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
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10502 Jan 7, 2013
Wrong.

The chicken egg came first from a not-quite-a-chicken.
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Genesis tells us that the chicken came first. More scientific proof backing up the bible.

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#10503 Jan 7, 2013
But the chump's screen name came from a crappy made for TV movie where Balkie from perfect strangers yells about scampering all the time in an effort to scare people.

No seriously.
Thinking wrote:
Wrong.
The chicken egg came first from a not-quite-a-chicken.
<quoted text>
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#10504 Jan 7, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
For example the Jesus forgives the adulterous woman story doesn't show up in anywhere until the year 1100.<quoted text>
You are right that was not in many early versions. But was in at least one 5th century manuscript.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_wo...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10505 Jan 7, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Wrong.
The chicken egg came first from a not-quite-a-chicken.
<quoted text>
An analogy I like is to imagine alternatively putting a penny and a nickel in a pile of coins. At the beginning, you don't have a lot of money in the pile, but eventually, there will be billions of dollars. Which coin made the total go from not a lot of money to a lot of money?

The point is that it is a gradual transition with no firm boundaries because the definition of 'a lot' is vague. Similarly, the transition from non-chicken to chicken was a long, gradual process with no clear boundary between the two. At each stage, there is an alternation between egg and animal, but there is no sharp line to being a chicken.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10506 Jan 7, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
You'll have to put that Bible down first.
At least you've stopped threatening us with eternal torture.
Looks like IANS mockery of your "scary chicken on a stick" works.
I'm sure you'll agree that he makes a good comparison between your ju-ju and that of a tribal witch-doctor.
Put the Bible down?

What should I read in place of it - science mythology about evolution?

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10507 Jan 7, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
"How can heaven and hell coexist? How can any sane and loving human being be happy in heaven knowing that millions of people, innocent or not, are being tortured for eternity? This heaven is a place void of empathy, an asylum for psychopaths. How is this heaven good?”~ Anonymous
Thanks for sharing.

We can see why the author is “anonymous”.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#10508 Jan 7, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Put the Bible down?
What should I read in place of it - science mythology about evolution?
No. You should probably start with a simple middle-school science text book so that you can understand what science really is (and isn't). Without this foundation you will continue to appear rather foolish anytime to comment on things you so clearly don't yet understand.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10509 Jan 7, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Well lets see he dropped out 40 years ago Started collage around 20 years old. So this 60 year old non educated man who spends his life on threads like this is trying to show off that he blew it and should have stayed in school.
I get it.
The last thing I would ever want to do is to be rude to Hedonist, but I was disappointed in him for accusing you of being quick to judge people in his post 10489. Actually, it sounds like he was doing a bit of judging himself, lol. He should have shot his arrow at me since I first posted about him being a theology drop out. But then, I wasn't “judging him”- I was simply stating what he posted himself sometime ago, and neither were you, since you just elaborated a bit on it.

I was interested to see that he found something easier to understand than theology when he went out into the country to breed horses. And, of course I was pleased to learn that he has now moved “up” to his big high rise in Atlanta, which is as close as he'll ever get to heaven.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10510 Jan 7, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
An analogy I like is to imagine alternatively putting a penny and a nickel in a pile of coins. At the beginning, you don't have a lot of money in the pile, but eventually, there will be billions of dollars. Which coin made the total go from not a lot of money to a lot of money?
The point is that it is a gradual transition with no firm boundaries because the definition of 'a lot' is vague. Similarly, the transition from non-chicken to chicken was a long, gradual process with no clear boundary between the two. At each stage, there is an alternation between egg and animal, but there is no sharp line to being a chicken.
Thanks for sharing those pearls of wisdom.

You know, it wouldn't surprise me if there is some scientific research somewhere showing that chickens evolved from coins.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10511 Jan 7, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
No. You should probably start with a simple middle-school science text book so that you can understand what science really is (and isn't). Without this foundation you will continue to appear rather foolish anytime to comment on things you so clearly don't yet understand.
Well, hellllllooooo, Hedonist.

I just posted about how great you were with breeding horses, lol
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10512 Jan 7, 2013
You must be too stupid to understand
Proper punctuation.[sic]
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you back on Pi?
You must be too stupid to understand
A proper explanation.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10513 Jan 7, 2013
More massive titspeak from dick4cm.
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Put the Bible down?
What should I read in place of it - science mythology about evolution?

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10514 Jan 7, 2013
Why isn't science “self-correcting”?

Unfortunately, science has some major catastrophes.

Will science get better or worse?

The included link from Sage Journals explains.

http://pps.sagepub.com/content/7/6/645.full

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10516 Jan 7, 2013
Just how “self-correcting” is science?

Oh, the rate is about 1% to 1.5%, lol.

So the remaining 98% or 99% is unreliable?

I'm afraid so......

http://nanoscale.blogspot.com/2012/12/just-ho...

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10517 Jan 7, 2013
The included link is more on the 1% of “self-correcting” science!

The author explains why outsiders are so important, since we can't rely of science to find the errors.

http://blog.sethroberts.net/2010/09/06/is-sci...

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10518 Jan 7, 2013
The scientific method is self correcting.
derek4 wrote:
Why isn't science “self-correcting”?
Unfortunately, science has some major catastrophes.
Will science get better or worse?
The included link from Sage Journals explains.
http://pps.sagepub.com/content/7/6/645.full
No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10519 Jan 7, 2013
The scientific method is self correcting.
derek4 wrote:
Just how “self-correcting” is science?
Oh, the rate is about 1% to 1.5%, lol.
So the remaining 98% or 99% is unreliable?
I'm afraid so......
http://nanoscale.blogspot.com/2012/12/just-ho...
No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10521 Jan 7, 2013
The scientific method is self correcting.
derek4 wrote:
The included link is more on the 1% of “self-correcting” science!
The author explains why outsiders are so important, since we can't rely of science to find the errors.
http://blog.sethroberts.net/2010/09/06/is-sci...
No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10522 Jan 7, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
No. You should probably start with a simple middle-school science text book so that you can understand what science really is (and isn't). Without this foundation you will continue to appear rather foolish anytime to comment on things you so clearly don't yet understand.
One of these maybe?

http://amasci.com/miscon/miscon.html

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10523 Jan 7, 2013
Thinking wrote:
The scientific method is self correcting.
<quoted text>
Right, all 1% of it.

At a whopping 1%, science corrects more of their errors than you do, lol.

The included link is more on the 1% of “self-correcting” science!

The author explains why outsiders are so important, since we can't rely of science to find the errors.

http://blog.sethroberts.net/2010/09/06/is-sci...

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.

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) 6 min Gordon 227,950
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 28 min Dak-Original 22,498
Our world came from nothing? 36 min NightSerf 504
Indiana Governor Mike Pence Stands Up to Atheis... 1 hr cancer suxs 5
The numbers are in: America still distrusts ath... 1 hr Patrick 22
Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns 3 hr Thinking 140
An atheist returns to Christ (Jan '09) 3 hr Thinking 4,118
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••