Don't dictate beliefs

Sep 5, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Star Press

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

Comments
7,861 - 7,880 of 11,175 Comments Last updated Jan 18, 2014

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Chicago Ridge, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Chicago Ridge, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Chicago Ridge, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

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

Zeals, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Zeals, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8347
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8348
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••