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.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#10290 Jan 5, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do atheists always have to hold each other up – fight battles for each other?
KJV doesn't need me to “go to bat” for him.
BUT: I did explain to you that there are not new documents which change the Bible. In the past century, there have been new findings of old documents from the Bible period. I guess you failed to catch that, but since I'm used to you missing things, I'll forgive you, lol - just don't do it again.
And there was me thinking that you believers were full of brotherly love. I guess I was wrong.

Looks like you can learn a thing or two from Atheists.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10291 Jan 5, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Added by later writers to try and explain away the failed prophecies of Jesus.
Anyway, nice to know that you don't believe it took your god six days to create the world.
By the way - not added by “later writers”- just confirmed by "later writers".

From the Old Testament, Psalms 90:4

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#10292 Jan 5, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
We need a link supporting your concluding statement, since it's already been proven false.
Your whole post is a great big mess; LMAO
As we have seen, Christianity is growing in China.
So you admit that your original statement was wrong where you indicated the growth of Christianity depended on who was in power in the government?
Thanks, Khatru. At least you kind of admit it when you're wrong.
Here's that post of mine you're referring to. It was a good one - thanks for giving me an opportunity to share it with you again.
Khatru wrote:
Christianity has a habit of getting into bed with whoever is in power. Witness it's migration over the centuries from Rome through Europe and then on to America.

Now the world's centre of gravity has moved to Beijing and Christianity will soon be abandoning America and trying to muscle in on China. That will be its undoing as the vast majority of Chinese view Christianity as a tool of the west. The Chinese ancestor religion is deeply established and the Chinese love their culture and history in ways that we in the west struggle to grasp.

The future belongs to the Chinese and the world they will shape will be decidedly different from the one that's been shaped by western influences and that includes Christianity.
By the way, in the unlikely event of me being wrong, I'm the first to admit it. See my previous post for an example of that.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10293 Jan 5, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Who knows when it was added.
The Catholics put the Bible together to suit their purpose - your entire belief system is based on their agenda.
So you're not a Bible literalist. Neither is KJV.
So you don't know when it was "added" ?

It wasn't added by “later writers”- just confirmed by "later writers".

From the Old Testament, Psalms 90:4

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10294 Jan 5, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's that post of mine you're referring to. It was a good one - thanks for giving me an opportunity to share it with you again.
<quoted text>
By the way, in the unlikely event of me being wrong, I'm the first to admit it. See my previous post for an example of that.
It's always a pleasure to read your writings again and again. Post your Noah writing again, would you? It's no more credible the second time around, but we know you're proud of it. Sorry, you're wrong. Do your research and get back to us, if you like. Or stay wrong - the choice is all yours, lol.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10295 Jan 5, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
And there was me thinking that you believers were full of brotherly love. I guess I was wrong.
Looks like you can learn a thing or two from Atheists.
Actually, you were right about the brotherly love among Christians, and I appreciate you recognizing it.

That's something atheists don't have. Be sure to read my other post about S.E. Cupp which confirms it, lol.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#10296 Jan 5, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, thanks for demonstrating that to us. Thanks for staying the same - predictably wrong, lol.
... and he goes for the deflection! He may have something there. Ben, what do you see at the sidelines?

Ben: It looks like the deflection veered the ball off target ... wait, oh wow, holy .... what the? She pulls a decoy play right in the middle of the deflection. The other team is not at a loss, confused on the court.

Announcer: Well they'd better get their act together because if they keep letting the ball fall like that they'll never make any yardage.

Ben: Yes, this is a messy game, the A's have it in the bag though, they just have too much evidence and integrity in their defense and their offense is way too secure in themselves, nothing can break the A's, but the Crosses, with only one play book, can't seem to get it out of the end field.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#10297 Jan 5, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>It's always a pleasure to read your writings again and again. Post your Noah writing again, would you? It's no more credible the second time around, but we know you're proud of it. Sorry, you're wrong. Do your research and get back to us, if you like. Or stay wrong - the choice is all yours, lol.
Too bad you can't afford to buy a clue.

How's that computer working?
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10298 Jan 5, 2013
Why would I go and read the previous post of a massive tit like you that refuses to check his own posts?
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, you were right about the brotherly love among Christians, and I appreciate you recognizing it.
That's something atheists don't have. Be sure to read my other post about S.E. Cupp which confirms it, lol.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#10299 Jan 5, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Why would I go and read the previous post of a massive tit like you that refuses to check his own posts?
<quoted text>
Derek even posts links that actually counter his argument, he and Maz are probably twins ... or socks.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#10300 Jan 5, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
No not at all. You see I understand your believe against all odds in spontaneous life, where nothing exploded and created everything. Gaps and falsified science to fill in the gaps and failed test.
I choose to believe in the Bible where 2000 prophecy have been fulfilled and the History of the Bible keeps getting proven right with each new city unearthed.
Right, it is so improbable that nature did it over billions of years with natural processes and natural laws, that it must be that "Gawd dunnit with MAGIC" ... yah uh huh! that's logical <NOT!>

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#10301 Jan 5, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Try to improve your self confidence. You shouldn't beg for constant confirmation from other posters. When you do that, you demean yourself.
So, you've still got nothing. Why am I not surprised?
KJV

United States

#10302 Jan 5, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>You've been told about the "Grand Unification Problem" about a half dozen different ways that I know of, probably a lot more.

What you are doing is known as the "God of the Gaps". If Science can not currently explain it, then "God dunnit!!"

This was stupid in the Dark Ages when we didn't understand what caused the Black Plague. Now we do, and it was not "God's wrath".

The "God of the Gaps" gets smaller with every scientific discovery.

You are worshiping a shrinking god that you cannot even prove exists.
Question for you.
You obviously believe that all life on earth has been traced back to a single speck of life. The first life form that self started in a very hostile environment ( of course it was not hostile to the first life form in fact it was perfect ) now science claims the earth is 4.7 billion years old.
And given that amount of time through natural selection we have all the live we see today plus all the the life that has gone extinct through natural selection.

Yet in 4.7 billion years a second life form never spontaneous started like the first life form. All life can be traced back to this first life form. All life has this DNA all put together the same way. No second alien type of life form in 4.7 billion years. Only once did this happen why not a second time. After all things on earth just got better and better for life (as we know it Jim) yet the Goo Pool never produced a second life form.

Why?
Why is all life related on earth and not a second life form, so to say a second blood line from a second original life form?

Why is that?

Do the math either life is not that special
And we should have by now seen a second very alien type of life. Or life is very very special and to think all this came from one speck of life is ludicrous.
KJV

United States

#10303 Jan 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Please show the details of the calculation of these odds. Given that evolution almost inevitably follows from life, the independence of those two is known to be wrong. Next, the question of spontaneous life from the Big bang is essentially a question of initial parameters and we don't know how to calculate the probability of those parameters (or even if such a probability makes sense). Finally, from the known equations of physics, a Big Bang of some sort is inevitable (a universe expanding from a hot dense state).

[QUOTE]Look at those two sets of numbers.
The odds that the big 3 are correct and evolution has brought us all the way up to today."

Give that this is what happened (based on the evidence), the probability is 1. A priori probabilities, however, may differ.

[QUOTE]And the odds of those prophecies around 2000 all listed in one book all fulfilled to date leavening less then 500 prophecies that for tell the end time.
According to math it's no contest.
The Bible wins hands down. "

Except, of course, that the latter didn't happen. The 'prophesies' are either trivial (a kingdom will rise and wage war), self-fullfilling ( a man will ride through Jerusalem on a donkey), or were made *after* the events prophesied (all of the specific ones). So your probability is zero and mine is almost one.
"probability is 1" if and only if it did happen. There is only evidence there is no proof so you cannot use 1. You failed. You were given your chance to prove your theory. Instead you jump to the conclusion that some guesses are fact. This is known as Bad science.
You appear to be a prominent member of that club.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#10304 Jan 5, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Question for you.
You obviously believe that all life on earth has been traced back to a single speck of life. The first life form that self started in a very hostile environment ( of course it was not hostile to the first life form in fact it was perfect ) now science claims the earth is 4.7 billion years old.
And given that amount of time through natural selection we have all the live we see today plus all the the life that has gone extinct through natural selection.
Yet in 4.7 billion years a second life form never spontaneous started like the first life form. All life can be traced back to this first life form. All life has this DNA all put together the same way. No second alien type of life form in 4.7 billion years. Only once did this happen why not a second time. After all things on earth just got better and better for life (as we know it Jim) yet the Goo Pool never produced a second life form.
Why?
Why is all life related on earth and not a second life form, so to say a second blood line from a second original life form?
Why is that?
Do the math either life is not that special
And we should have by now seen a second very alien type of life. Or life is very very special and to think all this came from one speck of life is ludicrous.
So many assumptions. It wasn't "one," and likely it occurred in many locations. The chemicals needed for the protocells are also food for life today, so how do you propose that a new non-evolved life survive when everything around it eats it?
KJV

United States

#10305 Jan 5, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>And you apparently don't understand the first thing about probability theory.

Probability theory deals with populations of things. Given that out of a population of 1 universe we have observed exactly 1 universe which has life, the odds of a universe having life is 1/1, which = 100%.

And this same math holds true for any number of your supposed probabilities. Which is why statements about "odds" are ridiculous.

Without a population, probability theory is just so much smoke and mirrors designed to entertain the simple minded.
You apparently had trouble in school.
You see the question was not "is there a universe and is there life".
The question was how did the universes get here. You have NO proof of the Big Bang only evidence so you cannot start with 1 you must start with zero here.

Spontaneous life, no proof no evidence you must use zero here also

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#10306 Jan 5, 2013
KJV wrote:
Question for you.
You obviously believe that all life on earth has been traced back to a single speck of life. The first life form that self started in a very hostile environment ( of course it was not hostile to the first life form in fact it was perfect ) now science claims the earth is 4.7 billion years old.
And given that amount of time through natural selection we have all the live we see today plus all the the life that has gone extinct through natural selection.
Yet in 4.7 billion years a second life form never spontaneous started like the first life form. All life can be traced back to this first life form. All life has this DNA all put together the same way. No second alien type of life form in 4.7 billion years. Only once did this happen why not a second time. After all things on earth just got better and better for life (as we know it Jim) yet the Goo Pool never produced a second life form.
Why?
The conditions had to be other than they are now for life to form. Earth did not get "better and better" for life, life evolved to fit the changes on Earth, particularly those changes induced by life itself (Oxygen rich atmosphere). During the time the Earth had the right conditions for spontaneous life generation, multiple forms likely DID generate. The most successful one then ATE all the others. So you are incorrect, the Goo Pool generated several life forms in all likelihood. The most successful one ate the rest and then evolution commenced.
KJV wrote:
Why is all life related on earth and not a second life form, so to say a second blood line from a second original life form?
Why is that?
This is not correct at all either. Let's go with "blood line" as a concept. Many Mollusks have copper based blood chemistry, not iron as ours is. There is your "second" "blood" line.
KJV wrote:
Do the math either life is not that special
And we should have by now seen a second very alien type of life. Or life is very very special and to think all this came from one speck of life is ludicrous.
Life ain't all that special. We see life emerging in all kinds of environments that would be hostile to most others, under the Antarctic ice, on deep sea thermal vents, at the bottom of the deepest trenches in the ocean.
One speck would be all it would take.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#10307 Jan 5, 2013
RHill wrote:
You know ... denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
Have you ever heard of the Crimea River? It's a straight shot from de Nile, right across the Mediterranean and up the Aegean.
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Crime...
KJV

United States

#10308 Jan 5, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Ad hom, you dodged the question completely. Nice to see you never change.

Oh, and never changing is always a bad thing.
"never changing is always a bad thing"

You better hope the the Sun doesn't change or the orbit of the Earth doesn't change. Or the angle of the axis of the earth would not change. Or the Ocean Waters Salinity. I could go on but I believe I have made my Point that KK's statement was ludicrous.

No KK somethings are much better left unchanged.
KJV

United States

#10309 Jan 5, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Again, show these "prophecies" that occurred after the fact, with actual evidence of them and not just assertions, also not including the forced one that people made happen simply because they wanted to justify it. You keep claiming these exist, yet you never provide more than "it says here" ... which is nothing more than an assertion.

As to your first point, no, we're here, life had to come from non-life somehow. Science looks for a way it could have happened, you ignore the entire situation with a non-answer. Most of us would rather have an answer than ignore it using a non-answer as a shield from the facts.
Read the bible. I know you claim you have but you must have missed like all of it.

Note: you cannot read type print with your eyes closed.

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
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 3 min Thinking 354
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 45 min Big girl 20,312
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 1 hr Eagle 12 10,361
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Eagle 12 257,140
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr SoE 45,560
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 3 hr Big girl 554
News A Strong Muslim Identity Is the Best Defense Ag... 3 hr naman 16
What is of greater value for humanity: Chrisita... 6 hr Eagle 12 446
More from around the web