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

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#7500 Dec 3, 2012
An Atheistís Sermon

Jeremy Beahan, host of the Reasonable Doubts radio show and podcast, delivers an outstanding sermon about secular humanism at All Souls Unitarian Church in Grand Rapids, MI.

To listen, click attached link which includes instructions on hearing this godless sermon.
http://thebentangle.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/...

[Enjoy!]

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#7501 Dec 3, 2012
derek4 wrote:
But is Darwinism so obviously true that no honest person could doubt it?
First, make the distinction between Darwinism and the modern theory of evolution. They theory has changed over time to incorporate genetics and molecular biology. The evidence is such that anyone who doubts the basics is clearly ignorant of the evidence.
Are alternatives like "intelligent design" so unscientific that no reasonable person could embrace them?
Yes.

There are alternatives to Darwin's original ideas: such as punctuated equilibrium as proposed by Gould and Eldrich. But these are alternative proposals for the *mechanism* of evolution as opposed to whether species do, in fact, change over geological time, which is proven.
The answer to both questions is a resounding no.
only in your dreams.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#7502 Dec 3, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Creation comes from God, no matter how you rearrange words or try to separate the two, so you've simply elaborated on your original opinion, but it remains nothing more than your opinion.
Science is incapable of proving or disproving God; science has no credible evidence for or against God.
Irrelevant to the question of whether evolution is true. Science can and does show that species change over time. it can and does show that the earth is billions and not thousands of years old. It can and does show that the universe is much older than the earth. It can and does show that the universe was once much hotter and denser than it is today and has been expanding for the last 13.7 billion years. it can and does show that there was no global flood.

If your theology can handle these facts, then I have no issue with it. I may think it wrong, but it has little effect on anything of importance to me. If, however, your theology cannot handle these facts and if it insists on using the political system to have its myths taught in public schools, I *do* have a problem with it and will fight it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#7503 Dec 3, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no debate in the scientific literature because it was settled 150 years ago. The earth is billions, not thousands of years old; species change over geological time (in other words, evolution). That you don't accept this is similar to the flat-earthers not accepting that the earth is round.
First, the earth is not round.

Second, is that your definition of evolution - "species change over geological time"?

If so, there is no controversy. I suspect you have other definitions of evolution and, as is common practice, you switch to those others when it suits your argument.

Your approach should be recognized as a deception. A back-and-forth reversion to different meanings of terms is a classic fallacious approach to argumentation. It works like this:

"Everyone accepts "evolution". Even the Pope recognizes "evolution".

"Therefore, since everyone accepts evolution, everyone knows that (substituting here a more specific and highly-charged definition) all living things came from a common biological origin by material processes".

It's a great trick. I salute your cleverness, even if it is dishonest.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#7504 Dec 3, 2012
swerty wrote:
From the onset of the Christian Europeans coming to the Americas. There is an estimate of 50 to 60 million Indians were killed by these Christians. With about another 100 to 120 million killed by smallpox brought to the Americas with the Christians.

Christopher Columbus said of the Indians "they are a people who were so friendly that all one would have to do is ask and they would give anything they have to the one asking." Columbus was a Catholic. Later Columbus said in Christ name we will kill and enslave and do whatever is necessary to take this land.

In North America the same was done all in the name of Christ. It was said that the Indians were just human animals and did not have a soul. So killing them was done in Christs name to cleans the lands of these vermin.
__________

Pure bull shit.

Your stats have Christians killing more Indians than existed.

I hear they burned a million witches, too.

You people are morons.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#7505 Dec 3, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Your god has been disproven, as has its creation myth. It's illegal to teach in publicly funded science classes in America.
Nobody is waiting for irrationalists with a stake in believing to accept the arguments. You are free to join us, or to continue to throw rocks at science from your caves. It doesn't matter.
The disproof of anyone's god lies exclusively within the minds of those to whom proof matters none at all.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#7506 Dec 3, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Many things can be ruled out just from their descriptions, such as a married bachelor, a three-sided square, and a perfect god that makes errors or that grants free will but still knows for a fact what "choices" will be made. These are logically impossible - analytically false.
I don't have to know everything to know that such things can't be found anywhere. I don't even have to get up out of my chair.
Here are some more analytically false claims:
[1] An omniscient being that grants free will
[2] A perfect being that makes mistakes or contradicts itself
[3] A perfect being needing worship
[4] A perfect being that changes its mind
[5] An omnipotent being incapable of being in the presence of sin
[6] A perfect being that creates or alters anything
[7] A non-spacial being being omnipresent
[8] An all-loving, omnipotent being that allows suffering.
[9] A perfectly just being that punishes innocents like offspring.
[10] A merciful being that damns without hope of forgiveness from hell.
[11] Anything existing, persisting, thinking or acting outside of time. Those words all imply an interval of time.
These conflicting descriptions rule out no entity whatsoever.

They simply rule out the combinations described.

And on number 11 - totally erroneous conclusion. You have not the slightest clue of what exists outside universe time - if even time itself.

It's your no-god need.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#7507 Dec 3, 2012
Meaning if they like you are brainwashed sheep facts don't mean jack.

Got it.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The disproof of anyone's god lies exclusively within the minds of those to whom proof matters none at all.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#7508 Dec 3, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Science is incapable of proving or disproving God; science has no credible evidence for or against God.
It depends what you mean by God. If you mean the god in the Bible. Genesis has been disproved. Therefore the god of the Bible disproved.

Obviously proving something that is invisible outside of nature is impossible to prove or disprove. As is a celestial teapot!!!
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#7509 Dec 3, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
..Pure bull shit...You people are morons.
The quality of christians is going downhill rapidly, lmao

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#7510 Dec 3, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
First, the earth is not round.
Yes, it is round. it is not spherical.
Second, is that your definition of evolution - "species change over geological time"?
If so, there is no controversy.
Good! There is no controversy then. Now tell that to the Creationists that think the earth is only 6000 years old and that species do not change over time.
I suspect you have other definitions of evolution and, as is common practice, you switch to those others when it suits your argument.
There are two main definitions in use: changes in allele frequency in populations over time AND changes in species over time.

I don't know what else you think evolution means.
Your approach should be recognized as a deception. A back-and-forth reversion to different meanings of terms is a classic fallacious approach to argumentation. It works like this:
"Everyone accepts "evolution". Even the Pope recognizes "evolution".
"Therefore, since everyone accepts evolution, everyone knows that (substituting here a more specific and highly-charged definition) all living things came from a common biological origin by material processes".
That is not a requirement of evolution. It is, however, a likely conclusion based on the evidence. It is not as definite as the proposition that evolution exists is.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#7511 Dec 3, 2012
You'll have to forgive buck. He spent months in a mental ward rolling on the ground, defecating, pissing himself while screaming at drug and head injury hallucinations.

Poor old fatass..
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
The quality of christians is going downhill rapidly, lmao

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#7512 Dec 3, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
You'll have to forgive buck. He spent months in a mental ward rolling on the ground, defecating, pissing himself while screaming at drug and head injury hallucinations.
Poor old fatass..
<quoted text>
Not true. I had a bed.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#7513 Dec 3, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it is round. it is not spherical.
<quoted text>
Good! There is no controversy then. Now tell that to the Creationists that think the earth is only 6000 years old and that species do not change over time.
<quoted text>
There are two main definitions in use: changes in allele frequency in populations over time AND changes in species over time.
I don't know what else you think evolution means.
<quoted text>
That is not a requirement of evolution. It is, however, a likely conclusion based on the evidence. It is not as definite as the proposition that evolution exists is.
It IS a requirement if you accept the modern neo-Darwinist framework promoted by evolutionists.

You are incorrect that there are only two definitions of evolution. It is easy to find at least 9 different definitions in today's scientific literature. When you ask "I don't know what you think evolution means", you are asking the wrong party.

Your last statement reverts right back to your fallacy - "It is not as definite as the proposition that evolution exists"

What are you saying "exists"? Oh - evolution. You said nothing.

The earth is not round. You should read some physics.

"The Earth Is Not Round"
by Launchspace Staff
Bethesda MD (SPX) Oct 19, 2010

Scientific American:
"Strange but True: Earth Is Not Round"

And to reiterate, no infinite quantity exists, and none can exist.

Welcome back to school, Plymouth.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#7514 Dec 3, 2012
Reverend Solomon Stoddard, one of New England's most esteemed religious leaders, in "1703 formally proposed to the Massachusetts Governor that the colonists be given the financial wherewithal to purchase and train large packs of dogs 'to hunt Indians as they do bears'." [SH241]
Massacre of Sand Creek, Colorado 11/29/1864. Colonel John Chivington, a former Methodist minister and still elder in the church ("I long to be wading in gore") had a Cheyenne village of about 600, mostly women and children, gunned down despite the chiefs' waving with a white flag: 400-500 killed.
From an eye-witness account: "There were some thirty or forty squaws collected in a hole for protection; they sent out a little girl about six years old with a white flag on a stick; she had not proceeded but a few steps when she was shot and killed. All the squaws in that hole were afterwards killed ..." [SH131]
More gory details.
By the 1860s, "in Hawai'i the Reverend Rufus Anderson surveyed the carnage that by then had reduced those islands' native population by 90 percent or more, and he declined to see it as tragedy; the expected total die-off of the Hawaiian population was only natural, this missionary said, somewhat equivalent to 'the amputation of diseased members of the body'." [SH244]
Buck Crick wrote:
swerty wrote:
From the onset of the Christian Europeans coming to the Americas. There is an estimate of 50 to 60 million Indians were killed by these Christians. With about another 100 to 120 million killed by smallpox brought to the Americas with the Christians.
Christopher Columbus said of the Indians "they are a people who were so friendly that all one would have to do is ask and they would give anything they have to the one asking." Columbus was a Catholic. Later Columbus said in Christ name we will kill and enslave and do whatever is necessary to take this land.
In North America the same was done all in the name of Christ. It was said that the Indians were just human animals and did not have a soul. So killing them was done in Christs name to cleans the lands of these vermin.
__________
Pure bull shit.
Your stats have Christians killing more Indians than existed.
I hear they burned a million witches, too.
You people are morons.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#7515 Dec 3, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I can tell when you're most frustrated. You bring the scary chicken on the stick out and shake it: "Arise, Chicken. Oogah Boogah!"
Aha! The scary chicken on a stick. So funny.

I guess Dim will be consulting animal entrails for an answer to this.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#7516 Dec 3, 2012
If you believe there is an invisible giant man of a particular ethnicity in the sky who is directing everything and who is so hateful he will viciously punish us for challenging his existence--
If you believe that this invisible giant man got a 13-year-old virgin girl pregnant, who then gave birth to him as his own son--
If you believe that this god person wrote a book--and one book only--
If you believe that "confessing the Lord" will instantly remove your sins, thus allowing you to commit more--
If you believe that a stone will remove your sins, thus allowing you to commit more--
If you believe in vicarious blood-atonement, i.e., that "the Lord died for your sins" and thus you can commit as many as you wish--
If you believe that merely believing in such a god person makes you righteous, no matter what atrocities you commit and what hatred and intolerance you carry and spread--
If you believe that some "good" god person is going to reward you for killing living, breathing human beings "in his name"--
If you believe that going to church, temple, synagogue or mosque, making pilgrimages, or wearing particular clothes or headdresses, makes you a righteous person, even though you don't behave like one otherwise--
If you believe that you are special and chosen because of what you believe--
If you believe that it is good to mindlessly go along with whatever anyone tells you about the nature of God and religion--
If you believe that believing in one God makes you better than and superior to those who don't--
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true. I had a bed.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#7517 Dec 3, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Dim Dandy to the rescue!
Go, Dim Dandy! Go, Dim Dandy!
==========
May I have your attention please?
May I have your attention please?
Will the real Dim Shady please stand up?
I repeat, will the real Dim Shady please stand up?
We're gonna have a problem here..
Lol

I saw Black Oak Arkansas supporting Black Sabbath back in 1974. They never really registered over here but I enjoyed their set.

Dimmy Mack, Dimmy
Oh Dimmy Mack
When are you coming back?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#7532 Dec 3, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
It IS a requirement if you accept the modern neo-Darwinist framework promoted by evolutionists.
You are incorrect that there are only two definitions of evolution. It is easy to find at least 9 different definitions in today's scientific literature. When you ask "I don't know what you think evolution means", you are asking the wrong party.
Your last statement reverts right back to your fallacy - "It is not as definite as the proposition that evolution exists"
What are you saying "exists"? Oh - evolution. You said nothing.
The earth is not round. You should read some physics.
"The Earth Is Not Round"
by Launchspace Staff
Bethesda MD (SPX) Oct 19, 2010
Scientific American:
"Strange but True: Earth Is Not Round"
And to reiterate, no infinite quantity exists, and none can exist.
Welcome back to school, Plymouth.
Your ego is infinite.

Maybe bigger.

When did they let you out?

More importantly, why?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#7533 Dec 3, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
swerty wrote:
From the onset of the Christian Europeans coming to the Americas. There is an estimate of 50 to 60 million Indians were killed by these Christians. With about another 100 to 120 million killed by smallpox brought to the Americas with the Christians.

Christopher Columbus said of the Indians "they are a people who were so friendly that all one would have to do is ask and they would give anything they have to the one asking." Columbus was a Catholic. Later Columbus said in Christ name we will kill and enslave and do whatever is necessary to take this land.

In North America the same was done all in the name of Christ. It was said that the Indians were just human animals and did not have a soul. So killing them was done in Christs name to cleans the lands of these vermin.
__________

Pure bull shit.

Your stats have Christians killing more Indians than existed.

I hear they burned a million witches, too.

You people are morons.
You don't know how many existed.

Estimates range from 10 million to 70 million.

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) 2 min KiMare 232,696
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 1 hr Richardfs 2,183
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 3 hr _Bad Company 1,437
God' existence 7 hr polymath257 55
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 7 hr polymath257 112
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... 8 hr Geezerjock 1
Australia: black magic pervert retard 9 hr Thinking 4
Evidence for God! 11 hr ChristineM 366
More from around the web