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
2,421 - 2,440 of 11,175 Comments Last updated Jan 18, 2014

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2534
Oct 7, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
I leave your love of zombies to you.
No, that's definitely your department.

I'm not the one who believes in dead people coming back to life.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2535
Oct 7, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

- Albert Einstein -
The World As I See It

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2537
Oct 7, 2012
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
God teleported people all over the earth changing their skills, nationalities and belief in him? Something later he would damn them for?
Rotflmfao!
<quoted text>
Lol!

What a dumb deity this is.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2538
Oct 7, 2012
 
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>He doesn't know what insects are, and he doesn't know that bats have mammary glands.
Lol

"But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water."

2 PETER 3:5

God thinks our planet was made from water and came out of water?

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2539
Oct 7, 2012
 
In a desperate attempt to get more followers Jesus now has to resort to appearing in a Dog's butthole!

http://christwire.org/2012/07/jesus-christ-ap...

How many Christians are lining up on pilgrimages to eat that version of their savior? Lmfao!!

The owner could charge believers to kiss the dog's butthole or pray to it saying it could only help them get to heaven!
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
If you're a Christian you don't just get to drink the blood of your god - you get to eat him too!
That's batshit crazy!

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2540
Oct 7, 2012
 
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>It most definitely is not in dispute. No mater how you or anyone else tries to spin it, the man himself, said all that needs to be said.
"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so" -- Adolf Hitler
I always like to get the easy posts out of the way first – like yours.

As we all know, what people claim about their belief doesn't reflect the truth. Read all the controversy on the net about our president and his claims to Christianity and you will find how seriously his “claimed” belief in Christianity is accepted.

How do I know you're an atheist? Just because you say you are? That is not evidence (doesn't prove it.) You could be a Hindu posing as an atheist. You could be a Muslim. You could be a phallic worshiper (which wouldn't surprise me).

To be a Christian, one has to meet the Biblical guidelines which are the tenets of our faith and which define us as Christians. Hitler failed to do that, and his claims of Christianity were only made to deceive and endear himself to his people in order to accomplish his godless objectives.

Hitler was not a Christain, nor a Christian, which is indisputable. We can continue to post opposing views for 8 years, and you will get the same answer from me. You're illiterate and ignorant. You're a loser who can't get out of your rut. In summation, you're full of crap.

Was Hitler a Christian?
October 30, 1999

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2541
Oct 7, 2012
 
I Don't Believe in Atheists

September 19, 2010
By Winston Smith

In I Don't Believe in Atheists, Chris Hedges claims that the New Atheists are mistaken in thinking that human nature is perfectible and that a utopian future is possible in which rationality and science can replace religious thought. He says that we should acknowledge that human nature is intrinsically flawed and can never be perfected. He claims that the New Atheists are blaming religion for the problems in the world and that this can lead to a belief that to rid the world of its problems, and achieve a utopian future, we must rid the world of religion. This way of thinking, he says, has dangerous precedents.

Hedges believes that there is place for religious thought in helping us understand the non-rational aspects of existence; that not everything can be explained by science; that the meaning of human existence is ambiguous and ultimately unknowable.

I'm an atheist and I agree with him. Unfortunately, to make this important point, I think he's attributed opinions to people - Dawkins, Harris, Dennet, Hitchens - that they don't necessarily have. There are parts of the book that appear to be non-sequitur arguments. However, I still think this book is well worth reading. It's the third book of his that I've read; the other two are Empire of Illusion and American Fascists, which I think are both worth five stars.
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Believe-Atheists-C...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2542
Oct 7, 2012
 
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe I've ever disagreed with your posts.
They serve to highlight the fact that science is self-correcting and that it will always weed out the frauds and charlatans.
Unlike religion, which opens its arms and embraces deceit and chicanery and continually fails to correct its errors.
Religion always claims an absolute truth at the beginning and then insists that anyone who believes otherwise is evil. By doing that, religion becomes evil itself and thus abandons the path of knowledge that science still treads.
You have no reason to disagree with my posts, because you don't read them, right? You told me you don't plough through the information.[Why do atheists lie?]

No, science is not self correcting. If it was, then they should have corrected the theory of evolution by now. The fact that they have not shows their failure.

And I have posted more links than I can remember where scientists confirm the failure of the peer review system, and how many deaths have come about, and lawsuits due to harmful / disastrous medications which killed thousands – approved by BAD scientists.

I hope you are careful about the medications you take, Khatru. You have given us many smiles along the way, and you're very dear to us. We don't want to lose you!

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2543
Oct 7, 2012
 
How School Science Lies
DOUGLAS ALLCHIN
Minnesota Center for the Philosophy of Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis MN
55455, USA; allchin@pclink.com
School science lies. It lies about Mendelian genetics, the peppered moth, male and female, the motion of a pendulum, the Bohr atom, the fluid model of electricity and many other basic concepts, all due to simplification. Real science relies on domain-specific models and so always lies at some level. Teachers thus need to help students appreciate how science interprets complexity and how to manage with the lies they inevitably learn.

continued:
www.tc.umn.edu/~allch001/papers/lies.pdf

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2544
Oct 7, 2012
 
Betrayers of the Truth

Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science 1982

William Broad & Nicholas Wade

[108] Self-deception is a problem of pervasive importance in science. The most rigorous training in objective observation is often a feeble defense against the desire to obtain a particular result. Time and again, an experimenter's expectation of what he will see has shaped the data he recorded, to the detriment of the truth. This unconscious shaping of results can come about in numerous subtle ways. Nor is it a phenomenon that affects only individuals. Sometimes a whole community of researchers falls prey to a common delusion, as in the extraordinary case of the French physicists and N-rays, or-some would add-American psychologists and ape sign language.

Expectancy leads to self-deception, and self-deception leads to the propensity to be deceived by others. The great scientific hoaxes, such as the Beringer case and the Piltdown man discussed in this chapter, demonstrate the extremes of gullibility to which some scientists may be led by their desire to believe. Indeed, professional magicians claim that scientists, because of their confidence in their own objectivity, are easier to deceive than other people.
http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_expose/be...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2545
Oct 7, 2012
 
This post is dedicated to Khatru, even though she's too busy picking boogers to plough through it:

Scientific journals publish 20,000 fraudulent papers every year
Annalee Newitz
Writing in Nature, science journalist Colin Macilwain exposes a little-known fact about articles published in reputable scientific journals. Every year, 20,000 of them are fraudulent. Scientists fudge their work in these papers about 1% of the time, and it adds up. But now, science institutions are starting to be more skeptical about what their researchers publish, and many countries are pushing for better scientific misconduct investigations.
http://io9.com/5931011/scientific-journals-pu...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2546
Oct 7, 2012
 
From esciencenews:
Fraud and the Decline of Science
Thursday, September 13, 2012 - in Psychology & Sociology

Charles Babbage's accusations of fraudulent science underlined his attack on scientific governance, but were also bitterly personal. Yesterday on this site Alok Jha published a fascinating article on fraud and misconduct in scientific research, suggesting that "bad practice ... is rife" and that its scale is becoming ever-more apparent through the use of software and statistical analyses that flag up suspicious results. These bad practices, which vary in seriousness, are itemised. They include fraud, massaged results, plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, sloppiness, selective publishing, incorrect attribution of work and nondisclosure of conflicts of interest. Jha suggests that "Increasing competition for shrinking government budgets for research and the disproportionately large rewards for publishing in the best journals have exacerbated the temptation to fudge results or ignore inconvenient data". While things may feel pressured today, it made me consider the extent to which, in the past, opportunities and livelihoods might depend on producing good or believable...
http://esciencenews.com/sources/the.guardian....

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2547
Oct 7, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Let's translate: I've nailed this poster twice posting Darwin quotes out of context, but it's not his fault; it's the fault of the lying, apologetic websites he relies on.

Child, if you have to rely on lies to make your myth work, then your myth is just a pack of lies.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2548
Oct 7, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, you'll wait. I'm not interested in researching grammar for you....
Translation: You can't back up your claim.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2549
Oct 7, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Translation: I've nailed this poster twice posting Darwin quotes out of context, but it's not his fault; it's the fault of the lying, apologetic websites he relies on.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2550
Oct 7, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
No, science is not self correcting. If it was, then they should have corrected the theory of evolution by now. The fact that they have not shows their failure.
Ah, I see.

You're one of those people who believe that everything was just magicked into existence?

What I sometimes refer to as the abracadbra method of creation.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2552
Oct 7, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
This post is dedicated to Khatru, even though she's too busy picking boogers to plough through it:
Scientific journals publish 20,000 fraudulent papers every year
Annalee Newitz
Writing in Nature, science journalist Colin Macilwain exposes a little-known fact about articles published in reputable scientific journals. Every year, 20,000 of them are fraudulent. Scientists fudge their work in these papers about 1% of the time, and it adds up. But now, science institutions are starting to be more skeptical about what their researchers publish, and many countries are pushing for better scientific misconduct investigations.
http://io9.com/5931011/scientific-journals-pu...
Not a patch on the untold millions of fake miracles, cures, pieces of the cross, bones of saints, visions of Jesus, Mary, angels, etc, that religion has given us down the centuries.

Science is the best guide to this reality that we have, it's far more accurate than any of the many different holy writings that men claim has been authored by (or inspired by) the creator of the universe.

The success of science has been nothing short of spectacular and you know what? It will go on succeeding.

Remember. Of all the mysteries that science has provided explanations for, none of them have turned out to be magic.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2553
Oct 7, 2012
 
Doctor Who Two wrote:
<quoted text>
"The first explanation concerns the accuracy of biblical measurements. My dictionary defines a "cubit" as "an ancient linear unit based on the length of the forearm, varying in extent, but usually from 17 to 21 inches." This is the elbow to the end of the middle finger. Even taking the midpoint as 19 inches, a diameter of 10 cubits equals 190 inches, which equals nearly 16 feet; the circumference is over 45 feet. This is a big bowl!
I measured my own cubit - with difficulty - and it is about 18 1/2 inches.
But certainly each of our cubits is not identical. Further, measuring a bowl of that size using armlengths is not likely to be precise, especially with circular measurements. Finally, it is not clear that the Biblical text required an exact measurement; a measurement that is rounded to the nearest cubit might have been fine for the purpose. We provide rounded measurements in everyday life all the time: if I ask how old you are, you probably reply with a number rounded to the nearest year, or at best to the nearest half year. And that's fine - I don't need your answer to the second. It is also not clear that the Hebrews knew about fractions. So maybe 30 and 10 and pi = 3 was just fine for the purpose at the time.
Explanation 2
Now consider 1 Kings 7:26
And it was a handbreadth thick; and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, like the flower of a lily; it held two thousand baths.
This suggests that the bowl was not paper-thin; it was a handbreadth thick. My dictionary simply defines a "handbreadth" as "the breadth of the hand - from 2 1/2 to 4 inches." I measured my own handbreadth - thumb to pinky with the hand laid flat, measured perpendicular to the arm - this is also hard to measure, made even harder by how tightly I place my fingers next to each other, but mine is about 4 inches.
But what if the circumference had been measured from the inside of the bowl, and the diameter from outside? Then the diameter of the inside is 10 cubits minus two handbreadths. Using my measurements, the circumference is 30 cubits times 18.5 inches per cubit equals 555 inches, the diameter of the inside is 177 inches: 185 inches (10 cubits times 18.5 inches) minus 8 inches for the two handbreadths. In this case Circumference / Diameter = 555 / 177 = 3.135593 (which is itself rounded), but this is much closer to what we think of us as the true value of pi.
Explanation 3
Rabbi Belaga presents the following explanation: The Hebrew word for line or circumference is written in the Bible as a 3 letter Hebrew word transliterated as kaveh, and whose equivalent English letters are KVH (kof, vav, hei). Yet, that word is read as a 2 letter Hebrew word whose equivalent English letters are KV.
Hebrew letters have numerical values, and the letters in question have values kof = 100, vav = 6, and hei = 5. So KVH = 100 + 6 + 5 = 111, and KV = 100 + 6 = 106. The ratio of KVH to KV is 111/106, which when multiplied by the value of 3 that was implied by 1 Kings 7:23, gives 3.141509 (rounded), which is again pretty close to pi.
See http://www.math.ubc.ca/people/faculty/israel/...
Notes:
The Bible reference is to The Holy Scriptures, According to the Masoretic Text, The Jewish Publication Society of America. 1917."
http://jerry.praxisiimath.com/pi.html
God isn't real, stop lying to intelligent atheists who've proven you wrong about Creationism already.
Amused

Lowell, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2554
Oct 7, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
Scientific fraud data from: National Institutes of Health:
“James H. Freisheim, Ph.D., Medical College of Ohio. An inquiry and
an investigation conducted by the University found that Dr. Freisheim
had submitted a research grant application to the National Institutes
of Health which contained substantial portions plagiarized from
another scientist"s grant application. Dr. Freisheim had served as
an assigned reviewer of the other scientist"s application when it was
reviewed about two years earlier by an NIH Study Section. During the
inquiry, Dr. Freisheim produced a handwritten draft of the
plagiarized material that he claimed he had written before the other
scientist had submitted his grant application, and that therefore the
other scientist had plagiarized Dr. Freisheim"s work. The
investigation reviewed the handwritten draft and concluded that it
had been written much later than purported by Dr. Freisheim, possibly
during the inquiry to establish the basis for his defense. The
investigation also concluded that Dr. Freisheim had plagiarized
material for two post-doctoral fellowship applications to the NIH.
The ORI concurred in the University"s findings, and Dr. Freisheim has
been debarred from receiving Federal grant or contract funds for a
period of three years beginning May 5, 1993. He has also been
required, for a ten year period beginning May 5, 1993, to certify
that future applications for research support submitted to the PHS
are his own work, and he has been prohibited from serving on PHS
Advisory Committees or review groups for the same period.
Judy Guffee, University of Miami. An investigation conducted by the
University found that Ms. Guffee had fabricated data in a research
project that was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of
Health. Ms. Guffee admitted to falsifying the labeling of solutions
alleged to contain polyclonal antiserum, when in fact she filled the
tubes with fetal calf serum. The investigation concluded that this
was done to hide the fact that the animal preparation used to
generate the polyclonal antiserum had died before large quantities of
antiserum could be produced. Records indicating collection of large
quantities of serum from the animal over a two-year period were also
fabricated. ORI concurred in the University"s finding and has
required, for a five year period beginning January 7, 1993, that she
and the institution submit a certification with any PHS fellowship or
grant application or contract proposal prepared by her attesting to
the accuracy of the statements therein.”
And many more:
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-fil...
Why, yes, it is true, scientists are indeed human. In any large group of human beings, there will be a range of qualities. Some folks will be honest, some not. Just like in a large sample of priests, there will be some child molesters, or among preachers there will be the occasional Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, etc. The important message from the stories you re-posted is that due to the rigor of the scientific method, people who falsify data or otherwise use bad science GET CAUGHT. The use of peer review and other fact checking mechanisms which are an inherent part of the scientific method protect the integrity of the research. In contrast to religion, which uses no method to fact check claims of invisible men in the sky.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2555
Oct 7, 2012
 
Doctor Who Two wrote:
<quoted text>
"The first explanation concerns the accuracy of biblical measurements. My dictionary defines a "cubit" as "an ancient linear unit based on the length of the forearm, varying in extent, but usually from 17 to 21 inches." This is the elbow to the end of the middle finger. Even taking the midpoint as 19 inches, a diameter of 10 cubits equals 190 inches, which equals nearly 16 feet; the inches: 185 inches (10 cubits times 18.5 inches) minus 8 inches for the two handbreadths. In this case Circumference / Diameter = 555 / 177 = 3.135593 (which is itself rounded), but this is much closer to what we think of us as the true value of pi.
Explanation 3
Rabbi Belaga presents the following explanation: The Hebrew word for line or circumference is written in the Bible as a 3 letter Hebrew word transliterated as kaveh, and whose equivalent English letters are KVH (kof, vav, hei). Yet, that word is read as a 2 letter Hebrew word whose equivalent English letters are KV.
Hebrew letters have numerical values, and the letters in question have values kof = 100, vav = 6, and hei = 5. So KVH = 100 + 6 + 5 = 111, and KV = 100 + 6 = 106. The ratio of KVH to KV is 111/106, which when multiplied by the value of 3 that was implied by 1 Kings 7:23, gives 3.141509 (rounded), which is again pretty close to pi.
See http://www.math.ubc.ca/people/faculty/israel/...
Notes:
The Bible reference is to The Holy Scriptures, According to the Masoretic Text, The Jewish Publication Society of America. 1917."
http://jerry.praxisiimath.com/pi.html
I was wondering whether you frequent a website called "Answers in Genesis"

I know that many believers do.

Here's what it has to say about the length of a day...

"Some creationists (especially progressive creationists) believe that the days listed in Genesis 1 are not ordinary 24-hour days, but are periods of varying length (depending on the practitioner). This allows them to make the creation account fit with secular ideas about the age of the universe. After all, the word day has several meanings even in English (as it does in the original Hebrew).

However, the account in Genesis is emphatic that the creation week consisted of six consecutive 24-hour periods, qualifying this with “morning/evening” and ordinal numbers (first, second, etc.). In fact, this was the general understanding of the account until recent times, when anti-biblical ideas crept into the church."

The Bible is unambiguous when it gives the ratio of the circumference of the circle to its diameter as 3.

All these explanations do is to try and convince the reader that the plain meaning of the text is not the obvious one.

If the Bible doesn't really mean what it says in this scripture then it can be just as misleading in other scriptures.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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) 5 min Aura Mytha 226,148
Should Uninformed Opinion Be Respected? 44 min Tuco Blondie 7
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 1 hr USN Atheist 32
100% Faith Free 3 hr religionislies 7
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 3 hr religionislies 21,490
Our world came from nothing? 6 hr NightSerf 395
Atheists that tout free thinking use bully tact... 11 hr NightSerf 6
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••