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: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3499 Oct 15, 2012
derek4 wrote:
“With the First Church of Atheism you can become ordained quickly, easily, and at no cost.”
“As a legally ordained minister, you will be able to perform weddings, funerals, commitment ceremonies, and other functions that are reserved for members of clergy.”
Also you can order your marriage certificates from the church at this page:
http://firstchurchofatheism.com/shop/pack-mar...
[Maybe they should print some church bulletins, so their members can get restaurant discounts, lol.]
prove your god or f*ck off your Creationist lying sack of sh*t.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#3500 Oct 15, 2012
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all, for myself it is cultural. I am an East Texas Southerner, and not racist, even among my own people.
LMAO - you're nothing but a whining fool - you show it more with every post as you try to defend yourself and fail over and over.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#3501 Oct 15, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no such thing as god, and wishing it to be real doesn't
There is a God, there is no god and there are no gods. LMAO

Come up with something original like pink unicorns.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#3502 Oct 15, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
I know you don't care, lol.
You only know who your science god is: Charles Darwin.
I know almost nothing about him either. I am a completely foreign concept to you. I have no invisible friends. The whole idea is irrelevant to who and what I am. I deal with and live within reality, and that .... you couldn't even begin to imagine. It would scare you to death, to face life exactly as it comes, with no gods as crutch.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#3503 Oct 15, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Every time you post a message on this website you are proving scientific concepts that sh*t on your silly made up pantomime you call a religion, I mean Creationism.
False positives: fraud and misconduct are threatening scientific research
High-profile cases and modern technology are putting scientific deceit under the microscope
September 13, 2012
found within the body of text:
“Cases of scientific misconduct tend to hit the headlines precisely because scientists are supposed to occupy a moral high ground when it comes to the search for truth about nature. The scientific method developed as a way to weed out human bias. But scientists, like anyone else, can be prone to bias in their bid for a place in the history books.

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.

Massaged results can send other researchers down the wrong track, wasting time and money trying to replicate them. Worse, in medicine, it can delay the development of life-saving treatments or prolong the use of therapies that are ineffective or dangerous. Malpractice comes to light rarely, perhaps because scientific fraud is often easy to perpetrate but hard to uncover.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/13...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3504 Oct 15, 2012
derek4 wrote:
Thanks to whomever is judging my posts with negative marks as soon as they appear on the board.
I appreciate it.
As long as I know atheists are giving me bad grades, I know I'm on the right track.
It is most flattering to me when atheists hate my comments.
LMAO
When you post retarded lying Creationist bullsh*t that kind of thing happens automatically in these forums.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#3505 Oct 15, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Every time you post a message on this website you are proving scientific concepts that sh*t on your silly made up pantomime you call a religion, I mean Creationism.
"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...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3506 Oct 15, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
LMAO - you're nothing but a whining fool - you show it more with every post as you try to defend yourself and fail over and over.
Says the failed idiot Creationist with no proof of his made up god.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3507 Oct 15, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
False positives: fraud and misconduct are threatening scientific research
High-profile cases and modern technology are putting scientific deceit under the microscope
September 13, 2012
found within the body of text:
“Cases of scientific misconduct tend to hit the headlines precisely because scientists are supposed to occupy a moral high ground when it comes to the search for truth about nature. The scientific method developed as a way to weed out human bias. But scientists, like anyone else, can be prone to bias in their bid for a place in the history books.
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.
Massaged results can send other researchers down the wrong track, wasting time and money trying to replicate them. Worse, in medicine, it can delay the development of life-saving treatments or prolong the use of therapies that are ineffective or dangerous. Malpractice comes to light rarely, perhaps because scientific fraud is often easy to perpetrate but hard to uncover.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/13...
Spam all you like, it won't make your god real.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#3508 Oct 15, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
prove your god of f*ck off its been that simple since the dawn of tie itself.
You guys are a dying breed of nutcases.
Scientific fraud, double standards and institutions protecting themselves

Ole Rogeberg writes:

After reading your recent post, I thought you might find this interesting – especially the scanned interview that is included at the bottom of the posting. It’s an old OMNI interview with Walter Stewart that was the first thing I read (at a young and impressionable age ;) about the prevalence of errors, fraud and cheating in science, the institutional barriers to tackling it, the often high personal costs to whistleblowers, the difficulty of accessing scientific data to repeat published analyses, and the surprisingly negative attitude towards criticism within scientific communities. Highly recommended entertaining reading – with some good examples of scientific investigations into implausible effects. The post itself contains the info I once dug up about what happened to him later – he seems like an interesting and very determined guy: when the NIH tried to stop him from investigating scientific errors and fraud he went on a hunger strike.[LOL]

http://andrewgelman.com/2012/08/scientific-fr...

SCIENTIFIC FRAUD.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3509 Oct 15, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
False positives: fraud and misconduct are threatening scientific research
High-profile cases and modern technology are putting scientific deceit under the microscope
September 13, 2012
found within the body of text:
“Cases of scientific misconduct tend to hit the headlines precisely because scientists are supposed to occupy a moral high ground when it comes to the search for truth about nature. The scientific method developed as a way to weed out human bias. But scientists, like anyone else, can be prone to bias in their bid for a place in the history books.
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.
Massaged results can send other researchers down the wrong track, wasting time and money trying to replicate them. Worse, in medicine, it can delay the development of life-saving treatments or prolong the use of therapies that are ineffective or dangerous. Malpractice comes to light rarely, perhaps because scientific fraud is often easy to perpetrate but hard to uncover.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/13...
Your god is bullsh*t, its a fact you haven't yet come to terms with. Spamming this forum is your psycholical way of dealing with the fact that your god isn't real.

You need us to believe you or your fantasy crumbles. Go and bother some less intelligent people please.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#3510 Oct 15, 2012
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>I know almost nothing about him either.
You know nothin' about nothin', LMAO

So why are you here? To whine?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3511 Oct 15, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
You know nothin' about nothin', LMAO
So why are you here? To whine?
It's not your fault, it's not your fault, its not your fault.

Oh wait, it is actually.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#3512 Oct 15, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
When you post retarded lying Creationist bullsh*t that kind of thing happens automatically in these forums.
Nothin' creationist about this, lol:

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...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3513 Oct 15, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Scientific fraud, double standards and institutions protecting themselves
Ole Rogeberg writes:
After reading your recent post, I thought you might find this interesting – especially the scanned interview that is included at the bottom of the posting. It’s an old OMNI interview with Walter Stewart that was the first thing I read (at a young and impressionable age ;) about the prevalence of errors, fraud and cheating in science, the institutional barriers to tackling it, the often high personal costs to whistleblowers, the difficulty of accessing scientific data to repeat published analyses, and the surprisingly negative attitude towards criticism within scientific communities. Highly recommended entertaining reading – with some good examples of scientific investigations into implausible effects. The post itself contains the info I once dug up about what happened to him later – he seems like an interesting and very determined guy: when the NIH tried to stop him from investigating scientific errors and fraud he went on a hunger strike.[LOL]
http://andrewgelman.com/2012/08/scientific-fr...
SCIENTIFIC FRAUD.
Hey there, its looks like you just used a computer to post something critical of science!

SCIENCE PROVEN.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#3514 Oct 15, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Your god is bullsh*t, its a fact you haven't yet come to terms with. Spamming this forum is your psycholical way of dealing with the fact that your god isn't real.
You need us to believe you or your fantasy crumbles. Go and bother some less intelligent people please.
From Science Daily:

Facts in Scientific Drug Literature May Not Be

(May 29, 2012)— A growing concern with fraud and misconduct in published drug studies has led researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago's Center for Pharmacoeconomic Research to investigate the extent and reasons for retractions in the research.

"We were surprised to find the proportion of retractions due to scientific misconduct in the drug literature is higher than in general biomedical literature," said Simon Pickard, associate professor of pharmacy practice and senior author of a study published in the journal Pharmacotherapy.

Nearly three-quarters of the retracted drug studies were attributed to scientific misconduct, he said, "which includes data falsification or fabrication, questionable veracity, unethical author conduct, or plagiarism. While these studies comprise a small percentage of the overall literature, health care professionals may rely on this evidence to make treatment recommendations.

These studies can affect the treatment of thousands of patients, since scientific publications are often printed months in advance.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#3515 Oct 15, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey there, its looks like you just used a computer to post something critical of science!
SCIENCE PROVEN.
Try some of their medications that are "SCIENCE PROVEN", LOL:

“Scientific Misconduct 300% Higher in Drug- than Biomedical Literature
Curious about the prevalence and extent of scientific misconduct, researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago’s Center for Pharmacoeconomic Research investigated the reasons why research studies were retracted, and from where.

The highest number of incidents of misconduct occurred in the drug literature, as compared to general biomedical literature. Nearly 75 percent of the retracted drug studies were attributed to scientific misconduct, which includes:
Data falsification or fabrication
Questionable veracity
Unethical author conduct
Plagiarism”

continued:

“Vioxx is perhaps one of the better examples of what can happen when a drug is manufactured and sold under false pretenses. It killed more than 60,000 people in just a few years time, before it was removed from the market. In the case of Vioxx, there are lingering questions about the soundness of the research backing the drug in the first place. Back in 2008, Dr. Joseph S. Ross of New York’s Mount Sinai School of Medicine came across ghostwritten research studies for Vioxx while reviewing documents related to lawsuits filed against Merck.

According to an April 16, 2008 article on MedHeadlines:'In about 96 journal publications, Ross and his colleagues discovered internal Merck documents and e-mail messages pertaining to clinical study reports and review articles, some of which were developed by the company’s marketing department, not its scientific department. In others, there is little evidence that the authors recruited for the report made substantial contribution to the research itself.… Some of the authors listed in the Merck study reports of concern… question the true nature of ghostwriting. One neurologist originally listed as “External author?” and then listed as Dr. Leon J. Thal, of the University of California, San Diego in the final draft, died a year ago in an airplane crash.'“
http://www.ener-chi.com/scientific-misconduct...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#3516 Oct 15, 2012
Give me some more bad marks, you're falling behind, lol....

Keep up!!!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3517 Oct 15, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Try some of their medications that are "SCIENCE PROVEN", LOL:
“Scientific Misconduct 300% Higher in Drug- than Biomedical Literature
Curious about the prevalence and extent of scientific misconduct, researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago’s Center for Pharmacoeconomic Research investigated the reasons why research studies were retracted, and from where.
The highest number of incidents of misconduct occurred in the drug literature, as compared to general biomedical literature. Nearly 75 percent of the retracted drug studies were attributed to scientific misconduct, which includes:
Data falsification or fabrication
Questionable veracity
Unethical author conduct
Plagiarism”
continued:
“Vioxx is perhaps one of the better examples of what can happen when a drug is manufactured and sold under false pretenses. It killed more than 60,000 people in just a few years time, before it was removed from the market. In the case of Vioxx, there are lingering questions about the soundness of the research backing the drug in the first place. Back in 2008, Dr. Joseph S. Ross of New York’s Mount Sinai School of Medicine came across ghostwritten research studies for Vioxx while reviewing documents related to lawsuits filed against Merck.
According to an April 16, 2008 article on MedHeadlines:'In about 96 journal publications, Ross and his colleagues discovered internal Merck documents and e-mail messages pertaining to clinical study reports and review articles, some of which were developed by the company’s marketing department, not its scientific department. In others, there is little evidence that the authors recruited for the report made substantial contribution to the research itself.… Some of the authors listed in the Merck study reports of concern… question the true nature of ghostwriting. One neurologist originally listed as “External author?” and then listed as Dr. Leon J. Thal, of the University of California, San Diego in the final draft, died a year ago in an airplane crash.'“
http://www.ener-chi.com/scientific-misconduct...
Wow, look at all those articles you posted. Aren't you clever.

SCIENCE PROVEN.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#3518 Oct 15, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
SCIENCE PROVEN.
“If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.”
Richard P. Feynman, atheist and scientist

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 requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 3 min ChristineM 232,012
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 1 hr Even Steven 1,049
Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 3 hr Ooogah Boogah 14,456
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 13 hr thetruth 29
Young atheists: The political leaders of tomorrow 13 hr thetruth 6
Why Christians should stick up for atheists 13 hr thetruth 8
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... Thu QUITTNER Nov 27 2014 31

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE