Don't dictate beliefs

[derek4]

THE FAITHFUL ATHEIST'S 3 CROSS NECKLACE

From the Heavy Red Jewelry Collection...
Style# 6396

“Even the faithless have their moments of belief. To believe in 3 is safer then one. The iconic 3 cross necklace is so aesthetically pleasing to the eye, you will certainly receive compliments all night. The 3 brushed silver crosses are perfectly placed to compliment any outfit.”

The pendant measures 2".

The chain measures 17".

Price:$48.00

[derek4]

oops, I forgot to give you the website where you can order "THE FAITHFUL ATHEIST'S 3 CROSS NECKLACE"

order here:

http://heavyred.com/thefaithfulatheists3cross...

[KittenKoder]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
Yep, when your atheist brothas and sistas say something you don't like, dismiss them as "irrelevant", lol.

Please, for the love of the internet age, learn to Google words, or buy a dictionary.

[Just Think]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
So you believe in the flood? Make your mind up, lol.

Yawn. As you no doubt read in my previous posts, I've referred to the story of Noah and the flood as a fable.

Someone like you, however, believes it really happened, correct?

So, for the third time - did all of the babies and children in the world die a horrible drowning death in the flood?

It really is a simple question...makes you wonder why you won't answer it...

[derek4]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Please, for the love of the internet age, learn to Google words, or buy a dictionary.

Okay, sista. Lawdy, yo is right, yo sho do need to learn how to google mista Newdow, lol.

[The serpent was right]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
"Oh, and I am still waiting for those initials. "
I do believe you have me confused with somebody else. However I believe I can help you out on this.
How's this for your initials T.S.W.R.
(The serpent was right)
That wasn't to tough now was it?

I think I do have you confused with dr. who two, not that there is much of a difference.

As for the initials... LOL!!!! Well, you are correct, but I was refering to my personal name, not my username. Your god cannot give you those, because he doesn't exist.

[The serpent was right]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you in love with KK?

Nope

[derek4]

Just Think wrote:

<quoted text>did all of the babies and children in the world die a horrible drowning death in the flood?

I guess it depends on whether or not there was a flood.

[derek4]

Hedonist, this one is for you. I told you I wouldn't forget about our scientists:

From NewScientist:

Time to review peer review

“Standard lore has it that scientific results are supposed to be published in academic journals before they are even worth discussing. These publications use a "peer-review" system to determine the validity of a paper. If it's not valid in the eyes of the relevant expert community, it won't be published. It's supposed to be a way we can tell good science from bad: with the community as our judge.

That makes some sense but the ideal isn't quite a reality (at least not in my field, theoretical physics and astronomy). We are not really trusting the community; we are trusting one or two selected members of the community known as "the referees". We are trusting the editor of the journal to select referees who are competent and free from competing interests. And we are supposed to put our trust in the process despite the referees being completely anonymous - neither the author nor the reader knows who's involved.

Even if a referee believes the paper is worthy of publication, he or she can demand the author make changes. The author must respond by revising the paper to the referee's satisfaction. The paper bounces back and forth in a slow-motion game of tennis. If the author believes the referee is playing unfairly, any appeals must be made to the journal's editor. But editors rarely undermine a referee that they selected in the first place.

Assuming the work does eventually get published, the author's original intentions are hopelessly mixed up with the biases of anonymous third parties. Genuine, honest scientific disaccord is obscured by a process which is invisible to the reader.
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/bigwideworl...

[So peer review is untrustworthy.]

[derek4]

From: Science 2.0:

IPCC Gives Up On Science, Makes Grey Literature Official

'Grey' literature, which led to the "Glaciergate" scandal of 2010 when it was revealed that the rate at which Himalayan glaciers are losing ice (gone by 2035!) was stated as fact even though it was not based on evidence, will no longer be a problem for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Because they have declared that grey literature will no longer be grey - any information they choose to use will be considered peer reviewed just by being posted on the Internet by the IPCC.

Most rational people would simply not use grey literature after the errors of the 2007 report, to avoid controversy and therefore keep climate studies as politically agnostic as possible. It isn't like global warming deniers are ever getting through peer review, so grey literature would seem to be unnecessary, unless you feel like the ridiculous claim that African farmers are going to suffer 50% yield drops by 2020 absolutely must be included in a science report (that one was also shown to have been made up).

Instead, they have embraced grey literature.. Makes no sense, right? Maybe it does. If I want to have fewer people living in poverty, for example, I simply redefine poverty and - presto - people are no longer poor. I could have a terrific career in politics if I simply got people to believe I cured poverty by redefining it. Redefining grey literature takes poor science and attempts to call it rich.
http://www.science20.com/science_20/ipcc_give...

“... any information they choose to use will be considered peer reviewed just by being posted on the Internet by the IPCC.”

“ Redefining grey literature takes poor science and attempts to call it rich.”

[Yep - our “peer review system at work, lol.]

Tarnished Science: Peer Review Isn’t Always the Gold Standard It’s Supposed to Be

“Henry I. Miller uses examples to illustrate scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals have been egregiously and obviously flawed, with basic rules of research violated. Journals should be more meticulous about requesting reviews of research articles only from bona fide experts who do not have a known bias toward the subject, a practice that many journals currently fail to exercise.”
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/117...

“... peer-reviewed journals have been egregiously and obviously flawed, with basic rules of research violated.”

[Atheists religionists lie and tell us bad science is caught by the peer review system, lol.]

[derek4]

The serpent was right wrote:

<quoted text>
I think I do have you confused with dr. who two

Don't worry about it. You stay confused - we're used to it by now.

[The serpent was right]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL - Do you have Alzheimer's as well as the flu? I've told you before that I live in Dallas, Texas. My post is still on the board. Oh, I forgot, you don't read.
I have my big pants on - you're the runt, remember? LMAO

I don't remember you stating your location, but I now better understand your backwards thinking.

Runt? LOL!! I would guess that is projection on your part, rather than anything based on reality or knowledge. Oh, that's right, your whole life is based on fantasy. You poor thing, it must suck to be you. I can see you now..... A little guy with tiny little cowboy boots, in your little cowboy hat, lost in the crowd of people, trying to fight your way through the big people, praying for help from a make-believe god that never comes, and swearing to yourself about how the atheists are so rude, and how everything else is the black peoples fault!!! LOL!!! Pathetic.

[The serpent was right]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
You and your kiddos worship the god of science, lol. You pray too. You just can't read, lol.

As I stated very clearly, I don't worship anything. I guess with your limited reading skills, you missed that. You poor little thing. I feel sorry for you.

So any luck finding that invisible god of yours. Hey, try looking at the mall, maybe he's there. LMAO!!!

[The serpent was right]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
See, that's what I mean. You don't read the material, then you try to critique it. Never works, does it?

I noticed you didn't answer the question.... As I predicted.
That was easy.

[The serpent was right]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
It's okay, Serpy, I have no objection to your practice of failing to read the material. You can ignore anything I post, if you like. As you should know, there are certain people who post in here that I simply ignore. But when you try to respond to the content without having any background on it, you prove your ignorance. Now, don't get me wrong - I don't mind it when you prove your ignorance – just make sure YOU are comfortable with that, lol.

Thanks for your unrequired permission.
Yes, I noticed that some people kicked your ass so badly that you simply ran away from them. That's well established.
My previous post was clear, so I don't need to explain it yet again to you. I might suggest you enroll in a reading class. your comprehension is just awful. I understand that you are in Texas where education is frowned upon, but outside of the lone IQ point state, we expect that you can keep up.

[derek4]

The serpent was right wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't remember you stating your location, but I now better understand your backwards thinking.

tiny little cowboy boots, in your little cowboy hat, lost in the crowd of people, trying to fight your way through the big people, praying for help from a make-believe god that never comes, and swearing to yourself about how the atheists are so rude, and how everything else is the black peoples fault!!! LOL!!! Pathetic.

Hahahaha. Loved it.....LOL.

They don't play cowboys and indians much in Texas these days. You're always behind the times.

I guess you don't get out much in "Orefield".

[derek4]

The serpent was right wrote:

<quoted text>
I noticed you didn't answer the question.... As I predicted.
That was easy.

If you would read the material, you wouldn't have to ask questions. Do you rely on me to advise you, help you, educate you, and answer all your questions for you?

I mean - I know you need help, but sorry, I can't baby sit you - take charge of your life and learn things, lol.

[derek4]

The serpent was right wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for your unrequired permission.

No problem. I might let you do some more things, if you are nice. But ask politely.

[The serpent was right]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
So now you are criticizing Khatru's questions?
Wow, you're not even nice to your own coharts; LMAO
I'm telling you, it sounds to me like you have the flu – you're just not yourself lately.
Maybe you can call your local atheist church and request prayer.

I know that "criticize" is a big word to 'youall', but you should learn what it means before you try to use it.

Hey, how's that search for proof of your invisible god going? Did you try fantasyland? Oh, that's right, you LIVE in fantasyland, you would have seen him if he was there! Maybe he busy talking to Harry Potter, and Paul Bunyon right now, and that's why you can't find him!!! Gee, too bad for you. If you had ANY real proof that your god is anything more than a childish fairy tale, you wouldn't have to work so hard trying to invent new, silly, unrealistic, definitions for us mean old atheists. LOL!!

[derek4]

The serpent was right wrote:

<quoted text>
As I stated very clearly, I don't worship anything.

Then you're a disappointment to your atheist brothers and sisters in the faith.