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
7,581 - 7,600 of 11,175 Comments Last updated Jan 18, 2014

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8041
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

“The most valued attributes of mankind do not come naturally to the human animal; character borrows from the divine.”
A.S.A. Jones

[A.S.A. Jones -“An ex-atheist finds faith in God through Christianity after more than twenty years of atheism. Learn about the discoveries that led to Jesus Christ. I was a devout atheist for over twenty years. In July of 1998, I finally managed to see the biblical truths that had managed to elude me. The following is an account of how I went from hardcore skepticism to hardcore worship of the Savior, Jesus Christ.”
http://anewdirection54.blogspot.com/2009/06/f...

[She goes on to give her account of how science fails.- well worth reading, and there is a link within the above link for more on her story.]

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8042
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

“Whatsoever is good for God's children they shall have it, for all is theirs to further them to heaven; therefore, if poverty be good, they shall have it; if disgrace be good, they shall have it; if crosses be good, they shall have them; if misery be good, they shall have it; for all is ours, to serve for our greatest good.”
Richard Sibbes

(Sibbes' works were much read in New England. His work was cited by the Methodist John Wesley. The Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon studied his craft in Sibbes, Perkins and Thomas Manton. The evangelical Martyn Lloyd-Jones wrote in the highest terms of his own encounter with the work of Sibbes.)

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8043
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

“Someone once said that if you sat a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance. But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don't wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys. Why then does the atheist use that incredibly improbable explanation for the universe? Clearly, because it is his only chance of remaining an atheist. At this point we need a psychological explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe.”
Peter Kreeft

(“Peter John Kreeft (born 1937) is a professor of philosophy at Boston College and The King's College. He is the author of numerous books as well as a popular writer of Christian philosophy, theology and apologetics.

continued:

“Kreeft took his A.B. at Calvin College (1959) and an M.A. at Fordham University (1961). In the same university he completed his doctoral studies in 1965. He briefly did post-graduate studies at Yale University.

Kreeft has received several honors for achievements in philosophical reasoning. They include the following: Woodrow Wilson, Yale-Sterling Fellowship, Newman Alumni Scholarship, Danforth Asian Religions Fellowship, and Weathersfield Homeland Foundation Fellowship.

Kreeft joined the philosophy faculty of the Department of Philosophy of Boston College in 1965. His intellectual reputation stems from his strengths in debating and summarizing the philosophical arguments of the major Western philosophers. He has debated several academics in issues related to God's existence. Shortly after he began teaching at Boston College he was challenged to a debate on the existence of God between himself and Paul Breines, an atheist and history professor, which was attended by a majority of undergraduate students. Kreeft later used many of the arguments in this debate to create the Handbook of Christian Apologetics with then undergraduate student Ronald K. Tacelli, S.J.”)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kreeft

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8044
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

3

“An utterly fascinating illustration of this duping of ourselves is the latest arts building opened at Ohio State University, the Wexner Center for the Performing Arts, another one of our chimerical exploits in the name of intellectual advance. Newsweek branded this building "America's first deconstructionist building." It's white scaffolding, red brick turrets, and Colorado grass pods evoke a double take. But puzzlement only intensifies when you enter the building, for inside you encounter stairways that go nowhere, pillars that hang from the ceiling without purpose, and angled surfaces configured to create a sense of vertigo. The architect, we are duly informed, designed this building to reflect life itself-senseless and incoherent-and the "capriciousness of the rules that organize the built world." When the rationale was explained to me, I had just one question: Did he do the same with the foundation?
The laughter in response to my question unmasked the double standard our deconstructionists espouse. And that is precisely the double standard of atheism! It is possible to dress up and romanticize our bizarre experiments in social restructuring while disavowing truth or absolutes. But one dares not play such deadly games with the foundations of good thinking.”
Ravi Zacharias

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8045
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

3

Re-posting a little known fact about the lovely and charming Madalyn O'Hair:

MADALYN MURRAY O'HAIR WAS NOT AN ATHEIST!

An atheist by definition is: Someone who denies the existence of God. From O'Hair's own statements, it is clear that she DID believe in God, very much so, and she hated Him with a passion...

"We find God to be sadistic, brutal and a representation of hatred."
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religi...

[Madalyn – can a god who doesn't exist can be all those things?]

[Madalyn's son left atheism and became a Christian. She couldn't even keep her own son on her side.]

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8046
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.”
G.K. Chesterton

“God exists whether or not men may choose to believe in Him. The reason why many people do not believe in God is not so much that it is intellectually impossible to believe in God, but because belief in God forces that thoughtful person to face the fact that he is accountable to such a God.”
Robert A. Laidlaw

“Even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics. This is why, when pressed, the atheist will often attempt to hide his lack of conviction in his own beliefs behind some poorly formulated utilitarianism, or argue that he acts out of altruistic self-interest. But this is only post-facto rationalization, not reason or rational behavior.”
Vox Day

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8047
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

And the daily spamfest starts....

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8048
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

A favorite re-post

“First Atheist Church of True Science explains why atheism is a religion.”

Video in attached link is excerpt from an atheist sermon:

http://yourhappyplace.yuku.com/topic/54211/At...

[It's mostly all “double talk”- he's confused, as are most atheists - but the bottom line:“atheism is a religion”- he says it several times in his rambling rant, lol. So, there you have it from the very mouth of an atheist.]

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8049
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know if he's wary of me or not. I believe that Dim doesn't read most of my posts and doesn't know what I have been saying about him. Nor would he likely properly interpret it if he had. He was oblivious that his post on Charlie Brown directly contradicted him even as he offered it as supporting evidence.
I know he reads some of my posts because he's referred to them at times. But he is incurious, and probably really doesn't care about what is said about him, so I consider the exceptions just accidents that occurred when his eyes fell onto one of them before realizing who it was from.
But that is more than fine. It's ideal. Wouldn't you prefer that Dim didn't address you or answer your comments about him? Are those comments ever informative or satisfying?
You're right, it seems that Dim has very few thoughts of his own and those few aren't worth anything.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8050
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. Good word. That's at least three from you in just a few days, including "panache" and "aplomb."
You might know from that I'm also a logophile, and keep various word documents (pun intended) about interesting words. One such list is words that sound like they mean the opposite of what they actually do mean, to which I've just added caliginous. The word sounds to me like it should have something to do with warmth or light:
OPPOSITE SOUNDING WORDS
Enervate - sap, deplete
Puissant - powerful
Quean - lewd Woman
Pulchritude – beauty
Redoubtable - evoking respect
Restive - restless
Spendthrift – wasteful person
Matriculate – enter
Licentious - unrestrained by law or general morality
Toothsome - sexually alluring
Ingenuous – sincere
Firmament – the heavens
Inflammable - burnable
Meretritious – prostitute-like, vulgar, tawdry
Cupidity - greed
Prosaic - dull, unimaginative
Nonplussed – in a state of utter perplexity.
Caliginous – dark, dim, obscure
Enervate sounds like energize. Restive sounds like restful. Shouldn't the firmament be the hard stuff under is? Shouldn't puissant mean pussified and licentious legal? Meritricious sounds like meritorious. Would you like to be fixed up with somebody described as toothsome or pulchritudinous? And why respect somebody who is described as redoubtable?
==========
Just for the fun of it, here are three more word such lists. I'm certain that you can discern their themes:
[1] Animadversion - an unfavorable or censorious comment, or the act of criticizing.
[2] Aspersion - a damaging or derogatory remark, or the act of slandering.
[3] Calumny - false and malicious statement designed to injure a reputation
[4] Castigate - criticize or punish someone severely.
[5] Censure - strong or vehement expression of disapproval
[6] Contumely - insolent or insulting language or treatment.
[7] Defamation - unjustified injury of the reputation of another, as by slander or libel; calumny
[8] Derogate – disparage, belittle
[9] Ignominy - disgrace; dishonor; public contempt, shameful or dishonorable quality or
[10] Impugn - question the truthfulness or validity of a statement.
[11] Invective - vehement denunciation, vituperation, an insulting or abusive word or expression
[12] Obloquy - censure, blame, or abusive language, especially by numerous persons, the bad repute resulting from it
[|3] Opprobrium - a shameful act or the disgrace of a shameful act.
[14] Oppugn - oppose with argument; criticize adversely; call in question
[15] Pejorative – disparaging or belittling.
[16] Reproach - find fault with; blame; censure, upbraid.
[17] Reprove - reprimand or censure someone.
[17] Upbraid - condemn or criticize severely.
[18] Vituperation - verbal abuse or castigation; violent denunciation or condemnation.
[1] Criticaster - shitty or inferior critic
[2] Grammaticaster – shitty or inferior grammarian
[3] Historiaster - shitty or inferior historian
[4] Logicaster – shitty or inferior logician
[5] Mathematicaster - shitty or inferior mathematician
[6] Medicaster – shitty or inferior physician
[7] Musicaster – shitty or inferior musician
[8] Philosophaster - shitty or inferior philosopher
[9] Poestaster - shitty or inferior poet
[10] Politicaster – shitty or inferior politician
[11] Scientaster – shitty or inferior scientist
[12] Theologaster – shitty or inferior theologian
[1] apostasy - desertion of a post or of a religion
[2] apocryphal - of doubtful authenticity
[3] apotheosis - elevation to god status
[4] apologetics - theological defense
[5] apostolic - related to a missionary or disciple
[6] apocalypse - the violent end of the world
Great stuff!

That's a good list of words to have on hand.

No doubt Dim has a short list of all the fancy words he can think up. Unfortunately for him, there's only so far you can go with words of one syllable.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8051
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

polymath257 wrote:
And the daily spamfest starts....
Thank the universe for the mouse scroll wheel...

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8052
Dec 10, 2012
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Hitchens called the Catholic priesthood the "No Child's Behind Left" program.
Yes, I remember that one.

How very true.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8053
Dec 10, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
These post are factual and from very high quality sources.
His posts are factual?

Let's see now..

Remember this one?
derek4 wrote:
From Richard Dawkins, atheist:
THE ILLOGIC OF ATHEISM
“Most people arriving here will assume I am a Christian or at least a theist. I am not. I am also not an agnostic. To be an agnostic is to be a doubter. But to doubt you must have a certain amount of information.”
continued:
“I do not even call myself a skeptic, since the word has been polluted by modern use. A modern skeptic is like an agnostic, and he or she is likely to lean to a “no” answer every time. Are there gods? Probably not. Are there unicorns? Probably not. Is there a Bigfoot? Probably not. And so on. I resist this “skeptic” tag because leaning toward a “no” answer is a prejudice itself. It is unscientific. Beyond that, the so-called skeptic societies are stiff with atheists and agnostics and cynics and other faux-scily recently discovered in the Congo (this very decade). Which is to say that we may lean a bit to a “no” answer for existence of larger beings in smaller areas we have scoured quite thoroughly, but even then we may be wrong.
But in looking for proof of gods, our search is pathetically limited. By definition, a god is a being whose powers are far greater than ours, who we cannot comprehend, and whose form we cannot predict. This would make our failure to locate a god quite understandable. A very large or small god would be above or below our notice, and a distant god would also evade our sensors. Not to mention we only have five senses. If we are manipulated by gods, as the hypothesis goes, then it would be quite easy for them to deny us the eyes to see them. Only a god of near-human size in the near environs would be possible to detect.
Again, this does not mean I believe in gods, any more than I believe in aliens or unicorns. I only point out that, as a matter of logic and science, a hypothesis that has not been proved is not the same as a hypothesis that has been disproved. I agree with the atheists and agnostics that the existence of gods has not been proved, but I do not agree that the existence of gods has been disproved. It would require a much more thorough search of the universe than has so far been completed to even begin to lean. As it is, our data is near-zero.
For this reason, I find atheists to be just as sanctimonious, illogical, and tiresome as the deists and theists, if not moreso. Because the atheists are often more highly educated [highly debatable, lol] and often better able to argue (in limited ways), they use this education and argument to prop themselves up in the ugliest ways. They blow apart the beliefs of religious people and imagine this solidifies their own beliefs in some way. But it never does.”[continued here:]
http://mileswmathis.com/atheism.html
[Also included in Mr. Dawkins text, further down, is this statement:“Atheists always take negative proof against a religion as positive proof for themselves, but this is both lazy and false.”---(thank you, Mr. Dawkins.)
And this:“Atheists always attack theists for being inconsistent, but atheists are wildly inconsistent themselves.”
And this statement, very near the end:“they (atheists) should recognize that atheism is a belief just as firmly planted in irrationality, in ego and desire, as theism.”]
[This final comment: Mr. Dawkins affirms he is an atheist rather than an agnostic, so - by his own definition of an atheist - he has taken on a firm belief there is no God - but there is no proof, so his belief is a position of FAITH........a faith that is, in his own words,“firmly planted in irrationality.”]
In it, Dim attributes varies quotes to Richard Dawkins

More to come.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8054
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Continued..

It was, of course, full of lies.

We were too smart to fall for it but not so the stupid and gullible...
KJV wrote:
I love this! From Mr. Dawkins!
"For this reason, I find atheists to be just as sanctimonious, illogical, and tiresome as the deists and theists, if not more so."

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8055
Dec 10, 2012
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. Good word. That's at least three from you in just a few days, including "panache" and "aplomb."
You might know from that I'm also a logophile, and keep various word documents (pun intended) about interesting words. One such list is words that sound like they mean the opposite of what they actually do mean, to which I've just added caliginous. The word sounds to me like it should have something to do with warmth or light:
OPPOSITE SOUNDING WORDS
Enervate - sap, deplete
Puissant - powerful
Quean - lewd Woman
Pulchritude – beauty
Redoubtable - evoking respect
Restive - restless
Spendthrift – wasteful person
Matriculate – enter
Licentious - unrestrained by law or general morality
Toothsome - sexually alluring
Ingenuous – sincere
Firmament – the heavens
Inflammable - burnable
Meretritious – prostitute-like, vulgar, tawdry
Cupidity - greed
Prosaic - dull, unimaginative
Nonplussed – in a state of utter perplexity.
Caliginous – dark, dim, obscure
Enervate sounds like energize. Restive sounds like restful. Shouldn't the firmament be the hard stuff under is? Shouldn't puissant mean pussified and licentious legal? Meritricious sounds like meritorious. Would you like to be fixed up with somebody described as toothsome or pulchritudinous? And why respect somebody who is described as redoubtable?
==========
Just for the fun of it, here are three more word such lists. I'm certain that you can discern their themes:
[1] Animadversion - an unfavorable or censorious comment, or the act of criticizing.
[2] Aspersion - a damaging or derogatory remark, or the act of slandering.
[3] Calumny - false and malicious statement designed to injure a reputation
[4] Castigate - criticize or punish someone severely.
[5] Censure - strong or vehement expression of disapproval
[6] Contumely - insolent or insulting language or treatment.
[7] Defamation - unjustified injury of the reputation of another, as by slander or libel; calumny
[8] Derogate – disparage, belittle
[9] Ignominy - disgrace; dishonor; public contempt, shameful or dishonorable quality or
[10] Impugn - question the truthfulness or validity of a statement.
[11] Invective - vehement denunciation, vituperation, an insulting or abusive word or expression
[12] Obloquy - censure, blame, or abusive language, especially by numerous persons, the bad repute resulting from it
[|3] Opprobrium - a shameful act or the disgrace of a shameful act.
[14] Oppugn - oppose with argument; criticize adversely; call in question
[15] Pejorative – disparaging or belittling.
[16] Reproach - find fault with; blame; censure, upbraid.
[17] Reprove - reprimand or censure someone.
[17] Upbraid - condemn or criticize severely.
[18] Vituperation - verbal abuse or castigation; violent denunciation or condemnation.
[1] Criticaster - shitty or inferior critic
[2] Grammaticaster – shitty or inferior grammarian
[3] Historiaster - shitty or inferior historian
[4] Logicaster – shitty or inferior logician
[5] Mathematicaster - shitty or inferior mathematician
[6] Medicaster – shitty or inferior physician
[7] Musicaster – shitty or inferior musician
[8] Philosophaster - shitty or inferior philosopher
[9] Poestaster - shitty or inferior poet
[10] Politicaster – shitty or inferior politician
[11] Scientaster – shitty or inferior scientist
[12] Theologaster – shitty or inferior theologian
[1] apostasy - desertion of a post or of a religion
[2] apocryphal - of doubtful authenticity
[3] apotheosis - elevation to god status
[4] apologetics - theological defense
[5] apostolic - related to a missionary or disciple
[6] apocalypse - the violent end of the world
I love your word lists!

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8056
Dec 10, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
You talk like he's making all that stuff up, you are a fool! These post are factual and from very high quality sources.
Here's Dim's link

http://mileswmathis.com/atheism.html

All the quotes that Dim claims came from Richard Dawkins actually came from Miles Mathis.

This also serves to demonstrate that Dim does not believe what the Bible says.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8057
Dec 10, 2012
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. Good word. That's at least three from you in just a few days, including "panache" and "aplomb."
You might know from that I'm also a logophile, and keep various word documents (pun intended) about interesting words. One such list is words that sound like they mean the opposite of what they actually do mean, to which I've just added caliginous. The word sounds to me like it should have something to do with warmth or light:
Interesting. For me, it seems close to cartilage. Definitely not warmth and light.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8058
Dec 10, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
“The only atheism is the denial of truth.”
Arthur Lynch
Arthur Alfred Lynch (16 October 1861 – 25 March 1934) was an Irish Australian civil engineer, physician, journalist, author, soldier, anti-imperialist and polymath. He served as MP in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland as member of the Irish Parliamentary Party...“
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Alfred_Ly...
Not only did Lynch fail to refute Atheism, he also had a go at trying to refute Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Guess what? He failed again

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8059
Dec 10, 2012
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
The sky wizard was not amused when dim failed to read the spam about Einstein before posting it.
Lmfao!
<quoted text>
Lol

Ah yes, let's just remind ourselves how Dim thinks that all Christianity that came after Jesus should be purged!

ROFLMAO!!

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8060
Dec 10, 2012
 
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
So, what you got beside "feelings" backing your belief system? You base your life around "feelings" and you have no interest in mine? Seems you have all the makings of a good Christian.
Typical of the selfish, egocentric Christian.

Only thinks of himself.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Other Recent Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 4 min mannnu81 21,453
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 31 min Patrick 149
HELL real or not? (Sep '13) 39 min Patrick 288
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 43 min Patrick 225,646
If Christianity were true... 1 hr NightSerf 150
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 4 hr Jaimie 4
Adam Atheoi - the god of 'humanity' 6 hr CunningLinguist 83

Search the Atheism Forum:
•••