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.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8567 Dec 16, 2012
KJV wrote:
"Disagree. Is your sex life relevant to me? No. If you keep your religion as private as your sex life"
But yet you're posting all over the place about your religion. No double standard here. Oh that's right your believe in a unprovable thing is not a religion while my believe in an unprovable thing is Religion.
athe·ist\ˈā-thē-ist\
noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
Who "BELIEVES"
be·lieve\bə-ˈlēv\
intransitive verb
1 a : to have a firm religious faith
Ummmm what do know about that?
No double standard.

Think of it like this: I may advocate peace, but if you hit me, I may knock you out. I may advocate tolerance, but if you are intolerant, you won't be tolerated.

I'm telling you that your personal beliefs should stay private. Meanwhile, the octopus - your church - has been declaiming my beliefs for centuries while promoting its own. That's an intolerance for my beliefs - a verbal punch in the mouth with the love of Jesus, so to speak.

In defense, unbelievers retaliate. And if we can disenthrone your selfish ism and replace it with our pluralistic one, then we can all stop talking about gods and no gods.

No double standard.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8568 Dec 16, 2012
KJV wrote:
athe·ist\ˈā-thē-ist\
noun
: one who believes that there is no deity

Who "BELIEVES"

be·lieve\bə-ˈlēv\
intransitive verb
1 a : to have a firm religious faith

Ummmm what do know about that?
We know that you're cherry picking definitions and attempting to impose them on others. I am an atheists, and I believe many things. Yet I have no religious faith.

Even if I did, what would it matter to you?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8569 Dec 16, 2012
KJV wrote:
My church? Where is this church of mine? What faith is this church?
Pretty much all over the world.
KJV wrote:
Human morals with out God: Cannibalism was widespread in the past among humans in many parts of the world
Thanks for the heads up. I'll be on guard for that.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8570 Dec 16, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
You're correct our language cannot describe Gods realm. I just do the best I can using the inferior written language that man created.
More Christian misanthropy: Hate mankind first. The things that a human being does or makes are shit to Christians.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8571 Dec 16, 2012
KJV wrote:
you make your own rules
Yep. And so does your church. We'll see which ones prevail.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#8572 Dec 16, 2012
The Bible is not the "word of God," but stolen from pagan sources. Its Eden, Adam and Eve were taken from the Babylonian accounts; its Flood and Deluge is but an epitome of some four hundred flood accounts; its Ark and Ararat have their equivalents in a score of Deluge myths; even the names of Noah's sons are copies, so also Isaac's sacrifice, Solomon's judgment, and Samson's pillar acts; its Moses is fashioned after the Syrian Mises; its laws after Hammurabi's code. Its Messiah is derived from the Egyptian Mahdi, Savior, certain verses are verbatim copies of Egyptian scriptures. Between Jesus and the Egyptian Horus, Gerald Massy found 137 similarities, and those between Christ and Krishna run into the hundreds. How then can the Bible be a revelation to the Jews?"
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you know what you say is true, you shouldn't keep whining and trying to reaffirm it over and over. When you do that, it shows us you're weak, and sends up red flags, letting us know we can safely assume that what you say is false.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8573 Dec 16, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
There is nothing special about putting on a uniform. Being a soldier is no more honorable than being a mother or a teacher, and no more worthy of adulation than being a fireman, a cop,or the lineman that restores power to your home after a tornado, hurricane or ice storm.
KJV wrote:
You should have kept you ridicules comments to yourself.
That's my call, not yours, isn't it? I choose to question the cult of the soldier, and the meme that somehow, such people have done more for their compatriots, or deserves adulation and extra gratitude. I reject that.

But that's the gist of these culture wars, isn't it?- people like you trying to silence or control the expression of people like me.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
And I question how the Vietnam War served Americans' interests. I told you that I've been to Vietnam on holiday - Saigon, now Ho Chi Minh City - and I saw what we were saving the Vietnamese from. If you saw it, you would be ashamed that your country sent you there to carpet bomb, napalm, and agent orange those people.


<crickets>
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I think you served your government and the war profiteers it supports with its endless series wars more than any of the rest of us. That's not your fault,and I don't think you deserve to be castigated for it. But frankly, I think that we war protesters served Americans at least as well as any soldiers did. Who do you think got those soldiers home?
KJV wrote:
War can't be explained. You have to be there to believe it. Good place to send our 18 year men.
One of us is clueless here.

Richardfs

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#8574 Dec 16, 2012
derek4 wrote:
“1 in 4 Scientists in Survey Suspect Fraud by Peers”
“A surprising one in four scientists suspect their peers of engaging in intellectual fakery, according to a new survey.
Driving the suspicious acts, respondents said, was the rat race atmosphere of modern science.
A decade ago science leaders often dismissed scientific charlatans as "bad apples" that were extraordinarily rare. But since then the annals of scientific crime have grown greatly, as have questions about whether fraud is actually on the rise or simply being publicly reported more often.
To explore the issue, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society, surveyed 1,500 of its members in November.
A summary of the 469 replies appears in the current issue of the association's magazine, Science, under the headline: "In the Trenches, Doubts About Scientific Integrity." Many Encounter Fakery
Some 27 percent of the respondents said they believed they had personally encountered the fabrication, falsification or theft of research in the past decade. Moreover, these respondents said they have witnessed, on average, 2.5 cases of suspected fakery in that period.”
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/27/us/1-in-4-s...
20 year old 'hearsay' evidence, is this supposed to discrete all of science.

Now how about that 2000 year old book of myths.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8575 Dec 16, 2012
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had a right to do and say what it did.
It has the rights that the law allows, which is what is at issue and at stake here, isn't it?
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
See Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution:
Amendment I ... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
You are free to exercise your religion in the privacy of your own homes and churches. Engaging in politics is an attempt to impose that religion on others against their wills.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8576 Dec 16, 2012
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
We believe part of our faith is defending moral truths.
Your use of the word "defend" is telling. If you kept your "moral truths" to yourselves,you wouldn't need to defend them.Now the rest of us need to defend ourselves from the octopus that wants a tentacle around the throats of unbelievers - your church.

We believe that you should practice your faith without imposing it on others. We believe that you have no Christian moral truths. Can you name a single belief peculiar to your church and in conflict with humanist values that we should allow ourselves to be subject to?
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
"Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality.
We'll judge that ourselves without Christian input. I believe that your church's position on that matter is horribly immoral.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8577 Dec 16, 2012
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family.
Once again, how I should raise my family is not for you or the octopus to determine. I say butt out. I insist.
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out."
I am more interested in the rights of gay people that want equal protection under the law than I am in what the octopus wants for them.

Your attitude - your insistence on imposing Jesus on those of us with no interest in your bible - has forced us fight your church. If you won't stand down, we'll push you down if it is in our power. And I think it is.
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
If you tell a church to "can it" and stop fighting for what they believe in when their doctrine compels them to speak out, you are "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion.
Your free exercise of religion ends where the lives of others begin. I prefer the free exercise of daily life for all people. According to my vision, gay people are free to marry, and you are free to do whatever it is you do in your homes and churches. You most certainly are not free to force anybody to conform to Christian standards.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8578 Dec 16, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>He made it quite clear in his book, The Moral Landscape, that he looks forward to a future where he or someone like him could remove a person's ability to even think of religion. He spoke of drugs and genetic engineering to achieve his goal of eradicating religion from the human mind. Sounds suspiciously like Orwell's Thought Police.
I find it very funny that the creep calls himself a "free-thinker" but advocates mind control for anyone else who may think differently than he does.
Your scurrilous claims without external corroboration are of no value or interest. Without a link, it is just more Christian apologetics, which are widely understood to be unreliable.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8579 Dec 16, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
I'm not promoting any god, just pointing out liars and hypocrites who wish to force their will on the rest of society.
Our will is that the octopus - the Christian church - no longer be empowered to dictate who can marry who, nor dictate who is an acceptable human being, for example.

If that is forcing our will on society, lying or hypocrisy, then guilty as charged.

You people have no interest in our privacy or our freedoms. That point should be made explicitly and often. It clarifies what your role in our lives actually is, and suggests what needs to be done about it.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#8580 Dec 16, 2012
derek4 wrote:
“1 in 4 Scientists in Survey Suspect Fraud by Peers”
“A surprising one in four scientists suspect their peers of engaging in intellectual fakery, according to a new survey.
Driving the suspicious acts, respondents said, was the rat race atmosphere of modern science.
A decade ago science leaders often dismissed scientific charlatans as "bad apples" that were extraordinarily rare. But since then the annals of scientific crime have grown greatly, as have questions about whether fraud is actually on the rise or simply being publicly reported more often.
To explore the issue, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society, surveyed 1,500 of its members in November.
A summary of the 469 replies appears in the current issue of the association's magazine, Science, under the headline: "In the Trenches, Doubts About Scientific Integrity." Many Encounter Fakery
Some 27 percent of the respondents said they believed they had personally encountered the fabrication, falsification or theft of research in the past decade. Moreover, these respondents said they have witnessed, on average, 2.5 cases of suspected fakery in that period.”
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/27/us/1-in-4-s...
Spamming this thread with your creationist horsesh*t propoganda isn't working. You've converted 0 atheists so far.

Go back to your discovery institute cave and tell them to stop wasting their money on you.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8581 Dec 16, 2012
derek4 wrote:
So you're against the Constitution?
I'm against your church. And I'm for confining its effects to the lives of believers. The Constitution supports that. And if it didn't, I say amend it.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#8582 Dec 16, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"
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."
My church? Where is this church of mine? What faith is this church?
"Your church burned people as witches when it could. "
And you feed Christians to the lions and burned them to death.
"We have access to a much better moral code now that ignores gods"
Human morals with out God: Cannibalism was widespread in the past among humans in many parts of the world, continuing into the 19th century in some isolated South Pacific cultures, and to the present day in parts of tropical Africa. In a few cases in insular Melanesia, indigenous flesh-markets existed.[3]Fiji was once known as the 'Cannibal Isles'.[4] Cannibalism has been well documented around the world, from Fiji to the Amazon Basin to the Congo to Māori New Zealand.[5]Neanderthals are believed to have practiced cannibalism,[6][7] and Neanderthals may have been eaten by anatomically modern humans.[8]
Christ on a cracker, well now we both have something to be proud of. If it weren't for modern man's laws, who knows what the cannibals would be doing now? Our laws keep them confined to their churches and they are being forced to just play at this cannibalism, no longer can they have the real thing..

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8583 Dec 16, 2012
derek4 wrote:
Where was my lie? I lied about nothing because I made no personal comment.
You lied about Dawkins.

And typically, despite the Christian cant about accountability, you assume none. You require none of yourself. You feel no need to admit error, nor guilt, nor show contrition nor integrity.

You believe that whatever you did, you did for your god, and in the way that you have been taught by example. The whole apologetics racket can't be contrary to your god's will, right? So they must be right in the eyes of your god, and their methods are your methods: fibbing for Jesus.

And if you've slipped up a little, so what? You're forgiven. Not by Dawkins nor by the people who are offended at your ethics on his behalf, but by Jesus. If he didn't approve of some detail, that's covered as well. You are confident that Jesus has surely forgiven you, because you requested that he do so, which is really a command - forgiveness on demand.
derek4 wrote:
So you're telling us there is no God, and because of that, corrupt and fraudulent science is acceptable?
Actually,*you're* telling us that there is no god with your witness. A talented and upright creator god would not have made you like you are, nor allowed any church to turn you into this.

Fraudulent science is unacceptable. Science tells you that continually by exposing any fraud it uncovers and publicly shaming the offender. You would have a single article to post here without science uncovering them all for you and making them public.

Tell us how the church would handle something similar, such as the widespread pedophilia in the Roman Catholic Church.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8584 Dec 16, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Full text here for the honest amongst us. No point you reading it, Buck.
www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-...
<quoted text>
Thanks for that. Very helpful.

Not surprisingly, it points to more Christians at play "fibbin' for Jesus."

I'm pretty much ready to reject all Christian apologetics out of hand these days. The yield for knowledge in looking at that stuff is virtually zero, except for a better understanding of the values and methods of its source.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8585 Dec 16, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
I see buck lacked the IQ to catch all four of them! Well at least he admits to accepting Jesus, he was pretending to not be a christian anymore even though he always praises the DI a christian think tank.
Lmfao!
<quoted text>
Tome, there is no value in distinguishing people like nanoanomaly, Dave Nelson, Buck Crick, and RESP0NSE from theists that call themselves Christian, since they are functionally equivalent.

What do we care which parts of the mythology they accept or reject when they all have the same net effect on unbelievers - support of the church and resistance to humanist philosophy?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8586 Dec 16, 2012
KJV wrote:
If you post your writings they would be all over you so you quote the pro's and then it's you have no thoughts of you[r] own. LOL. It's like arguing with children.
You've described an infantile tactic. You're not really helping Dim much with this post.

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) 16 min Simon 61,309
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 1 hr Subduction Zone 2,683
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 6 hr Aura Mytha 28,316
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) Fri IB DaMann 5,970
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) Wed Eagle 12 452
Deconversion Mar 20 Eagle 12 138
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) Mar 18 Eagle 12 2,043
More from around the web