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
2,341 - 2,360 of 11,175 Comments Last updated Jan 18, 2014
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2433
Oct 6, 2012
 
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>Says the xtian who needs to use socks to try an bolster his feeble posts.
Let me get this straight, who are you calling all the same person?

Just need to know if you got all of them or if some are still good to use! LOL

Looks like your wood is going punky puppet boy.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2434
Oct 6, 2012
 
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>He also commands you never to eat shellfish o rwear clothes made from mixed fabrics.

I trust you obey those orders.
Well if I was of that faith I most likely would. Sigh.

looks like I have to sit down for dinner I'm having Ham and Scallops. LOL

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2443
Oct 6, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Besides, I could never take credit for Noah and his family comprising the 100%- that wit belongs to Lanoliers. I'm still laughing over that one because it was so true and made you look so very much more stupid than you already did, lol."
I almost pissed my pants when I read that one.
Hahaha....it was a good one, right!

And so was this one from you to Miss Khatru, the UK dingbat:

"All I need to know is that the Bible says Pi = 3"

I know it's all you know. But you even got that wrong!

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2445
Oct 6, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all, your group is calling us 3 the same person! That would make us kind of special, being in 3 places at the same time and all that goes with that claim.
Who's my group, thief?

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2448
Oct 6, 2012
 
It's been a real joy chatting with everyone this morning.

I will be going out for the afternoon to do some Saturday chores, but I want you atheists to know that I will not forget you.

I'll be back at the earliest opportunity to post some more links for you about the frauds and misconducts of science, and those unreliable textbooks and /or or some other like materials to keep you better informed.

Oh, and by the way, Khatru, I don't blame you for not wanting to read about 2000 year old zombies I don't either!!!!

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2449
Oct 6, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol No dishonesty from me. The Darwin quotation you are objecting to was found here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6086650/EVOLUTION-C...
It was also found on other web pages. In fact, it's all over the internet, exactly as I copied and pasted it:Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy.
Should you wish to dispute the quotation or the authenticity of it, you need to contact the web pages, not me. You have your work cut out for you, since there are many, many web pages which publish the quote just as I posted it, but I'm sure they will all be delighted to hear from you. I have no interest in your post, but maybe one of the web page publishers will offer you a position on their editorial staff; lmao.
Translation: Don't blame the above poster for copying dishonest apolegetics; blame his source and those who copied from his source or a common source.

Let's recap.

The poster posted a partial sentence from Darwin as a complete sentence:

Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy.

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

The actual sentence reads:

"For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly; for, thinking of so many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy."

More importantly, in the context of the whole paragraph, it is Darwin's humble approach to his mentor, Dr. Charles Lyell, after Lyell accepted Darwin's natural selection hypothesis, which Darwin then believes, according to the letter, to be a "morally" required conclusion from those seeking the truth:
Darwin wrote:
<quoted text>You seemed to have worked admirably on the species question; there could not have been a better plan than reading up on the opposite side. I rejoice profoundly that you intend admitting the doctrine of modification in your new edition;* nothing, I am convinced, could be more important for its success. I honour you most sincerely. To have maintained in the position of a master, one side of a question for thirty years, and then deliberately give it up, is a fact to which I much doubt whether the records of science offer a parallel. For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly; for, thinking of so many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy. Now I look at it as morally impossible that investigators of truth, like you and Hooker, can be wholly wrong, and therefore I rest in peace. Thank you for criticisms, which, if there be a second edition, I will attend to. I have been thinking that if I am much execrated as an atheist, etc., whether the admission of the doctrine of natural selection could injure your works; but I hope and think not, for as far as I can remember, the virulence of bigotry is expended on the first offender, and those who adopt his views are only pitied as deluded, by the wise and cheerful bigots.
Darwin, Charles, Darwin, Francis, ed., Selected Letters on Evolution and Origin of Species (Courier Dover Publications' 1958 edition), pp. 224-5.

Ya gotta love Christian dishonesty, eh?

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2450
Oct 6, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for admitting your ignorance in grammar, but you didn't need to tell us.
It's rather obvious from your clumsy construction and use of double dashes in this grammatically incorrect sentence you composed:
And, yes, your fascination with -- and reliance on -- dishonesty has already been noted.
You're an uneducated fool and a childish whiner.
Please provide a reputable source that claims the use of dashes is grammatically incorrect.

I'll wait.

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2451
Oct 6, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you wish to dispute the contents of any web page, you need to contact the publisher of the page, or the author of the content to which you object - not the forum poster who provided you with the link.
No I don't. I merely need to point out the ignorance of the person relying on the source.

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2452
Oct 6, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for admitting your ignorance in grammar....
You're lying again.

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2453
Oct 6, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe in myths, remember?.....
Please stop lying.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2454
Oct 6, 2012
 
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>Please provide a reputable source that claims the use of dashes is grammatically incorrect.

I'll wait.
Please wait in silence.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2455
Oct 6, 2012
 
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>Please stop lying.
Yes stand up!

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2456
Oct 6, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Please wait in silence.
More childish nonsense from a thief.

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2457
Oct 6, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes stand up!
More nonsense from a thief.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2458
Oct 6, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words, you don't trust Wikipedia, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Discover Magazine, Scientific American, rsm journals, The Chicago Tribune, etc (those are where most of my posts come from).
What sources support YOU? "Khatru", "Khatru", and "Khatru" ? Yee? LOl - that's what I thought. In other words, you have nothing.
The fact that you believe in talking snakes and donkeys tells me all I need to know about you.

I notice how you didn't deny my statement that you think genocide is good. That also tells me a lot about you.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2459
Oct 6, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"From time to time sceptics have used these verses to ridicule the accuracy of the Bible by claiming that, if one uses the figures stated, the circumference of the vessel divided by its diameter gives 3.0, instead of the value pi π, 3.14159…).1"
"Closer examination shows there are at least two possible explanations.
The first concerns the meaning of the word cubit, and how it would have been used in measuring the vessel. A cubit was the length of a man’s forearm from the elbow to the extended fingertips. The Hebrew cubit was about 45 centimetres (18 inches). It is obvious that a man's forearm does not readily lend itself to the measurement of fractions of a forearm. In the Bible half a cubit is mentioned several times, but there is no mention of a third part of a cubit or a fourth part of a cubit, even though these fractions of ‘a third part’ and ‘a fourth part’ were used in volume and weight measurements.2 It therefore seems highly probable that any measurement of more than half a cubit would have been counted as a full cubit, and any measurement of less than half a cubit would have been rounded down to the nearest full cubit.
From 1 Kings 7:23 (‘a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about’), it appears that the circumference was measured with ‘a line’, i.e. a piece of string or cord on which the distance was marked, and this length would then have been measured off in cubits by the measurer, using his own or someone else’s forearm, or possibly a cubit-long rod. Similarly the diameter would have been marked on a line and ‘cubitized’ in the same way.
If the actual diameter was 9.65 cubits, for example, this would have been reckoned as 10 cubits. The actual circumference would then have been 30.32 cubits. This would have been reckoned as 30 cubits (9.6 cubits diameter gives 30.14 circumference, and so on). The ratio of true circumference to true diameter would then have been 30.32÷ 9.65 = 3.14, the true value for pi, even though the measured value (i.e. to the nearest cubit) was 30 ÷ 10 = 3."
The Bible gives the ratio for Pi as three.

Your cut and paste job is nothing more than the apologetic ramblings of a xtian who feels the need to provide his fumbling interpretation in an attempt to correct the error in the Bible.

Whoever wrote the Ahmes Papyrus, around 1650 BCE, used an approximation for Pi that was around 256/81, or about 3.16 and
Archimedes (287-212 BCE) calculated Pi to be a number between 223/71 and 22/7, or 3.1408 and 3.1429

Given the alleged perfection of the bible you'd have thought that the god of the OT would have done better than man.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2460
Oct 6, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Well if I was of that faith I most likely would. Sigh.
looks like I have to sit down for dinner I'm having Ham and Scallops. LOL
Ah, I get it.

As far as you're concerned there's nothing of any relevance in the Old Testament and certainly no rules that you need to adhere to.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2461
Oct 6, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"All I need to know is that the Bible says Pi = 3"
I know it's all you know. But you even got that wrong!
Oh the links aren't there for you to click on. Because then you would find out they have nothing to do with my post. They're just posted for eye candy. LOL
"example, this would have been reckoned as 10 cubits. The actual circumference would then have been 30.32 cubits. This would have been reckoned as 30 cubits (9.6 cubits diameter gives 30.14 circumference, and so on). The ratio of true circumference to true diameter would then have been 30.32÷ 9.65 = 3.14, the true value for pi, even though the measured value (i.e. to the nearest cubit) was 30 ÷ 10 = 3."
http://creation.mo bi/does-the-bible-say-pi-equal s-3
Except that the Bible doesn't actually say what you just cut and pasted.

I know that's what you'd like it to say but the fact is that it gives the ratio of the circumference to the diameter as three.

That's right, three. Not three and a bit - just three.

Now I know how xtians tend to ditch the facts if they disagree with their myths but here's a fact you can't dump:

1 Kings, 7:23 says.....

"And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

That's plain enough.

Clearly the Bible is not as divinely inspired as xtians claim it to be.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2462
Oct 6, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t0...
"Fulfilled Prophecies
The remarkable evidence of fulfilled prophecy is just one case in point. Hundreds of Bible prophecies have been fulfilled, specifically and meticulously, often long after the prophetic writer had passed away.
For example, Daniel the prophet predicted in about 538 BC (Daniel 9:24-27) that Christ would come as Israel's promised Savior and Prince 483 years after the Persian emperor would give the Jews authority to rebuild Jerusalem, which was then in ruins. This was clearly and definitely fulfilled, hundreds of years later.
There are extensive prophecies dealing with individual nations and cities and with the course of history in general, all of which have been literally fulfilled. More than 300 prophecies were fulfilled by Christ Himself at His first coming. Other prophecies deal with the spread of Christianity, as well as various false religions, and many other subjects.
There is no other book, ancient or modern, like this. The vague, and usually erroneous, prophecies of people like Jeanne Dixon, Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, and others like them are not in the same category at all, and neither are other religious books such as the Koran, the Confucian Analects, and similar religious writings. Only the Bible manifests this remarkable prophetic evidence, and it does so on such a tremendous scale as to render completely absurd any explanation other than divine revelation."
Hang on a minute. You're referring to the Old Testament and by your own admission, you don't follow it's rules.

The books that make up the Old Testament belong to the Jews, not the Christians. Those OT *prophecies*(I use the term loosely) were made by the Jews. It's their religion, not yours.

Ask a Jew whether Christ fulfilled those prophecies and you'll get a quite different answer to the one you want to hear. Who are you to tell the Jews that their belief system is wrong and that they're not interpreting their own scriptures properly? Christians see the whole Jewish mythology as little more than a dress rehearsal for their own mythology.

Anyway. Many people who know the Bible far better than you or I, state that Daniel was written centuries later around the time of the Maccabean Revolt.

I trust you're also aware that Daniel contradicts other scriptures.

What does Daniel have to say about why we suffer?

As far as Daniel is concerned, humans suffer because of forces (beasts) opposed to God and his followers. The *righteous*(another word I use loosely) behaviour of God's followers leads to their persecution and suffering. This is in Daniel 7:18 & 7:27.

Now check out Amos 3-5 where you'll see that people suffer because it's caused by God on the people who have broken his rules.

So, a quick recap here and you'll see that in Daniel it's God's enemies who cause suffering and in Amos it's God himself who causes it.

What does Daniel have to say about how suffering ends?

Well, Daniels says it will end very soon when God destroys the evil that's at large and leaves the way clear for his kingdom to be created.

What does Amos say about how the suffering ends?

Amos doesn't say it will end soon. All he says is that it will be at some point in the future and will be when the people repent.

In Daniel suffering is to end very soon when God's personally intervenes and destroys the evil forces that are arrayed against him.

In Amos it's none of that and suffering will end when the people return to God.



Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2463
Oct 6, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you here?
You like being the fool?
Lol

Better review your statement about those scriptural helicopters before you start calling people fools.

I'm here because this thread is on the Atheist forum as well as being in Religion.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••