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.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#9614 Dec 29, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Obviously, Dim. It was intended to be a history lesson."
Wikipedia : the Star of Bethlehem, also called the Christmas Star,[1] revealed the birth of Jesus to the Biblical Magi, and later led them to Bethlehem.
Wikipedia : The star of Bethlehem (the word star being used in its astrological connotation, a portent associated with a heavenly configuration, as in the phrase "his star is rising")
You really are dense. None of that matters, what matters is that if you follow a star, or planet, or anything high enough in the sky, for a long period of time, say a day, you will be walking in circles.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#9615 Dec 29, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Science tells us that it couldn't have happened. That's a science lesson."
Actually this is wrong.
Science tells us that this in fact did happen.
No it doesn't.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#9616 Dec 29, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Disagree. Fallacy of scale.
<quoted text>
Not correct. We know where morals come from. Basic urges, such as protecting our young, are instinctual. And many other behaviors conducive to survival in man and beast alike are also gifts of evolution.
From these roots, human culture takes over. Here's how we do it today, so called rational ethics :
People decide how they would like to live. Most want to be happy as they understand it, which means that they want what it takes to achieve that state. They want to feel safe, to have enough, to feel loved, to express themselves, and to have the opportunity to pursue those things that make them happy. That means having leisure time, good health, sufficient means, the wisdom to pursue worthy the goals, and the skills to achieve them.
We've learned from our own lives and from reading about the past that most of us want those things. And we understand that the best way to achieve this is cooperatively, with rules of living that maximize opportunities to achieve happiness.
How should we agree to proceed to achieve a society with the greatest opportunity to pursue happiness for the greatest number? How shall we agree to behave to create that world?
We decide which values embody those goals - kindness, tolerance, freedom, peace, integrity, etc. Once we have identified our goals, we must decide which rules facilitate them. Some of these rules will be laws, such as 'don't kill or steal' and some are customs and traditions, such as sharing and cheerfulness.
Over time, we apply a science of practical ethics, applying reason and compassion to tweak the goals and the rules to support them, and observing their effects on our world. Sometimes, we make a mistake, as with alcohol prohibition. Our rule,the Eighteenth Amendment, was paradoxically counterproductive, and inadvertently INCREASED total misery. So we tweaked the rule back into oblivion with the Twenty-First Amendment.
Where's the mystery? Moral behavior is conducive to survival and happiness. Why wouldn't it exist?
Moral behavior is not conducive to survival - at least not true as a blanket statement. Sometimes it is the opposite.

Would a behavior be "moral" if society decided it was not conducive to happiness, when it was previously considered conducive to happiness? The answer is Yes, and No. Would a behavior be moral if it conduced happiness for some, unhappiness for others? The answer is Yes, and No.

Are there actions which would be immoral in any society whether they regarded them as conducive to happiness or not? The answer is Yes.

You can't avoid the subjective component. Then it depends on who makes the rules, or as they used to say in my circles, who is the biggest and baddest.

I have often considered it conducive to societal happiness for me to beat someone's face into a pulp. And it worked.

Stalin and Mao worked your system to perfection...almost.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#9617 Dec 29, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Did you notice it was the scientific community that discovered the flaws in the work? No! Of course you didn't. "

Then we are safe to assume there are flaws in what the scientists say today, right?

Of course. I think I'll wait for them to correct some more flaws and frauds.

Prudent, huh?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#9618 Dec 29, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
And Shakespeare is nothing more than letters, spaces and punctuation.
Fallacy of scale. It is from the community of specific chemicals working in tandem and considered collectively that humanity emerges.
You don't find humanity focusing on this chemical or that one - this amino acid or that chloride ion. You can't see humanity at that scale. You're too close, just as you can't see rain or even wetness looking at one water molecule.
You can also miss humanity if you step too far away and look at too big a piece - the other pole of the fallacy of scale. That happens when you make comments such as, "in the grand scheme of things, man doesn't matter."
That's correct, but we don't live at the scale of all time and space any more than we do at the scale of molecules.
Incidentally, the brain's chemistry is hardly random.
The materialist scientist sees everything as the smallest element multiplied.

That's why some on this thread have stated that the whole of biogenesis is only individual microevolution events multiplied over and over.

Glad you see the fallacy in such errant materialist reduction.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#9619 Dec 29, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Then we are safe to assume there are flaws in what the scientists say today, right?
Of course. I think I'll wait for them to correct some more flaws and frauds.
Prudent, huh?
Sure, if you meant the actual flaws and frauds and not just that which opposes your beliefs.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#9620 Dec 29, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Moral behavior is not conducive to survival - at least not true as a blanket statement. Sometimes it is the opposite.
Would a behavior be "moral" if society decided it was not conducive to happiness, when it was previously considered conducive to happiness? The answer is Yes, and No. Would a behavior be moral if it conduced happiness for some, unhappiness for others? The answer is Yes, and No.
Are there actions which would be immoral in any society whether they regarded them as conducive to happiness or not? The answer is Yes.
You can't avoid the subjective component. Then it depends on who makes the rules, or as they used to say in my circles, who is the biggest and baddest.
I have often considered it conducive to societal happiness for me to beat someone's face into a pulp. And it worked.
Stalin and Mao worked your system to perfection...almost.
No, "moral" behavior is not conducive to survival because morality is a social construct and is often used to justify murder, rape, torture, and a slew of other actions which weaken our species.

However ethical and equal treatment are, and they are the result of natural pressures combined with genetic mutations, resulting in a stronger social construct and thus a more adaptable species.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#9621 Dec 29, 2012
Morality isn't always as black and white either. Like if you lied that you weren't hiding any Jews during the Holocaust... That is a violation of the big 10.

I don't know... we all know not to rape and murder even though the people with the book with god commanding rape and murder are telling atheists that without god there is nothing holding them back from rape and murder.... wtf.

Regardless of where morality comes from... atheists are moral....many atheists seem to be humanists fighting for equal human rights. Also Christians tend to be more moral than what their bible tells them...

I will be worried when the bible literalists loose their moral filters

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#9622 Dec 29, 2012
EmpAtheist wrote:
Morality isn't always as black and white either. Like if you lied that you weren't hiding any Jews during the Holocaust... That is a violation of the big 10.

I don't know... we all know not to rape and murder even though the people with the book with god commanding rape and murder are telling atheists that without god there is nothing holding them back from rape and murder.... wtf.

Regardless of where morality comes from... atheists are moral....many atheists seem to be humanists fighting for equal human rights. Also Christians tend to be more moral than what their bible tells them...

I will be worried when the bible literalists loose their moral filters
Some never had moral filters.

Westboro Baptists come immediately to mind.

I wonder if buck would find it moral to beat their faces to a pulp.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#9623 Dec 29, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Did you notice it was the scientific community that discovered the flaws in the work? No! Of course you didn't. "
Yes of they found some. Not all by any means
Religion found none, either in the scientific work or itself. Seems you are betting on a real loser.
KJV

United States

#9624 Dec 29, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>Disagree. Fallacy of scale.

KJV wrote, ""Whence morality?... Two and a half millennia of debate have, however, failed to produce a satisfactory answer. So now it is time for someone else to have a go. Perhaps [biologists] can eventually do what philosophers have never managed, and explain moral behavior in an intellectually satisfying way.""

Not correct. We know where morals come from. Basic urges, such as protecting our young, are instinctual. And many other behaviors conducive to survival in man and beast alike are also gifts of evolution.

From these roots, human culture takes over. Here's how we do it today, so called rational ethics :

People decide how they would like to live. Most want to be happy as they understand it, which means that they want what it takes to achieve that state. They want to feel safe, to have enough, to feel loved, to express themselves, and to have the opportunity to pursue those things that make them happy. That means having leisure time, good health, sufficient means, the wisdom to pursue worthy the goals, and the skills to achieve them.

We've learned from our own lives and from reading about the past that most of us want those things. And we understand that the best way to achieve this is cooperatively, with rules of living that maximize opportunities to achieve happiness.

How should we agree to proceed to achieve a society with the greatest opportunity to pursue happiness for the greatest number? How shall we agree to behave to create that world?

We decide which values embody those goals - kindness, tolerance, freedom, peace, integrity, etc. Once we have identified our goals, we must decide which rules facilitate them. Some of these rules will be laws, such as 'don't kill or steal' and some are customs and traditions, such as sharing and cheerfulness.

Over time, we apply a science of practical ethics, applying reason and compassion to tweak the goals and the rules to support them, and observing their effects on our world. Sometimes, we make a mistake, as with alcohol prohibition. Our rule,the Eighteenth Amendment, was paradoxically counterproductive, and inadvertently INCREASED total misery. So we tweaked the rule back into oblivion with the Twenty-First Amendment.

Where's the mystery? Moral behavior is conducive to survival and happiness. Why wouldn't it exist?
"Where's the mystery? Moral behavior is conducive to survival and happiness. Why wouldn't it exist?"

Because if indeed evolution was real even though you may believe you can't have one with out the other. The odds of the top dog on the planet exhibiting moral traits are very high against it and not normal in nature.

The human eye
Human morals
The arts
Music
Writing

This is not evolution it's creation.
KJV

United States

#9625 Dec 29, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>No it didn't.
Oh yes it did and computer program show it.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#9626 Dec 29, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"That is the business of science, correcting itself when it is wrong."
It's also the business of the law to stop fraud. Which they find way more of in science then science does.
"When does religion correct itself?... "
All the time!!! Every time older documents are found they make the appropriate changes to the Bible. It's usually pretty miner changes but they do keep the Bible updated with the oldest know writings. And no one goes to jail for fraud. LOL
"... No one goes to jail for fraud." Bernie Madhoff will be glad to hear this!!

According to your "Religion Correcting itself" thesis, further progress will eventually lead you into the stone age. Congratulations!!

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#9627 Dec 29, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you noticed how long it takes the scientific community to discover their flaws, and the damage that occurs before fraudulent scientific papers eventually get retracted? Some are never corrected. The peer review system has failed us.
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/846/94/h...
Some fraud is never retracted even after it's found. When will science retract errors in textbooks?
http://amasci.com/miscon/miscon.html
My faith is in the Bible.
Your faith is in fraudulent science.
Your religion has been around for nearly 2000 years and it still hasn't fixed Leviticus 14 .... it's a real hoot!!

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#9628 Dec 29, 2012
derek4 wrote:
To our atheist scientists in the forum, here's a question:
Is prostate cancer linked to the XMRV virus? Scientists told us it was, but unfortunately their papers were retracted since they were false.
This was reported in September, 2012. The link is below.
http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/09/...
No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.
And again, it was science that did the correction and the retraction, not religion.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#9629 Dec 29, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yes it did and computer program show it.
It is hilarious how religibots will use computer simulations to "disprove" science. <<guffa!!!>>

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#9630 Dec 29, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Where's the mystery? Moral behavior is conducive to survival and happiness. Why wouldn't it exist?"
Because if indeed evolution was real even though you may believe you can't have one with out the other. The odds of the top dog on the planet exhibiting moral traits are very high against it and not normal in nature.
The human eye
Human morals
The arts
Music
Writing
This is not evolution it's creation.
The human eye - Already debunked, irreducible complexity is a canard.
Human morals - Easily explained by the theory of evolution.
The arts - Other animals exhibit art as well, fail canard.
Music - Other animals sing, another fail canard.
Writing - Hmm ... I think you may have one ... wait ...

Writing is a result of the combination of logic centers in our minds, it is simply an expression of communication. Our communication methods are more elaborate than other animals, but other animals do communicate as well. The logic traits that resulted in things like writing and structured linguistics are easily explained through the theory of evolution as species with the most complex communications systems could coordinate attacks and defenses much more easily, being capable of transmitting more complex concepts offers a tactical advantage over either prey or predator.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#9631 Dec 29, 2012
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
It is hilarious how religibots will use computer simulations to "disprove" science. <<guffa!!!>>
I don't find hypocrisy humorous.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#9632 Dec 29, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't find hypocrisy humorous.
Nor do I. But the use of "computer simulations" aka "computer programs that produce any result you want" as "proof" of anything .... how is that not hysterical??

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#9633 Dec 29, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>Oh yes it did and computer program show it.
Put up a link or STFU.

Moron.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 min It aint necessari... 23,585
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr scientia potentia... 48,864
What are the best arguments against religion? 1 hr IB DaMann 6
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 1 hr IB DaMann 5,720
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 1 hr Scaritual 92
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 2 hr Mintz4004 21,889
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 4 hr Into The Night 258,047
More from around the web