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 (Page 138)

Showing posts 2,741 - 2,760 of11,219
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2847
Oct 10, 2012
 
Likelihood of False-Positive Results in High-Impact Journals Publishing Groundbreaking Research

A recent editorial in this journal has brought retracted science to the fore and provided the “retraction index” as a novel measure of frequency of such articles. In their analysis using this measure, the authors found that the probability of retraction of an article published in a higher-impact journal is greater than that published in a lower-impact journal. This is intriguing and in accordance with data previously published on a retraction tracking website ( http://pmretract.heroku.com ). Here, we would like to point out that apart from various reasons outlined in the editorial, including higher readership and scrutiny, simple Bayesian logic also predicts that the articles published in high-impact journals stand a higher chance of incorporating false-positive results and thereby are more likely to be retracted.

In our understanding of publishing practices, the highest echelon of scientific journals is likely to prioritize publication of extremely novel findings that contradict current thinking; incremental but substantive work that builds upon established facts is more likely to find its way toward respectable but less glamorous society journals.
http://iai.asm.org/content/80/3/1300

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2848
Oct 10, 2012
 
Are you also looking for what church she attends? Effing creepy this one.

Don't be touching those old folks at the nursing home in their swimsuit area ok you freak?

Creepy creepy creepy.
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
If I recall, she's a Baptist, right? I wonder how proud she would be of your godlessness, lol? I'm sure she prays for you.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2849
Oct 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Givemeliberty wrote:
Are you also looking for what church she attends? Effing creepy this one.
Don't be touching those old folks at the nursing home in their swimsuit area ok you freak?
Creepy creepy creepy.
<quoted text>
That is creepy.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2850
Oct 10, 2012
 
What I wrote: "Scientists NEVER have 'faith' in science. Scientists have varying levels of confidence in the results of science in direct proportion to the preponderance of evidence available."

The reply:
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you really think before you wrote this (?):“Scientists NEVER have "faith" in science.”
So they don't believe in their own field of work and knowledge? So they know, as I do, that science and / or the “evidence” is not worthy of faith, confidence, or trust, yet they continue to participate in something which isn't credible? I see. If they have been reading the news stories I've seen, it's little wonder they see it as deeply flawed, therefore not worthy of confidence. Maybe they are catching on.
You apparently have a reading comprehension problem.

.

And on a separate note --
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have expressed extravagant faith in science. You have expressed your faith that the peer review system catches the errors, in spite of the hundreds, if not thousands of scientific articles which say it does not. I've posted maybe a hundred on this very forum which prove my point.
"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

You are just pointing out the science that doesn't survive these standards of evidence and scrutiny. BFD. That is exactly why science is NOT a "faith" based proposition but is instead a question of levels of confidence.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2851
Oct 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you understand the English language? It would appear not.
Religion is not a myth you Dolt!
I often wonder why people believe that nature builds things up when people like you are living proof that humans are slipping further from the perfect that was Adam.
There was a time when people, as their religion, worshipped Zeus and Mars and Athena and so on.

That was their religion.

According to you, religion is not a myth.

So, according to you, the ancient gods Zeus and Mars and Athena are real?

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2852
Oct 11, 2012
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
No, bald is the absence of hair just like atheist is absence of truth. Religion is faith, you believe with out proof that there is no God that is faith / Religion
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.
You are a Preacher of the first church of Apes R Us. It's a small congregation, really small there are 4 time the number of Gays then there are Atheist. The Theist church has about 49 time more people then your church but stay with it you might hold you own and stop losing you congregation.
2.3%. Wow that's pretty low!
On Second thought give it up, you'll never amount to anything.
So, again - according to you - anyone who believes without proof that there are no Unicorns has formed their own little religion (well, a pretty big one in this case...)

Where's the nearest "there aren't any Unicorns" church?

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2853
Oct 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Since I don't know or respect you, I have no interest in what you attribute anything to, much less your opinion of me, lol.
Thanks for confirming to everyone that you are indeed the “laughable atheist” when you dismiss news stories from credible news sources and scientific journals about fraudulent science as “false claims”. At least you wasted no time demonstrating your zero credibility.
When every atheist who has posted in any forum has expressed support and acceptance of the theory of evolution, the ties between the “theory”(science) and atheism are obvious. To deny the correlation is the height of dishonest absurdity – hence:“laughable atheist”(you).
Yes, I imagine you do indeed feel insecure in your false beliefs. So I will leave you to whine in the corner with crackpot poster “it ain't necessarily so”. As he is well aware, I never read or answer his posts – I simply skip over them. I will show you the same courtesy.
You poor thing. I don't know if you are willfully ingnorant, or uneducated to the point of ignorance, but you are certainly very good at building strawmen. I did not dismiss news stories from credible news sources and scientific journals about fraudulent science as “false claims”. I said you made false claims.

Again, even if you could somehow demonstrate that atheism requires the acceptance of evolution(which you cannot), it would not make atheism wrong. Even if you could than somehow prove that evolution is untrue (which you cannot), it would not make any God real. It is obvious that you cannot prove that there is a God, so you build a strawman, and in this case, a strawman that is not even relavent to the discussion.

I don't think you should talk about honesty or credibility. You certainly lack either yourself. Lastly, the fact that you cannot deal with another poster, so you ignore his or her posts, confirms your weak, ineffective position. I have read some of the responses from “it ain't necessarily so”. I can understand why you fear to respond to him/her. He/she has certainly put you on a shelf.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2854
Oct 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
No, bald is the absence of hair just like atheist is absence of truth. Religion is faith, you believe with out proof that there is no God that is faith / Religion
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.
You are a Preacher of the first church of Apes R Us. It's a small congregation, really small there are 4 time the number of Gays then there are Atheist. The Theist church has about 49 time more people then your church but stay with it you might hold you own and stop losing you congregation.
2.3%. Wow that's pretty low!
On Second thought give it up, you'll never amount to anything.
100% of babies born to theist parents, are atheist.

100%.... we didn't lose them, we never had them, they are atheist at birth. That means without theism, it does not mean non believer, even those infants are non believers too.

Being the children of theist, they will be indoctrinated to whatever invisible magic friend mind fantasy their parents play at.

There are many thousands of theistic bents, that the theist parents could be indoctrinating their children into. You go ahead and claim them all for the loon side, the worship of any and every god from Achelois to Zeus, from Kali to Beelzebub, they all make up that ever shrinking percentage, they are the vanishing theist.

Once upon a time, all these gods were believed in, and now it's only a tiny percentage, that are left, with even a few believers. >>> godchecker.com

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2855
Oct 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
No, bald is the absence of hair just like atheist is absence of truth. Religion is faith, you believe with out proof that there is no God that is faith / Religion
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.
You are a Preacher of the first church of Apes R Us. It's a small congregation, really small there are 4 time the number of Gays then there are Atheist. The Theist church has about 49 time more people then your church but stay with it you might hold you own and stop losing you congregation.
2.3%. Wow that's pretty low!
On Second thought give it up, you'll never amount to anything.
I have read some of your posts....
Not very impressive. You apppear to be a less intelligent version of Derek(not that he would be considered intelligent by any standard). Is every believer on this thread so incompetent that they can't even hold up their end of a conversation without resorting to purposely misdefining words, and demanding proof that something does NOT exist? I see you have added an appeal to the majority, which of course is a logical fallacy.

If this is the best that the theist world has to offer, atheism should be universally accepted in no time.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2856
Oct 11, 2012
 
Rick Santorum: Evolution Is Used To Promote Atheism

“One of the issues that I always got hammered for was the issue of evolution. I was the guy who actually put words in the No Child Left Behind Act, which was our big education bill that passed back in 2001 or 2002 that reformed the education system. Well, I had an amendment, it’s a great story, I had this language, because what’s taught in our school system as a result of liberal academia, is evolution is an incontrovertible fact. There is no suspicion of it. It is decided science that cannot be questioned. There cannot be any doubts about it. If you have any questions or doubts, it’s trying to inject religion into the science classroom. So it is above reproach.

I obviously don’t feel that way. I think there are a lot of problems with the theory of evolution, and do believe that it is used to promote to a worldview that is anti-theist, that is atheist.”
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/rick-...

“...there are a lot of problems with the theory of evolution, and [I] do believe that it is used to promote to a worldview that is anti-theist, that is atheist.”

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2857
Oct 11, 2012
 
Scientific Fraud, Accountability and Prison: The Curious Saga of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Two years ago, Judy Mikovits and the Whittemore-Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease were triumphant. Mikovits had just published a report inScience pointing to a retrovirus called XMRV as the possible cause of chronic fatigue syndrome, a little-understood illness characterized by debilitating flu-like symptoms that worsen with exertion. A wealthy woman whose daughter has the disease had started the institute in 2007 to study CFS, fibromyalgia, and Gulf War illness—and it wasn’t long before its researchers appeared to have shown they could succeed where two decades of government-led research had produced little.

Best of all for many CFS patients, the work seemed to offer undeniable proof of what they had long hoped to establish: that their disease has a physiological cause, not a psychological one.

But as of mid-November, the XMRV retrovirus research had been discredited and was suspected of being fraudulent; Mikovits sat clad in a blue jumpsuit in a California jail, accused of stealing lab notebooks and computer files from her former employer; the research program at the Whittemore-Peterson Institute was in disarray; and CFS patients were as confused as ever about the source of their illness and how to treat it.
http://www.itsokaytobesmart.com/post/14582350...

[“... research had been discredited and was suspected of being fraudulent; Mikovits sat clad in a blue jumpsuit in a California jail...” LMAO]

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2858
Oct 11, 2012
 
From: The New York Times:

An Unwelcome Discovery

Published: October 22, 2006

On a rainy afternoon in June, Eric Poehlman stood before a federal judge in the United States District Court in downtown Burlington, Vt. His sentencing hearing had dragged on for more than four hours, and Poehlman, dressed in a black suit, remained silent while the lawyers argued over the appropriate sentence for his transgressions. Now was his chance to speak. A year earlier, in the same courthouse, Poehlman pleaded guilty to lying on a federal grant application and admitted to fabricating more than a decade’s worth of scientific data on obesity, menopause and aging, much of it while conducting clinical research as a tenured faculty member at the University of Vermont. He presented fraudulent data in lectures and in published papers, and he used this data to obtain millions of dollars in federal grants from the National Institutes of Health — a crime subject to as many as five years in federal prison. Poehlman’s admission of guilt came after more than five years during which he denied the charges against him, lied under oath and tried to discredit his accusers. By the time Poehlman came clean, his case had grown into one of the most expansive cases of scientific fraud in U.S. history.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/magazine/22...

[“ He presented fraudulent data in lectures and in published papers, and he used this data to obtain millions of dollars in federal grants from the National Institutes of Health.”]

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2859
Oct 11, 2012
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Are you also looking for what church she attends? Effing creepy this one.
Don't be touching those old folks at the nursing home in their swimsuit area ok you freak?
Creepy creepy creepy.
<quoted text>
What's goin' on with you & grannie, lol? Obviously, more than I first thought! Whew! Steamy!

Well, okey dokey - Ya'll have fun.

http://dspads.sitescout.netdna-cdn.com/4600/4...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2860
Oct 11, 2012
 

Judged:

2

Hedonist wrote:
What I wrote: "Scientists NEVER have 'faith' in science. Scientists have varying levels of confidence in the results of science in direct proportion to the preponderance of evidence available."
The reply:
<quoted text>
You apparently have a reading comprehension problem.
.
And on a separate note --
<quoted text>
"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
You are just pointing out the science that doesn't survive these standards of evidence and scrutiny. BFD. That is exactly why science is NOT a "faith" based proposition but is instead a question of levels of confidence.
I really wish atheists didn't think of themselves as laboratory scientists who need to dissect prior comments and reply piecemeal. When you do that, then the next poster replies to YOUR post, it lumps together what YOU wrote in very messy way, causing what you wrote to make even less sense than it did the first time around, lol.

But if it's easier for you to only look at one thing at a time due to your one track mind, by all means, go ahead and post in the way you're most comfortable with, as long as you are aware that your style works to your own disadvantage.

You and other atheists reject Christian sources, but you quote Carl Sagan continually, as though he's your god who we are obliged to accept. I reject him for the same reasons you automatically disqualify Christian opinions. Although I may occasionally use a Christian source, I give you news links and science links --- and you give me Carl Sagan, lol.

You know, I've been wondering if all your thoughts are copy and pastes. For my last 3 posts to you, I have pointed out where you have not only copied and pasted quotes from other well known people, but you presented them without attributing credit to the authors, as though they were your own. When your hand was called on it, you said you weren't aware someone else said it.[ha – sure] Example: the one about faith and mountains, which you should recall quite well.

Have you no original ideas / opinions of your own? You aren't able to think for yourself?

Note your closing remark:“That is exactly why science is NOT a 'faith' based proposition but is instead a question of levels of confidence.”

Then read this:

“Faith: reliance, trust, belief”- Faith, the synonym of confidence:
http://thesaurus.yourdictionary.com/confidenc...

Learn more about your faith.

Learn what it means.

Learn how it is confidence.

You have faith in science, and atheism is your religion.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2861
Oct 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

"Scientific fraud has always been with us. But as stated or suggested by some scientists, journal editors, and a few studies, the amount of scientific 'cheating' has far outpaced the expansion of science itself. According to some, the financial incentives to 'cut corners' have never been greater, resulting in record numbers of retractions from prestigious journals. From the article:'For example, the journal Nature reported that published retractions had increased tenfold over the past decade, while the number of published papers had increased by just 44 percent.”
http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/04/20/22...

“... published retractions had increased tenfold over the past decade.”

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2862
Oct 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Question: "What is the New Atheism?"

Answer: The early 21st century has seen secularism and atheism promoted throughout the Western world with an ever-increasing vigor and militancy. This has led to the emergence of the “new atheists,” notable members of which include best-selling authors such as Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens.

The contention of the new atheists is, obviously, that there is no God. Adherents to the philosophy of new atheism believe that blind, natural forces are responsible for all of reality which we perceive. The new atheists do not restrict themselves to a passive disbelief. Rather, they are actively engaged in admonishing others to follow suit, to declare their non-belief in God, and to take the necessary steps to rid the world of religious belief and practice. As outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins puts it in The God Delusion,“I do everything in my power to warn people against faith itself.”

An ironic feature of the new atheism is its strong faith in the inferiority of having faith. The new atheists erroneously redefine "faith" as an "irrational belief in the absence of evidence." This misrepresentation of the nature of faith is absurd, for faith is not essentially a strong belief in something, but rather the ground of Christian faith is believing in someone—God. A.W. Tozer said,“Faith rests upon the character of God, not upon the demonstration of laboratory or logic.” When one has faith in the character of a person, e.g. a mother or an aircraft pilot, one no longer needs to be skeptical or require strong evidence in respect to any service that he or she renders.

When it comes to things, Christians correctly approach the subject looking for strong evidence, while accepting that some matters may be beyond our current understanding. Indeed, many faith-filled scientists have been at the cutting edge of the scientific enterprise and test the evidence using thorough methods and techniques. The new atheists believe that empirical science is the only path to understanding reality. However, this is erroneous, since the very concept of "scientism" (the view that science is the only way to gain knowledge) is not itself subject to any scientific experiment and ultimately distills to a faith. Faith, far from being an "irrational belief in the absence of evidence," is a decision to reckon as true something that is not visible. Scientism is a metaphysical concept. Thus, the new atheists require faith of some description, even if not in God. Scientism is self-refuting, and thus should not be believed. Scientism could be summed up as the belief that “empirical science is the only way to be sure about anything.” Of course, we might well then ask,“What was the scientific experiment that established that empirical science is the only way to be sure about anything?”
http://www.gotquestions.org/new-atheism.html

“ Thus, the new atheists require faith of some description, even if not in God.”

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2864
Oct 11, 2012
 
From FOX News:

Scientists face four years in prison for failing to predict earthquake

Six Italian scientists and one government official could see four-year prison terms for manslaughter for allegedly downplaying the risk of an earthquake in the town of L'Aquila, Italy, in 2009.

According to prosecutors, the six researchers and the Department of Civil Protection downplayed the likelihood that a series of tremors that hit the city in early 2009 were foreshadowing a larger quake. On April 6, 2009, a magnitude-6.3 earthquake killed 309 city residents.

The trial, which began about a year ago, has worried scientists, who point out that earthquake prediction is not possible. But prosecutors insist that the trial is not about predicting the unpredictable, according to Nature News. During closing arguments on Monday and Tuesday (Sept. 24-25), the prosecution assistant told the courtroom that instead, The prosecution is asking for four-year prison terms for the accused.

Earthquake swarms are notoriously unreliable predictors of future quakes, say seismologists. In 1988, researchers found that about half of large quakes in seismically active areas of Italy were preceded by foreshocks, but only 2 percent of small earthquake clusters predicted a big temblor.

At the controversial March 31 meeting in L'Aquila, earth scientist Enzo Boschi, now a defendant in the case, acknowledged the uncertainty, calling a large earthquake "unlikely," but saying that the possibility could not be excluded. In a post-meeting press conference, however, Department of Civil Protection official Bernardo De Bernardinis, also a defendant, told citizens there was "no danger."

“The trial, which began about a year ago, has worried scientists, who point out that earthquake prediction is not possible.”
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/09/26/ita...

“... the scientists and officials had inadequately assessed the risk of a quake and given deceptive information to the public.”

[Lol - what else is new? They do it all the time.]

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2865
Oct 11, 2012
 
From NBC News:

Renowned scientist faces 16-year prison term

Dutch scientist Marc van Roosmalen’s success at combing the Amazon for new monkey species has earned him international acclaim and recognition as one of the world’s leading biologists. Time magazine named him one of its “Heroes for the Planet.”

Now his work has earned him a more troubling distinction: a nearly 16-year prison sentence. He was jailed in June for nearly two months before a panel of judges freed him on bail Tuesday while he appeals.

Van Roosmalen was convicted of holding an Internet auction for the naming rights of two monkey species he discovered. He planned to use the proceeds to help preserve their habitats. But the court ruled the auction was illegal because van Roosmalen was working at Brazil’s National Institute for Amazon Research at the time of the discoveries and said the naming rights belonged to the government.

Van Roosmalen blames the state’s powerful logging interests and overzealous environmental regulators for orchestrating his conviction and accuses them of trying to discourage scientific investigation.

“They are criminalizing science,” van Roosmalen told The Associated Press in a telephone interview this week from the Amazon city of Manaus.

Scientists have rallied around van Roosmalen, saying the case highlights a growing conflict between scientific research and Brazil’s efforts to protect the Amazon with some of the world’s toughest environmental laws.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20219392/ns/techn...

“Scientists have rallied around van Roosmalen.”

[Yes, they stick up for their own, even when they know he's wrong. We see that a lot among atheists, who are much like fraudulent scientists in the way they think.]

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2866
Oct 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Being the children of theist, they will be indoctrinated to whatever invisible magic friend mind fantasy their parents play at.
So if they are the children of atheists, they will be indoctrinated (by their parents) to the mind fantasy of evolution and godlessness. Right, but, thank God, that indoctrination doesn't always stick. Not all children follow what their godless parents taught them.

William J. Murray is the chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition, a non-profit organization in Washington, D.C., active on issues related to aiding Christians in Islamic and Communist countries.

William Murray is the son of Madalyn Murray O'Hair,[1] a United States atheist activist who came to national attention in Baltimore, Maryland when she filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court of the United States, claiming that compulsory prayer and reading of the Bible in public schools was unconstitutional.

Murray converted to Baptist Christianity in 1980. Learning of his conversion, his atheist mother commented: "One could call this a postnatal abortion on the part of a mother, I guess; I repudiate him entirely and completely for now and all times ... he is beyond human forgiveness." He expressed similarly negative feelings toward his mother in his first book, My Life Without God, in which he wrote: "She was just evil … She misused the trust of people. She cheated children out of their parents' inheritance." Murray also repudiated his mother after her death, saying "I used to ask people to pray for my mother's salvation. I don't do that anymore…. My mother was an evil person." He also blamed her for the death of his daughter and his half-brother, who were murdered at the same time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Murra...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2867
Oct 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

derek4 the failed Creationist trying desperately to spam his religious bullsh*t in the forums.

Prove your god or f*ck off it's been that simple since the dawn of time.

You liars are getting boring this century.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 2,741 - 2,760 of11,219
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••