Don't dictate beliefs

Don't dictate beliefs

There are 11176 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

#11397 Jan 16, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Cool !
Not a definition as you would have to work that our for yourself.
You're not making any sense.

You said "Christianity is based simply on excepting the free gift of salvation."

Again -- salvation from what?
Lincoln

United States

#11398 Jan 16, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not making any sense.

Again -- salvation from what?
Work it out for yourself.

Atheists have science on their side?

Don't whine?

Since: Mar 11

Portage, MI

#11399 Jan 16, 2013
Oh oh oh I am going Christianity is the salvation from the Christianity created punishment!:)
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not making any sense.
You said "Christianity is based simply on excepting the free gift of salvation."
Again -- salvation from what?
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#11400 Jan 16, 2013
Like believing you're the son of god, do you mean?
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
People with advantages are loath to believe that they just happen to be people with advantages.
C. Wright Mills
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#11401 Jan 16, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
So then - which of the thousands of Christian denominations in the U.S.(or the tens of thousands of Christian faith groups worldwide) is the "true" church. Or, if none is the "true church", which is closest to Jesus' original intent?
The one with the largest membership? The one most accepting of outsiders like LGBT people? What criteria would be an appropriate measure?
Good point. As we know, the one with the largest worldwide membership (RCC) just happens to be the one the fundies hate the most.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11402 Jan 16, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for leaving your math specialty long enough to read a bit and post some unlinked material in an effort to explain away how science continues to blunder and fail to get things right.
You are welcome. But the material I pointed to shows that science tends to get things right. Your lack of understanding and lack of desire to understand is not the problem of science. It is your problem.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#11403 Jan 16, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Where you can sit back and lie about the faith you abandoned in an effort to draw praise from the cool kids.
My participation here is not to draw praise. Its about trying to be honest and debating subjects of interest to me.

All believers should look at why they believe what they believe, and why others believe what they believe.

When it comes to the existence of the supernatural, deities, and superstitions, there are several reasons why people will believe in strange things.

Generally speaking believers will justify their beliefs because of perceived design within nature, or perhaps believing that God is somehow present in their lives. In reality the real reasons for supernatural belief, are emotional. That it provides a comfort blanket, and that people believe whatever religion they are brought up to believe. Otherwise why wouldnt we be following one of the 000s of other religions, or sects out there.

If we want to act rationally, we all have a choice whether to accept the beliefs we were raised in or whether to reject them and adopt an alternative world view. Whatever views we should hold should be based on evidence and on reality, and should not be held IMO simply because they feel good or its what the majority thinks or you were indoctrinated into.

“Are you a Problem or Solution?”

Since: Mar 09

Ann Arbor, MI

#11404 Jan 16, 2013
derek4 wrote:
Even some atheists defend the value of religion.
The included link is a Washington Post article where an atheist tells us that humanity is so much better off with religion than without it.
If the poor thing understands that much, he should convert and come out of his godless, empty religion.
http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/gue...
No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.
Did you read the link above? He said clearly that he want’s to believe. How does one simply “convert“ if they don‘t have the gift of faith? You seem to belittling a man that simply has not received Gods gift yet, shame on you.
derek4 wrote:
A 2006 University of Minnesota poll of U.S. households reveals atheists are the most distrusted of minorities.
The respondents equate atheism with negativity such as immorality, criminal behaviour, materialism, and elitism.
That's very understandable since we observe no positive values in the atheist lifestyle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_...
No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.
Also taken from your link under the Prejudice heading:

-However, the same study also reported that,“The researchers also found acceptance or rejection of atheists is related not only to personal religiosity, but also to one’s exposure to diversity, education and political orientation—with more educated, East and West Coast Americans more accepting of atheists than their Midwestern counterparts.”-

Seems like the more educated Christians don’t choose to be bigots.
derek4 wrote:
This atheist writes about the depression of atheism.
He compares the meaningless of his life to that of a bug, lol.
He sees no purpose in life.
He seems to be teling us he is simply passing time, waiting for death and decay, like many atheists.
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/blogs/view/787903/
No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.
Nice, give a link to show that this person that ends his page with “Despite my logical reasoning, I wish I could believe that there was a God.” is depressed. Why would you even post this?

Did you miss this statistic in one of your links above?

A majority (53%) of Canadians believe in God. What is of particular interest is that 28% of Protestants, 33% of Catholics, and 23% of those who attend weekly religious services do not.

That is a bit jaw dropping in my opinion. 23% of folks attending weekly services not believing in God….

Seems like we should be paying more attention to what is going on inside our own Churches to me.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#11405 Jan 16, 2013
NoStress4me wrote:
<quoted text>
Seems like we should be paying more attention to what is going on inside our own Churches to me.
No, derek4 prefers bashing atheists, because he knows his theistic beliefs are like the house built on sand.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#11406 Jan 16, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>Thats a laugh. Recovering from Christianity took a long time, a full year. Free thinking. You should give it a try.
He would hurt himself.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#11407 Jan 16, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>"Salvation"? Saved from what?
Certainly not ignorance.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#11408 Jan 16, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Oh oh oh I am going Christianity is the salvation from the Christianity created punishment!:)
<quoted text>
Yep.

Basically if you grovel before their deity enough then he won't punish you with eternal torment, and they call this "salvation."

It's a psychotic mythology.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#11409 Jan 16, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
I appreciate your friendship, and surely you know how much it means to me, lol.
But watch out for those "very reliable" moron posters you trust. "your god"????--- nope - that doesn't describe the God I believe in.
You must be thinking of your science god.
Not at all.

I just pointed out that it was your god as opposed to someone else's god.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#11410 Jan 16, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
"Salvation"? Saved from what?
Saved from the wrath of an insane god.

I think

lol

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#11412 Jan 16, 2013
KJV wrote:
Macro evolution has never happened there is zero proof that it had ever happened
Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species [Ring species]
KJV

United States

#11413 Jan 16, 2013
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>Evolution is Evolution and it's happening.

Your macro rubbish is just more religitard straw man BS.
Micro evolution is the mere turning on or off genes that already exist. Note the Russian Silver Fox on going 50+ year old study.

http://m.genome.cshlp.org/content/17/3/259.fu...

"The Farm-Fox Experiment, as it has become known, is, in essence, a fast-forwarded reconstruction of man’s first exercise in domestication"

So you believe you're better educated on the subject of evolution then
Berkeley's evolution team?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/arti...

"Evolution at different scales: micro to macro
by the Understanding Evolution team

Evolution encompasses changes of vastly different scales — from something as insignificant as an increase in the frequency of thegene for dark wings in beetles from one generation to the next, to something as grand as the evolution and radiation of the dinosaurlineage. These two extremes represent classic examples of micro- and macroevolution.

Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:"

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#11414 Jan 16, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Please present your fossil proof of evolution. Funny that you have this proof and science does not. There is no known fossil of one kind of animal giving birth to another kind of animal.
Wikipedia :
"The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid change; and what it would imply about the origin and evolution of animals. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures remaining in Cambrian rocks."
And from that same Wiki article --

"analysis shows that the Cambrian explosion was no faster than any of the other radiations in animals' history." ... "recent research has overthrown the once-popular idea that disparity was exceptionally high throughout the Cambrian, before subsequently decreasing. In fact, disparity remains relatively low throughout the Cambrian, with modern levels of disparity only attained after the early Ordovician radiation."

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11417 Jan 16, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Micro evolution is the mere turning on or off genes that already exist.
Not only. It is also the modification of genes that already exist. And *that* is evolution.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11418 Jan 16, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Micro evolution is the mere turning on or off genes that already exist.
It can also happen by duplication of genes that already exist. If those duplicates then change in different ways, we have new genes. Again, that *is* evolution.
KJV

United States

#11419 Jan 16, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>And from that same Wiki article --

"analysis shows that the Cambrian explosion was no faster than any of the other radiations in animals' history." ... "recent research has overthrown the once-popular idea that disparity was exceptionally high throughout the Cambrian, before subsequently decreasing. In fact, disparity remains relatively low throughout the Cambrian, with modern levels of disparity only attained after the early Ordovician radiation."
Yes I'm quite aware that Wikipedia does claim that. I was producing evidence from a pro evolution article that they must still admit an incomplete fossil record. Adam claimed evolution was proven in the fossil record.

"Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid change; and what it would imply about the origin and evolution of animals. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures remaining in Cambrian rocks.""

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 Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 21 min Dogen 1,379
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Simon 78,584
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Wed Science 32,430
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... Aug 12 Eagle 12 - 1,152
what science will NEVER be able to prove Aug 11 Eagle 12 - 5
News What Ever Happened to the New Atheists?by Ellio... Aug 7 nanoanomaly 1
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
More from around the web