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.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#7555 Dec 3, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no idea how much that means to me coming from you.
Thanks, man.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#7556 Dec 3, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...
Particles Found to Travel Faster Than Speed of Light
Neutrino results challenge a cornerstone of Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity, which itself forms the foundation of modern physics
By Geoff Brumfiel and Nature magazine
Image: CERN
An Italian experiment has unveiled evidence that fundamental particles known as neutrinos can travel faster than light. Other researchers are cautious about the result, but if it stands further scrutiny, the finding would overturn the most fundamental rule of modern physics—that nothing travels faster than 299,792,458 meters per second.
The experiment is called OPERA (Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus), and lies 1,400 meters underground in the Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy. It is designed to study a beam of neutrinos coming from CERN, Europe's premier high-energy physics laboratory located 730 kilometers away near Geneva, Switzerland. Neutrinos are fundamental particles that are electrically neutral, rarely interact with other matter, and have a vanishingly small mass. But they are all around us—the sun produces so many neutrinos as a by-product of nuclear reactions that many billions pass through your eye every second.[Click here to read more about CERN's Large Hadron Collider]
You really posted this again?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#7557 Dec 3, 2012
derek4 wrote:
Science is incapable of proving or disproving God; science has no credible evidence for or against God.
Reason and the Law of noncontradiction rule out Jehovah-Jesus, Dim. As described, he is analytically false. A perfect god that makes errors, or one that grants free will but still knows for a fact what "choices " will be made is as impossible as a married bachelor and a three-sided square.

But you are correct that that method does not exclude all gods. I believe that Dreamtime Snake cannot be excluded yet.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#7558 Dec 3, 2012
derek4 wrote:
Creation comes from God
Circular argument. What god? What creation?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#7559 Dec 3, 2012
derek4 wrote:
There is always debate.
Noise from the church does not constitute debate in the scientific community.
derek4 wrote:
the last 3 months of my posts ... Shattering the Myths of Darwinism
Evolutionary theory is stronger today that when you started.
derek4 wrote:
Compelling evidence that the most important assumptions on which Darwinism rests are wrong.
Compelling only to the kind of people that accept the existence of devils and angels on no evidence.
derek4 wrote:
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
Correct. The matter is decided. Move on with us, or don't.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#7560 Dec 3, 2012
derek4 wrote:
“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
Thanks, but I already had this one.
derek4 wrote:
By today's rules, criticism of Darwinism is simply unscientific.
It's usually religious.
derek4 wrote:
is Darwinism so obviously true that no honest person could doubt it?
Are you honest, Dim? Are your fetched cut-and-pastes honest? Is it honest to imply that there is controversy in the scientific community over the validity evolutionary science. No, Dim, it is not.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#7561 Dec 3, 2012
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.
I'm sure that you think that that is profound. Personally, I don't care much for the thinking of people to whom proof doesn't matter.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#7562 Dec 3, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
These conflicting descriptions rule out no entity whatsoever.
They simply rule out the combinations described.
They rule out object to which the words allegedly apply.
Buck Crick wrote:
And on number 11 - totally erroneous conclusion. You have not the slightest clue of what exists outside universe time - if even time itself.
Read it again. You changed my words.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#7563 Dec 3, 2012
whats a polar bear doing in the middle east
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Welcome back.
During your absence, I've been reminding Khatru that Noah and his family made up 100% of the world's population.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#7564 Dec 3, 2012
derek4 wrote:
The theory of evolution is based on fraudulent science
The theory of evolution is confirmed.

Have I mentioned to you that you have no standing in this matter and hence no vote?

Worse, you're a Christian, meaning that you have no ethical boundaries regarding defending your religion from the revelations of science. There is no lie you won't tell, is there Dim?

The issue is decided. You're most of a century too late.

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#7565 Dec 4, 2012
I guess you are having trouble keeping up with your own Bullsht. Not surprising lardass as you constantly spew it.

Remember you believe Chris Angel has legitimate magic powers and there is scientific proof for reincarnation.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you said it.
Making it likely stupid.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#7566 Dec 4, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you said it.
Making it likely stupid.
F*ck off you lying sack of creationist sh*t.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#7567 Dec 4, 2012
derek4 wrote:
The Darwin Deception
..
And what about Catholics and all the Protestant groups that accept evolution. Are they heretics? Think about joining the 21st century.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#7568 Dec 4, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
[from monday]Your post is probably the most blatant and ridiculous falsehood ever posted. Genesis and God have not been disproved.
If an infinitely super-intelligent being had written a book. You would think he would do a better job of it.

Try to think rationally. The bible is seriously flawed, as sane people have known for at least 150 years.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#7569 Dec 4, 2012
You cannot prove or disprove the existence of invisible fairies living at the bottom of my garden. However such a belief is highly unreasonable. Rational people do not believe in invisible super-natural beings, without good evidence to support and justify such a belief.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#7570 Dec 4, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Liberty
Explain the Big Bang, how was this possible. Why were laws of physics set a side until the universe was set.
Who said they were? The laws *we know about* do not apply once quantum gravity is dominant, but that is because we don't know which quantum gravity to apply.
If black energy is truly stronger then gravity why do black hole still exist?
1.The term is *dark* energy, not black energy.

2. Dark energy has little to do with the formation of black holes.
If not why is the expanse of the universe still increasing in speed and size?
That is due to dark energy (or a cosmological constant), which provides a pressure driving faster expansion.
What is wrong with your God? You have no good explanation of your failed theory's
Like the Theory of relativity or the theory of Quantum Mechanics. If dark energy is more powerful then gravity and if so why are there black holes. How can all these contradiction still survive unanswered?
Dark energy is a large scale phenomenon: it is distributed thinly enough that it is irrelevant to the formation of black holes. For that matter, it has very little effect on galactic dynamics. Its effect is felt in very large scale situations involving thousands of galaxies (to millions). Your question is sort of like asking why the nucleus of an atom can exist given that there is air: it makes no sense.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#7571 Dec 4, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
The theory of evolution is based on fraudulent science, therefore often “changed over time” in an attempt to conceal the defects.
You are merely showing your ignorance of the scientific process. ALL scientific theories are 'changed over time' to encompass new phenomena, to come into agreement with observation, and to get logical consistency. The theory of evolution has changed a great deal since Darwin's time: the details of genetic were unknown to Darwin, the effects of small populations were not considered, etc. But the basic material: that most change in species is due to natural selection, is stable and verified many times over.
As more time goes by, the theory will eventually be proven false and unrecognizable, like that of Lamarck. The Bible doesn't need amending.
The Biblical stories are just that: stories. There was no global flood, the universe is billions, not thousands of years old, the earth is about 1/3 the age of the universe, species change over time due to changes in the environment, etc.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#7572 Dec 4, 2012
derek4 wrote:
“Darwin’s theory assumes that organisms evolve and change from some common ancestor (a singular cell organism). And since Darwin’s theory is based totally on materialism (matter in motion) it implies that this singular cell organism emerged from DEAD matter. In other words, LIFE and CONSCIOUSNESS emerges from atoms and sub-atomic particles SPONTANEOUSLY. Yet, we all know and experience life and consciousness as totally necessary (a given) if new life and consciousness is to evolve or develop. Life, in other words, emerges ONLY from PRIOR life.
Show me one atom in your body that is alive. Show me one molecule in your body that would be different if it was in a non-living body. The point? ALL living things are actually made of non-living matter. None of the atoms or molecules in your body are alive. So you are not made of 'living matter'. Instead, the *organization* of this non-living matter is what makes something alive. The fact that the chemical reactions in your body are far from equilibrium and are driven by the food you eat and the oxygen you breath is a scientific fact. But the laws of chemistry do not change simply because the chemicals are inside of a living body. On the contrary, it is those constant laws of chemistry that *make* that body alive.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#7573 Dec 4, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Who in your opinion has been the most influential scientist in history.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#7574 Dec 4, 2012
derek4 wrote:
Darwin’s Theory a Deception
“Darwinism claims that humans evolved from apes: a theory which directs us to believe that all species evolved through simpler forms to more complex ones. Darwin himself was a seminary dropout with absolutely no degree or authority in scientific matters whatsoever. It is a wonder then, that he still had people naïve enough to believe in him and stick by his theories - people who were, and still are, willing to deceive themselves thereby.
Darwin was a well-respected naturalist. His colleagues were other scientists. But there were no degrees in naturalism at the time, so he did not have such a degree. But that is not the same as saying he was unqualified.

Also funny that those 'naive' followers were the respected scientists of the time. It is funny that those who actually do research in biology uniformly agree with evolution.
To be sure, there is not a single piece of evidence for evolution from simpler forms. Birds are said to have evolved from reptiles, but no fossil has ever been found having a ‘half-scale/ half-wing' representation.
Not at all what evolution would expect. Your lack of understanding of the theory does not make the theory wrong.

With modern developments in molecular biology, it is impossible for us to believe the theory of natural selection to be a scientific fact. Biologists from both camps - those of the secular evolutionary and those of the non-secular non-evolutionary school - have brought forth fossils which are millions of years old, but the fact remains that, to date, no one has brought forward an intermediate fossil from anywhere on earth.
Many intermediates have been found. But each intermediate gives two 'gaps' for the idiots to complain about. The evolution of birds from feathered dinosaurs is one of the better series of intermediates we have, by the way.
Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Cockroaches, ants, sharks and grass hoppers are some examples of the most primitive species that are still alive and well on this planet. The cockroach, in particular, has been around on earth for a staggering 320 million years. Fossil records show that this species has remained the same today as it was when it first appeared on earth. Why then have there been no changes in this species?
First, the cockroach is NOT the same species today as it was 320 million years ago. They are recognizably similar, but no ancient species is the same as any modern species. The species have, indeed, changed over time.

Second, evolution does not *require* change when a species is well-adapted to the environment it is in. It is changes in the environment and the changing adaptedness that changes species over time. Cockroaches are very well adapted to the environments they inhabit.

Similar comments apply to ants, for example. No modern species of ant is the same as any fossil species. They have a family resemblance, but they are not identical. Furthermore, we can trace some of the changes to ant species over time from the specimens captured in amber.

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) 16 min Gary Coaldigger 20,601
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 26 min Knowledge- 10,798
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 28 min Uncle Sam 244,904
John 3:16 35 min Shizle 75
Atheists should stop feeding the stereotypes 4 hr NightSerf 18
News Si Robertson, 'Duck Dynasty' Star, Says Atheist... 8 hr thetruth 42
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 10 hr ChristineW 14,659
More from around the web