Don't dictate beliefs

Sep 5, 2012 Full story: The Star Press 11,175

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

Full Story

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#2803 Oct 10, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
Religion: "(1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance". In spite of you lame attempt to make up your own definition.
derek4 wrote:
To #1 on your list, you omitted and stopped short of definition #4 of religion in the Merriam-Webster link I provided for you
You are so easy.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#2804 Oct 10, 2012
derek4 wrote:
The religion of atheism as it ...
There is no religion of atheism. From Merriam-Webster :

Religion: "(1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance".

Merriam-Webster said it. I believe it. That settles it.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#2805 Oct 10, 2012
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
You're lying.
Why do Christians lie?
It's lies for Jesus - they love it.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#2806 Oct 10, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
What good is a wealth of fraudulent scientific evidence, lol?
And there we go,“sad” again.
Funny how many times atheists use the word sad, which says a lot about how they feel most of the time.
Like I told you once before, science has done a beautiful job of cheapening itself with no help from me.
You go right ahead and deny evolution - you're free to do that.

You're also free to say the moon is made of cheese.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#2807 Oct 10, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry you can't comprehend the Bible. You should get someone who is informed to help you. Try a minister.
If the god of the Bible meant for his message to be understood then the evidence suggests he's failed.

Otherwise we wouldn't have so many different Christian denominations and sects each claiming to be right at the expense of the others.

Then you have the mixed messages in the Bible itself - sure there are good things in there but it's also full of primitive barbarisms.

Nietzsche questioned the goodness of an omniscient, omnipotent god who doesn't even make sure that his creatures understand his intention. This god who allows doubts to persist for thousands of years. Nietzsche also went on to liken the god of the Bible to a deaf man making all kinds of ambiguous signs and gestures when some sort of danger is present.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#2808 Oct 10, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Did Allah answer your prayers too, as you probably rejoiced along with the terrorists over the godless killings? The God I serve did not answer the prayers of the terrorists. That's why I don't believe in false gods (i.e., Allah). To believe in a false god is to be godless. Actually the spelling should be Godless in this case.
Atheists don't pray to any gods; surely you know that by know.

Perhaps your god is weaker than their god.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#2809 Oct 10, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"In an attempt to further their careers and justify the claims that evolution is a legitimate theory, many scientists have fraudulently deceived the world by planting or reconstructing fossils which they would claim to be authentic finds. The most widely published evolution fraud was committed in China in 1999, and published in in the National Geographic"
http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html
Science is till spectacularly successful.

You want real and tangible truths about our reality? Trust in science.

You want to read a load of superstitious mumbo jumbo about talking donkeys and snakes, cockatrices, dragons, flat earth, Pi=3, 2000 year old zombies, etc? Trust in Christianity.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#2810 Oct 10, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"The problem is that the god of the Bible is a terrible communicator"
An atheist who criticize the actions of something he doesn't believe exist.
D O L T
Think of me as the away team coming to your town and beating your team on their home ground.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#2811 Oct 10, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll let you reread this maybe like the 10 or 11 time you might get it.
Then again most likely not.
After all you keep criticizing the actions of something you are suppose to believe doesn't exist.
And then there is the 97.7% EX members of you faith.
Dude your down below 2.5% of the population. 2.3%!!!!
"Since circumference = PI x diameter as any elementary geometry book will tell you, therefore the Bible "seemingly" tells us that PI = 3. Since "this is obviously false, therefore the Bible cannot be from God..." is how some people like to reason.
But obviously the wisdom of God is greater than the wisdom of man:
In this verse the word for "circumference" (QaVa in Hebrew) is written with an extra letter (qavah).
Since in Hebrew all letters are also numbers, we can take the ratio of (the gematriacal value of) the unusual word form (qof, vaf, he ) to the regular word form (qof, vaf). Given that Qof = 100, Vaf = 6 and He = 5 we find that
( 111 / 106 )=( 3.14150943.../ 3 )
The real value: PI = 3.1415926...
The difference between 3 x 111/106 and PI is 0.0000832 which is only an error of 0.00026%.
It is interesting to compare the "Solomonic" approximation of PI with the approximations used by the Babylonians and Egyptians.
PI = 3.1415926... Error
Babylon : 3 1/8 = 25/8 = 3.125 0.0165926
Egypt : 3 13/81 = 256/81 = 3.16049382... 0.0189012
"Solomon": 333/106 = 3.14150943... 0.0000832
Since the ancient Egyptian or Babylonian approximations are much older than the time of Solomon it might be interesting find out what the usually used approximation of PI was at that time (Solomon was King around 1000 B.C.) in this or other parts of the world. Any helpful information on this question would be very much appreciated."
http://www.answering-islam.org/Religions/Nume...
What happened to all that nonsense you were spouting about me taking things out of context?

I did exactly what you said and it didn't make the slightest bit of difference to what I was saying.

Score another point for me.

The biblical creation myth in Genesis talks about "days". You've already stated that you take this as a day and not some other time span.

The Bible also says the circle was 30 cubits round by 10 cubits across. Why don't you accept that?

I guess you know that it's best not to believe everything you read in the Bible.

There's hope for you yet.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#2812 Oct 10, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
No it didn't wind me up I just found it disgusting, something only a worm head could enjoy.
You've led a sheltered life.

Perhaps it's time you pulled your head out of that bible.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#2813 Oct 10, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep trying you might get there some day.
Me myself, I'm here to bash the shit out of atheist like you.
How very Christian.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#2814 Oct 10, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism is a religion which places it's faith in science instead of God (or "gods").
How atheists hate the word FAITH - but faith (in the evidence of science) is one of their strong points. Science is really all they have to support their godless religion.
From: Yahoo News:
Study: Fraud growing in scientific research papers
Oct 1, 2012
Fraud in scientific research, while still rare, is growing at a troubling pace, a new study finds.
A review of retractions in medical and biological peer-reviewed journals finds the percentage of studies withdrawn because of fraud or suspected fraud has jumped substantially since the mid-1970s. In 1976, there were fewer than 10 fraud retractions for every 1 million studies published, compared with 96 retractions per million in 2007.
The study authors aren't quite sure why this is happening. But they and outside experts point to pressure to hit it big in science, both for funding and attention, and to what seems to be a subtle increase in deception in overall society that science may simply be mirroring.
Fraud in life sciences research is still minuscule and committed by only a few dozen scientific scofflaws. However, it causes big problems, said Arturo Casadevall, a professor of microbiology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. Casadevall is the lead author of the study which looked at the reasons for 2,047 retractions among many millions of studies published in journals and kept in a government database for medically focused research.
Fraud was the No. 1 cause of retractions, accounting for 43 percent of them. When fraud was combined with other areas of misconduct, such as plagiarism, it explained about 2 out of 3 retractions, the study found.
"Very few people are doing it, but when they do it, they are doing it in areas that are very important," Casadevall said. "And when these things come out, society loses faith in science."
http://news.yahoo.com/study-fraud-growing-sci...
COMMENTS:
Note key sentence:
"Very few people are doing it, but when they do it, they are doing it in areas that are very important," Casadevall said. "And when these things come out, society loses faith in science."
Other key words to note:“faith in science”
[The public has “FAITH” in science; atheists have “FAITH” in science. Atheists have “FAITH”, whether they like to admit it or not.]
The public and atheist faith in science is based on its spectacular success rate with explaining our reality.

Something in which religions fail dismally.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#2815 Oct 10, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheists trust in science and believe the theory of evolution is fact. Point to one who doesn't.
Ranting and whining is your expertise.
Did you really think before you wrote this (?):“Scientists NEVER have "faith" in science.”
So they don't believe in their own field of work and knowledge? So they know, as I do, that science and / or the “evidence” is not worthy of faith, confidence, or trust, yet they continue to participate in something which isn't credible? I see. If they have been reading the news stories I've seen, it's little wonder they see it as deeply flawed, therefore not worthy of confidence. Maybe they are catching on.
You have expressed extravagant faith in science. You have expressed your faith that the peer review system catches the errors, in spite of the hundreds, if not thousands of scientific articles which say it does not. I've posted maybe a hundred on this very forum which prove my point.
“Judging by analyses showing that the number of retractions during the past ten years has skyrocketed, it is reasonable to conclude that the self-regulating peer review system suffers from serious underlying defects.”
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/846/94/
I have no “fear” of science (unless I was taking some of the new medications on the market produced by fraudulent scientists – in which case I might indeed be afraid) because I do not place my faith and confidence in science, as you do.
Yes, you are indeed pitiful and transparent, as you lamely try and fail to defend your faith.
No theories are fact.

Theories represent our best explanations of facts.

The majority of the world's Christians accept that evolution is a fact.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#2816 Oct 10, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
But you just provided us the definition of a religion at http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... :
<quoted text>
That's exactly the opposite of atheism.
You're not about to tell me that there is more than one definition of religion, are you?
Bam!

Another lying Christian caught out through his contradictions.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#2817 Oct 10, 2012
derek4 wrote:
The Religion Of Atheism
“A person's religion is the sum total of his beliefs about God and the supernatural. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are the three largest "monotheistic" religions, with belief one God, Creator Of The Universe.
Some religions are "polytheistic," with belief in many gods, each with different functions.
Atheism is the religion whose belief about God is that there is no God.
Some Atheists, for their own political reasons, assert that Atheism is not a religion but instead is the total absence of religion. This allows them to spread their Atheistic beliefs freely in societies which insist on "separation of church and state."
But this is like saying that "black," (which physicists define as the total absence of color) is not a color. A few years ago, the car I drove was a big, old Chevrolet, whose color was black. In common practice throughout the world, "black" is understood to be a color, despite the technical definition of the physicists. Likewise, "Atheism" is a religion, despite any technical definitions to the contrary.
If black is a color, then Atheism is a religion.”
[Poster's insert: Court rules atheism a religion
http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/ ]
If Atheism is a religion, then it must be subject to the same legal restrictions imposed by governments on all other religions. In particular, in the United States, the teaching of Atheism must be prohibited wherever the teaching of Christianity is prohibited.
But where is Atheism being taught? Atheism is being taught, by default, in all places where other religions cannot be taught, particularly in the public schools.”
[Poster's insert: This means atheists are dictating their religious beliefs in our schools.]
“When the State mandates that the Theory of Evolution be taught as fact, that is establishing the religion of Atheism, because the Theory of Evolution asserts that all life forms are created not by God, but by pre-existing natural processes. This is pure Atheism! If we are not created by God, then there might as well be no God, for all the difference He makes.
The mere fact that many scientists are Atheists does not entitle them to establish Atheism as our State Religion!
When the State prohibits free discussion of God in the classroom, that is establishing the religion of Atheism. Wherever the State permits Atheistic ideas to be spread but prohibits Theistic ideas, that is establishing the religion of Atheism.
I had to delete some of your post because of the character limitations.

I see why you would want to call atheism a religion, but it simply is not a religion. Period. That's it. No thinking person considers it a religion. The fact that you do, simply takes away from any credibility that you might hope to enjoy in a debate on the subject. Your link that you provided about the court ruling that atheism is a religion did not lead to a page that said anything about the courts, but if you are referring to the supreme court decision that said atheism must be treated like a religion in reference to prisons, it is not the same thing as declaring atheism a religion.

Atheism is not taught in our public schools, so even if it were considered a religion, it would not be an issue. Evolution is accepted as scientific fact(not law), and does not encroach on religious philosophy. If you can provide a link or some proof that evolution as taught in public schools states that there is no god, or that there is no evidence of god, or ever mentions God, I would like to see it.

It appears that you do not like the idea that your religion is not allowed to be taught in public schools. That's too bad for you. The US Constitution is very clear on the matter, but you can always send your kids to a religious school that is not funded with taxpayer money.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#2818 Oct 10, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheists trust in science and believe the theory of evolution is fact. Point to one who doesn't.
Ranting and whining is your expertise.
Did you really think before you wrote this (?):“Scientists NEVER have "faith" in science.”
So they don't believe in their own field of work and knowledge? So they know, as I do, that science and / or the “evidence” is not worthy of faith, confidence, or trust, yet they continue to participate in something which isn't credible? I see. If they have been reading the news stories I've seen, it's little wonder they see it as deeply flawed, therefore not worthy of confidence. Maybe they are catching on.
You have expressed extravagant faith in science. You have expressed your faith that the peer review system catches the errors, in spite of the hundreds, if not thousands of scientific articles which say it does not. I've posted maybe a hundred on this very forum which prove my point.
“Judging by analyses showing that the number of retractions during the past ten years has skyrocketed, it is reasonable to conclude that the self-regulating peer review system suffers from serious underlying defects.”
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/846/94/
I have no “fear” of science (unless I was taking some of the new medications on the market produced by fraudulent scientists – in which case I might indeed be afraid) because I do not place my faith and confidence in science, as you do.
Yes, you are indeed pitiful and transparent, as you lamely try and fail to defend your faith.
There is nothing in the definition of atheism that says that it requires "A belief or "faith" in science" or that an atheist must accept, or even be aware of evolution.

You are building a strawman argument. It's not very convincing.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#2819 Oct 10, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
To #1 on your list, you omitted and stopped short of definition #4 of religion in the Merriam-Webster link I provided for you:“According to Websters Dictionary online (2012), one of the definitions of ‘religion’ is:“a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”: see #4, here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rel...
Further elaboration was included with my original post where the definition appeared.
There is no need for me to readdress your other points since they were already covered with my original post, which you didn't comprehend.
Enjoy your godless, atheistic religion, but stop trying to dictate your religion -“The Religion Of Atheism.”
As previously posted,“A person's religion is the sum total of his beliefs about God and the supernatural. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are the three largest "monotheistic" religions, with belief one God, Creator Of The Universe. Some religions are "polytheistic," with belief in many gods, each with different functions. Atheism is the religion whose belief about God is that there is no God.”[link for quotes was provided in original post]
"“A person's religion is the sum total of his beliefs about God and the supernatural."

Do you believe in astrology? How about ghosts? Magic? I will assume you do not.
Does this mean that your non-belief in those things constitutes a religion?

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#2820 Oct 10, 2012
derek4 wrote:
From NBC News:
October 1, 2012
“Can you trust what biomedical researchers have to say about your health?
There are plenty of people out there who say no, including anti-vaccinators, mega vitamin proponents, lovers of non-Western medicine and those who see a pharmaceutical company plot behind every drug, device or genetically altered seed. Few of these skeptics have any sound evidence to offer on behalf of their distrust. Often their opposition is based more on ideology or politics than it is solid evidence for doubt.
But, that does not mean that biomedical science should ignore problems that do undermine public trust in what they have to say. One of the most important and disturbing is fraud.
A study published Monday in the very trustworthy journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that fraud is a real problem in scientific publications. This study is both a reason for concern and, ironically, a reason to trust what scientists and doctors say.
The study reviewed 2,047 retracted biomedical and life-science research articles dating back to 1973 and found that the biggest reason for their retraction wasn't honest error but fraud. More than 40 percent of the retractions were due to the discovery of outright fraud and another 23 percent to plagiarism. The rate of retractions of published articles, while a tiny percentage of all papers published in biomedical journals — 2,000 out of tens of millions published in the past four decades -- is growing. The rate has jumped 10 fold in the past 37 years.”
http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/01/14...
COMMENTS:
Note this key point from the text:“The study reviewed 2,047 retracted biomedical and life-science research articles dating back to 1973 and found that the biggest reason for their retraction wasn't honest error but fraud.”
The key word there is “fraud.”
I notice that you seem to enjoy posting about bad science, or more accurately, naughty scientists.

Why is this? Does this somehow support your position that there is a God? It seems that you feel, that if you can post a bunch of stuff about scientific fraud, that this somehow weakens the atheist position. Please correct me if I am wong. Please bear in mind that the atheist position has nothing explicitly to do with science, but rather a disbelief or lack of belief in a god. So why would your posts about scientific fraud weaken that?

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#2821 Oct 10, 2012
Anzu is whispering in his ear keeping the truth away from him! Lol :))
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is that your god is dying in the light of reason. He wasn't crucified. He was mortally wounded in the Garden and has been dying ever since he peeked over the edge of his cloud at Adam and Eve eating from the tree of knowledge, fell to earth, and was impaled by the largest and sharpest branch on that tree.
Did you know that Gehenna was a trash heap? When your god is done twitching, he will be added to the trash heap of forgotten and unloved gods with Odin and Zeus like so much refuse from man's dark past. Nobody alive at that time will mourn him any more than they do Gilgamesh or Marduk today.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#2822 Oct 10, 2012
The laughing atheist wrote:
<quoted text>
"“A person's religion is the sum total of his beliefs about God and the supernatural."
Do you believe in astrology? How about ghosts? Magic? I will assume you do not.
Does this mean that your non-belief in those things constitutes a religion?
The laughing atheist - or is it the laughable atheist?

You're new here, aren't you?

Thank you for joining our close knit little group.

I guess you'll need to present whatever grievance(s) you have about your religion to the courts, since they've already decided the issue you're unhappy about, lol.(You were overruled....)

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
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 13 min Dave Nelson 230,977
Heaven 1 hr _Bad Company 43
Our world came from nothing? 4 hr Carchar king 1,104
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 6 hr fadu singh 23,043
Former Atheist Academic Who Rejected God and Be... 13 hr Hooogle It 77
Evidence for God! 18 hr Uncle Sam 43
Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) Thu Ooogah Boogah 14,391

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE