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
7,821 - 7,840 of 11,175 Comments Last updated Jan 18, 2014

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8285
Dec 12, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
No issues.
Believe what you wish. I'm just here for entertainment.
Thank you nad keep up the good work.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8286
Dec 12, 2012
 
No my low IQ troll it's what the words mean. It's their translation. You will have to show hostorical proof otherwise because the facts are as usual way against you.

You really fell for that old legend didn't you? You really thought ancient people thought scorched was a great name for their city?

:shakes head: One born every minute.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Boy you just keep getting dumber.
Those definition came from what happened to those towns! Those words did not have those meanings before Gods judgement on them. LOLNN

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8287
Dec 12, 2012
 
Don't forget making a complete jackass out of yourself as you get factually crushed daily. For example did you know the King James Version of the bible which you proudly use as your screen name was vastly edited and rewritten by order of the king to have it better match the Church of England's beliefs?

:)
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
No issues.
Believe what you wish. I'm just here for trolling.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8288
Dec 12, 2012
 
According to this link less incorrect spam agnostics do not exist. Want a do over, or shall we just mock you ineptitude as usual?
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
The CIA World Factbook gives the world population as 7,021,836,029 (July 2012 est.) and the distribution of religions as
Christian 33.35%(of which Roman Catholic 16.83%, Protestant 6.08%, Orthodox 4.03%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 22.43%,
Hindu 13.78%,
Buddhist 7.13%,
Sikh 0.36%,
Jewish 0.21%,
Baha'i 0.11%,
other religions 11.17%,
non-religious 9.42%,
atheists 2.04%.
Please note that Non-religions is a separate category then atheist. Why?
Because they are not interchangeable!
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8289
Dec 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Your religion has been in trouble ever since Johannes Gutenberg introduced moveable type printing to Europe.
Prior to the printing press, Christians had a monopoly on the production of documents and books. They also had the authority to and influence to ensure that any documents it deemed to be heretical could be seized and destroyed as well as being able to torture and kill the authors.
Good point. The printing press was the beginning of the end for religion. Probably the most important invention of the Renaissance, and maybe even the most inflential invention in history.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8290
Dec 12, 2012
 
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
No, we don't. "Outside of time" is meaningless. You're just being absurd.
I always enjoy your humorous posts. Keep up your great work. Your statement is absurd and proves how meaningless you are.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8291
Dec 12, 2012
 
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I am not beholden to your rules. I dont have the bless ppl of pray for them or any of that rubbish as I dont believe in it. But tellingly you are unable to keep even to the basic requirements of your religion. Proving clearly that you are a false christian. Same goes for the other fundies here.
Exactly: Atheists have no rules or moral requirements, so they can judge others but use a book (the bible) which they say they don't believe in to condemn others for “allegedly” judging.

LMAO

So, they use the bible when it serves their purpose, then when it does not serve their purpose, they say it doesn't apply. I see. That sounds like the typical atheist logic, okay.

Your post provides us excellent proof of atheist inconsistency, and your own personal inconsistency and corruption.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8292
Dec 12, 2012
 
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you referring to the Bible when you don't believe what it says?
So you believe what the bible says? I mean, after all, it was you who referred to the bible:

“You should know that being in the minority doesn't mean you're wrong. What percentage of the population did Noah and his family make up?“

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8293
Dec 12, 2012
 
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Your whole argument rests on an assumption.
I could easily use a similar assumption when you quote statistics for numbers of religious adherents.
Except that I'm not as desperate as you.
Wrong, I made no argument. I posted a link, and you erroneously replied to it.

Just a reminder to everyone in the forum: The atheists in the forum are unknowns and not creditable, therefore I have no interest in their objections to web page material. Should they have any concerns, they may contact the publisher at the link provided.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8294
Dec 12, 2012
 
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Your religion has been in trouble ever since Johannes Gutenberg introduced moveable type printing to Europe.
Prior to the printing press, Christians had a monopoly on the production of documents and books. They also had the authority to and influence to ensure that any documents it deemed to be heretical could be seized and destroyed as well as being able to torture and kill the authors.
Despite the best efforts of believers to prevent it, printing presses took book copying out of the hands of the Christians. This led to more and more secular publications which would shake the foundations of centuries of Christian thought.
Look at you, you're still shaking.
You clicked your reply button to one of my posts, but your comments are addressed to the content of a web page, not to me. This is a waste of my time, and a pointless exercise on your part.

Again, Just a reminder to everyone in the forum: The atheists in the forum are unknowns and not creditable, therefore I have no interest in their objections to web page material. Should they have any concerns, they may contact the publisher at the link provided.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8295
Dec 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

From The Wall Street Journal

Mistakes in Scientific Studies Surge

“It was the kind of study that made doctors around the world sit up and take notice: Two popular high-blood-pressure drugs were found to be much better in combination than either alone.

"There was a 'wow' reaction," recalls Franz Messerli, a New York doctor who, like many others, changed his prescription habits after the 2003 report.

Unfortunately, it wasn't true. Six and a half years later, the prestigious medical journal the Lancet retracted the paper, citing "serious concerns" about the findings.

The damage was done. Doctors by then had given the drug combination to well over 100,000 patients. Instead of protecting them from kidney problems, as the study said the drug combo could do, it left them more vulnerable to potentially life-threatening side effects, later studies showed. Today, "tens of thousands" of patients are still on the dual therapy, according to research firm SDI.

When a study is retracted, "it can be hard to make its effects go away," says Sheldon Tobe, a kidney-disease specialist at the University of Toronto.

And that's more important today than ever because retractions of scientific studies are surging.

Since 2001, while the number of papers published in research journals has risen 44%, the number retracted has leapt more than 15-fold, data compiled for The Wall Street Journal by Thomson Reuters reveal.

Just 22 retraction notices appeared in 2001, but 139 in 2006 and 339 last year. Through seven months of this year, there have been 210, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science, an index of 11,600 peer-reviewed journals world-wide.

In a sign of the times, a blog called "Retraction Watch" has popped up to monitor the flow.

Science is based on trust, and most researchers accept findings published in peer-reviewed journals. The studies spur others to embark on related avenues of research, so if one paper is later found to be tainted, an entire edifice of work comes into doubt. Millions of dollars' worth of private and government funding may go to waste, and, in the case of medical science, patients can be put at risk.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8297
Dec 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

From The New York Times

Fraud Case Seen as a Red Flag for Psychology Research

“A well-known psychologist in the Netherlands whose work has been published widely in professional journals falsified data and made up entire experiments, an investigating committee has found. Experts say the case exposes deep flaws in the way science is done in a field, psychology, that has only recently earned a fragile respectability.

The psychologist Diederik Stapel in an undated photograph.“I have failed as a scientist and researcher,” he said in a statement after a committee found problems in dozens of his papers.

The psychologist, Diederik Stapel, of Tilburg University, committed academic fraud in “several dozen” published papers, many accepted in respected journals and reported in the news media, according to a report released on Monday by the three Dutch institutions where he has worked: the University of Groningen, the University of Amsterdam, and Tilburg. The journal Science, which published one of Dr. Stapel’s papers in April, posted an “editorial expression of concern” about the research online on Tuesday.

The scandal, involving about a decade of work, is the latest in a string of embarrassments in a field that critics and statisticians say badly needs to overhaul how it treats research results. In recent years, psychologists have reported a raft of findings on race biases, brain imaging and even extrasensory perception that have not stood up to scrutiny. Outright fraud may be rare, these experts say, but they contend that Dr. Stapel took advantage of a system that allows researchers to operate in near secrecy and massage data to find what they want to find, without much fear of being challenged.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/health/rese...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8298
Dec 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

From The New York Times

University Suspects Fraud by a Researcher Who Studied Red Wine

“A charge of widespread scientific fraud, involving 26 articles published in 11 journals, was leveled by the University of Connecticut today against Dipak K. Das, one of its researchers, whose work reported health benefits in red wine.

Many of the articles reported positive effects from resveratrol, an ingredient of red wine thought to promote longevity in laboratory animals.

The charges, if verified, seem unlikely to affect the field of resveratrol research itself, because Dr. Das’s work was peripheral to its central principles, several of which are in contention.“Today I had to look up who he is. His papers are mostly in specialty journals,” said David Sinclair, a leading resveratrol expert at the Harvard Medical School.

The significance of the case seems more to reflect on the general system of apportioning research money. Researchers complain that federal grants are increasingly hard to get, even for high-quality research, yet money seemed to have flowed freely to Dr. Das, who was generating research of low visibility and apparently low quality. The University of Connecticut said Wednesday that it was returning two new grants to Dr. Das, worth a total of $890,000, to the federal government.

The agency that granted the funds was the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. Renate Myles, a spokeswoman, said in response that scientific misconduct “can go undetected for a length of time even under the most rigorous systems of research oversight and review.”

The investigation of Dr. Das’s work began in January 2009, two weeks after the university received an anonymous allegation about research irregularities in his laboratory. A special review board headed by Dr. Kent Morest of the University of Connecticut has now produced a 60,000-page report, which has been forwarded to the Office of Research Integrity, a federal agency that investigates fraud by researchers who receive government grants.“
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/science/fra...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8299
Dec 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Science Fraud

Highlighting Misconduct in Life Sciences Research

Today marks an important milestone for www.science-fraud.org … the 100th post! To mark the occasion, here are some (approximate) statistics on the site, since it was established in July…

Over 250 papers have been flagged as suspicious, and over 375 instances of questionable data have been documented (i.e., that’s how many annotated JPEGs have been composed and posted). However, many of the images posted here contain more than one figure from a paper, so the real number of questionable paper figures is about 500. When you factor in the regular occurence of multiple issues within a single figure, the total number is closer to 1000. By far the greatest share of this is western blots, closely followed by flow cytometry and fluorescent microscopy images (note to self… make a database to track this stuff).

As for readership, the hits total stands at nearly 200,000 as of early December, with an average 2500 hits per day (biggest day was 4100 hits on October 30th). The biggest geographic readership areas are the US, UK and Germany. The biggest traffic drivers are links from other sites such as Retraction Watch, as well as web-based email accounts, suggesting that people are sending links to their colleagues. Comments on the site number almost 500, with not one deleted so far (let’s hope we can keep it that way).

Putting a monetary value on things, let’s assume a lab with a single NIH RO1 grant publishes 5 papers a year, that works out to~$50k per paper (including not just research supplies and publishing charges, but also the salaries of people who did the work). Even if only half of the 250 papers mentioned above are ripe for retraction, that puts a conservative price tag of $6.25 million on the fraud documented here in just 5 months. If things continue at this rate (and there’s nothing to suggest otherwise), that’s $15m per year in mis-spent public funds. Considering the relatively cheap cost of running this site (~$120/yr for domain registration and hosting), I’d say that’s a pretty good return on investment!
http://www.science-fraud.org/

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8300
Dec 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

From The Guardian

Scientific fraud is rife: it's time to stand up for good science

The way we fund and publish science encourages fraud. A forum about academic misconduct aims to find practical solutions

Peer review happens behind closed doors, with anonymous reviews only seen by editors and authors. This means we have no idea how effective it is.

Science is broken. Psychology was rocked recently by stories of academics making up data, sometimes overshadowing whole careers. And it isn't the only discipline with problems - the current record for fraudulent papers is held by anaesthesiologist Yoshitaka Fujii, with 172 faked articles.

These scandals highlight deeper cultural problems in academia. Pressure to turn out lots of high-quality publications not only promotes extreme behaviours, it normalises the little things, like the selective publication of positive novel findings – which leads to "non-significant" but possibly true findings sitting unpublished on shelves, and a lack of much needed replication studies.

Why does this matter? Science is about furthering our collective knowledge, and it happens in increments. Successive generations of scientists build upon theoretical foundations set by their predecessors. If those foundations are made of sand, though, then time and money will be wasted in the pursuit of ideas that simply aren't right.

A recent paper in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that since 1973, nearly a thousand biomedical papers have been retracted because someone cheated the system. That's a massive 67% of all biomedical retractions. And the situation is getting worse - last year, Nature reported that the rise in retraction rates has overtaken the rise in the number of papers being published.

This is happening because the entire way that we go about funding, researching and publishing science is flawed. As Chris Chambers and Petroc Sumner point out, the reasons are numerous and interconnecting:

• Pressure to publish in "high impact" journals, at all research career levels;
• Universities treat successful grant applications as outputs, upon which continued careers depend;
• Statistical analyses are hard, and sometimes researchers get it wrong;
• Journals favour positive results over null findings, even though null findings from a well conducted study are just as informative;
• The way journal articles are assessed is inconsistent and secretive, and allows statistical errors to creep through.

Problems occur at all levels in the system, and we need to stop stubbornly arguing that "it's not that bad" or that talking about it somehow damages science. The damage has already been done – now we need to start fixing it.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/n...
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8301
Dec 12, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly: Atheists have no rules or moral requirements, so they can judge others but use a book (the bible) which they say they don't believe in to condemn others for “allegedly” judging.
We all have morals. These come from our parents and upbringing, from evolution, and from the secular societies in which we live.

Now. You claim to be a Christian. You should follow the rules of that club. That is the point I am making.

So we should find on this forum visiting Christians blessing us, praying for us, showing brotherly love. Instead what do we get. Blowhards who bash others who dont believe in their silly myths. And wackos who think the KJV is the word of Gawd.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8302
Dec 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
Good point. The printing press was the beginning of the end for religion. Probably the most important invention of the Renaissance, and maybe even the most inflential invention in history.
Thanks

Small wonder that Time Magazine named Johannes Gutenberg as "Man of the Millennium".

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8303
Dec 12, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you believe what the bible says? I mean, after all, it was you who referred to the bible:
“You should know that being in the minority doesn't mean you're wrong. What percentage of the population did Noah and his family make up?“
I don't believe what the Bible says and neither do you.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8304
Dec 12, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
From The Wall Street Journal
Mistakes in Scientific Studies Surge
“It was the kind of study that made doctors around the world sit up and take notice: Two popular high-blood-pressure drugs were found to be much better in combination than either alone.
"There was a 'wow' reaction," recalls Franz Messerli, a New York doctor who, like many others, changed his prescription habits after the 2003 report.
Unfortunately, it wasn't true. Six and a half years later, the prestigious medical journal the Lancet retracted the paper, citing "serious concerns" about the findings.
The damage was done. Doctors by then had given the drug combination to well over 100,000 patients. Instead of protecting them from kidney problems, as the study said the drug combo could do, it left them more vulnerable to potentially life-threatening side effects, later studies showed. Today, "tens of thousands" of patients are still on the dual therapy, according to research firm SDI.
When a study is retracted, "it can be hard to make its effects go away," says Sheldon Tobe, a kidney-disease specialist at the University of Toronto.
And that's more important today than ever because retractions of scientific studies are surging.
Since 2001, while the number of papers published in research journals has risen 44%, the number retracted has leapt more than 15-fold, data compiled for The Wall Street Journal by Thomson Reuters reveal.
Just 22 retraction notices appeared in 2001, but 139 in 2006 and 339 last year. Through seven months of this year, there have been 210, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science, an index of 11,600 peer-reviewed journals world-wide.
In a sign of the times, a blog called "Retraction Watch" has popped up to monitor the flow.
Science is based on trust, and most researchers accept findings published in peer-reviewed journals. The studies spur others to embark on related avenues of research, so if one paper is later found to be tainted, an entire edifice of work comes into doubt. Millions of dollars' worth of private and government funding may go to waste, and, in the case of medical science, patients can be put at risk.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270...
Stop spamming these forums with your horsesh*t creationist propoganda nonsense.

Nobody belives your bullsh*t religion. We laugh when you claims that fossil's arent real and that the earth is 6000 years old.

Go back to the discovery institute and tell them you failed to convert any atheists here you lying sack of sh*t with no proof of god and no morals.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8305
Dec 12, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, I made no argument. I posted a link, and you erroneously replied to it.
Just a reminder to everyone in the forum: The atheists in the forum are unknowns and not creditable, therefore I have no interest in their objections to web page material. Should they have any concerns, they may contact the publisher at the link provided.
Wrong again. You're always wrong. You do know that, don't you Dim?

You posted a link - you got that bit right.

You then took passages of text from the article you linked to and tried to pass them off as quotes from Richard Dawkins.

Bad move when the article was authored by some non-entity called Miles Mathis and the quotes you falsely and deliberately attributed to Dawkins were actually made by Mathis.

Liar

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.

•••
•••