Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

There are 23584 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.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#12339 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
To believe that the universe just happened for no particular reason takes faith.
But I don't say that, so you are now attempting a strawman fallacy.

I don't know how the universe started or even if it "started".

Neither do you.

You claim goddidit. Which scientifically doesn't provide any testable predictive capability what-so-ever and is therefore a totally worthless claim made on faith.

I claim that there is at least some evidence for a number of different working hypotheses and am now awaiting predictive testing methods to help us move forward in our understanding.

You then lie to everybody about science you so clearly do not understand.
Thinking

Gillingham, UK

#12340 Feb 5, 2013
Straw man.
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
To believe that the universe just happened for no particular reason takes faith.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#12341 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
The theories of science are trips into the imagination,
Which are limited by the requirement that hypotheses be testable with repeatable results. Imagination is required for the initial hypothesis, but does not and cannot justify belief. Only testing and repeatablity do that.

Religion, on the other hand, has no such limitations, so it flies wildly after any imaginings it pleases.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#12342 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
I say it is.
Then provide *evidence* that distinguishes between intelligent design and the simple application of the laws of physics and chemistry.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#12343 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
Christians have been trying to save the world for Jesus for 2,000 years and they haven't succeeded yet. What are you afraid of?
Wasn't he supposed to return during the life of his apostles??

My fears?

Spiders... but only the one I see above my head because they are more difficult to stomp!

Young children whose heads are about crotch height

and, as I have gotten older, heights as I tend to get vertigo now that I didn't have in my youth.

I'm not deathly afraid of any of them though.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#12344 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
Reread my post. You lost something in the translation.
Doubtful, but I'll check...

Nope, reads the same.
insidesecrets

Albuquerque, NM

#12345 Feb 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Which are limited by the requirement that hypotheses be testable with repeatable results. Imagination is required for the initial hypothesis, but does not and cannot justify belief. Only testing and repeatablity do that.
Religion, on the other hand, has no such limitations, so it flies wildly after any imaginings it pleases.
And how has the so called wild imaginings of the religious hurt science, or you for that matter?

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#12346 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
There are getting close (field theories) but so far, no cigar.
maybe in 2000 yrs they'll be as close as christians are to finding evidence for a god

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#12347 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
And how has the so called wild imaginings of the religious hurt science, or you for that matter?
BY TRYING TO REQUIRE THE TEACHING OF THAT WILD IMAGININGS CRAP TO PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENS AS SCIENCE!!
insidesecrets

Albuquerque, NM

#12348 Feb 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Then provide *evidence* that distinguishes between intelligent design and the simple application of the laws of physics and chemistry.
As mentioned earlier, the DNA strand. What specifically tells enzymes to do what they do?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#12349 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
And how has the so called wild imaginings of the religious hurt science, or you for that matter?
Dark ages. Over 100 years of fighting against heliocentricity. Over 150 years of fighting against biological evolution. Fighting stem cell research. Fighting global climate change. etc.

"It is now quite lawful for a Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy by a resort to mathematics, though she is still forbidden to resort to physics and chemistry." (H.L. Mencken)

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#12350 Feb 5, 2013
So those scientists are looking in their microscopes and saying hmmm... Red blood cells, white blood cells, leukocytes, god stuff, stem cells... Oh wait delete that about about god stuff!

So what is the god stuff levels in our blood? What is the proper range of god stuff?

Lmfao!
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
They do. They just don't recognize what they see as Intelligent Deisign.
insidesecrets

Albuquerque, NM

#12351 Feb 5, 2013
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>Wasn't he supposed to return during the life of his apostles??
My fears?
Spiders... but only the one I see above my head because they are more difficult to stomp!
Young children whose heads are about crotch height
and, as I have gotten older, heights as I tend to get vertigo now that I didn't have in my youth.
I'm not deathly afraid of any of them though.
Then live and let live.
insidesecrets

Albuquerque, NM

#12352 Feb 5, 2013
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>BY TRYING TO REQUIRE THE TEACHING OF THAT WILD IMAGININGS CRAP TO PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENS AS SCIENCE!!
Has it happened yet? Until it does, you have no legitimate gripe.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#12353 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
And how has the so called wild imaginings of the religious hurt science, or you for that matter?
First, by convincing people they should change laws to abide by their superstitions.

Second, by affecting the types of experiments scientists can perform and the financing they get from the government.

Third, by degrading the overall education about science.

Fourth, by shaping the young into believing myths rather than promoting skepticism.

Fifth, by lowering the overall reasoning ability of the voters in a democratic society.

Sixth, by promoting family arguments over superstitious nonsense.

Seventh, by making the lives of non-believers more complicated because they have to 'respect' the superstitious beliefs of others, including family and friends.

Eighth, by denigrating those who have learned to think for themselves.

I am sure there are many, many more ways, but this is off the top of my head.
insidesecrets

Albuquerque, NM

#12354 Feb 5, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet the first Old Testament Commandment is in direct opposition to the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. So in spite of Justice Rehnquist far-right position, the reality does not support this proposition.
Shall we discuss each of these supposed 10 great commandments and see which ones are actually part of the U.S. legal system and which ones actually existed outside of the Abrahamic traditions? Possibly in ancient examples such as Hammurabi's Code?
(Did you know that there are more than 10 Commandments in Exodus and that it was the 10 Covenants that were written in stone and kept in the Ark of the Covenant, and not the Commandments? No, of course you didn't know that, nor will you now go check. That's an example of cognitive dissonance at it's finest.)
I'll start:

Thou shalt not kill

Thou shalt not steal

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#12355 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
As mentioned earlier, the DNA strand. What specifically tells enzymes to do what they do?
Different enzymes work by different mechanisms. Any modern biochemistry book will supply many details of the processes. If you want to pick out a particular enzyme of interest, I may be able to search for the specific mechanism. ALL of the mechanisms are based in the specifics of the chemical elements involved. For example, if an enzyme catalyzes a particular reaction (say cutting a protein at a specific location), the action of the enzyme is usually based on stabilizing the transition phase of the reaction. This is done through the different interactions of atoms at the reaction site. As the reaction proceeds, the enzyme changes conformation because of that change (again, physics and chemistry) completing the reaction.

In other words, different atoms are attracted to each other in different ways: hydrogen has a different pattern of attraction than oxygen, which is different again from nitrogen, which is still different than sodium, or potassium, or carbon, etc. These attractions, together with physical proximity and types of bonds formed, produces the way that enzymes do their thing. The interactions of the individual atoms is better understood using quantum mechanics to learn about the bonds in detail, their energies, and directions, and reactivities.

Seriously, if you want to know more,read an organic chemistry book first, then a biochemistry book. It really isn't that mysterious.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#12356 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll start:
Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not steal
The US's use of murder and theft laws has nothing to do with the 10 Commandments.

Both of those concepts are OLDER than the 10 Cs.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#12357 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
Has it happened yet? Until it does, you have no legitimate gripe.
The *only* reason the religious crap hasn't been taught in schools recently is because of the diligence of those trying to keep our secular form of government. There are currently proposals in several different states attempting to mandate the teaching of creationism in science classes.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#12358 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll start:
Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not steal
That's 2, neither of which originated with Abrahamic legal thought, so there is no reason to claim that these laws are founded on them.

You've got 8 more and, if you really expect people to believe that our legal system is based on the 10-Cs, you need to show that at least 50% of these commandments are in fact laws on our books and that they originated with Abrahamic legal thought.

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 Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 3 min Lawrence Wolf 10,607
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 min Thinking 20,471
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 34 min I Am No One_ 244,666
There is no meaning without God 4 hr Thinking 2
Atheists and the "Moses Syndrome" 9 hr Anonymous1386 3
Atheist believe, they are just hiding!!! 18 hr Richardfs 17
Atheists should stop feeding the stereotypes 19 hr Thinking 4
More from around the web