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

#7278 Nov 29, 2012
derek4 wrote:
Great scientists from the past

C.S. Lewis showed the very strong connection between the development of modern scientific thought and the belief the scientists held in a Creator (Lawgiver).“Men become scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.”
Like the rest of your church, CS Lewis has no standing in the scientific debate.

Besides, even in his own field, Lewis was a hack. Check out this quotation from him:

“All I am in private life is a literary critic and historian, that’s my job ... And I’m prepared to say on that basis if anyone thinks the Gospels are either legends or novels, then that person is simply showing his incompetence as a literary critic."

Really? I mean, really?? Anybody who disagrees with him that a magical story is factual or not is incompetent as a literary critic? How arrogant is that?

First, I don't need to be a literary critic to determine that the bible is mythological. It's self-contradictory. Being familiar with the law of noncontradiction will suffice.

Second, the man is talking about a grossly subjective area - literary criticism. It is the verbal analog of art or movie criticism. There are no facts, just opinions. That comment from Lewis is tantamount to Leonard Malkin or Roger Ebert saying that anybody who doubts one of their judgments is incompetent to judge movies.

So, then - is this a man of judgment that I should respect, and whose opinions I should highly regard? No. That was a petulant and impetuous comment, not the words of a seasoned intellect. As I noted, Lewis was a hack with a religious agenda.

And after trying to pull rank as a critic and undermine the opinions of noncritics, now you offer his opinions on science, and even call him a great scientist? GTFOOH.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#7279 Nov 29, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Your nuts. I was quoting Einstein who claimed anything traveling faster then light would be pure energy.
Wikipedia
Faster-than-light
"Faster than the speed of light" redirects here. For other uses, see Faster than the speed of light (disambiguation).
Faster-than-light (also superluminal or FTL) communications and travel refer to the propagation of information or matter faster than the speed of light. Under the special theory of relativity, a particle (that has rest mass) with subluminal velocity needs infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light, although special relativity does not forbid the existence of particles that travel faster than light at all times (tachyons).
As far as fact checking for get it. I'm not submitting papers to be published I'm chatting on a chat board. I'll quote articles in reference to support what I'm talking about.

That's what I was respond to. Not your quote.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#7280 Nov 29, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes that was retracted however the same experiment was successful between Chicago and Sudan Minnesota. But no I don't spend hours checking the back ground of an article.
If I'm talking about something and need some backing up I google it and read it to find what I was looking for to backing up my memory of what I was taught in my years of education. I don't have all my classes recoded and I know long have my school books so I find what I'm look for on the web.
So you're going to sit there and claim you research each and every article you read. You really going to claim that?
If I am trying to make an important point with it, yes. It opens me up to a lot of criticism if I post something that has been debunked a long time ago. Especially in the case of fantastic claims - like the faster than light neutrino in question - I would make doubly sure that my source was legit.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#7281 Nov 29, 2012
derek4 wrote:
[“Isaac Newton, Johann Kepler, Blasie Pascal, Galileo, Michael Faraday, Samuel Morse, George Washington Carver, Gregor Mendel and Louis Pasteur were all scientists who believed in the Biblical Theory of Evolution.” And there are many other scientists, as well, who do not accept the godless theory of Darwin.]
Samuel Morse LOL. He's an inventor. Where's Ron "Set it and forget it" Popeil's name? What's his opinion of evolution?


You make the case for modern science and naturalism by presenting this list of fossils to contradict it. The great scientists of this century like Hawking and Venter disagree. They know more.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#7282 Nov 30, 2012
derek4 wrote:
“Isaac Newton [and] Gregor Mendel ... were all scientists who believed in the Biblical Theory of Evolution.”
There is no biblical theory of evolution. There is just a debunked creation myth.
derek4 wrote:
Re-posting:

There are several cases of scientific misconduct that has hit the media since the 1980’s ...Take a look at these examples:

"Isaac Newton may have adjusted calculations to fit observations."

"Gregor Mendel's results with pea plants were cleaner than what is observed experimentally, indicating that he might have changed the data."
What is wrong with you, Dim? Do you even read this bilge water that you fetch for us?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#7283 Nov 30, 2012
KJV wrote:
Dude it was just a joke.
No it wasn't. It was a cheap personal shot. And you repeated it for emphasis.

Don't sweat it. Unfortunately, I'm used to it. You are what you are. I'm just disappointed.

I really detest your church, and this is one of the many reasons why. I hate what it does to people. It doesn't care about you or me, just itself. It has somehow recruited you in its defense, and you have dutifully played your part. So be it.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#7284 Nov 30, 2012
KJV wrote:
In other words I know you did go down there to hide.
How would you know that even if it were the case? Is this also a joke?

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#7285 Nov 30, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Aw, are you out of insults again? You need something to boost your creativity, or your intellect, but I think your intellect is too far gone to improve it.
As if the pathetic parroting you practice is intellect?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#7286 Nov 30, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know how the universe started but you have done enough investigation to know how it could not have happened?
What I know. The universe was not created in 6 literal days 6000 years ago. The Genesis creation account is wrong. The garden of eden did not exist, and fall of man did not happen. A global flood is based on earlier myth. The basis for Christianity is false. This we know as facts.

As to what started the big bang, I am open minded. But the liklihood is that things started out simple and got increasing complex. To start out with an infinitely complex designer goes against, how we think the universe evolved, and how life evolved.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#7287 Nov 30, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
You're out of date on this one. You might try a little fact checking some time.
KJV wrote:
This was in response to dark matter vs dark energy. And if something was able to travel faster then light how could it be matter and not pure energy.
I don't think so. But even so, what difference would that make? It was still wrong.
KJV wrote:
As far as fact checking for get it. I'm not submitting papers to be published I'm chatting on a chat board. I'll quote articles in reference to support what I'm talking about.
Yes, I know. And others will do the fact checking for you, and identify your errors.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#7288 Nov 30, 2012
KJV wrote:
that joke was nothing compared with some of the very nasty joke you've partaken in about the God that I believe in.
Are you that god? If not, then it isn't analogous or relevant.

You have come by choice to a place in cyberspace where unbelievers come to express our opinions. Many of us have no other safe place to do so.

Christians join in. That's fine. But you have no right to expect that your mythology will be respected here, and no right to retaliate on behalf of your god when they are not. Unbelievers joking about your god does not justify personal attacks. Your cherished beliefs mean nothing to unbelievers, which is the whole point of trying to get your church out of our lives.

I do understand, however. You're not used to these opinions, and you are shocked and offended that people that hold them can now express them.

In the past, Christians could retaliate as they pleased, with the iron maiden or the stake and match at one time. Now you're reduced to keying our cars, boycotting our businesses, harassing our children and executing our pets in meat space, and to cheap personal shots here on the Internet.

We no longer have to sit for it. You might want to reevaluate your attitude and consider that in the future.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#7289 Nov 30, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Those are the European set. the Chicago, Sudan Minnesota has detected neutrino sent from Chicago and detected in Minnesota. And as theorized the neutrino did so called changed flavors some where between Chicago and Minnesota.
I never heard of any errors on the Minnesota's detector.
Yes, neutrinos change flavors. That's the solution to the solar neutrino problem and part of the evidence that neutrinos have mass. Soudan detects neutrinos made at Fermilab.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#7290 Nov 30, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Your nuts. I was quoting Einstein who claimed anything traveling faster then light would be pure energy.
No, he did not claim this.
Wikipedia
Faster-than-light
"Faster than the speed of light" redirects here. For other uses, see Faster than the speed of light (disambiguation).
Faster-than-light (also superluminal or FTL) communications and travel refer to the propagation of information or matter faster than the speed of light. Under the special theory of relativity, a particle (that has rest mass) with subluminal velocity needs infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light, although special relativity does not forbid the existence of particles that travel faster than light at all times (tachyons).
Although tachyons cause other problems, such as lack of causality and the ability to go backwards in time. Tachyonic states are typically considered a sign of a sick theory.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#7291 Nov 30, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
As to the first part you wrote, I already addressed it correctly, so this will not be readdressed.
As to the last part you wrote: So only those with biology backgrounds can deny evolution? Then all atheists have biology backgrounds?
All scientists who dispute evolution must be biologists?
Let's put it this way. I trust the opinion of someone who has studied a subject and actually looked at the evidence professionally more than someone who has not. Maxwell did nothing that was relevant to the theory of evolution. If he studied it, he did not do so in depth or with the evidence that has been found over the last century and a half. So his opinions are irrelevant.

Planck's opinions on theology had no impact on his science, or vice versa. So his theism was simply his opinion, not a professional viewpoint.
Are you a biological scientist? If not, then you're not qualified to have an opinion.
But I have studied these things and converse with biologists about them.
So you're saying every biological scientist on the planet supports the theory of evolution. I didn't see your link supporting that.
Most scientists in biology do, in fact, support evolution.
Besides - scientists in other specialties aren't qualified to accept evolution or deny it?
Unless they have actually studied the subject and the evidence, their opinion counts very little.
All doctors who prescribe medications for skin diseases must be dermatologists?
No, but I would trust the opinion of a dermatologist above that of a doctor untrained in skin conditions.
All people who know math must be algebra teachers?
Wrong implication. All people who are algebra teachers should know math. At the very least, they should have taken calculus.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#7292 Nov 30, 2012
derek4 wrote:
“Louis Pasteur (1822 - 1895), the father of antibiotics was a godly Catholic; Gregor Mendel (1822-!884), the discoverer of genes was a Catholic creationist; Joseph Lister (1827 - 1912), the father of antiseptics was a devout Quaker; Michael Faraday (1791 - 1857), discoverer of electromagnetic induction was a Sandemanian Presbyterian; George Washington Carver (1864 - 1963), a famous black scientist, and one of the greatest botanists and inventors to ever live was a god-worshipping Christian; Wernher von Braun (1912 - 1977), the father of rocket science was a Christian and a Creationist; Max Planck (1858 - 1947), a great physicist, was a Christian who firmly believed that God permeated everything; Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) was a God- believing Jew who also loved the New Testament; Antoine Henri Becquerel (1852 – 1908), the discoverer of radioactivity was a Catholic; and tens of thousands of other contributors to science and technology believed in God. Where would technology be today if it were not for Louis Pasteur, Gregor Mendel, Joseph Lister, George Washington Carver, Werner von Braun, Max Planck, Albert Einstein and thousands of other famous Intelligent Design - believing scientists and their religious beliefs? If these scientists had been taught evolution and atheism in our public schools, what would have happened to their intense belief in an Intelligent Designer that caused them to inquire how things work?”
http://www.intelligentdesigntheory.info/famou...
What makes you think it was their belief in God that drove their curiosity? I know for a fact that your information about Einstein is incorrect. He did not believe in a personal God; his idea was closer to that of Spinoza: that God is the laws of the universe.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#7293 Nov 30, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
This was in response to dark matter vs dark energy. And if something was able to travel faster then light how could it be matter and not pure energy.
Tachyons are not 'pure energy', even in those (faulty) theories that have them.
As far as fact checking for get it. I'm not submitting papers to be published I'm chatting on a chat board. I'll quote articles in reference to support what I'm talking about.
It's still a good idea to make sure those articles are accurate. It boils down to a little thing called honesty.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#7294 Nov 30, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's put it this way. I trust the opinion of someone who has studied a subject and actually looked at the evidence professionally more than someone who has not. Maxwell did nothing that was relevant to the theory of evolution. If he studied it, he did not do so in depth or with the evidence that has been found over the last century and a half. So his opinions are irrelevant.
Planck's opinions on theology had no impact on his science, or vice versa. So his theism was simply his opinion, not a professional viewpoint.
<quoted text>
But I have studied these things and converse with biologists about them.
<quoted text>
Most scientists in biology do, in fact, support evolution.
<quoted text>
Unless they have actually studied the subject and the evidence, their opinion counts very little.
<quoted text>
No, but I would trust the opinion of a dermatologist above that of a doctor untrained in skin conditions.
<quoted text>
Wrong implication. All people who are algebra teachers should know math. At the very least, they should have taken calculus.
You're not a biological scientist, so by your own reasoning, your views are just as discredited as you discredit views of scientists in other fields. That leaves you with no points.

I hardly think you are qualified to discredit scientists based on your personal opinions of them or their belief in God or lack thereof. That is not the basis of knowledge.

You're simply an unknown poster in a forum. While yuou have the right to any opinion you choose, it carries no weight as to the abilities, knowledge, and credibility of scientists you happen to disagree with.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#7295 Nov 30, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text> Fixed it for you, spam bot - that's what dishonest, ungodly atheists like me do.
Fixed yours too. Have a good day.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#7296 Nov 30, 2012
From a FORMER atheist:

So you're an atheist. Mazel Tov, at least you aren't wishy washy. As a former atheist myself, I won't condemn you. How could I? Some atheists think they've taken a heroic stand, but could it be that they really don't want to face up to the possibility that God is indeed there? I hope you'll be intellectually honest enough to consider what I have to say and see if it makes sense.

No one who has prejudged an issue can be convinced of anything contrary to what he wants to believe. There are still those who insist the earth is flat and no one can convince them otherwise, no matter what the evidence. There are always folks, no matter if religious or atheistic, who stubbornly believe what they prefer, no matter if reason and fact show otherwise. Someone like this has the unspoken philosophy: Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is already made up. Ask yourself: Am I open-minded or narrow minded? Am I willing to change my mind if I can be shown atheism doesn't make sense?

You might say, If God is there, let him prove it to me. I don't want to take an irrational leap of faith. Fine. In Isaiah 2:18 God says: come let us reason together. He wants us to reason and He certainly wants us to be be rational, but He will not submit himself to human scrutiny; to do so he would need to stop being God! He will not bow to our perverse judgements. Ask yourself, Would I ever be willing to believe God is there, however strong the evidence? You see, your problem may not be in your head as much as in your heart. Perhaps you've already taken a leap of faith. To assert God cannot exist, despite the impossibility of proving that statement, is the ultimate irrational leap!1

THE IRRATIONALITY OF ATHEISM

Atheism tends to exalt reason, but it is actually irrational. Atheists tend to put a lot of stock in the emperical method and in logic. One cannot disprove God exists using the emperical method. You might reply: But I can't disprove a giant purple frog on Mars controls the universe, either. Granted, one can never disprove any given thing exists. The atheistic position denying God's existence, if based on the emperical method, is absurd. Why do I say that? In order to prove the assertion No God exists experimentally, one would need to comprehensively know all of reality. Comprehensive knowledge of reality is called omniscience. One would need to be omniscient in order to prove there is no God, but if one were omniscient one would, by definition, already be God!”

continued:
http://www.chaim.org/atheist.htm

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#7297 Nov 30, 2012
I Don't Believe In Atheists!

“I think people who say they are atheists are some of the most ardent believers in God on the planet. They show it by their preoccupation with trying to disprove His existence, all the while, they just don't like the way God does things. If they were honest they would admit that they believe in God and they don't like him... they may in fact hate Him and anyone who professes to love this God whom they despise. They feel if they were God, they would do a much better job of running the planet. They would not have a world with suffering, death, and evil. Seeing those things in the world frustrates them. They want to believe that God would never allow those things to exist if He really existed and really was good and really was in control of the earth. And they tell themselves and others, that if He did exist, they would not want Him to be their God. They don't want to consider that they are responsible for the sin in their own hearts and that they can't blame God for it. Their pride and self-righteousness causes them to sit in judgment of others and of God Almighty, and it comforts their hypocritical hearts to do so.”
http://comingintheclouds.org/atheism/atheists...

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) 5 min waaasssuuup 228,544
Our world came from nothing? 27 min Andre 683
Another week, another atheist demands we call h... 1 hr Patrick 5
The Ultimate Evidence of God (Mar '14) 3 hr Patrick 140
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 4 hr Patrick 150
Is Religion Childish? 6 hr Patrick 3
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 7 hr _Bad Company 22,919

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE