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
KJV

United States

#2484 Oct 6, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
<quoted text>Just something to consider before cursing one to hell eh? If you are going to go might as well get your money's worth!
Go for it!

You make the world a much nicer place don't you? Or not.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#2486 Oct 6, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Hitler wasn't a Christain. He wasn't a Christian either.
On the other hand, your buddy, Stalin, was an atheist. He killed even more people than Hitler. Cry about it.
Stalin closed some 48,000 churches, promoted atheism, special atheist education in schools, so on and so on – it's all in Wikipedia (below) from a previous post:
Although raised in the Georgian Orthodox faith, Stalin was an atheist. Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. His government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin
Your atheist friend is the most prolific mass murderer in history.
I don't know a Stalin, nor did I know Hitler. I do know that Hitler's history, was written, before you Christains got embarrassed about him, being one of your number. Adolph Hitler was a bonafide Christain.

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so" -- Adolf Hitler

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#2488 Oct 6, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Adolph Hitler was Christain."
This is all the proof needed that "Reason Personified" never be taken seriously.
Christ Stain!

I think it has been a little over a year, since I started posting "Christain", instead of Christian, and twice on this thread, and in the last 24 hours, it has been noticed.

I'm starting to think there may be hope for you lot yet, because up until now, it has only been noticed once in my 2,470 topix postings. LOL!

http://www.google.com/search...

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#2492 Oct 6, 2012
Do you stand as strong with your biblical prophets? It sounds as if you are not willing your faith must be shaken.

Again take each of my prophecies and they will be as of not more accurate than your fictional bible ones. If you are willing to commit suicide for any prophecy the bible gets wrong you may stone me to death in five years if none of mine come true.

Hmmm I guess you are not as much of a believer as you would like. Surely you're not afraid that I will out prophet the bible?
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>"Yes now we see the blood thirsty violent heart of a Christhole!"

Not at all, back in the day of Jesus if you were found to be a false prophet you would be stoned to death.
You mocked Jesus and the bible prophets as jokes claiming you could do as well. I was just adding what theses early Christians were up against if they were wrong. You should be held to the same standard if you truly believe that you can be just as accurate prophet.

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#2494 Oct 6, 2012
I don't advocate killing people who don't share my beliefs. I advocate reason, proper education for all, living in peace and harmony with with all and above all progress of our society.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>Go for it!

You make the world a much nicer place don't you? Or not.

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#2497 Oct 6, 2012
Your IQ fails you. But do tell us how Noah's all Jewish family gave birth to all the different nationalities and transported them all across the world with new languages, skills, beliefs, alphabets and so on. Oh and all in just 100 years.

Ready. Set. Go!
Doctor Who Two wrote:
<quoted text>Yes every new birth is special.

Or are you implying that Noah was prejudice? Are you prejudice? Are you like Darwin? Do you believe other races are inferior to your race?

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#2498 Oct 6, 2012
You have no reason to be frightened of me as I am not a blood thirsty theist. But look at my forecasts prophecies if you will and if you are willing to kill yourself if I find any inaccurate bible prophecies that did not come true you may stone me to death in five years if mine do not come true.

Do you accept or is your faith in the bible perhaps not so strong after all?
Doctor Who Two wrote:
<quoted text>Not sure about other but you are no more frighting then a single ant to me.

Your no prophet and the bible is not frictional.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#2501 Oct 6, 2012
So you admit that a person who doesn't want to kill others for believing differently is a weakness. Ladies and gentlemen this Christhole just let the cat out of the bag on how many of them believe.
Doctor Who Two wrote:
<quoted text>"I don't advocate killing people who don't share my beliefs"

Yea we all have our weakness you just happen to have way more the most people.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#2502 Oct 6, 2012
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation: Don't blame the above poster for copying dishonest apolegetics; blame his source and those who copied from his source or a common source.
Let's recap.
The poster posted a partial sentence from Darwin as a complete sentence:
“Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy.”
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
The actual sentence reads:
"For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly; for, thinking of so many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy."
More importantly, in the context of the whole paragraph, it is Darwin's humble approach to his mentor, Dr. Charles Lyell, after Lyell accepted Darwin's natural selection hypothesis, which Darwin then believes, according to the letter, to be a "morally" required conclusion from those seeking the truth:
<quoted text>
Darwin, Charles, Darwin, Francis, ed., Selected Letters on Evolution and Origin of Species (Courier Dover Publications' 1958 edition), pp. 224-5.
Ya gotta love Christian dishonesty, eh?
All idiots like yourself who post the same tired objection to something I've already addressed will receive the same answer I originally gave, since nothing has changed since my original post. So here it is:
Lol – No dishonesty from me. The Darwin quotation you are objecting to was found here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6086650/EVOLUTION-C...
It was also found on other web pages. In fact, it's all over the internet, exactly as I copied and pasted it:“Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy.”
Should you wish to dispute the quotation or the authenticity of it, you need to contact the web pages, not me. You have your work cut out for you, since there are many, many web pages which publish the quote just as I posted it, but I'm sure they will all be delighted to hear from you. I have no interest in your post, but maybe one of the web page publishers will offer you a position on their editorial staff; lmao.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#2503 Oct 6, 2012
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Please provide a reputable source that claims the use of dashes is grammatically incorrect.
I'll wait.
Right, you'll wait. I'm not interested in researching grammar for you. If you want 2 dashes, use 2 dashes. Use 3 dashes if you want to be even more superfluous than you were with 2. Your effort to win a little skirmish over grammar while losing the war in the forum is humorous. You're just a loser, LOL

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#2504 Oct 6, 2012
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
No I don't. I merely need to point out the ignorance of the person relying on the source.
If you wish to dispute the contents of any web page, you need to contact the publisher of the page, or the author of the content to which you object - not the forum poster who provided you with the link. I have no interest in your objections to web page content.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#2505 Oct 6, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that you believe in talking snakes and donkeys tells me all I need to know about you.
I notice how you didn't deny my statement that you think genocide is good. That also tells me a lot about you.
Like I've informed some of your fellow dingbats, when you post a comment to me that changes nothing about my previous post and fails to negate it in any way, you get the previous post right back, so here you go:
“In other words, you don't trust Wikipedia, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Discover Magazine, Scientific American, rsm journals, The Chicago Tribune, etc (those are where most of my posts come from).
What sources support YOU? "Khatru", "Khatru", and "Khatru" ? Yee? LOl - that's what I thought. In other words, you have nothing.”

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#2506 Oct 6, 2012
Plastic Fantastic: How the Biggest Fraud in Physics Shook the Scientific World (MacMillan Science)

For many years, historians of the Renaissance have lauded the value of forgeries and fakes. Counterfeit documents, passed off as real, offer invaluable clues about the wider culture in which they were made. They illuminate subtle, taken-for-granted assumptions and habits of the time; after all, forgers must have had particular ideas in mind about what counted as genuine when crafting their fakes. Anthony Grafton, the distinguished Princeton historian, has gone even further. In his 1990 book, Forgers and Critics: Creativity and Duplicity in Western Scholarship, Grafton argues that much of what we recognize as scholarship in the humanities today -- entire fields such as literary criticism, jurisprudence, the history of ideas, religion, art and more -- matured thanks to a constant back-and-forth engagement with frauds and forgeries. Those fields took form by honing esoteric techniques for scrutinizing documents and works of art, perpetually improving clever ways to sort authentic wheat from forged chaff. A kind of arms race ensued: As methods for detecting forgeries improved, forgers grew more sophisticated in designing fakes, and so on down through the ages.

What could that possibly have to do with modern science? A great deal more than we might suspect. Just in the past few years, the scientific world has been rocked by a series of high-profile frauds. Within the physical sciences, accusations arose in 2002 of data rigging in a search for exotic nuclei at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The curious story of Igor and Grichka Bogdanov broke that same year: Twin theoretical physicists working in France, they were widely suspected of having succeeded in getting nonsense articles through peer review at major physics journals. Then it was the biologists' turn. Late in 2005, South Korean researcher Hwang Woo-Suk was accused of having fabricated the data on which at least two of his articles in Science about stem cells and cloning were based. A few weeks earlier an MIT associate professor of biology, Luk Van Parijs, had been dismissed for fabricating and falsifying data in a paper published in Nature Genetics as well as in unpublished manuscripts and on grant applications.

But one fraud outstripped them all, eclipsing the others with its sheer audacity. Between 2000 and 2002, Jan Hendrik Schon, a researcher at Bell Laboratories, published more than 20 articles on electrical properties of unusual materials. He shot to the very top of the booming field of "molecular electronics" -- a wonder field in which researchers aim to shrink computer chips down to single-molecule components. At Schon's peak, he was submitting 4 or 5 articles per month, most of them going to top journals like Science and Nature. He hit his record in autumn 2001, turning out 7 articles that November alone. The output was staggering. It's rare for a scientist -- even a string theorist, beholden neither to instruments nor to data -- to submit 7 articles in an entire year, let alone one month. And Schon's papers were no run-of-the-mill exercises. In them, he announced one unbelievable discovery after another: He had created organic plastics that became superconductors or lasers; he had fashioned nanoscale transistors; and more. The editors of Science hailed one of his many contributions as a "breakthrough of the year" in 2001. The CEO of Lucent Technologies (parent company of Bell Labs) likewise touted Schon's work when courting investors. Everything Schon touched seemed to turn to research gold.

Alas, it was fool's gold.
http://www.powells.com/review/2010_01_10.html

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#2507 Oct 6, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
So you never read about Jesus then?
Don't worry, I understand.
I leave your love of zombies to you.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#2508 Oct 6, 2012
Selling Science:
How the Press Covers Science and Technology

This text discusses how the media cover science and technology. This revised edition replaces cases with current ones. It features a revised analysis to reflect recent changes in the way science is reported, with more attention paid to coverage of scientific fraud, the split between highly critical and promotional treatment of science....

continued:
http://books.google.com/books/about/Selling_S...

About the author
A sociologist, science policy researcher, and teacher, Dorothy Nelkin has been a faculty member of Cornell University for most of her career. Born in Boston, Massachusetts, she worked as a senior research associate in the Science, Technology, and Society Program at Cornell University from 1969 to 1972.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#2509 Oct 6, 2012
Haekel, Ernst (1834-1919)

“In response to his critics, Haeckel replied that he was only trying to make them more accurate than the faulty specimens on which they were based, thus admitting that the prints were not representative of the true specimens and inadvertently admitting his fraud (Milner 1990, p. 206). Though his fraud, comparable to the Piltdown hoax, has been known to the scientific community for over 100 years, the exposures were not translated from German into English. The zeal with which the evolutionary community of the period was willing to accept any support for Darwinism unfortunately resulted in widespread propagation of Haeckel's work, but as quietly received the fraud exposure as it later did the Piltdown exposure. Unfortunately, many of the zealots preferred to let fraud exposures die out quietly rather than vocally admit that many scientists unquestioningly accepted and science writers wrote textbook chapters based on fraudulent information. Because science text writers typically pass on matter already well publicized in previous texts and are not within the inner circle of those conversant in the field, Haeckel's frauds and evolutionary concepts based on these frauds are still unfortunately included as fact in many science textbooks in U.S. school systems in the 1990s.”
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Hae...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#2510 Oct 6, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
So you never read about Jesus then?
Don't worry, I understand.
Did Einstein read about Jesus?

Einstein on God and Science

He was asked: You accept the historical Jesus?

He replied:

Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.”
...Einstein, as cited in Viereck 1929; see also Einstein, as cited in the German magazine Geisteskampf der Gegenwart, Guetersloh, 1930, S. 235).

http://2012daily.com/community/blogs/user/201...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#2511 Oct 6, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
No need
You're a fool, idiot, moron, Clodhopper.
You are also very entertaining. It's not everyday you find somebody this stupid that can still type. Keep up the good work.
She's a tired old dingbat atheist from the UK who never researches anything, never reads credible scientific sources, and never posts a link to support herself. She's a hag troll, nothing more – other than perhaps senile.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#2512 Oct 6, 2012
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know a Stalin, nor did I know Hitler. I do know that Hitler's history, was written, before you Christains got embarrassed about him, being one of your number. Adolph Hitler was a bonafide Christain.
"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so" -- Adolf Hitler
Hitler was not a Christain or a Christian. I have zero interest in your spelling problems or your other problems, but as for Hitler, you will get the same answer any and every time in one form or another any time you want to say Hitler was a Christian. This is not open to dispute, since Hitler was not a Christian.

Was Hitler a Christian?

October 30, 1999

Dear Straight Dope:

In my numerous online debates in various chatrooms, I have learned the following: many Christians seem to think that Adolf Hitler was an atheist (or at least wasn't "Christian"). Of course I and my fellow atheists know better, as Hitler mentions his devotion to Christianity numerous times in his writings. Can you clear this up for me? Was Hitler an "honest to God" Christian, or was he simply using religion as a means of control?- Carl Stieger

The short answer is a definite "maybe" or, more precisely, "probably neither." The looooong answer is somewhat more complicated.

You are right that Hitler did mention Christianity many times in his writings. He paid Christianity a lot of lip service in Mein Kampf, and he claimed to be a Christian. But Hitler's secretary, Martin Bormann, also declared that "National Socialism [Nazism] and Christianity are irreconcilable" and Hitler didn't squawk too much about it. Similarly, Hermann Rauschning, a Hitler associate, said, "One is either a Christian or a German. You can't be both." In addition, Hitler declared Nazism the state religion and the Bible was replaced by Mein Kampf in the schools.

First, let's look at what he said that seems to put him on the anti-Christian side:

According to a press release from Catholic League President, William A. Donohue (2/4/99): "Hitler was a neo-pagan terrorist whose conscience was not informed by Christianity, but by pseudo-scientific racist philosophies. Hitler hated the Catholic Church, made plans to kill the Pope, authorized the murder of thousands of priests and nuns, and did everything he could to suppress the influence of the Church. In 1933, Hitler said,'It is through the peasantry that we shall really be able to destroy Christianity because there is in them a true religion rooted in nature and blood.'"

[further down, within the text:]

“... atheists looking for a quick cheap-shot may claim Hitler was a Christian; similarly, Christians looking for a quick shot may claim he was an atheist. Know what? Hitler was a vegetarian! Oooh, those evil vegetarians! He also recommended that parents give their children milk to drink instead of beer and started the first anti-smoking campaign.(So by the "reasoning" used in these types of arguments, if you are truly anti-Hitler, you should smoke heavily and only give your baby beer!) Better watch out, though he was an oxygen-breather, too! In other words, does it really matter whether Hitler was an atheist or a Christian or whatever? Just because somebody may hold a particular worldview (along with other views) doesn't make him a spokesman for that view, or even remotely representative of others who hold that view.”

continued:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1699...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#2513 Oct 6, 2012
From: Alliance for Human Research Protection

[The following individuals currently serve on AHRP's Board of Directors:
David Cohen, Ph.D.
Karen Effrem, M.D.
Michael Goodyear, M.D., Ph.D
Meryl Nass, M.D.
John H. Noble, Jr., Ph.D.
Sally Rogow, Ed.D.
Vera Hassner Sharav, M.L.S.
Huguette Streuli, M.L.S.]

Fraudulent Science: What's Retracted, What's Not
Saturday, 28 April 2012

Even if retracted, published clinical trial reports that misrepresent findings, withhold negative data, or make false, or unsubstantiated claims have done irreparable damage. AHRP calls upon all medical journals to adopt a publication policy requiring submission of the sponsor's formal Clinical Study Report to accompany articles about clinical trial findings.

Critics who deplore the commercialization of medical research have raised concerns about scientific fraud and misconduct that are undermining the integrity of the medical-scientific literature, and thepractice of "evidence-based medicine"--- which relies on published journal reports. Recent analyses of retractions of published peer-reviewed journal reports provide supportive evidence for those critics.

Retractions from journals are not routine occurrences--journal editors are extremely reluctant to retract articles, a tacit acknowledgment of their own gate-keeping failure--and fear of reprisals from the sponsors of those retracted trial reports. Many journals don’t even have retraction policies, and the ones that do publish critical notices of retraction long after the original paper appeared—without providing explicit information as to why they are being retracted.

Judging by analyses showing that the number of retractions during the past ten years has skyrocketed, it is reasonable to conclude that the self-regulating peer review system suffers from serious underlying defects.
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/846/94/

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) 28 min Aura Mytha 234,702
Our world came from nothing? (Jul '14) 2 hr NoahLovesU 1,259
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr NoahLovesU 14,708
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 3 hr woodtick57 2,848
why? 4 hr Uncle Sam 55
The Consequences of Atheism 6 hr ChristineM 85
Christianity Created Hitler 7 hr thetruth 221
More from around the web