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

#9758 Dec 30, 2012
derek4 wrote:
Fraud and deceit in science often occur when an experimenter shapes the data he has recorded to match the result he wants to achieve, thereby distorting the truth.
Sometimes the entire scientific community of researchers on the projects gets corrupted and deluded.
Examples of this are scientific hoaxes such as the Piltdown man and the Beringer case. They are excellent examples of how gullible scientists can be.
I've included a link which explains in more detail and gives examples.
http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_expose/be...
No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.
Already address, broken record, millions of times over. You also failed to mention that scientists corrected the error, not you.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#9759 Dec 30, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
I have often considered it conducive to societal happiness for me to beat someone's face into a pulp. And it worked.
Then you and your opinions on the matter are excused from the process.
Buck Crick wrote:
Stalin and Mao worked your system to perfection...almost.
See above.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#9760 Dec 31, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
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.
I think that you have confused materialism and reductionism.

[1] "Materialism - The doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications."

[2] "Reductionism can mean either (a) an approach to understanding the nature of complex things by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things or (b) a philosophical position that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents."

Also, the "multiplied" aspect is relevant. That's what changes the scale. One water molecule does not demonstrate thesame phenomena as a collection of them, which can freeze and be walked on, or melt and become wet, for example - things relevant only when the the smallest element is multiplied.

Do you know what emergent phenomena are? Wetness and hardness are emergent phenomena of water molecules. How about the fallacy of composition?

[3] "Emergence - the arising of novel and coherent structures, patterns and properties during the process of self-organization in complex systems ... The common characteristics are:(1) radical novelty (features not previously observed in systems); (2) coherence or correlation (meaning integrated wholes that maintain themselves over some period of time); (3) A global or macro "level" (i.e. there is some property of "wholeness")"

[4] "The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part). For example: "This fragment of metal cannot be fractured with a hammer, therefore the machine of which it is a part cannot be fractured with a hammer."
Buck Crick wrote:
Glad you see the fallacy in such errant materialist reduction.
I see your fallacy. I just named it. You can also call it the reductionist fallacy.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#9761 Dec 31, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Where's the mystery? Moral behavior is conducive to survival and happiness. Why wouldn't it exist?


From http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... :
KJV wrote:
Because if indeed evolution was real even though you may believe you can't have one with out the other.
You forgot the predicate in this sentence.
KJV wrote:
The odds of the top dog on the planet exhibiting moral traits are very high against it and not normal in nature.
What?
KJV wrote:
The human eye
Human morals
The arts
Music
Writing
This is not evolution it's creation.
What?

Otherwise, great rebuttal!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#9762 Dec 31, 2012
Khatru wrote:
Really? Who are "they"?

Where are the corrections made to the Bible that incorporate the Acts of Paul and Thecla? Just think how you believers can thrill with excitement at the part where Thecla leaps into a moat full of man-eating seals and how Jehovah sends down a thunderbolt to kill all the seals.

Where's the Gospel of Thomas? It was found in 1945 and no insertions, deletions or amendments have been made to the Bible.
What about the Gospel of Peter? That was found in 1886. Where are the changes to the Bible made by these people you refer to as "they"?

You would have thought that they (whoever they may be) would have changed the Bible to accomodate Peter. After all, Peter's gospel provides the only eye-witness account of Jesus emerging from the tomb.

You believers love your eye-witness accounts so why hasn't the Bible been changed?

Peter tells us that Jesus emerged from the tomb with two angels and was followed by a talking cross. Once in the open, Jesus and the angels grew to a height of thousands of feet until their heads were lost in the heavens. According to the account, this was witnessed by a Roman centurion and his soldiers (usually eighty men) and also the Jewish Elders.

Why isn't this in the Bible?

Perhaps it's because your claims of amendments being made every time new documents are found is just another of your many lies.

Why do you lie? You know it makes the baby Jesus weep.
Good post!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#9763 Dec 31, 2012
KJV wrote:
Can no one see any humor around here?
When nobody's laughing, it's not the audience that has trouble identifying humor.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#9764 Dec 31, 2012
derek4 wrote:
I would suggest that you read a Bible commentary on that passage
Nope. If it isn't in the bible, it's not a legitimate part of the religion. It's an excuse and an effort to cleanup mistakes after the fact. If your "god" can't explain himself properly by himself, he can't be my god.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#9765 Dec 31, 2012
derek4 wrote:
Atheism is an ideology that is bleak and hopeless.
Atheism isn't an ideology. Secular humanism is.

Until you can assimilate some basic understanding about what atheists are and what we claim, your credibility remains zero, and you have nothing to offer.

Incidentally, your life appears bleak to me, and your hope for heaven is baseless. It's a promise from a book that makes many fraudulent claims.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#9766 Dec 31, 2012
Khatru wrote:
Your claims that atheism is at exceedingly low levels are belied by your actions. Clearly, you see atheism as the greatest threat to your myth or you wouldn't be in here.

Are you concerned about Islam supplanting Christianity as the main religion? Obviously not. Are you worried about atheism and its rise to prominence? Absolutely!
Good point. Dim wouldn't have been sent here if his handlers didn't perceive a serious threat from the irreligious.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#9767 Dec 31, 2012
KJV wrote:
As your great leader once said "by means of natural selection"
How can equal treatment be a means of survival of the species and work with "natural selection" ( survival of the fittest ). Equal treatment does not allow for the strongest to survive to pass along the best genes. All genes are passed along if everyone was treated equal, weakening the species.
Cultural evolution is radically different from biological evolution. Ethical philosophy and ethical dialectic thinking are goal oriented. Evolution is blind. Survival of the fittest is not an ethical principle. It is a fact of nature.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#9768 Dec 31, 2012
KJV wrote:
Please point out where God says go rape and murder.
http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm
http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

It's just a shot away.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#9769 Dec 31, 2012
KJV wrote:
Wrong Religion has found fraud in the science community.
Non-scientists are not qualified to judge scientific papers. It takes a trained scientist to understand and legitimately critique it.

The church has no standing in the scientific community, and no voice in the great and continuing scientific discussion.

Furthermore, the church has a clear conflict of interest with science, and lies without compunction to discredit it. Look at Dim.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#9770 Dec 31, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
THE BIBLE WON'T FIT INTO ONE POST.
The parts worth reading will.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#9771 Dec 31, 2012
derek4 wrote:
So when you can rid the planet of the dominant religion, you'll go to work on the others?
No.

Once religion is out of our lives, most of us will likely almost never think of it again - as with monarchs. The colonials thought about monarchy a lot until they deposed the only monarch affecting their lives, and then more or less stopped thinking about the subject rather than going after the others.

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." –Diderot

Monarchy and the church are both headed to Irrelevanceville in the West.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#9772 Dec 31, 2012
derek4 wrote:
No matter what, you won't succeed in your efforts to dictate your failed beliefs on me.
Nobody cares what you believe, Dim.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#9773 Dec 31, 2012
derek4 wrote:
Are science journals indistinguishable from fiction?
Only to science rubes like you, Dim.
derek4 wrote:
Pretty much so, yes.
Atta boy, Dim!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#9774 Dec 31, 2012
Ooogah Boogah wrote: It is hilarious how religibots will use computer simulations to "disprove" science. <<guffa!!!>>
derek4 wrote:
Unfortunately, for fraudulent scientists, new software may make their misconduct more visible.
You are so sad, Dim.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#9775 Dec 31, 2012
KJV wrote:
I'll continue to use science as I feel like it. And I will stand against bad science. Bad science is what you will try and protect with every cell in your body.
You go ahead and use science to try to support your religious claims.

I trust you'll forgive us if we don't return the compliment by using your religion to prove science or anything else.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#9776 Dec 31, 2012
Khatru wrote:
There's another one who's full of rage and seething hatred. I can't quite recall his name. Doctor Who? Or something like that.
Yeah, the sock of many names. I think Laconic Assassin is one of his names, and Oscar Wilde Too is another. He may also be Just Results and Langoliers.

I believe that he serves us by posting his hatred under so many names.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#9777 Dec 31, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
If that's all it takes to make you happy, your happiness is shallow, like you.
You're damaged goods, Dim. I am easily made happy as well, and by elements of reality. You have no happiness. I can tell from your writing. Look at your overuse of "LOL" and "LMAO."

There is no lasting happiness in false hope based on a fraudulent promise. The seed of your psyche was planted in sand when your folks took you to church, Dim. It can't take root or thrive in so shallow an ideology.

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) 32 min IB DaMann 57,828
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Joe Momma 27,233
god belief down to 28% in UK 1 hr Eagle 12 123
carbon 14 dating very inaccurate (Jun '12) 1 hr Eagle 12 72
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) 2 hr greymouser 125
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 3 hr Eagle 12 258,479
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 4 hr Eagle 12 5,953
More from around the web