Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

There are 24076 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.

henry

Chemnitz, Germany

#15294 May 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You religious nuts are so funny sometimes.
Ask the victims of Fukushima if they find it funny?
henry

Chemnitz, Germany

#15295 May 4, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is why I'm in favor of a limited capitalistic society-- one where there are strict limits on the excesses of capitalism.
Unfortunately an atomar Inferno does not Limit capitalism but end the mankind.
henry

Chemnitz, Germany

#15296 May 4, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
“Perhaps not one religion contains all of the truth of the world.
Perhaps every religion contains fragments of the truth, and it is our responsibility to identify those fragments and piece them together.”
&#8213; Christopher Paolini, Brisingr
All religions are fakes in the interest of the mighty and rich ones. But in cases of the coming atomar Inferno the end of mankind is visible!
Imhotep

Silver Springs, FL

#15297 May 4, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> I think I'm in love with you. Bravo. You are the only one I've seen who has sense enough to attach the inadequate term limits thing to all the other things that are required. A wonderful set of suggestions, well-phrased and well-motivated.
Awe.
Flirt!

These are not mine, they came from a website run by Michael Moore

This was posted in response to the occupy movement

Many do not like Michael Moore so I avoided putting his name on the post.

Some people hate the messenger but the message is still important

Here is the full text...

A Proposal for Occupy Wall Street Submitted by Michael Moore

1. Eradicate the Bush tax cuts for the rich and institute new taxes on the wealthiest Americans and on corporations, including a tax on all trading on Wall Street (where they currently pay 0%).

2. Assess a penalty tax on any corporation that moves American jobs to other countries when that company is already making profits in America. Our jobs are the most important national treasure and they cannot be removed from the country simply because someone wants to make more money.

3. Require that all Americans pay the same Social Security tax on all of their earnings (normally, the middle class pays about 6% of their income to Social Security; someone making $1 million a year pays about 0.6%(or 90% less than the average person). This law would simply make the rich pay what everyone else pays.

4. Reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, placing serious regulations on how business is conducted by Wall Street and the banks.

5. Investigate the Crash of 2008, and bring to justice those who committed any crimes.

6. Reorder our nation's spending priorities (including the ending of all foreign wars and their cost of over $2 billion a week). This will re-open libraries, reinstate band and art and civics classes in our schools, fix our roads and bridges and infrastructure, wire the entire country for 21st century internet, and support scientific research that improves our lives.

7. Join the rest of the free world and create a single-payer, free and universal health care system that covers all Americans all of the time.

8. Immediately reduce carbon emissions that are destroying the planet and discover ways to live without the oil that will be depleted and gone by the end of this century.

9. Require corporations with more than 10,000 employees to restructure their board of directors so that 50% of its members are elected by the company’s workers. We can never have a real democracy as long as most people have no say in what happens at the place they spend most of their time: their job.(For any U.S. businesspeople freaking out at this idea because you think workers can't run a successful company: Germany has a law like this and it has helped to make Germany the world’s leading manufacturing exporter.)

10. We, the people, must pass three constitutional amendments that will go a long way toward fixing the core problems we now have. These include:

PS: you have the rest. ;)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15298 May 4, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
... or do you oppose the death penalty? I would assume that you do in most cases, since you substitute rational ethics for religious nonsense in matters of morals, I trust.
I am opposed to the death penalty on several grounds.

The main reason is that no system of justice/police can be without flaws, and killing someone by the state, for the wrong reason, should never happen, ever-ever. That's one.

The second reason is that we have no proof of reincarnation, afterlife, soul, or anything apart from this one life we are granted. Because of that, it's too much to permit the state to have the power to kill someone, regardless of the reason. It corrupts the state too, in ways that are ugly. And that diminishes us all a little bit, for we enable the state to exist.

The third reason is one of pure practicality: it simply costs too much, in terms of limited capital, to go for the throat. It is much-much cheaper to simply warehouse a life-term criminal, than it is to try him/her in order to kill them.

More to the point? It doesn't actually prevent crime; most criminals are of the mindset "it can't happen to ME" anyway, so the added "threat" of death doesn't add anything useful.

So, yeah, I'm against state-sponsored murder.

In a bit of cognitive dissonance, however, I do think it is moral and ethical to defend yourself (individually) with lethal force, if that is what is needed.

Do I see a conflict? Not really-- what I grant to an individual, I do not automatically grant to the state-- the state >>must<< be held to a >>much<< higher standard than an individual. By intent and by design-- the state has power over everyone. A random individual typically only has power over him- or herself.

But I would grant that states should be able to defend themselves from other marauding states or groups, but ought to be required to utilize on the minimum force needed to get the job done. Pro-active invasions, such as what Bushy 2 did, is immoral.

So, yeah, I'm against it.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15299 May 4, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> I think I'm in love with you. Bravo. You are the only one I've seen who has sense enough to attach the inadequate term limits thing to all the other things that are required. A wonderful set of suggestions, well-phrased and well-motivated.
If you read the diaries, letters and thoughts of the original Constitutional Framers? They had in mind, that serving in office was a once or twice thing-- a >>service<< to the country, not unlike Jury Duty. A limited service, after which you returned to your original position(s).

This whole notion of "professional politician" would have been an anathema to them; as would people who make a lifetime career of it.

But the worst of all? Are the politicians who are in it to get filthy rich. Look at the net worth of many of the prominent Republican leadership, back in 2000 and now. Their net worth has gone up 100's of times, in many cases! That is beyond unethical, that is grounds for treason in my playbook!

They are literally the fox guarding the henhouse-- and they don't even pretend that chicken feathers are all over their faces...
Imhotep

Silver Springs, FL

#15300 May 4, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I am opposed to the death penalty on several grounds.
The main reason is that no system of justice/police can be without flaws, and killing someone by the state, for the wrong reason, should never happen, ever-ever. That's one.
The second reason is that we have no proof of reincarnation, afterlife, soul, or anything apart from this one life we are granted. Because of that, it's too much to permit the state to have the power to kill someone, regardless of the reason. It corrupts the state too, in ways that are ugly. And that diminishes us all a little bit, for we enable the state to exist.
The third reason is one of pure practicality: it simply costs too much, in terms of limited capital, to go for the throat. It is much-much cheaper to simply warehouse a life-term criminal, than it is to try him/her in order to kill them.
More to the point? It doesn't actually prevent crime; most criminals are of the mindset "it can't happen to ME" anyway, so the added "threat" of death doesn't add anything useful.
So, yeah, I'm against state-sponsored murder.
In a bit of cognitive dissonance, however, I do think it is moral and ethical to defend yourself (individually) with lethal force, if that is what is needed.
Do I see a conflict? Not really-- what I grant to an individual, I do not automatically grant to the state-- the state >>must<< be held to a >>much<< higher standard than an individual. By intent and by design-- the state has power over everyone. A random individual typically only has power over him- or herself.
But I would grant that states should be able to defend themselves from other marauding states or groups, but ought to be required to utilize on the minimum force needed to get the job done. Pro-active invasions, such as what Bushy 2 did, is immoral.
So, yeah, I'm against it.
Yes I agree with I am against the death penalty too

Way back in college we had to give a paper on the death penalty. Pro:Con The caveat being if you were pro-death penalty then your mission was to present the con side.

Of course I had the pro side
What I discovered was simple arithmetic
Statistically people who have committed murder being incarcerated then released a certain portion of these commit murder again the argument for the death penalty consists basically that if they had been executed they would've prevented another murder after their release.

Cold calculating not much unlike Hitler's death camp mentality.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." - Gandhi.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#15301 May 4, 2013
henry wrote:
<quoted text>
Ask the victims of Fukushima if they find it funny?
Did you look into that incident more than what the conspiracy nuts told you? Probably not. Their "emergency plan" in such a case was to flood the plant with sea water, which would have neutralized the heat and thus prevented a meltdown. Great idea actually, and it would have worked if they had maintained the system so that when the earthquake hit any damage would not have rendered it useless.

Chernobyl had a similar problem, ironically, they simply did not maintain their facility and thus when an accident happened their fail-safes .... well ... failed to keep it safe. Yeah, another time in which the facts are ignored.

That is why you are a religious nut, conspiracy nuttery is the same thing, you buy a bunch of junk science that's not even based on science then run with it just because you want to feel like you're better than other people, specifically, better than the people who disagree with you. Nutter.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15303 May 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you look into that incident more than what the conspiracy nuts told you? Probably not. Their "emergency plan" in such a case was to flood the plant with sea water, which would have neutralized the heat and thus prevented a meltdown. Great idea actually, and it would have worked if they had maintained the system so that when the earthquake hit any damage would not have rendered it useless.
Chernobyl had a similar problem, ironically, they simply did not maintain their facility and thus when an accident happened their fail-safes .... well ... failed to keep it safe. Yeah, another time in which the facts are ignored.
That is why you are a religious nut, conspiracy nuttery is the same thing, you buy a bunch of junk science that's not even based on science then run with it just because you want to feel like you're better than other people, specifically, better than the people who disagree with you. Nutter.
This is why, I advocate for expanding the US Navy into nuclear power production.

Seriously.

Their record is spotless-- and they take their duties to the USA quite seriously, they have literally sworn to uphold and protect the US.

More to the point? One thing the Navy has done, which helps immensely, is they have standardized all the reactors they use, such that anyone trained on one, is automatically trained on them all.

And they practice disaster drills out their wazoos-- it's what Navy personnel do, when not in an active war zone: practice.

All sorts of benefits to such a program. Starting with the fact that the Navy would use the Marines to guard the security of any facilities....

... think about THAT for a second, and then think about an attempted terrorist attack against a nuclear plant...

.... it'd let you sleep better.

:D

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#15304 May 4, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
This is why, I advocate for expanding the US Navy into nuclear power production.
Seriously.
Their record is spotless-- and they take their duties to the USA quite seriously, they have literally sworn to uphold and protect the US.
More to the point? One thing the Navy has done, which helps immensely, is they have standardized all the reactors they use, such that anyone trained on one, is automatically trained on them all.
And they practice disaster drills out their wazoos-- it's what Navy personnel do, when not in an active war zone: practice.
All sorts of benefits to such a program. Starting with the fact that the Navy would use the Marines to guard the security of any facilities....
... think about THAT for a second, and then think about an attempted terrorist attack against a nuclear plant...
.... it'd let you sleep better.
:D
I can agree to that, I see nothing wrong with trusting something that has a proven track record.

People just like to avoid the real issue, like the reasons for leaving coal in the first place. The deaths of mining coal each year are too high of a cost, that alone should be enough. The particulates released into the atmosphere pose a global threat, it accelerates and worsens nature's warming periods enough to actually make it difficult, if not impossible for us to live. But other power sources are simply not feasible, or economical, on large scales. They look at the type of power and go "oh, that's purty," but never once actually look at, and crunch, the numbers in such methods. So economically and safety, nuclear is the best option we have. I mean, if we keep to this major nuclear disaster every 30+ years, we have already beat the disasters and loss of life from coal.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15305 May 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I can agree to that, I see nothing wrong with trusting something that has a proven track record.
People just like to avoid the real issue, like the reasons for leaving coal in the first place. The deaths of mining coal each year are too high of a cost, that alone should be enough. The particulates released into the atmosphere pose a global threat, it accelerates and worsens nature's warming periods enough to actually make it difficult, if not impossible for us to live. But other power sources are simply not feasible, or economical, on large scales. They look at the type of power and go "oh, that's purty," but never once actually look at, and crunch, the numbers in such methods. So economically and safety, nuclear is the best option we have. I mean, if we keep to this major nuclear disaster every 30+ years, we have already beat the disasters and loss of life from coal.
I agree--- coal is wasted as an energy source. It could just as easily be turned into plastics, as the bulk of crude is now.

Or better yet, leave it in the ground...

... one of the newest worries about coal, is that the newest burners appear to release something called nano carbon particles. These are so fine, that they easily pass through modern filtering systems, and indeed, go right past biological defenses too.

We do not know what these represent, or if they are a worry. But they exist, they are unnatural, and we're releasing them in record numbers ...

... from burning coal for power.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#15306 May 4, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree--- coal is wasted as an energy source. It could just as easily be turned into plastics, as the bulk of crude is now.
Or better yet, leave it in the ground...
... one of the newest worries about coal, is that the newest burners appear to release something called nano carbon particles. These are so fine, that they easily pass through modern filtering systems, and indeed, go right past biological defenses too.
We do not know what these represent, or if they are a worry. But they exist, they are unnatural, and we're releasing them in record numbers ...
... from burning coal for power.
I say we leave the coal in the ground ... the only drawback to doing that is more diamonds for future generations to fight over.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15307 May 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I say we leave the coal in the ground ... the only drawback to doing that is more diamonds for future generations to fight over.
Yes, and by that time? Artificial diamonds will be everywhere.

They are already widespread in industrial processes after all.

:D

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#15308 May 4, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and by that time? Artificial diamonds will be everywhere.
They are already widespread in industrial processes after all.
:D
That would actually be awesome if it happened today, make them so cheap that no one even cares about the real ones anymore.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15309 May 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
That would actually be awesome if it happened today, make them so cheap that no one even cares about the real ones anymore.
That could be done already. But the diamond market is 100% artificial-- it is deliberately kept low-volume to keep prices overly inflated.

And stupid and gullible fools think that giving someone a "diamond" is somehow meaningful. Riiiiight..

It is just a callous display of wealth, and nothing more.
MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#15310 May 4, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I am opposed to the death penalty on several grounds.
..
What you would have done to Hitler, Osama and many such cases like them?

.... O Great Fountain of Milk of Human Kindness!! O you great lover of humanity and human life!!

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#15311 May 4, 2013
You would have sheltered and protected Hitler and Osama yes?
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>What you would have done to Hitler, Osama and many such cases like them?

.... O Great Fountain of Milk of Human Kindness!! O you great lover of humanity and human life!!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15313 May 4, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
What you would have done to Hitler, Osama and many such cases like them?
Lock'em up for life, without parole.

Feed'em bread, water and basic vitamins for the end of their days.

What would YOU do? Try to convert'em to Islam? They would fit right in...
Imhotep

Silver Springs, FL

#15314 May 4, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Lock'em up for life, without parole.
Feed'em bread, water and basic vitamins for the end of their days.
What would YOU do? Try to convert'em to Islam? They would fit right in...
Two words
MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS?

Richardfs

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#15315 May 5, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
What you would have done to Hitler, Osama and many such cases like them?
.... O Great Fountain of Milk of Human Kindness!! O you great lover of humanity and human life!!
Speaking of Milk of Human Kindness!! O you great lover of humanity and human life!



You are a hypocrite.

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) 26 min scientia potentia... 40,654
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 46 min Aura Mytha 16,127
For Atheists: Why do You Call Theories "Scient... 50 min IB DaMann 246
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr Thinking 20,597
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Thinking 256,003
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 1 hr IB DaMann 3,762
Who Is Satan The Devil? Is He Real? (Jan '16) 4 hr Thinking 16
More from around the web