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
11,761 - 11,780 of 21,406 Comments Last updated 5 hrs ago

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12482
Feb 6, 2013
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
What effect do you suppose that people like you who continually undermine confidence in science and scientists to defend your mythology have on people's willingness to treat the threat of global climate change as credible?
insidesecrets wrote:
I realize you have a propensity to react with knee jerk responses...laying the blame for everything at the feet of Christians, but scientists are at fault. Hardly articulate communicators, they have failed dismally to convey the severity of climate change to the world at large.
You evaded the question.

But you did it in an amusing way:

"knee jerk responses...laying the blame ... but scientists are at fault."

Anyway, once again, what is your church's part in undermining confidence in science and scientists? What is your part personally?

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12483
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

Thinking wrote:
when you can give so much more...
<quoted text>
I'm a lesbian with a mean streak. I've seen many naked men. Most of them exaggerate.

I have a wallet collection.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12484
Feb 6, 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.
I just programmed it on the DVR on your recommendation.

Did you see a movie called Our Fathers with Brian Dennahy and Christopher Plummer?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12485
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would anyone watch a movie about pedophilia?
To learn. To learn about the dangers of the Roman Catholic church and organized religion.

"Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence In The House of God" Documentary Blames Vatican For Poor Handling Of Catholic Sexual Abuse Case
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/16/mea-...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12486
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
The first amendment simply guarantees the principle of religious liberty.
It does a lot more than that. How about freedom of speech, of the press, to petition the government with grievances, and to assemble peaceably? Oh, and freedom *from* religion - the most important part of religious liberty. It needs to be stated explicitly.

And that's the most valuable part of the First Amendment for me - freedom from religion. No, not freedom of speech. After all, without freedom from religion, you wouldn't have freedom of speech. Nor freedom from the church's retaliation, which is infamous.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12487
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

insidesecrets wrote:
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.
That's the fruit of secular philosophy. Secularists had to criminalize many Christian practices.

And yes, that was centuries ago, but there is no reason to believe that if they legalized witch burning again tomorrow that the Christians wouldn't be setting people on fire the day after.

Can you name one instance in history where Christians had the power to burn or impale unbelievers with impunity, but elected not to use it - even one instance of Christians saying, "Yes, we could burn people alive for blasphemy, but we choose not to do so, because that would be too barbaric and sadistic"?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12488
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

insidesecrets wrote:
Better society? There can be no moral progress in an amoral secular society
Rational ethics such as those embodied in the Affirmations of Humanism are far superior to Christian ethics. Christians ethics should be ignored wherever they contradict rational ethics.

Actually, Christians really have no idea about right and wrong at all. Anything that your god is alleged to have said or done is called perfect love. If you can convince a Christian that his god commands him to enucleate the eyes of puppies with a fork, they'll do it and call it perfect love.

Furthermore, unlike secularists, Christians are desensitized by a bible that catalogs its god's genocides and other atrocities one after another, chapter after chapter.

And they are taught that suffering is their god's will. How sick is this form a woman that the church wants to declare a saint:

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." – Mother Teresa

This combinations of ideas has had a devastating effect throughout history. Because of these attitudes, if you were a Jew in Nazi Germany, and the only thing standing between you and the gas chambers was the quality of Christian morality and character, you didn't have much chance. If you were waiting for these tens of millions of church trained Christians to do what Jesus taught and stand up and say, "This is wrong! Stop, Herr Hitler!" you were a dead Jew.

Humanism has no such failures.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12489
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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.
Which is why you have repeatability among different researchers with different biases.

Now, the alternative is what? Mystical introspection? Well,*that* obviously has no biases whatsoever.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12490
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
This explains the mechanisms involved in the process. It does not explain how enzymes "know" what to do.
They don't.

Pathetic fallacy:

"The pathetic fallacy is the treatment of inanimate objects as if they had human feelings, thought, or sensations. The word 'pathetic' in this use is related to 'pathos' or 'empathy'(capability of feeling), and is not pejorative."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathetic_fallacy

Phrase your questions properly.

Of course, that wasn't actually a question anyway - not in the sense of a sincere search for an answer. It was latent commentary disguised as a request for information, namely, the implication that knowing is involved. Since molecules can't know, something intelligent must be knowing for them.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12491
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
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
insidesecrets wrote:
There are many different disciplines within the organization of science.
Yes, I know. Did you have a point? Are you implying that the Christian denominations are analogous? They're not.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12492
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
And that is because we specifically limit the power of religion: no religious tests for public office, no religion established by the government, etc. And yet, we *still* have religions attempting to circumvent those restrictions all the time.
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.
Violence has been glorified for millenia. Just 100 years ago was the lead-up to World War I and all sides were claiming a God-given right to do as they did. They also were almost yearning to go to war. Of course, the reality didn't quite fit the propaganda.

Family values? The show 'Leave it to Beaver' was *fiction*. If you go back 5-60 years, you still have widespread adultery, but you also get prominent racism, anti-semitism, and misogyny. Even the murder rate was higher then (contrary to popular conception).

Yes, the availability of effective contraception made it so that people could choose when to have children (or if!) and that gave woemen more power in reliationships and lead to their being a significant part of the modern work force. Good things! All criticized by the religious establishment.

Guess what? Humans have *always* been obsessed with sex: they have simply learned to be open about that fact. Again, this is a good, healthy thing. Sex is a good thing. Religious repression of the sexual impulse leads to unhappier people who are more tormented by trivial aspects of sexuality.

In terms of a better society, I will take the US of today hands down over the US of 60 years ago. And that goes double for the US of 100 years ago.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12493
Feb 6, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Great post!
Thank you.
Givemeliberty wrote:
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.
LOL.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12494
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
This explains the mechanisms involved in the process. It does not explain how enzymes "know" what to do.
Do you think that enzymes have some sort of consciousness? Seriously?

The enzymes know what to do in exactly the same way that hydrogen and oxygen 'know' how to combine to give water. if you take a mixture of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas and give it a spark, they will explosively combine to give water. How do they know how to do that? Simple: the individual hydrogen atoms are attracted to the oxygen atoms and the chemical bonds form with one oxygen bonding to two hydrogen. Why two and not three? Look up the term valency. It's a standard chemical concept.

In the same way, the arrangements of atoms in an enzyme will make it so that enzyme is more likely to interact with the molecules of the reaction it catalyzes. Then the conformation changes in both the enzyme and the target molecules drive that reaction. It is all based on chemical attraction, steric hindrance, and how to modify chemical bonds. No consciousness required.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12495
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

BBSting wrote:
Don't kid yourself, Gomer. We're the masters of atrocities. We will rule the world and you're going to be the first one on our hit list. LOL!
Gomer is a biblical name, like Jethro.

So are Nimrod, Dorcus, Jehu (YAY-hoo) and Dodo.

Some more of my faves are Zedediah, Hezekiah, Zechariah, Zedekiah, Jedediah, Zachariah, and Zephaniah.

BTW, your religion is failing you.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12496
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
That would depend on what you consider reason.
By your own admission, faith is not based on reason. That makes it unreasonable, by definition. Second, you admitted that to expect evidence of a supernatural is unreasonable. I point out that it is unreasonable to believe without evidence, so belief in a supernatural is unreasonable.

This seems very straightforward to me.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12497
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

insidesecrets wrote:
Science will forever escape opening up into any great vision of the meaning of life.
You are right. The 'meaning of life' is not a scientific question. It is a personal question: what do *you* want the meaning of *your* life to be? You get to decide.
As a group, scientists rigorously oppose the existence of telepathy or clairvoyance, or any philosophy that brings these into focus.
Not at all. In fact, we are finding ways to read people's minds right now. This is helping to allow severely paralyzed people to communicate. The mind is a physical process in the brain. We can pick up the EM signals from that process and are now learning how to interpret them to understand the thoughts involved. it is very exciting, but also a bit scary.

Oh, wait, you meant the telepathy where one person reads the mind of another without technological intervention. Well, it is possible with cold reading and if you know someone well, you can often follow their pattern of thought, thereby 'reading their mind'. But beyond that, we have the little problem of evidence again. Small statistical fluctuations do not make evidence of a 'paranormal'. Let's adopt the standard of particle physics: a signal requires five standard deviations from the 'norm' to be accepted. This has never been the case in studies of telepathy, clairvoyance, or any other parapsychological effects.

Until there is solid evidence, it is reasonable to doubt the effects, especially since those effects have been widely searched for and not found.
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.
What do you mean, mind over matter? As in the mind being a part of healing the body? Yes, of course it is. The mind is a process in the brain and the brain interacts with many different systems in the body including the immune system. Why do you think placebos work at all?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12498
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I just saw this in an article entitled "Intelligent design bill in Missouri" dated January 12th, 2012:
"House Bill 1227, introduced in the Missouri House of Representatives on January 10, 2012, would, if enacted, require "the equal treatment of science instruction regarding evolution and intelligent design," according to the legislature's summary of the bill."
http://ncse.com/news/2012/01/intelligent-desi...
Those people are already far enough behind.
There are other bills in Montana and Oklahoma. The Colorado bill just died in committee.

http://rt.com/usa/news/us-creationism-bill-ed...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013...
Thinking

Charlton Mackrell, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12499
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

I was talking about your leg, not my appendage!
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm a lesbian with a mean streak. I've seen many naked men. Most of them exaggerate.
I have a wallet collection.
Thinking

Charlton Mackrell, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12500
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Booz of Rachab is my personal favourite.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_1:5
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Gomer is a biblical name, like Jethro.
So are Nimrod, Dorcus, Jehu (YAY-hoo) and Dodo.
Some more of my faves are Zedediah, Hezekiah, Zechariah, Zedekiah, Jedediah, Zachariah, and Zephaniah.
BTW, your religion is failing you.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12501
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

1

1

MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Muq,

Another news story of interest for you.
Saudi preacher who 'raped and tortured' his five -year-old daughter to death is released after paying 'blood money'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middl...

Rather than getting the death penalty or receiving a long prison sentence for the crime, Fayhan al-Ghamdi served only a few months in jail before a judge ruled the prosecution could only seek ‘blood money’.

I know you will say this is nothing to do with Islam. But you need to start waking up to the insanity of religion. This sort of thing happens too often.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

11 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 11 min Aura Mytha 224,576
Atheists on the march in America (Aug '09) 2 hr CunningLinguist 70,962
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 2 hr Reason Personified 27
Our world came from nothing? 3 hr Reason Personified 255
Introducing The Universal Religion 5 hr Patrick 737
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 5 hr Patrick 397
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 7 hr Electrical Engineer 842
•••
•••