Don't dictate beliefs

Sep 5, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Star Press

No one else can say otherwise? That is basically saying those who do "believe in God" are better? Hardly.

Comments (Page 306)

Showing posts 6,101 - 6,120 of11,219
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6446
Nov 22, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
No, I don't “fail” to refute you, lmao. Many of your posts and others I simply don't read, and I consistently refuse to waste my time on more than 3 or 4 of atheists' gibberish posts.
Yo, Dim. There's the comprehension problem again. Did you refute him? No, Dim, you didn't. You didn't even try. Therefore, you failed to refute him, just as when you don't show up for work, you failed to show up for work.

This is why I call you Dim.
derek4 wrote:
It wouldn't matter what anyone said who is on the opposite side of you, you wouldn't accept it if they said black was black and white was white
That's you, Dim. You've proudly announced several times that you have no interest in anybody's opinion but your own, and that you won't even read most of it.
derek4 wrote:
I don't know you or respect you, so your opinions carry no weight with me. Further, I don't really care what you do, what you say, or whether you like it or not.
Right on time! How can you be so unsightful as to post that in the same post that has your last comment? You come by your nickname honestly.
derek4 wrote:
Do I care what you think?
Amazing, Dim.
derek4 wrote:
I didn't ask you to respond to my posts
It's not necessary for you to ask, Dim.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6447
Nov 22, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
“The Arrogance of Atheism”

by Ian Welsh

“Lately I’ve been amusing myself by spending time with the social site reddit. One of the prominent sub-reddits, is atheism, and it’s managed to remind me why I find radical atheists almost as offensive as fundamentalists.(Almost, since they don’t tell other people how to live, they just sneer at other people for their beliefs). So let me respond to fire with fire, atheism is, ultimately, intellectually disreputable.

You cannot know with certainty that there is no god, in the sense of a creator of the universe, for example. It is impossible. You can assert that it is unnecessary, but that is not the same thing as impossible. Certainly you can say “there’s no reason to believe God created the universe in 7 days, 4,000 odd years ago”, but who cares? If Biblical literacy is your target, it’s just about shooting fish in a barrel, isn’t it?

The fact is that we don’t know. Arguably, we can’t know. We can say “God as described literally in the bible cannot exist”, but we cannot say “God does not exist”.

Which is why, at the end of the day, I stick with agnosticism. I donÂ’t know if thereÂ’s a god, or an afterlife, or a soul.(I have opinions, but I am aware they are opinions, not facts). As such I know that I donÂ’t know, and I donÂ’t presume to tell people that I do know. I donÂ’t dismiss out of hand, say, children born speaking languages they have no exposure to, or near-death experiences, or mystical experiences. At the same time, I know there may be a simple materialistic explanation for them.

Likewise I remember always that there’s no reason for anything to exist, that the biggest absurdity of existence is existence. Humbled by this fact, I feel no need to spout off and say “I KNOW”.

I donÂ’t know.

And neither do you.”

[That was interesting. Not that I agree with all of it, but at least it was honest and straightforward – I have to appreciate the author's well said points.]
It also lays down the difference between Atheism and Agnostic's.

Something atheist can't figure out.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6448
Nov 22, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
Dogmatic Atheism and Scientific Ignorance

[Too much material to post – but below is from the conclusion:]

“Every argument presented by dogmatic atheists involving science to disprove a Creator is fallacious; there is no scientific evidence proving or even demonstrating a Creator does not exist, and there is no scientific research into the “God” issue. The shameful misuse of science by dogmatic atheists is due to their failing to make distinctions between science fiction and science (nonfiction). Dogmatic atheism, for all its pretensions to scientific literacy, is in effect composed of people scientifically illiterate, illogical, and addicted to argumentum ad verecundiam (arguments from modesty). These people are not skeptics or freethinkers but modern cynics -- the great naysayers. Deism is the only religion which is science friendly. The naturalistic approach to science should be encouraged because eventually by the process of elimination, it can indirectly provide evidence for a Creator and with time maybe find not only evidence of a Creator, but the Creator itself.”
http://www.deism.com/dogmaticatheism.htm
Sounds like he's been reading KK's and Pinocchio's dribble. LOL
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6449
Nov 22, 2012
 

Judged:

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
FAIL. You still haven't provided a scripture describing the earth as a sphere, ball or globe - just a circle.
Thats right. These "prophets" thought that the earth was a flat circle covered by a sky dome, supported by pillars. Above which was a heaven occupied by god, sons of god, angels and other celestial beings. i.e they were writers of their time with no magical powers or special knowledge.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6450
Nov 22, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
THE IGNORANCE OF ATHEISTS:

“One can only smile at the ignorance of British atheists who have taken to plastering London buses with the false and misleading advertisement:“There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

Richard Dawkins, the scientist, Darwinist and notorious atheist who helped pay for the advertisements, maintains that the universe somehow evolved out of nothing by natural selection or some other similar process. How probable is that? Most people in Britain, as in the United States and Canada, would agree that it is far more probable to suppose that all things visible and invisible in the universe were created by Almighty God.

Of course, conceptions of God differ. While deists think of god as a kind of super watchmaker who got the universe underway and then took a leave of absence, Christians believe in a loving and righteous God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and judge of all people.

The atheist advertisement is evidently targeted specifically at this Christian conception of God. In effect, the advertisement maintains that there is no such God, so now stop worrying and enjoy your life. Is this argument persuasive? Can anyone who is weighed down with guilt over abortion, adultery or some other sin now stop worrying and enjoy life because intellectuals like Dawkins have assured us that there is probably no God? Not likely. Apart from a few psychopaths, even the most hardened atheists who rob, steal, lie or kill the innocent are bound to be wracked with guilt.”
http://www.theinterim.com/columnist/the-ignor...

[“There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”- If you're living your life in the right way, you shouldn't be worried, lol. On the other hand, if you want to be immoral, indecent, adulterous, and filled with hate, believing in God might bring you worry.]
Unreal! Are they really that stupid?

LOL. Totally Clueless aren't they?!
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6451
Nov 22, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
“Thanksgiving. A day of giving thanks.”

“But why do we say thank you?

Because something nice has been done for us. Because someone has given us something. Because we are responding to a kindness or blessing that has been bestowed upon us.

In so doing, we are implying that there is someone to respond to.

In the tradition of the first Thanksgiving, the Pilgrims, with help from the Indians (ahem, Native Americans) were able to give thanks to God for his many blessings. For helping them survive. For providing food. For bringing them to the New World where they could practice their faith without persecution.

So today, why do we celebrate Thanksgiving? Some will say itÂ’s just another holiday involving family, food, and football.

But the implication is there– we are thankful.

I canÂ’t imagine what it must be like to sit down around a Thanksgiving meal and eat without thanking the Lord. How awkward. How strange. How sad.

So, for those who don’t believe in God–why are they celebrating Thanksgiving? Who are they thanking? In the spirit of being thankful, what are they thankful for? If God didn’t bless them, then are they eating turkey and green bean casserole in honor of their bosses? Their friends? The bank? The economy? The government? Their own accomplishments?[Darwin, or the science god?]

What exactly are they thankful for? Stuff, surely. But what about the “stuff” that can’t be given by man? What about the breath in our lungs, the ability to wake each day, the family that surrounds us– our very existence?

It just doesnÂ’t make much sense to me not to recognize the higher power in that.

We celebrate Thanksgiving because we are thankful for the many blessings given to us by the only one with the ability to bestow them. Whether you refer to him as God or just Divine Providence, the fact that you celebrate Thanksgiving at all implies that there is one to whom we owe a debt of gratitude.

If they are true to their belief, all atheists should be alone on Thursday, eating cold spaghetti.”
http://jenniferkhale.com/2012/11/21/no-turkey...

[HAPPY THANKSGIVING, atheists – enjoy your cold spaghetti, lol.]
You have to love the cold spaghetti part after all the spaghetti god postings that they have made. LOL

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6452
Nov 22, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
some atheists try to show that the concept of God is incoherent, but they've never been able to construct a convincing argument, and the probabilistic problem of evil is too presumptuous
Actually, the concept of god is too vague to even be tested. All that can be tested are specific claims, such as that prayer works. It doesn't. Or that life was created. It wasn't. It evolved.

Speaking of probability, the god hypothesis is the least probable for the competing explanations for the existence of anything. If anything at all exists, something has to be eternal or to have come into existence uncaused.

[1] One hypothesis has the singularity coming into existence uncaused, and expanding.

[2] Another has our universe existing eternally, uncaused, and cycling through alternating epochs of expansion and contraction.

[3] Another posits the existence of a multiverse from which infinite numbers of universes including our bud off. The multiverse need be no more than an amorphous, unconscious blob.

[4] And then there is the hypothesis that an eternal, infinite, uncaused omnscient, omnipotent, immortal, and perfectly moral sentient life form has always existed.

The last is infinitely more complex than any of the others,complexity that is not needed. A multiverse could be the source of our universe, and at this time, is the leading candidate, since that hypothesis also answers the fine tuning objection.

A multiverse is infinitely more likely to exist than a god. And it's a Christian argument that defeats the god hypothesis, namely, Hoyle's fallacy - the one about 747's being assembled by tornadoes in junkyards being so unlikely as to be considered impossible, and therefore living cells self-assembling (abiogenesis) would be similarly unlikely. But what is a weak, unconscious, impotent and mortal cell compared to a god? Nothing. So how could a god exist uncaused?

Occam's Razor compels us not just to merely drop this hypothesis, but to hurl it with great force and dispatch.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6453
Nov 22, 2012
 
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>That there is more than one, nullifies the entire concept of one all powerful god. There are clearly thousands of gods, none who has any more validity than the next one. All are the farcical tools of the spell caster, who is your only liaisons to the gods.
Yes with out an almighty God you can be god!

I wonder how far out in the Galaxy your cry that there is no God can be heard?
Halfway down a spiral arm?
Maybe not, how about to the closest Star? Maybe not, how about at least getting out of our solar system? Nan probably not. Neptune or Saturn?
Maybe just maybe!

Of course there is the rest of the universe that's a bit bigger but hey it all just appeared for nothingness right?

KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6454
Nov 22, 2012
 
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>Its such a beautiful thing when you fundies admit you've lost....
What you too?

LOL.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6455
Nov 22, 2012
 
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
Thats right. These "prophets" thought that the earth was a flat circle covered by a sky dome, supported by pillars. Above which was a heaven occupied by god, sons of god, angels and other celestial beings. i.e they were writers of their time with no magical powers or special knowledge.
Yes indeedy, just like a giant snow "globe." I understand that the god was said to be walking on the top of it.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6456
Nov 22, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
Why atheists lose debates
There is only one debate, and it is over which ideology will define Western values - Christianity, or secular humanism. You've lost Europe and Australia, and you're losing America.

But don't lose heart. The Africans and Asians are still quite undereducated, unsophisiticated, and superstitious. Most importantly, they know nothing about you.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6457
Nov 22, 2012
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
That's why it's best to ignore his copy and paste off topic spam. He is like the Christian Muq.
Pathetic.
<quoted text>
Very apt analogy.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6458
Nov 22, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
[“There is no enduring truth in atheism.”]
Atheism makes no claims. It's an opinion: "I don't believe you." It can't be true or false. All that you can do to defeats skepticism for gods is to demonstrate one to us.

Here's an enduring truth for you, Dim: Nothing fails like prayer.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6459
Nov 22, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, I failed at nothing. The scripture was in the link I provided which you didn't want to plough through, so you were dishonest and lazy.
There is no baby Jesus.
He grew up, was crucified, and resurrected, and when your short life has ended, he will see that you get the justice you deserve, even as the worms are burrowing in and out of your godless eye sockets. Enjoy your blasphemy while you can, it's all you've got.
And, as you know, your family is planning a big party on the day they finally get rid of you.
You spelled "everything" wrong, you fail at everything. That's why all you have it copy pasta. If you had an original thought, it suffocated among the vast amounts of conspiracy and religious nuttery you crammed into your brain, good thing there isn't much information from those camps, lest we need clean up on aisle 3.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6460
Nov 22, 2012
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
The Africans and Asians are still quite undereducated, unsophisiticated, and superstitious.
I guess you were making generalisations. But in China and Japan, they have a high proportion of Atheism and Agnosticism.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6461
Nov 22, 2012
 
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
<quoted text>
FASB codification is based on face, yet it is subject to interpretation and implementation of accountants. That doesn't mean FASB codification is fables.
Its ambiguity does mean, however, that the codification, like the bible, was not written by a god. It also means that its contents will be frequently misunderstood and misapplied.

I hold a book said to be divinely authored to a higher standard than any existing book - even a government publication. The bible doesn't come close to meeting that standard, and so is easily identified as inauthentic.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6462
Nov 22, 2012
 
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
I think its wrong for some one to get paid to preach the word of God.
I'm glad to read that.
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
Ultimately, the Bible is the word of God
I don't believe that. I have no reason to believe it. Why do you?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6463
Nov 22, 2012
 
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
Or perhaps a lot of it (modern religion) is man made and some of it is actually divine direction from God.
There's not much doubt that some of the bible is the word of man. The question is whether some or none of the words come from a supernatural source, and if any are, how to know that that is the case, and how to tell which are which.

How would you feel about a will that was at most partly from the testator, and you couldn't tell which if any parts those were? Would you transfer an inheritance based on it? If not, why would you base your life on a bible of similar provenance?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6464
Nov 22, 2012
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
There's a contradiction for you, BTW - number ten on this list of contradictions about the god that I compiled :
[1] An omniscient being that grants free will
[2] An omnipotent being incapable of being in the presence of sin
[3] A perfect being needing worship
[4] A perfect being that changes its mind, as with new laws and covenants
[5] A perfect being that makes mistakes or contradicts itself
[6] A perfect being that creates or alters anything
[7] A non-spacial being being omnipresent
[8] An all-loving, omnipotent being that allows suffering.
[9] A perfectly just being that punishes innocents like firstborns.
[10] A merciful being that damns without hope of forgiveness from hell.
[11] Anything existing, persisting, thinking or acting outside of time. Those words all imply an interval of time.
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
1. Its not really "free" free will if there are consequences and those consequences are redeemed at a price, which I am assuming there are if you are talking about Christians.
Then you don't accept the doctrine that man us endowed with free will? How does that comment relate to mine? If you reject free will, and accept a doctrine of absolute determinism, then there is no contradiction there.
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
2. Is he incapable or are we incapable? IF he wants to be in some one's presence he can send the Holy Ghost to prepare and cleans the individual before he appears. God has appeared to imperfect men. See the story of Moses.
It's your god that we are told is unable to abide sin. I can, and so can you. Why is your god less capable than we are? And if he is, that contradicts the assertion that he is omnipotent.
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
3. God doesn't need us or our worship, but we need him.
Then why create our world and us? Aren't we here for an audition for a part in heaven to worship the god? And if he doesn't need our worship, why reject us for failing to worship him?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6466
Nov 22, 2012
 
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
7. I don't follow the non-spacial omnipresent thing. I think its pretty clear in scripture that God has a body. One example: How can God create man in his own image IF God doesn't have an image or body? How can Moses see God face to face if God doesn't have a face? God has a body, though some have tried to alienate God from mankind by proclaiming God to be unknowable, devoid body, parts or passions. Such a declaration, is in my opinion, a form of twisted atheism, because the believer, in effect, believes in nothing. I totally back you up on this one.
How can you be everywhere yet not in space? The rest of that seems unrelated to the cited contradiction.
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
8. Parents allow suffering, yet they love their children. I don't think that is a contradiction. Suffering is part of learning in some cases.
The bible god allows needless suffering and causes more. There was no reason to drown every terrestrial animal in a flood intended to eliminate sin from the earth. Imagine how many creatures would have suffered prolonged, agonizing, terrifying deaths as the water levels rose? I would not forgive your god for that if I believed in it.
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
9. I don't think God punishes new borns. That doctrine is not consistent with the Jesus Christ of the New Testament or Book of Mormon.
I believe that you're wrong, and that you're evading the central point, which relates to innocents killed by your god, not just newborns. Nevertheless, newborns were victimizes by your god, such as all of the newborns on the earth at the time of the flood were drowned. Any if an Egyptian family had had their first child around the time of the plagues of pharaoh,that infant died.

You've only rebutted one contradiction so far, and that was at the expense of the doctrine of free will, which is used to justify the punishment of those that don't choose the god.
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
10. I don't believe that either. That is not found in scripture I have seen.


There went hell theology. A lot of Christians make that claim.
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
11. I don't think God acts outside of time.
Most of your fellow Christians do. You seem to have a few fewer contradictions to contend with.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 6,101 - 6,120 of11,219
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

10 Users are viewing the Religion Forum right now

Search the Religion Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Islam Will Conquer Italy and the Entire West (Sep '10) 5 min babushka 325,309
LDS Apostle visited Tonga 7 min Dana Robertson 1,005
Who Is Allah? (Aug '07) 17 min El Cid 193,679
Jewish scholar lectures on 'How Islam Saved the... 32 min Daniel 3
Another case of blasphemy? : Extremist Hindus t... (Jul '13) 38 min raj 112
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 45 min KiMare 217,744
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 55 min atemcowboy 512,947
•••
•••
•••
•••