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: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8048 Dec 10, 2012
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

Watford, UK

#8049 Dec 10, 2012
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

Watford, UK

#8050 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
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

#8051 Dec 10, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
And the daily spamfest starts....
Thank the universe for the mouse scroll wheel...

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#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

Watford, UK

#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

Watford, UK

#8054 Dec 10, 2012
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

#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

Watford, UK

#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

#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

Watford, UK

#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

Watford, UK

#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

Watford, UK

#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.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#8061 Dec 10, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
You're as big a liar as the billboards I posted about.
Your "ethics"? You don't know the meaning of the word, nor do you know the meaning of "morals".
LMAO
Come on Dim.

Share with us how you took a bunch of quotes from an unknown called Miles Mathis and attributed them to Richard Dawkins.

Then explain why the only person you managed to sucker into believing your lies was your fellow believer in magic, KJV.

Then explain why you don't believe the Bible.

ROFLMAO!!
Thinking

Cirencester, UK

#8062 Dec 10, 2012
Fantastic! Wot a Dim nob.[sic]
Givemeliberty wrote:
Dim just copies and pastes nonsense without checking into it. He is so desperate he actually posted a link to a goth costume jewelry store where the owner jokingly called a cross necklace for sale the atheist cross.
He took it seriously.
<quoted text>
KJV

United States

#8063 Dec 10, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>Can't you do anything about the strange characters that appear in your posts? It makes them too hard to read. I tried to read this, but quit. Perhaps you can correct them by hand before you hit the "Post Comment" button.
You know that's a very strange thing.
I use an iPhone and when I paste the article it looks fine. I click post and go back and it's changes to the odd characters. So anyone with in site as to why this is or how to correct it I would appreciate it.
KJV

United States

#8064 Dec 10, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>And it's a good thing that they do. Our moral system is evolving, which is why your Old Testament god, the bellicose monster Jehovah, morphed into your New Testament god, the gentle Jesus, complete with a whole new law. Amazingly, you go on talking about the existence of an absolute, objective morality, and that you have access to it.

We've made a lot of updates since Jesus time, and now consider much of his moral character inadequate. The latest version is in the Affirmations of Humanism.

Christians are assimilating secularists values, just more slowly, and never admitting or even acknowledging secularist contributions, giving all the credit to some god instead despite the fact that it also evolving along with prevailing ethical values.

How did you know to give up stoning children to death if not from men that simply rejected that law of your Old Testament? Jehovah never recanted it, did he? It was a freethinker that simply said nonsense, and most of the West agreed.

Later, secularists told you to stop burning people, later still, to stop trying to own people as slaves or beating them when you did. You assimilated all of that, but still somehow credit the god.

You remain oblivious to the value of rational, compassionate ethics and the part that it has played in reshaped your thinking. The bible is not your source of ethics. If it were, you would obey it all.

But you don't. You cherry pick according to an external standard, as if recognizing that much of your bible's values are immoral. By what standard then do you pick and choose which of the 613 Commandments to ignore? Secular humanist standards, that's which ones.

And today, we are teaching the Christian world more moral refinements, such as that gay and atheist people are not immoral, that women are not subordinate to men, that a liberal education and critical thinking are better than authoritarian indoctrination and magical thinking, and that a stem cell is not a citizen. You haven't signed on to any of those yet, but no matter. We'll eventually prevail there, too.
"How did you know to give up stoning children to death if not from men that simply rejected that law of your Old Testament? Jehovah never recanted it, did he? It was a freethinker that simply said nonsense, and most of the West agreed. "

In fact yes he did!

"Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. "
KJV

United States

#8065 Dec 10, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>Dim is being pulverized. He is the whole thread's chew toy, a communal piñata if you will.

But don't worry about it. It's humane. Dim's oblivious to his plight. He doesn't read much, and understands less.
Derek4 is bringing forth articles from great sources. He's not babbling dribble. I'm read articles from the "New York Times" And "Scientific Journal" along with many others. So it make very little sense to attack the news paper for the bad news in it. Go to the source if you don't like it.
KJV

United States

#8066 Dec 10, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>He didn't say "alone." You did.

But Khatru has discredited much of Dim's fetch-and-paste. We all have.
I've seen no discrediting. I've seen more or less whining. I have yet to see the New York Times print a retraction.
KJV

United States

#8067 Dec 10, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>As we can see from the figures for Christianity and indeed other religions; a stupid idea remains a stupid idea irrespective of how many people subscribe to it

So where are the YECS in this list?

I guess you're so small you don't even register.
Unlike Atheist and Nonbelievers that are listed separate, Young Earth Christians are Christians and therefore listed as such. Was that to hard for the puppet to figure out?

Tomorrow we'll start working on how to write capital letters class. LOLNN

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 min _Susan_ 16,285
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 9 min _Susan_ 40,794
Who Is Satan The Devil? Is He Real? (Jan '16) 13 min Reason Personified 26
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 35 min Eagle 12 256,086
For Atheists: Why do You Call Theories "Scient... 4 hr Into The Night 274
A Universe from Nothing? 4 hr Eagle 12 81
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 5 hr Mikko 3,771
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 9 hr _Susan_ 20,620
More from around the web