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.

KJV

United States

#10352 Jan 5, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Dude you are the one that said all life on earth can be trace back to a single life form. When your called on that you change your mind and do it by trying to make it look like it was my idea.

"Life ain't all that special."

Really? Better go tell NASA about that because they are spending billions upon billions look for it.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#10353 Jan 5, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I see new life is spontaneous starting all over just that they are getting eaten each time one pops forth.
And you claim it was not one speck of life but life was popping up all over the earth at the same time. And yet this post was to an atheist that claims all live on earth has been traced back to one life source. So why didn't your other spontaneous life forms reproduce?
You've heard of circular reasoning well KK is circular digging her self a hole she can't climb out of.
You like to skip steps in everything, this particular time it's actually another of your strawmen. I said the chemicals required for the formations of protocells, the ones that can become life according to our understanding of it, are consumed by modern life forms. Thus, the chemicals themselves are consumed before forming any protocells. No protocells, no life.
KJV

United States

#10354 Jan 5, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>What's the point?

After all, you say that "they" amend the Bible whenever a new document is found.
You didn't know that?
Wow your list of uneducated just keeps growing.
KJV

United States

#10355 Jan 5, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>No, I don't have to start with zero here, that's just you lack of understanding.

But you said to use mathematical probability. Based on probability theory there is a 100% chance that life will exist in every universe and on every planet where it is possible for life to exist.

Moving the goal post doesn't change the fact that you are wrong and you do not understand probability theory.
"No, I don't have to start with zero here, that's just you lack of understanding."

Yes you would if you were intent on find the truth. Where is your proof to use the 1:1?
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10356 Jan 5, 2013
But the massive tit Dik4cm thought jesus wanted to complain about me...
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Derek even posts links that actually counter his argument, he and Maz are probably twins ... or socks.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#10357 Jan 5, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>"No, I don't have to start with zero here, that's just you lack of understanding."

Yes you would if you were intent on find the truth. Where is your proof to use the 1:1?
Here we are.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#10358 Jan 5, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude you are the one that said all life on earth can be trace back to a single life form. When your called on that you change your mind and do it by trying to make it look like it was my idea.
"Life ain't all that special."
Really? Better go tell NASA about that because they are spending billions upon billions look for it.
I did not change my mind on this. All life on earth can be traced back to the single life form that ate all the others. Please try to pay attention.

NASA is spending billions to look for it on other planets because there is nothing so special about it that it could not have formed there as well.

Dumbazz!!
KJV

United States

#10359 Jan 5, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>I studied it when I was young, everything in there was stated after the fact. End of story.
Liar

Totally wrong.

http://www.watchmanbiblestudy.com/Articles/19...

Last Updated: 06/03/2012 00:14
These 10 Bible prophecies were fulfilled in 1948 when Israel became an independent, united nation for the second time in history, and for the first time in 2,900 years.© 100 Prophecies
KJV

United States

#10360 Jan 5, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Yet we can find references to support everything we say. Just because you deny the stuff you don't like, doesn't make us wrong.
You can lie all you want and live that lie.
Who cares.
KJV

United States

#10361 Jan 5, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>It was a dying sun that made our planet possible. Our sun, Sol, is constantly changing, it's cooking elements, creating heavier ones. Oceanic salinity changes quite a bit. The axis of the Earth is always changing. Our weather changes, our climate changes, the stars' positions change. Our moon is receding from the Earth, tides are changing, tides are change. We survive in spite of these changes, that's why our species didn't die off before learning to refine our skills.
Are you really going to try and defend the earlier post?

"Not changing is always bad"

Really sticking with that.
Good for you going down with ship.
Bye bye.
KJV

United States

#10362 Jan 5, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>If it were possible, I'm sure she and I would chip in to charter a bus to take you back to the Dark Ages where religion ruled supreme.
How nice of you!
KJV

United States

#10363 Jan 5, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Funny, your bible says the same thing about itself.
Book chapter and verse?
KJV

United States

#10364 Jan 5, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Non-religious counts as well, because god is a religious belief. Not to mention many Buddhists are also atheists, as are many "other" religions. But meh, appeal to popularity only shows desperation. The majority of the population is wrong more often than correct, this has been demonstrated many times in history and has yet to be shown to be incorrect.
Nope Atheist is Atheist. Non-religious is non-religious. That's why they are listed separately because they are not the same thing.
KJV

United States

#10365 Jan 5, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>REALLY1?! THAT is the very BEST you can do?

Not very impressive.
By no means the best however it was all that was required.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#10366 Jan 5, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
How nice of you!
You are very welcome. As soon as I can arrange the one way trip, I'll let you know.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#10367 Jan 5, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
By no means the best however it was all that was required.
I am undaunted, therefore, it was wholly ineffective.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10368 Jan 5, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"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.
Each and every one of those things *does* change.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10369 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.
Actually, that is NOT what the science says. It says that all life that exists *today* is descended from one line of the original organisms. There may well have been several different lines of life at the beginning, but all but one has died off.
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 other lines died off. What we see today is from one line (or, perhaps, more that merged--we don't know the genetics of early life).
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.
My *guess is that life is fairly common in the universe, but I don't know that. Multi-cellular life is probably much less common (given the time it took on earth to develop).

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10370 Jan 5, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"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.
The probability that the universe is expanding from a hot, dense state and that life has evolved are both well over 99.9999%. The details are less well established, but even those are being elucidated every day.

YOU are the one that claimed a probability calculation. What the assumptions are for that calculation, what the dependencies are, etc, are ALL not given. Instead, independence of variables *known* to be dependent is assumed and that alone disqualifies the calculation.

A *real* calculation of the probabilities is way beyond anything *anyone* can do simply because we do not know the parameter space relevant or what affects the location of our universe within that space.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10371 Jan 5, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
I have shown that you refuse to start at the beginning. Zero. You have no proof for you to jump to a 1:1. There is no proof of the Big Bang only supporting evidence hence your still at zero.
Absolute proof is unavailable in the real world. It is restricted to mathematics. Bu tthe evidence supporting the Big Bang is such that we *know* that the universe has expanded from a hot, dense state. So the Big Bang is true.
There is no proof and no evidence of spontaneous life, again you're still at zero.

[QUOTE]There is no proof of the theory of evolution. Again you're still at zero.
Life has changed over time. That alone shows evolution has happened. The particular mechanisms are still being discussed, but the fact is that species change over time.
Now what was it that gets you off the zero?
Actual evidence in the real world.
http://www.reasons.org/article s/articles/fulfilled-prophecy- evidence-for-the-reliability-o f-the-bible
"Hence, the probability of chance fulfillment for this prophecy is 1 in 5000 x 10 x 2, which is 1 in 100,000, or 1 in 105."
Except, of course, that there were no unambiguous prophesies made ahead of time.

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) 24 min Eagle 12 27,275
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 57 min Subduction Zone 58,089
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 4 hr Dogen 1,904
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 4 hr Eagle 12 5,962
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 5 hr Eagle 12 4,947
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) 6 hr Eagle 12 1,940
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) 8 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 153
More from around the web