Don't dictate beliefs

[Khatru]

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

You're absolutely right.

Furthermore, Hitler wasn't the only Christian in Germany. In those days the vast majority of the German population were Christians. Those Christians with their mortals and ethics were all that stood between the Jews and annihilation.

When the chips were down, Christianity failed the Jews.

[Khatru]

Reason Personified wrote:

<quoted text> 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...

Lol!

CHRISTAIN

It's catching on!

[Khatru]

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.

The Bible is not frictional?

It certainly rubs a lot of people up the wrong way.

[Khatru]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
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.”

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.

[Khatru]

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.

[Khatru]

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

[Khatru]

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.

[Khatru]

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?

[Givemeliberty]

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!

[derek4]

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...

[derek4]

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...

[derek4]

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!

[derek4]

How School Science Lies
DOUGLAS ALLCHIN
Minnesota Center for the Philosophy of Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis MN
55455, USA; [e-mail]
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

[derek4]

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...

[derek4]

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...

[derek4]

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....

[Chess Jurist]

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.

[Chess Jurist]

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.

[Chess Jurist]

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.

[Khatru]

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.