Don't dictate beliefs

Sep 5, 2012 Full story: The Star Press 11,175

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

Full Story

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#9603 Dec 29, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Reporting post to moderators.
You're getting desperate, aren't you?

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#9604 Dec 29, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Reporting post to moderators.
Yeah, desperate right enough.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#9606 Dec 29, 2012
derek4 wrote:
The included link concerns atheist negativity and how it is destroying them.
“Anti-something” movements are doomed, since they merely display negativity.
We must stand for what we believe, not for what we disbelieve.
So be positive, or be prepared to fail.
Excellent point.
http://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/2007/09/...
Statements in this post were authored by the poster and are not copyrighted material.
From your link

"Last year we discovered two such clouds that appear to have the exact abundances of Hydrogen and Helium predicted by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, and none of the heavier elements that would exist in gas that was polluted by prior generations of stars."

Nice to know you subscribe to the Big Bang Theory.

You do realise how very old that makes our universe, don't you?

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#9607 Dec 29, 2012
derek4 wrote:
Statements in this post were authored by the poster and are not copyrighted material.
Can't help but notice you've taken to adding the above rider.

You've been warned! LOL

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#9608 Dec 29, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
That's like calling a car reck a great example of good driving.
You do know that if you can't come up with any real in put on a post that you don't have to post a response right?
Science fraud is a "great successes of science." LOL
Hello? Your brains chemical reaction and out puts have really let you down.
The very fact that scientific fraud is found out serves to demonstrate the great strength of science.

Contrast that with religion and its ongoing failure at keeping its house in order.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#9609 Dec 29, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Look back thru the forum, Hill, and see who made remarks about reporting me. I wasn't the one to report other posters, until they reported my posts.
And to everyone: I will summarize copyrighted material in my own words and provide the links. It is not necessary that I copy and paste the material. But the points will still be made, and the links will still be provided.
And I will report any post considered abusive. I may or may not post notice to the forum which posts I have reported to Topix.
ROFLMAO!!

You have been warned.

That not only explains why you now post a rider but also your weak attempts at retaliation by reporting other people for nothing at all.

Don't be dim, Dim.
KJV

United States

#9610 Dec 29, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>Obviously, Dim. It was intended to be a history lesson.

Science tells us that it couldn't have happened. That's a science lesson.

Hope that helps.
"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")
KJV

United States

#9611 Dec 29, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>Obviously, Dim. It was intended to be a history lesson.

Science tells us that it couldn't have happened. That's a science lesson.

Hope that helps.
"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.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#9612 Dec 29, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Dark matter? Did some one say Dark matter? Khatru you're clueless as to what's going on in dark matter.
"The Soudan Underground Laboratory.( In one of Minnesota's deepest Iron mines ) is a general-purpose science facility, which provides the deep underground environment required by a variety of sensitive experiments. The Lab currently hosts two large projects: MINOS, which investigates elusive and poorly understood particles called neutrinos; and CDMS II, a "dark-matter" experiment which may help explain how galaxies are formed. Both were built for basic research - exploring how the universe works - but similar efforts have spawned practical (if unforeseen) byproducts, including the world-wide web and even advanced medical imaging techniques."
"The Gopher (University of Minnesota) ecosystem is often regarded as the effective predecessor of the World Wide Web."
Who said anything about dark matter? I certainly didn't.

Anyway, seeing as you mentioned it:

Dark matter and energy are provisional hypotheses used to explain real phenomena. Unlike your mythology, no-one is required to believe them.

If someone comes up with a better hypothesis based on further observations, they could be heaved out of the door. When does anything analogous ever happen in religion?

The answer to that question is of course, never.

This puts your god somewhere around the level of a failed hypothesis

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#9613 Dec 29, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Untrue. You believe all you want but the Bible has at lest 2000 things over all you gods that you keep trying to throw up on pedestals.
"Unique among all books ever written, the Bible accurately foretells specific events-in detail-many years, sometimes centuries, before they occur. Approximately 2500 prophecies appear in the pages of the Bible, about 2000 of which already have been fulfilled to the letter—no errors.
(The remaining 500 or so reach into the future and may be seen unfolding as days go by.) Since the probability for any one of these prophecies having been fulfilled by chance averages less than one in ten (figured very conservatively) and since the prophecies are for the most part independent of one another, the odds for all these prophecies having been fulfilled by chance without error is less than one in 102000 (that is 1 with 2000 zeros written after it)!"
Unlike your sad attempt at putting other gods as the Bibles Gods equal.
Ah yes.

So what you're saying is that your superstitious mumbo jumbo is better than other peoples' superstitious mumbo jumbo.

Your truths are better than theirs.

Your holy book is better than their holy books.

Your miracles are better than their miracles.

Etc, etc, etc...

Also, you know this not because you've carried out in-depth studies of the hundreds (maybe thousands) of different belief systems, but because you just know.

Lol

“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.

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
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 3 min Just Think 227,770
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 19 min Dak-Original 22,380
The problem of evil and hate (Oct '13) 24 min KIND 345
Can atheists pray? Gretta Vosper on Andrew W.K.... 5 hr Reason Personified 2
Our world came from nothing? 6 hr Reason Personified 484
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 6 hr NightSerf 932
Another week, another atheist demands we call h... 9 hr P_Smith 1
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••