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.

insidesecrets

Santa Fe, NM

#12411 Feb 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not only can you have it, but faith is always without reason: in other words, it is unreasonable.
That would depend on what you consider reason.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#12412 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
They are called whistle blowers. Had someone not blown the whistle in this instance, the hoax would have been filed away with other nefarious scientific practices the public is unaware of.
No, the person who committed the fraud was found by the scientific community. It wasn't a whistleblower that brought this to the attention of the press, but those in the scientific community attempting to correct things. It was not one lone scientist against the crowd. It was the majority of scientists in the area. Furthermore, the effects of the fraud were already in decline because the facts discovered by other working scientists were in contradiction to the claims of the fraud.

What other 'nefarious' practice do you think science embraces? From what I have seen, it is more than willing to air its dirty laundry in search of the truth.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#12413 Feb 5, 2013
brent wrote:
<quoted text>
Reasoning can be wrong,and reach false conclusions. 10 people using reasoning can come to different conclusions, some reach false conclusiosn,some correct. Reasoning ability varies in humans, but the sun still shines in the sky, ahs since the day you were born and will still be shining after the day you die.
show us your reasons for that lol
Once again, that is why scientific ideas have to be publicly testable. That allows us to eliminate 9 of the 10 conclusions (sometimes all 10-meaning we have to start over and re-think everything again).

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#12414 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
Science will forever escape opening up into any great vision of the meaning of life. As a group, scientists rigorously oppose the existence of telepathy or clairvoyance, or any philosophy that brings these into focus. Only lately, have some begun to think in terms of mind over matter, and even such a possibility disturbs them profoundly, because it shatters the foundations of their scientific stance. But, like the Popes, they are coming along slowly but surely.
Again... not an orginal thougt in your body.

So, isn't Plagerism stealing? Or is it like lying and perfectly acceptable if your doing it for your 'god'?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#12415 Feb 5, 2013
brent wrote:
Reasoning ability varies in humans, but the sun still shines in the sky, ahs since the day you were born and will still be shining after the day you die.
show us your reasons for that lol
Sure. Stars of the mass of the sun tend to be in the main sequence for several billion years. Our sun is in the middle of its time in the main sequence, so will be shining for a couple billion more years. After that, it will become a red giant and bake the earth, but it will still be shining. Fusion reactions for a mass the size of the sun last a long time.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#12416 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
They are called whistle blowers. Had someone not blown the whistle in this instance, the hoax would have been filed away with other nefarious scientific practices the public is unaware of.
Wow... you really are an idiot

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#12417 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
There is no separation of church and state. It is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. It is a figment of secular imagination.
It's called ESTABLISMENT. The first ammendment iniates "A wall of seperation".

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#12418 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
They are called whistle blowers. Had someone not blown the whistle in this instance, the hoax would have been filed away with other nefarious scientific practices the public is unaware of.
http://bigrab.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/tin...

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#12419 Feb 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
But other religious movements have had political power since the Catholic Church did. Calvin had political power in Geneva. The Puritans had political power in Massachusetts (not to mention their political power under Cromwell). The Catholic Church had censorship power over movies in the USA for a long time. And that's not to mention blue laws in a secular society.
So yes, we have managed to keep religion from holding exclusive political power for a while, but even the much smaller extent to which it has had power since then has shown it to be consistently against any real moral progress, and also against much scientific progress. In general, the less religion (and other forms of non-thinking acceptance of dogma) influence society, the better that society is.
Hey Poly, I watched Mea Culpa Maxima on HBO. I highly suggest it.

It's a documentary about the priest pedophiles.
insidesecrets

Santa Fe, NM

#12420 Feb 5, 2013
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Poly, I watched Mea Culpa Maxima on HBO. I highly suggest it.
It's a documentary about the priest pedophiles.
Why would anyone watch a movie about pedophilia?
insidesecrets

Santa Fe, NM

#12421 Feb 5, 2013
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called ESTABLISMENT. The first ammendment iniates "A wall of seperation".
The first amendment simply guarantees the principle of religious liberty.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#12422 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
They are called whistle blowers. Had someone not blown the whistle in this instance, the hoax would have been filed away with other nefarious scientific practices the public is unaware of.
Are you trying to tell me that science was trying to protect the religitard scam from being outed and some whistle blower wouldn't let it happen? Must have been an atheist who decided to out the scammers?
insidesecrets

Santa Fe, NM

#12423 Feb 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, that is why scientific ideas have to be publicly testable. That allows us to eliminate 9 of the 10 conclusions (sometimes all 10-meaning we have to start over and re-think everything again).
You can have 50 conclusions, but it does nothing to eliminate selective reporting where researchers make subtle omissions and misperceptions as they try and explain their results in as favorable a light as possible to ensure future grant money.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#12424 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would anyone watch a movie about pedophilia?
It's just too bad the pedophilia problem within Protestantism isn't highlighted more often, too.

It is just as bad as the abuses in Catholicism are.
insidesecrets

Santa Fe, NM

#12425 Feb 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
But other religious movements have had political power since the Catholic Church did. Calvin had political power in Geneva. The Puritans had political power in Massachusetts (not to mention their political power under Cromwell).
And yet you are alive and well in a country that guarantes the freedom to practice or not to practice religion. Nobody is going to kill you for religious heresy.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The Catholic Church had censorship power over movies in the USA for a long time. And that's not to mention blue laws in a secular society.
So yes, we have managed to keep religion from holding exclusive political power for a while, but even the much smaller extent to which it has had power since then has shown it to be consistently against any real moral progress, and also against much scientific progress. In general, the less religion (and other forms of non-thinking acceptance of dogma) influence society, the better that society is.
Better society? There can be no moral progress in an amoral secular society and this is reflected in the media....the glorification of violence, a lack of respect for living things, an obsession with sex makes human intimacy seem profane. Family values have changed considerably under the influence of secularism ( a "me" oriented society), producing a crop of undisciplined children who lack compassion and manners, and have no respect for authority.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#12426 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
The first amendment simply guarantees the principle of religious liberty.
2 different clauses.

The Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion....
The Establishment Clause is immediately followed by the Free Exercise Clause, which states, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". These two clauses make up what are called the "Religion Clauses" of the First Amendment.[1]

The Establishment Clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#12427 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets

Santa Fe, NM

#12428 Feb 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
This explains the mechanisms involved in the process. It does not explain how enzymes "know" what to do.
insidesecrets

Santa Fe, NM

#12429 Feb 5, 2013
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>
2 different clauses.
The Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion....
The Establishment Clause is immediately followed by the Free Exercise Clause, which states, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". These two clauses make up what are called the "Religion Clauses" of the First Amendment.[1]
The Establishment Clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.
This is an "interpretation"...n ot the gospel truth.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#12430 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
This is an "interpretation"...n ot the gospel truth.
Says the religionist.

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) 4 min ChristineM 21,878
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 11 min scientia potentia... 23,517
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 15 min Into The Night 48,676
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 16 min Into The Night 5,705
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 2 hr Igor Trip 69
News Louisiana Christians reclaim safe space by runn... 4 hr Amused 3
What are the best arguments against religion? 8 hr Igor Trip 2
More from around the web