Don't dictate beliefs

[RHill]

derek4 wrote:

“Charlie Brown’s Christmas is on the outs at an elementary school in Little Rock, Ark.— at least among atheists who are calling foul over a planned student trip to see a stage production of the beloved Peanuts story.
The trouble began when students at Terry Elementary School brought home letters detailing the trip to see “A Charlie Brown Christmas” at a local church, according to a report from Arkansas’ KARK. A parent who had a problem with the play’s content notified the local atheist group of the field trip.
“We’re not saying anything bad about Charlie Brown,” Anne Orsi, vice president of the Arkansas Society of Freethinkers, told KARK.“The problem is that it’s got religious content and it’s being performed in a religious venue and that doesn’t just blur the line between church and state, it oversteps it entirely.”
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/atheist...
[GET A LIFE, LOL....]

I love "Peanuts", Charlie Brown and "A Charlie Brown Christmas" ... never had a problem with any of it. There's a lot of philosophy in "Peanuts" and plenty to start young people thinking. The problem is NOT Charlie Brown, the problem is busing school children to a Church to see it. I've never been to any kind of event at a church that wasn't a poorly disguised sermon of some kind. You want to see "A Charlie Brown Christmas" at public school ... pop it in the DVD player. Don't use my school taxes to bus the kid's off for a sermon. I say kudos to the Society of Freethinkers!!! You want a field trip? How about the Museum of Natural Science!!!

[derek4]

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.”]

[derek4]

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.]

[derek4]

RHill wrote:

<quoted text>
I love "Peanuts", Charlie Brown and "A Charlie Brown Christmas" ... never had a problem with any of it. There's a lot of philosophy in "Peanuts" and plenty to start young people thinking. The problem is NOT Charlie Brown, the problem is busing school children to a Church to see it. I've never been to any kind of event at a church that wasn't a poorly disguised sermon of some kind. You want to see "A Charlie Brown Christmas" at public school ... pop it in the DVD player. Don't use my school taxes to bus the kid's off for a sermon. I say kudos to the Society of Freethinkers!!! You want a field trip? How about the Museum of Natural Science!!!

The problem with atheists, and you included, is that everything doesn't revolve around YOU, so you missed the point of the news story. The objection by atheists in the story was iun the CONTENT, and had nothing to do with the location (the church). If you would read instead of talking about how YOU see things, you would have noticed that. Here it is again:

“Charlie Brown’s Christmas is on the outs at an elementary school in Little Rock, Ark.— at least among atheists who are calling foul over a planned student trip to see a stage production of the beloved Peanuts story.

The trouble began when students at Terry Elementary School brought home letters detailing the trip to see “A Charlie Brown Christmas” at a local church, according to a report from Arkansas’ KARK. A parent who had a problem with the play’s content notified the local atheist group of the field trip.

“We’re not saying anything bad about Charlie Brown,” Anne Orsi, vice president of the Arkansas Society of Freethinkers, told KARK.“The problem is that it’s got religious content and it’s being performed in a religious venue and that doesn’t just blur the line between church and state, it oversteps it entirely.”
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/atheist...

[derek4]

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.

[RHill]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
The problem with atheists, and you included, is that everything doesn't revolve around YOU, so you missed the point of the news story. The objection by atheists in the story was iun the CONTENT, and had nothing to do with the location (the church). If you would read instead of talking about how YOU see things, you would have noticed that. Here it is again:
“Charlie Brown’s Christmas is on the outs at an elementary school in Little Rock, Ark.— at least among atheists who are calling foul over a planned student trip to see a stage production of the beloved Peanuts story.
The trouble began when students at Terry Elementary School brought home letters detailing the trip to see “A Charlie Brown Christmas” at a local church, according to a report from Arkansas’ KARK. A parent who had a problem with the play’s content notified the local atheist group of the field trip.
“We’re not saying anything bad about Charlie Brown,” Anne Orsi, vice president of the Arkansas Society of Freethinkers, told KARK.“The problem is that it’s got religious content and it’s being performed in a religious venue and that doesn’t just blur the line between church and state, it oversteps it entirely.”
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/atheist...

The "point" of the news story was to cast Atheist's in a bad light. Who could object to children enjoying such a harmless diversion? ONLY the EVIL ATHEISTS OF COURSE!!! It's manipulation at a shockingly crude level ... Godbots lap it up. The "hidden message" of the story is that religionists will stoop to any level to draw children into their web of deceit. Way to go. Keep up the good work.

[Aerobatty]

derek4 wrote:

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'm curious.

Do you have a life outside of topix?

[RHill]

derek4 wrote:

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.

I've a feeling the troubled parent, having seen "A Charlie Brown Christmas" as Charles Schulz intended it on TV a few bazillion times, objected to the Christianized version as presented in that House of Ill Repute. I doubt if the poor, scraggly xmas tree made glorious by love, was the central message there. Wanna bet?

[swerty]

Darwinism - Ruining dreams of retards since evolution began

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

[Just Think]

Aerobatty wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm curious.
Do you have a life outside of topix?

He certainly doesn't have one on Topix....

[Givemeliberty]

Hey... Uhmm seriously... No really... Are you still arguing for the invisible sky wizard creating everything?

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

[Givemeliberty]

Not a life and not a friend in the world that one.

Aerobatty wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm curious.
Do you have a life outside of topix?

[Reason Personified]

Khatru wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL
Not forgetting the talking snakes and donkeys and bread baked with shite.
ROFLMAO!!

Just a partial list is enough to make a sane persons skin crawl in revulsion. They drink the substantiated blood of their dead zombie, how much more is needed, to call the Christain cult crazed?

[Khatru]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
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.

I very much doubt Dim will respond to this as he's wary of you.

[Khatru]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
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

Ah, Dim.

You keep right on posting, my caliginous friend.

Your posts are a fine advert that demonstrates the strength of science and how it will always weed out the small percentage of fakes. Such a shame your religion doesn't monitor its adherents with the same high standards.

Although it's nice of you to credit me with tearing your posts to shreds, I did say "we" and not "me". Try and pay attention, Dim.

Now, show me that Einstein link of yours again - the one you posted where Albert states that Christianity would be so much better if it were purged of any subsequent additions after the Jesus myth.

It's so nice to know that you wholeheartedly agree with Albert on this - otherwise, you'd never have posted it.

ROFLMAO!

[Khatru]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

Given that original thought is a concept alien to you, I'm not surprised to hear you saying this.

[Khatru]

derek4 wrote:

The problem with atheists, and you included, is that everything doesn't revolve around YOU

Your double-standards belie your phoney sense of outrage.

You're the whackjob who believes that the universe was created for him and that his god died for him.

Nothing is more conceited and self-centred than that.

[Khatru]

RHill wrote:

<quoted text>
The "point" of the news story was to cast Atheist's in a bad light. Who could object to children enjoying such a harmless diversion? ONLY the EVIL ATHEISTS OF COURSE!!! It's manipulation at a shockingly crude level ... Godbots lap it up. The "hidden message" of the story is that religionists will stoop to any level to draw children into their web of deceit. Way to go. Keep up the good work.

It's child abuse, pure and simple.

Suffer the little children, right enough.

[Khatru]

swerty wrote:

Darwinism - Ruining dreams of retards since evolution began <quoted text>

LOL

Darwin has killed Dim's god.

You'll also find no anti-Semitism in the works of the great man.

Contrast that with Dim's belief system which is full of it.

[Khatru]

Givemeliberty wrote:

Hey... Uhmm seriously... No really... Are you still arguing for the invisible sky wizard creating everything?
<quoted text>

Lol!

It's what Dim lovingly refers to as the "abracadbra method of creation"