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

#7942 Dec 8, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Suffice to say we're not afraid to tackle your posts and disassemble them with consummate ease. You keep throwing them up - we'll just keep right on knocking them down.
Don't you wish? You ignorant dingbat – lol. You're nothing more than a joke.

Funny how you jokes say you don't read my posts, yet you keep trying and failing to challenge the material. That's all the proof I need that they hit a nerve. That's why you stay unhappy.

And that's the way I like it.

So I know I'm right on track......LMAO

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#7943 Dec 8, 2012
Atheism: What a Joke

“Assuming, no doubt, our anxious world could use a good laugh, Stephen Hawking undertakes to provide one. He says the universe created itself.

The theory itself isn't the joke. The joke is the dogged persistence of atheists trying in the face of common sense to persuade the world as to the wisdom they see in their every utterance. Another way of putting it would be, atheism is the joke.

The likes of Hawking, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins -- how, by the way, does Britain, the land that bred Lewis, Chesterton and Wesley, manage to produce so many certified atheists?-- Hawking & Co., I say, want everyone to see God as, I guess, some sort of celestial intrusion in the affairs of intelligent men and women.

Hawking's new book, "The Grand Design," (written with one Leonard Mlodinow) argues that "the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

I suppose the intent of such stuff is to render non-atheists, Christians especially, mute and fearful. Which is more than a little bit odd. Who is likely to grow mute in the face of a bald claim that the universe more or less invented itself? Was Hawking there with his camera? That would be the first question. Soon other questions would follow. The vast variety of life -- that was spontaneous, too? The human organism -- the brain, the eye, the ear, the digestive tract -- just sort of, you know, happened? The sky, the seas, the seasons, not to mention human reproduction -- those things, too? And the greatest minds of history failed to catch on, century after God-fearing century? That or they practiced denial? Uhhhh ... yeah.

There is a poignancy to the atheist fixation on showing up God. What's wrong with these people? Many of them are technically intelligent (Hawking is routinely labeled "brilliant"), but they swallow with satisfied smiles the intellectual bilge called atheism. They've been doing it forever -- so long indeed that taking an atheist seriously requires a leap of faith so enormous that no one, least of all the atheist himself, can see from jumping-off spot to landing point.

The atheist mode is pure assertion. It's, shut up, listen here, I'm giving you numskulls The Facts. I imagine there have been, here and there, pleasant atheists. If so, one rarely runs across them. They've all got some Hawking, some Hitchens, some Mencken or Shaw or Robert Ingersoll in them: the desire to strut before the Stupid Masses; to show off a bit; to puncture the illusions of folk less enlightened than themselves, pinned down by the weight of superstition and terror. What a bunch of rubes and yokels, these believers! Not that they don't come in handy as rhetorical foils and customers.

It's really all too funny, as things tend to get when certain people -- over and over without pause -- do the same stupid things. Such as instruct the whole of human history to get off this God thing and start believing in spontaneous creation. I can see it all now, can't you?-- The Church of Spontaneous Creation; services whenever you're feeling spontaneous; come feel the creative power surge through your veins; learn to laugh at fools and frauds and idiots stupid enough to disagree with the doctrine of "It All Just Happened."

It is funny: like W.C. Fields assuming the posture of sobriety, Malvolio the pose of Lady's Man. The obverse of Reality is the Ridiculous -- that which makes itself farcical precisely by taking itself with deep earnestness.
http://townhall.com/columnists/billmurchison/...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#7944 Dec 8, 2012
This is why I can't take Atheism seriously

“Judging by if you are an Atheist. I assume you based most of you're understanding on logic. A lot of Atheists always state that the reason that they are so hell bent on debating religion is because of the harm religion does. That it promotes bigotry racism and sexism. Well:

First point: Why do we not just target all sexists, racists, and bigots? Wouldn't campaigning against them specifically be more "LOGICAL" instead of generalizing that all religious people do so much "harm" and are promote such bad moral teachings when you would be have to be ignorant to know that is not true.

Second Point: How the hell does harm of religion have anything to do with whether or not it is true? I mean just because there are negative effects of something doesn't disprove it's validity. Look at your logic on this point also.

Third point: I know most of you would claim to be agnostic atheists but totally contradict that by saying "there is no god" "god doesn't exist". This would be a "Gnostic" position. Which will be totally absurd. I mean, I simply state I don't know at all. Not really agnostic because I am not religious, simply because it is beyond the capacity of human knowledge. Taking such a ballsy claim as to there is no God is simply arrogant and stubborn.

Point 4: Now, I know most Atheist in real life are pretty chill because I have Atheist friends. Although, when it comes to the internet there are constantly remarks insulting theists and their intelligence. If you were to actually "use" some of your well known logic. You would know that religion does not correlate with intelligence. You use the defense that most scientist are Atheist, so Atheism is the better choice, then totally throw out the claim that most of the world is Catholic so Catholicism is correct. This Double Standard is inconsistent.

(Just another "little" thing, a lot of Atheists say I wonder how stupid Christians feel when there is not God. I can't even begin to how contradictory and stupid this makes whoever the person who stated this is. First of all, "where" the hell are they realizing this? In an AFTERLIFE? Oh, wait you don't believe in one. Then this is pretty hypocritical if you ask me.”
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...

[He's not a Christian, but he made some GREAT points, lol.]

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#7946 Dec 8, 2012
''Scant understanding of science makes you an atheist. Deep understanding of science makes you a believer''– anonymous

“God is dead" - Neitzsche

"Neitzsche is dead" - God

"I'll pray for you all, anyway. Jesus Loves you. Even if you don't love yourselves"

“Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God.”- Haywood Broun

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#7947 Dec 8, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the person who has an imaginary friend that talks to them, who think this imaginary friend can actually influence the real world, and swears the imaginary friend is real even though you have no evidence to suggest otherwise.
LOL

Nope - those rodents you came from and live with aren't imaginary. They are quite real, and repulsive, like you.

WHY don't you get rid of that horrible picture?

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#7948 Dec 8, 2012
Re-posting:

From Fox News:

Junk Science

Bad predictions, concealed data, lies about global warming, junk computer models, cancer lies, etc.
www.video.foxbusiness.com/v/4159451/top-five-...

(Even with today's sophisticated technology, scientists miss the mark over and over on the simplest issues; how much more likely the marks were missed in their findings of 100 years ago on the more complex issues.)

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#7949 Dec 8, 2012
Oh look! More spamming from the creatard troll! Scroll time is epic in this thread.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#7950 Dec 8, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
You and the other atheists in here are about as sane as asylum escapees, lol.
Yeah, we are the insane ones who are willing to chow down on the flesh of our dead zombie leader. We also drink the blood, of this same freak-god who would make us eat our own children. Ooops, wait a sec, that is you nut cases, not us. So who's the loons now?

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#7951 Dec 8, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you wish? You ignorant dingbat – lol. You're nothing more than a joke.
Funny how you jokes say you don't read my posts, yet you keep trying and failing to challenge the material. That's all the proof I need that they hit a nerve. That's why you stay unhappy.
And that's the way I like it.
So I know I'm right on track......LMAO
You're on the idiot track, that's for sure.

How very like you to ignore the facts:

Facts that show you posting, running away and having your posts torn to shreds.

Facts that show how from your own posts we can see that you reject what the Bible says.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#7952 Dec 8, 2012
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, we are the insane ones who are willing to chow down on the flesh of our dead zombie leader. We also drink the blood, of this same freak-god who would make us eat our own children. Ooops, wait a sec, that is you nut cases, not us. So who's the loons now?
LOL

Not forgetting the talking snakes and donkeys and bread baked with shite.

ROFLMAO!!

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#7953 Dec 8, 2012
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
<quoted text>
I have attended more than a thousand meetings with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I know what I'm talking about. How many sacrament meetings have you attended at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints?
I find it a bit amusing that you are dictating to me what I believe on an Atheist Forum entitled "Don't dictate beliefs."
Mormon's don't believe God is going to give them their own planet when they go to Heaven and they don't believe Joseph Smith is God.
Hail Zenu!

Oh wait, that's the other crazy religion:)

I'm kidding, don't get salty.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#7954 Dec 8, 2012
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you heard of Philo Farnsworth? He helped develop the TV, he kinda understood science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo_Farnsworth
How about Henry Eyring? "He pioneered the application of quantum mechanics to chemistry. He also was awarded the National medal of Science for devolving the Absolute Rate Theory of chemical reactions. He was elected president of the American Chemical Society in 1963 and of the Association for the Advancement of Science in 1965."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Eyring
Or Richard Scott, a nuclear engineer? All involved with science, all religious.
BYU Biology Professor Steven Peck
http://blog.beliefnet.com/flunkingsainthood/2...
Damn? 3 people!

Religious scientists don't "prove" religion just like atheists scientists don't "prove" there is no god. And if we are going to go with this logic, there are far, far more atheist scientists than there are religious scientists. Personal beliefs are personal beliefs.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#7955 Dec 8, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
This part was funny: "does not mean everyone is else" LMAO
"Everyone is else" (?)
This part was just as funny: "Some people are able to speak relatively well on a variety of subjects"
LOL - True - and I post many of what they speak and write about.
So yes, many people are, but alas, you're not one of those people.
You really offer us zero.
LOL
Wow, a simple typo. Good catch Columbo!

And this isn't a forum that I post in. It's too full of spam. I just drop by occasionally to watch you play "2 stooges" with kjv, watch everyone else tear you up, and catch the occasional interesting comment. None of which come from your spam. You don't talk about anything, you spam.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#7956 Dec 9, 2012
Khatru wrote:
Suffice to say we're not afraid to tackle your posts and disassemble them with consummate ease. You keep throwing them up - we'll just keep right on knocking them down.
derek4 wrote:
You ignorant dingbat – lol. You're nothing more than a joke. Funny how you jokes say you don't read my posts, yet you keep trying and failing to challenge the material.
Meathead.

You're a painfully stupid little man, Dim. Khatru tells you right here in his post that he reads yours. We all do, and we have all commented on them. Only in your impoverished imagination are people saying that they "don't read [your] posts."

You, on the other hand, make a point of announcing that you don't read the posts of others between announcements that those responses didn't impress you enough. This is why you are called Dim.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#7958 Dec 9, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
You're on the idiot track, that's for sure.
How very like you to ignore the facts:
Facts that show you posting, running away and having your posts torn to shreds.
Facts that show how from your own posts we can see that you reject what the Bible says.
You have no facts. You don't want your life cluttered with facts.

The facts I post are all still in place, and more science fraud reports are showing up in the news every day. Your futile attempts to rebut them are sad jokes. This is because you're powerless and weak – powerless to change what science magazines and news reports say on fraudulent science and science misconduct; powerless to rewrite history. You're weak. Your comments never get off the ground. Just like you – sitting there on your fat rump and never getting off the ground.

So let's face it – you're nothing but a failure all around, and a miserable one.

I flush you down the drain with the dirty bathwater.

LMAO

Here's just ONE example of the hundreds I've posted already – let's take a look at it again, and thank you for inviting me to re-post it for you:

From Science Daily:

Facts in Scientific Drug Literature May Not Be

(May 29, 2012)— A growing concern with fraud and misconduct in published drug studies has led researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago's Center for Pharmacoeconomic Research to investigate the extent and reasons for retractions in the research.

"We were surprised to find the proportion of retractions due to scientific misconduct in the drug literature is higher than in general biomedical literature," said Simon Pickard, associate professor of pharmacy practice and senior author of a study published in the journal Pharmacotherapy.

Nearly three-quarters of the retracted drug studies were attributed to scientific misconduct, he said, "which includes data falsification or fabrication, questionable veracity, unethical author conduct, or plagiarism. While these studies comprise a small percentage of the overall literature, health care professionals may rely on this evidence to make treatment recommendations.

These studies can affect the treatment of thousands of patients, since scientific publications are often printed months in advance.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/...

Let me know if I can post some more like this fer 'ya, Khatru. And you say you don't read my posts when you say you don't “plough through” the material – I still recall you saying that, and more than once. Then you turn around and say you've “torn to shreds”[my] posts? How do you do that if you haven't ploughed through them? You have a shredded brain.

You've “ploughed through” too many comic books.

LMAO

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#7959 Dec 9, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Wow, a simple typo. Good catch Columbo!
And this isn't a forum that I post in. It's too full of spam. I just drop by occasionally to watch you play "2 stooges" with kjv, watch everyone else tear you up, and catch the occasional interesting comment. None of which come from your spam. You don't talk about anything, you spam.
You probably are making a wise decision when you just “drop by occasionally”, and I commend you for that. We wouldn't miss you if you weren't here. Actually, I don't recall anything memorable you've ever written.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#7960 Dec 9, 2012
Today we will revisit at some old favorites.

ENJOY!!!

From CBS NEWS, February 11, 2009:

Poll: Majority Reject Evolution

Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved.

These views are similar to what they were in November 2004 shortly after the presidential election.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500160_162-965223...

[Only 15% of Americans say humans evolved......interesting, lol.]

“It’s Official: Atheists are Deliberately Ignorant, Truth-hating, Credit-theiving, Hypocrites – Extreme atheist fails”

September 4, 2010

Think atheists can be good? Wonder why atheists are the most hated and mistrusted group? Here’s a little of the endless evidence as to why atheists should be locked up in insane asylums:

Today on a certain stupidity-filled website (it’s for atheists only, so big surprise) I found these two ultra stupid comments:

“why not think Harry Potter is real, there are millions who think god is real&#65279; and thats just rediculous” from “Atheist Princess”.

For you very young people who don’t know why that is super stupid, this is why:

1) She’s comparing what no one believes is real to what many believe is real, and not explaining what the connection is.

2) She doesn’t say which of her statements is ridiculous: which is ridiculous: not believing that Harry Potter is real or that God is real or both?

3) She didn’t give any evidence as to why whatever she is saying is ridiculous is ridiculous.

4) She didn’t even spell ridiculous right.
In her profile she said this:

Notice she says that she is obsessed with the “fairy tale” Harry Potter, and even made a forum on it? Notice she gives no evidence as to why she became an atheist, and had believes that no Christian teaches, which is that you weren’t to ask any questions about the Bible, when in churches that is done all the time, and when Christians pose them all the time everywhere? Notice she gives no explanation at all as to why she became an atheist, except because certain things didn’t make sense to her, and yet can’t be bothered to say what those things were even though she also says she is trying to convert her sisters to atheism (which having such a hatred for religion, says,“deconvert” in place of convert).

continued:
http://eternian.wordpress.com/2010/09/04/extr...

[I could have sworn this dingbat posted in this forum at sometime in the past. But her godless stupidity is so universal it's hard to be sure]

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#7962 Dec 9, 2012
Another favorite:

Phil Torres’ Compendium of Internet Atheist Ignorance

“A few weeks ago Phil Torres asked me if I would review his book A Crisis of Faith, which he said would present a strong case against the existence of God. I agreed to take a look at it. I appreciate opportunities like that. I had high hopes for the book, in view of the fact that he (reportedly) did a year of graduate (?) study in philosophy at Harvard.

He divides the book into short chapters, of which I read thirteen before I realized that there he had adopted a pattern that was never going to alter. The book (as far as I got into it) is a nicely readable but painfully predictable compendium of Internet Atheist straw men, circular reasoning, red herrings, and misrepresentations of Christianity.

I was hoping to be able to say something more positive than that, but then he wasn’t really inviting it himself. He calls not only for rejection but for actual elimination of religion.

Continued:

Back to the beginning: On page 1 he distorts the definition of “faith.” Maybe he doesn’t realize he’s doing that; it is after all, the standard definition provided by people who don’t experience faith, don’t encounter faith in real people who have faith, and don’t read the definitions written by people who are actually explaining what we mean when we use the word “faith.” It is the standard Internet atheist definition, in other words:“beliefs that one accepts in the absence of facts or in the presence of facts which contradict those beliefs.”

That’s page 1. It’s a very poor beginning. Faith in God is actually a fact-based confidence or trust in him as a person, that he will be for me today and for all in the future the same God that he has been for me and many others in the past. It is trust that God will continue to be a promise-keeper, as he has done in the past. It is confidence built on an awareness of genuine love–factual awareness.

On page 4 he parrots the standard Internet Atheist meme of pulling OT verses out of context concerning punishments for homosexuality. This is the approach by which atheists tell believers what we think, and complain that we must be stupid for not thinking what we think, while ignoring the reasons we give for thinking what we actually think instead of what they tell us we think.

Continued:

On page 19 he falsely claims that religious evidence is generally (entirely?) subjective. That’s just false. It’s ignorant. Sorry, Mr. Torres, but there you go.

On page 20 he shows his ignorance of how Paul’s “revelation of Jesus Christ” was carefully and independently confirmed at the time.

On page 22 he picks on the most easily rebutted Intelligent Design claims and calls it the strongest. Ignorance on display.

On page 44 he seems to be illustrating incoherence in the concept of God: Can God create a rock so heavy he can’t lift it? The answer is that this that this is laughably easy to answer. What was Torres thinking?.

On page 52 he takes a naturalistic perspective on neuroscience and free will and concludes that it’s impossible for God to have imparted free will to his creatures. Bulletin to Phil Torres: if you assume the world is the way it would be if there is no God, it will indeed be impossible to fit God into that world. If you assume there is no God, in other words, you have effectively assumed there is no God. That’s called begging the question.rable in scientific terms, and we have addresses it to the best of our ability in other terms.

continued:

I gave up reading after Chapter 13. Enough is enough.[Like Khatru, I would never have “ploughed through” 13 chapters.]

continued:
http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2012/08/phil...

[“Atheist straw men, circular reasoning, red herrings, and misrepresentations of Christianity.”]

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#7963 Dec 9, 2012
Why, as an Atheist, I Pray

“I identify as an atheist. Empirically, I’ve never seen any evidence supporting the existence of a deity, and rationally, none of the major religious belief systems make any sense to me. Cosmologically, I guess I would call myself a meta-evolutionist (I believe both in Darwinian evolution, and in the evolution of the evolutionary process).”

[Poster's insert: more reference to science which relates to atheism....]
continued:

Still, I respect many religious traditions and practices. I respect religious tradition because I like tradition in general, and religious ones are often the only ones available in any particular life area. As for religious practices, I take an eclectic approach. I like pork chops and bacon too much to ever be kosher, but I don’t mind (and sometimes enjoy) reciting Jewish prayers before meals (my wife and daughter are Jewish).

One religious practice I embrace wholeheartedly is prayer. Prayer can mean many different things, but I’m talking about the “personal dialogue with God” variety.

So how does this fit in with atheism? If I pray, who or what am I praying to? Do I just have a massive tolerance for cognitive dissonance? Or have I bought into the sloppy pseudoscience behind “remote healing”?

No and no. My practice of prayer is consistent with my rational, atheistic belief system. Nothing spooky or supernatural is required to make an argument for why prayer is effective (for me).

I’ll try to explain.

[Poster's insert: He goes on to explain, then concludes with this in his closing paragraph:]

“... there’s no need to give up religious practice, just because you’ve decided that the idea of a Creator doesn’t make sense. You can still go to church/temple/mosque, you can still pray (both traditional prayer and the “personal prayer” I talked about in this post if that’s part of your tradition). I realize, living in the Bay Area, that I’m in a bubble of enlightened religious thinking, where many reformed communities are completely tolerant of naturalistic philosophies like Darwinism. Richard Dawkins criticizes these types as “religious moderates,” trying to find middle ground where none exists. Maybe that’s a valid criticism in some cases, but there’s more to religion than belief (especially in the case of Judaism). There are powerful psychological factors involved in community, ritual, and practice that bind us to each other, and help us in our own personal growth, and we don’t have to believe in God to take advantage of these things.”
http://jdmoyer.com/2011/07/25/why-as-an-athei...

[“... just because you’ve decided that the idea of a Creator doesn’t make sense. You can still go to church/temple/mosque, you can still pray (both traditional prayer and the “personal prayer” I talked about in this post.”]

[Maybe you can pray to the science god, lol.]

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#7965 Dec 9, 2012
AGAIN:

"A parent who had a problem with the play’s content notified the local atheist group of the field trip."

I expect the parent has MANY problems and needs to get a life.

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
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 19 min Paul WV-Uncle Sam 279
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 57 min Aura Mytha 45,439
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Brian_G 20,234
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 4 hr Thinking 10,331
What is of greater value for humanity: Chrisita... 7 hr Thinking 422
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 9 hr Big girl 539
News Who is an atheist? (May '10) 9 hr Big girl 9,503
More from around the web