Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

There are 24099 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.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#11392 Jan 25, 2013
EdSed wrote:
http://www.secularism.org.uk/n ews/2013/01/only-7-percent-thi nk-being-christian-is-importan t-for-being-british
Thanks for the link. I've posted it to the news page.
rio

Bromley, UK

#11393 Jan 25, 2013
Henry wrote:
<quoted text>
There is high time for Americans to become atheists!
I wouldn't count on it though ...

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#11395 Jan 25, 2013
The loser has decided to avoid questions in just one thread now. Hey isn't it funny that the self righteous retard thinks that he is the only reason people came to this thread?

Lmfao! Delusional!
Thinking wrote:
Nobber.
<quoted text>

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#11396 Jan 25, 2013
Hey Derek4 oops i mean not-Derek4, how many more times are you going to return to this thread to say you are no longer returning to this thread?

Just wondering because it's fun mocking your stupidity :)

You seriously suffer from delusions of grandeur a common problem for Christians.
mtimber wrote:
Just to point out to those that keep responding to me, I can now be engaged on this thread:
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TUGI0DV...

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#11397 Jan 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus' is the source of morality.
He created humanity...
Where is the evidence of this assertion?

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#11398 Jan 25, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Lol! Where do you get them from?
It aint necessarily so wrote:
It seems that the Catholic Church is now willing to concede that a fetus is not a person - at least not for the purpose of defending itself in this lawsuit. From http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/23/1181... (please note the Jesus face palm as well):
"In just the past year, the Church has called upon its faithful followers to march, to starve themselves, to go to jail, to even take up arms—all to protect those fetuses. No exceptions. None. Not [even] if the fetus is already dead inside the womb. Not [even] if the fetus is going to kill the actual living woman carrying it. No goddamned exceptions EVER. Well, except for one: when it's going to cost the Church money.
"Turns out, when a man sues a Catholic hospital for malpractice because his wife and the twins she was carrying inside her died when she turned up in the emergency room and her doctor never bothered to answer a page — well, things get a little tricky.
"[T]hey are arguing state law protects doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights."
[BTW, here's a link to the face palm Jesus for your files: http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gawker/... ]
Wow! Holy Hypocrisy

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#11399 Jan 25, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
That is God's own Truth, Khatru!
Absolutely!

The Bible's hatred of women runs deep in its demented scriptures.

Women who give birth to a bot are considered unclean for seven days:

"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean."

Leviticus 12:2

Whereas women who give birth to a girl are unclean for two weeks.

"But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days."

Leviticus 12:5

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#11400 Jan 25, 2013
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.
Excellent analysis.

If there are some sort of "higher god-laws" that permit a god or gods to exist? From whence came these higher laws? A higher god?

What allowed the higher-order of god or gods? A higher-order of laws?

From whence came those?

And so on, ad infinitum, an infinite regression upwards, ever-higher laws requiring ever-higher gods to implement them.

It never ends well, does it?

:D

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#11401 Jan 25, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
They fail again: free speech can only (and always) apply to the individual, never to the group.

The group can express free speech through the individual only.

The same ought to apply to corporations-- they can express free speech >>only<< through the individual. And as such, the individual so expressing, bears all the responsibility of any evil that stems from said expression: you cannot yell "fire" in a crowd, without consequences.

The same should apply to free speech-- we, as a group, have limited the free expression of free speech; such that you cannot express free speech without limits.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#11402 Jan 25, 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?
Digital. That way I can use DRM onto the file, to protect my rights when it's distributed world-wide as a celebration of Justice.

:)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#11403 Jan 25, 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?
You have to walk carefully there-- the group's fate does not >>automatically<< trump that of the individual's.

If that were the case, we'd still have slavery in the US, as the majority of the south, correctly claimed that much of it's economy depended on slavery for survival.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#11404 Jan 25, 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.
Genesis is neither rational nor reasonable.

I'll see your 2 of Clubs, and trump it with an Ace of Spades.

Game.

Set.

Match.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#11405 Jan 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Love God, garden of Eden.
The garden was a display of child abuse writ large.

Period.

There is no other interpretation that makes any sense.

This being, who was the de-facto parents of Adam & Eve, deliberately and with malice, placed a known killer and evil being within this "garden".

And then, deliberately and with malice, turned away, blind to the fates of his children.

And then, deliberately and with evil intent, stood by allowing the mental-rape of the children to take place.

And then, acting on his evil intent, proceeds to torture the children for failing to best another god in a contest of wits.

All the fault, all the responsibility falls directly onto your god:

1) he failed to create beings who could withstand argument from another god (snake)

2) he failed to give them understanding of consequences (they had no knowledge of good or evil, remember)

3) he failed to stick around to protect them from harm

4) he failed to remove dangerous gods from his "garden"-- knowing the consequences of that failure (omniscient, remember?).

5) he proceeded to punish these children for HIS OWN MISTAKES.

That last one is evil without limit-- but he makes it worse:

6) he proceeds to PUNISH all subsequent generations! Even though they were innocent of ANY wrongdoing! That is even more evil--

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#11406 Jan 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are a pro-lifer I assume and against abortion?
Based on what moral standard?
Your question is meaningless in it's context.

Next.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#11407 Jan 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus was quoting the old testament...
Which means you MUST live by ALL the rules therein.

Unless you do? You are a hypocrite.

Period.

Are you a hypocrite, then?

We thought as much.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#11408 Jan 25, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
There are 10 kinds of people in the world.
Those who get binary and those who don't.
Hi Bob - nice to see you 'round these parts again!
:)

I always thought that base 3 would have been a superior system, myself.

Doing great. Playing on Topix for a bit, then likely I'll get bored again and wander off.

:D

I trust you are doing as well? I'm spending time over on FB, on various pages here and there-- I always answer PMs there.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#11409 Jan 25, 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.
None of these can compare the FSM's origin stories, I always say.

Who can refute pasta? I mean, really?:D

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#11410 Jan 25, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not from the UK, are you?
Otherwise you'd have spelled it "foetus"
I would be he's using a proxy, due to having been bannated by Topix.

How much you want to bet on that?

:D

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#11411 Jan 25, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
with all of this only
5% of Americans are atheists.
Nope. 20-25% qualify as "atheist".

Putting "atheist" higher than the most, but just under "catholic".

The rest of the Genuine Christians™ are down in the 10% or less category.

And no--- you don't get to lump them all together.

Proof? All the separate churches you people built.

And more-- all the religious wars you fought against each other down through the ages.

So, no. Not even a little.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#11412 Jan 25, 2013
word wrote:
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.
I see you are another devil worshiper.

Proof?

You just gave your devil more power than your god!

For clearly, your god is powerless to be ... convincing.

But not your devil...

... too FUNNY, really!

:D

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
Good arguments against Christianity 9 min Thinking 165
For Atheists: Why do You Call Theories "Scient... 11 min Thinking 748
News Why I quit atheism 14 min Thinking 694
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 15 min Aura Mytha 18,475
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 18 min Thinking 21,115
A Universe from Nothing? 21 min Thinking 443
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 24 min superwilly 256,539
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 25 min Into The Night 43,113
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 3 hr IB DaMann 5,676
More from around the web