Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

There are 23814 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.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#21084 Feb 13, 2014
rio wrote:
The onus is on atheists to explain the origin of the universe though...
Is that your argument? If so, you have no argument.
rio wrote:
Until they do that, people can believe in the probability of a creator.
How would scientific proof have any effect on a faith based thinker? We feel no burden to convince faith based thinkers of anything. With what? Logic? Evidence?
rio wrote:
Just one question, what was before "Big Bang" ?
The best hypothesis is the multiverse - a timeless, amorphous, nonliving, primordial substance from which an unlimited number and variety of universes has budded, some capable of supporting life and consciousness.

I have one for you: How can a god exist uncreated? Did it evolve from the substance of the multiverse?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#21085 Feb 13, 2014
rio wrote:
"The onus is on Atheists to prove that God does not exist ! " They could easily do that by telling us how the universe came about.
Don't kid yourself. I just gave a plausible explanation. We both know that such things have no value to you.
rio wrote:
Unless they do that, they are as much in the dark as anyone else.
Not so. The darkness of faith is much blacker than the glimmer of reason.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#21086 Feb 13, 2014
DonPanic wrote:
Maybe this question is as senseless as "what was before the begining of time ?"
Correct. It's a malformed question, like, "Which star in the Milky Way is westernmost?" or "What is the speed of the earth through space?"
CrimeaRiver

Wandsworth, UK

#21087 Feb 13, 2014
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
You obviously never read my posts!
I am not interested in 3000 years old texts, and I don't follow any religion.
But, at the same time, I believe at the probability of a creator, since none of the scientific explanations are able to convince me there is none.
When science will have come with a satisfactory answer, I may change my mind.
So far it hasn't!
I believe in evolution, but that doesn't explain the orign of life, how matter transformed itself into intelligent creatures, nor how matter itself came about.
If you have all these answesr, please share them with me.
Until then, don't dismiss deists as stupid people.
So Rio - If I told you that ancient mayan, inca and sumerian civilisations believed that Human kind evolved from contact with a celestial being that resembles an Alien.

Would you beleive that Aliens intervened in the evolution of Humans?
rio

Beckenham, UK

#21088 Feb 13, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
The best hypothesis is the multiverse - a timeless, amorphous, nonliving, primordial substance from which an unlimited number and variety of universes has budded, some capable of supporting life and consciousness.
OK, can you tell me where this " a timeless, amorphous, nonliving, primordial substance" came from?

It seems that for you everything came from nothing, existed spontaneously, and will go back to nothing.

I am sorry, but you haven't answer my question.

If you don't have the answer, just don't pretend you have!
rio

Beckenham, UK

#21089 Feb 13, 2014
CrimeaRiver wrote:
<quoted text>
So Rio - If I told you that ancient mayan, inca and sumerian civilisations believed that Human kind evolved from contact with a celestial being that resembles an Alien.
Would you beleive that Aliens intervened in the evolution of Humans?
I seek a plausible answer to my question "Where did it all came from?"

No point of making fun of it with silly asides.
EdSed

Wishaw, UK

#21090 Feb 13, 2014
CrimeaRiver wrote:
<quoted text>
...Just because i don't know it doesn't mean I'll answer every question with 'God did it'
And even if there were an entity of some sort that one might call a creator, if we don't even know how the universe began there are still fewer grounds to assume the existence of a creator. Even less still can we assume such an undefined entity has a particular interest in individuals on this planet at this particular point in space-time.

But religion is even worse and goes much further. They often take a mythology (such as Christianity) and treat it as more than just superstition. Religionists themselves often laugh at mediums, exorcists and witches and call them 'superstition', but then go to Church to worship an all-knowing 'Him'!

Lol! It's always a him :-) Arguably a creator of the universe would be more logically a 'her'?! If there were such an 'ultimate intelligence' she must be laughing her socks off like any atheist or non-believer on this planet
https://www.google.co.uk/search...
- assuming she enjoys the very human attribute of humor That is anthropomorphising this supposed "all-knowing Creator" too!:-)....
CrimeaRiver

Wandsworth, UK

#21091 Feb 13, 2014
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
I seek a plausible answer to my question "Where did it all came from?"
No point of making fun of it with silly asides.
So why is the idea of Alien intervention more silly than a creator God.

They could be one and the same.

Like you said, humans attempt to seek meaning, what if Aliens from the sky were mistaken for Gods.

You cannot disprove this anymore than I can Prove it.

This is where blind faith becomes an impediment to reason

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#21092 Feb 13, 2014
trandiode wrote:
It is clear that Atheists have no real arguments, as they never put any proof or theory forward, they just mock the arguments put forward by theists ! To date not one has put forward an intelligent argument as to why a God cannot exist ! All they have put forward are demeaning comments that make little to no sense ! Sorry to all the Atheists that have posted on this thread you have not been very convincing ! The belief in a God opens you up to far more than just a father figure ! it opens you up to the infinite possibilities of your physical existence and gives you a meaning and a purpose to your life, you can do so much more than you realize ! Alas something you will never know, you have put up a wall and by doing so you have blocked your view and your path and everything you could of gained along the way !
Why would one be required to put forth an argument proving the non-existence of something when there has literally never been any proof that the thing in question existed in the first place?
Richardfs

Saint Marys, Australia

#21093 Feb 13, 2014
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
The onus is on atheists to explain the origin of the universe though...
Until they do that, people can believe in the probability of a creator.
So far, what we had are just condemnations of theists, "evolution" as an answer and avoidance of answering questions.
Just one question, what was before "Big Bang" ?
The difference is quite simple:-

1. Theists ----> goddidit.
2. Atheists ---> Don't know, yet.

Theists have always claimed that the bits science can't explain are 'goddidit'.
At the moment science can't explain t=0 - 1.0x10^-42s that is the first:-
0.0000000000000000000000000000 00000000000001 of a second out of the 432339120000000000 seconds the verse has been in existence.

So the 'goddidit' bit is getting quite small.
As for "what was before "Big Bang" ?" .... don't know....yet.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#21094 Feb 13, 2014
rio wrote:
<quoted text>

Just one question, what was before "Big Bang" ?
Dinner, a long, quiet walk through the park, a couple of bottles of wine and a whole lot of foreplay!

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#21095 Feb 13, 2014
rio wrote:
In fact it's a very intelligent question!
It's based on the proposition which is that if something exists, then it must have been created, and the believers never discuss that proposition.
Some scientists bet on an everlasting meta-Universe that blobs universes, thinking that they make it mathematically and geometrically relevant, the bet is a winner.
The fact is that I find much more interesting the skeptical man who doubts and seeks than the one who have questions answered and didn't seek for it.

and you can't deny that to any embarassing question at believers such as "If God created all, did he create Evil as well ?"
they have the now-anwser wich is "God works in mysterious ways".

Last point, cosmology described by today's scientists is far greater and much more splendid with billion years durations and with a far more thriling story than any religion holy story book ever imagined.
Richardfs

Saint Marys, Australia

#21096 Feb 13, 2014
DonPanic wrote:
<quoted text>
It's based on the proposition which is that if something exists, then it must have been created, and the believers never discuss that proposition.
Some scientists bet on an everlasting meta-Universe that blobs universes, thinking that they make it mathematically and geometrically relevant, the bet is a winner.
The fact is that I find much more interesting the skeptical man who doubts and seeks than the one who have questions answered and didn't seek for it.
and you can't deny that to any embarassing question at believers such as "If God created all, did he create Evil as well ?"
they have the now-anwser wich is "God works in mysterious ways".
Last point, cosmology described by today's scientists is far greater and much more splendid with billion years durations and with a far more thriling story than any religion holy story book ever imagined.
Agree whole heartedly.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#21097 Feb 13, 2014
rio wrote:
I believe at the probability of a creator, since none of the scientific explanations are able to convince me there is none.
That's not credible. Incomplete scientific theories are no more a reason for you to jump to a god conclusion than they are for any of the rest of us to do that.

It's likely the other way around: You have chosen to believe in gods, so no scientific explanation is able to convince you otherwise. That's the nature of faith.
rio wrote:
When science will have come with a satisfactory answer, I may change my mind.
Your use of the word "may" belies your claim above.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#21098 Feb 13, 2014
rio wrote:
In fact it's a very intelligent question! If you don't have the answer to that, you are just as much in the dark as me, and you shouldn't laugh at people who ask the question. If you are not interested in where it all came from, fine, but don't dismiss people who have an interest. You constant answer is "There is no God, you cannot prove it". But your reasoning isn't faultless either. "I don't want to know".

We are critical of faith. How faith produce knowledge when it is just as easy to have faith in an idea or its exact opposite?

And what is all of this talk about proof from faith based thinkers? You don't require evidence to believe, let alone proof. These are not part of your decision process, so why are you discussing them as if they were?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#21099 Feb 13, 2014
"How faith produce knowledge when it is just as easy to have faith in an idea or its exact opposite?"

should read

"How CAN faith produce knowledge when it is just as easy to have faith in an idea or its exact opposite?"

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#21100 Feb 13, 2014
rio wrote:
OK, can you tell me where this " a timeless, amorphous, nonliving, primordial substance" came from?
It seems that for you everything came from nothing, existed spontaneously, and will go back to nothing.
I am sorry, but you haven't answer my question.
If you don't have the answer, just don't pretend you have!
The point is that if yo allow yourself to question "where all came from ?" you must allow as well to question "where God came from ?" and that's a dead end street.
Richardfs

Saint Marys, Australia

#21101 Feb 13, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not credible. Incomplete scientific theories are no more a reason for you to jump to a god conclusion than they are for any of the rest of us to do that.
It's likely the other way around: You have chosen to believe in gods, so no scientific explanation is able to convince you otherwise. That's the nature of faith.
<quoted text>
Your use of the word "may" belies your claim above.
Godbots would believe even if they found a rock with "Slartibartfast" on it.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#21102 Feb 13, 2014
CrimeaRiver wrote:
<quoted text>
So Rio - If I told you that ancient mayan, inca and sumerian civilisations believed that Human kind evolved from contact with a celestial being that resembles an Alien.
Would you beleive that Aliens intervened in the evolution of Humans?
By his 'reasoning', it would be up to him to prove they didn't.... even though there is nothing but the claim that they did.... oh, and a steadfast 'faith' that the claim is 'Truth'.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#21103 Feb 13, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
The best hypothesis is the multiverse - a timeless, amorphous, nonliving, primordial substance from which an unlimited number and variety of universes has budded, some capable of supporting life and consciousness.

I have one for you: How can a god exist uncreated? Did it evolve from the substance of the multiverse?
rio wrote:
OK, can you tell me where this " a timeless, amorphous, nonliving, primordial substance" came from?
Nope. Sorry. It's your turn. You haven't answered my question. How can a god exist uncreated? Answer that, and we'll move on to the multiverse.

I can tell you now that there is no objection to a the existence of an uncreated, timeless, amorphous, nonliving, primordial substance - the multiverse - that isn't orders of magnitude more powerful against the existence of an uncreated, sentient, immortal, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite, and perfectly moral god.

In fact, can you think of anything less likely to exist uncreated than a god? No, you can't. Even a race of gods is more likely to exist uncreated than just one. What could account for one existing, but not two?

Occam's Razor requires that we provisionally accept the most parsimonious hypothesis that meets the need. If a multiverse can produce infinite numbers and varieties of universes, some conducive to life and mind, what do we need with infinitely more complex things like gods?

Now, before we move on to where this blob might have come from, please answer my question, which preceded yours.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 13 min Rose_NoHo 6,265
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 17 min superwilly 253,672
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 26 min Chimney1 27,468
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 37 min Eagle 12 18,889
News Speaking for God 1 hr True Christian wi... 76
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 6 hr Knowledge- 8,262
Good News for atheists (May '13) 12 hr thetruth 68
More from around the web