'Good without a god': Faces of atheis...

'Good without a god': Faces of atheism in Oklahoma

There are 7527 comments on the NewsOK.com story from Jul 5, 2013, titled 'Good without a god': Faces of atheism in Oklahoma. In it, NewsOK.com reports that:

Rebecca Vitsmun is shown during an interview with a CNN reporter shortly after the May 20 tornado that destroyed her Moore home.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NewsOK.com.

antiatheist

Seminole, OK

#5567 Feb 13, 2014
angle you are talking out of your butt again
Jack

United States

#5568 Feb 13, 2014
WarForOil wrote:
<quoted text>
Do tell what is the unpardonable sin.
I want to make certain I don't have
to share eternity with the likes of you.
Eternity without your sort is heaven.
No worries my man I've seen your posts on other threads so you and I have entirely different destinations.

Unpardonable sin is the sin of rejecting GOD the Father and Jesus Christ as your personal savior. Personal actions always have more meaning than hot air from a pompous blowhard.
Jack

United States

#5569 Feb 13, 2014
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>Uh huh.... when you put it THAT way it really doesn't sound any less ridiculous
No one is telling you what to believe that I know of but I also reserve the right and the dignity that comes with that right to believe.

Peace

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#5570 Feb 13, 2014
Jack wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is telling you what to believe that I know of but I also reserve the right and the dignity that comes with that right to believe.
Peace
And I, personally, would never tell you what to believe. If you choose to air your beliefs publically, you shouldn't get upset if someone decides to comment on them.

You find 'dignity' in believing something that has no basis in reality... if it did, "faith" would not be a requirement to believe. I see no dignity in that.
Amanda

United States

#5571 Feb 13, 2014
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>And I, personally, would never tell you what to believe. If you choose to air your beliefs publically, you shouldn't get upset if someone decides to comment on them.
You find 'dignity' in believing something that has no basis in reality... if it did, "faith" would not be a requirement to believe. I see no dignity in that.
What Jack said is he is showing respect for your non-belief and is only asking back the respect he has shown. You know "treat people as you would like to be treated". I know that's old fashioned by it's a good rule to live by. Putting someone down using derogatory words or demeaning words aren't necessary unless to be derogatory and demeaning is your goal to begin with.

How many times has science got it wrong only to update the world when they got more information which turned what used to be scientific proof as not longer valid? There are many examples. You had 'faith' the first scientific theory was correct until the new theory came out and then you have 'faith' it's true.

Think about it.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#5572 Feb 13, 2014
Amanda wrote:
<quoted text>
What Jack said is he is showing respect for your non-belief and is only asking back the respect he has shown. You know "treat people as you would like to be treated". I know that's old fashioned by it's a good rule to live by. Putting someone down using derogatory words or demeaning words aren't necessary unless to be derogatory and demeaning is your goal to begin with.
How many times has science got it wrong only to update the world when they got more information which turned what used to be scientific proof as not longer valid? There are many examples. You had 'faith' the first scientific theory was correct until the new theory came out and then you have 'faith' it's true.
Think about it.
You could not be more wrong.

Science is **always** trying to refute it's own claims-- constantly and all the time.

That is how science works-- this constant **testing** of it's claims, is how science discovers any errors or subtle inconsistencies in the claims.

So it's to be expected, it **will** change those claims over time, usually in very subtle ways, but occasionally, in dramatic ones (such as the switch from Newton's physics to Einstein's).

But where you are so very, very wrong?

Is you presume that Newton is now 100% wrong, and Einstein is not 100% correct.

That is false.

Newton is **correct** within a certain limited set of conditions (actually, these are the majority conditions, but nevermind that). But Newton is *wrong* under certain *extreme* conditions.

And Einstein's theories explain those.

Yet, even Einstein's theory is *wrong* for certain *other*, even more extreme conditions.

So, from the view of an absolutist (you),**both** Newton and Einstein are dead wrong......

....!!!

This comes from a failure on *your* part to really understand how science works.

You theists never seem to get that-- which is why you theists **never****ever** disprove a single thing science has claimed.

Ever.

And you theists never will-- you just don't get how science works.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#5573 Feb 13, 2014
Amanda wrote:
<quoted text>
What Jack said is he is showing respect for your non-belief and is only asking back the respect he has shown. You know "treat people as you would like to be treated". I know that's old fashioned by it's a good rule to live by. Putting someone down using derogatory words or demeaning words aren't necessary unless to be derogatory and demeaning is your goal to begin with.
How many times has science got it wrong only to update the world when they got more information which turned what used to be scientific proof as not longer valid? There are many examples. You had 'faith' the first scientific theory was correct until the new theory came out and then you have 'faith' it's true.
Think about it.
How was my post in any way derogatory? He made a post that, in essence, said the same thing as a previous poster. That previous poster's comment was showing how ridiculous that particular way of thing is. His post laid out the same 'story' as the other poster only in a slightly different way that HE saw as more reasonable. I simply pointed out that his 'version' was no less ridiculous that the other.

BTW... there is no need for faith when actual evidence supports you... and there is no need to lie when actual facts are on your side.
Amanda

United States

#5574 Feb 13, 2014
Look up the meaning of ridiculous why don't you? Then use the word ridiculous to describe previous once believed scientific theory that has been disproved. You could express your disbelief without using demeaning words or derogatory terms or are you so limited in your vocabulary?

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#5575 Feb 13, 2014
Amanda wrote:
Look up the meaning of ridiculous why don't you? Then use the word ridiculous to describe previous once believed scientific theory that has been disproved. You could express your disbelief without using demeaning words or derogatory terms or are you so limited in your vocabulary?
If you don't want your beliefs ridiculed... don't air your ridiculous beliefs on a public forum frequented by those that will point it out. If you want to air your beliefs in a place where you'll get praised for them... take them to a site populated by those with those same/similar beliefs.

BTW... please look up the definition of "scientific theory"

Also... please supply what you consider to be 'scientific theories' that have been proven wrong and not simply incorporated into a better scientific theory
Joyce

United States

#5576 Feb 13, 2014
Dense as a rock aren't you? A person should be able to discuss personal beliefs that differ without ridicule, derogatory, demeaning statements or phrases. No one asked you believe anything just like the poster "Jack" politely suggested.

You haven't evolved very much from cave man days.
Joyce

United States

#5577 Feb 13, 2014
Oh on the homework assignment you wanted to give to 'Amanda' why don't you use google and figure out the answer yourself.

Think a woman should do the work for you?

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#5578 Feb 13, 2014
Joyce wrote:
Oh on the homework assignment you wanted to give to 'Amanda' why don't you use google and figure out the answer yourself.
Think a woman should do the work for you?
LOL! I know the difference between a theory in everyday usage and a theory as used in science. Her comments made it obvious that she thinks there is only one definition ... I simply suggested she educate herself so she doesn't come off as completely ignorant the next time she tries to argue something she obviously has no clue about.

And again, no... I do my own homework... always have... always will.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#5579 Feb 13, 2014
I smell a bunch of socks... you know... the kind left in a locker-room after the end of the school year
antiatheist

Seminole, OK

#5580 Feb 13, 2014
terry your religion of atheism is the biggest faith based belief system in the world. I can't think of anything that requires more of it than atheism
Richardfs

Merrylands, Australia

#5581 Feb 13, 2014
antiatheist wrote:
terry your religion of atheism is the biggest faith based belief system in the world. I can't think of anything that requires more of it than atheism
When are you going to learn to use the reply button, you can't be that stupid?
But then again looking at your post you are that stupid.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#5582 Feb 13, 2014
Joyce wrote:
Dense as a rock aren't you? A person should be able to discuss personal beliefs that differ without ridicule, derogatory, demeaning statements or phrases. No one asked you believe anything just like the poster "Jack" politely suggested.
You haven't evolved very much from cave man days.
There is no law that protects you from ridicule.

None.

If you discuss your odious personal habits in public, you are so going to be ridiculed, if said habits are ridiculous.

And **all** beliefs without actual **facts** are ridiculous.

Again-- there is no right to *not* be offended.

Especially if you are ...

... ridiculous.
Joyce

United States

#5583 Feb 13, 2014
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no law that protects you from ridicule.
None.
If you discuss your odious personal habits in public, you are so going to be ridiculed, if said habits are ridiculous.
And **all** beliefs without actual **facts** are ridiculous.
Again-- there is no right to *not* be offended.
Especially if you are ...
... ridiculous.
Do you consider yourself civilized and intelligent? Then you should have the ability to express yourself without being personally derogatory, hateful, demeaning to another person who may have a different opinion than yourself.

If not then you are nothing more than another one of the masses who have no culture or civil behavior perhaps you haven't EVOLVED enough yet.

Judged:

13

13

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#5584 Feb 13, 2014
Joyce wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you consider yourself civilized and intelligent? Then you should have the ability to express yourself without being personally derogatory, hateful, demeaning to another person who may have a different opinion than yourself.
If not then you are nothing more than another one of the masses who have no culture or civil behavior perhaps you haven't EVOLVED enough yet.
Again: there is nothing that protects you from being offended by something someone says.

It's high time that religion stops getting a free pass in this way.

There is **nothing** civilized about ancient bronze-age superstitions.

Nothing.

So, it is you who has failed to evolve here-- you are stuck in the bronze age.
WarForOil

Rowlett, TX

#5585 Feb 14, 2014
Jack wrote:
<quoted text>

Unpardonable sin is the sin of rejecting GOD the Father and
Jesus Christ as your personal savior. Personal actions always
have more meaning than hot air from a pompous blowhard.
And here we have the prime example of why there are seminaries.
Without a theological education, you get self-righteous demagogues.
Ones like Jack who believes that meritorious actions are required for
justification.

We can be certain on which side of the Reformation he would have
been. Burn more Reformers, Jack.

Faith saves, not actions, Jack.
Joyce

United States

#5586 Feb 14, 2014
WarForOil wrote:
<quoted text>

Faith saves, not actions, Jack.
Through faith a person has the strength to carry out ACTIONS of faith.

Jack is correct according to the Holy Bible.

Try thinking about it!

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) 1 hr Dogen 52,440
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 1 hr Dogen 541
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Dogen 24,926
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 2 hr ChristineM 11,463
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 3 hr Thinking 22,201
News Fox Friends Outraged Over Atheists 'Making Chri... 8 hr Bob Zanotti 232
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) 9 hr Passion of the Ma... 1,684
More from around the web