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
2,761 - 2,780 of 11,175 Comments Last updated Jan 18, 2014

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2886
Oct 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess there's not much chance of Darwin appearing on American banknotes then.
Never mind, we think Darwin is great and he's on our £10 notes.
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/curr...
Well - there you have it - if Darwin's mug is on your bank notes, that's all you need in the UK to prove to you that his theory is indisputable, lol.

I knew you'd find a way to prove beyond a doubt the theory has no flaws.

Thank you for your treasured contribution to the forum.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2887
Oct 11, 2012
 
Wow, that was easy.
Do all the believers on these forums fold up and run away like derek4?

I guess when exposed and cornered, he had no choice.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2888
Oct 11, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
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]
Well that certainly proves God is real..... NOT.

I see you're still enraged, um, I mean engaged in your courageous, losing battle to try and tie atheism to something it's not. How's that working for you? LOL. Getting alot of converts? LOL!

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2889
Oct 11, 2012
 
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess there's not much chance of Darwin appearing on American banknotes then.
Never mind, we think Darwin is great and he's on our £10 notes.
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/curr...
Khatru? After all that nice stuff I said about Darwin, I thought you would thank me.....

What's wrong - "cat got your tongue" - lol?

Of course, you do realize that "In God We Trust" on our currency is the proof God is real you have been looking for.

(The UK just hasn't found out yet - they always were behind.)

Shhhh ...... don't tell anyone, we'll keep it our secret. LMAO

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2891
Oct 11, 2012
 
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...

[20,000 PER YEAR? Gosh, what's wrong with the peer review system?]

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2892
Oct 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you and the laughable atheist come from the same momma? Your lack of common sense, and your manner of expression is about the same - and neither of you contribute anything to the forum except to make jokes of yourselves.
If you're stuck back in time, and you want to worship Zeus and Mars and Athena, feel free to do so – or just keep holding on to your godless faith in science with all it's frauds and misconduct, and embrace your atheistic religion – the choice is all yours, lol.
Coming from someone who thinks atheism is a religion, and tries in vain to tie atheism to science and evolution, while failing to even attempt to prove his God real, I can't see that you have any room to judge anyone else. Basically, you have spent a very long time on this thread, acting like a little, uneducated clown, and haven't proven anything, except that you are an angry believer who has some real obvious security issues.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2893
Oct 11, 2012
 
Misconduct in science

An array of errors

Investigations into a case of alleged scientific misconduct have revealed numerous holes in the oversight of science and scientific publishing

Sept 10th 2011

ANIL POTTI, Joseph Nevins and their colleagues at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, garnered widespread attention in 2006. They reported in the New England Journal of Medicine that they could predict the course of a patient's lung cancer using devices called expression arrays, which log the activity patterns of thousands of genes in a sample of tissue as a colourful picture (see above). A few months later, they wrote in Nature Medicine that they had developed a similar technique which used gene expression in laboratory cultures of cancer cells, known as cell lines, to predict which chemotherapy would be most effective for an individual patient suffering from lung, breast or ovarian cancer.

At the time, this work looked like a tremendous advance for personalised medicine—the idea that understanding the molecular specifics of an individual's illness will lead to a tailored treatment. The papers drew adulation from other workers in the field, and many newspapers, including this one (see article), wrote about them. The team then started to organise a set of clinical trials of personalised treatments for lung and breast cancer. Unbeknown to most people in the field, however, within a few weeks of the publication of the Nature Medicine paper a group of biostatisticians at the MD Anderson Cancer Centre in Houston, led by Keith Baggerly and Kevin Coombes, had begun to find serious flaws in the work.

continued:
http://www.economist.com/node/21528593

"serious flaws in the work."
[How many patients paid for these flaws?]

[How many flaws may have been in Darwin's work? Where were his "peer review(ers)" ?]

[Oh well, he got on the second lowest Bank of England note - that's proof enough he was right, lol.]

[Wasn't Sadaam's picture on the currency in Iraq at one time?- I should research that.]

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2894
Oct 11, 2012
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
They call atheism a religion, and evidence based trust "faith," in an attempt to level the playing field by demeaning them both, which is remarkable in itself.
<quoted text>
That ship has long since sailed.
I have met very few religious people in person who would be so naive as to try to call atheism a religion. It's such an indicator of a misunderstanding of the English language, and indicates a lack of education to the point that most would be too embarrassed to even suggest it. Obviously being behind a keyboard changes all of that for some.

Our poor little Derek obviously has some real deep-seated emotional problems that keep him from having a sense of embarrassment, or even the ability to debate a subject in an intelligent manner. I assume that is why he ran away from you so quickly. He is obviously terrified by anyone who calls him out.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2895
Oct 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no “points”, lmao.
You lose points each time you try to post.
You know why? Because there are no wheels turning in your pointed little head, lol.
There is nothing but a vacant space where your brain should be.
If you want to worship Zeus and Mars and Athena, feel free to do so – or just keep holding on to your godless faith in science with all it's frauds and misconduct, and embrace your atheistic religion – the choice is all yours.
Are you mentally ill in some way? I wasn't talking about science. I was pointing out the lunacy of someone saying "religion is not myth".

Seriously, you're messed up...

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2896
Oct 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
The Christian church has no respect for Americanisms such as church-state separation. Their church only gives lip service to such ideas. Their first four Commandments command religious observance, and exclusively to the Christian god.
Christian philosophy is anti-American in spirit. The models of government are authoritarian: the god over man, and the man of the house over his wife and children. There is no voting in heaven, and their god doesn't take surveys or count hands.
And there are no rights or freedoms in the bible - just the right to obey or burn.
Does anybody really doubt that if the church had the power to enforce its theocratic model that it wouldn't?
Even more so, has that church ever had the authority to burn witches at the stake or impale heretics in the iron maiden and said, "No, that is cruel and barbaric. We refuse to exercise that power"? Of course not.
Fourtunatly we have a constitution that pretty much keeps people like Derek, and longalier, and Rick Santorum, at bay. Of course they have a right to babble on, but that's all. They are the fringe, and are upset because their religion is fading as education becomes better. Education is the enemy of religion, and that is why people like these two knuckle-heads try to dumb down forums like this one. If they can get anyone dumb enough to believe their anti-education babble, they feel they might be able to keep them in the ignorance of the "flock". Hey, maybe that's why the Bible compares followers to sheep. Sheep just mindlessly follow without asking questions(Not the smartest of animals).

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2897
Oct 11, 2012
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
That is part of the value of this exercise. We don't teach the Dereks or Langoliers a thing. Nor do we need to be taught that they are incorrect.
But I think that most skeptics that have not spent time in an environment like this have no idea how damaging their religion really is, or the importance of diminishing its influence from public life.
Just look at the arguments of the Christians posting in this thread, and compare them with those forged from humanist values. Christian philosophy severely deforms psyches, both intellectually and morally, in direct proportion to the degree that informs the individual Christian.
You seem a little surprised by this. The regulars here are not. We are accustomed to it.
Don't we owe it posterity to help diminish this church in any way we can? I don't mean to persecute individual Christians, who are mostly victims of their church as well, but rather, to emphasize the sickness of Christian philosophy, and facilitate its rejection in best sellers, billboards, and message boards like these? Does that matter?
As I mentioned to Derek a few weeks a go, we are posting to people like him, even when we reply to his posts and address him. If Derek and I were the only two people on this thread, he would be alone. Posting to him is a waste of time. We post to one another. I am posting to you, even when I answer him. And my message is that his church is more pernicious than I think you knew.
I am simply amazed at their lack of common sense. They are either living somewhere that does not require schooling, or they are terribly dishonest. They both appear to be very angry and unfulfilled. I would be very surprise if their church endorsed their behavior. Well, unless they belong to the Taliban, which would be ok with it.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2898
Oct 11, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
From: USA Today:
...
Amanda Knief, American Atheists' managing director, said in a statement quoted by CNN:
...
Amanda Knief is the Government Relations Manager for the Secular Coalition for America.

" http://secular.org/blogs/Amanda%20Knief" ;

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2899
Oct 11, 2012
 
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you mentally ill in some way? I wasn't talking about science. I was pointing out the lunacy of someone saying "religion is not myth".
Seriously, you're messed up...
Issue was previously addressed:

If you want to worship Zeus and Mars and Athena, feel free to do so – or just keep holding on to your godless faith in science with all it's frauds and misconduct, and embrace your atheistic religion – the choice is all yours.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2900
Oct 11, 2012
 
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Amanda Knief is the Government Relations Manager for the Secular Coalition for America.
" http://secular.org/blogs/Amanda%20Knief" ;
I know who she is. Do I care, lol?

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2901
Oct 11, 2012
 
Evolutionary Biologists Flunk Religion Poll

Our study was the first poll to focus solely on eminent evolutionists and their views of religion. As a dissertation project, one of us (Graffin) prepared and sent a detailed questionnaire on evolution and religion to 271 professional evolutionary scientists elected to membership in 28 honorific national academies around the world, and 149 (55 percent) answered the questionnaire. All of them listed evolution (specifically organismic), phylogenetics, population biology/genetics, paleontology/paleoecology/pale obiology, systematics, organismal adaptation or fitness as at least one of their research interests. Graffin also interviewed 12 prestigious evolutionists from the sample group on the relation between modern evolutionary biology and religion.

A primary complaint of scientists who answered the earlier polls was that the concept of God was limited to a "personal God." Leuba considered an impersonal God as equivalent to pure naturalism and classified advocates of deism as nonbelievers. We designed the current study to distinguish theism from deism—that is to day a "personal God" (theism) versus an "impersonal God" who created the universe, all forces and matter, but does not intervene in daily events (deism). An evolutionist can be considered religious, in our poll, if he calls himself a deist....

Perhaps the most revealing question in the poll asked the respondent to choose the letter that most closely represented where her views belonged on a ternary diagram. The great majority of the evolutionists polled (78 percent) chose A, billing themselves as pure naturalists. Only two out of 149 described themselves as full theists (F), two as more theist than naturalist (D) and three as theistic naturalists (B). Taken together, the advocacy of any degree of theism is the lowest percentage measured in any poll of biologists' beliefs so far (4.7 percent).

No evolutionary scientists in this study chose pure deism (I), but the deistic side of the diagram is heavy compared to the theistic side. Eleven respondents chose C, and 10 chose other regions on the right side of the diagram (E, H or J). Most evolutionary scientists who billed themselves as believers in God were deists (21) rather than theists (7).

When asked directly whether they believe in God, almost 80% said no. I wonder how many of them think of themselves as atheists as opposed to agnostics?

Here's the bad news. 79% of these eminent evolutionary biologists say they believe in free will (option A on the question). Even the authors of the study were surprised by that one.

continued:

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/06/evolutio...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2902
Oct 11, 2012
 
“It’s Official: Atheists are Deliberately Ignorant, Truth-hating, Credit-theiving, Hypocrites – Extreme atheist fails”

September 4, 2010

Think atheists can be good? Wonder why atheists are the most hated and mistrusted group? Here’s a little of the endless evidence as to why atheists should be locked up in insane asylums:

Today on a certain stupidity-filled website (it’s for atheists only, so big surprise) I found these two ultra stupid comments:

“why not think Harry Potter is real, there are millions who think god is real&#65279; and thats just rediculous” from “Atheist Princess”.

For you very young people who don’t know why that is super stupid, this is why:

1) She’s comparing what no one believes is real to what many believe is real, and not explaining what the connection is.

2) She doesn’t say which of her statements is ridiculous: which is ridiculous: not believing that Harry Potter is real or that God is real or both?

3) She didn’t give any evidence as to why whatever she is saying is ridiculous is ridiculous.

4) She didn’t even spell ridiculous right.
In her profile she said this:

Notice she says that she is obsessed with the “fairy tale” Harry Potter, and even made a forum on it? Notice she gives no evidence as to why she became an atheist, and had believes that no Christian teaches, which is that you weren’t to ask any questions about the Bible, when in churches that is done all the time, and when Christians pose them all the time everywhere? Notice she gives no explanation at all as to why she became an atheist, except because certain things didn’t make sense to her, and yet can’t be bothered to say what those things were even though she also says she is trying to convert her sisters to atheism (which having such a hatred for religion, says,“deconvert” in place of convert).

continued:
http://eternian.wordpress.com/2010/09/04/extr...

[She's a perfect example of the atheist mentality in this forum, lol.]

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2903
Oct 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

The laughing atheist wrote:
<quoted text>
Fourtunatly we have a constitution that pretty much keeps people like Derek, and longalier, and Rick Santorum, at bay. Of course they have a right to babble on, but that's all. They are the fringe, and are upset because their religion is fading as education becomes better. Education is the enemy of religion, and that is why people like these two knuckle-heads try to dumb down forums like this one. If they can get anyone dumb enough to believe their anti-education babble, they feel they might be able to keep them in the ignorance of the "flock". Hey, maybe that's why the Bible compares followers to sheep. Sheep just mindlessly follow without asking questions(Not the smartest of animals).
You're absolutely right - the US Constitution keeps religious wingnuts in check.

I sometimes think that American Christians must really hate their constitution.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2904
Oct 11, 2012
 
Phil Torres’ Compendium of Internet Atheist Ignorance

“A few weeks ago Phil Torres asked me if I would review his book A Crisis of Faith, which he said would present a strong case against the existence of God. I agreed to take a look at it. I appreciate opportunities like that. I had high hopes for the book, in view of the fact that he (reportedly) did a year of graduate (?) study in philosophy at Harvard.

He divides the book into short chapters, of which I read thirteen before I realized that there he had adopted a pattern that was never going to alter. The book (as far as I got into it) is a nicely readable but painfully predictable compendium of Internet Atheist straw men, circular reasoning, red herrings, and misrepresentations of Christianity.

I was hoping to be able to say something more positive than that, but then he wasn’t really inviting it himself. He calls not only for rejection but for actual elimination of religion.

Continued:

Back to the beginning: On page 1 he distorts the definition of “faith.” Maybe he doesn’t realize he’s doing that; it is after all, the standard definition provided by people who don’t experience faith, don’t encounter faith in real people who have faith, and don’t read the definitions written by people who are actually explaining what we mean when we use the word “faith.” It is the standard Internet atheist definition, in other words:“beliefs that one accepts in the absence of facts or in the presence of facts which contradict those beliefs.”

That’s page 1. It’s a very poor beginning. Faith in God is actually a fact-based confidence or trust in him as a person, that he will be for me today and for all in the future the same God that he has been for me and many others in the past. It is trust that God will continue to be a promise-keeper, as he has done in the past. It is confidence built on an awareness of genuine love–factual awareness.

On page 4 he parrots the standard Internet Atheist meme of pulling OT verses out of context concerning punishments for homosexuality. This is the approach by which atheists tell believers what we think, and complain that we must be stupid for not thinking what we think, while ignoring the reasons we give for thinking what we actually think instead of what they tell us we think.

Continued:

On page 19 he falsely claims that religious evidence is generally (entirely?) subjective. That’s just false. It’s ignorant. Sorry, Mr. Torres, but there you go.

On page 20 he shows his ignorance of how Paul’s “revelation of Jesus Christ” was carefully and independently confirmed at the time.

On page 22 he notes the various religious views and says it’s statistically likely that any one of them must be false, therefore they’re all false. He forgets that atheistic naturalism fits into the same set of statistically testable worldview. If his argument were valid (which it isn’t) it would prove atheistic naturalism false.

On page 22 he picks on the most easily rebutted Intelligent Design claims and calls it the strongest. Ignorance on display.

On page 44 he seems to be illustrating incoherence in the concept of God: Can God create a rock so heavy he can’t lift it? The answer is that this that this is laughably easy to answer. What was Torres thinking?.

continued:I gave up reading after Chapter 13. Enough is enough.

continued:
http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2012/08/phil...

“Atheist straw men, circular reasoning, red herrings, and misrepresentations of Christianity.”

[I need to read the book too, and look for pink unicorns – I bet they're hiding in there somewhere, lol.]

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2905
Oct 11, 2012
 
Many atheists ignorant of Christianity

Over the last few years I have encountered more atheists than I can shake a stick at.

Whether they are young atheists at the Auraria campus in downtown Denver or in an interview with a leader in Boulder, they all have one thing in common: ignorance...

...of Christian doctrine and practice.

Now, in one sense that is to be expected since poll after poll has demonstrated a widespread ignorance of Christianity among Americans as a whole--and Denver is no exception.

On the other hand, this is not to be expected since most atheists are atheists by choice. And many more likely chose atheism instead of Christianity. At the least, atheists by definition reject Christianity.

And to reject something one must have a substantial understanding of what is being rejected--else one rejects a position out of ignorance.

continued:

http://www.examiner.com/article/many-atheists...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2906
Oct 11, 2012
 
From:

Department of Health and Human Services

Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has made a
final finding of scientific misconduct in the following cases:
(click link for examples)
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-fil...

[Names and examples of misconduct posted above by the Department of Health and Human Services]

[Why doesn't the peer review system work? We have so many agencies today that we did not have when Darwin was with us (God rest his soul)- yet STILL there is all this misconduct. How much more during the good ole "theory" days, lol.
Amazing.]

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.

6 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 3 min Rosa_Winkel 224,353
Our world came from nothing? 6 hr NightSerf 240
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 9 hr Patrick 385
What does "Atheism" mean? 11 hr Reason Personified 10
Introducing The Universal Religion 12 hr Reason Personified 733
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 16 hr DonPanic 21,400
Talking some sense into you people... 18 hr religionisillness 24
•••
•••