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.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#11816 Feb 1, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't subscribe to the assumption that modern medicine can do better than Nature. I believe the body is fully capable of healing itself and think the high priests of chemical and surgical carnage not only interfer with this natural process but compromise human health in many instances. Read the comments on medical message boards by people caught on an endless carousel.....seeing one doctor after another, taking one prescription drug after another to counter the side effects of these drugs instead of the malady itself. The more one depends on agencies outside of himself, the more he is dominated by them.
You do realize that modern medicine is actually harnessed natural processes, right? As in "nature refined," for a more accurate descriptive. You are actually denying that nature works when you deny modern medicine. But your failure to comprehend that shows you know nothing about medicine, or how it works. You know less about science than even a layperson, and less about reality than those with god delusions.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#11817 Feb 1, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't subscribe to the assumption that modern medicine can do better than Nature. I believe the body is fully capable of healing itself and think the high priests of chemical and surgical carnage not only interfer with this natural process but compromise human health in many instances. Read the comments on medical message boards by people caught on an endless carousel.....seeing one doctor after another, taking one prescription drug after another to counter the side effects of these drugs instead of the malady itself. The more one depends on agencies outside of himself, the more he is dominated by them.
I was in a wheelchair in the late '90s. I've also had 4 heart attacks. Thanks to the medical work in biological disease modification (and the shots I take every week) and the CABG I endured about 8 years ago, I go dancing regularly (cha-cha & swing are our favorites), I live in a major downtown community and walk everywhere, and I'm headed to Denali in a few months.

I have consulted in the medical private practice arena, so I know the problems of medicine. I also know it's successes. People need to learn to take responsibility for their medical care and realize that the provider is your paid expert but it's still your body.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#11818 Feb 1, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
<snip> If atheists expect to be taken seriously enough to conquer the world by 2038, they will have to adopt an approach that engenders trust and acceptance rather than revulsion.
So, don't follow the fundamental Christian lead. Got it.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11820 Feb 1, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>I broadly agree with many of Pat Condell's views, but not necessarily the way he expresses them.
Do you know why he is so averse to Dutch courts? "..faith disqualifies reason the way a Dutch criminal court discredits disqualifies truth and witnesses"?(3mins :30secs)
No. I assumed that it was a Anglicism related to a historical dispute - like Dutch treat.

Yes, Condell's style is quite aggressive. He also made a video criticizing those who want him to lighten up. It might offend you. From
:

"there was plenty of negative feedback as well from the usual religious nut jobs, but also from some atheists who have told me that they think I'm giving atheism a bad name. Yeah right. Like it ever had a good name. I've been told things like my arguments are too crude, I'm damaging the atheist cause, I'm not contributing to the debate, and my personal favorite: "You won't convert anyone to atheism by insulting people.

[snip]

"I don't think this is a matter for polite debate, especially when all you're going to get is the usual raft of glibly held but unexamined certainties hammered home like coffin nails at every opportunity. Because dogma is blind and deaf to anything that reason has to offer. Faith is non-negotiable, so where exactly is the debate? You obey the rules of reason; religion ignores them ...

"Religion is out of control right now precisely because too many people have been too diplomatic for too long. If we'd had the balls to do some straight talking years ago when we should have and put this insulting nonsense in its rightful place with astrology and palmistry, we wouldn't even be talking about this now. We'd be doing something more useful with our time. What a waste of an enlightenment."

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11821 Feb 1, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol You took what I said completely out of context in a pathetic attempt to manipulate it into proving your point. That's just low. Not to mention lazy and uncivilized.
If you wish to be taken seriously, you need to give me an argument to rebut. Your bare claims like this are dismissed out of hand.

If I ever accuse you of taking me out of context, I will repost what you selected from my words right next to the fuller quotation containing the missing context, and show what you did and how.

For example, if I were to post that "I would never say that I don't love my wife," and you quoted me as saying, "I don't love my wife," I would post your snippet beside the whole quote, with relevant context restored to demonstrate what you did.

You didn't do that. Look at what you posted instead. To me, that's low, although I'm quite accustomed to it in these threads.

Or maybe you'd care to try again this time. Make a case this time if you can. Do you have any such evidence to present, or shall we just assume that it was you that took the cheap shot here, which of course is the default position when you can't or won't defend your allegations.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11822 Feb 1, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I don't respect your beliefs. I don't respect faith, and I especially don't respect Christianity or its church.

When did that church ever respect unbelievers? Now you want it from us? Christianity deserves no respect because it offers none.

After centuries of calling us fools, vile, abominations, the moral equivalent of murderers and whoremongers, and fit to be dropped into fire still conscious, what exactly are you hoping for now?

Sorry, but I've waited a long time to be able to express how I feel about your religion - how it has maligned, dehumanized and marginalized people like me for the audacity to question it. At long last, we have a safe way to tell you what we think, and in my case at least, respect is not a part of the message.
01Justsayin wrote:
This isn't about respect for religion at all.
It is for me.
01Justsayin wrote:
It's about respect for a fellow human being.
You? I neither respect nor disrespect you. I don't know you. Did you mean politeness? I am being polite. I haven't called you a c*nt yet, have I?

What respect do you expect? You are waving the Christian flag. That's not respectable. You need to be prepared to defend whatever aspects of your church that haven't repudiated.

For example, I showed you several examples of Christian hate speech and all you could say is that your bible is violent. You should have apologized for whoever wrote those words from Psalms and Revelation, and the harm that they have caused people like me. You didn't. No Christian ever has to me.

Sorry, but I don't respect any of that, nor the people who advocate it.
01Justsayin wrote:
I don't respect your views just because they are views. I respect the human being whose views they are.
You seem to be confusing politeness and tact with respect. Topix and message boards are about ideas, not persons. I don't know you, just some of your opinions.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11823 Feb 1, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Then what use is Christianity except to the priests making the weekly deposits?


< crickets >
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Secular humanism has an excellent record, surpassing both classes of religions - godless religions like Maosim, and supernatural ones like Christianity - both classes of which humanism repudiates :

"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:
Bigoted atheists like yourself give secular humanism a bad name.
On behalf of atheism and atheists, thanks for your concern. We value your Christian opinions on atheism and humanism.
insidesecrets wrote:
Bashing religions won't win you respect, and it certainly won't attract people to your cause.
Discussing Christianity has been very helpful.
insidesecrets wrote:
If atheists expect to be taken seriously enough to conquer the world by 2038, they will have to adopt an approach that engenders trust and acceptance rather than revulsion.
Your suggestion has been forwarded.

BTW, I've recalculated the ETA of the irreligious assuming majority status in America based on the PEW data. "2038" is an extrapolation from the ARIS data charting 1990 to 2008. Average growth of the irreligious category was about 3.5% annually over that period.

Apparently, there has been an acceleration in the rate of America's crossover from religious to irreligious, no doubt because irreligiosity is more socially acceptable. America crossed over at a rate of about 6% per annum between 2007 and 2012.

As a result, disregarding any potential more acceleration or deceleration, we should see Christians hit minority status in America about 2029. Here are the data and calculations if you're so inclined:
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
insidesecrets

Santa Fe, NM

#11824 Feb 1, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
I was in a wheelchair in the late '90s. I've also had 4 heart attacks. Thanks to the medical work in biological disease modification (and the shots I take every week) and the CABG I endured about 8 years ago, I go dancing regularly (cha-cha & swing are our favorites), I live in a major downtown community and walk everywhere, and I'm headed to Denali in a few months.
I have consulted in the medical private practice arena, so I know the problems of medicine. I also know it's successes. People need to learn to take responsibility for their medical care and realize that the provider is your paid expert but it's still your body.
To believe you, I would have to take your claims at face value, which I don't.
insidesecrets

Santa Fe, NM

#11825 Feb 1, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
< crickets >
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
On behalf of atheism and atheists, thanks for your concern. We value your Christian opinions on atheism and humanism.
<quoted text>
Discussing Christianity has been very helpful.
<quoted text>
Your suggestion has been forwarded.
BTW, I've recalculated the ETA of the irreligious assuming majority status in America based on the PEW data. "2038" is an extrapolation from the ARIS data charting 1990 to 2008. Average growth of the irreligious category was about 3.5% annually over that period.
Apparently, there has been an acceleration in the rate of America's crossover from religious to irreligious, no doubt because irreligiosity is more socially acceptable. America crossed over at a rate of about 6% per annum between 2007 and 2012.
As a result, disregarding any potential more acceleration or deceleration, we should see Christians hit minority status in America about 2029. Here are the data and calculations if you're so inclined:
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
Like weather forecasting, predictions are a tricky business.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11826 Feb 1, 2013
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
insidesecrets wrote:
Man is God made physical. Religion, even voodoism, can produce as many examples of miracle cures as proponents of modern medicine can produce facsimiles. It has been said by doctors themselves that medicine isn't a science. It's a belief system centered around the art of second guessing. Unfortunately modern medicine is not about healing. It's about capitalizing on human suffering for profit. No terminal patient who is ready to die for example, wants life forced on him through artificial means. The current controversy around euthanasia or assisted suicide is just one of many dilemmas brought about by modern medicine's attempt to play God.
"For a pediatrician to attack what has become the "bread and butter" (vaccines) of pediatric practice is equivalent to a priest denying the infallibility of the pope." - Dr Robert Mendelsohn, M.D.
OK.

On your posts with points, in the future, please indicate what they are. I thank you for your cooperation in advance.
insidesecrets

Santa Fe, NM

#11827 Feb 1, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
It is for me.
<quoted text>
You? I neither respect nor disrespect you. I don't know you. Did you mean politeness? I am being polite. I haven't called you a c*nt yet, have I?
What respect do you expect? You are waving the Christian flag. That's not respectable. You need to be prepared to defend whatever aspects of your church that haven't repudiated.
For example, I showed you several examples of Christian hate speech and all you could say is that your bible is violent. You should have apologized for whoever wrote those words from Psalms and Revelation, and the harm that they have caused people like me. You didn't. No Christian ever has to me.
Sorry, but I don't respect any of that, nor the people who advocate it.
<quoted text>
You seem to be confusing politeness and tact with respect. Topix and message boards are about ideas, not persons. I don't know you, just some of your opinions.
P.S. I am not guilty by association. I do not hold you personally responsible for past atrocities committed by atheists therefore I owe you no apologies, or reparation and expect none from you.
insidesecrets

Santa Fe, NM

#11828 Feb 1, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You do realize that modern medicine is actually harnessed natural processes, right? As in "nature refined," for a more accurate descriptive. You are actually denying that nature works when you deny modern medicine. But your failure to comprehend that shows you know nothing about medicine, or how it works. You know less about science than even a layperson, and less about reality than those with god delusions.
Look at the molecular structure of natural thyroxine and compare it to the synthetic version called Synthroid. The two aren't even close. It is not hard to imagine then why people experience dangerous side effects using this drug.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11829 Feb 1, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
can you name one society in history where Christians had the power to burn or impale unbelievers with impunity, but elected not to use it?


< crickets >
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Can you name one instance of Christians saying, "Yes, we could burn people alive that we don't approve of, but we choose not to do it, because that would be barbaric and sadistic"?


< sound of pin dropping clearly audible >
insidesecrets wrote:
The practices of medieval Europe are not the practices of 21st century of America.
Correct.
insidesecrets wrote:
You are creating iniquities where none exist....arguing from the past, not the present.
Really? What evidence is there that Christians wouldnpt stone us to death today if they could? Or burn us at the stake? It's not a realistic concern, but only because of the secular state.

Do you doubt that if it were legal to burn people like me as witches starting next month that you wouldn't see somebody burned by Christians - probably for blasphemy - on the first day? If so, on what basis? I can show you posts from Topix posters who would clearly love to torch some of us.

You can't whisk this away by pointing to the date of the last witch burning in North America. That was the last time the church could burn us.

And I don't recall hearing an apology or seeing any other sign of contrition or rehabilitation. Parole boards expect that too.
insidesecrets

Santa Fe, NM

#11830 Feb 1, 2013
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>So, don't follow the fundamental Christian lead. Got it.
I don't.
insidesecrets

Santa Fe, NM

#11831 Feb 1, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
< crickets >
<quoted text>
< sound of pin dropping clearly audible >
<quoted text>
Correct.
<quoted text>
Really? What evidence is there that Christians wouldnpt stone us to death today if they could? Or burn us at the stake? It's not a realistic concern, but only because of the secular state.
Do you doubt that if it were legal to burn people like me as witches starting next month that you wouldn't see somebody burned by Christians - probably for blasphemy - on the first day? If so, on what basis? I can show you posts from Topix posters who would clearly love to torch some of us.
You can't whisk this away by pointing to the date of the last witch burning in North America. That was the last time the church could burn us.
And I don't recall hearing an apology or seeing any other sign of contrition or rehabilitation. Parole boards expect that too.
If if were legal to burn people at the stake, everybody would do it whether religious or not. You fear of Christians in general is what guides your logic, not reason.
insidesecrets

Santa Fe, NM

#11832 Feb 1, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
< crickets >
And I don't recall hearing an apology or seeing any other sign of contrition or rehabilitation. Parole boards expect that too.
I am not a criminal and I am not on parole therefore I am not subject to the requirements of a parole board.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11833 Feb 1, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
You do realize that modern medicine is actually harnessed natural processes, right? As in "nature refined," for a more accurate descriptive. You are actually denying that nature works when you deny modern medicine. But your failure to comprehend that shows you know nothing about medicine, or how it works. You know less about science than even a layperson, and less about reality than those with god delusions.
Some of the most useful therapies are natural substances like insulin and thyroid hormone.

There are medical conditions where much less progress has been made, and the available therapies relatively are much less effect while being just as toxic - approaching futile therapy. Patients with such problems will always have bad outcomes and unfortunate stories to tell. No physician can stop it, either, since not surprisingly, such patients change doctors regularly. Recommending that somebody like that stay home rather than press for futile therapy is futile advice. I know. You just lose a patient.

Also, you won't hear as much from the patients with problems that respond well to existing therapies. You have to keep that reporting bias in mind when wading through the message boards of people still looking for answers. They all have horror stories.

The criticisms of medicine are largely valid. It is a treadmill of poisons, runaround, and conflicting advice.

Nevertheless, modern medicine helps many people. The population changed in my time. I showed you the rheumatoid nightmares that we've conquered in that time, and which are now rare. There are others. When I started, congestive heart failure was common. Tons of people had pedal edema and took potent loop diuretics like Lasix. That was unusual by the time I signed out.

Anyway, it's a two edged sword. You need to be an informed and wary consumer. But there is benefit there, too.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#11834 Feb 1, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
Look at the molecular structure of natural thyroxine and compare it to the synthetic version called Synthroid. The two aren't even close. It is not hard to imagine then why people experience dangerous side effects using this drug.
Synthroid is the name brand, it's levothyroxine sodium, sodium is a common and virtually harmless preservative, and all products that will have a shelf life of more than a week will have to have preservatives. So of course it "looks" different to someone who knows nothing of chemistry, because you don't even know what sodium "looks" like. Sodium is also a very useful molecule for complex living organisms, it's one of our primary nutrients, actually. Typically we get it as salt, which is sodium chloride, table salt is iodized though, and the iodine is the real problem with it, too much will kill you. Salt is one of the basic elements of life itself.

Levothyroxine, or (S)-2-amino-3-[4-(4-hydroxy-3, 5-diiodophenoxy)-3,5-diiodophe nyl]propanoic acid, is thyroxine, they are the same thing, moron. Same molecular structure, thus they are identical. It's just a different name. Here, there's even images of them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thyroid_hormone

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11835 Feb 1, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
I was in a wheelchair in the late '90s. I've also had 4 heart attacks. Thanks to the medical work in biological disease modification (and the shots I take every week) and the CABG I endured about 8 years ago, I go dancing regularly (cha-cha & swing are our favorites), I live in a major downtown community and walk everywhere, and I'm headed to Denali in a few months.
I have consulted in the medical private practice arena, so I know the problems of medicine. I also know it's successes. People need to learn to take responsibility for their medical care and realize that the provider is your paid expert but it's still your body.
Thanks for that. Those were exactly the right words at the right time.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#11836 Feb 1, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
If if were legal to burn people at the stake, everybody would do it whether religious or not. You fear of Christians in general is what guides your logic, not reason.
Only insane people would burn others at the stake, legal or not. Anyone with a conscience would be against it, even for criminals. You are projecting your psychosis onto everyone now, and that's not healthy at all.

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 Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 min Bob of Quantum-Faith 257,124
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 min Bob of Quantum-Faith 20,241
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 36 min ChristineM 542
What is of greater value for humanity: Chrisita... 1 hr par five 428
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Aura Mytha 45,485
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 5 hr Richardfs 292
There are no such things as gods or fairies 11 hr u196533dm 188
More from around the web