be posting on the same subject in two places at once:
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TUGI0DV...
Lincoln

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#11353 Jan 24, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
The Hindus can account for the origin of the universe.
So can the Maoris.
You're ethics are no better than theirs.
In fact, they're probably worse because while your god was s instructing his followers to kill others, the Hindu deities were advocating the Golden Rule.
in your opinion...?

or have you become a deity ..
Lincoln

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#11354 Jan 24, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Good point.
I honestly can't think of a single religion that doesn't admit to not knowing the origins of our universe.
double or triple :-)

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#11355 Jan 24, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
My first choice would always be the black and white.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#11356 Jan 24, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Anything that can be done, should be done. There are live humans at risk.

That is not true in the case of the man raping the woman. There is no one to save but himself and/or her. There are too many other possibilities not stated in the original post, but even if there wasn't 'rape is still rape', and the victim of this rape is a factor which may end up deleting both the rapist and the pregnancy from the equation.

What killed off the human population, are there any way for other humans to have survived, will these two be able to continue to survive, is the detritus of this human eradication something that an infant could survive, does the only woman left on earth know any of this?

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#11357 Jan 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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).
I agree, well said.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#11358 Jan 24, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed, submit to rationality and reason.
Do you have a problem with that?
Of course you do, as revealed in Genesis.
It's obvious we would be the ones short changed in such a deal. So how about a talking snake, a burning bush? It shouldn't have to be as flamboyant or even as well documented at the bible magic was, but why would we settle for less than that, from a "very willing to display his awesome powers" god?
If it's the bible god you are selling, sell him as the package states him to be. We want a sea parting, mountain moving god, keep the wispy miasma god for the true believers. They need a god diet anyway, we who have not been engorged on a diet of god, will not buy anything less than 100% real "show me the god" god!
Lincoln

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#11359 Jan 24, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>It's obvious we would be the ones short changed in such a deal. So how about a talking snake, a burning bush? It shouldn't have to be as flamboyant or even as well documented at the bible magic was, but why would we settle for less than that, from a "very willing to display his awesome powers" god?
If it's the bible god you are selling, sell him as the package states him to be. We want a sea parting, mountain moving god, keep the wispy miasma god for the true believers. They need a god diet anyway, we who have not been engorged on a diet of god, will not buy anything less than 100% real "show me the god" god!
with all of this only
5% of Americans are atheists.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#11361 Jan 24, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
with all of this only
5% of Americans are atheists.
Are you saying that 95% of the population are chicken shit because of an implied threat from the most unlikely and far fetched god, that man has created in the last ten thousand years? Yet none of these people have asked for even minimal proof?

Well, there are lot's of idiots on the planet, but the number of believers are far less than you are supposing. We atheists know our numbers are growing, we know the questions that we once asked, we see many others now asking.
So apparently you are believer who doesn't even ask as much as the bible god showed to the lowliest of his creations? Why not? Faith, when you could have mountains moving? I think not. Some of them saw seas parting, bushes burning, donkeys and snakes talking, but you didn't even get to see this backside, and yet you still believe? Was it the bible verse that said he would make you eat your children, that did it for you?
word

Brooklyn, NY

#11362 Jan 24, 2013
If you do not have a sense of were you came from or who made then then you are doom here on earth.

It is the devil that works to failed your faith.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#11363 Jan 24, 2013
Wow this is only the 180th time you have used the bandwagon logical fallacy.

Well it's a good thing there are so many believers as we atheists need you slow witted peons to do the menial low wage paying jobs to make our life more comfortable. Keep forward on sheep :)
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
with all of this only
5% of Americans are atheists.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11364 Jan 25, 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?
mtimber wrote:
Jesus' is the source of morality. He created humanity...
Are there any words on moral theory at all attributed to Jesus that weren't spoken by somebody else first? Do you know of any at all?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11365 Jan 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
So you deny the law of non-contradiction then?
Of course not.

It is on that basis that we can reject the Christian bible and the god it describes, which allegedly authored it. It is full of errors and contradictions. There are no more imperfect perfect gods than there are married bachelors.

The law of noncontradiction also tells us that omniscience and free will can't coexist.

And the law of noncontradiction says that the universe could not have been created both in six days and in thirteen-plus billion years.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11366 Jan 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
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.
You haven't gotten past the evidence part yet. What god? Demonstrate your god, and then we can talk about being at war with it.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11367 Jan 25, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
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).
That's a possible position.

But it evades the ethical issue. It says don't rape in such a scenario because it won't work, not because rape is always wrong.

What if we had a way to make it work, and the problem was reduced to the philosophical one alone. What if it was a simple matter of letting the human race die out, or raping a woman. Would that change your position?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11368 Jan 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
Your argument collapses, because until you can account for the origin of the universe, you have no ultimate standard from which to argue...
You mean no "absolute" standard, don't you? You keep insisting that absolutes and ultimates are required to have knowledge, when that is obviously incorrect.

I don't need to be able to account for the origin of the universe to rule out some hypotheses about it, just as I don't have to know where you are right now to rule out that it is Saturn.

BTW, your arguments is stronger against your own position than it is against mine. Until you can demonstrate that your god exists and did the things you impute to it, you have no basis from which to argue for it, or against any competing hypothesis.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#11369 Jan 25, 2013
Excerpt from .. Rain ~ Somerset-Maugham

"You see, they were so naturally depraved that they couldn`t be brought to see their wickedness. We had to make sins out of what they thought were natural actions. We had to make it a sin, not only to commit adultery and to lie and thieve, but to expose their bodies, and to dance and not to come to church. I made it a sin for a girl to show her bosom and a sin for a man not to wear trousers."
"How?" asked Dr. Macphail, not without surprise. "I instituted fines. Obviously the only way to make people realise that an action is sinful is to punish them if they commit it. I fined them if they didn`t come to church, and I fined them if they danced. I fined them if they were improperly dressed. I had a tariff, and every sin had to be paid for either in money or work. And at last I made them understand."
"But did they never refuse to pay?"
"How could they?" asked the missionary.
"It would be a brave man who tried to stand up against Mr. Davidson," said his wife, tightening her lips.

Dr. Macphail looked at Davidson with troubled eyes. What he heard shocked him, but he hesitated to express his disapproval.
"You must remember that in the last resort I could expel them from their church membership.""
"Did they mind that?"
Davidson smiled a little and gently rubbed his hands.

"They couldn`t sell their copra. When the men fished they got no share of the catch. It meant something very like starvation. Yes, they minded quite a lot."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23479647/Somerset-M...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11370 Jan 25, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
I did not say that. I said that it is meaningless to talk about the cause of time.
mtimber wrote:
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...
He already told you: "Time certainly did NOT have a cause, because causality is based on the concept of time."
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

The concept of cause and effect implies a before and an after. To have a cause of time, you need a time before time. Do you remember the law of noncontradiction?

Do you know what else requires time? Existence, thought, and action. Even a god can't exist before time. Nor could it make a decision, nor act. It couldn't function as a first cause.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#11371 Jan 25, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
with all of this only
5% of Americans are atheists.
That depends on how we define the word "atheist." If we define it the way that people who have been insisting that Nazis and Lance Armstrong are atheists, the number grows much larger, perhaps as many as 20%, and includes some who self-identify as adherents. If we include only those who self-identify as atheists in surveys, it shrinks to less than three percent.

I prefer to include all survey participants who, when asked whether they are certain about God's existence, do not answer "Yes." They tend to number between 7% and 18%, depending on which survey you accept.

In the end, it doesn't matter much. Reality is not changed by what people believe about it, and minorities are often proved right when viewed by historians a few generations later.

Here's a video that shows why atheists might be seen that way in the end:

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) 3 min One way or another 48,531
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 2 hr Uncle Sam 15
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr Into The Night 23,503
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 5 hr New Age Spiritual... 258,040
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 15 hr Rosa_Winkel 21,866
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Dec 3 Eagle 12 4,907
Why you need to make sure you are saved before ... Dec 2 Scaritual 14
More from around the web