Don't dictate beliefs

Don't dictate beliefs

There are 11178 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.

Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#11312 Jan 14, 2013
He'd only stick it up his Gary.
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps Dim needs a candle.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#11313 Jan 14, 2013
I'm not going to capitalise "god", but even you know what it is.

If I started calling "god" the c word (that's cu*t, btw), you'd only confuse it with yourself.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Indeed, it would be rather juvenile to misspell God simply in order to insult theists. If such an atheist had so little respect for another person, why even waste the time writing to them in the first place, much less deliberately trying to hurt them at the same time? While that may actually be the case with some atheists who write the word 'god' with a lowercase 'g,' "
http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgodexist/a/ca...
KJV

United States

#11314 Jan 14, 2013
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not going to capitalise "god", but even you know what it is.

If I started calling "god" the c word (that's cu*t, btw), you'd only confuse it with yourself.
"Indeed, it would be rather juvenile to misspell God simply in order to insult theists"
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#11315 Jan 14, 2013
Good thing I didn't misspell god, then.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Indeed, it would be rather juvenile to misspell God simply in order to insult theists"

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11317 Jan 14, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"So you will now accept anything with the science stamp on it.
Rather pitiful!"
Well, lots of areas claim to be science, but are not. Creationism, for example. The way to tell the difference is to see if there is any research based on observation done in the subject. In particular, there should be people who doubt some details of the subject, propose tests, those tests are done, and opinions change based on those tests.

As an example, in the subject of Big Bang cosmology, there has been a debate about whether dark matter can be explained away using an alternative theory of gravity. People proposed such alternative theories, made predictions on these theories that differed from the predictions made by the standard theory, and then observations were made. it turns out that the observations showed the alternative theories are wrong, so opinions changed as a result.

For evolution, there were those who thought that certain (not all) dinosaurs were warm blooded. They proposed tests of this idea (such as counting growth rings in the bone) and observations were made. In this case, the observations agreed with those saying the dinos were warm blooded and opinions changed.

Again, there were those that suggested that certain dinos and birds were closely related. Again, observations were proposed. The fossils discovered supported the predictions made by those proposing the relatedness.

By this rule, cosmology and evolutionary biology are legitimate sciences.

On the other hand, the Creation Research Institute does not do any tests, proposes no observations testing its ideas, and *only* criticizes the work of others. That is enough to show it isn't a legitimate scientific institution.

Now, does having a legitimate institution guarantee correct statements? No, of course not. Scientists are human and are often wrong. But having legitimate science being done means any mistakes are more likely to be found and corrected. Because of this, any core idea that has survived longer than a couple of decades is probably reliable.
KJV

United States

#11318 Jan 14, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Well, lots of areas claim to be science, but are not. Creationism, for example. The way to tell the difference is to see if there is any research based on observation done in the subject. In particular, there should be people who doubt some details of the subject, propose tests, those tests are done, and opinions change based on those tests.

As an example, in the subject of Big Bang cosmology, there has been a debate about whether dark matter can be explained away using an alternative theory of gravity. People proposed such alternative theories, made predictions on these theories that differed from the predictions made by the standard theory, and then observations were made. it turns out that the observations showed the alternative theories are wrong, so opinions changed as a result.

For evolution, there were those who thought that certain (not all) dinosaurs were warm blooded. They proposed tests of this idea (such as counting growth rings in the bone) and observations were made. In this case, the observations agreed with those saying the dinos were warm blooded and opinions changed.

Again, there were those that suggested that certain dinos and birds were closely related. Again, observations were proposed. The fossils discovered supported the predictions made by those proposing the relatedness.

By this rule, cosmology and evolutionary biology are legitimate sciences.

On the other hand, the Creation Research Institute does not do any tests, proposes no observations testing its ideas, and *only* criticizes the work of others. That is enough to show it isn't a legitimate scientific institution.

Now, does having a legitimate institution guarantee correct statements? No, of course not. Scientists are human and are often wrong. But having legitimate science being done means any mistakes are more likely to be found and corrected. Because of this, any core idea that has survived longer than a couple of decades is probably reliable.
For years and years science claimed the age of the universe as 13.7 billion years old.

Stephen Harking just published a speech of his that claims the universe is 15 billion years old.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-ti...

Wikipedia:

"the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.75 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the Universe"

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#11319 Jan 14, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
For years and years science claimed the age of the universe as 13.7 billion years old.
Stephen Harking just published a speech of his that claims the universe is 15 billion years old.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-ti...
Wikipedia:
"the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.75 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the Universe"
What point are you trying to make?

Since: Mar 11

United States

#11320 Jan 14, 2013
First. So what?
Second. Why won't he retake the test under proper observations? His IQ claims are mostly self promotion.
Third: for having such a high IQ he sucked on that IQ testing game show. Perhaps he was having an off day? But never let the FACTS get in the way I out opinion I see.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Christopher Michael Langan (born c. 1952) is an American autodidact whose IQ was reported by 20/20 and other media sources to have been measured at between 195 and 210"
Believes in God.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#11321 Jan 14, 2013
I hate to break this to you but Yahweh is your god. You pray to Yahweh if you are a Christian.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
The same rule holds true for Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, and the names of gods in other religions. They are capitalized."

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#11322 Jan 14, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's Is an update on this
"Philosophers, scientists and other intellectuals close to Pope Benedict will gather at his summer palace outside Rome this week for intensive discussions that could herald a fundamental shift in the Vatican's view of evolution.
There have been growing signs the Pope is considering aligning his church more closely with the theory of "intelligent design" taught in some US states. Advocates of the theory argue that some features of the universe and nature are so complex that they must have been designed by a higher intelligence. Critics say it is a disguise for creationism.
A prominent anti-evolutionist and Roman Catholic scientist, Dominique Tassot, told the US National Catholic Reporter that this week's meeting was "to give a broader extension to the debate. Even if knows where he wants to go, and I believe he does, it will take time. Most Catholic intellectuals today are convinced that evolution is obviously true because most scientists say so." In 1996, in what was seen as a capitulation to scientific orthodoxy, John Paul II said Darwin's theories were "more than a hypothesis".
That was a rumor from 7 years ago. You're getting desperate.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11323 Jan 15, 2013
derek4 wrote:
The Christian God is traditionally capitalized.
So is Santa Claus.

BTW, you made a capitalization error there. It's "The Christian god."

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11324 Jan 15, 2013
derek4 wrote:
However, you should have said "leg irons", not "legs irons".
Keeping working on your grammar, and perhaps you'll improve.
Grammar? That was spelling. You just fcuked up capitalization.

Were you home schooled, Dim?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11325 Jan 15, 2013
derek4 wrote:
It's bad for your blood pressure. We would hate to lose you.
You must consider your god a moron.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#11326 Jan 15, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
No one cares about your definition of anything. If you're interested in what constitutes a Christian look it up.
Charming. So much for Christian charity. My guess is you dont like hearing about the absurdities of religion, and would prefer to bash atheists.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11327 Jan 15, 2013
KJV wrote:
God knows you inside and out. You cannot hide from him.
Dim thinks his god is a moron:

Dim wrote: "It's bad for your blood pressure. We would hate to lose you."

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11328 Jan 15, 2013
Khatru wrote:
For all I care, you can skin a rabbit, dip it in pig's blood, nail it to your dining table and dance round it naked if you like. I'm really not bothered.
LOL. Because without the rabbit, life has no meaning or purpose, and morality is impossible.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11329 Jan 15, 2013
KJV wrote:
No one cares about your definition of anything. If you're interested in what constitutes a Christian look it up.
We define that for ourselves. My definition of a Christian might be different than yours,because what matters to me is different. As Khatru so aptly noted with the rabbit in pig's blood, we don't really care about your doctrine. We care about what you do.

I don't care if you pray to saints, baptize by sprinkling or immersion, or go to church on Saturday or Sunday. I just care whether you support Christianity with your words, your votes, and/or your dollars. If you do that, you're a Christian to me.

Incidentally, I would submit that you don't know who the Christians are - or what you might call a true Christian - according to your god's definition. I'm pretty sure that true Christians would be the souls that will be admitted to heaven, and only those souls. Since you don't which is which, you don't know who the Christians are by your god's definition.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#11330 Jan 15, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you don't which is which, you don't know who the Christians are by your god's definition.
Good point. The standard practice amongst Christians is to say your denomination is the only correct one, worshipping the one, true God, and the other 33,999 sects are false, the other 999 gods false, and the other 9,999 religions also false. What amazing luck to be born into the right one!!!

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#11331 Jan 15, 2013
Adam wrote:
Lincoln, Derek, just a reminder to you guys why Christinsanity is an invalid belief system. If you open your bibles at matthew, you will see a geneology of jesus. Then skip to luke and see another geneology of jesus. The trouble is these two do not match up, and connot be reconciled without some serious mental gymnastics. The point being the gospels are anonymous documents which contradict each other all over the shop. And this is apparently the heart of the christian religion. Not very good evidence for anything, except the fact that religion is a man made construct.
I'm glad to know you're reading the Bible, even if you don't have a grasp on it yet.

The beauty of the Bible is that all the gospels, like all the rest of the Bible, can and have been reconciled.

Keep studying your Bible instead of having so many “lie ins”(and “lies out”) lol.

Don't accept the “close to fact”(Khatru's words) mistake of evolution.

Close isn't good enough.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#11332 Jan 15, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
This all depends on how your define Christian.
To me a Christian has to believe the tenants of the religion, such as believing the trinity and jesus being God. Does Obama believe a man walked on water, rose from the dead and ascend to heaven on a cloud. Believers will sing eternal praises to yahweh and disbelievers burn in hell. I seriously doubt it.
Are you saying the Obama you like is a fake?

Do you want fakes in government offices, just like you want fraudulent scientists?

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 Why I quit atheism 57 min Chazofsaints 705
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Chazofsaints 18,515
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 1 hr Chazofsaints 3,844
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 1 hr Chazofsaints 5,689
Good arguments against Christianity 1 hr Thinking 205
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Thinking 43,192
A Universe from Nothing? 1 hr Thinking 511
More from around the web