Don't dictate beliefs

Sep 5, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Star Press

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

Comments (Page 355)

Showing posts 7,081 - 7,100 of11,195
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7486
Dec 3, 2012
 
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.
The indians had their own religion, unknown to the Christians. They believed that God created everything and that everyone was their Brother and a part of themselves. An idea that sounds savage? Not at all!
Does the remainder of the American indian complain? No
They still live lives of great respect for all God created. Yes they have problems alcohol abuse abounds in the Indian community.
But these people who still believe that everyone is their brother and a part of them live on, some now Christians, but a different kind of Christian. A Christian who sees his brothers as sacred and a part of God.
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
No wonder they make up such a small percent – what do they offer the world? Every time they open their mouth, all that erupts is halitosis and intestinal gasses.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7487
Dec 3, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
Explain how morals came about through evolution?
The same way any inherited or instinctual behavior comes about. First, there are random, heritable changes in the DNA followed by the natural selection of those traits that confer an adaptive advantage.

Which random trait do you think will be be best preserved when Mrs. Dahmer produces two boys, and one becomes a humanitarian, and the other a cannibal? Here's clue: the cannibal was sent to prison where he was murdered before producing offspring.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7488
Dec 3, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
Ya you can't like him know that he's against the filth put out by that show.
There's no filth in that show.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7489
Dec 3, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
One can only rule things out if one has ALL the fact. You don't.
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.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7490
Dec 3, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
Can you imagine how high the blood pressure is for the average atheist?
Mine is 110/68.

There are much safer and less expensive ways of treating blood pressure than church. I'll control your blood pressure for you for half of whatever you're paying your priests right now, and even provide the therapeutic agents to you at no extra charge.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7491
Dec 3, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
God has not been disproved, therefore neither has Creationism, regardless of the debate you refer to.
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.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7492
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.
Good post.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7493
Dec 3, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
You conveniently forgot to include any link, and it wouldn't be credible anyway. God has not been disproved, therefore neither has Creationism, regardless of the debate you refer to.
There is a difference between theism (the belief in a God) and Creationism. The first allows for a deity that creates the universe in a way consistent with what science has discovered: using the Big Bang and evolution. Creationism, on the other hand, is a specific theological stance that the Bible is literal truth--so it assumes at the start that the Earth is about 6-10,000 years old, that a world-wide flood happened, etc. I tis Creationism that has been shown false based on the evidence.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7494
Dec 3, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
His statement isn't backed anywhere, unless he means evidence supporting the false theory of evolution, which is worthless since it was fraudulent.
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.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7495
Dec 3, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a difference between theism (the belief in a God) and Creationism. The first allows for a deity that creates the universe in a way consistent with what science has discovered: using the Big Bang and evolution. Creationism, on the other hand, is a specific theological stance that the Bible is literal truth--so it assumes at the start that the Earth is about 6-10,000 years old, that a world-wide flood happened, etc. I tis Creationism that has been shown false based on the evidence.
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.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7496
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.
There is always debate.

I have posted many links about it. I don't plan to reconstruct the last 3 months of my posts this morning for those who arrived late, since forum participants constantly come and go.

Shattering the Myths of Darwinism

Compelling evidence that the most important assumptions on which Darwinism rests are wrong.
The controversial best-seller that sent Oxford University and Nature magazine into a frenzy has at last come to the United States. Shattering the Myths of Darwinism exposes the gaping holes in an ideology that has reigned unchallenged over the scientific world for a century. Darwinism is considered to be hard fact, the only acceptable explanation for the formation of life on Earth, but with keen insight and objectivity Richard Milton reveals that the theory totters atop a shambles of outdated and circumstantial evidence which in any less controversial field would have been questioned long ago. Sticking to the facts at hand and tackling a vast array of topics, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism offers compelling evidence that the theory of evolution has become an act of faith rather than a functioning science, and that not until the scientific method is applied to it and the right questions are asked will we ever get the true answers to the mystery of life on Earth.

http://www.amazon.com/Shattering-Myths-Darwin...

Challenging Darwin's Myths

“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).”

–Richard Dawkins, prominent Oxford scientist and author

Ever since Darwin first published his theory of evolution, his defenders' favorite tactic against critics has been to attack their character and intelligence. Darwin himself used it against some of the greatest scientists of his day, accusing them of superstition and religious bias.

Now that Darwinism rules the scientific roost, such charges against dissenters are widespread. Not even schoolchildren are immune. Indeed, California's science education guidelines instructs teachers to tell dissenting students, "I understand that you may have personal reservations about accepting this scientific evidence, but it is scientific knowledge about which there is no reasonable doubt among scientists in this field..."

By today's rules, criticism of Darwinism is simply unscientific. The student who wishes to pursue such matters is told to "discuss the question further with his or her family and clergy."

But is Darwinism so obviously true that no honest person could doubt it? Are alternatives like "intelligent design" so unscientific that no reasonable person could embrace them?

The answer to both questions is a resounding no.

[WHY?- CONTINUED:]
http://www.arn.org/docs/dardoc1.htm

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7497
Dec 3, 2012
 
Here's another atheist church:

“Atheist Church of the evolving Human God.”

“Atheist friends, should you elect a God and sacrifice to him or her?

By doing so, you would be acknowledging that mankind is the greatest force in the universe by symbolically taking the name of Human God and insuring that there is always a church that preaches the truth of what is known as a certainty of the supernatural God. That he probably does not exist and is a man-made mythical ideal perpetuated by the Noble Lie.

If you believe what the research indicates in terms of hive behavior, then you might wonder as I do if it would not be in the best interest of the atheist movement to elect an atheist God and sacrifice to him or her?

This, if the research is true, would insure the longevity and cohesion of the atheist movement and give it power.

You may have some suggestion for the title that you would put on your leader and church. I do not except for my choice in the title above. Not being a full atheist, I would not have a vote on it; even as I support atheists and non-supernatural spirituality in people over supernatural religious notions and beliefs. I would also suggest a mantra for this church; that being,--- Faith without Facts is for Fools.

I believe in a strongly assertive type of atheism that preaches that truth is the highest principle. This preaching should be done with eloquence and good form and language; recognizing the trap of logical fallacies and the impossibility of atheists proving that there is no creator God; as well as the impossibility of believers to prove that there is a creator God.

Unfortunately I cannot call myself an atheist anymore because of having suffered an apotheosis. As an esoteric ecumenist and Gnostic Christian, you will know that I think that creating an atheist church should be the next evolutionary step for the atheist movement. I believe the research shown above to be true and fear that without a church, atheism will not be affective and perhaps die out without it.

Creating an atheist church would be the ideal for both religionists and atheists. It would insure that atheists are always here to correct the imaginary thinking of those who believe in a mythical supernatural God. This would be a benevolent and altruistic expression of atheist’s social conscience and desire to bring all people to sane thinking. This atheist church would recognize the human attribute shown in the following clip and gently try to help those adults whose thinking is hampered by it.

Atheists seem to already want to do more for society towards this end as they seem to be over-represented in religious forums even as statistics say that the atheist in the U. S. and Canada are only at about 5% of the population. This is a sacrifice for atheists that already adds some cohesion and longevity to the organization and appeases the hive nature that we seem to have. But I do not think it is enough based on the research shown above.

Should atheist elect themselves a Pope or God or someone with some other title and do whatever sacrifice is demanded of them to keep the movement alive for the long run?”
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread899...

[Aren't you atheists in the forum pleased that your religion offers you so many worthless churches these days? LMAO]

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7498
Dec 3, 2012
 
Re-postng:

“Michael Arthur Newdow (born June 24, 1953) is an American attorney and emergency medicine physician. He is best known for his efforts to have recitations of the current version of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools in the United States declared unconstitutional because of its inclusion of the phrase "under God". He also filed and lost a lawsuit to stop the invocation prayer at President Bush's second inauguration and, most recently, he filed a lawsuit to prevent references to God and religion from being part of President Obama's inauguration.”

Newdow is an atheist and an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Newdow

Here's the video again:

FROM: USA Today:
“First Atheist Church of True Science explains why atheism is a religion.”
“Bonus: church founded by atheist lawsuit king Michael Newdow”
http://www.fark.com/vidplayer/6311079

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7499
Dec 3, 2012
 
This atheist delivered a 'sermon' in Westminster Abbey:

[Maybe he can deliver sermons on a regular basis if he ever gets his own atheist church.]

“Last Monday, I delivered an atheist "sermon" from the pulpit of Westminster Abbey. It was surprising enough that the chaplain of Westminster School had invited me to give a "thought for the day" to the assembled students, even more so when he suggested I talked about why I was an atheist.

The fact that this sounds strange, shocking even, tells us something important about how atheism is now perceived, and its relationship to faith.”

[Note his reference to FAITH....]

“The problem is that while the word atheist itself means nothing more than "not-theist", it seems that for many, "a" stands for anti.

Of course, in one sense, anyone who believes anything can be described as being anti what they don't believe. But, for instance, we would not usually call a Christian an anti-Jew, or a Muslim an anti-Hindu. Why not? Because being anti suggests more than just disagreement; it suggests hostility, active dislike, the desire to eliminate the thing one is against. That's why anti-capitalists are rightly called, because they don't just disagree with capitalism, they want to destroy it.

If being an atheist meant being anti-theist, then I would not be one. I am an anti-dogmatist, an anti-fundamentalist, yes. But I have no hostility to theism as such, and have no desire to strip all theists of their faith...”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/...

[He needn't worry – lol – he could never strip me of my faith. But he can keep his own godless faith in fraudulent science, just like the atheists in this forum.]

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7500
Dec 3, 2012
 
An Atheist’s 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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 7,081 - 7,100 of11,195
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••