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

#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

#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

#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

Ashford, UK

#12152 Feb 4, 2013
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

#12153 Feb 4, 2013
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

#12154 Feb 4, 2013
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

#12155 Feb 4, 2013
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

#12156 Feb 4, 2013
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

#12157 Feb 4, 2013
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.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#12158 Feb 4, 2013
trekx wrote:
Lets just put it this way, to be religious (any religion) you first have to be taught that religion. But to be an Atheist you dont have to be taught anything at all, its just a natural state of mind and the way we are all born ...
Baloney!

"Dr Barrett claimed anthropologists have found that in some cultures children believe in God even when religious teachings are withheld from them."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3512...

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#12159 Feb 4, 2013
"Children doubt that impersonal processes can create order or purpose. Studies with children show that they expect that someone not something is behind natural order. No wonder that Margaret Evans found that children younger than 10 favoured creationist accounts of the origins of animals over evolutionary accounts even when their parents and teachers endorsed evolution. Authorities' testimony didn't carry enough weight to over-ride a natural tendency.

Children know humans are not behind the order so the idea of a creating god (or gods) makes sense to them. Children just need adults to specify which one.

Experimental evidence, including cross-cultural studies, suggests that three-year-olds attribute super, god-like qualities to lots of different beings. Super-power, super-knowledge and super-perception seem to be default assumptions. Children then have to learn that mother is fallible, and dad is not all powerful, and that people will die. So children may be particularly receptive to the idea of a super creator-god. It fits their predilections."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belie...
Tom Jones

United States

#12160 Feb 4, 2013
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.
Science is broken. Psychology was rocked recently by stories of academics making up data, sometimes overshadowing whole careers. And it isn't the only discipline with problems - the current record for fraudulent papers is held by anaesthesiologist Yoshitaka Fujii, with 172 faked articles.
These scandals highlight deeper cultural problems in academia. Pressure to turn out lots of high-quality publications not only promotes extreme behaviours, it normalises the little things, like the selective publication of positive novel findings – which leads to "non-significant" but possibly true findings sitting unpublished on shelves, and a lack of much needed replication studies.

http://m.guardiannews.com/science/blog/2012/n...

< fraud does happen in the sciences >
rio

UK

#12161 Feb 4, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
By exempting them of their DUTY to pay the taxes they owe? THEY ARE BEING SUPPORTED.
You must be the most stupid jerk onm this thread.

TAX Exempted means that a charity is self supporting, but doesn't pay taxes on its income (fund raising, donations, etc...).

TAX Supported means that a charity receives money from the state.

In the first case, it doesn't receive public money
In the second case, it does!

Since churches are NON-PROFIT organisations, they are TAX-EXEMPTED. A church isn't a business, nor does it exist to make money out of its operations. At least not in UK. It just exists to fullfil its pastoral duty.

Only a complete moron can't understand that!

Since: Feb 13

Riverside , CA

#12162 Feb 4, 2013
BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
Baloney!
"Dr Barrett claimed anthropologists have found that in some cultures children believe in God even when religious teachings are withheld from them."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3512...
HAHAHA That is bull, we dont know anything with out being taught, that is like saying that children know history with out ever being taught. I believe that about as much as i believe in your god. LOL

But giving you the benefit of the doubt this is from scared children that make up imaginary friend has nothing to do with religion and what it teaches, its time to grow up and put the imaginary things away ....

And BTW Atheism is the lack of belief witch is how we are ALL born.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#12163 Feb 4, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
PBS news. Oddly, nobody ever mentions the frightening specter of Christianity lurking in the shadows. I suspect you are one of those conspiracy theory lovin' Faux news aficionados.
<quoted text>
I call "liar" here-- you KNOW you love Faux SNooze-- it preaches exactly what you love to hear.

LOL!
insidesecrets wrote:
In a democracy people are free to think what they will. Despite what you may assume, science is not above scrutiny, or even recrimination.
Indeed, science is self-correcting. It is constantly questioning itself, and it's claims.

This is fundamental to science.

In contrast to ALL BELIEF: which teaches you to NEVER-EVER question.

This is why ALL religion is so... wrong.
insidesecrets wrote:
If you are going to make accusations, at least get your facts straight. Galileo was not murdered. He was allowed to return to his villa at Arcetri near Florence in 1634, where he spent the remainder of his life under house arrest. He died on January 8, 1642 at the age of 77.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
He was threatened with murder, as were so many early scientists. Most were murdered, and I had forgotten that he got off with a life-sentence under constant threat of death, if he so much as opened his mouth to speak the truth.

Such is the fruits of your evil cult (Xianity)
insidesecrets wrote:
Indeed. And children in public schools are thoroughly indoctrinated in the sciences without the benefit of other points of view. Rather imperialistic, don't you think?
Nope. Because, in contrast to RELIGION, science self-corrects itself, when new FACTS are discovered.

Religion, such as the dogsh7t YOU believe in, continues to try to SUPPRESS FACTS that would prove your dogsh7t beliefs false.
insidesecrets wrote:
There is no "absolute" reality that we all agree on. There is only what we perceive to be reality. And what we perceive to be reality depends on what we believe.
Riiiiight. I can hear the song from Twilight Zone even now, as you adjust your tinfoil hat once again...
insidesecrets wrote:
Was Osama bin Ladin a relative of yours by any chance? You sound exactly like a Muslim extremist. You are not a rationalist, but an irrationalist. Perhaps a complete psychological evaluation might uncover the reason for your unfounded paranoia.
Nope-- I'm an atheist. Bin Ladin worshiped YOUR god, doofus.

He was JUST LIKE YOU, point of fact: he believed in fantasy-delusions.

His giant ego (exactly like YOURS) was such, he thought the Ultimate Creator of Everything paid attention to HIM. As you do.

You and Bin Ladin are brothers-in-belief: you both wish your evil dogma should dominate everyone, by force, by law, by whatever it takes...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#12164 Feb 4, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
Are YOU listening? Is our government?
<quoted text>
If all it takes is one quote to condemn the whole of Christianity in your world then you should not have no problem with one quote indicting science.
"For 200 years we've been conquering Nature. Now we're beating it to death." - Tom McMillan
The difference here?

Science is self-correcting-- as new FACTS come to light, science changes itself to conform to the FACTS.

You know: reality.

Contrast with ALL RELIGION: which continues to try to DENY REALITY.

You are one sick goddite.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#12165 Feb 4, 2013
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
Finally blew your stack, lol.
Thanks Bob!!!!
:)

It's what I do best: force them to reveal their true natures.

It's always ugly, isn't it?

:LMAO:

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#12166 Feb 4, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
It's also helpful to depict this religion and its practices in more realistic language. Here's Pat Condell to help us understand the miracle of faith a little better, and to put respect for religion in perspective :

"But religion is more than just a belief. Religion wants to impose a universal morality, which is why is has always attracted the kind of person who thinks other people's private lives are their business. And giving respect to this mentality is exactly what has got us into the mess that we're in. We've given religion ideas above its station, and we've persuaded it that it's something it's not.

"The truth is that faith is nothing more than the deliberate suspension of disbelief. It's an act of will. It's not a state of grace. It's a state of choice, because without evidence, you've got no reason to believe, apart from your willingness to believe. So why is that worthy of respect, any more than your willingness to poke yourself in the eye with a pencil?

"And why is faith considered some kind of virtue? Is it because it implies a certain depth of contemplation and insight? I don't think so. Faith, by definition, is unexamined. So in that sense it has to be among the shallowest of experiences. Yet, if it could, it would regulate every action, word and thought of every single person on this planet, because, let's not forget, even an impure thought is a sin.

"Well, I think that belief in God is an impure thought. It pollutes our understanding of reality. It gets in the way, and it brings out the worst in the best of us, so that we're even prepared to stoop so low as to poison the unformed minds of the people we love the most - our children. By the time they're old enough to think for themselves, it's too late. They've been well and truly hypnotized.

"I'm sorry, but there's no nice way to say this. If you fill your child's mind with images of Satan and the horrors of hellfire, you're a sick individual, and you are mentally ill."
Condell's a frikkin Genius.

Thanks for this, Doc.
rio

UK

#12167 Feb 4, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
:)
It's what I do best: force them to reveal their true natures.
It's always ugly, isn't it?
:LMAO:
Well, your true nature isn't better, jackass!!

And you can't even make the fifference between exempted and supported.

Rather stupid, I would say.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#12168 Feb 4, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
"Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious."
-Sam Harris
--American Neuroscientist
I think it's much better taken in complete context:

" http://www.skeptic.ca/Atheist_Manifesto.htm&q... ;

"Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind is not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours or days at most. Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical laws that govern the lives of 6 billion human beings. The same statistics also suggest that this girl s parents believe at this very moment that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this?

No.

The entirety of atheism is contained in this response. Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which the obvious is overlooked as a matter of principle. The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job. It carries with it an aura of petulance and insensitivity. It is, moreover, a job that the atheist does not want.

It is worth noting that no one ever needs to identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines. Likewise, atheism is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma. The atheist is merely a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (87% of the population) who claim to never doubt the existence of God should be obliged to present evidence for his existence and, indeed, for his benevolence, given the relentless destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day. Only the atheist appreciates just how uncanny our situation is: Most of us believe in a God that is every bit as specious as the gods of Mount Olympus; no person, whatever his or her qualifications, can seek public office in the United States without pretending to be certain that such a God exists; and much of what passes for public policy in our country conforms to religious taboos and superstitions appropriate to a medieval theocracy. Our circumstance is abject, indefensible and terrifying. It would be hilarious if the stakes were not so high."

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, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 11 min emperorjohn 20,205
News Who is an atheist? (May '10) 2 hr Chick240 9,500
News Why Kasich's atheist criticisms seem out of touch 2 hr Reason Personified 29
News Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris are old news - a t... 6 hr ATHEOI 189
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 hr ATHEOI 45,414
What is of greater value for humanity: Chrisita... 12 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 417
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 12 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 278
More from around the web