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: Mar 11

United States

#10697 Jan 8, 2013
Speaking of meaningful posts maybe one of you theists can finally answer this question. Why should anyone accept god as anything more than the product of someone's imagination?

Stop being a coward answer the question.
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
We will continue to look forward with great anticipation to the day you may eventually make a meaningful post to our forum, but we shall not hold our breath waiting.
LMAO

Since: Mar 11

United States

#10698 Jan 8, 2013
This is why I say we need to stop arguing science with the theists on here and in general. For one they don't comprehend what they are dying and asking they just repeat lines they steal from apologetic websites. They have no interest in learning and even if they did since when did atheists become free teachers for the world? When we allow them to make the conversation a god vs science argument it is a futile venture because of the above reasons and most importantly because we are allowing them to frame the debate to their fallacy filled liking.

Atheism is not believing in god/s. it's not evolution, the Big Bang, abiogenesis or science in general these are all different subjects and it's time we start holding their feet o the fire on showing evidence for what they believe instead of arguing unrelated science facts with people who couldn't grasp it if you paid them to.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Numerology of that sort is always garbage.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#10699 Jan 8, 2013
KJV wrote:
"Evolutionists generally believe that although the spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter was a highly improbable event ..."
That's not what is taught or believed. Life on a planet like earth was probably inevitable.
KJV wrote:
"they (and most of us, really) just haven't gotten around to some actual calculating on some of these problems."
The relevant "calculation" is this, and it's only semi-quantitative: The least likely thing to exist uncreated is an solitary, infinite, immortal, sentient, volitional, omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly moral being. Virtually anything else is more likely. A race of such creatures is more likely than just one.

A very smart, very powerful, and very long-lived race of beings is more likely than such a god. Even more likely is man. Even more likely than man is the jellyfish. And even more likely than any of these is a microbe.

To make the argument that the most likely of these is too unlikely to exist, and that therefore the least likely of them must exist to account for them is wishful thinking and a poor argument.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#10700 Jan 8, 2013
KJV wrote:
"let's take a look at the time it would take for one simple gene to arrange itself by chance ... Let us give chance the unbelievable number of attempts of eight trillion tries per second in each set! At this speed on average it would take 10^147 years to obtain just one stable gene. What does this number really mean?"
It means that you are guilty of Hoyle's fallacy, and that you are also ignoring the argument just presented.
KJV wrote:
"This means that all the people living on earth, man, woman and child, counting day and night, would be counting for five thousand years just to count the number of entire universes which this amoeba would have transported across a distance of thirty billion light years, one atom at a time."
LOL. How many amoebas would it take to build a god?
KJV wrote:
"the more information comes to hand, the more preposterous the whole idea of a naturalistic origin of life becomes."
This very same arguments rules out the existence of an uncreated god. Anything ekse is more likely to exist.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#10701 Jan 8, 2013
KJV wrote:
String theory is dying pretty fast.
Do you have a larger point? Is this part of an argument against science? If so, we need to revisit a comment you brought us at http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... :

"There are plenty of reasons not to like string theory. Philosophical and logical arguments against the theory have long been apparent. Strong scientific evidence is increasingly joining them. The discovery of the Higgs boson exactly where the Standard Model says it should be last summer at the LHC was a first blow."

I'll let you contemplate why.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#10702 Jan 8, 2013
KJV wrote:
Assume that the ribozyme is 300 nucleotides long, and that at each position there could be any of four nucleotides present. The chances of that ribozyme assembling are then 4^300, a number so large that it could not possibly happen by chance even once in 13 billion years, the age of the universe.
Your understanding of statistics is inadequate. And your imagination regarding how such a thing likely happened is also lacking. Such a ribosome would not be constructed one nucleotide at a time as it is in vivo. In an environment where nucleotide exist and can join, we have a sea of fragments of various sizes - some six nucleotides long, some eight, some fourteen, and so on. The three hundred nucleotide sequence would likely form from a few dozen such pieces finding one another. That changes your mathematics radically.

From your own post at http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... :

"Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless there. Given so much time, the “impossible” becomes possible; the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself performs the miracles."

What are the odds of the parts of an infinite god finding one another without an intelligent designer? Zero? My money is on a gene existing without a god before a god existing without a gene.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#10703 Jan 9, 2013
derek4 wrote:
“religious fraud”, which isn't Christianity.
LOL.

"Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1500 years." - John Adams

And that was a couple of centuries ago.

I know how concerned you are about exposing fraud, which is why I'm alerting you: Your church is the longest running fraud in history.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#10704 Jan 9, 2013
derek4 wrote:
atheists constantly ask for proof of God
Not really. We usually demand it following some claim for a god.

CHRISTIAN: "Jesus loves you"
ATHEIST: "Prove it"

Why else would we request proof of something we don't believe exists except in rebuttal to an unsupported god claim?

Once your religion has atrophied to irrelevance and invisibility, I doubt that you'll hear anybody even discussing your god, let alone asking for proof of it. Who asks for proof of Thor or Zeus?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#10705 Jan 9, 2013
derek4 wrote:
We read the Bible, and when “religion” doesn't match up to what the Bible teaches, we recognize it as religious heresy, not Christianity, and we reject it.
You do that with your bible, too. Whatever doesn't match up to reality as defined by science is called allegory or metaphor, and whatever is too cruel to even contemplate by humanist ethical standards is just ignored.

We call that cherry picking, or cafeteria Christianity. You affirm the two of the fruits of rational skepticism - science and secular humanism - whenever you do that.

You may be wondering what the third gift of rational secularism is. Rational skepticism applied to nature yields science. When applied to questions of ethics, it yields secular humanism. And when applied to theology, rational skepticism yields atheism.

And why is that another gift?:

[1] "To the philosophy of atheism belongs the credit of robbing death of its horror and its terror. It brought about the abolition of Hell." - Joseph Lewis

[2] "Atheists are free to think what they want and decide the meaning and direction of their own lives. We don't answer to invisible beings whose existence cannot be proven. In fact, we don't answer to anyone, and we don't have to believe anything. What atheism offers is freedom.”- Josh Mitchell

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#10706 Jan 9, 2013
derek4 wrote:
The “prosperity gospel” does not line up with Christianity, nor the Bible.
Who cares?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#10707 Jan 9, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
KJV, my calculations for the odds were not based on the reality of the situation, I did them using your own failed concept of the method of natural selection. That would be the odds if it "started from scratch" each time, since natural selection isn't random it doesn't do that, so the odds for success are much, much, much higher.
Here's why:
Suppose you have three doors, behind one is a great prize, you don't know which one. The announcer asks you to pick one, and you do. Your odds are 33% of choosing the correct one.
Then the announcer shows you one of the two doors you didn't pick, which don't contain the prize. Your odds of having chosen the correct door are still 33%... but then he let's you change your choice.
What are your odds of selecting the correct door if you change your decision? It's a simple answer. So ... what are your chances now?
I know this one, but I won't spoil it for you.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#10708 Jan 9, 2013
derek4 wrote:
Mr. Twain would have done well to confine his remarks to subjects about which he was informed, lol. Like you, he isn't respected for his expertise on the Bible.
Expertise on the bible? Do you mean its myths? That is like expertise in Pokémon or Smurfdom.

We can study the bible's provenance and history to some profit, as well as its place in history.

But its contents are useless.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#10709 Jan 9, 2013
Lil Ticked wrote:
WTF is a cubit?
Is that a reference to early Bill Cosby?

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#10710 Jan 9, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that a reference to early Bill Cosby?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =_kK3QMiJ5NYXX
I like Cosby.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#10711 Jan 9, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
This is why I say we need to stop arguing science with the theists on here and in general. For one they don't comprehend what they are doing and asking they just repeat lines they steal from apologetic websites. They have no interest in learning and even if they did since when did atheists become free teachers for the world?
I find these discussions profitable for me, and I hope for you as well. You're correct about the theists being lost causes, and unteachable. But we're not.

This can be though of as atheist school, where the teaching we do for one another can be considered the lab section, and the theists themselves serve as the lab specimens.

I studied some psychiatry in my medical education. We would read psychiatry textbooks, and listen to lectures from psychiatrists.

But we also went to the inpatient and outpatient clinic to interview the afflicted, which is where the academic information came alive.

I paid a lot of money to be there for that. Even so, I probably only spent about a hundred hours with patients on what was a two month rotation, where I saw things I had never seen before, and in many cases, never saw again.

And acquiring insights came slowly. It takes a lot more time than an hour to understand how somebody thinks. I remember very well one man that I was assigned to interview, They didn't tell me what his pathology was. I had to discover what it was. After an hour with this man, I had no idea how he was different from you or me. My time was up, I said thank you and goodbye, and as I was walking out of the room,I asked him if he preferred his door opened or closed. He answered, "Closed. That's a number seven. Open is a four." Bingo!

This is a very similar process, except that here, I have a few thousand hours of exposure, and it was free. I have seen aspects of the theist mind in these threads that I hadn't seen anywhere else, even as a Christian in church.

If you think about it, you might agree that many of the things that you understand about the church, it's methods, and the mind of the believer come from these threads. That's true for me. It is here on Topix that I became firmly antiecclesiatical and aggressively atheistic.

How much have we taught one another here? Think about any of us in a meat space discussion of a religious topic. You'd be a leader there. What's flown by in the last day or two right here? An discussion of pi in the bible. We're turning Dim's fraud campaign around and directing it at his church. Hoyle's fallacy was discussed, rebutted, and also turned around and aimed at the unlikelihood of Jehovah. Kitten just gave us the Monty Hall problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_probl... Polymath has been reviewing black holes. And this post offers another perspective on the value of debating with theists.

We're not here for the Christians. We're here for ourselves and for one another. I think that any of us would help the Christians if we could, but as you note, we can't - another insight that has only become clear for me as a result of this much conversation with them. But that doesn't make arguing with them useless.

What do you think?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#10712 Jan 9, 2013
Lil Ticked wrote:
WTF is a cubit?
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Is that a reference to early Bill Cosby?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =_kK3QMiJ5NYXX
Lil Ticked wrote:
I like Cosby.
Me, too.

Are you old enough to remember the TV series I Spy? Bill Cosby was the first black actor in a leading role in a television series. What is even more remarkable is that he didn't play a black man. The actor was black, but the character was raceless, not ethnic.

BTW, was that a yes or a no?
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10713 Jan 9, 2013
I only post as "Thinking".

Don't judge others by your low standards.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Septic you're slipping up again.
Your socks has a hole in it.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#10714 Jan 9, 2013
You of course make some great points. What I am saying is that I think at times we allow them to frame the argument to their liking. When while we can certainly factually destroy their lame apologetic nonsense, we need to remind frame the argument properly and not allow them to do the old Jesus vs Darwin debate for example.
In my pharmacology classes we learned that there is rarely a neat and pretty answer, something the theist has trouble with. We don't necessarily even expect such a pretty perfect answer. Often instead we look for the most right answer. Example: say you read a list of a woman's medications and get a grasp of her conditions. The doctor calls your pharmacy ordering four new medications. Each of these medications have negative ramifications with the other medications and/or conditions. YIKES! Here it comes! Which of the four medications will you fill and why. You of course are not allowed to say none even though none of these are perfect medications for the individual. Instead you have to pick the most right answer and explain why. Make sense?
Now when dealing with the notion of deities and or Jesus/Yahweh/Allah/insert god here, it all boils down to either (insert god here) exists or doesn't exist. Now everything being equal what do we do? We weigh out the facts and come to the most right answer that we can. So when one examines the facts as they are, is the best answer that those facts lead us to there being a deity in question or not?
This to me when it comes to the notion of deities is the key factor.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I find these discussions profitable for me, and I hope for you as well. You're correct about the theists being lost causes, and unteachable. But we're not.
This can be though of as atheist school, where the teaching we do for one another can be considered the lab section, and the theists themselves serve as the lab specimens.
And acquiring insights came slowly. It takes a lot more time than an hour to understand how somebody thinks. I remember very well one man that I was assigned to interview, They didn't tell me what his pathology was. I had to discover what it was. After an hour with this man, I had no idea how he was different from you or me. My time was up, I said thank you and goodbye, and as I was walking out of the room,I asked him if he preferred his door opened or closed. He answered, "Closed. That's a number seven. Open is a four." Bingo!
This is a very similar process, except that here, I have a few thousand hours of exposure, and it was free. I have seen aspects of the theist mind in these threads that I hadn't seen anywhere else, even as a Christian in church.
If you think about it, you might agree that many of the things that you understand about the church, it's methods, and the mind of the believer come from these threads. That's true for me. It is here on Topix that I became firmly antiecclesiatical and aggressively atheistic.
How much have we taught one another here? Think about any of us in a meat space discussion of a religious topic. You'd be a leader there. What's flown by in the last day or two right here? An discussion of pi in the bible. We're turning Dim's fraud campaign around and directing it at his church. Hoyle's fallacy was discussed, rebutted, and also turned around and aimed at the unlikelihood of Jehovah. Kitten just gave us the Monty Hall problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_probl... Polymath has been reviewing black holes. And this post offers another perspective on the value of debating with theists.
We're not here for the Christians. We're here for ourselves and for one another. I think that any of us would help the Christians if we could, but as you note, we can't - another insight that has only become clear for me as a result of this much conversation with them. But that doesn't make arguing with them useless.
What do you think?

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#10715 Jan 9, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I find these discussions profitable for me, and I hope for you as well. You're correct about the theists being lost causes, and unteachable. But we're not.
This can be though of as atheist school, where the teaching we do for one another can be considered the lab section, and the theists themselves serve as the lab specimens.
I studied some psychiatry in my medical education. We would read psychiatry textbooks, and listen to lectures from psychiatrists.
But we also went to the inpatient and outpatient clinic to interview the afflicted, which is where the academic information came alive.
I paid a lot of money to be there for that. Even so, I probably only spent about a hundred hours with patients on what was a two month rotation, where I saw things I had never seen before, and in many cases, never saw again.
And acquiring insights came slowly. It takes a lot more time than an hour to understand how somebody thinks. I remember very well one man that I was assigned to interview, They didn't tell me what his pathology was. I had to discover what it was. After an hour with this man, I had no idea how he was different from you or me. My time was up, I said thank you and goodbye, and as I was walking out of the room,I asked him if he preferred his door opened or closed. He answered, "Closed. That's a number seven. Open is a four." Bingo!
This is a very similar process, except that here, I have a few thousand hours of exposure, and it was free. I have seen aspects of the theist mind in these threads that I hadn't seen anywhere else, even as a Christian in church.
If you think about it, you might agree that many of the things that you understand about the church, it's methods, and the mind of the believer come from these threads. That's true for me. It is here on Topix that I became firmly antiecclesiatical and aggressively atheistic.
How much have we taught one another here? Think about any of us in a meat space discussion of a religious topic. You'd be a leader there. What's flown by in the last day or two right here? An discussion of pi in the bible. We're turning Dim's fraud campaign around and directing it at his church. Hoyle's fallacy was discussed, rebutted, and also turned around and aimed at the unlikelihood of Jehovah. Kitten just gave us the Monty Hall problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_probl... Polymath has been reviewing black holes. And this post offers another perspective on the value of debating with theists.
We're not here for the Christians. We're here for ourselves and for one another. I think that any of us would help the Christians if we could, but as you note, we can't - another insight that has only become clear for me as a result of this much conversation with them. But that doesn't make arguing with them useless.
What do you think?
Oh shit. I know why closed is a 7 and open is a 4.

Am I crazy?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#10716 Jan 9, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>He keeps trying to use probability as an argument but doesn't actually understand probability enough to state his case.

So, like a broken record, he keeps making these stupid pronouncements that everybody else is wrong. He can't actually take it further to explain his math, he has none.

(Can I still say broken record with some assurance that readers even know what this implies? The reference seems so dated.)
Us old guys know what you mean.

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 It aint necessari... 23,585
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr scientia potentia... 48,864
What are the best arguments against religion? 1 hr IB DaMann 6
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 1 hr IB DaMann 5,720
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 1 hr Scaritual 92
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 2 hr Mintz4004 21,889
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 4 hr Into The Night 258,047
More from around the web