Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

There are 23584 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

Nottingham, 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

Hernando, 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

Hernando, 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
Lincoln

United States

#14071 Mar 21, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
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
Eastwood is rather old, and may have made a mistake.

He did delay the speech for ten minutes and encouraged the audience to switch to the food channel :-)
Henry

Bad Frankenhausen, Germany

#14072 Mar 21, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right there - the Bible is no friend to women.
Many religions are no friend of women either!
Henry

Bad Frankenhausen, Germany

#14073 Mar 21, 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™
The most women in religions consider them second class!
Siro

Ringwood East, Australia

#14075 Mar 21, 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.
The cult of Obama?
Nope its just the cult of maltheism (Topix atheism)- liberal left and anti God.
.
You chip mouthed slag
Jimmy

Yeovil, UK

#14076 Mar 21, 2013
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
The cult of Obama?
Nope its just the cult of maltheism (Topix atheism)- liberal left and anti God.
.
You chip mouthed slag
"chip mouthed slag" - spoke like a true creationist. You make your cult more and more appealing every day.

Cos we'll all become creationists if you call us "chip mouthed slags, right?"

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#14077 Mar 21, 2013
Jimmy wrote:
<quoted text>"chip mouthed slag" - spoke like a true creationist. You make your cult more and more appealing every day.

Cos we'll all become creationists if you call us "chip mouthed slags, right?"
The idea is to keep a$$s from joining our cult. Seems to be working so far.

Keep up the good work you all we sure don't need these pricks in heaven. Better to sit back on a nice comfortable cloud and toast marsh mellows.
CunningLinguist

Hernando, FL

#14078 Mar 21, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
The idea is to keep a$$s from joining our cult. Seems to be working so far.
Keep up the good work you all we sure don't need these pricks in heaven. Better to sit back on a nice comfortable cloud and toast marsh mellows.
No sane person wants to join your cult.

All anyone needs to know about the cult 'members' can be gleaned from their Topix posts.

"The trouble with some of us is that we have been inoculated
with small doses of Christianity which keep us from catching
the real thing."
~Leslie Dixon Weatherhead

"The Old Testament is responsible for more atheism, agnosticism,
disbelief —call it what you will— than any book ever written.
~A. A. Milne
CunningLinguist

Hernando, FL

#14080 Mar 21, 2013
Brit Expat wrote:
<quoted text>
Excellent post! Most people who post about religion, have never read or understood the man invented nonsense called religion. Sadly, brainwashing is a reality. THINKING is beyond religious types. But they do get comfort from the trappings and theatrical garb. What price intelligence???
The Atheist aged 82.
Thank You

We cannot complain about growing old, far too many people have been denied the privilege.

This quote applies to our deluded, dogma addicted, posters

"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
~Mark Twain

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#14081 Mar 21, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
The idea is to keep a$$s from joining our cult. Seems to be working so far.
Keep up the good work you all we sure don't need these pricks in heaven. Better to sit back on a nice comfortable cloud and toast marsh mellows.
So, how do you explain how YOU got in?

As, clearly, you are a complete horse's azz...

... I'm just sayin' here-- who let YOU in?

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 Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 19 min Shizle 10,689
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 26 min Paul Porter1 20,524
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 28 min Anon 244,762
Santa vs. God: logic? 2 hr Shizle 2
Atheists should stop feeding the stereotypes 6 hr Shizle 11
Is the Christian god good? 7 hr Shizle 4
Atheist believe, they are just hiding!!! Tue Richardfs 18
More from around the web