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: Sep 12

Location hidden

#8338 Dec 12, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Nope

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#8339 Dec 12, 2012
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
Good point. The printing press was the beginning of the end for religion. Probably the most important invention of the Renaissance, and maybe even the most inflential invention in history.
The printing press is what lead to the great awakening and enlightenment in Colonial America. With out the printing press the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints probably wouldn't have been able to get off the ground.

For a long period of the time truths in the Bible were considered liberating and many well educated men sacrificed their lives trying to give the general population access to it. Check out the story of William Tyndale.

There is a great article on the subject co-authored by my religion professor at this link http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/volume-12-number-...

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#8340 Dec 12, 2012
This is a great link to some free Mormon Tabernacle Choir Christmas music: http://mormon.org/christmas...

(scroll up to see music)

My favorites are "For Unto Us A Child is Born"
and "Hallelujah"

Since: Mar 11

United States

#8341 Dec 13, 2012
So now Dim an KJV are saying that Christian numbers declining is proof the bible is true and correct, yet right before that they have been claiming Christianity is growing and that is proof that the bible is correct. Uhhhhh wtf?

Can you say circular argument?

Since: Mar 11

United States

#8342 Dec 13, 2012
I guess Dim will be back to falling for spoof sites and goth costume jewelry sites to find his atheist religion spam!
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah a!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8343 Dec 13, 2012
Khatru wrote:
Great stuff! Dim shown up for the liar he is!
Thanks. Glad to be of assistance.
Thinking

Cirencester, UK

#8344 Dec 13, 2012
Your post can be summarised thus:

Science Flies You to the Moon
Religion Flies You into Buildings
derek4 wrote:
“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...
Thinking

Cirencester, UK

#8345 Dec 13, 2012
Wrong.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
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

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8346 Dec 13, 2012
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
Irrelevant to whom? Religion is already proclaimed to be irrelevant to those who do not believe in God or organized religion.
No it's not. Above a certain critical density, the church affects not just the lives of its congregants, but also the culture at large, and with that, all of us. And I would add adversely.
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
I think you will find that religion is relevant to everyone's life.
I'd like it to be irrelevant in the lives of those that want it that way. In my case, it nearly is, but that is because I have left America. When I lived there, religion was relevant in an undesirable way. For example, I don't believe that George Bush would have been president if America had been as irreligious as the UK, for example. That debacle was not purely the blame of the church, but it played an essential role. What was the cost of that, and who paid it?
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
As long as there is a religious person living, and that person's life is relevant to the general population, religion will be relevant.
Disagree. Is your sex life relevant to me? No. If you keep your religion as private as your sex life, neither will be relevant to me. You are relevant, but not your choice of sexual partners nor your choice of churches.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8347 Dec 13, 2012
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
What exactly is gained by a discussion of religion's relevance; declining, increasing, or remaining? I don't know.
You don't? We're considering a social trend - the evaporation of the church and its influence in the West - and what that means to us, how we feel about that, and what if anything we can and ought to do about it.
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
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
Terrorized is too strong a word. How about "damaged"? All Americans are damaged by the church, including believers.
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
and they wish to prove to themselves that religion is not relevant.
Nope. We wish to help make it less relevant.
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
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 think that if our discussion here is having any effect, it's toward disempowering the church, which means diminishing its relevance.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8348 Dec 13, 2012
Khatru wrote:
it's great news and shows just how irrelevant religion is becoming.
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
Thanks for sharing that thought.
Are you OK with your religion affecting only people like you that choose to be so affected, but not people like me? If so, do you support our vision of a church that has no relevance except with its own? Or would you rather impose Christian values on unbelievers as well?

As I understand it, in 2008, your church poured a lot of out-of-state money into a California election to support a proposition to ban same sex marriage, which carried and became law. Gays in California can't marry because Mormons in Utah didn't approve. Do you think that that was appropriate?

I don't.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8349 Dec 13, 2012
KJV wrote:
Obeying Gods morals is not as bad as you think. And mans morals with out God can get pretty rough.
I disagree.

Your church's moral code is sadly deficient, both on paper and in practice. Your church burned people as witches when it could. And it impaled them in the iron maiden until that was outlawed. Christians often object to me mentioning these things because they were so long ago.

I don't find the fact that the church hasn't burned a witch in North America for over four centuries too comforting considering that that's exactly how long they have been forbidden from doing so. Your church didn't give up these practices voluntarily. They were outlawed.

Are you aware of any time or place where the church had the power to torture and kill, but chose not to do so? What Christian theocracy ever said, "No, we won't burn people. That is cruel and insane. We'll tolerate them instead." I'm not.

As with prisoners being considered for parole, you like to see an admission of the crime, a sign of remorse, and a sign of rehabilitation. I don't remember reading or hearing that anywhere. What I have seen is quite a few angry Christians on Topix palpably anticipating our burning in hell.

Question: What do you think the American church would do if it was granted the legal right to begin burning heretics again stating New years Day? What do you think this guy would do:

Just Results wrote: "Hell was created for their god Satan and for them to suffer in, and I'm thankful that they will suffer there endlessly for their heinous hatred and ruthless bitter deception."
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE...

How about this next guy? He's had a lifetime of training with your god's moral code. Would he obey the Golden Rule, or burn me at the stake anyway?

Flagler Beach wrote: "This is why I have no feelings of shame or remorse in the delight of knowing that human filth like you will burn eternally in a lake of fire."

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE...

How many of these people do you think there are out there in 2012?

It's not that I fear such people. Their day is done. It's that I want to point out that "mans morals [with your] God can get pretty rough" too - real rough.

We have access to a much better moral code now that ignores gods - the one outlined in the Affirmations of Humanism.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php...

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#8350 Dec 13, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Are you OK with your religion affecting only people like you that choose to be so affected, but not people like me? If so, do you support our vision of a church that has no relevance except with its own? Or would you rather impose Christian values on unbelievers as well?
As I understand it, in 2008, your church poured a lot of out-of-state money into a California election to support a proposition to ban same sex marriage, which carried and became law. Gays in California can't marry because Mormons in Utah didn't approve. Do you think that that was appropriate?
I don't.
And for the, the church's 501(c)(3) status should have been immediately revoked.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8351 Dec 13, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You don't need to get involved. I thought that you were asking about what happened. Dim misrepresented Dawkins, was told several times,and repeated the lie several more times, and now seems to be denying that it happened.

Then he fetches a criticism of somebody doing that with an apocryphal Jefferson quote. We had little choice but to review Dim's calumny and emphasize his subsequent hypocrisy and indifference. The point is that he couldn't care less how inaccurate his allegations are. He's agenda driven, and his agenda has no use for academic integrity.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#8353 Dec 13, 2012
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
<quoted text>
For a long period of the time truths in the Bible were considered liberating and many well educated men sacrificed their lives trying to give the general population access to it.
Truths in the Bible like the barbaric laws of the old testament, and the cannibalism/vampirism of the new testament? I think these reformers should have left it in latin.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#8354 Dec 13, 2012
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
<quoted text>
With out the printing press the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints probably wouldn't have been able to get off the ground.
Agree with this point. All of the protestant denominations, all 40,000 of them, are relatively recent inventions. Due mainly to each church leaders private interpretation of scripture. And they all think they have the holy spirit and the rest and catholics and other theisms are delusional and misguided.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8355 Dec 13, 2012
derek4 wrote:
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.”
Typical dishonest Christian straw man crap: first frame secular philosophy is sterile questions that any idiot can ask and from which nothing useful can come

Next, introduce the idea that there is a better philosophy unknown to academics with real answers.I wonder what that's going to be.
derek4 wrote:
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.
Another straw man. The philosophy of science is philosophy. Empiricism and rational skepticism are philosophies. Philosophical naturalism is a philosophy. And secular humanism is also a philosophy.

Of the two of us, we rationalists alone employ philosophy. You Christians employ faith- the fervent belief that your wish has come true - supported by any specious argumentation that might sound plausible to somebody.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8356 Dec 13, 2012
derek4 wrote:
All humans orient their lives around ideas of the nature of reality;
Not Christians. They base their lives around the idea of a supernatural realm populated by supernatural spirits.
derek4 wrote:
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.
Nonsense. We form our view of reality from a combination of enculturation and exploration, which is empiricism.
derek4 wrote:
To declare all philosophical concepts useless, trifling, or impossible is little better than a refusal to do any serious philosophical reasoning.
Hello! No kidding.
derek4 wrote:
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
Which side are you on? Questioning is fundamental to skepticism and critical thought. Simply going with the flow is faith.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8357 Dec 13, 2012
derek4 wrote:
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.
That is correct.
derek4 wrote:
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.”
Can you produce even a single example of a rational skeptic with this opinion? This is a description of the mindlessness of faith, which only philosophy is to pick something to believe and believe it.
derek4 wrote:
http://studentsforchristianity . wordpress.com /2011/11/12/bad-arguments-for- atheism -philosophy-is-useless/
Students for Christianity, huh? That's pure apologetics drivel.

Are you aware that that stuff is manufactured for your consumption, not ours? The people who write this stuff know that we will know how easily refuted these straw men are. I don't think they want you showing this stuff to mixed audiences where skeptics can rebut it. It kind of works against you when we do.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8358 Dec 13, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"most atheists simply reject these claims without making any positive assertion about gods being impossible or nonexistent"
This wrong.

Merriam - Webster. athe·ist\ˈā-thē-ist\ noun : one who believes that there is no deity

One who believes is a positive assertion
How is that a rebuttal? That's an inadequate and outdated definition.

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) 23 min ChristineM 21,874
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 35 min ChristineM 258,041
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 36 min Cujo 36
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr One way or another 48,588
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Aura Mytha 23,506
News Louisiana Christians reclaim safe space by runn... 2 hr Mikko 1
What are the best arguments against religion? 2 hr bluehill 1
More from around the web