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.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#8213 Dec 11, 2012
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
Really?

You're saying that a really high percentage of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah did not worship any gods at all?

Where'd you get that idea from?

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#8214 Dec 11, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks. I'm glad you liked the lists. For me, they're interesting, instructive and fun. If you're interested, here's another word list - this time, words having to do with women - at http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE... .
That's a great list too. I knew a number of them but there are plenty I didn't know.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#8215 Dec 11, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
Great stuff!

Dim shown up for the liar he is!

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#8216 Dec 11, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
SOTYECs? "Die, heretic scum!"
LOL

I await the day with anticipated amusement.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#8217 Dec 11, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Did you see the 2011 England and Wales Census data today?
"No religious affiliation" up 6.3m from 2001, christianity down 4.1m from 2001.
"The number of residents who stated that their religion was Christian in 2011 was fewer than in 2001. The size of this group decreased 13 percentage points to 59 per cent (33.2 million) in 2011 from 72 per cent (37.3 million) in 2001. The size of the group who stated that they had no religious affiliation increased by 10 percentage points from 15 per cent (7.7 million) in 2001 to 25 per cent (14.1 million) in 2011." - www.ons.gov.uk
<quoted text>
Yeah!

It was great news!

Percentage of Christians down by 14 to 59%

Non-believers up 10 to 25%

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#8218 Dec 11, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Dim finds a spoof link, something meant to be a joke and he takes it seriously. Can you imagine all the wedgies he got back in school?
<quoted text>
LOL

The guy's deranged
Thinking

Cirencester, UK

#8219 Dec 11, 2012
EdSed posted this link:

http://humanism.org.uk/campaigns/census-2011/

If the religion question wasn't so leading, non-believers would exceed 25%.

83% more people said they were non-believers, nonetheless.
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah!
It was great news!
Percentage of Christians down by 14 to 59%
Non-believers up 10 to 25%

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#8220 Dec 11, 2012
Thinking wrote:
EdSed posted this link:
http://humanism.org.uk/campaigns/census-2011/
If the religion question wasn't so leading, non-believers would exceed 25%.
83% more people said they were non-believers, nonetheless.
<quoted text>
Yes, that's right.

We all know the real figures are much better than this.

Still, it's great news and shows just how irrelevant religion is becoming.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#8221 Dec 11, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, that's right.
We all know the real figures are much better than this.
Still, it's great news and shows just how irrelevant religion is becoming.
Irrelevant to whom? Religion is already proclaimed to be irrelevant to those who do not believe in God or organized religion. Religion will always be relevant to those who believe.

So please explain, is religion becoming more irrelevant to you and to other people who thought religion was already irrelevant, OR are you extrapolating these statistics to come up with your own personal aggregate or gross measure of "religious irrelevance" in the world today? Please do share. If you have some kind of advanced accurate aggregate actuarial measure of "religious irrelevance" I think we all would love to hear about it.

As a major in measurement, as my peers like to say, I would love to hear how you measure relative "irrelevance of religion" while taking into account people like you who proclaim that religion is irrelevant to life yet spend a few minutes each day discussing religion with people. If you take that into consideration, I think you will find that religion is relevant to everyone's life. Simply consider in the way everyone interacts with people, the way portions of foreign policy is formed around other countries' religious beliefs, the way international businesses are forced to alter policies to accommodate clients' and employees' beliefs, and much much more.

As long as there is a religious person living, and that person's life is relevant to the general population, religion will be relevant.

What exactly is gained by a discussion of religion's relevance; declining, increasing, or remaining? I don't know. In all seriousness, perhaps there are some here who are so terrorized by bad experiences with religious people and institutions that they wish to remove all relevance or connections to religion from their lives and they wish to prove to themselves that religion is not relevant. In my opinion, by merely discussing religion as we are now, we are making religion more relevant to this forum, to the internet community, and the world as a whole.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#8222 Dec 11, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, that's right.
We all know the real figures are much better than this.
Still, it's great news and shows just how irrelevant religion is becoming.
Thanks for sharing that thought.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#8223 Dec 11, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, that means I can be a prophet.
Yup, you got it. There are lots of prophets out there....true ones, false ones, ones who say they have seen God, and ones who simply have a testimony of Christ. It all depends on how you define a "prophet."
KJV

United States

#8224 Dec 11, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>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?
It was not intended to you.

However if he post a news article say from a source such as the "New York Times" attacking him on the context would be wrong.

It goes along the same lines as when I post something with the source listed and getting back comments like
"No link so it's BS"

When the source is right there in front of their face. Again not you.
KJV

United States

#8225 Dec 11, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Oh I know new papers even the Times do print retractions. My point was on that article there was (at least I could not find one) no retractions.
KJV

United States

#8226 Dec 11, 2012
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>Hoyle was wrong.
Bottom line I agree.
KJV

United States

#8227 Dec 11, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>Correct. What would you prefer in the absence of a god? A dictator dictating moral law? Obeying an ancient book?
Yes as I pointed out that killing humans and eating them is not wrong in some cultures with out God.

Obeying Gods morals is not as bad as you think. And mans morals with out God can get pretty rough.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#8228 Dec 11, 2012
derek4 wrote:
How School Science Lies:
http://www.google.com/url...
[Too much there to post, lol. Click the link yourselves, and read it, or scroll on by like all the others you say you scroll past and then specifically try to dispute parts you've obviously read, lol. Don't care what you do, peabrains.....]
Okay, maybe we didn't have everything explained to us crystal clear because we were trying to cover a large breadth of information. I still think I benefited from learning how to think scientifically.
Though, I don't think the concepts of evolution and creation are incompatible either. Personally, I don't know EXACTLY how God created the earth and all its inhabitants and I don't think there is anyone on this earth that knows exactly how it was done. I'm not ruling out anything...perhaps in fear of denying the beautiful harmonies observed in nature that are discovered by science, but created by God.

I see science as a pursuit of knowledge, truth, and intellectual enlightenment. However, in my opinion, truth and knowledge can not be truly appreciated until it is illuminated by the fire of faith from within.

Yes, "science" has had some mistakes, but so has organized religion, simply because as long as fallible men are involved, so will the organization be fallible. <= That is why we need to follow our own faith experiments and discovery to confirm what we are taught with revelation and confirmation from God.
KJV

United States

#8229 Dec 11, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Yes they are! Yet a few pages back some atheist was trying to claim a person that hated God was an atheist.
Hence my post. Hating God means you're a Theist not an atheist.
KJV

United States

#8230 Dec 11, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Well I'm backing out of this because I do not wish to invest the time to find out if Dawkins said those words or not. I do see the article and that Mathias was the one that appeared to make those statements.
KJV

United States

#8231 Dec 11, 2012
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>And we know how reliable Conservapedia is.
Ok how about Encyclopedia Britannica?

"Encyclopedia Britannica stated that 2.3% of the world's population consists of individuals who profess "atheism, skepticism, disbelief, or irreligion"

Or how about Wikipedia?

"According to one estimate, atheists make up about 2.3% of the world's population"

Or Pew?

"Pew Forum survey found that the atheist population in the United States was 1.6% of the American population."
Thinking

Cirencester, UK

#8232 Dec 11, 2012
Well he did end up a believer after studying the carbon cycle, so he died a tw*t.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Bottom line I agree.

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) 27 min hpcaban 45,419
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Into The Night 20,220
News Who is an atheist? (May '10) 8 hr Chick240 9,500
News Why Kasich's atheist criticisms seem out of touch 8 hr Reason Personified 29
News Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris are old news - a t... 12 hr ATHEOI 189
What is of greater value for humanity: Chrisita... 18 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 417
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 18 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 278
More from around the web