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.

KJV

United States

#8089 Dec 10, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Technology cannot evolve, yet. As it doesn't self replicate, we still have to instruct it to replicate which removes the possible replication errors. Therefore, your lame attempt at a failed analogy is just that, a failure.
Or it could have been a joke.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#8090 Dec 10, 2012
KJV wrote:
"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. "
You do know this particular fable is not in the earliest manuscripts? Neither is it on the earliest version of the New Testament?

http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/

Like much of the Bible, it was added many years later. Another example of the theological gerrymandering that led to the Bible you use today.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#8091 Dec 10, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
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
YEC = Young Earth Creationism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_crea...

Have you had a schism in your group yet?

The day will come when someone does his sums again and spots an error, placing the imagined date of creation a thousand years earlier.

Then you'll have the SOTYECs or Slghtly Older Than Young Earth Creationists"

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#8092 Dec 10, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
If there is no God then it's a majority rules on morals.
Sodom and Gomorrah for example.
So without your god, you see nothing wrong with killing people?

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#8093 Dec 10, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Derek4 did not write the article. He did not lie and I've seen no proof from you or anyone that Dawkins did not say those things.
Of course he lied:

He took at least four separate quotes from Miles Mathis and tried to make out they were from Richard Dawkins.

That's lying.
KJV

United States

#8094 Dec 10, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>You do know this particular fable is not in the earliest manuscripts? Neither is it on the earliest version of the New Testament?

http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/

Like much of the Bible, it was added many years later. Another example of the theological gerrymandering that led to the Bible you use today.
Wikipedia

Although in line with many stories in the Gospels and probably primitive (Didascalia Apostolorum refers to it, possibly Papias also), certain critics[2][3] argue that it was "certainly not part of the original text of St John's Gospel."[4] On the other hand, the Council of Trent declared that the Latin Vulgate was authentic and authoritative.[5] The Latin Vulgate includes the adultery episode in John 7:53-8:11.

"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. "

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#8095 Dec 10, 2012
Thinking wrote:
No, but christianity is crammed full of negatives.
<quoted text>
Absolutely! Christianity is based on the Bible.

The Bible contains forgeries.

The Bible is full of contradictions.

The Bible has fairy stories.

The Bible is not supported by archaeology.

The Bible contains failed prophecies.
KJV

United States

#8096 Dec 10, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>So without your god, you see nothing wrong with killing people?
Now how do you get that out of this?

KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
If there is no God then it's a majority rules on morals.
Sodom and Gomorrah for example.

Does this say anything like I believe In killing people?
You sure like trying to put words in people mouths.

Do you like killing people?
I don't even though I have killed other men. I did it because of the majority rules on morals. So to save some people the fate of a horrible form of government we went in and started killing young men. Yes sir that was a good reason to kill!

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#8097 Dec 10, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>Now how do you get that out of this?

KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
If there is no God then it's a majority rules on morals.
Sodom and Gomorrah for example.

Does this say anything like I believe In killing people?
You sure like trying to put words in people mouths.

Do you like killing people?
I don't even though I have killed other men. I did it because of the majority rules on morals. So to save some people the fate of a horrible form of government we went in and started killing young men. Yes sir that was a good reason to kill!
If you're referring to Vietnam, no it wasn't.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#8098 Dec 10, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Or it could have been a joke.
Difficult to tell, since that is a really old, and standard, creationist canard.
KJV

United States

#8099 Dec 10, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>Of course he lied:

He took at least four separate quotes from Miles Mathis and tried to make out they were from Richard Dawkins.

That's lying.
Nice article. Full of good in site from an atheist. Thanks for letting me reread it.

"And that brings us to the last fault of the prominent atheists. Atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Penn Jillette and Richard Dawkins and Ricky Gervais always perch assuredly on top of the work of scientists, without knowing anything about that work except its fame. The perfect example of this is the oft-mentioned Stephen Hawking. These atheists rarely ever quote him, since he is mostly unquotable; they simply point to him as an ally, an ally no one (they think) can contradict, since no one can understand him. He seems like a firm footing because he is universally thought to be smart. But I would be willing to bet that few of these atheists have read Hawking, and that none of them have read beyond his coffee-table books or can explain his theories sensibly (or even insensibly, as he does). Like most modern pseudo-intellectuals on both sides of every fence, they know nothing concrete about Relativity, QED, quarks, string theory or anything else, but this does not stop them from name dropping and using these theories as ballast. They can't have read Hawking closely, even beyond the equations, because they seem unaware that he has distanced himself from atheism. Few of the great scientists or mathematicians that atheists perch upon were actually atheists. Newton was not an atheist, nor were Kepler or Euler or even Laplace. As I showed above, Hitchens perches heavily upon Laplace, even quoting him. But it turns out that Laplace cannot be confirmed to have said this at all. The quote Hitchens uses can be traced only back to E. T. Bell in 1937, who provided no source.* The famous scientists were most often real scientists (until recently), which means they could probably see that atheism was not a scientific stance."

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#8100 Dec 10, 2012
KJV wrote:
Does this say anything like I believe In killing people?
You sure like trying to put words in people mouths.
Do you like killing people?
I don't even though I have killed other men. I did it because of the majority rules on morals. So to save some people the fate of a horrible form of government we went in and started killing young men. Yes sir that was a good reason to kill!
So you're a moral relativist. That's fine with me.

I'm glad to see you avoiding the moral absolutes of the Bible.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#8101 Dec 10, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
If you're referring to Vietnam, no it wasn't.
Absolutely!

It may be Grenada where quite possibly the most dangerous thing he encountered was the sharp end of a cocktail stick.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#8102 Dec 10, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice article. Full of good in site from an atheist. Thanks for letting me reread it.
"And that brings us to the last fault of the prominent atheists. Atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Penn Jillette and Richard Dawkins and Ricky Gervais always perch assuredly on top of the work of scientists, without knowing anything about that work except its fame. The perfect example of this is the oft-mentioned Stephen Hawking. These atheists rarely ever quote him, since he is mostly unquotable; they simply point to him as an ally, an ally no one (they think) can contradict, since no one can understand him. He seems like a firm footing because he is universally thought to be smart. But I would be willing to bet that few of these atheists have read Hawking, and that none of them have read beyond his coffee-table books or can explain his theories sensibly (or even insensibly, as he does). Like most modern pseudo-intellectuals on both sides of every fence, they know nothing concrete about Relativity, QED, quarks, string theory or anything else, but this does not stop them from name dropping and using these theories as ballast. They can't have read Hawking closely, even beyond the equations, because they seem unaware that he has distanced himself from atheism. Few of the great scientists or mathematicians that atheists perch upon were actually atheists. Newton was not an atheist, nor were Kepler or Euler or even Laplace. As I showed above, Hitchens perches heavily upon Laplace, even quoting him. But it turns out that Laplace cannot be confirmed to have said this at all. The quote Hitchens uses can be traced only back to E. T. Bell in 1937, who provided no source.* The famous scientists were most often real scientists (until recently), which means they could probably see that atheism was not a scientific stance."
It's an article.

What's shameful are the lies from your friend Dim as he deliberately misattributed Mathis' words to Richard Dawkins.

Of course, by doing so he also demonstrated that he does not believe the Bible.

KJV

United States

#8103 Dec 10, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>So you're a moral relativist. That's fine with me.

I'm glad to see you avoiding the moral absolutes of the Bible.
The Lord spoke to Moses, saying,“Avenge the people of Israel on the Midianites. Afterward you shall be gathered to your people.” So Moses spoke to the people, saying,“Arm men from among you for the war, that they may go against Midian to execute the Lord's vengeance on Midian. You shall send a thousand from each of the tribes of Israel to the war.” So there were provided, out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand from each tribe, twelve thousand armed for war....
KJV

United States

#8104 Dec 10, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>If you're referring to Vietnam, no it wasn't.
I am not ashamed of my duties and service. I do admit that my post does make it seem as If I disagreed with the police action in Vietnam. My point was that the majority deemed the war acceptable then something new happened, it was maybe not the majority but the most vocal group stood up against the war and so we left leaving Vietnam to become what we tried to stop it from becoming.

So Vietnam is kind of a great example of society morals changing. Hero's returning from a brutal war and were greeted as baby killers. Never before in the history of the United States have Vets been treated that way.

With out God the majority makes the rules. This was my point.
KJV

United States

#8105 Dec 10, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Difficult to tell, since that is a really old, and standard, creationist canard.
Well I try to keep it real. I don't believe a tornado can given enough time could ever create a jet air craft. As I don't believe computer mice are on Darwin's evolutionary tree.
KJV

United States

#8106 Dec 10, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>Absolutely!

It may be Grenada where quite possibly the most dangerous thing he encountered was the sharp end of a cocktail stick.
You little puppet could never do what I did. Your own squad would shoot you in the back the very first fire fight you ran into. Making comment like that above shows exactly the type of animal you claim to be. Thanks for putting it out there for everyone to see you for what you really are.
KJV

United States

#8107 Dec 10, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>It's an article.

What's shameful are the lies from your friend Dim as he deliberately misattributed Mathis' words to Richard Dawkins.

Of course, by doing so he also demonstrated that he does not believe the Bible.
Maybe in your warped little maggot filled brain.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#8108 Dec 10, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I try to keep it real. I don't believe a tornado can given enough time could ever create a jet air craft. As I don't believe computer mice are on Darwin's evolutionary tree.
Actually, it could. The probability is very small, but there is a chance of random wind events moving the parts in just the correct order. We don't see it because you'd have to be alive for several billion years to make that probability reach a high enough occurrence. Probability works like this:

There is a 0.0001% chance of an event occurring at a specific time and place, just a random number for the mathematical purposes.

When you increase the number of times it could happen, by 100 times, that chance increases exponentially, not additive but exponentially.

Each time that location is observed during these times the chances increase exponentially as well.

Thus if the location is viewed many times during those 100 time points, you increase the probably significantly of said event happening to at least 1%.

If you increase the number of locations it could happen the chances of it ever happening increase exponentially as well.

Using your "jumbo jet" example, let's assume the base change is 1x10^-100, knock off 50 of that because of how common tornadoes are to make it 1x10^-50. Another 25 for the number of junk yards to make it 1x10^-25. Then the number of people observing such events would decrease it to 1x10-10, since it's a lot of people. Now that would be on Earth only, if there are junk yards on other planets, and that's a very high probability, then you would multiply that chance by the number of planets those are one, which would likely be infinity since with an infinite number of planets, the most probable number, you have an infinite number with life on as well.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 min Dogen 48,677
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 37 min scientia potentia... 23,521
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr Thinking 21,881
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 2 hr Into The Night 5,705
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 5 hr Igor Trip 69
News Louisiana Christians reclaim safe space by runn... 6 hr Amused 3
What are the best arguments against religion? 11 hr Igor Trip 2
More from around the web