Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Apr 25, 2012 Full story: Psychology Today 22,047

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
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#11444 Jan 26, 2013
mohammed doesn't need a shopping list.
mohammed would never forget to buy the bacon at the supermarket.
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds legit.
Henry

Bad Langensalza, Germany

#11445 Jan 26, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
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--
The garden of eden is just a myth like so many biblical phenomenons!
Henry

Bad Langensalza, Germany

#11446 Jan 26, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed.
We are working on it-- at last count, the fraction of "not associated with religion" was around 20-25% or so.
And rising rapidly-- higher among the younger crowd, than among the older set.
There is hope for us after all.
Unfortunately in the nuclear age the hope of survival is dwindling!
Henry

Bad Langensalza, Germany

#11447 Jan 26, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
I think it is "literal interpretation" of Genesis and Bible that has contributed towards this Atheist movement in Western countries.
Neither Bible nor book of Genesis should be interpreted literally, because these books were not "dictated by God" .
Church has done great dis-service to their religion by insisting that Biblical books are revealed word of God and insisted on its literal interpretation.
The Church's illogical stand has been a major factor for origin and rise of Atheism in the West.
And the problem is that when they start rejecting Bible, they reject all scriptures, because in their view, there can never be any book or scripture better or more authentic than their Bible.
So the church has caused more people to go away from religion and then reject all religions and all books of God.
Religions are just myths in the light of reality!
Henry

Bad Langensalza, Germany

#11448 Jan 26, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed.
We are working on it-- at last count, the fraction of "not associated with religion" was around 20-25% or so.
And rising rapidly-- higher among the younger crowd, than among the older set.
There is hope for us after all.
Not in these nuclear age. We are belated in our ideology, which means the hope for survival is very low!
Henry

Bad Langensalza, Germany

#11449 Jan 26, 2013
Thinking wrote:
One opinion is that coalitions couldn't get anything done. But then having one house republican and the other democrat can have a similar effect. This also happens in France regularly.
Another opinion is that coalitions need to be more inclusive, which should be a good thing. But the tail can still wag the dog in a coalition, which is how the tea party works.
No system is perfect. I'd like a cap on the money political parties get to spend though.
<quoted text>
No system is perfect.Exampel: the stone age, the slaveowner system, feudalism, capitalism and now socialism and finally communism. The last system, the nuclear age may have been the end of mankind! Religions have no chance any more, the are a dying system finally!

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#11450 Jan 26, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean... your True Colors?
Are yours any different? I thought not.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11451 Jan 26, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =0D9XyuT-DB8XX
That was a fun video. Thanks.

Did you notice how they framed the two pairs of teams? Here they are, with their scores

The Liberal Media Elites (248) vs. The Young Conservatives (27)
and
The Agnostic Scholars (327) vs. The Young Believers (0)

“Fortes Fortuna Juvat, ”

Since: Dec 09

Wichita. Ks.

#11452 Jan 26, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
That was a fun video. Thanks.
Did you notice how they framed the two pairs of teams? Here they are, with their scores
The Liberal Media Elites (248) vs. The Young Conservatives (27)
and
The Agnostic Scholars (327) vs. The Young Believers (0)
That is the thing one group of people takes the time to learn, understand, and educate themselves on many levels while other groups lack the drive to learn, understand, and educate themselves. If all a person will do is take what they are told at face value then they lose face.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11453 Jan 26, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
Looking back. It was akin to a mild form of mental illness. Religious delusions esp the devout kind I think are a form of illness. Its difficult to admit you are wrong if you have invested so much emotionally in a belief system.
One gets the impression not so much that the Christian believes that he is right, but that he doesn't care if he is wrong. What would be the honest answer to the question, "If you were wrong, would you want to know"?

As you note, once you have invested as much of yourself to an ideology as these people have, and you believe that there is no harm in being wrong, what's the incentive to learn that you are wrong? Unless you experience cognitive dissonance at the idea of being wrong, I'd say that there is none.

I'd guess that for you to have burrowed out, you must have experienced some sort of cognitive dissonance over the possibility of being wrong. Being correct - a love of truth - still had to matter to you, or why would you have bothered?

Christian dogma devotes a lot of energy to preventing that. Reason is demeaned, and its opposite, accepting ideas without reason, is praised with a pretty word, "faith." The believers own mind is said to be Satan speaking to him, the and listening to ones own mind is framed as a moral failure: losing faith. Those that do leave are described as being weak.

Does any of that sound familiar?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11454 Jan 26, 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???
When you put it that way, maybe the bible is correct.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11455 Jan 26, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Khatru wrote:
Lol! Where do you get them from?
I find them by accident. The hard part is remembering that I have them bookmarked.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11456 Jan 26, 2013
Henry wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately in the nuclear age the hope of survival is dwindling!
Truthfully, it is a LOT better than it was 30 years ago! I lived when the threat of nuclear annihilation was an every-day worry. Now, we worry that a terrorist or two will get a nuke and destroy a city. Then, we worried about tend of thousands of nukes destroying civilization.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11457 Jan 26, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
Excellent analysis.
Thanks, Bob.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
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?
Correct.

The transcendent physical law argument fails in the same way that the uncaused (first) cause argument, the transcendent moral laws, and the probability arguments fail when applied to the god.

These arguments can only be salvaged with special pleading: the universe, for example, absolutely, positively needs a first causes, and anybody who thinks otherwise is irrational. But the god gets a pass from such rigorous scrutiny - often excused by some ad hoc qualifier such as that the god exists in a privileged reality where nothing needs to make sense. The will to believe permits that.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11458 Jan 26, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Agreed. And the limit probably should be that you are free to express ideas verbally to those interested in hearing them, meaning that you cannot be systematically suppressed from doing so. The rule exists to keep the marketplace of ideas open, not for the wealthiest interests to pervert the democratic process, wherein "One man, one vote" becomes "One dollar, one vote."

The problem seems to be that freedom of speech has been expanded to freedom of expression, and dumping money into elections or lobbying legislators is called speech. Obviously, some forms of expression are not acceptable, such as bribery and extortion.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11459 Jan 26, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You're the third person I respect that has disagreed with me. Perhaps I'm wrong on this matter. I wasn't expecting any dissent. I thought that preserving the human race was a high enough moral good to trump an individual's right to dissent about reproducing. I'll have to rethink it.
Henry

Bad Langensalza, Germany

#11460 Jan 26, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>I think such remarks are off-topic, but capitalism is established and is more likely to be adapted than ended. Is there an ideology you favour?
I don't see as an ideology. If it is, it isn't a narrow one. It's just a regulated economic system. It won't end as long as it is sufficiently regulated. How can one have money and not capitalism? Minor and local currencies exist alongside major ones.
What do you think capitalsim is?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capita...
Quite easy, capitalism is a suicidal system in the end of the atomic age!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11461 Jan 26, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
None of these can compare the FSM's origin stories, I always say.
Who can refute pasta? I mean, really?:D
Bless our Savory, born of extra virgin olive oil, and anointed with Cheese's Crust - how grated thou art!

He, who came for our salivation when we were thrown out of the Olive Garden, was twirled on a giant fork and unceremoniously flung onto a wall instead, where he stuck and dried for our sins.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11462 Jan 26, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
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
Good observation.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11463 Jan 26, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the third person I respect that has disagreed with me. Perhaps I'm wrong on this matter. I wasn't expecting any dissent. I thought that preserving the human race was a high enough moral good to trump an individual's right to dissent about reproducing. I'll have to rethink it.
And here's the point that the godbots will never understand: we can *think* about moral issues, discuss them, and perhaps come to a consensus. Even if we are wrong, we can learn and correct our errors. Believing you have an 'absolute truth' doesn't allow for fixing mistakes because you never allow that you can *make* a mistake.

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) 5 min TheHeadlines 227,399
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 10 min TheHeadlines 70
Stump a theist with 2 questions 12 min TheHeadlines 17
Atheism 101: What's the most aggravating argume... 1 hr Patrick n Angela 3
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 3 hr Thinking 183
Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns 6 hr Patrick 41
The Ultimate Evidence of God 18 hr sriKim 120
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••