Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

There are 24083 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: Jul 09

Location hidden

#21152 Feb 14, 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.
oh I certainly do

the god of the christians prefers those who are are ignorant and who lack intellect.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#21153 Feb 14, 2014
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
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".
I do wish to know and the question is most interesting.

to suggest a god as an answer is stupid, limiting, unlikely, and a "dead-end".

To be quite frank I loose respect for anyone who is satisfied with such an explanation.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#21154 Feb 14, 2014
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you do that, you "investigate".
Several centuries of modern science hasn't yet come up with a satisfactory answer as where the universe comes from, how everything came about, etc... and until they do that to my satisfaction, allow me to think that maybe, just maybe there is the possibility of a superior intelligence out there responsible for everything.
I think it's Voltaire who said
"I cannot believe that this clockwork exists, but doesn't have a clockmaker".
He was notoriously anti-religious.
as long as there remains one question no matter how small, that science science cannot answer you will have a place to hide your god

believers, prepared to build their god in the first pool of ignorance they find, no pool too small for your god.

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#21155 Feb 14, 2014
trandiode wrote:
Love the way you put that in your OWN words, You would never have guessed ! LOL
I notice that you don't object that, If God exists, he created order and chaos as well, otherwise he wouldn't have for himself degrees of liberty, therefore himself and created things would be perfectly predictable, because constraint by their previous states.

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#21156 Feb 14, 2014
karl44 wrote:
I do wish to know and the question is most interesting.
to suggest a god as an answer is stupid, limiting, unlikely, and a "dead-end".
To be quite frank I loose respect for anyone who is satisfied with such an explanation.
The fact is that when you argue with someone which has other logic system as your's,
you must admit its postulate, here God exists, then try to point contradictions in this logical system.

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#21157 Feb 14, 2014
rio wrote:
Atheists pretend that everything came from nowhere and is going back to nowhere.
Not a better proposition in my book.
Maybe you should purchase more books, including epistemology you have some weakness in

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#21158 Feb 14, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
Our old friend IANS has put it beautifully. I only add that anything that causes minds to preclude some possibilities before vetting them as thoroughly as science and logic allow while accepting others with little or no critical assessment impedes the search for knowledge. That's what faith is and what it does.
Ideas that cannot be vetted are not necessarily discarded, only set aside until such time as advances in knowledge make an adequate assessment possible. Some ideas are so farfetched and untestable that they get pushed to the back of the shelf, so to speak, and so much dust collects that they are obscured, then forgotten unless an inherent whimsey keeps them in the realm of children's tales or other works of fiction. The ones that can be assessed are either confirmed or discarded.
Either way, progress is made. But faith is not a functional part of the process.
I disagree. Faith is getting short shrift in this discussion, at least from the standpoint of how I understand the term.

Faith can be a catch-all term for a lot of things. Scientists regularly use it in their quest for knowledge. Some scientists regard it as an integral part of scientific investigation. They work toward opening the next door with the "faith" that there are answers hidden there to be known, and are important to know.

The truth that constitutes my faith will always agree with the truth of science. Truth agrees with truth, lest one or the other is not truth. I will sometimes disagree with the particulars of a scientific claim to truth, as they have been known to prove less "truthful" than advertised.

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#21159 Feb 14, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Faith can be a catch-all term for a lot of things. Scientists regularly use it in their quest for knowledge. Some scientists regard it as an integral part of scientific investigation. They work toward opening the next door with the "faith" that there are answers hidden there to be known, and are important to know.
Don't you twist a word to give it meanings it hasn't. "Scientific faith" rely on well known laws wich haven't to be demonstrated again because experimentations have been made again and again with converging results or when theories allow to predict correctly or give better understanding of facts.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#21160 Feb 14, 2014
DonPanic wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you twist a word to give it meanings it hasn't. "Scientific faith" rely on well known laws wich haven't to be demonstrated again because experimentations have been made again and again with converging results or when theories allow to predict correctly or give better understanding of facts.
LOL...didn't you know? Words only mean what Buck says they mean! He has a long history of this kind of crap...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#21161 Feb 14, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
I disagree. Faith is getting short shrift in this discussion, at least from the standpoint of how I understand the term. Faith can be a catch-all term for a lot of things. Scientists regularly use it in their quest for knowledge. Some scientists regard it as an integral part of scientific investigation. They work toward opening the next door with the "faith" that there are answers hidden there to be known, and are important to know. The truth that constitutes my faith will always agree with the truth of science. Truth agrees with truth, lest one or the other is not truth. I will sometimes disagree with the particulars of a scientific claim to truth, as they have been known to prove less "truthful" than advertised.
Most unbelievers use the word "faith" to refer to firm belief despite an insufficient foundation in evidence or reason, and often in contradiction to the conclusions suggested by evidence and reason.

Truth supported by science doesn't require faith to obtain.

And nothing science does involves faith as I just defined it. Even it's most axiomatic assumptions such as the requirement for evidence, or the universality of physical law, are now supported by the evidence of the fruits of those assumptions and the scientific method, which make them radically different from religious type faith.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#21162 Feb 14, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
I disagree. Faith is getting short shrift in this discussion, at least from the standpoint of how I understand the term. Faith can be a catch-all term for a lot of things. Scientists regularly use it in their quest for knowledge. Some scientists regard it as an integral part of scientific investigation. They work toward opening the next door with the "faith" that there are answers hidden there to be known, and are important to know.
I just want to remind you, Buck, that evidence based thinkers find it useful to make a sharp distinction between how they come to their beliefs, and how those that don't require it come to theirs. Yes, the dictionary has entries for each under the heading faith, but that does not make the the things that they refer to the same thing or the two meanings interchangeable.

I think that it is worth emphasizing this distinction every time the two meanings are conflated. It serves those embracing what I call (religious type) faith based thinking to blur the distinction, whereas it serves those who only believe what the evidence supports to do the opposite.

Toward maintaining that distinction, many of us no longer use the word faith to refer to belief based on evidence or experience, which is what scientists do. If scientists work toward opening a door that they can't see clearly, it is because that approach has borne fruit in the past. That is a reasonable expectation based on the evidence of experience.
Richardfs

Merrylands, Australia

#21164 Feb 14, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no clue.
Projection.
I can read

Edinburgh, UK

#21165 Feb 14, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. Faith is getting short shrift in this discussion, at least from the standpoint of how I understand the term.
Faith can be a catch-all term for a lot of things. Scientists regularly use it in their quest for knowledge. Some scientists regard it as an integral part of scientific investigation. They work toward opening the next door with the "faith" that there are answers hidden there to be known, and are important to know.
The truth that constitutes my faith will always agree with the truth of science. Truth agrees with truth, lest one or the other is not truth. I will sometimes disagree with the particulars of a scientific claim to truth, as they have been known to prove less "truthful" than advertised.
Faith is getting short shrift because it has people like transdiode advocating it.

His willfull ignorance is monstrous.

All bigotry at that level is disgusting.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#21166 Feb 14, 2014
trandiode wrote:
<quoted text> That came from left of center ! you used reasoning to come to that opinion ?
No, I used observation.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#21167 Feb 14, 2014
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you trade places with Ants?
You do not know how strenuous are their lives and how hard the struggle for survival? How brutal are their fights?
You have chosen a very wrong example!!
Birds could be a better alternative!!
God made us humans, the pinnacle of His creations and you want to become animals?
Both of you are WRONG!

Ants with their structured hierarchy follow a time honored routine of serving their queen and community. And to equate mankind with animals is ....... the way it should be. Look up the definition of "animal", it might surprise you.

Birds though have never been observed following the dictates of any religion, nor do they worship any god. They do know that the evolutionary trait of flying south for the winter works for thier kind.
Richardfs

Merrylands, Australia

#21169 Feb 14, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong
You are joking .... right.

You are an expert that is an expert idiot.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#21171 Feb 14, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I just want to remind you, Buck, that evidence based thinkers find it useful to make a sharp distinction between how they come to their beliefs, and how those that don't require it come to theirs. Yes, the dictionary has entries for each under the heading faith, but that does not make the the things that they refer to the same thing or the two meanings interchangeable.

I think that it is worth emphasizing this distinction every time the two meanings are conflated. It serves those embracing what I call (religious type) faith based thinking to blur the distinction, whereas it serves those who only believe what the evidence supports to do the opposite.

Toward maintaining that distinction, many of us no longer use the word faith to refer to belief based on evidence or experience, which is what scientists do. If scientists work toward opening a door that they can't see clearly, it is because that approach has borne fruit in the past. That is a reasonable expectation based on the evidence of experience.
EXPERT wrote:
You have no clue.
And another one bites the dust.

Coupled with the other great theistic minds of this thread like rio and trandiode, you make a compelling case for a faith based life. Each of you has taken the liberty of issuing personal slurs in response to reasoned arguments against ideas that you cherish, which I accept as tacit permission to answer in kind. Now it's my turn to share an observation or two about you.

In that spirit, please allow me to thank you for another great post from you. Thanks for all of the good ideas you bring to the table. You've obviously put a lot of thought and effort into them, as sure you always have, as when you made the choice to embrace theism, or to impugn another poster rather than limit your observations to ideas about ideas.

I hope you'll agree with my sense of fairness and manners. I pledge never to stoop below the bar you set.
I can read

Edinburgh, UK

#21173 Feb 14, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
I own you!!!
Looks like the creationists just lost.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present you the evidence of the missing link, half way between man and monkey. Able to use simple language but unable to convey thoughts through it.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#21174 Feb 14, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
I own you!!!
You don't even own yourself.

Judged:

22

21

20

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
MUQ

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

#21177 Feb 15, 2014
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
I do wish to know and the question is most interesting.
to suggest a god as an answer is stupid, limiting, unlikely, and a "dead-end".
To be quite frank I loose respect for anyone who is satisfied with such an explanation.
In reality you should wonder about those who believe that this Universe just came by itslef, without any plan guidance or purpose.

These are the people one should be concerned about and guide them to the nearest mental hospital.

Rejecting "Models of God" that many current religions have, should be kept separate from the existence of A Creator of this Universe.

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) 5 min Rosa_Winkel 16,535
Good arguments against Christianity 13 min Richardfs 128
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Chimney1 40,886
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 1 hr Richardfs 5,606
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 3 hr IB DaMann 256,135
News Atheism Destroyed with One Scientific Question 6 hr ATHEOI 16
For Atheists: Why do You Call Theories "Scient... 9 hr ChristineM 282
More from around the web