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

#6729 Nov 25, 2012
Khatru wrote:
I see. I guess your god has a foreskin.
Jehovah doesn't, but Jesus did, hence, "My God! My God! Why hast thou foreskinned me?" It was a legitimate question, although I think it was misheard.

If the prepuce is the foreskin, what's the aftskin? The nut sack? The taint? That's also a legitimate question.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#6730 Nov 25, 2012
Khatru wrote:
Yes, I can imagine it being a great thing to have.
I think I'll get it myself.
I doubt that you will regret it.

And thanks for all of the flattering adjectives: panache and aplomb. Great words!

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#6731 Nov 25, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Jehovah doesn't, but Jesus did, hence, "My God! My God! Why hast thou foreskinned me?" It was a legitimate question, although I think it was misheard.
If the prepuce is the foreskin, what's the aftskin? The nut sack? The taint? That's also a legitimate question.
What a hoot.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#6732 Nov 25, 2012
derek4 wrote:
Richard Dawkins doesn't like your kind, lol. I go by what Richard says about you and your cohorts in ignorance. Let's look at that again..........Richard says,“Atheists always take negative proof against a religion as positive proof for themselves, but this is both lazy and false.”
You're a liar. This claim is false, and you've been told so. What Dawkins doesn't like is your kind.

Let's Google this quotation and see who really said it:

http://lmgtfy.com/...

Lookie there! Just one hit, and it's not by Dawkins. It's about him.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#6733 Nov 25, 2012
derek4 wrote:
Darwinism Error
The December 12, 2005 issue of Newsweek International magazine carried an article titled “Evolution of a Scientist.” Written by Jerry Adler, the article concerned an exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, about Darwin’s life and influence. The exhibit will display Darwin’s personal effects and insect specimens he had collected. Then it will begin an international museum tour that will come to an end in London in 2009, the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin’s book, after traveling to such cities as Boston, Chicago and Toronto. The article was full of praise for Darwin’s ideas. Adler rightly explained that the ideas of such figures as Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx, among those who shaped the intellectual history of the last century, were increasingly weakening, but wrongly asserted that Darwin remained as an intellectual challenge.
However, Adler is actually mistaken because of his Darwinist preconceptions. In terms of its so-called “intellectual” strength, Darwinism is actually traveling in exactly the same direction as Marxism and Freudianism. Darwinism is headed where these two outmoded forms of thought have already been consigned: the waste bin of intellectual history.
As Denyse O’Leary, a Toronto journalist and award-winning science writer observes:
The controversy over the origin of life was supposed to have been settled in the 1950s by the tidy doctrine of Darwinian evolution. Now, Darwin seems to be going the way of Marx and Freud... Far from supporting an atheistic, meaningless universe, the evidence supports a universe that is bursting with design.
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/index.php...
[LMAO -“controversy over the origin of life was supposed to have been settled in the 1950s by the tidy doctrine of Darwinian evolution.” Nope – nothing was “settled, lol.]
What a hoot. And not in a good way, Dim.
KJV

United States

#6734 Nov 25, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>Hi Nikki. Always nice to see you in the forum. How was your day?

Do most teachers have good memories? Let's see if you can remember this:

How many times have I posted that I do not read long boring atheist posts? You spend all that time breaking down website material and responding to one segment at a time for nothing, because I don't read it. I don't know you, therefore, to me you have zero credibility.

If you are posting so that other atheists can simply agree with you, then why bother?(It's like “preaching to the choir”) They would agree with anything you wrote, whether it was one line or 82, lol. And the Christians won't agree with you regardless.

Just a reminder to everyone , lol - I have often stated that should you have any concerns about the content of a webpage I've posted, you should address your concerns with the publisher of the page not me, since I have no interest in your opinion of the material, lol.

I also have zero interest in whether or not you read anything I post, or any link I post. I only post from sources I recognize – if I agree with them, I say so at the end, if I don't, I usually mention that as well. Read it or skip it, makes me no difference.

And - I have no obligation to reply to anything nor do I care if anyone replies to me. It is very unusual for me to read more than 5 posts from atheists on any one day. I pick one here and there, and sometimes reply to it, other times it's not worth my time, since their opinions have no value.

FYI, I am skipping 3 full pages (about 60) posts tonight and going directly to the last page since I am busy and don't have time for atheists' trite unsupported remarks and opinions.

LMAO
You know every time I see this post I LMAO. Here's to keeping it real.
Good job dude.
KJV

United States

#6735 Nov 25, 2012
derek4 wrote:
“The most oppressive and human-killing regime's have been when Atheists have taken over governments. Nevertheless, atheists claim that people of faith are to blame for mass amounts of people's lives being taken. This is not based on facts. In the past century, Atheism forced its beliefs on people of faith or simply slaughtered hundreds of millions of them.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =RO6jTPA7UioXX

[“Atheism forced its beliefs on people of faith or simply slaughtered hundreds of millions of them.” It's the atheists who dictate beliefs.]
Saving this one for use later.
KJV

United States

#6736 Nov 25, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>No, you just proved you don't know any math above first grade.
Ok KK

Give me the value of Pi using only whole numbers.

Idiot!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#6737 Nov 25, 2012
derek4 wrote:
Time to take a second look at science fraud, my favorite topic.
Wasn't your last post "Dim fraud"? Shouldn't that be a topic of even greater interest to you, or are you beyond caring? Have nothing more left of your erstwhile dignity than just its tattered remnants?
KJV

United States

#6738 Nov 25, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>No, you just proved you don't know any math above first grade.
You do know what a whole number is right?

You do know what it means to round off?

All the rules involved in rounding off?

I know this is all kiddy stuff but you do seem to be perplexed by them.

What an idiot.
KJV

United States

#6739 Nov 25, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>There must be one somewhere.
So you believe there is a empty box?

Completely empty?

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#6740 Nov 25, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a liar. This claim is false, and you've been told so. What Dawkins doesn't like is your kind.
Let's Google this quotation and see who really said it:
http://lmgtfy.com/...
Lookie there! Just one hit, and it's not by Dawkins. It's about him.
Is he lying for Jesus again?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#6741 Nov 25, 2012
derek4 wrote:
“Nearly three-quarters of ... retracted drug studies were attributed to scientific misconduct, he said, "which includes data falsification or fabrication, questionable veracity, unethical author conduct, or plagiarism."
That's you, Dim - unethical author conduct. You're a shameless liar. You continue the lie even after being exposed for the fraud.
KJV

United States

#6742 Nov 25, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>But that is the non-sinister meaning of cult, as in "Rocky Horror Picture Show" was a cult classic:

"Few movies have had such an impact on society and culture as the 1975 musical "The Rocky Horror Picture Show." While not initially successful, the movie quickly became a cult classic with a massive number of fans attending midnight screenings, dressing up in costume, throwing props at the screen and yelling at the movie."
http://wvgazette.com/Entertainment/FlipSide/2...

You're hardly making a case against evolutionary science using this definition.
I quite aware of The Rocky Horror Picture Show. A bunch of people play dress up and go see a very sick movie.
Not unlike a bunch of people playing dress up and going to university's and looking at 6000 year old bones.
KJV

United States

#6743 Nov 25, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>Why not?

Derek has already demonstrated on numerous occasions that he doesn't understand his own cut and paste jobs. That's why he (and you) never engage in further discussion when they're constantly torn apart by IANS.
Is IANS your champion?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#6744 Nov 25, 2012
derek4 wrote:
how many more black marks can corrupt science stand?
There is no such thing as corrupt science, just corrupt scientists. They are always outed and discredited by science's vetting procedure.
derek4 wrote:
Where are the peer groups? Oh, wait – they're fraudulent too, LMAO...
You wouldn't know about the corrupt science without the scientific vetting process, would you, Dim? No, you wouldn't. Science polices itself, unlike you.

The only fraud here is yours, such as in repeatedly trotting out this obviously false claim about scientific integrity, and such as your heinous and now definitely deliberate lying about Dawkins.

Who will provide peer review of you, Dim? You're not my peer, but until other fundies step up to police their own like the scientists do, I'll be glad to fill in for your peers.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#6745 Nov 25, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>Except that very few of us make that claim.

I am an atheist. Yet I don't take the stance you say atheists take.

I say that the Judeo-Christian god - "God" to some - doesn't exist, but I don't say that about gods in general. Yet I am an atheist, and an agnostic one for all but the few gods that I can rule out.

I agree with you that people can't know whether gods exist or not, and that saying that none do is going a bit beyond what is possible, and as such, constitutes a tiny leap of faith. That is a bit religious in nature, although not enough to warrant the name "religion."

Believing the opposite, however - that a god definitely exists - is a HUGE leap of faith, and does constitute a religion, especially once you give it a name, describe its qualities, and put words in its mouth.
Your explanation couldn't possibly be clearer or more concise, yet they will prattle on relentlessly about our "religion".

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#6746 Nov 25, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>Is IANS your champion?
I don't know about khatru, or "champion", but IANS can speak for me here anytime.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#6747 Nov 25, 2012
Chess Jurist wrote:
What a hoot. And not in a good way, Dim.
Thanks to you and Khatru for adopting that name.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#6748 Nov 25, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Is IANS your champion?
Envy much?

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
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 min thetruth 14,712
why? 9 min thetruth 60
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 3 hr Mikko 1,501
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 3 hr Mikko 23,494
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 8 hr Aura Mytha 234,702
Our world came from nothing? (Jul '14) 9 hr NoahLovesU 1,259
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 11 hr woodtick57 2,848
More from around the web