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
5,781 - 5,800 of 11,175 Comments Last updated Jan 18, 2014

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#6151 Nov 18, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
lol Good one.
I want a NAO, those things look so cute, and I can install my own AI into one.
I have no doubt your own AI would be immeasurably smarter than Derek.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#6152 Nov 18, 2012
Nikki wrote:
<quoted text>
Good to see some things never change then. I kind of prefer the ones that back down eventually to the ones that stick their fingers in their ears and scream louder though.
It's nice to be back. Real life has been kicking my ass these past few years. Getting settled in as a teacher has required ridiculous amounts of effort.
It's nice to see you back.

I'm afraid you'll find that Derek's fingers are covered in earwax.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#6153 Nov 18, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Good point. Science rules, Jesus drools.
Notice that an ungrateful person like Derek can benefit as much from science as people like you and me, who appreciates and praises it. If Derek would like to see humanist ethics at work compared to his god's version, and why people like me look forward to the day that humanist values will supplant Christian in the areas where they contradict one another, they need look no further than this:
Notice that nobody wants to deny Derek or his children the benefits of science - which is the exact opposite of his god's ethics, a system of eternal reward for believers, and eternal punishment for choosing the wrong side.
Humanist ethics are much more rational and compassionate, because those are the qualities we admire in others and try to cultivate in ourselves. This particular Christian value is vengeful, vainglorious, sadistic, and a merciless, disproportionate response in the extreme.
Is there a worse exemplar of rational, compassionate ethics than that petulant, irrational, self-indulgent, unkind and unjust sky monster Jehovah?
Derek's a joke.

A few weeks back I referred to how the Bible says that the Earth is fixed and unmoving.

Although I can't remember the garbled apologetics he used to try and explain this away; I do recall how he resorted to his hated science to try and make his apologetics work.

That must have hurt him - I was glad to be here to see it.

You're absolutely correct about humanist ethics being superior to Christian ones. Furthermore, unlike the Bible, I can guarantee that humanist ethics don't contain instructions for killing people.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#6154 Nov 18, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Good to know. You might recall how fond I am of Anglicisms. I've learned a few here on Topix.
Lol

Yes, me old china, I remember you mentioning it.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#6155 Nov 18, 2012
derek4 wrote:
Atheists need to stop being so narrow minded, per this:

“If atheists are critical of religion, does it really ban them from attendance of services and brand them as hypocrites when they do attend? For me it would be a sign of broad mindedness"
Not for me. It would be a sign that I'm bored. Been there, done that, got bored, came back.
derek4 wrote:
"I see hypocricy as practising something different than what you are preaching. However, even when you preach something, you may wish to investigate what you are preaching"
Not Derek. He doesn't define hypocrisy in terms of the incongruence of words and deed. He defines hypocrisy as writing "There is no God!” on one side of a tract, and “Shame on God!" on its back:
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#6156 Nov 18, 2012
derek4 wrote:
"For example, if you do not agree with the politics of a right-wing organization, would that then make you a hypocrite to go to a gathering of that organization and listen to what its leaders have to say? Or would it make you broad minded to have enough of an open mind to investigate what they are talking about?”
Neither, if you already knew what they are talking about. What could I possibly learn of value in a church? What could a preacher know of value to me? I've been in the world and understand various aspects of it. A preacher has coasted from the start, learning nothing of value, doing nothing of value, and producing nothing of value. And if he is a Catholic priest, he knows nothing about wives and marriage, nothing about child rearing, nothing about getting or holding a job, nothing about paying a mortgage - an absolutely useless parasite on society.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#6157 Nov 18, 2012
derek4 wrote:
[Hey, atheists - are you hypocrites? Of course, lol.....now get busy practicing those Christmas carols!!!]
You're such a brain trust. The Christians sure were lucky to recruit you. You post an article that is about one topic: the idea that unbelievers participating in Christian culture is broadmindedness, not hypocrisy.

And at the end of a huge cut-and-paste, you post your single line of contribution - in brackets, as always - and show us what a dim bulb you are. You contradicted your own post when you alluded to skeptics singing Christmas carols as hypocrisy, didn't you, Dim? You didn't understand what your cut-and-paste said, did you, Dim?

[I hope you don't mind if I call you Dim. I realize that you've sworn a vow of silence with me and can't answer, so I have to decide for both of us. I kind of like the name. I hope you do as well.]

[BTW, how was church today? I went to a talk on global climate change and renewable energy sources. What did you hear about? Smitings? Begattings? Obey God? Whatever it was, I'm sure that it made you a better person.]

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#6158 Nov 18, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
http://seansturm.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/... [artist's conception of Derek being sectioned]
Lol

That particular punishment was invented by Christians.

Mind you, the "sectioned" I was referring to may well be another example of British slang.

It refers to Sections 2 & 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 which gives hospitals the right to detain people against their will for psychiatric treatment.

If you're "sectioned" it means that you're placed in a secure psychiatric unit for observation and treatment.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#6159 Nov 18, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Gosh, that was a relatively short list – I didn't count, but compared to the vast number of Christians in the world, I would expect to see a longer list, lol.
You should be a Christian and be faithful to God. Christians and fraudulent atheist scientists often fail; God doesn't.
Here's a list of an un-famous atheist hypocrite:
Khatru
(known for lying byt attending funerals “out of respect”, but having no respect – just likes to sit in the funeral and think of worms burrowing in and out of dead relatives eye sockets.)
Start doing better, Khatru – get spiritual, pray today to your moon and science god, LMAO.
Get up off your rump and go to your church. Take your checkbook.
That's chequebook.

You're right about the vast numbers of Christians; the uneducated, the gullible and the ignorant will always make up the majority.

It's always the minority who advance human thinking with new and enlightened ideas. While the majority will usually be too feeble-minded to understand them. Just look at the majority of Christians and the minority of atheists - I rest my case.

Oh yes, prayer doesn't work.

Sorry, my mistake - that's not quite right. Even you will know how those 9/11 bombers prayed to their god to ensure the success of their mission and secure their martyrdom.

Prayer certainly worked on that day. didn't it?

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#6160 Nov 18, 2012
derek4 wrote:
“Atheists are just as ethical and have as strong a moral compass as churchgoers, new research shows.”
[Like their “smut 4 smut” campaign?- Does that reflect their “strong moral compass”?]
“People who have no religion know right from wrong just as well as regular worshippers, according to the study.
The team behind the research found that most religions were similar and had a moral code which helped to organise society.
But people who did not have a religious background still appeared to have intuitive judgments of right and wrong in common with believers, according to the findings, published in the journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
Dr Marc Hauser, from Harvard University, one of the co-authors of the research, said that he and his colleagues were interested in the roots of religion and morality.“
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7189188/At...
[Ummmm – this would be the same Marc Hauser who was guilty of scientific fraud and made news big-time for it. What would he know about right and wrong?- I'm sure he knows a lot about WRONG....LMAO]
Empty words.

You're the guy who firmly believes that the idea of a father plotting to have his son killed is a beautiful thing worthy of your love and respect.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#6161 Nov 18, 2012
derek4 wrote:
dean Michael Smith confirms a university investigation found "eight instances of scientific misconduct" by Hauser. A research paper has been retracted as a result of the finding, another corrected, and a Science paper has a correction under discussion; "five other cases" were also investigated, according to the letter.
Do you understand the difference between a scientist and science, the collective? Science - the collective of scientists working independently over decades and centuries - searches for and finds all errors and frauds committed by various scientists.

This is exactly what makes science so reliable: it's vetting procedure. As you've demonstrated, it's foolproof. It's absolutely, positively reliable.

However many fraudulent scientists there have been along the way, science has weeded their work out. The remaining body of knowledge has passed the test of time. The theory of evolution is immovably fixed as a scientific truth. It cannot be overturned by any finding that is not as fantastic as a version of Last Thursdayism, or of reality being a dream - a matrix hypothesis.

Either way, your god is ruled out. Creationism - and all creationist gods like Odin, Marduk, and Jehovah with it - have been debunked by evolutionary theory, the core tenets of which have stood the test of time for a century and half.

Sorry, but your god doesn't match our universe, and has to be rejected, along with that bible. I'll know that the author of a book was the also the author of the universe when book is as impressive as the universe. Your bible is a mess.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#6162 Nov 18, 2012
Nikki wrote:
<quoted text>
At least nobody dies in the porn magazines.
<quoted text>
You're correct in saying that all Hauser's work is suspect because he commited fraud in some cases. However since there has been an official investigation that has pointed out the different instances where Hausers conduct was inappropriate I'd say there's no reason to disregard the publications that weren't implicated.
But if you still don't think that study is credible, that's fair. How about this one:
“Love thy neighbor” is preached from many a pulpit. But new research from the University of California, Berkeley, suggests that the highly religious are less motivated by compassion when helping a stranger than are atheists, agnostics and less religious people."
http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/04/30/rel...
Oh, and do you hold the bible to the same high standard? Because I'm pretty sure I can find at least one instance where that book is demostrably false, which would then make the entire text suspect...
Nice post.

The Bible is certainly erroneous in many places, it's statement that Pi = 3 being an obvious one.

It's also very true that Christians aren't motivated by love.

It's actually fear of their invisible sky pixie that drives them. The Bible is full to bursting point with scriptures telling the believers to fear their god.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#6163 Nov 18, 2012
Nikki wrote:
<quoted text>
I have attended several religious services in my life, of different religions no less. Tell me, do you often broaden your mind by sitting in a synagogue, mosque or maybe even a lecture hall?
I suppose I could 'broaden my mind' and go to church on Sunday and I could 'broaden my mind' by listening to the teachings of sharia4belgium, but I think I'll pass and watch daytime television instead. On the whole it's both more entertaining and less damaging to my mental functions.
<quoted text>
I suppose that would depend on the political party. I wouldn't say visiting racists and neonazis is particularly enlightening for example. Likewise I wouldn't want to spend my time listening to childmolesters that think it's perfectly ok to let women die as long as nobody touches the fetus.
<quoted text>
There are secular Christmas carols you know...
sharia4belgium?

Ah well, at least they get to know what hand the supreme creator being of the universe wants them to wipe their arse with.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#6164 Nov 18, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I find those comments offensive. Christian ethics don't hold a candle to humanist ethics.
<quoted text>
Yes. It is a VERY moral thing to do. Pictures of beautiful women professionally photographed make the world a slightly better place. Bibles degrade it.
<quoted text>
Nonsense. I reject almost every specifically Christian value.
Turning the other cheek is for slaves. Forsaking your parents and siblings for an ism is cultic. Meekness is NOT blessed.
Merely looking at a woman with sexual desire is NOT adultery or any kind of ethical defect. Not saving and not planning for the future are NOT virtues.
Bringing a sword instead of peace is NOT admirable. Wasting 300 dinarii on oil to anoint Jesus is NOT better than using it to feed the poor.
It is NOT OK to own slaves, let alone whip them. Disparaging mankind and "the world" is NOT a moral virtue.
==========
Humanist values are far superior to that ancient, irrational and failed ethical system. From the Affirmations of Humanism:
• We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.
• We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.
• We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.
• We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.
• We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.
• We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.
• We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.
• We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.
• We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.
• We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.
• We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.
• We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.
• We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.
Sadly for Derek, he can't find any biblical ethics that come close to these.

Oh, wait a minute, isn't there a story of how Jehovah send a couple of cuddly bears to play with some children?

That sounds nice.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#6165 Nov 18, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither, if you already knew what they are talking about. What could I possibly learn of value in a church? What could a preacher know of value to me? I've been in the world and understand various aspects of it. A preacher has coasted from the start, learning nothing of value, doing nothing of value, and producing nothing of value. And if he is a Catholic priest, he knows nothing about wives and marriage, nothing about child rearing, nothing about getting or holding a job, nothing about paying a mortgage - an absolutely useless parasite on society.
If he is a Catholic priest then he's from mainstream Christianity and representative of the vast majority of the world's Christians.

It also means that there's a strong chance he'll be familiar with rectal bleeding in altarboys.

Derek really hates the idea that his religion and his god are the product of centuries of Catholic theological gerrymandering.
Nikki

Haacht, Belgium

#6166 Nov 18, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
sharia4belgium?
The less you know about them the better. They make Derek look like a reasonable, rational human being and that takes some doing...

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#6167 Nov 18, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you understand the difference between a scientist and science, the collective? Science - the collective of scientists working independently over decades and centuries - searches for and finds all errors and frauds committed by various scientists.
This is exactly what makes science so reliable: it's vetting procedure. As you've demonstrated, it's foolproof. It's absolutely, positively reliable.
However many fraudulent scientists there have been along the way, science has weeded their work out. The remaining body of knowledge has passed the test of time. The theory of evolution is immovably fixed as a scientific truth. It cannot be overturned by any finding that is not as fantastic as a version of Last Thursdayism, or of reality being a dream - a matrix hypothesis.
Either way, your god is ruled out. Creationism - and all creationist gods like Odin, Marduk, and Jehovah with it - have been debunked by evolutionary theory, the core tenets of which have stood the test of time for a century and half.
Sorry, but your god doesn't match our universe, and has to be rejected, along with that bible. I'll know that the author of a book was the also the author of the universe when book is as impressive as the universe. Your bible is a mess.
I was trying to remember a Phil Hellenes video.

In it, Phil talks about how a famous evolutionist was once asked what hypothetical evidence it would take to disprove evolution:

"Fossil rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian Age" was his reply.

Phil then refers to the fact that here we have a scientist who has just provided creationists with something they could do to disprove evolution.

Phil then explains the lengths that creationists go to in their efforts to debunk Evolution and he mentions the usual creationist lies about human footprints next to dinosaur tracks, etc, Phil then asks the question why creationists haven't tried to fake fossilised rabbits in Pre-Cambrian rock?

The simple answer is that they don't do it because they know that the science they hate so much would prove it's a fraud.

It's nice to know that people like Derek are so confident in the strength of science that they know better than to falsify a fossilised rabbit.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#6168 Nov 18, 2012
Nikki wrote:
<quoted text>
There are secular Christmas carols you know...
Secular Christmas carols?

“carol: joyful religious song celebrating the birth of Christ.”

There are secular Christmas SONGS.

I can see your difficulties in being a teacher. LMAO

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#6169 Nov 18, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Derek's a joke.
A few weeks back I referred to how the Bible says that the Earth is fixed and unmoving.
Although I can't remember the garbled apologetics he used to try and explain this away; I do recall how he resorted to his hated science to try and make his apologetics work.
That must have hurt him - I was glad to be here to see it.
You're absolutely correct about humanist ethics being superior to Christian ones. Furthermore, unlike the Bible, I can guarantee that humanist ethics don't contain instructions for killing people.
You've made many foolish observations, haven't you Khatru? You didn't realize Noah and his family made up 100% of the population, and you stuck your foot in your mouth. That wasn't difficult for you – your mouth is enormous.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#6170 Nov 18, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
It's also very true that Christians aren't motivated by love.
Your “love” for that pore thang who passed away in your family was so touching. Worms are burrowing in and out of her / his the eye sockets as I write. But they are doing it respectfully, lol. And they're just doing what they do – as honestly as they can – they don't know how to be corrupt like you.

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Ultimate Evidence of God 13 min CunningLinguist 62
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 14 min Patrick 226,389
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 5 hr Jaimie 57
The myth of the angry atheist 6 hr _Bad Company 1
I left Creationism! Ask me anything! 7 hr Patrick 7
100% Faith Free 7 hr CunningLinguist 14
Should Uninformed Opinion Be Respected? 8 hr CunningLinguist 39
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••