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
11,861 - 11,880 of 21,446 Comments Last updated Sunday Aug 17

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12582
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12584
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

Gillingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12585
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12586
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

1

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

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12587
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

-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

Gillingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12588
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12590
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12591
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12593
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

insidesecrets wrote:
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.
Oh do please provide an alternative! Wait. Never mind, prayer doesn't work in medicine and research.
insidesecrets wrote:
The Tuskegee Study (1932) symbolizes the medical misconduct and blatant disregard for human rights that takes place in the name of science.
Performed by the military. Guess we should do away with that as well?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12594
Feb 6, 2013
 
BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called free will. Ever hear of it, moron?
So nothing was planned?

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12595
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called free will. Ever hear of it, moron?
I love it when a xtian's first post to me is an insult - it shows how easily I riled them without even trying.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12596
Feb 6, 2013
 
Thinking wrote:
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.
<quoted text>
It was a while ago now - I remember playing it in the top right corner of the board

From memory, I thought it was 221 - maybe I got it wrong.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12597
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Well he has presented a new biological element in the human body dubbed as god-stuff.
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh do please provide an alternative! Wait. Never mind, prayer doesn't work in medicine and research.
<quoted text>
Performed by the military. Guess we should do away with that as well?
Thinking

Gillingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12598
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

That looks like 180 (my 171 above was an error), so maybe you played it in the top left, which gives 261. Just award yourself the missing 40 points next time you play, I'm sure your opponents won't mind!
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a while ago now - I remember playing it in the top right corner of the board
From memory, I thought it was 221 - maybe I got it wrong.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12599
Feb 7, 2013
 
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
Where else would the shoe be, dumbass?
In your mouth where it usually is, a-hole.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12600
Feb 7, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Well he has presented a new biological element in the human body dubbed as god-stuff.
<quoted text>
Stop picking your nose, it will improve your brain power.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12601
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
Ridiculous! The only time you can demand proof of God's existence
I can demand proof of gods existence at any time. May god strike me down right now, this second. Sorry to dissapoint you, I'm still alive and you're still a liar, lying about a god which isn't really there.
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
is when you disbelieve the claim that God exists. Which is it? A lack of belief? Or disbelief?
There's a no such thing as god, that's a fact, it doesn't matter about belief. I don't believe in gravity, I experience it. And in the same way there isn't a speck of evidence for a god and so I experience no loss, or lack in my life.
It is you who chooses to invent god in your own mind and measure me by using your own hallucination as a ruler. ANd then you use that to judge me and atheists.
This is your mistake.
<quoted text>

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.

•••