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.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#14051 Mar 19, 2013
Hey maybe the Muhammad meets Allah scene in the cave would have been like the Aladdin meets genie?

Allah singing you ain't never had a god like me!

Lol!

That's some funny stuff right there!
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>True

I don't think the Bible has anything to match that tale.

If Aladdin had been in the Bible, the forty thieves would have probably been torn limb from limb by a pack of she-bears sent by the god of the Bible.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#14052 Mar 19, 2013
That's why they use prayer rugs, it's an effort to get them airborne through prayer.
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>That would lead to islamic carpet bombing.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#14053 Mar 19, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
True
I don't think the Bible has anything to match that tale.
If Aladdin had been in the Bible, the forty thieves would have probably been torn limb from limb by a pack of she-bears sent by the god of the Bible.
Yes, there's that.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#14054 Mar 19, 2013
CunningLinguist wrote:
<quoted text>
I would suggest that quite a bit is also due to parental influence, which is why I think mythology should be a subject in schools. Call this course an 'elective'.
"God bless you and keep you safe from anything as dangerous as knowledge".
~ALEXANDER WOOLLCOTT
"A fanatic is a man that does what he thinks the Lord would do
if he knew the facts of the case".
~FINLEY PETER DUNNE
Good, good--

Faith is what people resort to, when they lack facts. Religion never seems to have any facts, therefore...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#14055 Mar 19, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol
The Biblical account of creation neglects to mention the Big Bang.
Not to worry though, because instead of the Big Bang we get a talking snake. We also get to learn how everything that's bad in our world is the fault of one disobedient woman.
Which sets the tone for the whole religion: women are always considered 2nd class, according to Genuine Christians™
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#14056 Mar 19, 2013
The priestly version of Eastenders, Emmerdale or River City?....
http://www.leavingthepriesthood.com/womenwhol...

Well, we can't all be saints and as my Christian upbringing taught me: "these things are sent to try us".
CunningLinguist

Winter Garden, FL

#14057 Mar 19, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Good, good--
Faith is what people resort to, when they lack facts. Religion never seems to have any facts, therefore...
I believe we have shown theists that Jesus didn't always teach love, by presenting Luke 14:26 in which Jesus says, "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple".

Naturally we've gotten the, "You're taking it out of context" excuse, but most of the time we get this..."Jesus isn't saying that you have to hate your parents and family, he's just saying that you have to love him more than you love them".

That is not what is being said in this verse. Having more love for 'A' than for 'B' does not mean that you have to HATE 'B'.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#14058 Mar 19, 2013
CunningLinguist wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe we have shown theists that Jesus didn't always teach love, by presenting Luke 14:26 in which Jesus says, "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple".
Naturally we've gotten the, "You're taking it out of context" excuse, but most of the time we get this..."Jesus isn't saying that you have to hate your parents and family, he's just saying that you have to love him more than you love them".
That is not what is being said in this verse. Having more love for 'A' than for 'B' does not mean that you have to HATE 'B'.
Exactly.

As mere human parents, we see many examples where these human parents have more than sufficient love for all of their kids.

So love is not "more" or "less" it just is--

Obviously, Jesus in this context really does mean for his followers to be hate-theists.

Something I've been saying for years, just based on their actions to others.

And also based on the obvious:

If a person is content with the idea of infinite torture of others? The only way to be content with such an abomination-thought, is for that person to hate anyone whom they think gets infinite-torture.

No other way around that one. Not really.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#14059 Mar 19, 2013
CunningLinguist wrote:
<quoted text>
I would suggest that quite a bit is also due to parental influence, which is why I think mythology should be a subject in schools. Call this course an 'elective'.
"God bless you and keep you safe from anything as dangerous as knowledge".
~ALEXANDER WOOLLCOTT
"A fanatic is a man that does what he thinks the Lord would do
if he knew the facts of the case".
~FINLEY PETER DUNNE
I can't speak for other school systems, but in the schools I went to, the fine points of writing had been covered before the end of the freshman year. The other four years were spent on literature written in the English language, and a fair amount of that time was spent looking at works of mythology. Beowulf. Jason and the Argonauts. The Golden Apple. The Holy Grail. Greek, Roman, and Norse pantheons figured strongly in much of that phase. It was fun. But adding an optional mythology class is still a good idea.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#14060 Mar 19, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Which sets the tone for the whole religion: women are always considered 2nd class, according to Genuine Christians™
You're right there - the Bible is no friend to women.
CunningLinguist

Winter Garden, FL

#14061 Mar 20, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't speak for other school systems, but in the schools I went to, the fine points of writing had been covered before the end of the freshman year. The other four years were spent on literature written in the English language, and a fair amount of that time was spent looking at works of mythology. Beowulf. Jason and the Argonauts. The Golden Apple. The Holy Grail. Greek, Roman, and Norse pantheons figured strongly in much of that phase. It was fun. But adding an optional mythology class is still a good idea.
Thank you.

I've always enjoyed mythology and once you begin to study the various gods, a whole new world of understanding opens.

There are many,'copy/pastes' of other religions and rituals.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#14062 Mar 20, 2013
CunningLinguist wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you.
I've always enjoyed mythology and once you begin to study the various gods, a whole new world of understanding opens.
There are many,'copy/pastes' of other religions and rituals.
Indeed: there are only so many ways to take the basic human behavior/form, and to twist that into something surreal/larger-than-life.

:)
Lincoln

United States

#14063 Mar 20, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed: there are only so many ways to take the basic human behavior/form, and to twist that into something surreal/larger-than-life.
:)
did you post you voted for Obama?
CunningLinguist

Winter Garden, FL

#14064 Mar 20, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
did you post you voted for Obama?
47% 47% 47% Poor Mittens

Obama was the ONLY choice and the country responded in kind.
The GOP suffered their greatest defeat in modern history.

Just as there was never a silver bullet for defeating Obama, there was no single cause for this loss. It was a culmination of a number of weaknesses and missed opportunities that, in combination, proved fatal.
Romney’s decision to not rebut the attacks by Obama on Bain, tax returns, and offshore accounts in the summer proved fatal. Romney’s delay in defining himself was a major strategic error. Given the amount of money that was spent attacking Obama by the outside, any money spent attacking Obama by Romney was wasted. He should have been promoting himself. In the exit polls, voters split somewhat evenly into four camps when asked what was the most important quality in a Presidential candidate:“Shares my values”(27%),“Strong leader”(18%),“Cares about people like me”(21%), and “Vision for the future”(29%). Romney won all but “Cares about people like me” by strong majorities – between 54% and 61% of voters in each group. However, he lost by 63 points(!) on “Cares about people like me,” which Obama won 81% to 18%.

Swing voters were asked to describe both Romney and Obama in a word or phrase. For Romney, the most prevalent word was “liar” and for Obama it was “ineffective.” Since elections are a matter of whom do you trust, even “ineffective” trumps “liar.” Tellingly, this was among swing voters.

The much-discussed “gender gap” is better understood as a “minority gender gap.” Women made up 53% of voters. Overall, Obama won women by 11 (55-44) and Romney won men by 7 (52-45). However, Romney actually won white women (38% of voters) by 14 points (56-42). The problem is that he lost African American women (8% of voters) 96-3, and Hispanic women (6% of voters) 76-23. By comparison, Romney “only” lost Hispanic men (5% of voters) 65-33 – 21 points closer (net) than Hispanic women. Put another way, if the Hispanic gender gap had been the same as the white gender gap, Obama’s lead would be cut by nearly 20%. In 2004, the gender gap was nearly identical for all races and ethnicities.

Late-breaking undecided voters defied history and broke to the incumbent President. Obama won those who decided on Election Day or the few days prior 50-44. Past elections, including 2004 when Kerry won this group 53-44, found the opposite to be true. Conventional wisdom has long held that challenger candidates benefit from late deciders, who, by not already having joined the incumbent’s column, have in some sense already decided to consider an alternative. This “incumbent rule” is clearly no longer a rule – at least in presidential elections. As Election Day neared and the campaign saw Romney and Obama tied or Obama narrowly ahead but at 47% or below in key states (albeit using admittedly problematic turnout models), they expected Romney to carry a strong majority of the remaining voters. Most campaign strategists and pollsters expected this effect to help turn the tide in a number of states that, in reality, Romney ended up losing by 5-6 points (e.g., Iowa, Wisconsin, Colorado, etc.) and to firm up what should have been his victories in Florida and Virginia.

Urban turnout was higher than expected. Employing a long-term ground game and using constituencies of identity politics proved to be effective for Obama in these communities. For example, in Wisconsin, Obama won by nearly identical margins in 2008 and 2012 in Milwaukee and Madison combined – roughly 300,000 votes. In the balance of the state, Obama won by 111,000 votes in 2008, but lost by 96,000 votes in 2012.
Lincoln

United States

#14065 Mar 20, 2013
CunningLinguist wrote:
<quoted text>
47% 47% 47% Poor Mittens
Obama was the ONLY choice and the country responded in kind.
The GOP suffered their greatest defeat in modern history.
Just as there was never a silver bullet for defeating Obama, there was no single cause for this loss. It was a culmination of a number of weaknesses and missed opportunities that, in combination, proved fatal.
Romney’s decision to not rebut the attacks by Obama on Bain, tax returns, and offshore accounts in the summer proved fatal. Romney’s delay in defining himself was a major strategic error. Given the amount of money that was spent attacking Obama by the outside, any money spent attacking Obama by Romney was wasted. He should have been promoting himself. In the exit polls, voters split somewhat evenly into four camps when asked what was the most important quality in a Presidential candidate:“Shares my values”(27%),“Strong leader”(18%),“Cares about people like me”(21%), and “Vision for the future”(29%). Romney won all but “Cares about people like me” by strong majorities – between 54% and 61% of voters in each group. However, he lost by 63 points(!) on “Cares about people like me,” which Obama won 81% to 18%.
Swing voters were asked to describe both Romney and Obama in a word or phrase. For Romney, the most prevalent word was “liar” and for Obama it was “ineffective.” Since elections are a matter of whom do you trust, even “ineffective” trumps “liar.” Tellingly, this was among swing voters.
The much-discussed “gender gap” is better understood as a “minority gender gap.” Women made up 53% of voters. Overall, Obama won women by 11 (55-44) and Romney won men by 7 (52-45). However, Romney actually won white women (38% of voters) by 14 points (56-42). The problem is that he lost African American women (8% of voters) 96-3, and Hispanic women (6% of voters) 76-23. By comparison, Romney “only” lost Hispanic men (5% of voters) 65-33 – 21 points closer (net) than Hispanic women. Put another way, if the Hispanic gender gap had been the same as the white gender gap, Obama’s lead would be cut by nearly 20%. In 2004, the gender gap was nearly identical for all races and ethnicities.
Late-breaking undecided voters defied history and broke to the incumbent President. Obama won those who decided on Election Day or the few days prior 50-44. Past elections, including 2004 when Kerry won this group 53-44, found the opposite to be true. Conventional wisdom has long held that challenger candidates benefit from late deciders, who, by not already having joined the incumbent’s column, have in some sense already decided to consider an alternative. This “incumbent rule” is clearly no longer a rule – at least in presidential elections. As Election Day neared and the campaign saw Romney and Obama tied or Obama narrowly ahead but at 47% or below in key states (albeit using admittedly problematic turnout models), they expected Romney to carry a strong majority of the remaining voters. Most campaign strategists and pollsters expected this effect to help turn the tide in a number of states that, in reality, Romney ended up losing by 5-6 points (e.g., Iowa, Wisconsin, Colorado, etc.) and to firm up what should have been his victories in Florida and Virginia.
Urban turnout was higher than expected. Employing a long-term ground game and using constituencies of identity politics proved to be effective for Obama in these communities. For example, in Wisconsin, Obama won by nearly identical margins in 2008 and 2012 in Milwaukee and Madison combined – roughly 300,000 votes. In the balance of the state, Obama won by 111,000 votes in 2008, but lost by 96,000 votes in 2012.
47%:-)
Yes !
Victory was Sweet

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#14066 Mar 20, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
did you post you voted for Obama?
We all were more than happy to post our choice, and then to celebrate the victory.
Obama was the overwhelming favorite of we atheist, maybe you are an atheist too. After all, Obama was your choice too.
Lincoln

United States

#14067 Mar 20, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>We all were more than happy to post our choice, and then to celebrate the victory.
Obama was the overwhelming favorite of we atheist, maybe you are an atheist too. After all, Obama was your choice too.
Obama in 2008 and 2012 but not for religious reasons.
His withdrawal from Iraq a championing the Middle Class.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#14068 Mar 21, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama in 2008 and 2012 but not for religious reasons.
His withdrawal from Iraq a championing the Middle Class.
Seriously, learn to compose a sentence. You are all over the place, you are making quasi-statements that dribble way before becoming an actual thought.
Lincoln

United States

#14069 Mar 21, 2013
CunningLinguist wrote:
<quoted text>
47% 47% 47% Poor Mittens
Obama was the ONLY choice and the country responded in kind.
The GOP suffered their greatest defeat in modern history.
Just as there was never a silver bullet for defeating Obama, there was no single cause for this loss. It was a culmination of a number of weaknesses and missed opportunities that, in combination, proved fatal.
Romney’s decision to not rebut the attacks by Obama on Bain, tax returns, and offshore accounts in the summer proved fatal. Romney’s delay in defining himself was a major strategic error. Given the amount of money that was spent attacking Obama by the outside, any money spent attacking Obama by Romney was wasted. He should have been promoting himself. In the exit polls, voters split somewhat evenly into four camps when asked what was the most important quality in a Presidential candidate:“Shares my values”(27%),“Strong leader”(18%),“Cares about people like me”(21%), and “Vision for the future”(29%). Romney won all but “Cares about people like me” by strong majorities – between 54% and 61% of voters in each group. However, he lost by 63 points(!) on “Cares about people like me,” which Obama won 81% to 18%.
Swing voters were asked to describe both Romney and Obama in a word or phrase. For Romney, the most prevalent word was “liar” and for Obama it was “ineffective.” Since elections are a matter of whom do you trust, even “ineffective” trumps “liar.” Tellingly, this was among swing voters.
The much-discussed “gender gap” is better understood as a “minority gender gap.” Women made up 53% of voters. Overall, Obama won women by 11 (55-44) and Romney won men by 7 (52-45). However, Romney actually won white women (38% of voters) by 14 points (56-42). The problem is that he lost African American women (8% of voters) 96-3, and Hispanic women (6% of voters) 76-23. By comparison, Romney “only” lost Hispanic men (5% of voters) 65-33 – 21 points closer (net) than Hispanic women. Put another way, if the Hispanic gender gap had been the same as the white gender gap, Obama’s lead would be cut by nearly 20%. In 2004, the gender gap was nearly identical for all races and ethnicities.
Late-breaking undecided voters defied history and broke to the incumbent President. Obama won those who decided on Election Day or the few days prior 50-44. Past elections, including 2004 when Kerry won this group 53-44, found the opposite to be true. Conventional wisdom has long held that challenger candidates benefit from late deciders, who, by not already having joined the incumbent’s column, have in some sense already decided to consider an alternative. This “incumbent rule” is clearly no longer a rule – at least in presidential elections. As Election Day neared and the campaign saw Romney and Obama tied or Obama narrowly ahead but at 47% or below in key states (albeit using admittedly problematic turnout models), they expected Romney to carry a strong majority of the remaining voters. Most campaign strategists and pollsters expected this effect to help turn the tide in a number of states that, in reality, Romney ended up losing by 5-6 points (e.g., Iowa, Wisconsin, Colorado, etc.) and to firm up what should have been his victories in Florida and Virginia.
Urban turnout was higher than expected. Employing a long-term ground game and using constituencies of identity politics proved to be effective for Obama in these communities. For example, in Wisconsin, Obama won by nearly identical margins in 2008 and 2012 in Milwaukee and Madison combined – roughly 300,000 votes. In the balance of the state, Obama won by 111,000 votes in 2008, but lost by 96,000 votes in 2012.
Republicans tried to discourage voter turn out with voter ID laws. This backfired.
Imhotep

United States

#14070 Mar 21, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
47%:-)
Yes !
Victory was Sweet
When RobMe made the infamous 47% crack, the election was already a foregone conclusion.

He insulted 150 million Americans with that 47% remark,

Sadly, Clint Eastwood will forever be remembered with his foolish chair stunt at the RNC.

Inglorious end to a great career in movies

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
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 4 min IB DaMann 80
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 10 min IB DaMann 48,829
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 41 min IB DaMann 23,565
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 48 min IB DaMann 5,713
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 6 hr Cuddles6778 21,887
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 7 hr _Susan_ 258,042
News Louisiana Christians reclaim safe space by runn... 11 hr Eagle 12 5
More from around the web