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
11,141 - 11,160 of 21,508 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11846 Feb 1, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
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.
Is that right?

Natural thyroid hormone comes in several variations, including one called tetraiodothyronine. Here are two of the natural forms, tetra- and tri-iodothyronine. The difference is the absence of one iodine atom on the triodo form:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4db5bPvZ7aw/UF-9ivp...

Here is Synthroid, the pharmaceutical :
http://www.pdr.net/drugpages/images/synthroid...

These are the same molecule, except that the pharmaceutical form is the sodium salt of tetraiodothyronine, a carboxylic acid.

You could have checked that yourself. Do you care if you're right or not?

And what are the dangerous side effects of Synthroid, assuming thyroid function tests are being monitored and the patient given the proper dose? None, right?

Faith based thinking is not very inspirational to me. And the contempt that Christianity teaches for science, reason, and rigor is also quite uninspiring.
insidesecrets

Albuquerque, NM

#11847 Feb 1, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, that's called psychosis, it's a mental condition, and yes, you'd have to be insane to burn someone at the stake.
Or engage in genocide as did the The Khmer Rouge.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11848 Feb 1, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
If if were legal to burn people at the stake, everybody would do it whether religious or not.
It was legal. Who else was burning people in seventeenth century Salem when it was legal there besides the Christians?

Why are you trying to minimize that utter moral collapse? Where was Jesus or his loving followers - I mean the ones not igniting living, screaming women? Do you want to comment on that? Was your point that it was OK because other people may have wanted to do it as well?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11849 Feb 1, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a criminal and I am not on parole therefore I am not subject to the requirements of a parole board.
I wasn't referring to you, was I? I was referring to the Christian church.

Your indifference is noted.
insidesecrets

Albuquerque, NM

#11850 Feb 1, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, there's no difference between synthetic and "natural" drugs, other than the fact that with natural sources you get a lot of junk with the chemical compounds, a lot of junk. Getting enough of a chemical compound used for controlling diabetes from natural resources you'd have to consume an entire sewage tank of sewage, just for that one dose.
The only benefit synthetic drugs offer is to lawyers seeking legal compensation for their injured clients.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11851 Feb 1, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
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
Bingo! Well done.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11852 Feb 1, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
It's all about learning, huh? Chemistry was one of my strong subjects, so when I see a medication name I tend to look up the chemical compound and ... well ... I actually "see" how it reacts with other chemicals and can usually predict the end results without even using pen and paper. I love chemistry, and chemicals, the compounds and reactions, the changing of forms. It's exhilarating. I often wish I had stuck with that instead of entering the tech sector, not that I regret my decision, just I may have actually enjoyed that work more.
I agree. I enjoyed organic chemistry and biochemistry as well.
KittenKoder wrote:
The biggest issues most people ignore are the side effect counter reactions, they will often try to address the side effects with other medications without ever considering that the cause for the side effects may interact with the medications they take to counter the effects and create some reactions that lead to even worse side effects. Patients should really pay more attention to their health, and too many doctors these days get really pissy when a patient even shows a hint of understanding what's going on. That relationship is gone completely in the US.
Yes. Unfortunately, many doctors are prima donnas. One should avoid them.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11853 Feb 1, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
The only benefit synthetic drugs offer is to lawyers seeking legal compensation for their injured clients.
You are reckless.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#11854 Feb 1, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
The only benefit synthetic drugs offer is to lawyers seeking legal compensation for their injured clients.
Um no, the benefit is being able to get the ingredient you need without having to consume a lot of poisons with it, because that's the only difference between synthetic chemicals and natural ones. The atoms don't change based on how the chemical is formed. Sodium from sea water is the same as sodium in a lab, same atoms, same molecules, same chemical composition, just less water, fish poop, and bacteria.
insidesecrets

Albuquerque, NM

#11855 Feb 1, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
It was legal. Who else was burning people in seventeenth century Salem when it was legal there besides the Christians?
Why are you trying to minimize that utter moral collapse? Where was Jesus or his loving followers - I mean the ones not igniting living, screaming women? Do you want to comment on that? Was your point that it was OK because other people may have wanted to do it as well?
What happened in Salem was an isolated event. It was not common practice among the religious in all of colonial America. Not too long ago, Americans supported racial persecution and segregation not only privately but politically. Would you consider that an example of the "utter" moral collaspe of a secular society?
insidesecrets

Albuquerque, NM

#11856 Feb 1, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Um no, the benefit is being able to get the ingredient you need without having to consume a lot of poisons with it, because that's the only difference between synthetic chemicals and natural ones. The atoms don't change based on how the chemical is formed. Sodium from sea water is the same as sodium in a lab, same atoms, same molecules, same chemical composition, just less water, fish poop, and bacteria.
Those components you call poisons often act as catalysts and buffers in the body. Removing them creates its own set of problems.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11857 Feb 1, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
<quoted text>1: Already stated. Your lack of facts and reason certainly does not help your cause.
2: You are unable to show how your god is anything other than a fantasy hence you are defined as living in such.
3: What else do you call someone who lives by delusion as you do?
4: Credentials in specialities tend to go after the name. Example Dr. John Smith DDS. Wow you are really bad at this! Oh well that's what you get for trying to preach your imagination to atheists.
5: Tell that to the Christ loving Muslims blowing themselves up for your god.
6: It is indeed logical but logic is difficult for one such as yourself who lives under the chains of superstition and delusion.

Perhaps you should change your screen name to just failing?
Muslims don't serve Christ. They serve Muhammad. Who's delusional? Why is it so important to you that I prove my God to you? Does it affect you any? No. It's personal. I cannot factually prove that God exists anymore than you can factually prove that He doesn't exist. All either of us can do is offer up evidence supporting our belief. Does that make me delusional because I choose to believe in a God you can't factually prove isn't real? No more than you are.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11858 Feb 1, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>So in other words, you just want to decry something just to decry it.
In other words that means I'm not gonna stoop to that level of endless debate over something that is a very personal choice. I've been there. I really don't wanna go there again. To do so would be the very definition of redundancy.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11859 Feb 1, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Interesting. You do know that I don't get angry, right? That's a strange side effect of education.
Hahahahahaha Lady, the last word that pops in my mind when I think of you is educated. More like abrasive, rude, aggressive, arrogant, narcissistic, stubborn, and a few others I'd rather not use in public. My level of education, like my belief, isn't something I feel the need to defend. I'm confident in both of them.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11860 Feb 1, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Being alive is what gave me that right, being human is what gave me the drive to. It's a trait that is actually useful to any species capable of self perpetuated advance. As for the rest, well, you don't know. Even if I said I was a professional psychologist there is no way to provide solid evidence of that. I could say I work for the CIA, but couldn't prove that to you in any sane or legal way. So make all the assumptions about me you want, because every assumption you make tells us all more about the quality of, or lack thereof, your character.
It's not an assumption to ask you what gives you the right to condemn someone else's beliefs. It's a question. Being human does not give you the right. Or else we wouldn't teach the necessity of respect to our children. That is a strictly you trait. Honestly if we were relying on you for the advancement of the species, I fear we might all be doomed. And that's not an assumption. That is just my opinion.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11861 Feb 1, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Why do I have to argue with you at all? I have nothing to prove to you. My belief isn't something to be analyzed under a microscope. Your thought process is very analytical and literal and that's okay. But "belief" isn't something you can analyze. Science can't even prove it's there. Yet it exists anyway. People believe in things all the time. Do i agree with all of them? No. And I ain't got to. Science can't prove the existence of a soul, or a conscience. Yet people still manage to have a sense of identity and (in most cases) morals. Do I necessarily care if you take me seriously? Not really. I don't base my opinion of myself upon the opinion others have about me. I am confident in myself. View that in whatever way helps you sleep at night.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#11862 Feb 1, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't.
You're not too quick on the up-take I see. Not surprising

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#11863 Feb 1, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
*chuckles* Which is precisely your problem. I am not a specimen. I am not intended to be examined under anyone's microscope. I am a living breathing human being. I have my own thoughts, my own emotions, my own beliefs. None of which make me a dipshit. Quite frankly I find your hostility to be uncalled for and utterly unenlightened. Insults are the lowest form of dialog. Which is exactly why I'm not choosing to resort to them. I'm not low. So, yeah, I very much so responded to your post. Was it with facts? No Then again I don't need them to describe why I believe what I believe. That should be enough. If you can't be okay with the idea of someone thinking or believing contrary to you then that's really your problem isn't it? Guide your anger in any way you choose. That's all you. It still has no business on my doorstep.
I repeat >>>> "So basically you have no response to the post, but you are willing to act like a even bigger dipshit because (I responded in kind to yours?*)

Anger is not my way, but please understand that when and if I ever have any anger, I will be the one to decide where to guide it to.

Reach for it, whatever you've got, bring it and I will still treat you like a specimen** to either be examined, or maybe even mocked. "

##########

* Do you not understand response in kind? It wasn't until after your nasty barb aimed at me, that I chose to lob one back at you.... Dipshit!

** Whether you are treated as a specimen or not is my choice to make, not yours

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#11864 Feb 1, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Hahahahahaha Lady, the last word that pops in my mind when I think of you is educated. More like abrasive, rude, aggressive, arrogant, narcissistic, stubborn, and a few others I'd rather not use in public. My level of education, like my belief, isn't something I feel the need to defend. I'm confident in both of them.
Then you are not seeing her as she has been presented. What you are seeing, is your own personal reactive translation to that which you do not wish to be shown or told.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#11865 Feb 1, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not an assumption to ask you what gives you the right to condemn someone else's beliefs. It's a question. Being human does not give you the right. Or else we wouldn't teach the necessity of respect to our children. That is a strictly you trait. Honestly if we were relying on you for the advancement of the species, I fear we might all be doomed. And that's not an assumption. That is just my opinion.
How much respect do you have for the Vodun priestess, or the Satanist? How much respect does your religion, your god or even yourself, have for someone who is not going to be conscripted into your zombie vampirism cannibalistic mind freak lunacy?

You god would make parents eat their children and you want respect for your beliefs? How about derision and mockery? They are so much more appropriate to what you loons have earned, and yeah, since you are one, you get the same branding all of them do. Flat out if you don't know what you are advocating, you should learn it. And if you do know, then you flat out are a demented nutcase.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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) 26 min Just Think 226,400
Our world came from nothing? 1 hr religionislies 428
The Ultimate Evidence of God 1 hr Patrick 66
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 5 hr religionislies 58
The myth of the angry atheist 18 hr _Bad Company 1
I left Creationism! Ask me anything! 20 hr Patrick 7
100% Faith Free 20 hr CunningLinguist 14
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••