Don't dictate beliefs

Don't dictate beliefs

There are 11177 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.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#7444 Dec 2, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Immoral judgemental scumbag.
Yep, that's what you are. LOL

Always love your comments.......thanks. Stay with us, what would we do without you?

(oh, well, we may have to get used to your absence over time, since your life span will be shorter than most people.)

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#7445 Dec 2, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Liar with no proof of god, lying about atheists and science to further his failed cult.
Hey, best friend - I just now judged your post "brilliant" "interesting" and "helpful", even though it isn't. LMAO

But what the heck - who cares, it was a cheap thrill, and I want you to have a great big bright spot in your godless day.

Hell is warming up fer 'ya.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#7446 Dec 2, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
And even though it was an honest mistake made in good faith, the leaders apparently felt that they had to fall on their swords:
"Faster-Than-Light' Neutrino Team Leaders Resign"
http://news.discovery.com/space/opera-leaders...
If only the religious had the same culture of truth.
That's why science beats religion on any day of the week.

Scientist: "The induced electromotive force in any closed circuit is equal to the negative of the time rate of change of the magnetic flux through the circuit."

Dim: "WTF do you know? You're just a scientist. Let's see what the Bible says".

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#7447 Dec 2, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Edited from http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... :
<quoted text>
Strongly disagree.
Religion is damaging to the religious. Look at the guilt and fear in them. Look at how scientifically illiterate many are. How do you compete in a technological society like that?
Look at how badly damaged Dim is. Did his religion not do that to him, or contribute significantly to that outcome?
And above a critical density, religiosity damages the culture and the rest of society as well. Look at the damage it does to America's scientific competitiveness. Look at the scapegoating of gays and atheists, both driven into closets, both having more difficult and dangerous lives because of it.
What does religion offer to offset that burden that can't be gotten without it? Nothing:
“There’s no good thing that a church or religion does that cannot be achieved by a purely secular means. And there is no positive benefit of churches and religions that necessarily demonstrates the truth of their supernatural claims.”– Matt Dillahunty.
According to Dim's religion, sickness and disease were caused by demons and medicines produced by men would not provide a cure.

If you fell sick, you didn't get to see a doctor, instead you got a priest with his ju-ju of bones and holy water.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#7448 Dec 2, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes they found their errors and admitted they found the goof. And went back to work.
Evolutionist need to take a page from this. Evolution has never been proven (macro evolution) that is.
On the contrary, it was the evidence that lead people to consider evolution in the first place. The alternatives in the early 1800's were what is now known as Creationism and another view called Catastrophism. Both were shown wrong by the fossil and geological evidence. Darwin came a bit later and proposed a *mechanism* for evolution. This was modified in the 1950's to take advantage of the knowledge of genetics that had grown since Darwin's time. Now, we are studying the detailed mechanisms of evolution at the gene level.

The point? The evidence showed 200 years ago that the Creationist view was wrong. The evidence since then has only grown to show that evolution happens and the details of how it happens. It is way, way past time for the Biblical literalists to admit they are wrong and adapt to the real world.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#7449 Dec 2, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's another stealth Christian from Dim.
<quoted text>
What need? It's a service. Religion needs denigrating. And to you religious folks, denigrating means "putting down."
<quoted text>
Sorry, Dim, but what you have here is a stealth Christian. Hate is a Christian value. You people come by it honestly.
THE HATREDS OF JEHOVAH
[1] Deuteronomy 12:31 - "... they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates."
[2] Deuteronomy 16:22 - "and do not erect a sacred stone, for these the LORD your God hates."
[3] Psalm 11:5 - "The LORD examines the righteous, but the wicked, those who love violence, he hates with a passion."
[4] Proverbs 6:16 - "There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him"
[5] Ecclesiastes 3:8 - "a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace."
[6] Amos 5:21 -“I hate, I despise your religious festivals; your assemblies are a stench to me."
[7] Zechariah 8:17 - "do not plot evil against each other, and do not love to swear falsely. I hate all this,” declares the LORD."
[8] Luke 14:26 -“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.
[9] Romans 9:13 - "Just as it is written:“Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
Such seething hatred, which xtians will no doubt interpret as transcendent love. Of course, you're hardly scratching the surface here and the murderous hatred of Jehovah is found throughout the Bible.

I wonder what xtians would think if humanist manifestos contained instructions to hate and kill people.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#7450 Dec 2, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
On the contrary, it was the evidence that lead people to consider evolution in the first place. The alternatives in the early 1800's were what is now known as Creationism and another view called Catastrophism. Both were shown wrong by the fossil and geological evidence. Darwin came a bit later and proposed a *mechanism* for evolution. This was modified in the 1950's to take advantage of the knowledge of genetics that had grown since Darwin's time. Now, we are studying the detailed mechanisms of evolution at the gene level.
The point? The evidence showed 200 years ago that the Creationist view was wrong. The evidence since then has only grown to show that evolution happens and the details of how it happens. It is way, way past time for the Biblical literalists to admit they are wrong and adapt to the real world.
The trouble that Dim, KJV, etc, have got is that their creationist doctrine only works for them when it's their god that's doing the creating.

Their belief falls apart if they start accepting that the creator was Brahma or perhaps the Great Dreamtime Snake of the Australian Aborigines.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#7451 Dec 2, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
All religions are cults and all cults thrive on misinformation and fear. If an honest believer were to look outside of their religious teachings and learn about the real world, they would become what they were born in the first place - atheist again.
We were all born atheists. Some were captured by the church and became Christians. Some of those managed to tunnel out of that cocoon and rescue themselves. They are the truly born again.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#7452 Dec 2, 2012
derek4 wrote:
Just think, they spend all that time composing, and they're the only ones reading it.
And just think, Dim - you haven't spent even a minute composing an original thought yet, and you brag that you haven't read a thing that doesn't already agree with your biases.

Somehow, you are proud of these distinctions. So am I.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#7453 Dec 2, 2012
derek4 wrote:
how do we determine what actions are morally right and morally wrong? We discern this on the basis of a moral law: a universal sense that certain states of affairs are right and others are wrong.
Incorrect. We employ rational ethics, which combine reason and compassion to set goals and attempt to achieve them. Here's how we do it in more detail:

People decide how they would like to live. Most want to be happy as they understand it, which means that they want what it takes to achieve that state. They want to feel safe, to have enough, to feel loved, to express themselves, and to have the opportunity to pursue those things that make them happy, and to experience self-respect and the respect of others.

That means having leisure time, good health, sufficient means, the wisdom to pursue worthy the goals, and the skills to achieve them. We've learned from our own lives and from reading about the past that most of us want those things.

So how do we get it? By being rational and compassionate. No universal values exist to be plucked out the air, so we need to determine them ourselves. We decide which values embody those goals - kindness, tolerance, freedom, peace, integrity, etc - and we attempt to create rules that embody them. Some of these rules are laws, such as 'don't kill or steal' and some are customs and traditions, such as sharing and cheerfulness.

To the extent that we fail to achieve our goals, whether because of choosing wrong goal or method, we tweak our process and see if we have improved total happiness or not. This is the empirical aspect of the process. It provides the evidence that we are right here or wrong there.

Prohibition of alcohol is a good illustration. The intentions were good, but the goal of criminalizing alcohol turned out to be paradoxically counterproductive, and actually increased the misery in the world. So, using reason and compassion, prohibition was lifted. If only rationalists had access to the drug policy.

It's not surprising that you Christians cannot understand this. To those of us that have had to come to our moral positions over a lifetime of rational thought and compassion, it's quite clear how this is done.

But if someone has been involved in religion all of his life, he could no more understand this than a young boy could understand why his daddy kisses girls or would want to support one.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#7454 Dec 2, 2012
derek4 wrote:
"For example, no one could seriously argue with the statement that it is better to love a child than to torture it. The point is that there is an innate, universal sense of right and wrong within all of us.
Actually, rational ethicists had to teach you to ignore your bibles and to stop stoning your sassy children to death, and to stop selling them into slavery as well:

[1] "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ... then shall his father and his mother ... shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious ... And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die" - Deuteronomy 21:18-21

[2] "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are" - Exodus 21:7

I guess these "universal truths" aren't as universal as you thought. Apparently Jehovah didn't know them.
KJV

United States

#7455 Dec 2, 2012
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>The next time you are ill make certain to use only treatment produced by creation "science" else you are a hypocrite.
"Tipped off by a Reuters wire story, Science magazine reported last week that OPERA spokesperson Antonio Ereditato and experimental coordinator Dario Autiero have announced their resignations, following a controversial vote of "no confidence" from the collaboration’s other leaders."

LOL

Honest mistake? When why the no confidence vote?
KJV

United States

#7456 Dec 2, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>No, stop quote mining, you skipped the rest of what was written by Darwin in a lazy lie, often repeated by creatards like you. Include the rest of it, if you don't, then you are just lying. So stop lying.
What lie is this?

Wikipedia

"Charles Darwin had a non-conformist background, but attended a Church of England school.[1] With the aim of becoming a clergyman he went to the University of Cambridge for the required BA degree, which included studies of Anglican theology. He took great interest in natural history and became filled with zeal for science as defined by John Herschel, based on the natural theology of William Paley which presented the argument from divine design in nature to explain adaptation as God acting through laws of nature"

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#7457 Dec 2, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
It is way, way past time for the Biblical literalists to admit they are wrong and adapt to the real world.
Wise words which I fear are lost on the Dim crowd.

They're in with the Dim crowd (da da da )
They go where the Dim crowd goes....
KJV

United States

#7458 Dec 2, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>I'll share this one of IANS with you:

You know how you whackjobs believe that Adam was made in the image of your god?

Well, I asked whether that meant your god had a foreskin.

IANS said that we can't be sure about that but we do know that Jesus had one because he told us so himself.

When he was nailed to that cross and pretending to die, he called out....

"My god! My god! Why hast thou foreskinned me?"

This was misheard by the author of Mark who added it to his error-strewn book.

ROFLMAO!
You make a good comedian standing in front of you mirror. Keep it up!

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#7459 Dec 2, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
And just think, Dim - you haven't spent even a minute composing an original thought yet, and you brag that you haven't read a thing that doesn't already agree with your biases.
Somehow, you are proud of these distinctions. So am I.
Absolutely

When it comes to originality of thought, the non-believers are beating the Dim crowd hands down.
KJV

United States

#7460 Dec 2, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>I'll share this one of IANS with you:

You know how you whackjobs believe that Adam was made in the image of your god?

Well, I asked whether that meant your god had a foreskin.

IANS said that we can't be sure about that but we do know that Jesus had one because he told us so himself.

When he was nailed to that cross and pretending to die, he called out....

"My god! My god! Why hast thou foreskinned me?"

This was misheard by the author of Mark who added it to his error-strewn book.

ROFLMAO!
"Question: "Does Satan still have access to Heaven? Why does God allow Satan to enter Heaven, as recorded in the Bible?"

Answer: Satan was originally one of God’s holy angels, but he rebelled against God and was cast out of heaven (Luke 10:18). That was only the first stage of his judgment. Satan’s kingdom was vanquished at the cross (John 12:31-32). Later, he will be bound in the abyss for one thousand years (Revelation 20:1-3) and then will be cast into the lake of fire for eternity (Revelation 20:10).

Until his final judgment, Satan is “the prince of this world”(John 14:30), but it seems that he still has restricted access to the heavenly realms. In Job 1:6, Satan stands in the presence of God.(See 2 Chronicles 18:18-21 for a similar situation involving a “lying spirit.”)

Since God is holy and absolutely without sin (Isaiah 6:3), and since He will not even look on evil (Habakkuk 1:13), how can Satan be in heaven? The answer involves God’s sovereign restraint of sin. In Job 1, Satan stood before God to give an account of himself. God initiated the meeting, led the proceedings, and remained in absolute control (verse 7). The result was that Satan’s power was limited (verse 12) and God was glorified.

Here are some other facts to note: 1) Satan does not have open access to God’s presence. He is summoned by God. 2) The visits are temporary. His time before God’s throne is limited. 3) In no way is the purity of heaven tainted by the brief, God-ordained presence of a sinful being,“quarantined,” as it were, by God’s regulatory power. And, 4) Satan’s access is only granted prior to the final judgment. After the judgment, God creates a new heaven and new earth (Revelation 21:1), wipes away all tears from our eyes (verse 4), reveals the New Jerusalem (verse 10), and promises the complete absence of sin (verse 27).

When we say,“God cannot allow sin into heaven,” we simply mean that God cannot allow human beings who are still in their sin to live in His presence. But it is possible for God to command a sinful being to stand (temporarily) in His presence in order to commission him (Isaiah 6), to exact an account from him (Job 1-2), or to judge him (Revelation 20:11-15) without compromising His holiness.

God’s holiness will eventually consume all sin. Until that day, His holiness regulates sin, and that means that Satan, on certain occasions, is briefly summoned before his Creator to give an account of his actions."
KJV

United States

#7461 Dec 2, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>Good point.

I recall that citation from Pat Condell that you brought us, which says essentially the same thing, namely that the Christians can thank conscience, reason and compassion - the elements of the rational ethics in secular humanism - for their civilized censoring of their bible:

YOUR MORAL GUIDE
http://dotsub.com/view/e88246dd-b45e-4eca-8e8...

"Religious people often say that atheists have no morals because they have no moral guide. If you believe this, let me ask you something. If you're a Christian, chances are the Bible is your moral guide, but is that all the Bible, or just some of it?

"It's just the good bits, isn't it? The bits you've cherry-picked because obviously if you wanted to live in a Leviticus-style society where people are stoned or mutilated for insane and trivial reasons you could simply move to Iran.

"But how do you decide which are the good bits and which are the bad in the Bible? What do you use as a moral guide? The Bible? Well, surely not. If so, you would simply accept the bad along with the good, which is clearly what the Bible wants you to do otherwise the bad wouldn't be in there in the first place, would it?

"But no, you don't do that. You defy the Bible. You sift out the bad and discard it for the ignorant primitive barbarism it is. In short, you edit the Bible to suit your own sensibilities. So where do you get the moral guidance to impose your authority on the word of the Bible? It has to come from a higher source, doesn't it?(These things usually do.)

"And it does, of course. It comes from you. You are a higher source than the Bible, a much higher source. The criminals who run religion don't want you to know or to act upon this because then their influence over you would be zero.

"Yet the evidence is clear. You sifted the good from the bad in the Bible without the Bible's help. You did it against the Bible's will, and you did it all on your own because, whether you like it or not, you have a conscience, which means that you are capable of distinguishing good from evil without the help of scripture, and you have just proven it beyond any shadow of doubt.

"So, in fact, the Bible is not your moral guide. You are. It doesn't provide you with a moral compass. You do. And the only faith you need is faith in yourself. O happy day.”
Explain how morals came about through evolution?

"Created or Evolved?
Two men were seated next to each other as on an airliner along with each of their sons. During the flight, they became acquainted and were discussing their respective occupations. One man was an evolutionary biologist at a major university. The other was the pastor of a Baptist church. Eventually, they began to talk on the subject of origins, about which they shared few, if any, areas of agreement. Toward the end of the flight, the biologist's son began acting up and embarrassing his father. The biologist complained to the pastor about his own son's behavior and asked why his own son was behaving so poorly, whereas the pastor's son was a model of adult behavior. The pastor replied, "My son is descended from Adam, the perfect creation of God, whereas your son is descended from a monkey!"

Rich Deem

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#7462 Dec 2, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Question: "Does Satan still have access to Heaven? Why does God allow Satan to enter Heaven, as recorded in the Bible?"
Answer: Satan was originally one of God’s holy angels, but he rebelled against God and was cast out of heaven (Luke 10:18). That was only the first stage of his judgment. Satan’s kingdom was vanquished at the cross (John 12:31-32). Later, he will be bound in the abyss for one thousand years (Revelation 20:1-3) and then will be cast into the lake of fire for eternity (Revelation 20:10).
Until his final judgment, Satan is “the prince of this world”(John 14:30), but it seems that he still has restricted access to the heavenly realms. In Job 1:6, Satan stands in the presence of God.(See 2 Chronicles 18:18-21 for a similar situation involving a “lying spirit.”)
Since God is holy and absolutely without sin (Isaiah 6:3), and since He will not even look on evil (Habakkuk 1:13), how can Satan be in heaven? The answer involves God’s sovereign restraint of sin. In Job 1, Satan stood before God to give an account of himself. God initiated the meeting, led the proceedings, and remained in absolute control (verse 7). The result was that Satan’s power was limited (verse 12) and God was glorified.
Here are some other facts to note: 1) Satan does not have open access to God’s presence. He is summoned by God. 2) The visits are temporary. His time before God’s throne is limited. 3) In no way is the purity of heaven tainted by the brief, God-ordained presence of a sinful being,“quarantined,” as it were, by God’s regulatory power. And, 4) Satan’s access is only granted prior to the final judgment. After the judgment, God creates a new heaven and new earth (Revelation 21:1), wipes away all tears from our eyes (verse 4), reveals the New Jerusalem (verse 10), and promises the complete absence of sin (verse 27).
When we say,“God cannot allow sin into heaven,” we simply mean that God cannot allow human beings who are still in their sin to live in His presence. But it is possible for God to command a sinful being to stand (temporarily) in His presence in order to commission him (Isaiah 6), to exact an account from him (Job 1-2), or to judge him (Revelation 20:11-15) without compromising His holiness.
God’s holiness will eventually consume all sin. Until that day, His holiness regulates sin, and that means that Satan, on certain occasions, is briefly summoned before his Creator to give an account of his actions."
Here's what I said.
Khatru wrote:
As for letting sin into heaven, the Bible itself tells us that God allowed sin in.
I was right - God allowed sin into heaven.
KJV

United States

#7463 Dec 2, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>I used to like that kid.
Ya you can't like him know that he's against the filth put out by that show.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 17 min scientia potentia... 48,521
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 19 min scientia potentia... 23,498
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 3 hr JustASkeptic 11
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 9 hr Rosa_Winkel 21,866
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Sat Eagle 12 258,039
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Sat Eagle 12 4,907
Why you need to make sure you are saved before ... Fri Scaritual 14
More from around the web