Don't dictate beliefs

Sep 5, 2012 Read more: The Star Press 11,179

No one else can say otherwise? That is basically saying those who do "believe in God" are better? Hardly.

Read more

Andover, UK

#8245 Dec 11, 2012
So why the issue with life without a god?
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
The 747 thing has to do with the possibility of randomness given enough time. So given enough time it is mathematically possible for a tornado to fly though a junk yard and create a perfect 747.

United States

#8246 Dec 11, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
<quoted text>Sodom means scorched and Gomorrah means burning. You realize nobody would ever name their city that right? It was a legend nothing more.

Sheesh you are gullible.
Boy you just keep getting dumber.
Those definition came from what happened to those towns! Those words did not have those meanings before Gods judgement on them. LOLNN

United States

#8247 Dec 11, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>Poor, pitiful, and dense little you; whining again.

You and Kitten = repulsives.

Give your worthless opinion to Mr. Newdow, not me.

Tell all the atheist churches they are just spoofs. See how they react, and let me know how that's working out for you.

Tell this one too:

North Texas Church of Free Thought

“Whatever you don't believe, you're not alone”

“The North Texas Church of Freethought is a Fellowship of Unbelievers. We do what all the other churches do, but with one less god. Our aim is to offer atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, and freethinkers all the educational, inspirational, and social and emotional benefits of traditional faith-based churches. We do this by preaching Freethought, a rational approach to religious questions of life, love, meaning, and happiness. Our growing community of freethinkers provides a positive, affirming environment for leading a good life, free of the illogic and intolerance of other religions based on holy books and supernaturalism.

Historian David Fitzgerald, author of Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed At All, will be visiting the DFW area later this week. He will speak at SMU this Wednesday night October 10 at the Umpherey Lee building room 241 at 7 pm ($5 donation suggested), Thursday night October 11 at UTA's Bluebonnet Ballroom at 6 pm ($10 for nonstudents), and on Friday October 12 at UTD's Clark Center at 6 pm.”

Atheists say Christians waste their time in church, yet they have meetings announced to the public, and you say they are “spoofs”? LMAO. Let's say you're right (and you're not) what bigger waste of time could there ever be?

"Atheists say Christians waste their time in church, yet they have meetings announced to the public, and you say they are “spoofs”? LMAO. Let's say you're right (and you're not) what bigger waste of time could there ever be? "

Because atheist lie. They know that church has a lot to offer. And they are jealous of it.

United States

#8248 Dec 11, 2012
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>Empty threats. Hell is imaginary.
Once your body has died you keep repeating that as you're being judged.

United States

#8249 Dec 11, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
But I don't like spam!
Do you like Monty Python?

Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam..........

Andover, UK

#8250 Dec 11, 2012
It's dating badly- apart from "The Life of Brian". That's still excellent.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you like Monty Python?
Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam..........

United States

#8251 Dec 11, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, I thought it was pretty funny.

Ah well, you know what they say about Christians lacking a sense of humour.
Vietnam vets don't need anymore crap we served our county we've watched the guy next to us taking a bullet in the face we've come home to dope smoking hippies calling us baby killers.

United States

#8252 Dec 11, 2012
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>Define, in this context, "touch".
To make physical contact.

United States

#8253 Dec 11, 2012
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>And?

You won't get a cigarette paper between my logic and IANS'
Really? Sure about that?

Lets see you said: "Why would it? A jet is designed"

Why would it: because of the Theory of randomness. That given enough rolls of the dice anything could happen. This is what you completely missed with that question.

Now : A Jet is designed.

This I love. You see with this line you shot down the random theory (Evolution) and agreed with a intelligent designer.

I believe not only could a cigarette paper fly through that but the whole tree it came from. LOLNN

United States

#8254 Dec 11, 2012
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>So why the issue with life without a god?
No issues.
Believe what you wish. I'm just here for entertainment.

United States

#8255 Dec 11, 2012
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>It's dating badly- apart from "The Life of Brian". That's still excellent.
Yes but the word that was used was spam.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8256 Dec 11, 2012
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
According to your mythology, God gets to decide who gets to heaven or hell.
Do you understand that, you are not a judge of anyone here. "Thou shalt not judge"
I know what you are.. a bat shit crazy fundie. Topix is a magnet for you people.(head slap)
I have no mythology.

And, you're wrong.

You make the decision to go to hell when you reject God. He doesn't decide to send you there.

You've sealed your own fate.

And you sloppily quote to me from the bible you don't believe in to make yourself look good?

Then at the end of your post, you accuse me of judging, but turn around and judge me in your last sentence. So it's okay for just YOU to judge, right?

So how would you judge yourself, if you didn't like my judgment of you?

Think you're going to (the) heaven (you don't believe in)?


Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8257 Dec 11, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you talking about?
You lied and you know it.
That simply calls for a repeat:

No link, no proof. You didn't do your research, so you failed us once again.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8258 Dec 11, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
It was great news!
Percentage of Christians down by 14 to 59%
Non-believers up 10 to 25%
Let's ASSUME that's true. What does that prove, exactly? That Christianity is declining, as the Bible prophesied it would in the end time?[Yes.]

You should know that being in the minority doesn't mean you're wrong. What percentage of the population did Noah and his family make up?

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8259 Dec 11, 2012
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

I especially like this part:

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.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8260 Dec 11, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
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, this is not directed at you, I simply chose your post as one to reply to concerning your comment about news articles from The New York Times.

Atheists reject news articles unless those articles are favorable to science or atheism.

BUT: Have I ever posted anything that contained an error? Probably so.

[Especially when I posted web pages authored by atheists, lol.]

So what? Do I see errors posted by atheists in here? Yes errors, lies, and stupidity. Every day.

Authors of web pages, undoubtedly including some I have posted along the way, aren't perfect. Is anyone? But did I find those pages of interest? Yes.(All of them were far more interesting to me than any atheist post I ever read in this forum.) Did some of you find them boring? Yes. Most of what I post doesn't please atheists, and that doesn't trouble me in the least - I couldn't care less. I'm not here to please atheists.

Did I put my stamp of endorsement on every quoted link I ever posted, or did I refer the forum participants back to the source? I have repeatedly referred them back to the source.

I am not interested in other poster's critiques of web material. I didn't author the material.

However, I have posted many news accounts from reliable sources, and each time I provided the links. Unless someone can provide a link which proves a news story was wrong, don't bother me with your trivial rebuttals because your attempts to re-write news carry no weight.

Of the hundreds of posts I've made from all kinds of reputable sources, it is astounding that the atheists have disputed and (in their misguided opinion) discredited every single post,

.... including my posts they say they don't read and scroll past,

.... including all the news stories of scientists going to prison for fraud as reported in The New York Times,

.... including all the misconduct and retracted science papers reported by respectable science journals,

....including all the the scientific misconduct and fraud reported by government investigatory agencies,

and lately.... including all the statistics on the number of Christians worldwide
and the dramatic growth of Christianity in China and other nations ...

.... all facts denied and overturned by our expert atheists.



Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8261 Dec 11, 2012
Lies, damned lies and atheists in prison

October 6, 2008

There are some statistics that atheists love to repeat. One of them is this:About 8-16% of Americas population are atheists, but only 0.21% of the prison population are.

This page is apparently their source for that. It gives the numbers for prison inmates, and their reported religious groupings, on 5 March 1997.(I wonder why do no atheist ever mention a more recent study? Is this particular 11-year old study the one with results that best match their agenda?)

But wait a minute. These numbers apparently also say that 19,7% of the prisoners population chose not to answer this question, or was perhaps not asked, or perhaps just ticked a box named other religious view without naming their view in it. Now, the prisoners that were not asked are probably not much different from anyone else. We do not know how many of those were numbered in the sample.

But the prisoners who chose not to answer? It make perfect sense that an atheist will be less likely to honestly answer that question.(It may indirectly affect his chances for parole, for instance.) And with a tick box for Catholic or Muslim, but none for atheist, it is likely that some atheists will be among those who just tick other without filling in the word atheist.

The people who chose not to answer could, fairly speaking, include anything from absolutely no atheists at all to all atheists, without exception. Atheists could, if these statistics were accurate, anything between 0,21% and 19,95% of the prison population in the USA. Since many (probably the mayority of) people who do not believe in God or the supernatural- fail to identify themselves with the label of atheist, you could assume their true number will be higher.(And Catholics, for example, could be anything between 38,16 and 58%. But it is unlikely that someone would hide his religion from prison authorities. I therefore hold that the number of Catholics will be closer to the former.)

Apparently the atheists are 8-16 % of the US population do not hold up to scrutiny either. Other studies claim that 98% of Americans believe in God, and that only 4% of them have no religion.(Note: Numbers for no religion or even unbelief in God do not equate, even closely, to self-claimed atheism. Many non-religious disbelievers in God would not label themselves as atheists. Using- and grossly inflating- the percentage of unbelievers in America for atheists in the general population, while using only self-proclaimed atheists for the prison atheists, is intellectually dishonest.)

Statement 1: The percentage of atheists in America is, at most, only 1/4 to 1/8 as many as the statistic users tell us.

Statement 2: The atheists in prison may be up to 95 times as many as reported.(The difference between 0,21% and [19,7+0,21]%)

Conclusion: It seems very hard to conclude that atheists are under-represented in American prisons. They may, or may not, have failed to mention their atheism to authorities. In other words, the statistics are inconclusive.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8262 Dec 11, 2012
Atheism and Science

Atheists have appealed to science in defence of their atheism since the first avowedly atheistic manuscripts of the mid seventeenth century. However, as the German expert on atheism Winfried Schroeder has shown, the relationship between early modern atheism and science tended to embarrass rather than strengthen the fledgling atheism's case.

This was partly due to the fact that the early atheist critiques of scientific theories which were recruited into the service of defending religious belief were often merely destructive and could not put anything in the place of the current scientific explanations which they attacked. In the field of cosmology, for example, the early clandestine atheists sought to prove that the model of creation from nothing was contradictory. However, despite much criticism they were poorly equipped to provide any scientifically serious counter-theories to the preferred theistic one. The atheist Meslier, for example, was cautious about arguing for the scientific superiority of atheism, and limited himself to the mere observation that both theism and atheism have a problem explaining the origin of the cosmos.

With respect to atheism and science, theism is widely regarded by historians as having had the best scientific arguments on its side well into the eighteenth century. The renowned Denis Diderot, atheist and deist in turns, could still say in 1746 that science posed a greater threat to atheism than metaphysics. Well into the eighteenth century it could be argued that it was atheism and not theism which required a sacrifice of the intellect. As Schroeder has pointed out, atheists were scientifically retrograde until at least the mid eighteenth century, and suffered from their reputation as scientifically unserious.


At the beginning of the twenty first century the situation remains very similar: for every atheistic scientist who supposes that science supports (or does not undermine) their atheism, there is a religiously inclined scientist who supposes that science supports (or does not undermine) their theism. Thus the atheist simplifies the very complicated and much contended question of the relationship between science and atheism/religion if they suppose that the evidence provided by the scientific study of the natural and social world unequivocally points to atheism. This is evident in each of the main branches of science, both natural and social, which have some relevance to the issue of the truth or falsity of atheism/religion.

[... the atheist simplifies the very complicated and much contended question of the relationship between science and atheism/religion if they suppose that the evidence provided by the scientific study of the natural and social world unequivocally points to atheism.]

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8263 Dec 11, 2012
Why are Most Scientists Atheists If There is Evidence for Belief in God?

From the conclusion:It is true that scientists believe less in the existence of God than the general population of the United States. However, the recent study by Ecklund, and Scheitle reveals that the most important factors in belief were related to upbringing and family status, and not area of expertise.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8264 Dec 11, 2012

Schmaus has written that there are many who believe that

"...negligent, careless, sloppy, and reckless work [are] just as much a violation of moral duty as fraud. The potentially disastrous effects for science and society that may accrue from false information are the same regardless of the intentions of the author. Erroneous data reported from the testing of new drugs, for instance, can be dangerous whether they are a consequence of unintentional negligence or deliberate fraud.".(12)
These points are seemingly difficult to counter; however, let us reconsider an instance such as the cold fusion fiasco. Even though the information supplied by Pons and Fleischmann was found to be false due to their negligence, how has this matter proved to be disastrous for science and society? On the contrary, consider the easily formulated argument that their negligence has perhaps been beneficent for science and society. Should society be fearful of scientific fraud? Bauer indicates that "it is extremely unlikely that an issue of fraud in science will cause much harm. As others try to duplicate or build upon that claim, they will be unable to do so and it will thus be exposed. The harm is to science as a profession: time is wasted following a false trail.".(6)

In general, we can propose that both negligence and fraud are equally harmful to science. Time is wasted by those who attempt to reproduce experiments that do not offer a chance of success. Time is wasted by those who must carefully scrutinize questionable results. Time is wasted by those who must participate in outside investigations and hearings into such matters. In each case, the time lost could have been better allocated to potentially fruitful research activities.

Perhaps even more troubling is the damage inflicted upon the reputation of science.


Modern technology has endowed us with an ease of information exchange. The media, often thriving on sensationalism, has taken full advantage of these information exchange capabilities. Approaches such as sensationalism help to sell newspapers and magazines and keeps people sitting in front of their televisions. Science is fair game. The general public may not have a clue as to how a transgenic mouse is different from a regular mouse. They may not understand the proposed chemical reactions associated with the fusion of two deuterium atoms either, but you can be sure that they will easily relate to a report of premeditated [scientific] dishonesty. They will have no difficulties in understanding the implications of shared [scientific] information that turns out to be unfounded. After all, these are violations of the accepted rules of the game by which all persons in society are expected to abide.

Just as society must be able to trust their policemen, firefighters, and doctors, they must be able to trust their scientists as well. It looks very bad for police officers everywhere when a few of their own physically attack a motorist late at night on a California interstate highway. It looks very bad for doctors everywhere when a doctor uses his own sperm to impregnate as many as seventy-five women at a fertility clinic.(18) Obviously, it looks very bad for scientists everywhere when a few of their colleagues tell the world that something can be accomplished when it cannot. Finally, it looks bad for all scientists when a number of their colleagues adamantly defend forged data that they should have exhibited skepticism toward at the outset.

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) 4 min NoahLovesU 18,462
News Confessions of a black atheist 1 hr Samoan Irish 318
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 1 hr James 14,554
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Aerobatty 237,705
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 1 hr James 7,399
News Atheists open up: What they want you to know 2 hr James 19
The Ultimate Evidence of God (Mar '14) 2 hr James 149
More from around the web