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
11,701 - 11,720 of 21,516 Comments Last updated 3 hrs ago
insidesecrets

Albuquerque, 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

Albuquerque, 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

Albuquerque, 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

Albuquerque, 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

Albuquerque, 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

Albuquerque, 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.
insidesecrets

Albuquerque, NM

#12431 Feb 5, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
And every time that religion is questioned by believers, another denomination is born. We have over 38,000 of them in America now. Science has only the one.
"Explain why there are several hundred thousand gods accepted by different religious people, but only one periodic table accepted by different scientists" – anon
There are many different disciplines within the organization of science.

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#12432 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
This is an "interpretation"...n ot the gospel truth.
There is no gospel in the Constitution.

That was by design.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#12433 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
This is an "interpretation"...n ot the gospel truth.
By the Supreme Court for hundreds of years to mean that the governmnet cannot ESTABLISH a religion.

Your interpretation means squat in this country. Sorry but that's reality.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#12434 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
There are many different disciplines within the organization of science.
Ok, so you don't know the difference between denomination and discipline. Conflate much?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#12435 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no separation of church and state. It is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. It is a figment of secular imagination....
Actually there is no "god" in the constitution and the only mention of religion is the "no religious test" to hold office clause.

The, of course there's the very 1st Amendment. But wait ... there's more --

June 7, 1797 -“The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”~ unanimously approved by the Senate and signed by President John Adams

1863 - President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed a national day of Thanksgiving

1870 - Christmas was declared a federal holiday by Congress

1881 - Chester A. Arthur swearing in ceremony is the first documented response of "so help me god" (not a part of the official oath of office).

1890 - "The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of women's emancipation." ~ Elizabeth Cady Stanton

April 17, 1952 - President Harry S. Truman signed a bill proclaiming a National Day of Prayer must be declared by each following president at an appropriate date of his choice.(In 1988, the law was amended so that the National Day of Prayer would be held on the first Thursday of May.)

June 14, 1954 - "god" was added to the pledge, changing us from “one nation indivisible” into one nation divided by god.

July 30, 1956 - "god" was added as our national motto and officially put on our money (I still prefer e pluribus unum [out of many we become one], which is what it was when I was born).

August 27, 1987 –“No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.”~ George H. W. Bush

2001 - White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI) established.

And the more religion gets intertwined with our government, the more divisive our country becomes. But this is what the Catholic church has been trying to do since we established our secular government. You do know that it was the lobbying efforts of the largest Catholic fraternity in the world (Knights of Columbus) that got "god" added to our pledge and replaced our motto.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#12436 Feb 5, 2013
Putting tinfoil on a turd still makes it a turd. Perhaps you can buy a DVD your preacher is hawking eh?
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
I speak about the UK, which is what I know best.
Churches, like the Church of England, have to maintain the many buildings they own.
They have to provide a stipendary (wages) for their clercy.
They have to subsidide parishes, pay gas, water and electricity bills and other expenses.
They support their own education centers for priesthood.
They finance their media, publish books, pamphlets, CD, DVD, educational material, etc...
Churches also financially support charities, their own and others too.
Churches conduct pastoral duties towards the hospitals, the hospices, the retirement homes, the prisons, the schools, the universities, etc...
I think the public purse is better off exempting churches from taxations than having to support them!
Just look at Germany, where the churches are state supported, and clerics paid by the government, it's an outcry every year when the collossal bill is discussed at the Bundestag! Church goers in Germany pay a special tax to finance the religious expenses afforded by the country. It's an endless subject of discord.
I much prefer the British system. We don't pay for churches, they are financed by voluntary contributions, taxations and the gestion of their portfolio.
I cannot comment about the USA.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#12437 Feb 5, 2013
Great post! Hey how about we don't tell them how to eat their Jew zombie flesh and gulp Jew zombie blood and they in turn leave science and secular humanism alone.

Sounds fair to me.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Beofre you proceed any further, you should probably know that secularists don't accept scientific opinions from theists - just from the consensus of experts in good standing in the relevant scientific fields. If the experts say that the theory of evolution is sound and valid science, then the issue is settled until and unless they say otherwise. You and your church have no vote.
But don't go feeling picked on! It's not just theists that the scientists ignore. If rodeo clowns were to say that "scientific peer review [is] ultimately tilted towards positive results," nobody would bat an eye at that, right? So why should it be different when you theists say it? It shouldn't.
Likewise, if a consortium of crack whores were to publish a position paper saying, "researchers engage in significance chasing," nobody would care about that, either - right? Can you see why that makes sense? It's not just you.
Likewise, nobody cares what NAMBLA, Domino's Pizza, or the NFL have to say about evolution, either. Not a one of them has a say or gets a vote on what constitutes good science. So please don't feel discriminated against.
If it comforts you to know, my lay opinion doesn't matter to the experts either, even though I happen to agree with them.
So where do you think that the opinions of theists rank relative to those of the clowns, whores and pedophiles? Not surprisingly, it's beneath all of them. Why?
Whereas crack whores and rodeo clowns are merely unqualified to contradict the experts, the theists actually have an agenda to subvert science, which places their opinions just a tad lower.
You have zero standing in the Great Conversation.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#12439 Feb 5, 2013
What is the proper amount of god-stuff in the blood?

Do tell us more about this new finding of yours that we are all made of known as god-stuff.
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
Lame attempts at comedy won't disquise the fact that science doesn't have an answer.
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#12440 Feb 5, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You are right, the "Experts" are very adept at what they present as "Most probable explanation" for the observed facts.

Just by doing that, so many "theories" and "half cooked ideas" have been taken as "proven facts".

Just look at the TOE and wonder, how little we actually know and how big claims have been made about it!!

And every one believes that TOE is an "established scientific theory"!!

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 13 min Eagle 12 226,516
Our world came from nothing? 2 hr Patrick 436
It seems there are more Atheists in the Christi... (Jun '13) 2 hr Patrick 13
The myth of the angry atheist 4 hr Thinking 2
The Ultimate Evidence of God 5 hr Thinking 67
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom Sat religionislies 58
I left Creationism! Ask me anything! Sat Patrick 7
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••