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 (Page 572)

Showing posts 11,421 - 11,440 of21,376
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12139
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

Newbury, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12140
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12143
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Newbury, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12147
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

3

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12149
Feb 4, 2013
 
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>I have no issue whatsoever with colourful language.

It's your lying that I despise.
Lol Sure. Sure. Lying little ole me.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12150
Feb 4, 2013
 
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
So the prerequisite for being an atheist is that you must also be an evolutionist? Labels shmabels. I don't fit neatly into any of your little boxes. I'm a free spirit. My own person. I don't find it difficult at all to believe in God as well as the theories of evolution, as laid out by Charles Darwin. lol The Maher guy's just boring cause he's boring. Plus he looks like a walking corpse. Crypt keeper much?
No, but acceptance of the ToE is a natural consequence of rejecting religion because most if not all objections to it come from conflicts with religious beliefs. At the same time, significant numbers of theists do accept the ToE because it explains the known data better than any other theory. Recently, the Catholic Church has changed its position, accepting the ToE, but asserting its role in God's plan. Many Christian universities also support the ToE and deny creationism or ID any role in their curricula. The ToE does not conflict with intelligent Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, much less Buddhism or Hinduism.

So now I'm confused. Are you saying that you do believe in God?

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12151
Feb 4, 2013
 
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but acceptance of the ToE is a natural consequence of rejecting religion because most if not all objections to it come from conflicts with religious beliefs. At the same time, significant numbers of theists do accept the ToE because it explains the known data better than any other theory. Recently, the Catholic Church has changed its position, accepting the ToE, but asserting its role in God's plan. Many Christian universities also support the ToE and deny creationism or ID any role in their curricula. The ToE does not conflict with intelligent Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, much less Buddhism or Hinduism.
So now I'm confused. Are you saying that you do believe in God?
Oops--your posts are so much lie rio's that I had temporarily confused your points of view. My bad...
Thinking

Newbury, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12152
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

If you really are laughing out loud, there are mental health professionals that may be able to help you.
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol Sure. Sure. Lying little ole me.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12153
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, indeed. Nice to see you here. How have you been?
Doing well. Just had to get away from the inanity of the fundies for a while. Decided to ease back into the game.
insidesecrets

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12154
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The scientific method... hypothesize, model, and test is becoming obsolete. Consider physics. Scientific earth models are less than a century old and are already proving to be unreliable. Newtonian models were crude approximations of the truth (wrong at the atomic level, but still useful). A hundred years ago, statistically based quantum mechanics offered a better picture, but quantum mechanics is yet another model, and as such it too is flawed, no doubt a caricature of a more complex underlying reality. The reason physics has drifted into theoretical speculation about n-dimensional grand unified models over the past few decades is that scientists don't know how to run the experiments that would falsify the hypotheses. The energies are too high, the accelerators too expensive, etc.

Biology is heading in the same direction. The models we were taught in school about "dominant" and "recessive" genes steering a strictly Mendelian process have turned out to be an even greater simplification of reality than Newton's laws. The discovery of gene-protein interactions and other aspects of epigenetics has challenged the view of DNA as destiny and even introduced evidence that environment can influence inheritable traits, something once considered a genetic impossibility.

At best science can only measure reality insofar as human senses and the current use of mental faculties are able to process physical existence.
insidesecrets

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12155
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course we can.
How do you think the frauds are eventually exposed?
Journalists following tips.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12156
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

rio wrote:
<quoted text>
No they are not; they are tax exempted.
That is the very DEFINITION of tax supported, doofus!

By exempting them of their DUTY to pay the taxes they owe? THEY ARE BEING SUPPORTED.

You are seriously stupid.

So much so, I'm not even going to read the rest of your idiocy.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12157
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

rio wrote:
<quoted text>
You know what?
I couldn't give a f*ck about what you think.
You sound like a demented troll in transe in most of your posts.
To be honest, I shit one just like you every morning!! LOL
Aaaaand there's the melt-down.

The proof that this doofus is a god-pusher.

Classic melt-down, it is too.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 11,421 - 11,440 of21,376
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••