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.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#10412 Jan 6, 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.
There is no proof and no evidence of spontaneous life, again you're still at zero.
There is no proof of the theory of evolution. Again you're still at zero.
Now what was it that gets you off the zero?
That's NOT how probability theory works. You're just making stuff up.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.reasons.org/articles/articles/fulf...
"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."
Again with making stuff up. It's a shame you don't understand enough about probability to see just how lame this line of argument is.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#10413 Jan 6, 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?
It not s "proof". It's basic application of probability.

From a population of 1 known (observed & measured) planet where life could possibly exist we have an observed and measured occurrence of 1 planet where life actually does exist.

In "1:1", the first 1 is the observed occurrences of a stated outcome and the second 1 is the sample size. Therefore probability theory dictates that on any planet where life could possibly exist as we know it, there is a 100% chance that life actually does exist.

As I have repeatedly told you, probability theory is meaningless with such a limited sample size. Your entire "odds are" argument is laughable.

I am truly sorry that this is apparently beyond your ability to understand.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#10414 Jan 6, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
That's NOT how probability theory works. You're just making stuff up.
<quoted text>
Again with making stuff up. It's a shame you don't understand enough about probability to see just how lame this line of argument is.
I have tried to explain to him the very basics of probability, he simply refuses to learn or utilize logic.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#10415 Jan 6, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
I lack the intestinal fortitude to read through the Bible in its entirety.
In any event I turn away from your superstition because of what I do know about it, not because of what I do not.
Besides, you don't need to know anything about fairy lore to have a sensible opinion about the existence of fairies.
Mark Twain - "It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it's the parts that I do understand."

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#10416 Jan 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I have tried to explain to him the very basics of probability, he simply refuses to learn or utilize logic.
I'm not really expecting him to ever understand. I post almost exclusively for other people reading the thread. Especially those that don't actively participate but are here because they are questioning their own long held beliefs.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#10417 Jan 6, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not really expecting him to ever understand. I post almost exclusively for other people reading the thread. Especially those that don't actively participate but are here because they are questioning their own long held beliefs.
There seem to be many of those people too. It's refreshing when they speak up sometimes, just knowing they are there trying to learn.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10418 Jan 6, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Duh!
And what happens on earth when it happens?
The sun is a moderate variable over a period of days. The changes in the sun have almost no impact on the earth. The changes in the tilt of the earth have an effect on the length of the seasons and which areas of earth are warm or cold. This can affect things like glacial periods (of which there have been many). The changes in the orbit are mostly in terms of ellipticity, which again has little to no effect on the earth.

What did you think the effects would be?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#10419 Jan 6, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>Let's hold this thought.

First you openly admit that the Bible is not perfect - I thank you for confirming to us that you don't believe the Bible is perfect....

KJV wrote, "
"When does religion correct itself?... "
All the time!!! Every time older documents are found they make the appropriate changes to the Bible.
"

To which I responded...

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 accommodate 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."
I think Peter found some really, REALLY good 'shrooms.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#10420 Jan 6, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>Let's hold this thought.

First you openly admit that the Bible is not perfect - I thank you for confirming to us that you don't believe the Bible is perfect....

KJV wrote, "
"When does religion correct itself?... "
All the time!!! Every time older documents are found they make the appropriate changes to the Bible.
"

To which I responded...

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 accommodate 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."
He obviously missed the "jots and tittles" line.

(I love that word-tittles.)

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#10421 Jan 6, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>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.

[QUOTE]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.

[QUOTE]Now what was it that gets you off the zero?"

Actual evidence in the real world.

[QUOTE]http://www.reasons.org/ articles/articles/fulfilled-pr ophecy-evidence-for-the-reliab ility-of-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.
You know nothing of the sort. An explanation would be a Big Bang.
They fail to teach you the other possibilities or look for other possibilities. Bad science makes a conclusion then searches for evidences to back up a predetermined ending.

The problem with the Big Bang coming from a exploding spinning singularity is it would have to break about every law and theory of physics. I'll list a few that the Big Bang breaks, oh ya I'm aware science to get around this major problem with their theory is no laws of the universes existed until after the Big Bang happened by some Ridicules minuet amount of time, but it's just long enough they believe to sneak in the Big Bang. Now here is a few laws that's say the Big Bang never happened.

Gravity
First and second laws of thermodynamic.
Quantum Mechanics
String theory
The theory of Relativity
Law of Conservation of Matter

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#10422 Jan 6, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>By his own admission, Hedonist was a theology school dropout (or reject, I forget which) from 40 years ago, lol.
Ah that would explain it. Thanks Derek
I had to skip a bunch of pages to get caught up.

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#10423 Jan 6, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>Are you going ballistic?

It sounds like it to me.

Well, bless your heart. Some days are like that, I guess.

I sometimes skip your posts, sometimes skim them, but they never have any gems of wisdom, so I don't even remember what question you're writing about, lol.

I notice your worried about people obeying Biblical commands, so when are you going to start obeying them?

And what verse in the Bible tells me I have to answer every post on topix, lol?

I could simply post Bible verses and never answer any post. That would be interesting.

Do you realize that I have a life outside of this forum? I don't have the time nor inclination to read every single post.

I don't ask everyone to read all my posts, nor do I care if they do or they don't. They can read them or skip them, it's no skin off my rump, lol.

In fact, I am completely skipping pages 498 - 499 tonight, and however many posts are on page 500 so far, simply because I don't care to cover that much material just because it's there.

Got that?

Good.
Who is this oooooga boooooogga
Caricature of a snot ball?

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#10424 Jan 6, 2013
derek4 wrote:
Why did Josef Stalin close the churches in Russia?

Because he was an atheist dictator who saw believers as a threat to his power.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_Stalin_clos... .

Stalin is probably the greatest example of dictating beliefs EVER.

He closed over 48,000 churches in Russia.

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.
God is always a threat to Satan.

So atheist are these 48,000 church closing proof that atheist grew in Russia by leaps and bounds while under Stalin's rule?

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#10425 Jan 6, 2013
charley wrote:
so what came first? chicken or egg
Scientist have proven this.
The chicken came 1st because the chicken has
a unique protein that is absolutely needed to
form an egg. The egg itself does not have this protein.
And a chicken who does not possess this protein
will never make an egg.
Genesis tells us that the chicken came first. More scientific proof backing up the bible.

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#10426 Jan 6, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>The ancestor to the chicken, just one or two mutations short of being a chicken, now extinct, had this same protein.

The chicken egg came before the chicken. Deal with it.
LMFAO!!

"The chicken egg came before the chicken. Deal with it."

WOW..... KJV, Derek how long have you guys have been putting up with oooooogabooooga nonsense?

Hey oga who sat on the egg so it would hatch?

( a little comic relief )

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#10427 Jan 6, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Any attempts I've made to read the bible are just so monumentally tedious that I can't make it through a page without falling asleep.
There WAS a bible I found once when working in a building where I work that had been converted to a warehousing operation that was marked with tabs and highlighting that had some interesting and readable passages.
I could tell from the marked passages that whoever hadn't led them found some level of comfort and meaning in them.
I would be willing to bet that the person had little or no interest in science.
What bothers me most about the Christians here is their obstinate denial of established and proven science and their refusal to even recognize the existence of evidence is mind numbing.
It marks them as people whose beliefs cannot withstand reason.
Ignorance is understandable. Willful ignorance is not.
You're absolutely right about the willful ignorance of believers.

No doubt their ancestors, when told about the theory of planetary motion, refused to accept it; preferring to adopt the "goddidit" approach.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#10428 Jan 6, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Mark Twain - "It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it's the parts that I do understand."
A very perceptive man!

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#10429 Jan 6, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I think Peter found some really, REALLY good 'shrooms.
LOL

That might explain why KJV's "they" never incorporated Peter into the Bible.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#10430 Jan 6, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
He obviously missed the "jots and tittles" line.
(I love that word-tittles.)
Yeah, I think he misses a lot.

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#10431 Jan 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>We'll all be dead long before there is any catastrophe, with the exception of a possible meteor collision but those we can only predict out a few days in advance.

The other changes are not catastrophic. The Earth's poles shift all the time, it "wobbles," as someone else described quite aptly, a few years ago they feared it may flip because the "wobble" had been slightly more than usual ... it was a false alarm but meh, having to recalibrate "North" on everything wouldn't be that huge a deal.

You can't face facts, the only "normal" in the universe, the only constant that is not mathematical, the only thing that remains the same is change, everything changes, and the strong things change with the universe. Anything that does not change fails every time.
Say umm KK was not this discussion about your comment about "not changing is bad?" Then a list of items was posted showing something's are better left unchanged. Then some idiot pointed out that these thing do change which was then pointed out yes they do change but it does not do life on earth any favors in fact could easily wipe out life on earth, and now your response is
"We'll all be dead long before there is any catastrophe"

That's kind of off track from your statement "not changing is bad"

So in a few pages you now say don't worry we'll all be dead before one of those changes can kill us?

Lets get it straight.
You said "not changing is bad"
KJV said "not always, showing a few item that would most likely kill mankind if they changed"
You respond "don't worry we'll all be dead before one of those changes can kill us"

LOL

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 Demon Finder 20,364
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 14 min Demon Finder 10,395
What is of greater value for humanity: Chrisita... 50 min ATHEOI 456
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 55 min ChristineM 21,433
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 1 hr ATHEOI 408
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 1 hr ChristineM 559
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Into The Night 45,575
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 4 hr Joe Fortuna 257,171
More from around the web