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.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15381 May 6, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you stuttering?
I'm not--it is impossible to stutter in written words.

But dramatic pauses are possible, which is how I write.

I'm sorry your brain is so damaged, you read with a stutter, though...

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#15382 May 6, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
New information from a 12-year old study at a German University has many psychiatrists and psychologists throughout the world wondering if atheism is a sign or warning of a more serious mental illness already present or in the process of developing.  Doctors are searching for a gene that might cause a correlation between serious mental illness and what they are calling “overt atheism.”
For the time being psychiatrists and research psychologists in Germany and Switzerland are calling this medical anomaly,“The Misfit Syndrome.”
Doctors at the University in Hamburg have been investigating the connection between religious beliefs and overall mental health and the results of the study have unnerved even the most stoic scientists, physicians and researchers.
Originally the study was an obscure student investigation about the power of prayer over illness — a study which eventually showed that prayer had virtually no effect on the eventual outcome of a disease process — but something happened along the way in that study that pushed the study into another direction and into the hands of research physicians, clinicians, psychotherapists and various professionals in the field of social science.
“Overt atheism, in other words, atheism that is professed as a way of life by some individuals — a manifesto of sorts –  was found to be a common component inherent to many people suffering from other forms of severe mental illness,” said Dr. Hans Zimmer MD PhD
It's obvious you are cut and pasting so provide the link.

Let's hope it's not The Damien Zone.

That set off my A-V with a trojan alert and blocked it, I hope. Who knows what else might have slipped past.

Religion - spreading diseases of the mind and computers.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15383 May 6, 2013
MUQ wrote:
Why should we feel shame? We are not against death penalty or killing.!!
Because you are MURDERING SCUM.

That is why you should feel shame...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15384 May 6, 2013
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
Key word there is "supposed."
And a key concept there is that the religions should not be trying to dictate policies of the state.
There are intersections of state and religion with the easy example of "you may not murder."*
*this, of course, assumes there's a translation error of the "Thou shalt not kill" Commandment where kill == murder. Otherwise, the infallible Bible folks are going to have a hard time defending a self defense plea or admit there is an error in the Bible. But they are well trained in compartmentalization and may claim that's not a problem at all because they are completely unrelated.
Yes, there is that-- compartmentalization. It's how they manage to hold several conflicting ideas (their bible) in their head at once...

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#15385 May 6, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Ans.
"All" religions are not "equally" separated from the state.
This is a general claim which is made, but the roots of religion are so deeply inside the psyche of humans, that no one can totally erase it.
Communists did their best to erase it in USSR for more than 70 years, but once the "pressure" was removed, the people went back to their religions.
So there is not "total separation" from state and religion in any society. Irrespective of what they claim.
And not 'all" religions are treated as same. There is Islam which is marked for criticism and negative propaganda in most western countries.
And the media in most of these countries is in the grip of a very small minority group.
'"All" religions are not "equally" separated from the state.'

You conveniently discarded a qualifying clause of "Here in this country," (assuming he meant the US) and then you built up your strawman and easily knocked it down.

Quite simply, the idea that a state could be established without a religion sponsor was a revolutionary idea ~200 years ago.

Kings do not rule by Divine Right anymore but there are a lot of people who wish to go back to that or stay the same way forever <cough>Saudi Arabia<cough>.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15386 May 6, 2013
greymouser wrote:
Religion - spreading diseases of the mind and computers.
Yes... they are not aware enough to NOT be victims of computer fraud-- what with them already being victims of ideological fraud...

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#15387 May 6, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Ans.
Another thing which I notice is that you come back to square one, when we have already covered that.
It was discussed and I told you that God has no beginning, and gave you arguments about them, but again you make the same statements.
Then you say Physical laws had no beginning, how can this be true, when this Universe had a Beginning?
These laws were Created when the Universe was created. And this Universe cannot be created and function, unless a Super Intelligent Creator, Knows everything and has Power to do what He wants and Wills and there is No One to stop Him from doing what He wishes.
This is the Creator for you.
And you ridicule that "water cycle" designed by Creator is "faulty", you "design and implement" a scheme to provide water to every living creature on this earth.
Why whole earth, just do it for your city and ensure every living thing gets drinking water to survive.
It is very easy to criticise the design of others, especially for those, who have "Not Created" any thing.
If the laws were not created, then how come they came into existence? Why the force of Gravity should decrease by the Square root of the distance between the two objects, why not cube, why not raise to the power four?
The same is true about every law, they were fixed and they are followed everywhere in the Universe.
The matter "did not decide" to follow these laws, they were "mode to follow" them.!!
Why only Physical laws, I have given reasoning that EVERYTHING is Created by God, because things do not create themselves and they cannot be created by "mere chance"!!
You say a lot of words to try to convince us you "know".

The origins of the Universe is a puzzling question. And I'm satisfied with this answer "We don't know. Yet. But we're working on it."

While you on the other hand claim positively "God!"

And as we discover more, your God grows smaller and retreats further into the gaps of knowledge.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#15388 May 6, 2013
henry wrote:
<quoted text>
Believe it or not but nuclear inferno is on its way of human destruction. Fukushima was another stage and it is not the least one.
Still banging the gloom and doom drum.

I've yet to hear your ideas to solve any of the problems of energy or economics or religion.

All you do is just bitch and moan and complain about everything that is wrong.

Stop booing and hissing from the peanut gallery. Get up on the soapbox - give us your ideas for making things better.

Endure the slings and arrows of drive-by posters like yourself and counter the criticism and mocking of your ideas.

At least, MUQ does that and, as such, deserves more respect than you. Even if I disagree with nearly everything MUQ says...

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#15389 May 6, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Nuclear power has an image problem and Fukushima certainly didn't help that at all.

It's like we're still stuck in the 1970's nuclear power plant designs based on 1960's technology.

It'd be like trying to run the Internet on Apollo spacecraft computers.

I find it difficult to believe that nuclear physicists haven't come up with a better power plant.(well, I have seen some but didn't really delve into it too much. Not a particular interest to go into the details.)

Or that we can't have the resolve to place those power plants in safer areas other than near earthquake zones or near the ocean.

That idea of eminent domain was to utilize certain land areas suitable for the common good. Examples: we build dams for power and flood the private properties behind those dams. Railroads were built with that idea because trains aren't exactly known for their cornering ability.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#15390 May 6, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Yeah, I've seen the "run on water" snake oil medicine.

It's been a long time since Chemistry classes, but I seem to recall that breaking down the H2O compound takes a lot of energy. Pretty much you need something like solar or nuclear to make it commercially feasible.

But at that point, you'd better off desalinating ocean water for fresh water.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15391 May 6, 2013
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I've seen the "run on water" snake oil medicine.
It's been a long time since Chemistry classes, but I seem to recall that breaking down the H2O compound takes a lot of energy. Pretty much you need something like solar or nuclear to make it commercially feasible.
But at that point, you'd better off desalinating ocean water for fresh water.
Yes-- water exists because the combination of hydrogen and oxygen is at a mutually low-energy state.

TANSTAAFL... there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

A "water powered" car would require some other source of energy-- steam, for example can easily power a car.

Another possibility, would be something that splits the water-- the energy that goes in, would come out (save from what's lost to entropy). But if you had a water-splitting power source? Why not utilize that directly?

Of course, it could be that your energy source is less useful at powering a vehicle directly, than hydrogen + oxygen might be.

Say, in the case of a fuel cell which could create electricity from H2 and O2 directly.

And if your power-source were simply heat? You could use that to create super-heated steam, which if heated further, can split into h2 and o2. Of course-- at those temperatures, you'd have to keep those gases separate, or they'd simply re-combine right then.

:)

All in all, trying to use water as a "power source" is best left to gravity engines... you know... hydro-electrical damns.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#15392 May 6, 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.
Yeah, when people think of oil, they just think gasoline. But there's a huge number of products that come from oil.

At the risk of sounding spammy, I was watching a company called Changing World Technologies (now bankrupt), but here's the wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changing_World_T...

They were trying to make oil with thermal depolymerization from waste products at a commercial level.

While not entirely a green type thing, it did have two things going for it - slowing the filling of landfills and easing the pressures of getting oil from abroad.

This is much different than water fueled cars as the company actually did create diesel fuel from discarded turkeys parts.:o

However, the process apparently stinks pretty bad and the plants need to be placed way out of the way. I'm thinking near Dick Cheney, George Bush and oil exec's ranches would be poetic justice.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15393 May 6, 2013
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, when people think of oil, they just think gasoline. But there's a huge number of products that come from oil.
At the risk of sounding spammy, I was watching a company called Changing World Technologies (now bankrupt), but here's the wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changing_World_T...
They were trying to make oil with thermal depolymerization from waste products at a commercial level.
While not entirely a green type thing, it did have two things going for it - slowing the filling of landfills and easing the pressures of getting oil from abroad.
This is much different than water fueled cars as the company actually did create diesel fuel from discarded turkeys parts.:o
However, the process apparently stinks pretty bad and the plants need to be placed way out of the way. I'm thinking near Dick Cheney, George Bush and oil exec's ranches would be poetic justice.
There have been processes to create "artificial" petrochemicals in the past.

Heck, during WW2, Germany experimented with these processes, mainly because the Allies had cut off all oil importation.

Every few years, we see another attempt to commercialize one or more of the processes.

I'm kinda bummed that these pioneering companies are not successful, as one day the oil WILL run out-- what will we do then?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15394 May 6, 2013
greymouser wrote:
This is much different than water fueled cars as the company actually did create diesel fuel from discarded turkeys parts.:o
However, the process apparently stinks pretty bad and the plants need to be placed way out of the way. I'm thinking near Dick Cheney, George Bush and oil exec's ranches would be poetic justice.
I have read up on biodiesel, or at least the cottage-industry methods used by smallish companies and individuals.

It is quite messy and smelly-- on a small scale. On large scale, the EPA would insist in air clean up, in the exhaust stacks, so it wouldn't be an issue, or it does not have to be.

One of the (currently) useless byproducts is glycol-- a kind of dirty, long-chain alcohol. Alas, it's too dirty to burn directly, so it's an unsatisfactory fuel-- but the small operators use it anyway, in spite of that.

Biodiesel is a good fuel, and modern engines like it very much-- in fact it works better than petro-diesel, as it has no sulfur compounds to corrode metal engine parts, and it leaves much less soot behind.

Alas, it has problems: it contains a bit less energy-per-liter than "regular" diesel, so mileage is lower. And it does not store long-term as well as petro-diesel. It will grow fungus, which clogs fuel filters. There's answers for that, of course.

Another problem with bio, is that it gets gel-like when too cold, and cannot be pumped at extreme low temperatures.

But it's 100% renewable. You can make biodiesel from anything that has fat in it-- like discarded turkey parts, or waste veggy oils/fats, or even waste animal fats too.

The process does involve hazardous chemicals (acid, wood alcohol) but those are not consumed entirely, and can be re-used with each cycle, with a small make-up addition as needed.

And the waste glycol is considered a mildly hazardous material-- on a large scale, disposal would be an issue.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15395 May 6, 2013
greymouser wrote:
This is much different than water fueled cars as the company actually did create diesel fuel from discarded turkeys parts.:o
However, the process apparently stinks pretty bad and the plants need to be placed way out of the way. I'm thinking near Dick Cheney, George Bush and oil exec's ranches would be poetic justice.
My favorite potential "green" fuel is sawgrass cellulose.

Sawgrass is basically a fast-growing weed. It will grow in arid areas that normal food crops would not thrive, so it would not directly compete for space.

It can be harvested multiple times a year (grass...) and grows quickly if watered regularly. It fixes it's own nitrogen too, so nitrogen-based fertilizers are not needed.

Alas, there is no "single step" cellulose-to-fuel step at present.

But the potential energy in cellulose is immense-- if we could make a cheap and easy process to convert cellulose into, say, ethanol, we'd have a lovely green fuel to power our cars for many years.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#15396 May 6, 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
Oh, I cannot resist...

Republican, Christian, Captains of Industry notice that government Defense Contracts are vital to the security of the nation at the expense of everything else.

For only by being bootstrappy, can you suck at the government teat.

And the world then be safe and secure to start Armageddon and force God to return Jesus to save us.

Excerpts from Project for the New American Century.

“ IT'S A CHOICE !!!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#15397 May 6, 2013
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038... Hhhmmm

*Can anyone tell me how they came up with this date?

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#15398 May 6, 2013
henry wrote:
<quoted text>
I am quite shure: Fukushima was not the last affaire. There are hundreds of AKWs and we will witness more gaus. Radiation is a silent killer and it is going around the whole world.
Oh, preach it brother!

We must eliminate all radiation now.

First target should be that big, yellow thing that's in the sky radiating the earth all day with it's tanning rays.

For once we are free from the sun and it's gravitational pull will the Earth be truly free to explore the Universe!

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#15399 May 6, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you stuttering?(Just like GWB the Great before 9/11!!)
Why should we feel shame? We are not against death penalty or killing.!!
It is you who are unable to decide what to do!!
"We are not against death penalty or killing.!!"

That, right there, is why you should feel shame.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15400 May 6, 2013
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, preach it brother!
We must eliminate all radiation now.
First target should be that big, yellow thing that's in the sky radiating the earth all day with it's tanning rays.
For once we are free from the sun and it's gravitational pull will the Earth be truly free to explore the Universe!
Next up-- carefully destroy all those radioactive smoke detectors, that are protecting our homes from fires.

They all contain a bit of radioactive isotope-- Horrors!

... must .. destroy.. all...'nook-you-lur' enemies ...

<laughing>

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) 6 min Rondo 52,385
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 21 min Ian McFarland 11,462
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 28 min Rosa_Winkel 520
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 50 min Eagle 12 22,192
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) 2 hr Eagle 12 1,682
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Eagle 12 24,919
News Fox Friends Outraged Over Atheists 'Making Chri... 3 hr Kaarlo 231
More from around the web