Don't dictate beliefs

Don't dictate beliefs

There are 11178 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

#8398 Dec 13, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The Wall Street Journal & New York Times are not your posts.

Your posts are when you take quotes from a guy called Miles Mathis and shamelessly attribute them to Richard Dawkins.

Please share with us the reasons why you chose to do this.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#8399 Dec 13, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Any bolstering is in your deluded imagination.

The rotting corpse of your religion is decaying around you.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#8400 Dec 13, 2012
derek4 wrote:
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.]
More nonsense from Dim to be knocked down.

When it comes to fear, Christianity is built on it. That's right, it positively thrives on terror.

There's a reason why Christians always refer to themselves as "god-fearing" - it's because they fear their invisible sky pixie more than they love him.
Thinking

Cirencester, UK

#8401 Dec 13, 2012
It's because derek 4 is a lying cu*t.
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
The Wall Street Journal & New York Times are not your posts.
Your posts are when you take quotes from a guy called Miles Mathis and shamelessly attribute them to Richard Dawkins.
Please share with us the reasons why you chose to do this.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#8402 Dec 13, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, indeedy! That was the first source of information and the first blow to Jesus. Literacy (along with scholasticism) resulted in the Renaissance, then the Enlightenment with its great inventions: science, and the liberal secular state, from which came freedom of the press and of expression - more information.
The next major blow was from that science - more information. First we had deism following Newton et al. and the clockwork universe. We didn't need a god to run the universe.
Then Darwin and Hubble, who showed us a godless natural history, and with it, atheism. It turns out that we didn't need a god to build the universe, either. The god of the gaps became very small indeed.
And the death knell rang when information took another quantum leap. Satellite telecommunications lifted the rock on theistic violence and hypocrisy, and the Internet gave atheism a venue and a voice. It's not just that we are learning so much from one another here. The Internet is a place where people on the fence can read the argument against Christianity and for humanism, things we rarely or never heard growing up.
Religion cannot survive the light of scrutiny.
I think it's safe to say that Dim realises this and in grim desperation he floods this thread with his spam.

For all the good it does, his spamming is simply re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

Since: Mar 11

Portage, MI

#8403 Dec 13, 2012
Maybe it was one of those Harry Potter moving talking photos?
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
He said that in a photograph, did he? You really are a slow chap, aren't you Dim. What other crap have you fetched us today?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#8404 Dec 13, 2012
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>If American English was good enough for jesus, it should be good enough for all of us.
George Dumbya Bush

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#8405 Dec 13, 2012
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
<quoted text>
I think its impossible to have a church that has no relevance except with its own, at least not a church as Christ would have it. Defending the institution of marriage is appropriate. If an individual finds significance in how a marriage is defined, I think that individual should have a say in how it is defined. I don't have a problem with anyone who is attracted to the same gender and neither does the church.(see http://www.mormonsandgays.org/ )
However, I don't condone homosexual activity.
Is it my place to say what is legally permitted? The government thinks so, since it gave me the right to vote on the issue. Was it right for me to vote yes on prop 8? Yes. Is that the right answer for everyone, probably not. I feel that marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think the law should reflect that and I have a right to express that.
It was the modern LDS's say in California.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#8406 Dec 13, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed.
Do you know how difficult it is to get the IRS to even investigate such an allegation? We broached that a little while ago at http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... . I don't believe that you were posting with us here then.
I was, but even when I'm reading along, I post less frequently than most. Often, the ida or sentiment I might express is ably covered by another writer, in which case I hit the "agree" icon and move on. Why clutter up a thread duplicating ideas? But I did stop following this thread for a while when it seemed to consist almost entirely of useless bickering.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#8407 Dec 13, 2012
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
<quoted text>
I think its impossible to have a church that has no relevance except with its own, at least not a church as Christ would have it. Defending the institution of marriage is appropriate. If an individual finds significance in how a marriage is defined, I think that individual should have a say in how it is defined. I don't have a problem with anyone who is attracted to the same gender and neither does the church.(see http://www.mormonsandgays.org/ )
However, I don't condone homosexual activity.
Is it my place to say what is legally permitted? The government thinks so, since it gave me the right to vote on the issue. Was it right for me to vote yes on prop 8? Yes. Is that the right answer for everyone, probably not. I feel that marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think the law should reflect that and I have a right to express that.
As an individual, you have every right to express your views as long as you are not inciting a riot, creating a dangerous panic in a crowd, or preaching sedition or treason. The problem comes when a religious organization like the LDS exceeds the limitations imposed on it as a 501(c)(3) organization. In order to enjoy the tax exemptions enjoyed by such organizations, they must also abide by rules that limit its political activities. The LDS brazenly flouts IRS regulations and still expects to benefit from its provisions. That makes LDS's leaders scofflaws and hypocrites, unworthy of any respect from anyone outside of its cadre of zombies.

“Fortes Fortuna Juvat, ”

Since: Dec 09

Wichita. Ks.

#8408 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.
There have been a few of them.
Roxxanna29 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet, in the Atheist Forums, they are constantly creating antagonistic threads. Asking Christians to prove to them. that there IS a God.
This is an atheist forum if you haven’t noticed.
Roxxanna29 wrote:
<quoted text>
Then, they get mad when we do
You have proven there is a god?
Then please enlighten us with this evidence and proof.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8409 Dec 13, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Over capitalisation! You're quoting a crackpot.
<quoted text>
You have no idea what you're talking about, but I recognize you as a foremost crackpot.

Just a reminder to everyone in the forum, register concerns about linked material with the publisher. This includes any spelling or capitalization issues. I have no interest in your critiques of web pages. You are unknowns and without creditability.

But thank you for re-posting my material for me when you use the reply button. That's nice of you.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8410 Dec 13, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice explanation why Dim can't come to terms with my correct spelling of "plough".
When you've run out of ammunition and realize your points = zero, you resort to grammar – and you fail even at that, since you're dense enough to forget it's your OWN grammar you're criticizing.

“Plough vs. plow”

“In American and Canadian English, plow is the preferred spelling of the farm implement and its related verbs. Plough is the preferred spelling in all other varieties of English.

The spelling distinction applies to all senses of the word, including figurative ones. British and Australian writers always use plough, along with ploughed and ploughing; American and Canadian writers always use plow, plowed, and plowing. Both spellings are pronounced the same.”

Contact the publisher with any dispute:
http://grammarist.com/spelling/plough-plow/

You introduced the spelling,“plough”, to the forum, airhead - not me.

In the United States, we spell it plow, which is correct, and we normally don't spell over here to please limeys. But, to patronize and condescend to you, I spelled it your way because I didn't know if you had enough sense to know what plow meant. I still don't know if you do. Probably not.

You're a number one idiot, and idiot is spelled 2 ways:“idiot” and / or “Khatru”.

And God, the creator, is capitalized. And our currency says “IN GOD WE TRUST”. We don't disgrace any note here by defacing it with Darwin's picture

However, it's correct to spell atheism and atheists with lower case a, because they are indeed LOWER case or lower class, lol. And in that low class, you're the dregs that settled to the bottom.

LMAO

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8411 Dec 13, 2012
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
<quoted text>
I think its impossible to have a church that has no relevance except with its own, at least not a church as Christ would have it. Defending the institution of marriage is appropriate. If an individual finds significance in how a marriage is defined, I think that individual should have a say in how it is defined. I don't have a problem with anyone who is attracted to the same gender and neither does the church.(see http://www.mormonsandgays.org/ )
However, I don't condone homosexual activity.
Is it my place to say what is legally permitted? The government thinks so, since it gave me the right to vote on the issue. Was it right for me to vote yes on prop 8? Yes. Is that the right answer for everyone, probably not. I feel that marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think the law should reflect that and I have a right to express that.
The atheists are working on removing that right.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8412 Dec 13, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
The Wall Street Journal & New York Times are not your posts.
I posted nothing from The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times? Not one, but many. All my posts are still on the board.

I can re-post them for you if you like. Maybe if you ask me just right, I'll do that for you.

In fact, thank you for inviting me to re-post one for you right now – it's one I know you enjoyed previously, and you'd like seeing again:

From: The Wall Street Journal

“Mistakes in Scientific Studies Surge”

It was the kind of study that made doctors around the world sit up and take notice: Two popular high-blood-pressure drugs were found to be much better in combination than either alone.

"There was a 'wow' reaction," recalls Franz Messerli, a New York doctor who, like many others, changed his prescription habits after the 2003 report.

Unfortunately, it wasn't true. Six and a half years later, the prestigious medical journal the Lancet retracted the paper, citing "serious concerns" about the findings.

The damage was done. Doctors by then had given the drug combination to well over 100,000 patients. Instead of protecting them from kidney problems, as the study said the drug combo could do, it left them more vulnerable to potentially life-threatening side effects, later studies showed. Today, "tens of thousands" of patients are still on the dual therapy, according to research firm SDI.

When a study is retracted, "it can be hard to make its effects go away," says Sheldon Tobe, a kidney-disease specialist at the University of Toronto.

And that's more important today than ever because retractions of scientific studies are surging.

Since 2001, while the number of papers published in research journals has risen 44%, the number retracted has leapt more than 15-fold, data compiled for The Wall Street Journal by Thomson Reuters reveal.

more:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8413 Dec 13, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
More nonsense from Dim to be knocked down.
When it comes to fear, Christianity is built on it. That's right, it positively thrives on terror.
There's a reason why Christians always refer to themselves as "god-fearing" - it's because they fear their invisible sky pixie more than they love him.
I've never met any Christians who referred to themselves as “god-fearing”.

And, like I've told other posters, thank you for re-posting my material each time you hit the reply button. You've often cooperated with me in that manner.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8414 Dec 13, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Your posts are when you take quotes from a guy called Miles Mathis and shamelessly attribute them to Richard Dawkins.
Please share with us the reasons why you chose to do this.
Just a reminder to everyone, should you have a dispute with the contents of any web page, feel free to contact the publisher with your concerns. I have no interest in your opinions.

If you have a link from a credit-worthy source that disputes any web page, you are also free to post that detail with the link, otherwise your opinion or dispute is not considered valid.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8415 Dec 13, 2012
New Pew survey: 21% of atheists believe in God

“...you’ll find 12% professing a belief in heaven and 10% praying at least once a week.(Note: That doesn’t mean meditation. That was posed in a separate question.) I can’t believe I have to ask this, but … do we actually need separate sects within atheism for those who are, um, actual atheists and those who aren’t?
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/23/new-pew...

“If only George Carlin were around to ponder this oxymoron: Steven Waldman, the editor-in-chief of Beliefnet, digs into the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (and reported on by The Times yesterday), and finds an interesting nugget:“21 percent of atheists believe in god.”

“What this means is that Atheism has become a cultural designation, rather than a theological statement,” Waldman writes on his Beliefnet blog.“Some are likely declaring themselves atheists as a statement of hostility to organized religion, rather than to God. This might help explain polls showing rising numbers of Atheists.”
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8416 Dec 13, 2012
Atheists: No God, no reason, just whining

“I can't stand atheists -- but it's not because they don't believe in God. It's because they're crashing bores.”

continued:

“My problem with atheists is their tiresome -- and way old -- insistence that they are being oppressed and their fixation with the fine points of Christianity. What -- did their Sunday school teachers flog their behinds with a Bible when they were kids?

Read Dawkins, or Hitchens, or the works of fellow atheists Sam Harris ("The End of Faith") and Daniel Dennett ("Breaking the Spell"), or visit an atheist website or blog (there are zillions of them, bearing such titles as "God Is for Suckers," "God Is Imaginary" and "God Is Pretend"), and your eyes will glaze over as you peruse -- again and again -- the obsessively tiny range of topics around which atheists circle like water in a drain.

continued:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/17/opini...

[poor atheist whiners, lol]

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8417 Dec 13, 2012
“How an Atheist Found God”

“Atheist vs. God: What moved me from my atheist experience to believing in God...”
http://www.everystudent.com/wires/atheist.htm...

[from within:
“I was challenging my friend with every question that came to mind about God. I would find myself writing out questions late in the evening. This went on for well over a year. One day she handed me a book that briefly answered questions like, is there a God; is Jesus God; what about the Bible. It presented facts. No comments like, "you have to believe."

I saw some evidence for God that was solidly logical. I'm not normally drawn toward science. However, the parts particularly convincing to me were the chemical properties of water and the earth's position to the sun. It was all too perfectly designed, too perfectly put together. My faith in "nothing behind it all" seemed weaker than the possibility of God. I had fewer reasons to be certain of nothing, and more reasons to conclude that God might be there.

I then encountered a situation that fully challenged my current philosophy on life. What I had been putting my faith in proved to be completely insufficient. It shocked me to see that I was at a loss for an approach to life that was fully reliable. However, the situation resolved itself and I moved ahead. I have a pretty steady personality. Throughout my life, I never really felt "needy." No on-going crisis. No big gaps or struggles. And certainly nothing I felt guilty about.

But the concept of God was something I couldn't get off my mind....was he there? does he exist? maybe there's a God.....

One night I was talking to my friend again, and she knew I had all the information I needed. She knew that I had run out of questions to ask. Yet I was still trying to debate. In one clear, abrupt moment, my friend turned to me and said, "You know, I can't make this decision for you, and God's not going to wait forever."

And I immediately knew she was right. I was playing around with a very important decision. So I went home and decided that I was going to decide. I was going to either ask God to come into my life, or I was going to end the subject forever and never allow myself to consider the possibility of God again. I was tired of dealing with this decision. I was tired of thinking about it.

So, for the next three or four hours, I reviewed everything I had read and observed. I evaluated it all.

I concluded that the evidence for God was so strong that it made more sense to believe in God than to believe he wasn't there. Then I had to act on that conclusion.”

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
A Universe from Nothing? 16 min Eagle 12 34
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 32 min Regolith Based Li... 40,322
For Atheists: Why do You Call Theories "Scient... 35 min IB DaMann 190
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 56 min karl44 15,810
News Why I quit atheism 1 hr Eagle 12 387
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 6 hr _Susan_ 255,927
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 12 hr woodtick57 20,580
More from around the web