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
2,441 - 2,460 of 11,175 Comments Last updated Jan 18, 2014

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2556
Oct 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You failed again.

The Darwin quote I posted is a stand alone quote exactly as I posted it on links all over the internet, not just the link I included with my post.

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. Or, you can do nothing at all. It makes me no difference, since I have no interest in your objections to web page content.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2557
Oct 7, 2012
 
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
This is a re-post:
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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2558
Oct 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation: You can't back up your claim.
I will try to help you with your grammar, which will undoubtedly be a pointless exercise.

The dash is used as a separation mark in a sentence. It is unnecessary to use two dashes, nor were any examples found where two dashes were used TOGETHER (consecutively) to serve their purpose in a sentence. You used two dashes together in the sentence which we posted back and forth to each other about. Here is your sentence which you continue to defend:“And, yes, your fascination with -- and reliance on -- dishonesty has already been noted.”[You used two dashes after the word with and two dashes after the word on.]

Why would you put two dashes together? Do you feel more comfortable going against the grain of standard grammatical use of the dash? Do you feel two dashes were necessary instead of one? Why? How do two dashes and then two more in the same sentence accomplish anything more than if you had just used one dash in each place?

This from Wiki:
“How to Use a Dash in an English Sentence”
http://www.wikihow.com/Use-a-Dash-in-an-Engli...

This from Harvard:
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~wricntr/documents...

The burden of providing a link authorizing two dashes as you used them is up to you. Since no link has been found stating it is acceptable to use them as you did, it is assumed to be incorrect.

If you can find a reputable grammar source which supports your use of double dashes, you are welcome to post it and I will extend my apology. Until and unless you do, then your sentence is wrong, since the grammar links I see do not show any examples authorizing the use of double dashes together.

If you wish to continue rephrasing your dispute, but you have no link to support your misuse of the dash, I will not address this with you again. Expect no further reply from me on this issue.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2559
Oct 7, 2012
 
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You hit your reply button, but your comment has no relevance to my post. Get back to me if you would like to post a relevant comment - otherwise, I assume you were practicing your typing skills. You did fine. I see no misspellings.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2560
Oct 7, 2012
 
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Yeah, and the cops in your neighborhood catch all the robbers, lol.

“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/

And read here:

existing peer review systems probably cannot detect anything but the most obvious fraud. In addition to imposing or perpetuating stringent review protocols, journals also can amend author guidelines to speak explicitly about publishing requirements. Cases of properly documented fraud warrant immediate public announcement, followed by official withdrawal or retraction. Reflection on these issues led editors of one journal to institute changes in editorial policies and develop a code of ethics for authors, reviewers, and editors. Prevention of dishonest research is already difficult, and we should ensure that this remains the case. Editors should formally commit reviewers/authors to ethical conduct in technical publications prior to publication and review.
http://scholarworks.umass.edu/intljssw/vol1/i...

Also, you might want to pass along your condescending and patronizing remarks to someone else rather than me. Try the families of all the people who have died from medications deemed safe by corrupt research scientists who were paid off by the drug companies, lol.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2561
Oct 7, 2012
 
What's So Great About Christianity

Is it reasonable to have faith in God? Can intelligent, educated people really believe what the Bible says? Or do the atheists have it right—has Christianity been disproven by science and discredited as a guide to morality? Best-selling author Dinesh D'Souza (The Enemy at Home; What's So Great about America) responds head-on to the anti-God arguments of prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens and defeats them on their own terms. What's So Great about Christianity provides believers with a straightforward tool kit for meeting the challenge of modern atheism and secularism; for nonbelievers, it offers a compelling apologetic that will challenge their assumptions and affirm that there really is something great about Christianity.
http://books.google.com/books/about/What_s_So...

“ defeats them on their own terms....”(lol)

About the author
“A former policy analyst in the Reagan White House, D'Souza also served as John M. Olin Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and the Robert and Karen Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Dartmouth College in 1983.”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2562
Oct 7, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, and the cops in your neighborhood catch all the robbers, lol.
“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/
And read here:
existing peer review systems probably cannot detect anything but the most obvious fraud. In addition to imposing or perpetuating stringent review protocols, journals also can amend author guidelines to speak explicitly about publishing requirements. Cases of properly documented fraud warrant immediate public announcement, followed by official withdrawal or retraction. Reflection on these issues led editors of one journal to institute changes in editorial policies and develop a code of ethics for authors, reviewers, and editors. Prevention of dishonest research is already difficult, and we should ensure that this remains the case. Editors should formally commit reviewers/authors to ethical conduct in technical publications prior to publication and review.
http://scholarworks.umass.edu/intljssw/vol1/i...
Also, you might want to pass along your condescending and patronizing remarks to someone else rather than me. Try the families of all the people who have died from medications deemed safe by corrupt research scientists who were paid off by the drug companies, lol.
Why not condense your 6 posts of lying retarded Creationist bullsh*t into 1 post?

Do you really think we're going to get converted to your cult by mere exposure to your bullsh*t?

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2563
Oct 7, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
You hit your reply button, but your comment has no relevance to my post. Get back to me if you would like to post a relevant comment - otherwise, I assume you were practicing your typing skills. You did fine. I see no misspellings.
It wasn't intended to be relevant to your post - it was my observation of how you prefer to ignore the scientific in favour of magic.

Evolution is a fact - get used to it.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2564
Oct 7, 2012
 
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation: You can't back up your claim.
By the way,I've been meaning to ask you something. Since you enjoy using two dashes side by side, why don't you put two commas side by side in your sentences, and two periods at the end of your sentences? You could start your own style, and teach Harvard a few things!(lol)

I'm telling you, it would be a great idea for you to apply for a job as editor of a scientific journal where fraudulent scientists post material. You're a joke, just like they are.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2565
Oct 7, 2012
 
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
It wasn't intended to be relevant to your post - it was my observation of how you prefer to ignore the scientific in favour of magic.
Evolution is a fact - get used to it.
If you wish to post a new idea (even though you're incapable of having new ideas) or if you wish to post something which does not address the post to which you are replying, you need to start a new post. That is how forums work.

I have no interest in the fraud of evolution, nor your support of fraudulent scientists.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2566
Oct 7, 2012
 
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not condense your 6 posts of lying retarded Creationist bullsh*t into 1 post?
Do you really think we're going to get converted to your cult by mere exposure to your bullsh*t?
I generally use scientific sources to support the evidence on scientific fraud, and well documented articles from the New York Times, Washington Post, Wikipedia, etc., which I'm sure you discard as creationist web pages, due to your stupidity and unwillingness to read the facts.

No, I don't expect morons like you to convert.

You will see more facts of frauds and misconduct of science. So get used to it, or leave the forum, as many other losing atheists have done. The choice is all yours, lol.

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...

Many Scientists Admit to Misconduct
From: The Washington Post
More than 5 percent of scientists answering a confidential questionnaire admitted to having tossed out data because the information contradicted their previous research or said they had circumvented some human research protections.
... more than 15 percent admitted they had changed a study's design or results to satisfy a sponsor, or ignored observations because they had a "gut feeling" they were inaccurate.
"... fraud cases are explosive and can be very damaging to public trust," Martinson said. "But these other kinds of things can be more corrosive to science, especially since they're so common."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2567
Oct 7, 2012
 
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not condense your 6 posts of lying retarded Creationist bullsh*t into 1 post?
Do you really think we're going to get converted to your cult by mere exposure to your bullsh*t?
Nothing will be condensed for your convenience. The only condensing that I do is to fit a post into the alloted space. If anything, I will post more, not less. So, get used to it. I'm a fixture here.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2568
Oct 7, 2012
 
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Study your Bible.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2569
Oct 7, 2012
 
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not condense your 6 posts of lying retarded Creationist bullsh*t into 1 post?
Do you really think we're going to get converted to your cult by mere exposure to your bullsh*t?
You really have nothing of value to offer us - no contribution to make to the forum. You're just an airhead. That's what I thought, and I was right.

“God=Registered Sex Offender!”

Since: Jul 12

Wylie, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2572
Oct 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
And most human confuse atheist with Satanic worshipers. Oh never mind, I guess their correct with that one.
I thought all you Mormons had died in Waco. Fake Christians like you are closer to the Devil than the atheists. It's easier to convert an atheist to the ONE TRUE God who inseminated Bethlehem's jizz rag, Mary, when she opened her legs to a glorious impregnation, than it is to get a MORMON to take off his occult MORMON magic underwear or as they call it: temple undergarments.

FAKE Christians like you believe all sorts of heresy. If you read the King James PROTESTANT Bible, you'll see that salvation isn't about believing in "GOD", it's about believing in the RIGHT GOD: Yahwehjesuspigeon. Yahwehjesuspigeon, the triune God, has NOTHING to do with filthy sects like the Mormons/Morons, Cathylicks, E-piss-co-pay-lians or other pseudo-religions. Hell, Josy Smith gave you the Other Testament of Jesus Christ. We sure did need that, didn't we? I guess it's mentioned somewhere in the Gospel of John where Jesus says,“Oh, and by the way, you'll be really excited to know that I've got another Testament to give you all!” And all his followers were like,“Great news, Jesus, can you tell us what it is?” And Jesus said,“Well, that's the thing, it's not going to be made available to you’all for another two-thousand years.” And they all were like,“Two-thousand more years? What good is that gonna do us?” And Jesus said something like,“You know? You're right, it's not gonna do you any good. In fact, I’ll be seein’ ya, I got better things to do till then.” And the followers said,“But, what about us?” And Jesus shrugged his shoulders and said,“Well, tough luck, I guess.”

Abandon your heresy, believe in the RIGHT GOD and be SAVED!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2574
Oct 7, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
You have failed to show me your claim of me stealing someone else's work.
So I must file that in the super huge file labeled atheist lies.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t0...
"Fulfilled Prophecies
The remarkable evidence of fulfilled prophecy is just one case in point. Hundreds of Bible prophecies have been fulfilled, specifically and meticulously, often long after the prophetic writer had passed away.
For example, Daniel the prophet predicted in about 538 BC (Daniel 9:24-27) that Christ would come as Israel's promised Savior and Prince 483 years after the Persian emperor would give the Jews authority to rebuild Jerusalem, which was then in ruins.

This was clearly and definitely fulfilled, hundreds of years later.
I don't think so. Biblical prophecy is very unimpressive, especially compared to scientific prophecy. The characteristics of prophecy that would convince a skeptic :

It would need to be specific - that is, detailed and unambiguous. The highest quality prophecy specifies the time and place.

It needs to prophecy something surprising, something unlikely or unique, something that could not have been contrived, and was not self-fulfilling.

And the prophecies need to be verified, fulfilled completely, predict something that definitely occurred subsequently, and unaccompanied by failed prophecies.

Scientific prophecy is the only known prophecy to meet these exacting standards. Do you know the story of Eddington and the eclipse? Einstein's theory predicted that gravity would bend light, a previously unsuspected truth. He predicted that starlight grazing close to the edge of the sun on the way from its star to the earth would be bent by the sun as it passed close to it, making the star appear to be a little out of position. That is, it would appear to be a little further from the sun than it was known to be.

But you cant see stars right beside the sun in broad daylight - unless the sun is eclipsed and darkness appears midday. Eddington arranged to photograph a total solar eclipse, and a star that was known to be in a position that should cause it appear to be right beside the sun, to see if its apparent position was altered by gravity.

From Wiki : "Einstein became the first to calculate the correct value for light bending. The first observation of light deflection was performed by noting the change in position of stars as they passed near the Sun on the celestial sphere. "The observations were performed in 1919 by Arthur Eddington and his collaborators during a total solar eclipse, so that the stars near the Sun could be observed.

"Observations were made simultaneously in the cities of Sobral, Ceará, Brazil and in São Tomé and Príncipe on the west coast of Africa. The result was considered spectacular news ... It made Einstein and his theory of general relativity world famous.

"When asked by his assistant what his reaction would have been if general relativity had not been confirmed ... Einstein said "Then I would feel sorry for the dear Lord. The theory is correct anyway."

Then there's the Higgs boson. The prophets said that if one looked at a specific energy level in a specific way, that one would find it there. So well respected were these prophets that several billion Euros were allocated to building the LHC. And lo and behold, a new particle was born unto us.

The church would be shouting to high heaven over fulfilled prophecy of that quality if it had any. Scientists don't. It was just another day.

“Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science?”- Carl Sagan

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2575
Oct 7, 2012
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Speaking of Noah could you imagine the happy day when his granddaughter gave birth to an Eskimo?
That's pretty funny.

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2576
Oct 7, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
You failed again.
The Darwin quote I posted is a stand alone quote exactly as I posted it on links all over the internet....
....
Repeating your dishonesty just makes you more dishonest, child.

The actual Darwin quote is here:

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

Lying for Jesus is just lying. Lying for Jesus repeatedly may require professional intervention.

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2577
Oct 7, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a re-post:
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: If Christians repeat the lie enough, it must be true.

The actual text:
Darwin wrote:
<quoted text>You seemed to have worked admirably on the species question; there could not have been a better plan than reading up on the opposite side. I rejoice profoundly that you intend admitting the doctrine of modification in your new edition;* nothing, I am convinced, could be more important for its success. I honour you most sincerely. To have maintained in the position of a master, one side of a question for thirty years, and then deliberately give it up, is a fact to which I much doubt whether the records of science offer a parallel. 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. Now I look at it as morally impossible that investigators of truth, like you and Hooker, can be wholly wrong, and therefore I rest in peace. Thank you for criticisms, which, if there be a second edition, I will attend to. I have been thinking that if I am much execrated as an atheist, etc., whether the admission of the doctrine of natural selection could injure your works; but I hope and think not, for as far as I can remember, the virulence of bigotry is expended on the first offender, and those who adopt his views are only pitied as deluded, by the wise and cheerful bigots.
Darwin, Charles, Darwin, Francis, ed., Selected Letters on Evolution and Origin of Species (Courier Dover Publications' 1958 edition), pp. 224-5.

Why do Christians lie?

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2578
Oct 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
I will try to help you with your grammar, which will undoubtedly be a pointless exercise....
It is pointless because you don't know the difference between an en and an em dash.
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
.....
The dash is used as a separation mark in a sentence. It is unnecessary to use two dashes, nor were any examples found where two dashes were used TOGETHER (consecutively) to serve their purpose in a sentence. You used two dashes together in the sentence which we posted back and forth to each other about. Here is your sentence which you continue to defend:“And, yes, your fascination with -- and reliance on -- dishonesty has already been noted.”[You used two dashes after the word with and two dashes after the word on.]
Why would you put two dashes together? Do you feel more comfortable going against the grain of standard grammatical use of the dash? Do you feel two dashes were necessary instead of one? Why? How do two dashes and then two more in the same sentence accomplish anything more than if you had just used one dash in each place?
This from Wiki:
“How to Use a Dash in an English Sentence”
http://www.wikihow.com/Use-a-Dash-in-an-Engli...
This from Harvard:
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~wricntr/documents...
The burden of providing a link authorizing two dashes as you used them is up to you. Since no link has been found stating it is acceptable to use them as you did, it is assumed to be incorrect.
If you can find a reputable grammar source which supports your use of double dashes, you are welcome to post it and I will extend my apology. Until and unless you do, then your sentence is wrong, since the grammar links I see do not show any examples authorizing the use of double dashes together.
If you wish to continue rephrasing your dispute, but you have no link to support your misuse of the dash, I will not address this with you again. Expect no further reply from me on this issue.
See what I mean? Now, I recommend you learn the difference between an en and an em dash, for which the "double hyphen (--) is sometimes used" according to Dummies.com , which seems most apropos for someone who doesn't know the difference:

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/using-e...

Dummy.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

5 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
If Christianity were true... 21 min Thinking 121
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 26 min Thinking 225,513
Hollywood Actor Reveals What He Thinks Is 'Weir... 37 min Thinking 98
Richard Dawkins jumps yet another shark 39 min Thinking 30
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 2 hr NightSerf 131
HELL real or not? (Sep '13) 6 hr NightSerf 285
Our world came from nothing? 6 hr nanoanomaly 352
•••
•••