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: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8359 Dec 13, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Wrong.
<quoted text>
Yes, you are wrong, but thank you for re-posting KJV's material for him when you hit your reply button. He made a good post, and it was great seeing it again.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8360 Dec 13, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
God exist in a dimension you can't imagine. So it would be impossible to guess how God who is outside of time always existed. You can't even grasp what outside of time would be like even though we pretty much know it exist.
You don't seem to be able to grasp that the word "exists" requires the passage of time. Whatever exists has persistence - before moments followed by after moments. It might have always existed or have had a first moment, and it might be eternal or have a last moment. Either way, to exist is to persist in time.

Your god has to exist in time to do things and think things, such as decide to create a universe, to do it, then to look at it, and finally to say that it was good. Those words all imply time - before, during and after moments experienced sequentially.

It not hard to dissect Christian doctrine and reveal its inconsistencies and contradictions with a little analysis.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8361 Dec 13, 2012
re-posting

From ncbi nlm nih gov:

Evolution of eyes and photoreceptor cell types.
Arendt D.
European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Developmental Biology Programme, Heidelberg, Germany.
“The evolution of the eye is a matter of debate ever since Darwin's Origin of Species.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14756332

[Even though there are sources that make it appear settled and neatly resolved, it remains a matter of debate.]

There is still debate about the eye evolving and debate about irreducible complexity. There has been no final resolution with sustainable evidence for evolution on the topic.

Never will be resolved.

Debate shows tie:
http://www.debate.org/debates/Irreducible-com...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8362 Dec 13, 2012
What exactly are atheists so scared about?

“As I was leaving church yesterday, a nice chap called Andy called to see if I would go on Radio 2 to talk about a new billboard campaign enjoining us not to "label" our children with religious tags such as "Catholic child" or "Muslim child". Beside pictures of bonny toddlers (all white, as it happens), runs the tagline: "Let me grow up and decide for myself."

Andy said that the idea was that we shouldn't indoctrinate our young. I've no idea whether the word "indoctrinate" was his own, or whether he'd picked it up from talking to the British Humanist Association, which is behind the campaign. Anyway, my first reaction was this: chance would be a fine thing. I don't know if you've actually tried to indoctrinate a child, but outside of an Afghan madrassa or a Moonie temple I'd say you've got your work cut out.

Sure, a six-year-old will believe anything Daddy says. I could have told my children that the sea was made of wee-wee or that Tony Blair had a legal justification for invading Iraq and they'd have believed me. But by the time they've "grown up", or at least hit their teens, forget it. The most positive response you're likely to get from labelling them Christian, or atheist, or Communist, is "whatever". More likely are shrugs, or giggles.

And, anyway, who are these grown-ups who are meant to be doing the labelling? I've never introduced my children as "my pagan daughter" or "my atheist son". It's like that old joke about the Jewish mother: "Help! Help! My son, the doctor, is drowning!"

In the end, these humanists aren't worried about "labels" at all. What they want to abolish is children being brought up in any kind of faith tradition.

continued:
They might pretend that they're fighting political and ethnic labelling, but the giveaway is that they're using the same typeface, and indeed the same money, as for the literally hopeless bendy-bus campaign last January. You may remember its genius: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." The best that can be said for it is that it got people talking about God.

It's strange, though, that it isn't us, the faithful, who seem to be doing the worrying: it's all these neurotic atheists, humanists and secularists. Anyone would think they were trapped in 18th-century France or Tsarist Russia. When it's not our old friend, the celebrity atheist Professor Richard Dawkins, fund-raising for an uncertain and feeble proposition that serves largely to make Transport for London a bit better off, it's some other self-regarding personage thinking they're being frightfully daring by taking a pop at the Christian story, like an over-excited child shouting a rude word at the Christmas table.

continued:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists...

[Atheist's lives revolove around their fear of God.]

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8363 Dec 13, 2012
Trials and Errors: Why Science Is Failing Us

On November 30, 2006, executives at Pfizer—the largest pharmaceutical company in the world—held a meeting with investors at the firm’s research center in Groton, Connecticut. Jeff Kindler, then CEO of Pfizer, began the presentation with an upbeat assessment of the company’s efforts to bring new drugs to market. He cited “exciting approaches” to the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, fibromyalgia, and arthritis. But that news was just a warm-up. Kindler was most excited about a new drug called torcetrapib, which had recently entered Phase III clinical trials, the last step before filing for FDA approval. He confidently declared that torcetrapib would be “one of the most important compounds of our generation.”

Kindler’s enthusiasm was understandable: The potential market for the drug was enormous. Like Pfizer’s blockbuster medication, Lipitor—the most widely prescribed branded pharmaceutical in America—torcetrapib was designed to tweak the cholesterol pathway. Although cholesterol is an essential component of cellular membranes, high levels of the compound have been consistently associated with heart disease. The accumulation of the pale yellow substance in arterial walls leads to inflammation. Clusters of white blood cells then gather around these “plaques,” which leads to even more inflammation. The end result is a blood vessel clogged with clumps of fat.

Lipitor works by inhibiting an enzyme that plays a key role in the production of cholesterol in the liver. In particular, the drug lowers the level of low-density lipoprotein (LDL), or so-called bad cholesterol. In recent years, however, scientists have begun to focus on a separate part of the cholesterol pathway, the one that produces high-density lipoproteins. One function of HDL is to transport excess LDL back to the liver, where it is broken down. In essence, HDL is a janitor of fat, cleaning up the greasy mess of the modern diet, which is why it’s often referred to as “good cholesterol.”

And this returns us to torcetrapib. It was designed to block a protein that converts HDL cholesterol into its more sinister sibling, LDL. In theory, this would cure our cholesterol problems, creating a surplus of the good stuff and a shortage of the bad. In his presentation, Kindler noted that torcetrapib had the potential to “redefine cardiovascular treatment.”

There was a vast amount of research behind Kindler’s bold proclamations. The cholesterol pathway is one of the best-understood biological feedback systems in the human body. Since 1913, when Russian pathologist Nikolai Anichkov first experimentally linked cholesterol to the buildup of plaque in arteries, scientists have mapped out the metabolism and transport of these compounds in exquisite detail. They’ve documented the interactions of nearly every molecule, the way hydroxymethylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase catalyzes the production of mevalonate, which gets phosphorylated and condensed before undergoing a sequence of electron shifts until it becomes lanosterol and then, after another 19 chemical reactions, finally morphs into cholesterol. Furthermore, torcetrapib had already undergone a small clinical trial, which showed that the drug could increase HDL and decrease LDL. Kindler told his investors that, by the second half of 2007, Pfizer would begin applying for approval from the FDA. The success of the drug seemed like a sure thing.

And then, just two days later, on December 2, 2006, Pfizer issued a stunning announcement: The torcetrapib Phase III clinical trial was being terminated. Although the compound was supposed to prevent heart disease, it was actually triggering higher rates of chest pain and heart failure and a 60 percent increase in overall mortality. The drug appeared to be killing people.

That week, Pfizer’s value plummeted by $21 billion.”
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/12/ff_caus...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8364 Dec 13, 2012
Flaws in the “THEORY” of evolution:

http://www.gotquestions.org/flaws-theory-evol...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8365 Dec 13, 2012
You DARE to Criticize SCIENCE?!
1998 William Beaty
Here is an attitude which I've encountered repeatedly:
Science is extremely important. Also, it is a very fragile structure, and mankind always remains a few steps away from another dark age. Science is so fragile and easily destroyed that we must expend enormous and valiant efforts to defend it from the many attacks being launched by the hoards of ignorant and superstitious people who surround us on all sides. Anti-science sentiments are at an all-time high in modern society, and therefore we must fight fiercely against all who criticize science. We are engaged in a sort of war. In war, the propaganda of the enemy must be suppressed. In war, critical examination about 'our side' must be controlled, lest we give our enemies an opportunity to damage us in the eyes of the public.

How many of us are Good Scientists? How many really take the above sentiments to heart? There are words for this sort of thing:

SUPPRESSION OF CRITICAL THINKING

STIFLING OF INTELLECTUAL DISSENT

BREAKING THE CYCLE OF CORRECTIVE SELF-EXAMINATION

SELF-AGGRANDIZING PROPAGANDA

XENOPHOBIC PARANOIA

It has been my experience that if any person or group suppresses outside criticism, they provide a safe haven where unexamined error can take root and blossom. If people suppress self-criticism as well as group-criticism, then they open themselves to all sorts of pathological conceits and self-congratulatory narcissism. Humility goes out the window, and soon, without our even noticing it, an attitude of arrogance and unexamined superiority can take hold and become the norm within our group. Along with insecurity and denial will come our subconsciously-motivated attacks made upon anyone who dares to puncture our self-importance and to expose our genuine flaws. It's a kind of evil mental illness. Any group, even Science, can become its victim.

I see that the cure for this illness is simple. Science should always maintain a cycle of brutally honest self-examination and constructive self-criticism, then follow this up with major efforts at self-improvement. We must pursue the truth about ourselves, even if it's something we prefer not to know.”
http://amasci.com/freenrg/dares.html

[But most scientists and their adherents feel they are above scrutiny.]

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8366 Dec 13, 2012
KJV wrote:
The CIA World Factbook
non-religious 9.42%,
atheists 2.04%.

Please note that Non-religions is a separate category then atheist. Why? Because they are not interchangeable!
They are for my purposes.

As I said, what do I care what people call themselves as long as they don't support the Christian church's agenda and its commitment to scapegoating atheists, undermining science, giving churches tax breaks without adequate oversight, underwriting the church with tithes, voting for candidates that thump bibles, and the like?

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8367 Dec 13, 2012
Just a reminder to everyone – if you have objections to the content of web pages I've posted, contact the publishers at the links I provided.

Remember, only you can squash the truth by working together as a team, and dictate your false beliefs.

SO: Don't waste your time sitting on your fat rumps picking boogers and posting endless comments on topix.

You have a big job ahead of you trying to rid the internet of truth and getting out your lies where the masses can read them.

LMAO

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8368 Dec 13, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Actually, your argument is easily debunked with a reductio ad absurdum argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is ... false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.

In this case, you are arguing for the existence of a god based on the unlikeliness of a 747 (or a cell) existing undesigned, and offering this as evidence that an infinitely more complex entity must exist to account for it.

This is usually rebutted by some form of special pleading that basically says, "You can't use my argument because [insert irrelevant reason and unsupported claim here]"
KJV wrote:
I'm arguing that all there is.
That's not a complete thought.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8369 Dec 13, 2012
KJV wrote:
Look out into space as far as man can and look at life on earth all of it. How could it all have been created by a roll of the dice billions and billions of times. I don't think so and you do.
You really need to pare the argument down to that to believe it, don't you? The full argument contrasts that thought with an analogous one regarding your god. Imagine your god, with sentience, will, infinite knowledge, infinite power, immortality, and perfect morality - far more complex than what is essentially empty space with occasional chunks of matter orbiting and bumping into one another mindlessly - and explain how it can possibly exist uncreated.

If you find your argument against the universe strong, you will find that the same argument applied to your god - something infinitely more complex and less likely - makes the first hypothesis the preferred one.

If you prefer to cling to faith rather than impartially evaluate a compelling argument, then you should either continue to do what you just did - disregard the god half of the argument like it's not even there - or try special pleading. Say that your argument applies but mine doesn't because [insert any irrelevant and unsupported claim about your god here].

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8370 Dec 13, 2012
re-posting some favorites:

“Anybody who has been seriously engaged is scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words:'Ye must have faith.'“
Max Planck

“Belief in evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if that religious view is indistinguishable from atheism." -William Provine, Professor at Cornell University

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8371 Dec 13, 2012
Thinking wrote:
And? You won't get a cigarette paper between my logic and IANS'
Well thank you - I think.
:)
Thinking

Cirencester, UK

#8372 Dec 13, 2012
Over capitalisation! You're quoting a crackpot.
derek4 wrote:
You DARE to Criticize SCIENCE?!
1998 William Beaty
Here is an attitude which I've encountered repeatedly:
Science is extremely important. Also, it is a very fragile structure, and mankind always remains a few steps away from another dark age. Science is so fragile and easily destroyed that we must expend enormous and valiant efforts to defend it from the many attacks being launched by the hoards of ignorant and superstitious people who surround us on all sides. Anti-science sentiments are at an all-time high in modern society, and therefore we must fight fiercely against all who criticize science. We are engaged in a sort of war. In war, the propaganda of the enemy must be suppressed. In war, critical examination about 'our side' must be controlled, lest we give our enemies an opportunity to damage us in the eyes of the public.
How many of us are Good Scientists? How many really take the above sentiments to heart? There are words for this sort of thing:
SUPPRESSION OF CRITICAL THINKING
STIFLING OF INTELLECTUAL DISSENT
BREAKING THE CYCLE OF CORRECTIVE SELF-EXAMINATION
SELF-AGGRANDIZING PROPAGANDA
XENOPHOBIC PARANOIA
It has been my experience that if any person or group suppresses outside criticism, they provide a safe haven where unexamined error can take root and blossom. If people suppress self-criticism as well as group-criticism, then they open themselves to all sorts of pathological conceits and self-congratulatory narcissism. Humility goes out the window, and soon, without our even noticing it, an attitude of arrogance and unexamined superiority can take hold and become the norm within our group. Along with insecurity and denial will come our subconsciously-motivated attacks made upon anyone who dares to puncture our self-importance and to expose our genuine flaws. It's a kind of evil mental illness. Any group, even Science, can become its victim.
I see that the cure for this illness is simple. Science should always maintain a cycle of brutally honest self-examination and constructive self-criticism, then follow this up with major efforts at self-improvement. We must pursue the truth about ourselves, even if it's something we prefer not to know.”
http://amasci.com/freenrg/dares.html
[But most scientists and their adherents feel they are above scrutiny.]

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8373 Dec 13, 2012
KJV wrote:
atheist lie. They know that church has a lot to offer. And they are jealous of it.
Is that why we steadfastly avoid churches even when there is one on every corner - because we believe that they have a lot to offer?

And that is how you know that we lie?

Do you think that that is an effective argument?
Thinking

Cirencester, UK

#8374 Dec 13, 2012
Likewise... I just don't see why fundies don't get logic.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Well thank you - I think.
:)

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8375 Dec 13, 2012
KJV wrote:
Once your body has died you keep repeating that as you're being judged.
Are you waving the Scary Chicken On The Stick again? You know that that doesn't work here,so why do it? Everybody in our demographic that can be scared by the Scary Chicken has already been captured. You need to focus on children and the desperate - skid row, death row, suicide hotlines and the like.

On second thought, save the Scary Children for the children. With the desperate, you'll need the carrot, not the stick. Use promises of forgiveness now and of riches in the afterlife. And bring sandwiches.

“I never LQQK back, soooooooooo”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#8376 Dec 13, 2012
True or False wrote:
The article lumps all Christians as the same, united against Atheists, that is the farthest thing from the truth.
The true Christians today, and they are very evident among mankind, do not argue or fight with anyone over their beliefs, they imitate Jesus and let peace be their goal in preaching the good news of God's Kingdom to all people on earth.
Each individual is responsible for his or her own relationship with our heavenly Father, Almighty God Jehovah.
Each individual will be judged before the great tribulation starts, as to whether they want to live in righteousness or not.
It is good news to know that Jesus is King ruling in heaven today, but only over people who accept Jehovah God as Universal Sovereign.
Whether you are Atheist, pagan or part of Christendoms denominational Churches, you must live in harmony with the truth of the Bible to have Almighty God's approval.
Acts 10:34
Jehovah's witnesses will be happy to show you that truth from your own Bible, no matter what Bible you use. Christendom does not know it or want it, they are not acceptable to Jehovah God.
Revelation 18:4
Absolutely... How often do you see a Christian starting a thread that says: "Prove to me there isn't a God?" I've never seen one. Yet, in the Atheist Forums, they are constantly creating antagonistic threads. Asking Christians to prove to them. that there IS a God. Then, they get mad when we do

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#8377 Dec 13, 2012
Roxxanna29 wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely... How often do you see a Christian starting a thread that says: "Prove to me there isn't a God?" I've never seen one. Yet, in the Atheist Forums, they are constantly creating antagonistic threads. Asking Christians to prove to them. that there IS a God. Then, they get mad when we do
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#8378 Dec 13, 2012
KJV wrote:
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.
Nice explanation why Dim can't come to terms with my correct spelling of "plough".

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) 11 min Chimney1 48,485
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 1 hr JustASkeptic 6
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr Into The Night 23,491
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) Sat ChristineM 21,863
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Sat Eagle 12 258,039
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Sat Eagle 12 4,907
Why you need to make sure you are saved before ... Fri Scaritual 14
More from around the web