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.

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#20422 Jan 26, 2014
rio wrote:
OK then.
Can you answer that?
I can't, I can just observe that scientists found spectral signature of plenty prebiotic molecules in space. That some objets, such as cristals or sand roses have the properties grow up such as living being.
We have the prime matters, not the recipe.
Anyhow, just as the "birth" of the Universe is still a mystery, birth of first living creature is a mystery and nor Darwin nor evolutionnists ever intended to explain how life emerged but how it evolved.
Just see that had the scientists taken God as a solution for all unanswered questions, we would still be living in the middle-ages.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#20423 Jan 26, 2014
DonPanic wrote:
<quoted text>
In the past times where life expectancy wasn't over 35, religions, whose main promise was a post mortem life in some heaven, made hardness of life bearable.
I guess that eager of many to defend an existence of God is that without any almighty God, gone is any hope of heavenly paradise, of resurection of the corpses.
And then men remain with the deseparate return to dust.
Exactly, religion is a legacy of human development.
No reason to believe we exist after we're dead or before we're born.
And 9/11 and 7/7 would have been possible without belief in an afterlife and religious superstition.

(Sorry for delay in replying. I'm not here often as I've got a life :-)
trandiode

Walkley Heights, Australia

#20424 Jan 26, 2014
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, to be an atheist, all you have to do is have a lack of belief in deities.
This isn't that complicated.
I think you need more than that ! I would need to have my brain pulled out and then it to be smashed up against a wall then put back in, Hopefully I would have enough brain capacity left to be able not only to survive but to only notice half the things around me and not think half as deep as I do ! Then I think I would fit the requirements you need to be a true Atheist !
rio

Bromley, UK

#20425 Jan 26, 2014
DonPanic wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyhow, just as the "birth" of the Universe is still a mystery, birth of first living creature is a mystery and nor Darwin nor evolutionnists ever intended to explain how life emerged but how it evolved.
Good, thanks to Darwin, the evolutionists and science in general, we can place the beginning of evolution, and the origins of the universe a lot further back, but we still don't have an answer as to where it all comes from.

So, the atheists may think they are scoring points against the believers, they haven't won the argument yet: they have just changed the timeline, no more.

I don't expect the atheists to prove me wrong during my lifetime ...
Jim

London, UK

#20426 Jan 26, 2014
trandiode wrote:
<quoted text> Jim since you seem to be a man of science, there are a few questions I would like to ask you to ease my mind :) By what scientific method do you suggest to use to date fossils and the age of the earth ? As you know there are many that have been proven to have major flaws !, Secondly we know Evolution has had some success but why has it not been proven in human beings, I know and I am sure you are aware that of all the human like looking apes that have been found over the years that not one human bone whatsoever has ever been found in any of them ? Do you think as I do, That instead of having to find one missing link it is more than likely that they would have to find at least a couple of hundred missing links at different stages before they can add man to the list of Evolutionary successes ?
Creationist Cult Members, with no evidence of god and no understanding of science , should really stop wasting their time here.

When you become more educated and realise that you evolved, and that you have no evidence against the mountains of evolutionary evidence, then you will stop looking like an idiot.

Cult members who think the earthy is 3000 really have no say in anything because they've chosen to remain dumb.

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#20427 Jan 26, 2014
trandiode wrote:
what scientific method do you suggest to use to date fossils and the age of the earth ?
All radiodatations means are described there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dati...

As you know there are many that have been proven to have major flaws !
No, all have known range of application and uncertaincy margins
trandiode wrote:
Secondly we know Evolution has had some success but why has it not been proven in human beings, I know and I am sure you are aware that of all the human like looking apes that have been found over the years that not one human bone whatsoever has ever been found in any of them ?
Theses remains of presumed human beings are very rare and partials, specialists often work on bones fragments, pieces of jaw.
trandiode wrote:
Do you think as I do, That instead of having to find one missing link it is more than likely that they would have to find at least a couple of hundred missing links at different stages before they can add man to the list of Evolutionary successes ?
Try to be more precise and say of which man you're talking about, only Sapiens ?
Because Neandertalians were undoubtly humans witch used fire, buryed and presented the dead ones with gifts and took care of the invalids.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#20428 Jan 26, 2014
trandiode wrote:
<quoted text> I think you need more than that ! I would need to have my brain pulled out and then it to be smashed up against a wall then put back in !
Again?

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#20429 Jan 26, 2014
rio wrote:
So, the atheists may think they are scoring points against the believers, they haven't won the argument yet: they have just changed the timeline, no more.
I don't expect the atheists to prove me wrong during my lifetime ...
Many atheist don't care scoring point against the believers, but against biblists which want the Bible to be a fact book instead of being a jew legendary and wisdom book which cannot have been written much before the fifth century BC
rio

Bromley, UK

#20430 Jan 26, 2014
DonPanic wrote:
<quoted text>
Many atheist don't care scoring point against the believers, but against biblists which want the Bible to be a fact book instead of being a jew legendary and wisdom book which cannot have been written much before the fifth century BC
Well, I have my opinion about "books of revelations" myself and think they are just religious manifestos written to channel the enthusiasm of the believers of the time.
They don't do anything for me, and apart from mythology and nice fairy tales, I cannot see their relevance now. Sorry guys ...

Looks to me like the atheists are mostly at war against Christians.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#20431 Jan 26, 2014
trandiode wrote:
<quoted text> What scientists should do , is state the obvious and concede there is a God ! Then we can have a debate about the different religious aspects !
Concede? Should they concede that the earth really is flat?

Biblically speaking, the buybull god is the god of the flat earth ... and that ain't here. His creation is elsewhere, planet earth (wrong planet) was never his. In fact science still hasn't found a flat planet.
MUQ

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

#20432 Jan 26, 2014
Thinking wrote:
Religion doesn't get to set the limits as to where the scientific method can be applied.
At least not in first world countries.
<quoted text>
First define what is science and that ITSELF will limit its scope.!!

Why you people are so shy in defining what is science? Is it not your god?
MUQ

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

#20433 Jan 26, 2014
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I have my opinion about "books of revelations" myself and think they are just religious manifestos written to channel the enthusiasm of the believers of the time.
They don't do anything for me, and apart from mythology and nice fairy tales, I cannot see their relevance now. Sorry guys ...
Looks to me like the atheists are mostly at war against Christians.
That shows you have never read Quran!!

time It happens to most people, they think Quran is "like another of so many religious books".... well it is not!!
Richardfs

Merrylands, Australia

#20434 Jan 26, 2014
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
That shows you have never read Quran!!
time It happens to most people, they think Quran is "like another of so many religious books".... well it is not!!
Still abusing little girls?
CrimeaRiver

UK

#20437 Jan 27, 2014
trandiode wrote:
<quoted text> When a person is born instinctively they turn to find their mother for sustenance ! When they grow older instinctively they search for a higher being, God does not appear in the Physical world for all to see, So the human searches him out and looks everywhere possible to find what they instinctively know exists, some become lost and confused on the search, Hence the multiple Gods ! Do you not find it amazing that every culture throughout the world has a deity or deities ? No matter how primitive they may be ! Is that coincidence or is there something more and much deeper that intrinsically lies within the human soul/subconscious mind that makes them search for a God ?
YES YES YES - a baby instinctively looks for a nurturer (generall the mother).

But as they grow, they do not look for God unless they have been taught that a God exists.

I am a prime example. I was taught that some people believe in God and others don't. That gave me the basis to make my own decision based on what I can see, feel, hear, touch and taste.

God did not enter my Sensorial sphere and so I wasn't forced to believe in God but I did have the choice to.

God only becomes an option when you teach a child that HE exists. Otherwise they will not search for God as they grow up
Jim

London, UK

#20438 Jan 27, 2014
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I have my opinion about "books of revelations" myself and think they are just religious manifestos written to channel the enthusiasm of the believers of the time.
They don't do anything for me, and apart from mythology and nice fairy tales, I cannot see their relevance now. Sorry guys ...
Looks to me like the atheists are mostly at war against Christians.
Religious bullsh*t has never been a good substitute for scientific facts.

Reality is offensive to religious liars at the end of the day.

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#20440 Jan 27, 2014
MUQ wrote:
That shows you have never read Quran!!
time It happens to most people, they think Quran is "like another of so many religious books".... well it is not!!
Doesn't Quran says: "Who are you to try and convert any? Had Allah wanted all to be believers, so would had it been " ?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#20441 Jan 27, 2014
rio wrote:
the simplest form of life was probably an amoeba which appeared millions of years ago.
Let me help you a little with your science. The simplest life forms were much simpler than amoebas, and probably simpler than the the simplest prokaryotic bacteria alive today. Amoebas are eukaryotic (have a membrane bound nucleus), a cellular design that appeared eons later.

Amoebas are also much larger and much more complex than bacteria, upon which they prey. Bacteria are incapable of predation:
http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/indexmag....

Also, the age of the earth and of the universe is given in billions of years, not millions -about 13.8 billion for the universe, and about 4.5 billion for the earth.
rio wrote:
How inert matter transformed itself in living cells? Where their intelligence came from? Can you answer that?
No. Nobody can.
rio wrote:
Even the origins of the universe cannot only be explained by the big bang. You cannot have an explosion out of nothing, so where the matter came from?
So, why don't you tell us where it's all come from?
There are many competing hypotheses to account for that, including the possibility of a creator god. The creator god hypothesis is at the bottom of the list for its severe violation of Occam's Razor. God hypotheses are needlessly complex. An unconscious, amorphous multiverse from which an infinite number of universes buds will do the job as well.

The Christians like to invoke complexity arguments, such as the famous Hoyle's Fallacy about cells arranging themselves from inert matter being as unlikely as 747s arranging themselves from pieces lying around a junkyard hurled by a tornado.

But that argument is even more forceful against a god existing. Ask yourself this: assuming complexity is an argument for an intelligent designer, what is the most complex thing imaginable, and hence the least likely thing to exist uncreated? A god. If a cell or a universe are unlikely to exist without a designer, how much more unlikely is a god?

The multiverse hypothesis also answers the fine tuning objection - why is our universe perfect for life and mind? If every "tuning" exists, those capable of supporting life and mind will contain self-aware creatures. perhaps initially wondering why their universe is so special.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#20442 Jan 27, 2014
rio wrote:
Good, thanks to Darwin, the evolutionists and science in general, we can place the beginning of evolution, and the origins of the universe a lot further back, but we still don't have an answer as to where it all comes from. So, the atheists may think they are scoring points against the believers, they haven't won the argument yet: they have just changed the timeline, no more.

I don't expect the atheists to prove me wrong during my lifetime ...
What use would such proof be to either believers or unbelievers?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#20443 Jan 27, 2014
rio wrote:
Looks to me like the atheists are mostly at war against Christians.
We hardly need to be at war with anybody. The church is destroying itself without any help.

And who else should we concern ourselves with as atheists? Once the Christian church has finished self-destructing, it will have lost the ability to demean and marginalize us, and to inflict its values on unbelievers, at which point we'll have no further issues as atheists. We are only atheists when defending ourselves from theistic incursions into our lives. Once that is no longer an issue, our atheism will be as meaningless to us as our avampirism and aleprechaunism already are.

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#20444 Jan 27, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
The Christians like to invoke complexity arguments, such as the famous Hoyle's Fallacy about cells arranging themselves from inert matter being as unlikely as 747s arranging themselves from pieces lying around a junkyard hurled by a tornado.
Hi
Even this statistics based argument is discutable. As a loto advertisement says here, if you have one chance out of many hundreds millions to win the loto, all the winners bought a ticket, and that's imparable.

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 Scientist Richard Dawkins weighs in on Malaysia... 1 hr nanoanomaly 1
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 2 hr Frindly 3,243
High School Atheism 3 hr Eagle 12 - 40
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 4 hr Eagle 12 - 4,965
Where have all the Atheists gone? (Apr '17) 4 hr Eagle 12 - 132
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Frindly 83,830
hell is a real place. so.. ahtiesm is a faux li... 4 hr Eagle 12 - 17
More from around the web