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.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8151 Dec 10, 2012
Khatru wrote:
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.
I had forgotten that. He has a lot of nerve bringing that Jefferson crap to this thread after doing that himself.

Notice that there was no argument as to whether Jefferson MIGHT have said those apocryphal words misattributed to him, which were similar to many things that he actually did say, nor that the words were invalid whoever said them - just that Jefferson didn't happen to be the one to utter or write them himself.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8152 Dec 10, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"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. "
I would have liked a clearer denunciation of stoning people to death, and perhaps an explanation of why it had been considered moral in the past, but OK - I'll accept that. I will have to update my argument to reflect only things that Jesus DIDN'T correct.

Have you seen Monty Python on stoning for blasphemy?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8153 Dec 11, 2012
KJV wrote:
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.
Are you referring to me? What newspaper did I attack? I have criticized Dim and his fetch-and-pastes.

And why wouldn't I do that here? As I've said many times, my posts aren't written for believers, whether that be the apologists that wrote them, or Gunga Dim, who carries water for them. Wouldn't you agree that that would be a wasted effort?

The rebuttals are written for people that might evaluate them on their merit and maybe benefit from the ideas they contain. I don't expect that from the Christians, so why write to them? Dim proudly vaunts that he doesn't even read them. Why would I expect the pieces' authors to be any different?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8154 Dec 11, 2012
KJV wrote:
I have yet to see the New York Times print a retraction.
How about a mea culpa? Here they are apologizing for their scandalous coverage of Bush's rush to war in 2002-03:

"Over the last year this newspaper has shone the bright light of hindsight on decisions that led the United States into Iraq ... It is past time we turned the same light on ourselves ... we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/internation...

There's an understatement! That was a complete abdication of the most critical function that the press plays in a democracy. "Our bad" doesn't cut it.
Thinking

Cirencester, UK

#8155 Dec 11, 2012
Hoyle was wrong.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
I can tell by your vast vocabulary what grade you are repeating in elementary school.
Do you use the name Thinking to help remind you to think before you type?
If so it does not seem to be working.
I still find it hard to believe you knew about the tornado / 747 theory and still asked me the question "why would it a jet airplane is designed". Like what's up with that?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8156 Dec 11, 2012
KJV wrote:
If there is no God then it's a majority rules on morals.
Correct. What would you prefer in the absence of a god? A dictator dictating moral law? Obeying an ancient book?
Thinking

Cirencester, UK

#8157 Dec 11, 2012
god was about as discriminating in that attack as 9/11

If only you knew of a deity that could be more accurate.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Sodom and Gomorrah had a real high percentage of atheist so don't feel to bad. If I was you I'd watch my salt intake. LOL

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8158 Dec 11, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheist love trying to add as many as they can to their little tiny group. I see now the want Satanists included to their group. Still trying to get their numbers above 2.5%. LOL
We don't care who calls themselves an atheist. Nor agnostic, freethinker, skeptic, irreligious, secularist, or humanist - just as long as they are not thralls for the church. We don't want people voting according to what they think Jesus wants, or hating whomever they believe Jesus hates.

And satanists are theists.

Richardfs

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#8159 Dec 11, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, it's a great tool atheists use to escape facts. Scroll away, lol.
What facts?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8160 Dec 11, 2012
KJV wrote:
Derek4 did not write the article. He did not lie
Of course he lied. He was one that claimed that Dawkins said those words, not Mathias.

Even so, Dim is responsible for the content that he introduces. Absent any disclaimer, his endorsement of it is implied.

Furthermore, he reposted the material several more times after being told that he was lying. He doesn't give a crap.
KJV wrote:
I've seen no proof from you or anyone that Dawkins did not say those things.
You see what you want to see.

The words he attributed to Dawkins didn't appear anywhere that Dawkins' words are normally found. This is my exposure of Dim's lying, one of several : http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

In it is a link to a Google search of the words that Dim dishonestly attributed to Dawkins. At the time, it got only one hit - Mathias' page. Now, it has two - Mathias' page and this thread.

What was the proof that Jefferson did not write the words on the billboard attributed to him? Nothing more than that there was no record of the words where they ought to have been found had they been Jefferson's. That is the same argument being levied against Dim's deception as well.

Richardfs

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#8161 Dec 11, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Here I correct a bunch of that weird letter crap
All new atheist population around the world!
"Atheism losing adherents in terms of the global population
The 2004 to 2007 publicity campaign for atheism in the Western World was not sustainable. The level of public interest in atheism is not coming back in the West and global atheism is shrinking.
See also: Global atheism and American atheism and Atheist Population and Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian
In 2012, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary reported that globally every day there are 800 less atheists per day, 1,100 less non-religious (agnostic) people per day and 83,000 more people professing to be Christians per day.
In 2011, the American Spectator citing research published in the International Bulletin of Missionary Research reported that atheism is on the decline as a whole in terms of adherents .
The American Spectator declared:
“The report estimates about 80,000 new Christians every day, 79,000 new Muslims every day, and 300 fewer atheists every day. These atheists are presumably disproportionately represented in the West, while religion is thriving in the Global South, where charismatic Christianity is exploding.”
In 2009, the book A sceptics guide to atheism indicated: "A worldwide poll taken in 1991 put the global figure for atheists at just 4.4% of the population. By 2006 it was estimated that only 2% of the world population were atheists."
In 2012 an article entitled Atheism in decline by Nigel Tomes declared:
The IBMR publishes yearly figures for religions (and non religions) around the globe. Their latest numbers, hot off the press (Jan. 2012) show some interesting trends.
Atheism is in Decline
In 1970 atheists (those avowing there is no God) numbered 166 million worldwide; that was almost one-in-twenty 4.5% of the global population. By 2012 atheists’ number is estimated at 137 million. Thats a decline of almost 30 million. Since world population is growing, atheists share declined to less than one-in-fifty under 2% in 2012. Put differently, every 24 hours there are 800 fewer atheists in the world!
Atheism is in decline.
Agnosticism is in Decline
In 2000 agnostics (those who don't know if there is a God) numbered 666 million, 10.9% of the worlds people. By 2012 agnostic’s number is estimated at 661 million--a decline of 5 million. In relative terms by 2012 agnostics represent less than one tenth (9.4%) of world population. Every 24 hours there are 1,100 less agnostics in the world. Agnostics are also in decline.
Added together these two groups make up a declining share of global population. In 1970 atheists and agnostics accounted for one-in-five (19.2%) of the worlds people. Based on current trends by 2025 they will represent less than one-in-ten (9.7%). Their population share will fall by half in 50+ years."
http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism
And we know how reliable Conservapedia is.

Richardfs

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#8162 Dec 11, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
You must have gone to a really, really bad school.
Home schooled.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8163 Dec 11, 2012
KJV wrote:
"The theist does not say he knows that God exists, he says he believes it ... The atheist claims to be quite certain that there is no god"
Dream on. This is exactly backwards.

Most theists are gnostic theists. They tell us that they know for an ironclad fact that their god exists.

They see him everywhere they look, and offer the world as evidence to the rest of us that they are correct. They say that their god has spoken to them.

And they say that we can see their god too, but that we hate him and are trying to avoid accountability with him.

Contrarily, most atheists simply reject these claims without making any positive assertion about gods being impossible or nonexistent. I posted exactly that yesterday with reference to intelligent design:

God Himself wrote: "Why couldn't natural intelligence cause the formation of the universe by intelligently designing; even by evolution in as much as it is a process that can be used to create intelligently?"

IANS replied: "I can't say that it couldn't have, and I don't."
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8164 Dec 11, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
Maybe you should question why you are trying to convert intelligent people who can see through your proven religious fraud?
Agreed. I like to tell them that when they come shaking the Scary Chicken On A Stick at us. The susceptible people in our demographic - mostly middle aged or older skeptics, most well educated, and many former Christians - have been captured long ago, making this is an especially poor place to come fishing for more souls for the Scary Chicken.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8165 Dec 11, 2012
Khatru wrote:
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"
SOTYECs? "Die, heretic scum!"
Thinking

Cirencester, UK

#8166 Dec 11, 2012
For the best part of a year I had to use a company ISP to get on conservapedia for my laughter fix.

They were so unsure of their content they were blocking all European IPs, the free speech oppressing cowards.
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
And we know how reliable Conservapedia is.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8167 Dec 11, 2012
KJV wrote:
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

With out God the majority makes the rules. This was my point.
The majority, which in America is Christian, didn't decide to invade Vietnam. But they did accede to the decision, as Christians always do. They typically conflate their religiosity and patriotism, and assume like Christians do that the authoritarian father figure is right, and that those who disagree with him such as the war protestors, are disobedient and immoral. Check this out:

"Linguist George Lakoff in his provocative book, Moral Politics, contrasts the divergent political viewpoints upon human nature held by the conservative "right" and liberal "left" in contemporary Western discourse.

"On the right side is the "Strict Father" morality. Here we have the notion that people will behave morally only under the surveillance of, and the promise of threat and reward from, an authoritarian father figure, agents or agencies of government or religion. In this model of human nature, there is no natural goodness in people, only tendencies toward evil that must be curbed by strict behavior-modification practices. Such societies engage in forms of retributive justice to deter crime while insisting on discipline through enforced control and total obedience to a hierarchical authority.

"In contrast, on the left side is the "Nurturing Parent" metaphor of human nature, proposed by Lakoff. It replaces a Skinnerian social control approach with one more central to most religions, wherein caring for and loving others takes precedence over an ego-centered fear/reward focus. Respecting individual autonomy and personal worth are linked to compassion, forgiveness and forms of justice based on fairness, equity and restitution."
http://www.lucifereffect.com/about_content_la...

=========

The war protestors were right. Vietnam did not need America there, and has done better since America stopped bombing it. The Communists were never a threat. I've been to Vietnam since the war ended, and can tell you first hand that Communism is not hurting these people like the US Department of Defense did.

Now guess which kind of people were the Nixon supporters, and who were the ones responsible for "something new happened, it was maybe not the majority but the most vocal group stood up against the war and so we left." Which group contained the largest fraction of Christians, and which had more secular humanists?

We can't trust the Christians to make a moral stand. We can only trust them to follow an authority figure, just as they did in Nazi Germany, like so many lowing bison.

It was secular humanist values that came to the rescue and eventually prevailed, or else America might still be in Vietnam. We're different. We know right from wrong in a different way - a better way - and we will defy authority when it is wrong.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8168 Dec 11, 2012
KJV wrote:
I don't believe a tornado can given enough time could ever create a jet air craft.
Then how about a god? What are the odds of the pieces of a god finding one another without having even the help of a wind? How much time would that require?

And how could such a thing be a first cause? Assorted laws or forces must have existed for that to happen, and to maintain the god intact.

Let me guess: no rules or reason applies to your god. It simply transcends these problems because you need it to and say so.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#8169 Dec 11, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Then how about a god? What are the odds of the pieces of a god finding one another without having even the help of a wind? How much time would that require?
Another thought for KJV. An aeroplane is not assembled by one super powerful person, but a team of people. Who is to say the universe was not created by a collection of lesser gods. Bet he hadnt considered that possibility ;)

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#8170 Dec 11, 2012
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
Home schooled.
Some home schools are decent. My daughter was home schooled until high school (when she decided she wanted the social aspect). She was reading (and understanding) Plato at age 10 and reading books on reptile surgery at age 12.

But her experience is not the typical one.:)

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) 15 min Subduction Zone 57,827
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 23 min Joe Momma 27,233
god belief down to 28% in UK 29 min Eagle 12 123
carbon 14 dating very inaccurate (Jun '12) 35 min Eagle 12 72
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) 2 hr greymouser 125
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 3 hr Eagle 12 258,479
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 3 hr Eagle 12 5,953
More from around the web