Don't dictate beliefs

Don't dictate beliefs

There are 11178 comments on the The Star Press story from Sep 5, 2012, titled Don't dictate beliefs. In it, The Star Press reports that:

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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Star Press.

KJV

United States

#6914 Nov 26, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>I don't see that.
Gravity! A speck containing all of the universe could not just start expanding.
Every law of physics would be broken.
It just could not have happened that way. And to top it off some claim it was a slow expansion. Also if this speck was a spinning Singularity if it broke apart then everything should be spinning the same way.

The Conservation of Angular Momentum tells us that in a frictionless environment, if pieces fly off a spinning object they tend to spin in the same direction
KJV

United States

#6915 Nov 26, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>That's me. I don't believe that there's a deity.

KJV wrote, "ag·nos·tic\ag-ˈ näs-tik,əg-\
noun
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"

That's me, too. I hold that the answer to the god question is currently unknowable, and might always be. I am not committed to unbelief, just to rational skepticism, which requires evidence before belief. Bill Maher said it best:

"I’m open to anything for which there is evidence. Show me a god and I will believe in him. If Jesus Christ comes down from the sky during the halftime show of this Sunday’s Super Bowl and turns all the nachos into loaves and fishes, I’ll think ...“Oh look at that, I was wrong. There he is. My bad. Praise the Lord!”

KJV wrote, "You have claimed that the ONLY god you have ruled out in believing in is the God of the Bible.( I see now you have added to that list but you have not shut the door on there bring a God of some kind) That makes you an agnostic not an atheist."

It makes me both. I'm an atheist because I don't believe in any god, and an agnostic because I don't claim to know for sure that they don't exist. Certain select gods that are self-contradictory, or whose myths contradict science and history can be ruled out. But not gods in the generic sense.

KJV wrote, ""Why is it an issue for you that I would describe myself as an atheist?"

How can one carry out any meaningful conversation with one who doesn't even use the most basic word in the discussion correctly.
"

That's not credible. We are having a meaningful discussion now. All that is necessary is that each understands what the other means by his words, even if we don't use them the same way. We're not disagreeing over what exists when we make our cases for the definition of "atheist," just what to call it. For example, I don't consider Jesus the Christ - the messiah - and could debate that language with you. But the disagreement doesn't impede our ability to progress with a discussion.
No, you are agnostic. Your door is still open to a existing deity.
Not that that's a bad thing just you haven't committed to the believe that NO deity exist what so ever case closed. So you're agnostic.
KJV

United States

#6916 Nov 26, 2012
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Always ignoring the "A", aren't you? It has meaning, but you go right ahead and pretend it doesn't. Your pretense doesn't change a damned thing for us, though. If there were no "A" involved, we would be theist. We are not theist. Got that? Not theist, it's all about the "A"!

And B-T-W in referring to the gods, we atheist are also mostly non-believers.
The dictionary does not agree with you.
Sorry but thats the truth of it.

I have showed in survey after survey and dictionary after dictionary all separate atheist from nonbelievers.
They simple are not the same thing.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#6917 Nov 26, 2012
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
lol. Brotherly love on display.
I'm not brothers with the godless.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#6918 Nov 26, 2012
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
Ten pound notes.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/71...
They are the most common note here. It features Charles Darwin, HMS Beagle, a hummingbird, and flowers under a magnifying glass, illustrating the Origin of Species.
Well, you better bow to Darwin if he's that important to you. He's nobody to me.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#6919 Nov 26, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
" You see science, which is limited to observations of interactions within the “natural” world"
Right as in the Big Bang and Macro Evolution "Observation"
"Science can only deal with physical things governed by physical laws"
Like nothing exploding and creating everything. LOL
LOL – oooohhh.......they don't like the bad news on macro evolution.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#6920 Nov 26, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Charles Darwin said,
"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." (The Origin of Species, Chapter 6)."
One of my favorite Darwin quotes. I shouldn't be skipping entire pages. I missed some of what you posted yesterday, sorry KJV – I'll just skip the godless posts, lol. Notice how they attack things simply found on the internet that were copied into the forum? Hahaha, like that's going to do any good – it's all still out there, and they think I care if they attack it? How many people in this forum – 10, 15 maybe – and they spend hours scratching each others' backs, and composing things I don't even read, while the material they protest is still read by hundreds, thousands, perhaps. Is that DUMB, or what?

Oh, and let's not forget all the Bibles the Gideons still place in motel rooms. Who will place the atheist bible, or deluded Dawkin's “God Delusion”- NO ONE......

Maybe if the atheists would get off their fat rumps and start going to their godless churches and donating, they could get some atheist bibles places somewhere.....

But let's not forget that Darwin is on the 10 pound note – is that a ticket to heaven or what?

LMAO

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#6921 Nov 26, 2012
Dawkins Debunked:

“Richard Dawkins is a famous scientist from Oxford U. and a leading atheist. He argues that there no more evidence for belief in God than for Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. He says that “faith-heads” who believe in God are “ignorant, stupid, or insane.” In this book, The God Delusion (Mariner ed., 2008), he claims to prove that religion is a “vice” based upon “indoctrination.” Belief in God, according to Dawkins, is a “delusion”:“a persistent false belief held in the face of strong, contradictory evidence”(Preface, p. 28). However, when his arguments are examined objectively, they prove to be riddled with fallacies. A fallacy is an argument which appears plausible on the surface, but which is found to rest upon false or invalid assumptions. As a single illness may involve many overlapping symptoms, the logical weaknesses in this book also involve many overlapping fallacies. Rather than prove his point Mr. Dawkins instead provides an excellent teaching tool to demonstrate logical fallacies.”

His fallcies are exposed here:
http://www.oxfordtutorials.com/Dawkins%20Debu...

[contained within: Ad ignorantium (appeal to ignorance):“fallacy assumes that because something is unknown or seems unlikely, that fact can be used as evidence against its existence. One form of this fallacy is called the argument from personal incredulity. It looks like this:“If I can’t (or refuse) to believe this, then it can’t be true.” Dawkins commits this fallacy throughout the book. In the opening chapter he asserts his “commitment to naturalism.” This means that he “believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe”(p. 35). In other words, he announces an unwillingness to believe evidence which might not support his view. This is not logical argument or scientific evidence. It’s a philosophical presupposition and statement of personal bias.”]

[Dawkins demonstrates his ignorance, and gets thoroughly “debunked”, lol.]

[“The Dawkins Delusion”]

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#6922 Nov 26, 2012
“More reasons why Dawkins should just retire: No one, it turns out, defends Darwin on the evidence.
Maybe not even Darwin?

At a blog interestingly titled,“Rationally speaking: Truth springs from argument among friends,” Massimo Pigliucci, an atheist materialist philosopher at the City University of New York, notes the difficulties of doing science when evidence doesn’t matter. He recalls,

'I talked about the pessimistic meta-induction at TAM a couple of years ago, and Richard Dawkins approached me afterwards to let me know that — clearly — the Darwinian theory is the obvious exception to the meta-induction, thus displaying a surprising amount of ignorance of both the history of biology and the current status of evolutionary theory. Cue the onslaught of incensed comments by his supporters.'

Essentially, Dawkins wants an exception for Darwinism from the rule of evidence. And that is not new. He had said that decades ago:

'My argument will be that Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life. If I am right it means that, even if there were no actual evidence in favour of the Darwinian theory (there is, of course) we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories.'— p. 287, Blind Watchmaker”(1986)

When no one was paying attention and no one realized what it meant.

None of this should be a surprise. Just recently, we covered the fact that materialist atheist Jerry Fodor became the subject of a warning in a science journal:“How Jerry Fodor slid down the slippery slope to Anti-Darwinism, and how we can avoid the same fate.”

You too can avoid the same fate – by ceasing to think and just assuming Darwinism is true.

The best part is that Darwinists will reassure you that you were never thinking anyway; only your selfish genes and entangled neurons were. You don’t have a mind. You never did. What could be better?

Aw, wake up. Slosh, slosh. Life’ll never be that easy.”
http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/more...

[So atheists don't need evidence for Darwinism... LMAO]

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#6923 Nov 26, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you kindly for your support. And yes, I think that we have found paradise here.
But pay wasn't the primary impetus to my early retirement. The entire medical environment was becoming dissatisfying.
For me, the reason to retire was amplified by the desire to emigrate. With all of the strife, bickering, and mismanagement, our American life had become much less appealing as well - even threatening. And it just wasn't practical to work abroad for a variety of reasons. So, retirement was necessary.
Even though it wasn't principally a money problem, you're correct that medicine had become unappealing by itself. Physicians are encountering increasing numbers of obstacles to providing good care, such as HMOs and the failures of the FDA to provide adequate oversight.
And we were losing autonomy, authority and respect even as liability was increasing from having to share decision making with corporations like HMOs.
Also, I had a large chronic pain practice, and prescribing opioids was becoming more dangerous to the prescribing physician as the abuse of these drugs on the street was rising, and law enforcement chose to reduce it by harassing physicians.
And there were big expenses looming, including pressure to purchase electronic medical record systems and electronic prescribing capability. I just couldn't see spending the money. That's about fifty grand and two hundred dollars a month right there.
So, the net result is that I cut my career short, which is really a shame, especially for a nation that is facing a physician shortage crisis caused by docs bailing out as fast as they can just when the demand for them is spiking from the entry of the baby boomers into Medicare age, and the thirty million or whatever newly insured Americans due to Obamacare.
For me personally, it was very lucky. I had planned to work until I dropped, which usually happens at about age eighty in my family. Instead, I left at fifty-five, and found a better life than the one I had charted for myself.
But for the nation, it's just another example of the mismanagement that was so alarming to us. It lost about twenty-five years of physician services, two people lost their jobs, and we no longer pay taxes or spend money in America. My landlord was quite unhappy about losing us, for example. That can't be good for anybody except us.
and whatever we would have contr.
You told me several years ago, how it came about that you retired early. I couldn't be happier for you, and wish you all the best.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#6924 Nov 26, 2012
Cardinal Pell shows up Richard Dawkins ignorance about Charles Darwin

“In a televised debate on Australian TV Cardinal Pell showed the depth of Richard Dawkins ignorance about the Father of Evolution, Charles Darwin. This is becoming a regular occurrence in debates between clergyman and Prof. Dawkins:

‘Charles Darwin was claimed as a theist by the cardinal, because Darwin ”couldn’t believe that the immense cosmos and all the beautiful things in the world came about either by chance or out of necessity”– a claim disputed by Professor Dawkins as ”just not true”.

Cardinal Pell won applause when he shot back:”It’s on page 92 of his autobiography. Go and have a look.”’

Here’s the excerpt from p.92-93 of Charles Darwin’s autobiography

‘Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.’
http://protectthepope.com/...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#6925 Nov 26, 2012
COMMENTARY: Richard Dawkins exposed in lies, believes we have a soul?

“In a recent exchange between Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, the famed atheist professor was exposed in flat out lying. For 11 years Rabbi Shmuley Boteach ran an organization called the L'Chaim Society, which was one of the largest student organizations in the university's history. The society hosted debates with guests such as Mikhail Gorbachev, Prof. Steven Hawking and Elie Wiesel.

Rabbi Boteach has been recognized as the most influential rabbi in North America by "Newsweek" magazine, among many others.

Dawkins publicly denied he had ever participated in debates organized by the rabbi, tried to discredit the rabbi and said his speaking style was similar to Hitler's.

This triggered a public exchange between the two, which has drawn the attention of a large international audience.

Rabbi Boteach ends up exposing Dawkins in his deliberate lies, providing video material proving the author of "The God Delusion" did indeed take part in the debates he said he didn't remember.

"Are you, perhaps, in the habit of fantasizing about debates that never took place?" writes Dawkins. "That is a particularly bold untruth. Our debate, which took place at St. Catherine's College, Oxford, on Oct. 23, 1996, attracted hundreds of students and featured, on the atheist side, Prof. Dawkins and chemistry Prof. Peter Atkins, and on the religion side, me and Prof. Keith Ward, Oxford's Regius Professor of Divinity. Student president Josh Wine was in the chair," the rabbi rebutted.

"In a vote at the end of the debate as to how many students had changed their minds after hearing the arguments, Dawkin's side was defeated and religion prevailed, which might account for his selective memory," he wrote.

Then Dawkins replies: "If we really did have a debate in St. Catherine's I am happy to apologize for forgetting it, although I don't think it is much to apologize for. I hope you will look in your heart and decide whether there is anything you should be apologizing for."

Wait, did you read this carefully? "Look into your heart??"

Richard Dawkins appeals to someone to look into their heart? Ladies and gentlemen, correct me if I'm wrong, but what heart is Dawkins talking about? Surely he doesn't mean the physical heart. Then the only 'heart' left to talk about would be the heart we all have come to recognize as the inner man, the real person on the inside of us, the immaterial reality the Bible refers to as spirit or soul. How does this tie in with the theory of evolution? If Dawkins is such an intelligent and well-argumented atheist, why doesn't he stick to his convictions all the time? Why appeal to someone to look into their 'heart', when Dawkins doesn't believe in anything that's not of material and physical reality?

Rabbi Boteach points out well that evolutionists don't believe in love. They explain 'love' as some chemical reaction of the brain, all aimed at causing people to procreate. Why talk about the heart then?

What is the heart, Mr Dawkins? Can you measure it, test in in a lab or show us some empirical evidence that 'the heart' exists? And if it doesn't, why do you use the language of people of faith who do believe in internal spiritual realities such as the soul and external spiritual realities such as God Himself?

Clearly, the professor is a hypocrite who makes himself look very humane and cultured by asking his opponent to look into their 'heart' whilst promoting his Darwinian brand of militant atheism, aimed at people of faith who find it natural to speak the language of the soul.”
http://gbmi.leaguemedia.com/BlogRetrieve.aspx...

[Yes, atheists: LOOK INTO YOUR HEART, LMAO]

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#6926 Nov 26, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
The dictionary does not agree with you.
Sorry but thats the truth of it.
I have showed in survey after survey and dictionary after dictionary all separate atheist from nonbelievers.
They simple are not the same thing.
The word "atheist" does not mean a non-believer. It means "without theism". That it is used in that sense, doesn't alter the meaning of the word.

The "A", makes it so.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#6927 Nov 26, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong. But that's nothing new.
This is from Berkeley a leader in evolution research.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/arti...
"Evolution at different scales: micro to macro
by the Understanding Evolution team
Evolution encompasses changes of vastly different scales — from something as insignificant as an increase in the frequency of the gene for dark wings in beetles from one generation to the next, to something as grand as the evolution and radiation of the dinosaur lineage. These two extremes represent classic examples of micro- and macroevolution.
Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:"
Do you feel like a fool? Well you should.
Nope, real scientists don't use those terms because it is impossible to determine a boundary, unless you have some new evidence that can demonstrate a real boundary, it's all layman terms and nothing more.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#6928 Nov 26, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
One of my favorite Darwin quotes. I shouldn't be skipping entire pages. I missed some of what you posted yesterday, sorry KJV – I'll just skip the godless posts, lol. Notice how they attack things simply found on the internet that were copied into the forum? Hahaha, like that's going to do any good – it's all still out there, and they think I care if they attack it? How many people in this forum – 10, 15 maybe – and they spend hours scratching each others' backs, and composing things I don't even read, while the material they protest is still read by hundreds, thousands, perhaps. Is that DUMB, or what?
Oh, and let's not forget all the Bibles the Gideons still place in motel rooms. Who will place the atheist bible, or deluded Dawkin's “God Delusion”- NO ONE......
Maybe if the atheists would get off their fat rumps and start going to their godless churches and donating, they could get some atheist bibles places somewhere.....
But let's not forget that Darwin is on the 10 pound note – is that a ticket to heaven or what?
LMAO
Of course your favorite is the one quote mined most often, read the rest of the paragraph:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#6929 Nov 26, 2012
derek4 wrote:
“More reasons why Dawkins should just retire: No one, it turns out, defends Darwin on the evidence.
Maybe not even Darwin?
At a blog interestingly titled,“Rationally speaking: Truth springs from argument among friends,” Massimo Pigliucci, an atheist materialist philosopher at the City University of New York, notes the difficulties of doing science when evidence doesn’t matter. He recalls,
'I talked about the pessimistic meta-induction at TAM a couple of years ago, and Richard Dawkins approached me afterwards to let me know that — clearly — the Darwinian theory is the obvious exception to the meta-induction, thus displaying a surprising amount of ignorance of both the history of biology and the current status of evolutionary theory. Cue the onslaught of incensed comments by his supporters.'
Essentially, Dawkins wants an exception for Darwinism from the rule of evidence. And that is not new. He had said that decades ago:
'My argument will be that Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life. If I am right it means that, even if there were no actual evidence in favour of the Darwinian theory (there is, of course) we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories.'— p. 287, Blind Watchmaker”(1986)
When no one was paying attention and no one realized what it meant.
None of this should be a surprise. Just recently, we covered the fact that materialist atheist Jerry Fodor became the subject of a warning in a science journal:“How Jerry Fodor slid down the slippery slope to Anti-Darwinism, and how we can avoid the same fate.”
You too can avoid the same fate – by ceasing to think and just assuming Darwinism is true.
The best part is that Darwinists will reassure you that you were never thinking anyway; only your selfish genes and entangled neurons were. You don’t have a mind. You never did. What could be better?
Aw, wake up. Slosh, slosh. Life’ll never be that easy.”
http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/more...
[So atheists don't need evidence for Darwinism... LMAO]
All you are proving is that you don't have an honest bone in your body, more quote mines, yeah, that's honest.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#6930 Nov 26, 2012
Okay, so Derek is in love with Dawkins, I don't think Dawkins would be interested, he's straight.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#6931 Nov 27, 2012
Chess Jurist wrote:
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.- Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)

Most more modern translations, recognizing the problematic nature of this passage, use words other than evil -- calamity, disaster -- as if creating disaster ain't evil.
Thanks. Filed for future reference.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#6933 Nov 27, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Then he also foresaw and created sin, sin nature, Satan, evil, and hell. That wasn't very loving.
KJV wrote:
Well lets look at that. If God created man in is own image that should include the freedom of choice if that's something God has.
Then you're agreeing that your god created sin, sin nature, Satan, evil, and hell,and then gave us freedom of choice. Don't forget leaving a forbidden tree in our garden and a talking snake to deceive the people there. Your god made those, too. One gets the idea that man was designed to sin and set up to fail and burn.
KJV wrote:
And all choices have ramifications.
That's what I'm saying. And the ramifications of the god's choices were devastating for man. I wonder why he made those choices? Did he stop loving us?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#6934 Nov 27, 2012
KJV wrote:
Man brought sin and death into the world not God.
That's impossible. Nothing is in the world that an omnipotent and omniscient god didn't foresee and want there.
KJV wrote:
He loved us enough to let go. Even when it pained him to do so.
That is not love. That is serving up souls to the devil. And he would have known it before he did it.

I wonder why you trust such a god.
KJV wrote:
God knew what choices we would make but he allowed us to make them even when it was against his wishes.
Thanks, god.

Is that what you are calling love? Wouldn't love be the kind of thing that helps us rather than leads to the torture of so many?

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
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 22 min Rosa_Winkel 245,268
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Gary Coaldigger 20,750
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 4 hr Rosa_Winkel 11,097
John 3:16 10 hr thetruth 101
Hitler was Catholic 10 hr Shizle 1
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 23 hr thetruth 14,671
Atheists and the "Moses Syndrome" Mon Shizle 23
More from around the web