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 (Page 537)

Showing posts 10,721 - 10,740 of20,826
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11397
Jan 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus' is the source of morality.
He created humanity...
Where is the evidence of this assertion?

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11398
Jan 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

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

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11400
Jan 25, 2013
 

Judged:

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.
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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11401
Jan 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11402
Jan 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11404
Jan 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11405
Jan 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11406
Jan 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11407
Jan 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11409
Jan 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11411
Jan 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11412
Jan 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

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

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11413
Jan 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting article. Christianity is definately on the decline in the UK.
Yep. Proof that in the UK, at least, the adults are winning this one.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11414
Jan 25, 2013
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Congratulations!
Hiding! Good to see your post.

:D

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11415
Jan 25, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure. Suppose we had a situation where to preserve the human race we had to rape ALL the women alive at some time. Would that be justified? Your scenario feels much like that.

And the problem is that justifications like this have been used throughout history to perpetrate horrid crimes against humanity. And that leads me to think ALL such justifications are problematic, at least. Once again, better to let the human race die out than this.
I would say, in that particular scenario, the race will go extinct. From an ethical point of view, no other outcome is acceptable.

Unless, obviously, there existed a way to (with permission) use human ova, and mix with volunteered sperm, and gestate the result in an external womb.

Or, perhaps, some sort of cloning technique.

Any race that has to survive, by committing an atrocity? Should not survive at all.

But that's just me: I don't see survival as trumping everything else-- I just don't.

In direct contrast to the "morality" of the BuyBull, of course.

We humans have learned superior morality than what the BuyBull teaches, certainly.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11416
Jan 25, 2013
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
What if...what...if ... the first day was like, the big bang and the second day was like...13 billion years later...and then later that day, Earth...and then later that day, you get water...and then we fudge the birds and bats thing a bit, add some fish, twist stuff around, make humans appear too early,'cause the writer is stupid and ignorant, and God's logically impossible, and we throw all kinds of caveats in there, a few "but...but...but"s and add some illogic, irrationality and gross amounts of the opposite of education and teach it to gullible children?
Hey?!? What then, huh???
It'd still be unethical-- in that all the responsibility for all evil would still rest on the god of the story.

And once you go down the road of "absolve responsibility for actions" path? You get... a nation where huge fractions of the population is in prison.

... wait.

Oh... my.... this isn't good.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 10,721 - 10,740 of20,826
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••