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

#8314 Dec 12, 2012
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
<quoted text>
It depends how you define a prophet.
If you define a prophet as some one who speaks on behalf of God to the whole world and brings people closer to Christ then a false prophet would be some one who does not bring people closer to Christ.
Ah, so it's a case of your *truths* are better than everyone else's?

And that prophecy isn't about making accurate future predictions at all?
Thinking

Cirencester, UK

#8315 Dec 12, 2012
If they can't frame an argument without cheating, you know they're full of it.
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and imitation as mockery is a severely high form of flattery, as well as a sign of obsession. ;)
You can tell the difference, I'm green, that which is not me is gray.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#8316 Dec 12, 2012
swerty wrote:
I think churches would be much nicer places to visit if they didn't always build them in graveyards. <quoted text>
Here in Nottingham we know how to get the best use from our churches...

http://www.pitcherandpiano.com/where-are-we/N...
Thinking

Cirencester, UK

#8317 Dec 12, 2012
Great looking pub. We should be able to get more of those soon.

This was my town "local" when I lived near Banbury.

www.churchhousebanbury.co.uk/
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Here in Nottingham we know how to get the best use from our churches...
http://www.pitcherandpiano.com/where-are-we/N...

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#8318 Dec 12, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Great looking pub. We should be able to get more of those soon.
This was my town "local" when I lived near Banbury.
www.churchhousebanbury.co.uk/
<quoted text>
Brilliant!

Another defunct Christian building gets put to good use.

Here's one of my regular haunts. Sometimes it gets a bit touristy and I guess its claim to being the oldest pub in the land is debatable.

http://www.triptojerusalem.com/ye-olde-trip-t...
Thinking

Cirencester, UK

#8319 Dec 12, 2012
I've seen this somewhere on the web before. What a superb looking lounge. And yes, yet another "oldest pub in England". There's only about 100 of them.
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Brilliant!
Another defunct Christian building gets put to good use.
Here's one of my regular haunts. Sometimes it gets a bit touristy and I guess its claim to being the oldest pub in the land is debatable.
http://www.triptojerusalem.com/ye-olde-trip-t...
KJV

United States

#8320 Dec 12, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>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”.

NOT HARDLY!!!!

LMAO
Agreed! I have seen about 30 to 50 % lies from a few of these posters.

They have no real ammo so they are starving. They take anything they can, they are very big on typo's also. Typical children.

Keep on posting Derek.
KJV

United States

#8321 Dec 12, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>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?“
LMAO

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8324 Dec 12, 2012
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
We all have morals. These come from our parents and upbringing, from evolution, and from the secular societies in which we live.
Now. You claim to be a Christian. You should follow the rules of that club. That is the point I am making.
So we should find on this forum visiting Christians blessing us, praying for us, showing brotherly love. Instead what do we get. Blowhards who bash others who dont believe in their silly myths. And wackos who think the KJV is the word of Gawd.
Blessing you for what?

Brotherly love is to brethren, not blasphemers.

No, that's not what my Bible tells Christians to do.

Matthew 10:14

Matthew 7:6
KJV

United States

#8325 Dec 12, 2012
derek4 wrote:
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 America’s 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.
http://christianrethinker.wordpress.com/2008/...
You know Langoliers was first to start really hammering in the tiny percentage that is truly atheist. I've felt the need to keep reminding them of the world wide percentage that is truly theirs. They just don't like to stare at those low number facts. They want to believe that many are joining their group when they are really just onlookers like family's at the zoo. They want to see the people who want to be monkeys. LOL

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8326 Dec 12, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop spamming these forums with your horsesh*t creationist propoganda nonsense.
Nobody belives your bullsh*t religion. We laugh when you claims that fossil's arent real and that the earth is 6000 years old.
Go back to the discovery institute and tell them you failed to convert any atheists here you lying sack of sh*t with no proof of god and no morals.
Do my posts offend you?

I hope so.

First of all, I don't post to your specifications.

Secondly, I wasn't aware that news accounts from The Wall Street Journal (the post I made that you're replying to) concerning science fraud had anything to do with creationism.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8327 Dec 12, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again. You're always wrong. You do know that, don't you Dim?
You posted a link - you got that bit right.
You then took passages of text from the article you linked to and tried to pass them off as quotes from Richard Dawkins.
Bad move when the article was authored by some non-entity called Miles Mathis and the quotes you falsely and deliberately attributed to Dawkins were actually made by Mathis.
Liar
Is The Wall Street Journal always wrong? How about The New York Times? How about the science journals? They're ALL wrong? Are you going to let them know, lol?

You get real hot when you lose. I'd hate to be downwind of you because I know that perspiration of yours stinks. But thanks for whining and giving us a good demo of how angry you get when you're making no points, as usual. I struck a nerve, your post shows it, lol.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8328 Dec 12, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Dim's last six posts are great examples of how science will eventually weed out the frauds and charlatans.
Unlike Christianity which thrives on chicanery and dishonesty.
You don't plough through well.

My last 6 posts you referred to show the failure of science - they were authored by news sources.

All your posts show your personal failure – so keep posting just like you have, I love it. You remind me I'm right on track where I need to be.
KJV

United States

#8329 Dec 12, 2012
derek4 wrote:
WHICH IS WORSE FOR SCIENCE: NEGLIGENCE OR DELIBERATE MISCONDUCT?

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.

continued:

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.
http://www.files.chem.vt.edu/chem-ed/ethics/v...
" 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"

Nice!
KJV

United States

#8330 Dec 12, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
There is no "theory of randomness" in science. You're just making stuff up (again).

Now, if you're really trying to talk about probability theory, that's something entirely different and, based on your posts thus far, you have no idea what probability theory says.

Jet airplanes do NOT self-replicate, so the "tornado-junk yard" argument is a load of crap.
Wrong.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8331 Dec 12, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
I also like this:
"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."
That's like saying Gas is not needed anymore because you walk to work. Pretty small world some people live in.
The atheist hate of God proves God exists.

No one would expel that much fervor on something imaginary.

So, thank you to all atheists who, by your actions, confirm the truth of the Bible.

You bolster the faith of Christians.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8333 Dec 12, 2012
ad Arguments for Atheism: Philosophy is Useless

The Depraved Effect of Empiricism:
“Philosophy, in the academic sense, is the art of asking questions that cannot be answered. Any idiot can ask that kind of question.
The awesome power of rational thought is that we can ask questions to which we CAN find the answer.
Only a total moron turns their back on that.”

Should philosophy be utterly forgotten ”since all we need is science”? It’s actually kind of ironic due to that fact that they employ a philosophy to say that “philosophy is stupid”. They are using philosophy to form their argument against philosophy! These people never seem to let me down.

Why We Need Philosophy:

All humans orient their lives around ideas of the nature of reality; how they explain their experiences of reality; and how they explain their ideas about what reality ought to be like. We formed all of these through the help of philosophy – no empirical evidence necessary and yet they are necessary for empirical evidence.

Human beings need metaphysical ideas because they are not born with instincts that determine what they should think and want. We are born with the capacities to make up our own minds and to question any belief we have or meet. It is evident that most of the ideas in history that people have used to explain human experiences have been false or unfounded in many respects, and it is also evident that most of the ideas in history or direct human behaviour have been harmful to other human beings or to themselves. On the other hand, it is also evident that whatever adequate understanding people have of themselves, of others, and of their environment, is based on the asking and answering of the type of general questions that are philosophical. It is human to ask and answer such questions and to play with such ideas– it’s part of our nature.

All ideas about philosophy, including those that condemn philosophy, are themselves philosophical ideas. To declare all philosophical concepts useless, trifling, or impossible is little better than a refusal to do any serious philosophical reasoning. The ideas people live and die for, war and kill for, are all philosophical ideas and are not meant to be shrugged off.

And finally, in Plato’s Apology, Socrates tells us that philosophy is a necessary tool for obtaining wisdom and knowledge. Socrates believed that in the absence of philosophy, we would not be able to question or disagree with our thinking or ideas – we simply go with the flow and assume that whatever we see, hear, or read is correct. As Socrates says,“… as long as I lead an unexamined life, I’m very unlikely to catch my errors and I’m very likely to go on fooling myself.” Hmmm. I thought atheists didn’t like that. I thought they always cry out saying that we “religious folks” ought not to have a “blind faith” mentality — something that is produced when philosophy is absent from the mind.

Conclusion:
So whenever a non-believer pulls this bluff as an argument, just give him the basic reasons why we need philosophy and how it’s actively used in everyday life; even in his own argument he’s forming against philosophy.”
http://studentsforchristianity.wordpress.com/...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8335 Dec 12, 2012
“Science Flies You to the Moon; Religion Flies You into Buildings…”

“Attributed to the atheist Victor Stenger, this sound bite argument packs a lot into just a few words. The idea here is that science delivers ever increasing knowledge that is useful, but religion peddles suspect philosophies that are counterproductive; science causes life to excel, but religion brings terror and death; science moves us forward with breath-taking achievements, while religion moves us backwards with supposed chaos and conflict.

It’s tough to know where to even begin with such a deliberately crafted misrepresentation.

Let’s start by noting that science didn’t fly anyone to the moon. Quite a few God-believing scientists, engineers, and astronauts participated with others in bringing about that event.

Next, it is clearly evident that science has delivered tremendous benefits to humankind. I have several close loved ones who I would not be able to kiss goodnight this evening without the scientific breakthroughs that have been made in the past several decades.

However, let us not forget that science has also delivered nuclear weapons, napalm, and chemical abortions to humanity. In addition, it has produced scientists such as Eric Pianka who, at a 2006 lecture at the Texas Academy of Science at Lamar University, recommended wiping out 90% of the earth’s population with the Ebola virus to overcome what he believes to a serious problem with the earth’s supposed overpopulation.[4]

While it is tempting to say that such were the thoughts of one rogue scientist, it is important to understand the he received a standing ovation from the few hundred other scientists in attendance that day (perhaps they believed they would be among the 10% of humanity that Pianka would spare?) Forrest Mims, a scientist present at the lecture, wrote,“I still can't get out of my mind the pleasant spring day in Texas when a few hundred scientists of the Texas Academy of Science gave a standing ovation for a speaker who they heard advocate the slow and torturous death of over five billion human beings.”

continued at conclusion :

One of my seminary professors used to read atheist literature during his devotion times, and when asked why he did that, he said,“They keep us honest.” Indeed, sometimes they do, and for that, we should thank them.

When I finished reading that massive binder of atheist literature, I felt a sense of accomplishment, but more importantly, I experienced a very real lift in my Christian faith. I had read the best-of-the-best; thinkers that make some of the crass new atheists today (e.g. Dawkins) look pale in comparison. And in the end, it was an exercise in what philosophy calls “drowning the fish”. You can pile all the ocean’s waters on the animal (in this case, God) in an attempt to drown it, but in the end, the fish is still there affirming its existence and presence.”
http://blogs.christianpost.com/confident-chri...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8336 Dec 12, 2012
Khatru, now what was that you were saying about science processes working or something like that - lol?

Can't recall just how you said it, but it was false anyway, so it doesn't matter.

LMAO

Retractions from journals are not routine occurrences--journal editors are extremely reluctant to retract articles, a tacit acknowledgment of their own gate-keeping failure--and fear of reprisals from the sponsors of those retracted trial reports. Many journals don’t even have retraction policies, and the ones that do publish critical notices of retraction long after the original paper appeared—without providing explicit information as to why they are being retracted.

Judging by analyses showing that the number of retractions during the past ten years has skyrocketed, it is reasonable to conclude that the self-regulating peer review system suffers from serious underlying defects.
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/846/94/
KJV

United States

#8337 Dec 12, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Because leprechauns can't be ruled out 100% means there is one under your bed right now.

Since pink unicorns can't be ruled out 100%, people must be riding them to work all the time.

You cannot apply a standard to one thing, and not everything else. If you state that Jesus "could" exist and therefore you are believing it did, then denying something that actually is a 100% reality, such as evolution, you are being a hypocrite.
Again you show your complete ignorance.

"100% reality, such as evolution,"

"Someone says, "Evolution is not a religion." Evolution IS a religion, because it lacks scientific evidence, thus requiring it's adherents to follow Darwin's theory by FAITH. Evolution is a RELIGIOUS CREED based upon blind faith. There is not in existence one single piece of scientific evidence which proves that man has evolved upward from animals. It is impossible to prove any theory of origins "scientifically," because the very essence of the scientific method is based upon OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENTATION, and no scientist has ever observed or experimented with the origin of the universe.

All scientists know this, including L. Harrison Matthews. In his forward to Darwin's 1971 edition of "Origin of the Species", Matthews says, ""...Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation--both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof." In other words, the theory of evolution is a theory based on FAITH, rather than scientific fact.

ANYTHING BUT THE TRUTH
Evolutionists have their entire lives and reputations resting upon Darwin's theory. They're committed to their religion, just as any true Christian is committed to his. If an evolutionist changes his views, then he denies and forsakes his fellow scientists and former educators. He becomes a "black sheep," loses his job, his reputation, and his social standing. Since he has studied and worked his entire life to get where he is, he isn't about to throw it all away. So the committed evolutionist chooses to strive harder and harder in his effort to disprove the Genesis account. He will ignore all facts which support Special Creation. He is not open to anything other than "evidence" to prove his theory. All evidence which proves CONTRARY to his theory is discarded and ignored. A fine example of this behavior can be found in the work of Dr. George Wald, Novel Peace Prize winner for Science in 1967. Dr. Wald says the following:

"When if comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: That of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." (Dennis Lindsay, "The Dinosaur Dilemma," Christ for the Nations, Vol. 35, No. 8, November, 1982, pp. 4-5, 14.)"

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/mevolu1.html

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 Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 9 min Flurtz3940 21,884
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Brian_G 23,701
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 4 hr Richardfs 5,730
bigger fish to fry (Jul '11) 5 hr IB DaMann 3
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 6 hr IB DaMann 258,050
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 21 hr IB DaMann 94
What are the best arguments against religion? 23 hr Richardfs 8
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) Fri scientia potentia... 48,864
More from around the web