Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

There are 24178 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.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#15442 May 7, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Yet they hanged an atheist for just being an atheist. "
Can you think of a better reason?
Well let's see. Would you hang your communities' infants and children because they were not yet indoctrinated? No? They are atheist ..... and that would be reason enough, according to you.
And there is always the criminal element who have actually committed crimes, that doesn't really apply to the atheist. Would you hang those criminals?

“ IT'S A CHOICE !!!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#15443 May 7, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
It's explained in the Psychology Today article that began this thread.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human...
Thank you...:)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15444 May 7, 2013
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep. Shameless plug here
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
Reading The Authoritarians was quite a an eye opener for me. At the risk of Confirmation Bias, it helped explain a lot of the really bizarre things I see in religious and politics debates (well, shouting past each other threads).
Interesting-- I only had time to do a quick scan, but I cannot fault his reasoning.

Bushy >>was<< an Authoritarian-style of "leadership".

There was a running gag, never proven for sure, that Bushy once cried out in anger, when he was told by a staffer that his proposal would not pass muster on a Constitutional check...

.... Bushy supposedly said, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face-- it's only a damn piece of paper!"

He may or may not have actually said it? But.... his ACTIONS showed that he THOUGHT it... a lot.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15445 May 7, 2013
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't surprise me. When you think of which websites are likely to give you a virus, you might think the dirty and naughty porn sites. After all, them women must harbor a collection of diseases, bible-right?
Well, let me google that for you...
http://lmgtfy.com/...
The legitimate porn sites would be too worried about losing customers, to permit their web servers to become contaminated by viruses.

Porn is Big Business-- makes millions of dollars a minute.

Of course, there are a plethora of illegitimate sites too, and those are likely fraught with viruses...

... I suppose the key is taking care where you surf, and which browser you choose-- one with lots of security is best, like Chrome or Firefox.

:D

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15446 May 7, 2013
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
And you are trying to split fresh water too. A resource that is already getting scarce even though it falls from the sky. or not.
Let's ask Phoenix and Los Angeles about water. I bet they have something to say about it.
Ooooh... good catch.

In a side-note? If you have a nice nuke plant, that is near the ocean?

A working nuclear fission plant always has excess heat-- in fact, most of it is simply tossed into the atmosphere.

One use of this excess heat? Is to de-salinate water-- you take in filtered sea water, and boil it (using waste heat from your nuke plant), then re-cool it (typically using the incoming, cold seawater, which pre-heats it-- neat) to distilled water.

Nice. Works, too-- there are several countries doing exactly this.

As an added by-product? Sea Salt has become all the rage-- you can recover and sell the salt leftover from the boiling, and sell it...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15447 May 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't forget microwaves, video screens, radios, cellphones, landline telephones, refrigerators, stoves, fireplaces, lightbulbs (even the new ones), fire pits, lightning, powerlines, batteries, or, and pacemakers.
Oh, yes... we are surrounded by radiation.

Amazing.... nobody is getting sick from it, either...

... apart from a scant few psychosomatics, of course...

;)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15448 May 7, 2013
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
As far as I know, CWT was the first commercial venture on an industrial scale to attempt it. I'm probably wrong on whether it was the first, but when I ran across it 10 years ago, I was intrigued. They had improved the conversion efficiency but still had a lot of hurdles to overcome, most notably the price per barrel of oil. Kinda like the Alberta tar sands aren't economically feasible unless oil is something like $80 a barrel.
So was that large scale experiment wasted money?
If you are a Republican, yes. It didn't return a profit.
However, that could have been used for tax breaks (if you can afford the right tax lawyer).
yeah... I'm sorry it did not work out-- I hope the lessons learned were not destroyed-- research IS research, even if the immediate project did not pan out.

... there WILL be a Next Time. Oil cannot last forever...

... not even if ALL the Godbots pray that it will...!

<laughing>

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15449 May 7, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of energy have you guys seen this:-
https://lasers.llnl.gov/
When they finally get it going all bets are off.
Laser fusion is one of the Dream Power Goals... so far, nobody has managed to make it a positive-energy process.

But some Europeans are working on it-- the US has lost most of the formerly government funding (THANKS, ReThugs! For yet ANOTHER short-sighted bit if stupidity) and as a result there isn't that much US involvement.

Of course, there is also the continual (again, European) research into the magnetic bottle fusion-power model.

It will be interesting to see which one reaches it's goal, of a positive-energy process (more energy out, than goes in).

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15450 May 7, 2013
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose there's really no one magic bullet to solve the energy problem, is there? Some avenues look to be more promising than others. And it looks more like we need a variety of sources to keep up with demand.
But, I know! Let's consult the Bible! Surely, there's answers in there for where we should get our energy from once the population has gone forth an multiplied! After all, it is quite detailed in other aspects of our lives. Like decorating Christmas trees or getting a tattoo or what is acceptable to eat.
Good thing I was only typing that. I wouldn't be able to keep a straight face if I said that.
Yes-- the bible does list various energy sources: including candles, dung and oil lamps.

Sadly, the bible doesn't consider the sun an energy source...

.... <snerk>

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15451 May 7, 2013
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
We need to ban Bic lighters, too! When lit, I feel heat radiating from the flame. If I look too close at the flame, I could burn my eyes out!
Oh, yes... ban those suckers. They could ... burn your finger or something...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15452 May 7, 2013
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd be curious just how much metals are in the landfills now. In a few thousand years, will there be a gold or silver rush on them?

And while I'm optimistic about science being able to come up with solutions, I'm cynical enough to say big business will crush any tech harmful to their bottom line. More realistically, corps will hold or buy the patents and never deploy them until they've squeezed out every last profitable dollar.
I'm with you-- it'll take a crisis before Business learns or changes their current methods.

Remember how long it took Detroit to respond to the Japanese superior engineered cars?

By the time they did, everyone ELSE was asking them why they took so long to shift their methods....

... but the gas crisis coupled with a sagging economy made people demand both good MPG, and longevity.

The Japanese engineers already had longevity, and their smaller cars were cheaper to fuel too-- win-win (for Japan... not so much for Detroit...)

One of the worst statements coming out of Detroit? Was the CEO of GM, who said, "GM is making cars that the US wants". In the face of yet another year of shrinking market-share...

... meh.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15453 May 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Honestly, I don't know the math they employed or where they got the numbers and even I suspect it's nothing more than a hopeful guess. It's just fun to watch the mega-religious people squirm and gnash their teeth about it.
Oh, it is-- these godbots with brain-damage do squirm a lot, don't they?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15454 May 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the thing though, any new technology is always worth a fortune, and if it's marketable, it's worth a lot more. That's what people fail to recognize, especially those who spread the conspiracy nonsense about oil companies buying out the "fling cars" to prevent them from being produced. The government actually made those machines illegal because ... well we already have flying cars, they're called helicopters, and a special, expensive, license is required lest we have more air traffic accidents than land traffic ones ... imagine that mess for a moment and you'll know why the government said "no" to anything like them being mass produced.
Anyhow, when it comes to business practices and technology, every business wants to be the one to own the patent on it ... to sell it, because no technology will hurt the "bottom line" if you're the one producing it. The real problem is the oppressive copyright laws, brought to you by that annoying mouse's owners. Because of the state of the copyright laws as they are, most new products invented will never have an affordable generic version in production, unless the company is nice, ironically, like Apple. Can't believe I plugged Apple, anyhow, another drawback to the copyright laws is that innovation is slowed due to a lack of access to certain parts to the new technology. So if anything, we should be going after the media giants, they're the ones harming innovation more than any other company in the world, because they're the ones pushing for these insane life+infinity copyright laws. Just a recommendation for a way to actually improve things, not that I will see something improve like that in the US any time soon, I'd wager we'll see Brazil pass us up in technology soon.
I agree with you 100%, re: copyright laws. Once the original author has died? That should be the END of the copyright--with no exceptions.

That was what Ben Franklin intended, from his personal notes on the subject: he thought that books (at the time, the only thing that qualified) ought to pay the author for his/her effort, but upon death, the author "paid back" Society, by the book becoming Public Domain.

I think Franklin was right. More to the point? I do not think corporations should be allowed to even hold copyright-- they should be solely held by individuals, or perhaps small groups of individuals. Once they die? Their share reverts to the Public Domain.

After all-- nobody lives in a vacuum...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15455 May 7, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
By repealing Glass, we've allowed the banks to become the great barons of old. I cannot understand why Clinton did not veto the bill; he had no election coming up. He did not need republican support. Perhaps they Clintons benefited in some way from it's repeal.
\

Unless he is willing to speak about his decision, we will likely never know.

I agree, though-- Glass must be put back. And more-- the banks are under-regulated.

There should be no such thing as "too big to fail". Ever.

Bad decisions should be treated as that: failure of the company in question.

And the idiot who MADE that bad choice? Might even be charged with criminal negligence....

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15456 May 7, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text> You don't think it was right to kill Osama?
No, I don't.

Lock him up forever, on bread, beans & water? Sure.

Kill him? Nope.

I do not think a government should EVER be given that much power over individuals.

It's too easy to corrupt government, after all...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15457 May 7, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Godbots claim credit for basic common sense laws like not murdering or stealing, as if people needed a deity for the most basic of principles. What they love to divorce themselves from is all the stupid laws in the old testament like the one that requires women to marry their rapist or the one that demands death for those who want to earn money on the Sabbath.
Christians claim credit for monogamy even though there is nothing in the buybull that condemns polygamy. In fact, it was the Pagan homosexual Romans who insisted that men have only one wife at a time.
Yep.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15458 May 7, 2013
spudgun wrote:
<quoted text>
I dont agree with the assassination of Obama. That is a slippery slope to go down. Unfortunately the US appears big on assassinations with its drone programme.
The problem with capital punishment generally is it breaches human rights and encourages a culture of violence and death.
I hope eventually the US moves away from the assassination programme and similar policies.
I agree with you 100% here...

... systematic murder, which is what government death "penalty" really is?

Demeans and corrupts any and all who are involved with the process.

This is not good-- government is all too easy to corrupt as it is...!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15459 May 7, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>This is a really good point.
One difficulty is the lack of transparency. How do we know what is likely to have happened without those drone strikes? Perhaps many more people would have been killed and the conflict might be more violent and prolonged. It is perhaps natural to insist that the ends cannot justify the means, but our moral highness may feel of little consolation if Afghanistan or even Pakistan fall into avoidable internal conflict and failed states. Want to go back there again in 5 or 10 years?
As I see it, the real problem with drone strikes isn't the assassinations or the apparent violation of Pakistani sovereignty, troublesome as those issues are. The fundamental problem is the inability of electorates to know exactly who was killed by drone stikes and what was the anticipated outcomes of the insurgents activities had they not been. We are having to trust the US leadership's judgement, whose record is not perceived to be sound.
I would like to see drone strikes stopped too - I think.
I have to agree-- drone strikes have no place in a "police action"-- none.

I can see a use for lethal-capable drones, in a HOT war-- where there are somewhat different rules in play.

But for a limited "thing" (whatever you want to call it, it's not like what was done during WW2 for example--that had specific goals, which upon success, ended the process) who's "goals" cannot really be defined in real-world events?

... meh. The whole thing is just a mess-- we (USA) is better out of it.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15460 May 7, 2013
spudgun wrote:
<quoted text>
I am glad to see a positive response to my post. I was fearing a backlash.
As I am trying to evolve into more of a free thinker myself, I try to understand things from different sides of the debate.
One of the problems I think we have is that the media will say these are the good guys, the heros, and these the bad guys. But in the process the bad guys are dehumanised and lose their basic rights to life.
That I think is one of the problems with assassination programmes. Plus of course violence begets violence, and our governments pour petrol on the fire of the islamic world. On what is already a deranged religious situation.
I agree-- if we, as rationalists (secularists--whatever) are going to agree to decide for ourselves, what constitutes morality?

I think we >>must<< agree on a basic idea: if a being is human, then that being gets all the rights any other being is entitled to.

ALL the rights.

Assassination, by definition, is essentially usurping the Judicial Process, and >>certainly<< denies the principle of Innocent until Proven Guilty.

I suppose you could play a game of "trial in abstentia", and then "try" the assassination-target, and get a death penalty. And >>then<< send in the drone....!

But that would deny the idea that an Innocent gets to Face the Accuser-- another principle we want to keep.

Yeah, I cannot think of a way around it.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#15461 May 7, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>I don't.
He should have been, tried for >> his << crimes, and if convicted ... imprisioned. While he was a complete opponent of humanity, he still deserved that we act like humans in dealing with him.
I agree totally.

As soon as we permit exceptions who who is, and who is not human?

(by the way we treat some folk, and not others..)

We are guilty of that Great Evil that we hate so much, in religions...

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) 21 min Frindly 83,894
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 1 hr Frindly 3,271
News Scientist Richard Dawkins weighs in on Malaysia... 1 hr Eagle 12 - 6
High School Atheism 8 hr blacklagoon 3 41
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 20 hr Eagle 12 - 4,965
Where have all the Atheists gone? (Apr '17) 20 hr Eagle 12 - 132
hell is a real place. so.. ahtiesm is a faux li... 20 hr Eagle 12 - 17
More from around the web