Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

There are 24181 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.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#15232 May 3, 2013
undefined apathy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are far too wordy...I feel like I'm reading a school paper :(
Also, Walmart hasn't done crap for the quality of life here. It's just a shitty little crap shack ( our walmart is like the retard small edition ran by managers who I know don't know what they're doing because they cause ( are literally responsible ) for some stupid problem on a daily basis that screws over every single employee. They also like to hire based on the 'who's my friend' principle so yeah...our walmart sucks and it's tiny with limited options.:(
I am wordy, I confess, I like to type non-code since most of what I type is code.

As I said, it takes time for the positive change, but it will happen, those managers you complain about would be on welfare if not for Walmart, and then no business would survive because they'd have no money to spend at other businesses. As to your mention of hiring practices, that happens everywhere, a single store's hiring practices for any business will often end up being a "hire your friends first" just because most managers are just as biased as anyone else. Eventually though, after a few changes and some stumbles, the store will balance out, again, happens with all businesses. More times than not I have had to correct hiring practices for restaurants when I worked for those, I was a headhunter even though I preferred working in the kitchen, thus why I left that career, I just didn't like it. Most of our small businesses here have almost all family members working, only the big businesses will hire more outside the family. Starbucks has a corporate controlled hiring policy, the locals have almost no say in who works at what store, and they do a great job of employing a variety of people. But they also require you do everything online to get hired because that's the only feasible method for such a system.

In short, you have to take some bad with all good, a cloud cannot have a silver lining without the cloud.

“Dancing with the devil”

Since: May 12

...Dreaming of angels

#15233 May 3, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I am wordy, I confess, I like to type non-code since most of what I type is code.
As I said, it takes time for the positive change, but it will happen, those managers you complain about would be on welfare if not for Walmart, and then no business would survive because they'd have no money to spend at other businesses. As to your mention of hiring practices, that happens everywhere, a single store's hiring practices for any business will often end up being a "hire your friends first" just because most managers are just as biased as anyone else. Eventually though, after a few changes and some stumbles, the store will balance out, again, happens with all businesses. More times than not I have had to correct hiring practices for restaurants when I worked for those, I was a headhunter even though I preferred working in the kitchen, thus why I left that career, I just didn't like it. Most of our small businesses here have almost all family members working, only the big businesses will hire more outside the family. Starbucks has a corporate controlled hiring policy, the locals have almost no say in who works at what store, and they do a great job of employing a variety of people. But they also require you do everything online to get hired because that's the only feasible method for such a system.
In short, you have to take some bad with all good, a cloud cannot have a silver lining without the cloud.
I'm not sure what to think really...

Personally I'm a bit confused. I can't seem to wrap my head around what I've been looking up. Oh well XD

The statistics I keep finding on small business don't really add up with other statistics I've found.

If the wealth distribution is so messed up that I don't understand how a small business can thrive at all when 7% of the wealth is held by 80% of the population...I feel like the math is messed up somewhere along the lines.

I don't know, all that I'm really sure of is that a minimum wage job is not enough to live off of which doesn't make sense to me :(

I'm at a loss...

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#15234 May 3, 2013
undefined apathy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure what to think really...
Personally I'm a bit confused. I can't seem to wrap my head around what I've been looking up. Oh well XD
The statistics I keep finding on small business don't really add up with other statistics I've found.
If the wealth distribution is so messed up that I don't understand how a small business can thrive at all when 7% of the wealth is held by 80% of the population...I feel like the math is messed up somewhere along the lines.
I don't know, all that I'm really sure of is that a minimum wage job is not enough to live off of which doesn't make sense to me :(
I'm at a loss...
Statistics are often skewed by those taking the records or compiling the data into readable information, the only thing we have to go on in such matters, really, is personal observation. Remember, statistical data is collected by corporations and companies, so the source of the statistic becomes questionable in all such instances.

However, a minimum wage job is better than welfare, no matter how it's spun. Most of the anti-corporation garbage is actually driven by some small businesses who want an edge, but instead of providing better products they just want to get either people or the government to hand them that edge, thus they make up these skewed statistical reports to do just that. Big corporations respond in kind, making many of their statistics questionable as well, when dealing directly with their production and such.

Sometimes, pictures are worth more than numbers.

“Dancing with the devil”

Since: May 12

...Dreaming of angels

#15235 May 3, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Statistics are often skewed by those taking the records or compiling the data into readable information, the only thing we have to go on in such matters, really, is personal observation. Remember, statistical data is collected by corporations and companies, so the source of the statistic becomes questionable in all such instances.
However, a minimum wage job is better than welfare, no matter how it's spun. Most of the anti-corporation garbage is actually driven by some small businesses who want an edge, but instead of providing better products they just want to get either people or the government to hand them that edge, thus they make up these skewed statistical reports to do just that. Big corporations respond in kind, making many of their statistics questionable as well, when dealing directly with their production and such.
Sometimes, pictures are worth more than numbers.
Statistics are an interesting thing, that's for sure.

A minimum wage job is not better than welfare. I personally hate welfare, I don't want free money. The idea is disturbing to me ( then again I also hate money in general ). The truth of the matter is that those people on welfare have more food, nicer things, and a generally better lifestyle than someone working for minimum wage. I don't know many of the people employed with me who have iphones, but almost every person using welfare has one -.-'

Corporate welfare is also rather disturbing to me though. I don't like companies with billions of dollars getting billions of more dollars for no reason...

I'm just waiting though. I figure at some point greed and corruption will become so bad that it'll collapse everything, and hopefully when that happens will come up with something better than money.

We should really work on getting rid of greed. It's one of the most evil things in this world, along side power lust.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#15236 May 3, 2013
undefined apathy wrote:
<quoted text>
Statistics are an interesting thing, that's for sure.
A minimum wage job is not better than welfare. I personally hate welfare, I don't want free money. The idea is disturbing to me ( then again I also hate money in general ). The truth of the matter is that those people on welfare have more food, nicer things, and a generally better lifestyle than someone working for minimum wage. I don't know many of the people employed with me who have iphones, but almost every person using welfare has one -.-'
Corporate welfare is also rather disturbing to me though. I don't like companies with billions of dollars getting billions of more dollars for no reason...
I'm just waiting though. I figure at some point greed and corruption will become so bad that it'll collapse everything, and hopefully when that happens will come up with something better than money.
We should really work on getting rid of greed. It's one of the most evil things in this world, along side power lust.
Minimum wage does pay a lot more than welfare if you work 40 hours a week.
Lincoln

United States

#15237 May 3, 2013
Libertarian atheists millionaires notice that government is not needed.

All millionaires should be able to support themselves.

.... is the rest of mankind that is in trouble.

Hillary Clinton in 2016

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#15238 May 3, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
Libertarian atheists millionaires notice that government is not needed.
All millionaires should be able to support themselves.
.... is the rest of mankind that is in trouble.
Hillary Clinton in 2016
Infantile creationist troll who can't prove his own god so attempts to attack atheists instead.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15239 May 3, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Screw it, something better to debate than the lame creatards. Nuclear energy is probably the only way we could move from fossil fuels and thus allow the atmosphere to take it's own natural course, meaning the warming period we are going through won't be as bad. Let's pretend the fears of nuclear power are true, just for this thought experiment, which would you prefer:
1. No use nuclear fuels and certainly accelerate the natural warming trend, making life very difficult if not nearly impossible in the near future?
2. Use nuclear fuels, which will produce hundreds of years of energy with very little waste produced, and maybe have to deal with an excess of nuclear waste in a few thousand years?(assuming we haven't found a better solution by then)
What irritates me about nuclear programs in the US, is all the waste-- if they would simply re-process the "spent" fuel rods next to working nuclear piles, it could be reused several times, before all the useful isotopes are gone.

By the time it decays into lighter elements, there is not all that much leftover for deep-crust burial.

The majority of "waste" is really low-level stuff anyway (like tools, clothing, protective gear, etc). That could be handled in a very different way than at present, where it's treated as if it were made of "super kooties" or something-- if it were incinerated, and the exhaust carefully collected, you'd have 1/100th of the mass/volume or better--sure, it'd be higher level radiation, but much-much smaller to dispose of. Cheaper, too.

The whole thing is fraught with arbitrary silliness, and hampered by morons who are afraid of their shadows-- if the "nuclear" word is attached? They are against it--even if it was "nuclear medicine".

Idiots.

A properly engineered and properly >>maintained<< reactor NOT located on a fault line or in a hurricane zone is safer than houses-- certainly MUCH safer than damns are.

The key is oversight-- NOT from the company profiting from the endeavor, but by an interested, but unbiased 3rd party.

Typically this would be government-- but alas, our government is too easy to corrupt these days.

For proof? The ReThuglican Party-- who allowed itself to be bought off by gun manufacturers, instead of enacting REASONABLE protections for the citizenry.

... ugg.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15240 May 3, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Screw it, something better to debate than the lame creatards. Nuclear energy is probably the only way we could move from fossil fuels and thus allow the atmosphere to take it's own natural course, meaning the warming period we are going through won't be as bad. Let's pretend the fears of nuclear power are true, just for this thought experiment, which would you prefer:
1. No use nuclear fuels and certainly accelerate the natural warming trend, making life very difficult if not nearly impossible in the near future?
2. Use nuclear fuels, which will produce hundreds of years of energy with very little waste produced, and maybe have to deal with an excess of nuclear waste in a few thousand years?(assuming we haven't found a better solution by then)
Look at the US Navy's record of Nuclear Power-- it's literally spotless.

They don't mess around with "super customized" installations-- all of the US Navy's nuclear power piles follow essentially the same design-- such that, anyone trained on one, is automatically trained on them all. And they are rigid with their safety protocols.

As such? They have a spotless record.

I say: expand the US Navy into power production-- just at COST, too-- they could build their version of the reactors all across the US, even on Navy/Army/Air-force bases. This could have strategic use as well as national usefulness.

They put in sufficient power piles to power the base, plus about double or triple excess-- for military redundancy, of course.

But during peacetime? They sell the excess power-- at the same as the local rates-- which funds the plants, and helps fund the US Military budget too.

Everybody wins!

The US gets lots and lots of lovely power-- pollution free.

The military gets power for their bases that THEY control, very strategically useful in times of crisis.

They military BUDGET gets partially funded by the project too.

An added benefit? Those plucky US Navy personnel get lots of training.

It's a WIN-WIN!

Alas-- nobody is going to become SUPER-MEGA-RICH over it, though.

... so the Republicans would be against it, I'd bet...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15241 May 3, 2013
undefined apathy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm actually rooting for the version where we stop big oil companies from destroying every single alternative fuel that comes along, and just have energy that's not destructive to the planet.
We can make cars run on water, they done this successfully more than once, yet because big oil companies keep getting involved we're still thoughtlessly destroying our planet :(
I like where you are going-- except for the "run on water" bit.

That is pure BS-- sorry about that, but water simply has no useful energy to release, to run your car.

Unless you have invented an anti-matter converter? One that converts the mass of the water directly into energy? No?

Then "cars running on water" is not possible.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15242 May 3, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, they can't make cars that "run on water," sadly. It's not really feasible for several reasons, most importantly physics. The amount of energy require to break the water molecule into hydrogen and oxygen gas is three times the energy derived from igniting such gasses. It's a fun science experiment but was not effective in the long term, and is less efficient than even our electric cars.
Also, the "big oil company" thing you mentioned is, technically, a conspiracy theory, or as I call it, conspiracy nuttery. Oil companies make more money on plastics and textile production than anything, more factory new computers are sold every year than cars in a decade. Even with our technology recycling programs we use more virgin plastic on computers each year than any other product on the market, in the US and Europe at least. Oil companies also make no money off electricity production now, that's all coal, a different industry.
There are alternatives, the problem is that the lobbyists are all for their own pet corporations, all of them, even the "green" ones, all they want is to push for money into their corporations. One of the huge tax wasters is the raw material recycling companies now, I can go into detail if you want to change topics. But oil companies themselves don't even care about the fuel industry anymore, and while we're working on some great new bio-plastics, we will need the petroleum plastics for at least another century.
Ooops! I should have read ahead.:D

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15243 May 3, 2013
undefined apathy wrote:
<quoted text>
I was citing Hydrogen as a specific example, not the only example.
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/ ( btw there are hydrogen cars :D )
http://www.teslamotors.com/ ( Electric powered car that doesn't use fossil fuels...a personal want of mine is the Tesla roadster )
Now, I'm talking about corporate greed in general. Big companies like to crush small competitors. That's pretty much the way it goes. It's why there are no longer mom and pop shops and Walmarts everywhere.
Hydrogen is very different from water.
:D

I like hydrogen-- but the problem of storage density remains-- there is no real efficient method of storing that stuff in sufficiently dense containers suitable for autos-- if you want a reasonable range, that is.

If you are willing to limit your range to 100 miles or less? Then, yeah, hydrogen is the way to go.

Maybe we need to look for ways to refuel the cars more efficiently--say every time you park, a robot automatically connects your car to an electrical charging device-- it either generates more hydrogen (from on-board water tanks) or it recharges the batteries.

For city-to-city roads? It is technically feasable to have in-road induction charging sections-- that is, as you drive along, the in-road induction coils re-charge your batteries (or generate hydrogen from on-board water).

This would enable cars to have very limited ranges-- and still be quite workable with the present cityscapes.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15244 May 3, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Minimum wage does pay a lot more than welfare if you work 40 hours a week.
Aye, and there's the rub, me hearty!

:)

An example of taking advantage of the minimum wage issue? Is McDonald's. They typically only hire part-time-- 20hrs or less/wk for the bulk of their employees, and then pay their managers salaries-- and work them 60-90 hours/week.

I do contract work for McD's, in the summers, and I see how they are run from the "other side". Fast turnover, all the managers are young people--older folk cannot stand the hours/pace.

But your typical store is only a 1%-5% profit margin business. Of course, they do generate a great deal of cash-flow through the business, and therefore, generate local economic flow of monies.

That's all good-- but I would not work >for< them. I need full time work-- not 20hour part-time, paid less than minimum wage with zero benefits.

The Wal-Marts of my area use the same model-- most of their workers are not permitted more than 35 hours/week, so they don't have to give them any benefits.

In fact? The local human services of my local 'Marts, have printed material for their new hires, so they can collect food stamps!

Seriously.

The US Taxpayer is subsidizing the billionaires that own Wal-Mart...

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#15245 May 3, 2013
Obama administration close ties with atheists.

http://www.examiner.com/article/godless-polit...

Many have said Obama himself is a closet atheist. He certainly isn't very religious forgoing church on Sunday for working out at the gym instead.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15246 May 3, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Obama administration close ties with atheists.
http://www.examiner.com/article/godless-polit...
Many have said Obama himself is a closet atheist. He certainly isn't very religious forgoing church on Sunday for working out at the gym instead.
Regardless if he's sincere in his "god bless" speech-closers or not?

The fact that he is willing to meet with non-theists groups? Says more about his willingness to cooperate with organized groups in the US, than anything else.

In direct contrast to all the ReThuglican "leaders" in the past 20 years...

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#15247 May 3, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Ooops! I should have read ahead.:D
Well, you still appear to know a lot more on the subject than I do anyway, so your input was informative and I am grateful you did contribute. My knowledge is focused mostly on the politics of the situation, and I know less about that science.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#15248 May 3, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Aye, and there's the rub, me hearty!
:)
An example of taking advantage of the minimum wage issue? Is McDonald's. They typically only hire part-time-- 20hrs or less/wk for the bulk of their employees, and then pay their managers salaries-- and work them 60-90 hours/week.
I do contract work for McD's, in the summers, and I see how they are run from the "other side". Fast turnover, all the managers are young people--older folk cannot stand the hours/pace.
But your typical store is only a 1%-5% profit margin business. Of course, they do generate a great deal of cash-flow through the business, and therefore, generate local economic flow of monies.
That's all good-- but I would not work >for< them. I need full time work-- not 20hour part-time, paid less than minimum wage with zero benefits.
The Wal-Marts of my area use the same model-- most of their workers are not permitted more than 35 hours/week, so they don't have to give them any benefits.
In fact? The local human services of my local 'Marts, have printed material for their new hires, so they can collect food stamps!
Seriously.
The US Taxpayer is subsidizing the billionaires that own Wal-Mart...
McDonald's hates it's employees, ironically the employees don't ever seem to realize that. The 35 hour work week is called a "buffer limit," as in, it offers a buffer of 5 hours to avoid paying overtime, and anyone under 18 cannot work overtime, it's illegal in the US now, so it also protects the company in other ways.

The US government pretty much wants everyone on food stamps, because they can increase taxes for it and collect more in profits. Yep, our government is another corporation, it's just one that gets to make up the laws. Luckily that has only been a hindrance thus far. The thing with the Walmart hours as well is that anyone working an average of 40 or more per week also becomes a partial owner, they get stock options, even hourly wagers, and I know of no business that will give a newly hired employee more than 30 hours a week in any case.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#15249 May 3, 2013
You gotta say what you gotta say. We have never had such an atheist friendly president. He also has several atheists and non believers on his staff.

I look at his actions and they certainly are not in line with the Religious organizations.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Regardless if he's sincere in his "god bless" speech-closers or not?

The fact that he is willing to meet with non-theists groups? Says more about his willingness to cooperate with organized groups in the US, than anything else.

In direct contrast to all the ReThuglican "leaders" in the past 20 years...
Lincoln

United States

#15250 May 3, 2013
Hillary Clinton 2016
Lincoln

United States

#15251 May 3, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Obama administration close ties with atheists.
http://www.examiner.com/article/godless-polit...
Many have said Obama himself is a closet atheist. He certainly isn't very religious forgoing church on Sunday for working out at the gym instead.
Next President Obama will be Kenyan
Next President Obama will be Muslim
LOL

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) 3 hr Subduction Zone 69,956
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr 15th Dalai Lama 30,111
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... 5 hr orlando 434
News Atheism and cowardice (Nov '11) 9 hr Roy 12,673
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 10 hr yehoshooah adam 3,779
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 17 hr superwilly 579
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Tue Eagle 12 258,469
More from around the web