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: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11651 Jan 31, 2013

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#11652 Jan 31, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the ignorant one. Atheism- the theory or BELIEF that God does not exist. You contradict yourself.
I'm the atheist, therefore I choose what it means, it means I lack the belief in a god, that's the dictionary definition as well. End of story.
insidesecrets

Santa Fe, NM

#11653 Jan 31, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet, you pretend you do comprehend it, all theists do.
If theists could comprehend what cannot be objectified there would not be so many versions of God. God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intelletual thought and religons the touchstones of our "sensed" divinity expressed.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#11654 Jan 31, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
Fortunately for mankind, the mechanics behind life do not depend on your ridiculous theorizing in order to operate.
So explain how it is that medical science works?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11655 Jan 31, 2013

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11656 Jan 31, 2013
http://creation.mo bi/atheist-god-hate

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11657 Jan 31, 2013

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11658 Jan 31, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
Yet the world did survive, and went on to suffer the atrocities of godless communist regimes where millions of people were maimed and killed ... The historical record of collective atheism is thousands of times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous bloodbath, the Spanish Inquisition.
What do you think would be the difference if Pol Pot and Mao had been Christians? Are you implying that that would have saved lives? Hitler and Stalin were raised in Christianity. It didn't seem to make much difference, did it? Not any more than it did during the Spanish Inquisition or the Salem witch burnings.

Totalitarian ideologies like Stalinism are simply religions like Christianity and Islam, but with human gods. They are all cults of personality, where worship of the leader and strict devotion to his pronouncements is demanded. They are equally authoritarian and intolerant, and as you noted, each have long histories of genocide.

Secular humanism, which is only guilty of giving the world modern liberal democracies, human rights, and science, repudiates it all:

"We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others."
insidesecrets wrote:
Add this to the unholy gruesome slaughter of abortion and the numbers are unconscionably staggering!
Every member of the Supreme Court that voted with the majority in Roe vs. Wade was a theist. Most abortions have been requested by Christian women. I'm afraid that blood is on your hands.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11659 Jan 31, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
Atheism - The theory or BELIEF that God does not exist.(google it) There most certainly is scientific evidence that God is real. Look it up. I ain't doing your work for you. However there is NO SCIENTIFIC evidence to prove that God does not exist. It's not possible. You just can't do it. The mere BELIEF that God does not exist is a BELIEF within itself. Ergo you are a hypocrite.
What value would a proof that gods do not or cannot exist be? Who would it benefit? Not me. And not you. Right?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11660 Jan 31, 2013

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#11661 Jan 31, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
If theists could comprehend what cannot be objectified there would not be so many versions of God. God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intelletual thought and religons the touchstones of our "sensed" divinity expressed.
If "the god!" is beyond all intellectual thought or imaginings able to be conceived of by man, then, how can you make that statement?

Wait, don't tell me, you know.

<laughs>

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#11662 Jan 31, 2013
Why is it that theists have such a hard time copying and pasting links, and further, why do they have problems copying and pasting links that are crappy, too?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11663 Jan 31, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
Sorry, but where did you say your proof was? I looked at those pieces - nothing. Which one did you think contained a proof in it?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11664 Jan 31, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
What proof or evidence do you have to support your BELIEF that God does not exist?
Who is "God"? Jehovah-Jesus? The proof that that god is a mythological creature is in the bible it is said to have written, which is self-refuting. It tells us about a perfect god, and then describes a monster in a book full of errors. There are no more perfect gods making mistakes than there are married bachelors.

A real god would have known how the universe and life on earth evolved.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11665 Jan 31, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
I'm not a hypocrite as I know what I believe and why I believe it and I don't engage in the same behaviors I condemn others for. In fact, I don't condemn anyone at all.
Then somebody's posting in your name and making you look like a hypocrite. From http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... :

"The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of only fifty-two atheists"

"the greed and gluttony of an amoral science driven vision to industrialize the world"

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11666 Jan 31, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
I never said that God didn't exist. Atheists did. By definition atheism is the theory or belief that God doesn't exist. It doesn't specify which god. It just says God. Back to my question: What proof or evidence do you have to support your BELIEF that God doesn't exist?
Who or what is "God"? If you can't define it, you can't very well expect others to take seriously your claim that it exists.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11667 Jan 31, 2013
Atheism tends to exalt reason, but it is actually irrational. Atheists tend to put a lot of stock in the emperical method and in logic. One cannot disprove God exists using the emperical method. You might reply: But I can't disprove a giant purple frog on Mars controls the universe, either. Granted, one can never disprove any given thing exists. The atheistic position denying God's existence, if based on the emperical method, is absurd. Why do I say that? In order to prove the assertion No God exists experimentally, one would need to comprehensively know all of reality. Comprehensive knowledge of reality is called omniscience. One would need to be omniscient in order to prove there is no God, but if one were omniscient one would, by definition, already be God! So, based on emperical methodology, the only one capable of disproving the existence of God would be God himself! But some would say you can indeed assert something does not exist if its existence is logically self contradictory, such as a square triangle. By definition it cannot exist. It is illogical for something to be a square and to also be a triangle. Again, granted, but this line of reasoning assumes logic and real meaning exist and are our basis for knowledge --something an atheist has no right to assert! The existence of God is not only logically possible, it is philosophically essential. One cannot prove logic exists unless one first presupposes a God in whom reason and meaning are transcendentally rooted, otherwise these categories are mere philosphical prejuduces. Atheism is inherently self-contradictory. The evidence for the existence of God is there for all to see, only we refuse to see it. King David wrote: The fool says in his heart there is no God.(Psalm 14:1) In other words, Atheism is irrational. Apart from God there is no basis for truth or ethics. For the sake of brevity, let's simply consider ethics.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11668 Jan 31, 2013
Those who argue that morality is properly based upon what society as a whole deems moral have a big problem. What one society says is moral another says is immoral. Nazi Germany held that it was morally good and beneficial to exterminate the Jewish people. The Allies saw the Nazis as evil and fought against them. Who was right? If one believes God gave the law You shall not murder, the answer is obvious. Any society that advocates murder is evil. How can an atheist respond? Most would admit the Nazis were evil, but according to what standard? Were the Nazis evil just because the Allies said they were evil or were they in fact evil? One can try to argue that it isn't just what a few societies say that matters, but what the majority of human societies agree upon. This does provide a better basis, since God has given us a conscience, but it has been corrupted by rebellion. At one time most human societies placed less value on female offspring than on males. In many societies female infants were left to die. In some places this exists today. This is morally wrong, no matter if the whole of human society were to say otherwise! Basing morality on human society does not provide an adequate answer.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11669 Jan 31, 2013
What of an evolutionary model for morality? Why not posit that whatever benefits human survival is moral? To some this may be appealing, but first ask some questions. Why, based upon atheistic assumptions, should we logically value human survival? What difference does it all make? Why is life valuable? Isn't belief in human survival itself a moral assumption, a value judgement that has no basis in an atheistic world view? Furthermore, consider what an ethic based solely on survival could lead to: the elimination of those perceived to have less survival value. The Nazi movement, based upon an evolutionary eugenic ideal of developing a super race, destroyed those deemed by them inferior or unsuitable. Reproduction was to be limited to those deemed most fit. Mankind, when left to its own devices to develop its moral basis, commits systemized murder and oppression. Consider the atrocities of Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, and the horrible situations we have witnessed in Rwanda and Bosnia. Both atheists and religious people so easily justify murder. Just because we have also seen horrors committed by those claiming to believe in some sort of god doesn't disprove my point. I'm not advocating just any old god! It is still true that when any society abandons the God-given law, You shall

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11670 Jan 31, 2013
What of basing morality on one's personal preferences? What of just saying you can know what is wrong by following your heart? What a dippy idea this is! Jeffrey Dahmer's heart led him to murder and cannibalize his fellow humans! Basing morality on feelings is the ultimate in irrationality. This puts moral judgement on the level of personal taste. Dahmer might have thought you suitable to his taste!

I've met many atheists who are judgmental of religious people who have committed great atrocities, but upon what basis? Does this make any sense? Atheistic assumptions irresistibly lead to the conclusion that morality is nothing more than a matter of personal or societal preference. Based upon an atheistic philosophy, the very appropriate disdain for the despicable murderers of humanity makes about as much sense as a dog lover's disdain of those who prefer cats! How silly. Unless there is a moral standard beyond individual or societal preference, there is no logical basis for condemning atrocity. I challenge any atheist to give me a basis for ethics beyond mere personal preference, social custom, or survival. They simply cannot do it. Post-modern philosophers have come to the conclusion that there is no hope of finding morality or meaning based on materialistic presuppositions. They are quite right. It is a good thing that many atheists are too decent and too inconsistent to live out the irresistible moral conclusions of their philosophy!

Another thought: we even transgress the scruples we ourselves invent. Is this logical? No, but this is consistent with the Biblical view of mankind, which says we are by our nature law-breakers and rebels who don't want to believe in the true God. Thank God there is an amnesty program for rebels and atheists!(More on that later.)

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) 4 min Into The Night 48,654
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 9 min Richardfs 5,698
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 1 hr JustASkeptic 40
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 7 hr scientia potentia... 23,511
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 9 hr Thinking 21,875
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 11 hr ChristineM 258,041
News Louisiana Christians reclaim safe space by runn... 12 hr Mikko 1
More from around the web