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

#12129 Feb 4, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
<quoted text>Yet you were the one bashing evolution and using the term evolutionist. It seems you are having trouble keeping up with your own Bullsht.
Nothing bullshit about that...at all. You're the one with all the labels. I am
perfectly capable of believing in God as well as the concepts of evolution, as pointed out by Charles Darwin. Who also, by the way, believed wholeheartedly in God until later in life when his personal conviction was more of that of an agnostic. As amazing a scientist as he was, the man wrestled with his faith his whole life and still wasn't entirely sure in the end. I have nothing but the deepest respect for his work as well as the man himself.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#12130 Feb 4, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
<quoted text>Yet you were the one bashing evolution and using the term evolutionist. It seems you are having trouble keeping up with your own Bullsht.
Seriously. Your ability to misquote or manipulate a person in a pathetic attempt to prove your own point is uncanny. Are you sure you aren't a politician? Because it is quite obvious that you are a textbook narcissist.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#12131 Feb 4, 2013
You said it originated with Jewsus. But it didn't hence you were wrong, as usual. Now your preacher will be waiting for his BJ from you. Swallow like he had you do back in the day per your own admission.
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever you say, Captain Atheisthole.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#12132 Feb 4, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
<quoted text>You said it originated with Jewsus. But it didn't hence you were wrong, as usual. Now your preacher will be waiting for his BJ from you. Swallow like he had you do back in the day per your own admission.
I never said evolution originated with Jesus. Seriously. It's like you think I've never read a book that wasn't the Bible. Are you even reading what I write before you misquote me? Don't you have a truck driver to go service, narciatheist?

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#12133 Feb 4, 2013
Who cares what Darwin's beliefs were? What does that have to do with anything?

Ohhhhhh wait. You were trying to say accepting the fact of evolution = atheism and Darwin was a pioneer in the field. So you were using an appeal to authority logical fallacy.

A really ignorant one because evolution has nothing to do with atheism and you after you spoke negatively of people you labeled evolutionists, admitted you accept evolution.

Hmmm I think you need to find a smarter preacher to suck off and swallow spunk from. That one obviously has you looking thick as pig sht.
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing bullshit about that...at all. You're the one with all the labels. I am
perfectly capable of believing in God as well as the concepts of evolution, as pointed out by Charles Darwin. Who also, by the way, believed wholeheartedly in God until later in life when his personal conviction was more of that of an agnostic. As amazing a scientist as he was, the man wrestled with his faith his whole life and still wasn't entirely sure in the end. I have nothing but the deepest respect for his work as well as the man himself.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#12134 Feb 4, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
Can we trust science?
"Cases of scientific misconduct tend to hit the headlines precisely because scientists are supposed to occupy a moral high ground when it comes to the search for truth about nature. The scientific method developed as a way to weed out human bias. But scientists, like anyone else, can be prone to bias in their bid for a place in the history books."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/13...
Of course we can.

How do you think the frauds are eventually exposed?

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#12135 Feb 4, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
Can we trust science?
"Cases of scientific misconduct tend to hit the headlines precisely because scientists are supposed to occupy a moral high ground when it comes to the search for truth about nature. The scientific method developed as a way to weed out human bias. But scientists, like anyone else, can be prone to bias in their bid for a place in the history books."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/13...
You do realize that is still science that discovers and brings the fraud to light, don't you?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#12136 Feb 4, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
<quoted text>Who cares what Darwin's beliefs were? What does that have to do with anything?

Ohhhhhh wait. You were trying to say accepting the fact of evolution = atheism and Darwin was a pioneer in the field. So you were using an appeal to authority logical fallacy.

A really ignorant one because evolution has nothing to do with atheism and you after you spoke negatively of people you labeled evolutionists, admitted you accept evolution.

Hmmm I think you need to find a smarter preacher to suck off and swallow spunk from. That one obviously has you looking thick as pig sht.
Pig shit is what you reek of. The only one sucking anyone off is you with your truckers at the truck stop. On your knees, boy!
I said just because I believe in God doesn't mean that I cannot also understand the basic concepts of evolution. Especially seeing as how Charles Darwin himself believed in God in the beginning of his life. Even toward the end he was more along the lines of being agnostic. He was not an atheist. Nor did I say that atheism has anything at all to do with evolution. I didn't say one negative word about evolutionists. I simply choose not to label myself or my own personal beliefs. Why put myself in a box like that? In true narcissistic fashion, you flipped that shit in another pathetic attempt to prove your own point. You, sir, are a grade A atheisthole.
Thinking

Ashford, UK

#12137 Feb 4, 2013
Did you read all the retractions at the end of the article? The trend is clear: scientists are trying to improve honesty all the time, whilst priestophiles still get aircover from their church.
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
Can we trust science?
"Cases of scientific misconduct tend to hit the headlines precisely because scientists are supposed to occupy a moral high ground when it comes to the search for truth about nature. The scientific method developed as a way to weed out human bias. But scientists, like anyone else, can be prone to bias in their bid for a place in the history books."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/13...

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#12138 Feb 4, 2013
You said the pentagram preacher gulper. Actually pentacle is the proper term for it and it was used thousands of years before the myth of Jewsus started.

You just keep digging yourself deeper eh? But you are a case example of believers having lower IQs than atheists.

Perhaps you can find a smarter preacher to give BJs to?
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said evolution originated with Jesus. Seriously. It's like you think I've never read a book that wasn't the Bible. Are you even reading what I write before you misquote me? Don't you have a truck driver to go service, narciatheist?

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#12139 Feb 4, 2013
Again who cares about Darwin's beliefs one way or the other? Atheism has nothing to do with evolution.

You keep digging yourself in deeper eh spunk spittoon? Wipe your chin now.
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Pig shit is what you reek of. The only one sucking anyone off is you with your truckers at the truck stop. On your knees, boy!
I said just because I believe in God doesn't mean that I cannot also understand the basic concepts of evolution. Especially seeing as how Charles Darwin himself believed in God in the beginning of his life. Even toward the end he was more along the lines of being agnostic. He was not an atheist. Nor did I say that atheism has anything at all to do with evolution. I didn't say one negative word about evolutionists. I simply choose not to label myself or my own personal beliefs. Why put myself in a box like that? In true narcissistic fashion, you flipped that shit in another pathetic attempt to prove your own point. You, sir, are a grade A atheisthole.
Thinking

Ashford, UK

#12140 Feb 4, 2013
Do you not think it is hypocritical of you to pull up people for their language?

You actually posted that bad language devalues a message!

jesus culting christ you're a state.
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever you say, Captain Atheisthole.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#12141 Feb 4, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
Can we trust science?
"Cases of scientific misconduct tend to hit the headlines precisely because scientists are supposed to occupy a moral high ground when it comes to the search for truth about nature. The scientific method developed as a way to weed out human bias. But scientists, like anyone else, can be prone to bias in their bid for a place in the history books."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/13...
First, fraud does happen in the sciences. In general, though, it is discovered and corrected by other scientists attempting to replicate the results. There are situations where this process fails: in very large projects (like CERN) where there may be hundreds of names on a single paper, and areas where the research is unlikely to have people attempt replication.

Now, for the large projects, the solution is to have more than one team working on different data sets and which are competing with each other. This is very common. While not perfect, it does bring out the biases and tends to correct them over time.

The lack of replication is a much, much more severe problem. This strikes at the core of what it means to be a science. The article you posted noted that replication tends not to happen in psychology and that, I would argue, places psychology outside the bounds of real science. Replication of the results of others is absolutely critical for doing real science. And, truthfully, psychology and sociology are at best borderline sciences. At worst, they are hockum.

Medical science is another place where I would suggest that changes need to happen. it is common for drug trials to have a built-in error rate of 5%. That is way, way too high and corresponds to a 2.5-sigma signal. In particle physics, we don't consider anything less than 5 sigma to be a 'real' signal. The difference is huge and leads to many false positives in medicine, even for those doing the science correctly.

Generally, it is a good idea to take anything said by a sociologist or psychologist with a grain of salt. Ask for multiple studies testing the ideas before belief. This is automatic in most area of real science. If you don't see it in some area, they are not really scientists.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#12142 Feb 4, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the theory, but not the practice.
Yes, in fact, it *is* the practice in any real science. If someone claims that replication is not required, you can *immediately* conclude they are not a scientist. And attempts to replicate will bring out fraud when the results don't agree with the fraudulent research.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#12143 Feb 4, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
<quoted text>You said the pentagram preacher gulper. Actually pentacle is the proper term for it and it was used thousands of years before the myth of Jewsus started.

You just keep digging yourself deeper eh? But you are a case example of believers having lower IQs than atheists.

Perhaps you can find a smarter preacher to give BJs to?
You are obsessed with this whole bj thing aren't you? lol Is somebody's sex life lacking? Poor little narcissistic atheist. A pentagram is enclosed in a circle. The synonym for which is pentacle.(Yet another thing I never thought I'd hear myself arguing about) Many many people have used this symbol throughout history for many different reasons. Unless, of course, you want to call wikipedia a liar too, you arrogant atheisthole.

Here. Educate yourself.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagram

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#12144 Feb 4, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
<quoted text>Again who cares about Darwin's beliefs one way or the other? Atheism has nothing to do with evolution.

You keep digging yourself in deeper eh spunk spittoon? Wipe your chin now.
Lol Seriously. I find your obsession with oral sex downright hilarious. Somebody is obviously going without. You may wanna look into that.
I just said that! Gah! Not once have I failed to acknowledge the fact that atheism has nothing to do with evolution. To point a fact, atheism has nothing to do with Charles Darwin either. But belief in God does. Seeing as how he was a devout believer for the majority of his life. It wasn't until the end of it that his beliefs became more agnostic. I feel like a broken record over here.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#12145 Feb 4, 2013
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>Do you not think it is hypocritical of you to pull up people for their language?

You actually posted that bad language devalues a message!

jesus culting christ you're a state.
Lol My vocabulary is a bit colorful isn't it? I'll try to tone it down a bit. Not God's fault I'm a potty mouth. That's all me. Honestly, I gave up mentioning anything remotely message related a long time ago. There is no point to this endless debate. It's just arguing for the sake of arguing. Why should I take that seriously? Nevertheless, I'll try to keep my colorful vocabulary in check.:)

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#12146 Feb 4, 2013
If so why do you keep bringing up Darwin? You should get back on your medicine preacher spunk spittoon.
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol Seriously. I find your obsession with oral sex downright hilarious. Somebody is obviously going without. You may wanna look into that.
I just said that! Gah! Not once have I failed to acknowledge the fact that atheism has nothing to do with evolution. To point a fact, atheism has nothing to do with Charles Darwin either. But belief in God does. Seeing as how he was a devout believer for the majority of his life. It wasn't until the end of it that his beliefs became more agnostic. I feel like a broken record over here.
Thinking

Ashford, UK

#12147 Feb 4, 2013
I have no issue whatsoever with colourful language.

It's your lying that I despise.
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol My vocabulary is a bit colorful isn't it? I'll try to tone it down a bit. Not God's fault I'm a potty mouth. That's all me. Honestly, I gave up mentioning anything remotely message related a long time ago. There is no point to this endless debate. It's just arguing for the sake of arguing. Why should I take that seriously? Nevertheless, I'll try to keep my colorful vocabulary in check.:)

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#12148 Feb 4, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
<quoted text>If so why do you keep bringing up Darwin? You should get back on your medicine preacher spunk spittoon.
:) It's not time yet to take my medicine. You might wanna up the dosage on yours, though. Honestly, I talk to so many people about various things that I tend to forget what forum I'm in. I think you mentioned evolution, and I was still thinking Darwin from another conversation I had earlier with someone else. Oh well.

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 IB DaMann 48,747
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 13 min It aint necessari... 23,546
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 1 hr Richardfs 5,708
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 2 hr IB DaMann 77
News In defense of faith 15 hr karl44 6
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 19 hr Thinking 21,881
News Louisiana Christians reclaim safe space by runn... Wed Amused 3
More from around the web