Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

There are 23869 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: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#12573 Feb 6, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
Exactly. By design all of us are capable of independent thought. It is the height of human vanity to expect the whole of mankind to bow to one set of dogmas whether it be science or religion.
You'll excuse me while I check my irony meter.
insidesecrets wrote:
My version of God wouldn't issue such an order.
Why can't you be honest with yourself here?

I didn't say WHEN your god asks you to kill the child - I said IF your god asks you to do it.

You do realise that by saying your god would never issue such an order, you're putting limits on what he can/can't do?

Care to have another go at the question?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#12574 Feb 6, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to understand that the biblical version of god is not the only version of God.
Yes, we know - each person has their own version of a god who just happens to always hate the exact same people that person hates.

Further evidence that all gods are make believe.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#12575 Feb 6, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
Atheism is simply a collection of people who lack a belief in God.
Not just your god but any god.

Atheists do not believe in any of the many gods that humans claim exist.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#12576 Feb 6, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
What you suggesting? That I lay down my life for science because I use Ibuprofen now and then, and own a computer? Surely you jest!
If you actually expect this sort of mindless resignation, make sure you understand what you are acquiescing to......
"Bad reactions to prescription and over-the-counter medicines kill more than 100,000 Americans and seriously injure an additional 2.1 million every year -- far more than most people realize, researchers say. Such reactions, which do not include prescribing errors or drug abuse, rank at least sixth among U.S. causes of death -- behind heart disease, cancer, lung disease, strokes and accidents, says a report based on an analysis of existing studies.(University of Toronto study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association by Dr. Bruce Pomeranz )"
"Most of the everyday practices of modern medicine are unproven if we go by the government's own standards. In 1978, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), an arm of the United States Congress, issued a major research report that concluded "only 10 to 20 percent of all procedures currently used in medical practices have been shown to be efficacious by controlled trial." In other words, 80 to 90 percent of what doctors do to you is scientifically unproven guesswork. By this government-supported definition, most of modern medicine is quackery."---Richard Walters (Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Medical Technologies," U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, PB 286-929, 1978)."
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:

Heart disease: 597,689
Cancer: 574,743
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
Diabetes: 69,071
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364
Source: Deaths: Final Data for 2010, tables 1, 7, 10, 20 [PDF - 3.1 MB]
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/deaths_2010_...
Klink

Lawson, MO

#12577 Feb 6, 2013

No not atheists; Catholic LATINS & MUSLIMS are taking over. The atheist is just too stupid to see it.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#12578 Feb 6, 2013
Key Facts
Adverse drug events (ADEs) are a serious public health problem. It is estimated that:

82% of American adults take at least one medication and 29% take five or more [1];
700,000 emergency department visits and 120,000 hospitalizations are due to ADEs annually [2];
$3.5 billion is spent on extra medical costs of ADEs annually [3];
At least 40% of costs of ambulatory (non-hospital settings) ADEs are estimated to be preventable [3].

http://www.cdc.gov/medicationsafety/basics.ht...

The CDC also conducted a surveillance study of ADEs that showed it responsible for "2.5%(95% CI, 2.0%-3.1%) of estimated emergency department visits for all unintentional injuries and 6.7%(95% CI, 4.7%-8.7%) of those leading to hospitalization... " Morality was not assessed, but I suspect that it was quite low or it would have attracted more attention from the researchers.

Elsewhere in the CDC's literature, I read that the bulk of these visits involved prescription medications, so insidesecret's assertions about the extent of nonprescription drug mortality are absurdly off the mark. This is probably due to lack of diligence in accepting the first source of information that confirms her personal bias.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#12579 Feb 6, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
You really don't understand the first thing about atheism and, apparently, are not capable of actually hearing anything that conflicts with your preconceived prejudices.
Atheism is a general category that includes anybody and everybody who does not fit into the category "theism." The only thing that being an "atheist" tells you is what I'm NOT -- "not a theist". this tells you absolutely nothing about what I am, which for a lot of atheists is HUMANIST.
<quoted text>
A bunch of made up strawman BS that has no bearing on anything except your need to hate and fear things you can't understand.
<quoted text>
Pick one -- " http://www.thefreedictionary.com/humanism&quo... ;
One of a very few very good posts I've had the opportunity and pleasure to read. Pity it's wasted on such a futile exercise.
Klink

Lawson, MO

#12580 Feb 6, 2013
jacktheladat1 wrote:
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
You really don't understand the first thing about atheism and, apparently, are not capable of actually hearing anything that conflicts with your preconceived prejudices.
Atheism is a general category that includes anybody and everybody who does not fit into the category "theism." The only thing that being an "atheist" tells you is what I'm NOT -- "not a theist". this tells you absolutely nothing about what I am, which for a lot of atheists is HUMANIST.One of a very few very good posts I've had the opportunity and pleasure to read. Pity it's wasted on such a futile exercise.

Much too simplistic. We know the atheists have learned beliefs from state schools and a very secular media who all advocate this evolution nonsense since Darwinism. So dont try and tell us there's no rhyme or reason for your madness. Christians have been thru the same bloody indoctrination centers and have the wisdom to reject the brainwashing.


Atheism: the NWO lie


http://atheists.org/The_Enlightenment,_Freema...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason

http://alltheinternet.net/...

http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMind...

EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#12581 Feb 6, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
...'a person cannot be a Humanist if they are an atheist.' And that position is absurdly stupid.
Indeed.'Humanist' is by definition rational....
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/humanism

http://www.humanism-scotland.org.uk/content/a...

That argues that belief in an Abrahamic god(s), or gods in general, is inimical to being humanist. Being fairly atheist is a pre-requisite.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#12582 Feb 6, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
You'll excuse me while I check my irony meter.
<quoted text>
Why can't you be honest with yourself here?
I didn't say WHEN your god asks you to kill the child - I said IF your god asks you to do it.
You do realise that by saying your god would never issue such an order, you're putting limits on what he can/can't do?
Care to have another go at the question?
It's called free will. Ever hear of it, moron?

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#12583 Feb 6, 2013
God does not appear in the constitution. Sorry you are wrong as usual.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_American_m... 'In_God_We_Trust'#page1

How many Muslims will blow themselves up today Muq?
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
But who put His name in every Dollar Bill that you carry?
Why some one whose name does not appear in constitution appears on "every currency bill"? Is it constitutional?

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#12584 Feb 6, 2013
Klink wrote:
<quoted text>
Much too simplistic. We know the atheists have learned beliefs from state schools and a very secular media who all advocate this evolution nonsense since Darwinism. So dont try and tell us there's no rhyme or reason for your madness. Christians have been thru the same bloody indoctrination centers and have the wisdom to reject the brainwashing.
Atheism: the NWO lie
http://atheists.org/The_Enlightenment,_Freema...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason
http://alltheinternet.net/...
http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMind...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =UQjVaoDC0YwXX
There it is; He who posts irrelevant links.
Thinking

Uckfield, UK

#12585 Feb 6, 2013
Sorry to be a pedant, but I make that 261 if you got the "Q" on the double letter score, 171 otherwise. It's got to be divisible by 9, either way?

Brilliant score though. If only the cat word from Red Dwarf was legal.
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
My best Scrabble score was "reequips" across two Triple Word Squares for 221 points.
insidesecrets

Santa Fe, NM

#12586 Feb 6, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong conclusion. Science doesn't deal with values because it is interested in how the universe works. That doesn't mean that scientists don't have values, just the science doesn't study them. But science also doesn't do art or music, even though those are good and important aspects of life.
<quoted text>
Now *that* is a debatable proposition. Suppose that to gain a knowledge of how to cure cancer, we have to kill a cockroach. Is that unethical? I would say most definitely not. So your general proposition is clearly false.
A much better question is whether it is unethical to kill mammals to test the safety of cosmetics. And *that* I do see as problematic (although that has largely to do with the fact that cosmetics are usually not essential for existence).
<quoted text>
No, that is most certainly NOT the reasoning used. First, those animals are generally used to help us understand human diseases and hence to prevent the suffering and death of humans. That allows for the killing of those animals to be ethical *if* sufficient knowledge is gained to justify the techniques used.
<quoted text>
While I think it much more egocentric to expect a 'purpose' in life that is cosmic or anything beyond our specific lives.
All you've done is verify exactly what I said. When science places no intrinsic value on the "objects" it studies, the end always justifies the means. Scientists can no more police themselves than can thieves. Science has a history of research much like the abuse by Nazi doctors during World War II when German physicians practiced unethical medical experiments on Jews, gypsies, and political prisoners. Enter the Nuremburg code and the IRB, the Institutional Review Board requiring science to focus its unethical practices on animal experimentation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_...

Regardless of these stop gaps, it is still happening.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/epas_u...

It is astounding that scientists still debate over the issue of animal sentience when it has already been established that animals think, experience emotion, and feel pain. To suggest that human life is somehow more sacred by comparison is another example of the end justifying the means. But don't think for a minute that these ghoulish fiends in lab coats do not salivate at the prospect of using humans in their diabolical experiments.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-ne...

What gives scientific researchers a license to lie, maime and kill if not a lack of ethics? While scientists may exhibit ethics in their private lives, in their professional lives....cool objectivism is the honored rule. Compassion is not allowed. The Tuskegee Study (1932) symbolizes the medical misconduct and blatant disregard for human rights that takes place in the name of science. This 40 year long syphilis study was perpetrated upon what was considered to be at the time, "insignificant human surplus" made up of poor African American men who were told that they had "bad blood". These men were not informed of the research design and its risks to them personally...nor did they receive standard treatment for syphilis even when penicillin was available later during the study.

The lack of ethics in science is a world wide problem.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2012-12/...
insidesecrets

Santa Fe, NM

#12587 Feb 6, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
If you were intelligent enough to know something about the world of science, you would realise that you can't criticise it without first proving your non-existent god.
Ridiculous! The only time you can demand proof of God's existence is when you disbelieve the claim that God exists. Which is it? A lack of belief? Or disbelief?
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
When you realise the fact that you're lying about god, you might have a little more respect for science. But I doubt it because you;ve shown to us all you have no morals or sense of honesty.
Don't like it when the shoe is on the foot, do you?
Thinking

Uckfield, UK

#12588 Feb 6, 2013
I see you're still getting "society" confused with the "scientific method". Oh dear.
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
All you've done is verify exactly what I said. When science places no intrinsic value on the "objects" it studies, the end always justifies the means. Scientists can no more police themselves than can thieves. Science has a history of research much like the abuse by Nazi doctors during World War II when German physicians practiced unethical medical experiments on Jews, gypsies, and political prisoners. Enter the Nuremburg code and the IRB, the Institutional Review Board requiring science to focus its unethical practices on animal experimentation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_...
Regardless of these stop gaps, it is still happening.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/epas_u...
It is astounding that scientists still debate over the issue of animal sentience when it has already been established that animals think, experience emotion, and feel pain. To suggest that human life is somehow more sacred by comparison is another example of the end justifying the means. But don't think for a minute that these ghoulish fiends in lab coats do not salivate at the prospect of using humans in their diabolical experiments.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-ne...
What gives scientific researchers a license to lie, maime and kill if not a lack of ethics? While scientists may exhibit ethics in their private lives, in their professional lives....cool objectivism is the honored rule. Compassion is not allowed. The Tuskegee Study (1932) symbolizes the medical misconduct and blatant disregard for human rights that takes place in the name of science. This 40 year long syphilis study was perpetrated upon what was considered to be at the time, "insignificant human surplus" made up of poor African American men who were told that they had "bad blood". These men were not informed of the research design and its risks to them personally...nor did they receive standard treatment for syphilis even when penicillin was available later during the study.
The lack of ethics in science is a world wide problem.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2012-12/...

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#12589 Feb 6, 2013
Klink wrote:
<quoted text>
Much too simplistic. We know the atheists have learned beliefs from state schools and a very secular media who all advocate this evolution nonsense since Darwinism. So dont try and tell us there's no rhyme or reason for your madness. Christians have been thru the same bloody indoctrination centers and have the wisdom to reject the brainwashing.
Atheism: the NWO lie
http://atheists.org/The_Enlightenment,_Freema...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason
http://alltheinternet.net/...
http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMind...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =UQjVaoDC0YwXX
LOL...the NWO?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA...oh man.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#12590 Feb 6, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
Ridiculous! The only time you can demand proof of God's existence is when you disbelieve the claim that God exists. Which is it? A lack of belief? Or disbelief?
<quoted text>
Don't like it when the shoe is on the foot, do you?
Where else would the shoe be, dumbass?

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#12591 Feb 6, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
All you've done is verify exactly what I said. When science places no intrinsic value on the "objects" it studies, the end always justifies the means. Scientists can no more police themselves than can thieves. Science has a history of research much like the abuse by Nazi doctors during World War II when German physicians practiced unethical medical experiments on Jews, gypsies, and political prisoners. Enter the Nuremburg code and the IRB, the Institutional Review Board requiring science to focus its unethical practices on animal experimentation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_...
Regardless of these stop gaps, it is still happening.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/epas_u...
It is astounding that scientists still debate over the issue of animal sentience when it has already been established that animals think, experience emotion, and feel pain. To suggest that human life is somehow more sacred by comparison is another example of the end justifying the means. But don't think for a minute that these ghoulish fiends in lab coats do not salivate at the prospect of using humans in their diabolical experiments.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-ne...
What gives scientific researchers a license to lie, maime and kill if not a lack of ethics? While scientists may exhibit ethics in their private lives, in their professional lives....cool objectivism is the honored rule. Compassion is not allowed. The Tuskegee Study (1932) symbolizes the medical misconduct and blatant disregard for human rights that takes place in the name of science. This 40 year long syphilis study was perpetrated upon what was considered to be at the time, "insignificant human surplus" made up of poor African American men who were told that they had "bad blood". These men were not informed of the research design and its risks to them personally...nor did they receive standard treatment for syphilis even when penicillin was available later during the study.
The lack of ethics in science is a world wide problem.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2012-12/...
Still waiting for you to explain your monumentally hypocritical belief that it is okay for you to reap all the benefits that come from science while simultaneously saying science and scientists are evil and can't be trusted.

Poor, sad troll....

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#12592 Feb 6, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I just programmed it on the DVR on your recommendation.
Did you see a movie called Our Fathers with Brian Dennahy and Christopher Plummer?
Not yet! Going to now, sir. Thanks.

Let me know what you think about that documentary.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr DanFromSmithville 35,010
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Uncle Sam 14,937
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 2 hr An NFL Fan 20,079
Religion is the cause of war and most suffering... 2 hr Thinking 153
There are no such things as gods or fairies 3 hr Amused 102
Majority of Scots now have no religion 3 hr Amused 163
News How 'new atheists' are just as dangerous as the... 3 hr Amused 138
More from around the web