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 163)

Showing posts 3,241 - 3,260 of11,195
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3410
Oct 15, 2012
 
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
I take it you're not a big reader?
Nor is he law enforcement, an educator, medical personnel, a first responder, nor in any way a part of the solution, to this growing menace to humanity.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3411
Oct 15, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
Alright, now I have to Google Michael Newdow? Is it a new dance or iPhone app?
I didn't because ........ I don't care who he is. He is irrelevant.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3413
Oct 15, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
Alright, now I have to Google Michael Newdow? Is it a new dance or iPhone app?
Naahhhh, Kitten - you don't have to do anything – we don't want you to strain yourself.

Just be the lovely lame brain you always have, and you'll do fine, lmao.

“Michael Arthur Newdow (born June 24, 1953) is an American attorney and emergency medicine physician. He is best known for his efforts to have recitations of the current version of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools in the United States declared unconstitutional because of its inclusion of the phrase "under God". He also filed and lost a lawsuit to stop the invocation prayer at President Bush's second inauguration and, most recently, he filed a lawsuit to prevent references to God and religion from being part of President Obama's inauguration.”

Newdow is an atheist and an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Newdow

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3414
Oct 15, 2012
 
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text> Well, you folks is real special...
I see you is a pickin up the lingo, sista, lol.

That sermon from Rastus was sho 'nuff good stuff wasn't it?

Yes, Lawdy!

Let's post it again fo you an all yo brothas and sistas:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3415
Oct 15, 2012
 
Hey, Serpy - here's a place you can go this Friday, 10/19 – have fun:

15 of your atheist brothers and sisters are attending. Wow, what an impressive group! FIFTEEN?- gosh, sounds like the atheists are taking over America........

“Drinking Skeptically”

Friday, October 19, 2012, 7:00 PM

Only 312 miles from “Orefield”– start early.

Kim's Kitchen, 5842 Main Street, Center Valley, PA

Look at these delights on the menu:

Vegetable Dumplings
Shrimp, Spinach, and Egg Pancakes
Lo Mein Noodles
Vegetable rice
Spicy Chicken and Beef
Dessert (Brownie's with Strawberries)
http://www.meetup.com/Lehigh-Valley-Humanists...

[Better hold off on that dessert – you have to watch your school girl figure, lol.]

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3416
Oct 15, 2012
 
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't because ........ I don't care who he is. He is irrelevant.
I concur, irrelevant. I saw the headlines and went "meh."

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3417
Oct 15, 2012
 
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't because ........ I don't care who he is. He is irrelevant.
I know you don't care, lol.

You only know who your science god is: Charles Darwin.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3418
Oct 15, 2012
 
From: Live Science:

“Why Atheists Celebrate Christmas”

found within the text:

“... the line between believing and not believing in God is not always bright. For example, in research released in June 2011 in the journal Sociology of Religion,[Elaine Howard] Ecklund and her colleagues found that about 20 percent of atheist scientists are "spiritual," if not formally religious.

In the current study, the researchers chose a sample of 275 participants pulled from a larger survey of 2,198 science faculty at 21 elite U.S. research universities. Half of the original survey sample said they were religious, while the other half were not.”
http://www.livescience.com/17289-atheists-cel...

“... about 20 percent of atheist scientists are 'spiritual,' if not formally religious.”

[Gotta love those religious atheist scientists, lol.]

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3419
Oct 15, 2012
 
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
So sad, you're lack of faith. Why can't you answer a simple question...do the answers make you uncomfortable about the foundations of your religion?
So you believe in the flood? Make your mind up, lol.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3420
Oct 15, 2012
 
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>How funny that you assign your value system to someone then designate him as my hero for having it. Put down the mirror, theist. All you can see is you.
The DI creationist needs the actual names of atheist, not the online monikers. As I said how can those faux name be used, think, think, think. It's really not that hard to do.
Your complaint seems to be with Michael Newdow, lol.

Send him an email and let him know you don't like him.

I'm sure he will be crushed.

Hey, Hedonist - your little friend and fellow religionist doesn't know who Michael Newdow is - is that the kind of people you hang out with?

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3421
Oct 15, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I concur, irrelevant. I saw the headlines and went "meh."
Yep, when your atheist brothas and sistas say something you don't like, dismiss them as "irrelevant", lol.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3422
Oct 15, 2012
 
THE FAITHFUL ATHEIST'S 3 CROSS NECKLACE

From the Heavy Red Jewelry Collection...
Style# 6396

“Even the faithless have their moments of belief. To believe in 3 is safer then one. The iconic 3 cross necklace is so aesthetically pleasing to the eye, you will certainly receive compliments all night. The 3 brushed silver crosses are perfectly placed to compliment any outfit.”

The pendant measures 2".

The chain measures 17".

Price:$48.00

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3423
Oct 15, 2012
 
oops, I forgot to give you the website where you can order "THE FAITHFUL ATHEIST'S 3 CROSS NECKLACE"

order here:

http://heavyred.com/thefaithfulatheists3cross...

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3424
Oct 15, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, when your atheist brothas and sistas say something you don't like, dismiss them as "irrelevant", lol.
Please, for the love of the internet age, learn to Google words, or buy a dictionary.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3425
Oct 15, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you believe in the flood? Make your mind up, lol.
Yawn. As you no doubt read in my previous posts, I've referred to the story of Noah and the flood as a fable.

Someone like you, however, believes it really happened, correct?

So, for the third time - did all of the babies and children in the world die a horrible drowning death in the flood?

It really is a simple question...makes you wonder why you won't answer it...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3426
Oct 15, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Please, for the love of the internet age, learn to Google words, or buy a dictionary.
Okay, sista. Lawdy, yo is right, yo sho do need to learn how to google mista Newdow, lol.

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3427
Oct 15, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Oh, and I am still waiting for those initials. "
I do believe you have me confused with somebody else. However I believe I can help you out on this.
How's this for your initials T.S.W.R.
(The serpent was right)
That wasn't to tough now was it?
I think I do have you confused with dr. who two, not that there is much of a difference.

As for the initials... LOL!!!! Well, you are correct, but I was refering to my personal name, not my username. Your god cannot give you those, because he doesn't exist.

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3428
Oct 15, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you in love with KK?
Nope

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3429
Oct 15, 2012
 
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>did all of the babies and children in the world die a horrible drowning death in the flood?
I guess it depends on whether or not there was a flood.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3430
Oct 15, 2012
 
Hedonist, this one is for you. I told you I wouldn't forget about our scientists:

From NewScientist:

Time to review peer review

“Standard lore has it that scientific results are supposed to be published in academic journals before they are even worth discussing. These publications use a "peer-review" system to determine the validity of a paper. If it's not valid in the eyes of the relevant expert community, it won't be published. It's supposed to be a way we can tell good science from bad: with the community as our judge.

That makes some sense but the ideal isn't quite a reality (at least not in my field, theoretical physics and astronomy). We are not really trusting the community; we are trusting one or two selected members of the community known as "the referees". We are trusting the editor of the journal to select referees who are competent and free from competing interests. And we are supposed to put our trust in the process despite the referees being completely anonymous - neither the author nor the reader knows who's involved.

Even if a referee believes the paper is worthy of publication, he or she can demand the author make changes. The author must respond by revising the paper to the referee's satisfaction. The paper bounces back and forth in a slow-motion game of tennis. If the author believes the referee is playing unfairly, any appeals must be made to the journal's editor. But editors rarely undermine a referee that they selected in the first place.

Assuming the work does eventually get published, the author's original intentions are hopelessly mixed up with the biases of anonymous third parties. Genuine, honest scientific disaccord is obscured by a process which is invisible to the reader.
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/bigwideworl...

[So peer review is untrustworthy.]

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 3,241 - 3,260 of11,195
|
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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••