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

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#2741 Oct 9, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
Faith may not move mountains, but we have all seen what it can do to skyscrapers.
Note the failed attempt to link Christians to 911.

What jerk. But if course we all know how low atheist will go.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#2742 Oct 9, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
"There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That's perfectly all right; they're the aperture to finding out what's right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny." ~ Carl Sagan
There are many quotes attributed to Mr. Sagan which are worthy. This isn't one of them, since it's based on a huge misconception of his, which you share.

The self-correcting (peer review) system has failed us. I have made many posts about this which you willfully ignore. One of them says,“the self-regulating peer review system suffers from serious underlying defects.”

“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/

And this from:

“Deception and Fraud in the Publication of Scientific Research: Are There Solutions?”
found within the text:
“... existing peer review systems probably cannot detect anything but the most obvious fraud.”
http://scholarworks.umass.edu/intljssw/vol1/i...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#2743 Oct 9, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Note the failed attempt to link Christians to 911.
What jerk. But if course we all know how low atheist will go.
Yes, that's atheist "honesty" for you, lol.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#2744 Oct 9, 2012
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do Christians lie?
I wouldn't know. Find one who lied and ask them.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#2745 Oct 9, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
Faith may not move mountains, but we have all seen what it can do to skyscrapers.
On these Atheist threads I feel like Gallagher in a watermelon field!

It's Atheist bashing time!

97.7% of the world population, that's Billions!! You've lost Billions of your faith and then you seat there and think your the smart ones. Many of the smartest people on earth are Theist

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#2746 Oct 9, 2012
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Bam!
Bam? As in bang, shot 'ya?......lmao.

Right, I agree with you - even if it wasn't a complete sentence, and even if it was gramatically incorrect – what the heck, as long as it conveys the right message, it's okay by me, lol!!!

So - thanks for shooting down the Hedonist quote from Sagan, lol. It was full of crap, just as your posts usually are.

The self-correcting (peer review) system has failed us. I have made many posts about this which you willfully ignore. One of them says,“the self-regulating peer review system suffers from serious underlying defects.”

“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/

And this from:

“Deception and Fraud in the Publication of Scientific Research: Are There Solutions?”
found within the text:
“... existing peer review systems probably cannot detect anything but the most obvious fraud.”
http://scholarworks.umass.edu/intljssw/vol1/i...

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#2747 Oct 9, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>Saying evolution is a fraud is the best you people can do.

Unfortunately for you, there is no scientific evidence you have for your abracadbra alternative. Contrast that with the wealth of evidence that exists for evolution.

This leaves you in the sad and unenviable position of trying to cheapen science by attempting to get it down to the gutter-level of your religion.
"In an attempt to further their careers and justify the claims that evolution is a legitimate theory, many scientists have fraudulently deceived the world by planting or reconstructing fossils which they would claim to be authentic finds. The most widely published evolution fraud was committed in China in 1999, and published in in the National Geographic"

http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#2748 Oct 9, 2012
From Science Insider:

Harvard Psychology Researcher Committed Fraud, U.S. Investigation Concludes

story here:
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/201...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#2749 Oct 9, 2012
From SciLogs:

Dawn of the Replications

16 September 2012 by Suzi Gage

A worrying wave of misconduct revelations is currently sweeping science (see this excellent article by Alok Jha for an overview, and Neuroskeptic’s 9 circles of scientific hell). Psychology seems to have borne the brunt of these thus far, but it’s unlikely to only be a problem there. A number of great suggestions as to how science can get its house in order and improve the quality of research have been suggested recently, in particular by Chris Chambers and Petroc Sumner, in this Guardian article. I’m going to focus on one of their suggestions; how it’s currently problematic, and how it can be improved.

continued here:
http://www.scilogs.com/sifting_the_evidence/d...

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#2750 Oct 9, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>Nope

The problem is that the god of the Bible is a terrible communicator.

The CEO of any company needs to communicate effectively with his people. If a company is in a mess and people aren't getting the message then the buck stops with the CEO.

Why should an omniscient god be wholly exonerated of blame when he fails to ensure that his message is clearly understood? You've only got to look at the numerous different bibles that are out there to see that whatever the god of the Christians thinks, he doesn't seem too perturbed about the confused message he's sending out. Factor that in with thousands of different Christian denominations, sects and cults, all sure that their particular interpretation of whatever bible they choose to read is the true belief and you have a recipe for confusion.
"The problem is that the god of the Bible is a terrible communicator"

An atheist who criticize the actions of something he doesn't believe exist.

D O L T

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#2751 Oct 9, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>Have you calmed down a little from yesterday?

I think you have.

I guess those telepathic conflabs with your imaginary zombie have helped you after all.

Now then, wetpants:

I quoted 1 Kings, 7:23

"And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

----------

Now we'll do it your way:

Here's 1 Kings 7:22-24

"22 And upon the top of the pillars was lily work: so was the work of the pillars finished.

23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

24 And under the brim of it round about there were knops compassing it, ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about: the knops were cast in two rows, when it was cast."

Go on then.

What's the difference?

Even doing it your way doesn't change the fact that the Bible gives a ratio of 3 for Pi.

Give it up, wetpants - the Bible says Pi = 3 and no amount of screaming and false claims from you can change that fact.
I'll let you reread this maybe like the 10 or 11 time you might get it.
Then again most likely not.
After all you keep criticizing the actions of something you are suppose to believe doesn't exist.
And then there is the 97.7% EX members of you faith.

Dude your down below 2.5% of the population. 2.3%!!!!

"Since circumference = PI x diameter as any elementary geometry book will tell you, therefore the Bible "seemingly" tells us that PI = 3. Since "this is obviously false, therefore the Bible cannot be from God..." is how some people like to reason.

But obviously the wisdom of God is greater than the wisdom of man:

In this verse the word for "circumference" (QaVa in Hebrew) is written with an extra letter (qavah).

Since in Hebrew all letters are also numbers, we can take the ratio of (the gematriacal value of) the unusual word form (qof, vaf, he ) to the regular word form (qof, vaf). Given that Qof = 100, Vaf = 6 and He = 5 we find that

( 111 / 106 )=( 3.14150943.../ 3 )

The real value: PI = 3.1415926...

The difference between 3 x 111/106 and PI is 0.0000832 which is only an error of 0.00026%.

It is interesting to compare the "Solomonic" approximation of PI with the approximations used by the Babylonians and Egyptians.

PI = 3.1415926... Error

Babylon : 3 1/8 = 25/8 = 3.125 0.0165926
Egypt : 3 13/81 = 256/81 = 3.16049382... 0.0189012
"Solomon": 333/106 = 3.14150943... 0.0000832
Since the ancient Egyptian or Babylonian approximations are much older than the time of Solomon it might be interesting find out what the usually used approximation of PI was at that time (Solomon was King around 1000 B.C.) in this or other parts of the world. Any helpful information on this question would be very much appreciated."

http://www.answering-islam.org/Religions/Nume...

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#2752 Oct 9, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>Absolutely - it's hilarious.

Actually, it has a dual purpose.

You already know about its comedy aspect but the other point is that it's there to wind you up.

Looks like it did just that.
No it didn't wind me up I just found it disgusting, something only a worm head could enjoy.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#2755 Oct 9, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
"There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That's perfectly all right; they're the aperture to finding out what's right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny." ~ Carl Sagan
""There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong"

This should read:

"There are many scientist in the world which are totally wrong about evolution"

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#2756 Oct 9, 2012
“What I realized was quite stunning. According to Websters Dictionary online (2012), one of the definitions of ‘religion’ is:“a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”

[see definition #4, here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rel... ]

"This definition can apply to the organization Freedom from Religion! The Faith that a group like Freedom from Religion practices is the cause, principle or system of beliefs that there is no God. Think about this a moment. A group with a common belief system that there is no God! Talk about hypocrisy! In their quest to secularize America, they haven’t figured out at Freedom from Religion that they are in essence a religion itself. Unfortunately, without historical references to any religion, this secular group probably has no clue on why radical Islam practices the hatred of infidels, in other words, terrorism.”
http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blogs/...

Atheists hold to a cause (their position of atheism), principle, or system of beliefs with ardor (which means enthusiasm or passion)... and they hold to a faith in the scientific evidence which they believe proves evolution, rather than holding to faith in God. Therefore, the atheist position lines up with the definition of religion, regardless of their claims to the contrary.

Since: Mar 11

Florence, KY

#2757 Oct 9, 2012
Today the news came out and it seems a large amount of Americans age 30 and under are now completely non religious wanting nothing to do with it. 30% I believe. The highest ever in the US.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#2758 Oct 9, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn't know. Find one who lied and ask them.
I have found one. But it looks as though it will take awhile for it to sink into you thick skull.

But it eventually will.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#2759 Oct 10, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Bam? As in bang, shot 'ya?......lmao.
Right, I agree with you - even if it wasn't a complete sentence, and even if it was gramatically incorrect –...
But it wasn't "gramatically" incorrect, though your spelling of grammatically was incorrect.

As many style guides point out, fragments are fine in the hands of seasoned writers:
Myth Buster wrote:
<quoted text>
There’s no rule for this. Sometimes a fragment is the perfect way to express your thought. Other times, it’s just a distraction or a stumbling block to the reader. Don’t force it. This is a matter of a good ear.
http://blog.writeathome.com/index.php/2012/04...

And to that I say, "Bam!"

Fool.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#2760 Oct 10, 2012
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
But it wasn't "gramatically" incorrect, though your spelling of grammatically was incorrect.
As many style guides point out, fragments are fine in the hands of seasoned writers:
<quoted text>
http://blog.writeathome.com/index.php/2012/04...
And to that I say, "Bam!"
Fool.
Bam!

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#2761 Oct 10, 2012
Wasn't Crick running around here lying about court quotes?

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#2762 Oct 10, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Athiest is a Religion.
You must believe with out proof that God does not exist.
Believe with out proof is faith.
The dictionary says the word Religion can be substituted for the word Faith.
So you are here Preaching your religion.
Does that mean I'm also a Unicornian and a Leprechauniast too - because I don't think they are real either...

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 vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns 9 min Patrick 47
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 12 min CunningLinguist 227,462
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 52 min CunningLinguist 22,196
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 4 hr Patrick 925
Stump a theist with 2 questions 7 hr Patrick 26
An atheist returns to Christ (Jan '09) 9 hr True Christian wi... 4,086
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 20 hr Patrick 189
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••