Don't dictate beliefs

Sep 5, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Star Press

No one else can say otherwise? That is basically saying those who do "believe in God" are better? Hardly.

Comments (Page 521)

Showing posts 10,401 - 10,420 of11,195
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10949
Jan 11, 2013
 
No he hasn't. Because you're lying.
derek4 wrote:
“THE MAJORITY of children born into the world tend to inherit the beliefs of their parents, and that to me is one of the most regrettable facts of them all”
Richard Dawkins
Has Mr. Dawkins read the statistics showing us that most children born into atheist households forsake atheism when they grow up?
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10950
Jan 11, 2013
 
7+ posts in a row gets you another "Cuntard of the Day" award.

Way to go, cuntard!
derek4 wrote:
Many people have falsely accused Madalyn Murray O'Hair of being an atheist.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religi...
No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10951
Jan 11, 2013
 
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, I know that is not entirely true. When I first came to Topix I was a full on believer working on becoming a pastor but, my encounters on here with certain posters swayed me considerably. They would post links, hit certain talking points and ask me questions. I listened to what they had to say, read their posted articles, and learned. During that time I also noticed that there are those that do nothing but abuse, from either side.
Interesting. I was also a believer when I first went on topix.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10952
Jan 11, 2013
 
sarafina wrote:
<quoted text>
Aside from the lack of evidence to back up such scientific speculations, I can't help wondering why atheists would find such a belief system attractive?
Not necessarily attractive. Just a question of chosing REALITY over fanasty.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10953
Jan 11, 2013
 
Stop trying to dodge the question. Why should anyone accept god as anything more than a product of someone's imagination?

Your questions are off topic and have nothing to do with atheism so I guess you have ADHD or something. You're excused for that.

Oh and the word you were looking for there was abiogenesis not evolution. But again that has nothing to do with atheism.
DJ Hewlet wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you have if not figments of human imagination, or myths? It takes as much faith to believe that something comes from nothing (big bang) and nonliving matter produces life (evolution) as it does to believe in God.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10954
Jan 11, 2013
 
It seems people get all touchy when you question their imaginary friend.
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
Not necessarily attractive. Just a question of chosing REALITY over fanasty.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10955
Jan 11, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
It seems people get all touchy when you question their imaginary friend.
<quoted text>
I know I used to myself defend imaginary sky people when I was on the kool aid. But you would think instead they would show a little gratitude for helping them out.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10956
Jan 11, 2013
 
This to me is an important proof of the stupidity of religion, specifically christianity.

Quoting from the hilarious website AIG: Jesus "accepted the Old Testament’s historical accounts as real, and He built His teachings on those facts of history."

In other words, christians cannot throw out the OT.

Jesus believed in and worshiped the monster of the OT, Yahweh, and believed in all those insane laws.
source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v...

We all now know the myths of genesis are exactly that myths, and the laws of the OT barbaric and insane. Yet the Jesus character and the writers of the NT did not know this. In no way can the bible be considered even loosely inspired.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10957
Jan 11, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
An alternative view:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/11/superstring...

" Basically the prediction for supersymmetry based on compactified string/M theories is that any rare decay rate should equal the Standard Model one within an accuracy of a few per cent."

"Although many string/M theory predictions can not yet be made accurately, some can, in particular the prediction for Bs&#8594;&#956;+&# 956;&#8722;. The short summary of the argument is that compactified string/M theories have moduli that describe the shapes and sizes of the small dimensions. The moduli fields have quanta, scalar particles, that decay gravitationally so they have long lifetimes. In order to not destroy the successes of nucleosynthesis the moduli have to be heavier than about 30TeV. One can show that the lightest eigenvalue of the moduli mass matrix is connected to the gravitino mass in theories with softly broken supersymmetry, and in turn that in such theories the squark and slepton (and Higgs scalar) masses are essentially equal to the gravitino masses. Thus the squarks and sleptons are heavier than about 30TeV, and they are predicted to be too heavy to observe at LHC or via the rare decays. The LHCb result agrees with this prediction. While the scalars are too heavy to be seen easily, gluinos and neutralinos and one chargino should be seen at LHC."

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10958
Jan 11, 2013
 
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no evidence to support the existence of this "designer". All you have is unsupported conjecture ... aka .... nothing.
Unsupported conjecture = Darwinism / Evolutionism

Just one example previously posted:

This government link explains that the evolution of the eye and photoreceptor cell types remains a mystery and ongoing matter of debate.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14756332

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10959
Jan 11, 2013
 
Thinking wrote:
7+ posts in a row gets you another "Cuntard of the Day" award.
Way to go, cuntard!
<quoted text>
Just a reminder to everyone, when you have concerns about the content of any link I've posted, you need to express those to the web page publishers, since I have no interest in your amateur and misguided opinions. Thank you for your cooperation.

And this one other note: Act nice, even if we all know you're really not. Posts with inappropriate language may be reported to the moderators as abuse. Some already have been reported.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10960
Jan 11, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Based on the definitions you provided, no it is not a religion. Twist the facts all you want, but the information you get in your email from the creationist website is already debunked millions of times over.
Kitten, I have a compliment to you for a change. Your deep and abiding faith in the atheist religion is an outstanding example of commitment to all of us. Thank you.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10961
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Sidney Hillman Foundation reports on the surging number of mistakes in science, the shadow over scientific trust, retractions, and government funds wasted on bogus science.

http://www.hillmanfoundation.org/blog/mistake...

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10963
Jan 11, 2013
 
Bollocks.
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Unsupported conjecture = Darwinism / Evolutionism
Just one example previously posted:
This government link explains that the evolution of the eye and photoreceptor cell types remains a mystery and ongoing matter of debate.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14756332
No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10964
Jan 11, 2013
 
A report from the VIII International Scientific Conference explores the mistakes of modern science.

In the spirit of their concern about honesty, atheists should want to rid the planet of bad science.

http://www.ikz.ru/~smulski/smul1/English1/Fou...

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10965
Jan 11, 2013
 
Thinking wrote:
How you bleat.
I always give respect where it's due. Conversely, I'll swear at barefaced liars like you whenever I see fit.
<quoted text>
post reported as abuse

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10966
Jan 11, 2013
 
The included link gives examples of the many ways scientists have been wrong, and still are wrong.

http://science.discovery.com/top-ten/2009/sci...

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post

In order for atheists to rely on what science tells us, they need to insure they are placing their faith in bonafide science. Recognizing true and genuine science is becoming extremely complex.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10967
Jan 11, 2013
 
Thinking wrote:
Bollocks.
<quoted text>
Your constant replies to me and you futile meaningless rebuttals plus your resort to juvenile language all point to your deep frustrations and inablitiy to make valid points. Thanks, lol.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10968
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Just a reminder to everyone, when you have concerns about the content of any link I've posted, you need to express those to the web page publishers, since I have no interest in your amateur and misguided opinions. Thank you for your cooperation.
I, for one, will reply in this forum. You can ignore the posts if you really want to, but the discussion can happen here even if you don't participate.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10969
Jan 11, 2013
 
derek4 wrote:
A report from the VIII International Scientific Conference explores the mistakes of modern science.
In the spirit of their concern about honesty, atheists should want to rid the planet of bad science.
http://www.ikz.ru/~smulski/smul1/English1/Fou...
No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.
That article didn't even rise to the level of bad science. It was simply wrong in most particulars (which we know you wouldn't understand).

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 10,401 - 10,420 of11,195
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••