Don't dictate beliefs

Don't dictate beliefs

There are 11176 comments on the The Star Press story from Sep 5, 2012, titled Don't dictate beliefs. In it, The Star Press reports that:

No one else can say otherwise? That is basically saying those who do "believe in God" are better? Hardly.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Star Press.

KJV

United States

#8486 Dec 14, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>Let's be fair here. If drug use is a reason to demean people, then it applies ten-fold to the troops that came back junkies.

Also, anybody who works, saves, spends and pays taxes serves his or her country. There is nothing special about putting on a uniform. Being a soldier is no more honorable than being a mother or a teacher, and no more worthy of adulation than being a fireman, a cop,or the lineman that restores power to your home after a tornado, hurricane or ice storm.

And I question how the Vietnam War served Americans' interests. I told you that I've been to Vietnam on holiday - Saigon, now Ho Chi Minh City - and I saw what we were saving the Vietnamese from. If you saw it, you would be ashamed that your country sent you there to carpet bomb, napalm, and agent orange those people.

I think you served your government and the war profiteers it supports with its endless series wars more than any of the rest of us. That's not your fault,and I don't think you deserve to be castigated for it. But frankly, I think that we war protesters served Americans at least as well as any soldiers did. Who do you think got those soldiers home?
"anybody who works, saves, spends and pays taxes serves his or her country. There is nothing special about putting on a uniform. Being a soldier is no more honorable than being a mother or a teacher"

This proves you have no clue about war. Teacher don't face death everyday or lose limbs. Getting agent orange on them. Then there is napalm.

You should have kept you ridicules comments to yourself.

I don't know too many Mothers having to wipe her best friends brains off of her face.

War can't be explained. You have to be there to believe it. Good place to send our 18 year men.
KJV

United States

#8487 Dec 14, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>When you've run out of ammunition and realize your points = zero, you resort to grammar – and you fail even at that, since you're dense enough to forget it's your OWN grammar you're criticizing.

“Plough vs. plow”

“In American and Canadian English, plow is the preferred spelling of the farm implement and its related verbs. Plough is the preferred spelling in all other varieties of English.

The spelling distinction applies to all senses of the word, including figurative ones. British and Australian writers always use plough, along with ploughed and ploughing; American and Canadian writers always use plow, plowed, and plowing. Both spellings are pronounced the same.”

Contact the publisher with any dispute:
http://grammarist.com/spelling/plough-plow/

You introduced the spelling,“plough”, to the forum, airhead - not me.

In the United States, we spell it plow, which is correct, and we normally don't spell over here to please limeys. But, to patronize and condescend to you, I spelled it your way because I didn't know if you had enough sense to know what plow meant. I still don't know if you do. Probably not.

You're a number one idiot, and idiot is spelled 2 ways:“idiot” and / or “Khatru”.

And God, the creator, is capitalized. And our currency says “IN GOD WE TRUST”. We don't disgrace any note here by defacing it with Darwin's picture

However, it's correct to spell atheism and atheists with lower case a, because they are indeed LOWER case or lower class, lol. And in that low class, you're the dregs that settled to the bottom.

LMAO
"You're a number one idiot, and idiot is spelled 2 ways:“idiot” and / or “Khatru”."

LMAO. Good old Khatru NN
KJV

United States

#8488 Dec 14, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>Just a reminder to everyone, should you have a dispute with the contents of any web page, feel free to contact the publisher with your concerns. I have no interest in your opinions.

If you have a link from a credit-worthy source that disputes any web page, you are also free to post that detail with the link, otherwise your opinion or dispute is not considered valid.
I believe the term they use is.
No link then it's BS.
KJV

United States

#8489 Dec 14, 2012
derek4 wrote:
New Pew survey: 21% of atheists believe in God

“...you’ll find 12% professing a belief in heaven and 10% praying at least once a week.(Note: That doesn’t mean meditation. That was posed in a separate question.) I can’t believe I have to ask this, but … do we actually need separate sects within atheism for those who are, um, actual atheists and those who aren’t?
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/23/new-pew...

“If only George Carlin were around to ponder this oxymoron: Steven Waldman, the editor-in-chief of Beliefnet, digs into the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (and reported on by The Times yesterday), and finds an interesting nugget:“21 percent of atheists believe in god.”

“What this means is that Atheism has become a cultural designation, rather than a theological statement,” Waldman writes on his Beliefnet blog.“Some are likely declaring themselves atheists as a statement of hostility to organized religion, rather than to God. This might help explain polls showing rising numbers of Atheists.”
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/...
"Some are likely declaring themselves atheists as a statement of hostility to organized religion, rather than to God. This might help explain polls showing rising numbers of Atheists.”"

LOL

A survey published in the 2005 Encyclopedia Britannica stated that 2.3% of the world's population consists of individuals who profess "atheism, skepticism, disbelief, or irreligion, including the militantly antireligious." In regards to the 2.3% figure just mentioned, the 2005 survey cited by Encyclopedia Britannica survey did not include Buddhist in regards to the 2.3% figure and Buddhism can be theistic or atheistic."

Wikipedia:

"Another survey attributed to Britannica shows the population of atheists at around 2.4% of the world's population.[citation needed] It is difficult to determine whether atheism is growing or not"

Wikipedia :

"2005 poll by AP/Ipsos surveyed ten countries. Of the developed nations, people in the United States were most sure of the existence of God or a higher power (2% atheist, 4% agnostic)"

Wikipedia :

"According to one estimate, atheists make up about 2.3% of the world's population"

"In 2007, a Pew Forum survey found that the atheist population in the United States was 1.6% of the American population."

"Global atheism is shrinking and demographic changes in the United States and the world are expected to shrink the influence of American secularism.
In 2012, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary reported that globally every day there are 800 less atheists per day, 1,100 less non-religious (agnostic) people per day and 83,000 more people professing to be Christians per day.
In 2011, the American Spectator declared concerning research published in the International Bulletin of

Missionary Research:
The report estimates about 80,000 new Christians every day, 79,000 new Muslims every day, and 300 fewer atheists every day. These atheists are presumably disproportionately represented in the West, while religion is thriving in the Global South, where charismatic Christianity is exploding."
KJV

United States

#8490 Dec 14, 2012
derek4 wrote:
“Sam Harris Believes in God”

Oct 18, 2010

“The neuroscientist and rationalist has made his name attacking religious faith. Who knew he was so spiritual?”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/10...

[Surprising. Little Sam: spiritual]
In any case, Sam Harris—a hero to the growing numbers of Americans who check the atheist box on opinion polls—concedes he believes in something certain people would call “God.” In a related thought, he raises the topic of his next project: a spirituality guide tentatively titled The Illusion of the Self. Based on Harris’s own “spiritual journey,” it will “[celebrate] the spiritual aspect of human existence [and explain] how we can live moral and spiritual lives without religion,” according to a statement from his publisher, Free Press. It’s surprising. One hardly expects Harris, a hyperrational polemicist, to veer into the realm of spiritual self-help.

Spirituality is not a new interest of Harris’s, however. A careful reader will have noticed that though he’s often been lumped together with the rabble-rousers Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens (all are advisers to his nonprofit group Project Reason), and though he continues to insist that religious faith is possibly the most destructive force in the world, he shuns the label “atheist.” Harris places reason at the apex of human abilities and achievement, but he concedes that there’s much that humans may never empirically know—like what happens after death.“Mystery,” he wrote in the concluding chapter of The End of Faith, published in 2004,“is ineradicable from our circumstance, because however much we know, it seems like there will always be brute facts that we cannot account for but which we must rely on to explain everything else.” For his praise of the contemplative experience in The End of Faith, Harris has received criticism from atheists.
KJV

United States

#8491 Dec 14, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>You're always informative and pleasant. It's hard to find the words to express the value we place on your contributions to the forum.
I can think of a few!
KJV

United States

#8492 Dec 14, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Agnostic atheist is still an atheist. Idiot.
Wrong.

Atheist have made a commitment
Agnostic have not.

You should study up on your religion.

athe·ist\ˈā-thē-ist\
noun
: one who believes that there is no deity

be·lieve\bə-ˈlēv\
intransitive verb
1 a : to have a firm religious faith

ag·nos·tic\ag-ˈnäs-tik,əg -\
noun
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8493 Dec 14, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe the term they use is.
No link then it's BS.
Thank you for posting the scriptures today – wow, you were busy.

And, about the atheists, links, etc..... they never contribute anything supportable to the forum – rarely do they even include any link in their [altered] material.

Actually, there is one atheist who does sometimes post linked support (of the atheist posts that I read ). But I can only think of one. Not that I necessarily agree with his links, but I don't write him back to dispute them; at least he found something which he felt lent credibility to his opinion.

The rest of our little mad atheists post unsupported opinions. I don't know these people – they could be anyone - so why should opinions matter to me?

Since I post sources and links, I've been accused of having no thoughts of my own.

Duh - the links I post reflect my thoughts – obviously I FOUND the material based on my thoughts, and it's obvious what I was researching to find the material, so it doesn't take a brain child to surmise what my thoughts are.....

Where are THEIR thoughts? They never introduce anything – they simply sit back and critique. In my case, they are constantly critiquing web page material – thinking they are critiquing me, lol – further, accusing me of lying simply from posting material clearly identified as belonging to a web page.

It kills them knowing the material is out there – they want to rid the internet of it – and they think they're accomplishing that. Day after day they get out their little spray guns and squirt into the air, going nowhere, accomplishing nothing. All the material is still out there for the whole world to see – all it takes is Google.

Yep - all the dope on fraudulent science and all the other - staying all over tne internet for the whole world to read. Also, all the facts on the tremendous growth of Christianity in China, Japan - elsewhere. Love it.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8494 Dec 14, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Why post the flaws in evolution when you can list the correct parts of evolution must easier. Here watch.
The list of correct items of evolution:
1)
You couldn't have said it better, thanks.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8495 Dec 14, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
You were dumb enough to post it here so it falls on you.
Seriously are you this stupid?
<quoted text>
The "dumb" is all yours, lol - for believing outright obvious sarcasm. Proceed to the nearest emergency room for mental evaluation. LMAO

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8496 Dec 14, 2012
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
And btw you can believe in evolution, or disbelieve in literal hell, and still believe in God. One thing does not depend on another.
No I cannot. Maybe you can, even though you apparently choose not to, just as I choose to reject evolution. It would be more plausible had you said “One can believe in evolution and in God”- and “one”(whoever that is) might, but I cannot. Please refrain from telling me what I can believe. You don't know me or what I can believe.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8497 Dec 14, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
You missed the rest of my post.
Allow me....
<quoted text>
There. No doubt you feel all the better for that.
No, Khatru, I didn't miss anything, let alone the rest of your post. What you have missed are the many posts I have made that go like this:“Just a reminder to everyone, if you wish to dispute any web page, you should contact the publisher at the link provided. I have no interest in your dispute of web page material.”

Also, on the article in question, you missed your opportunity to provide us with a link supporting your claim any information in any link I posted was false or whatever your objection is.

See, you've missed a lot of things. I don't know if you have a comprehension problem or a problem with your eyes, or both.

Take better care of yourself.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8499 Dec 14, 2012
Bad Science Used To Push Cholesterol-Reducing Drugs

I had a patient in my practice this week who was seeking advice about the prevention of heart disease. He’d been on a statin for several years, and then started to get what he felt might be side-effects.

He stopped the statin and the side-effects went away. As he rightly pointed out, the relief from his symptoms might have been entirely coincidental and nothing to do with the fact that he stopped his statin medication. However, he was disinclined to restart. My patient told me that he expects his doctor to be up in arms about this. He has, apparently, an unbridled enthusiasm for statins and believes ‘everyone should be taking them’.

As I pointed out to my patient, the reality is the vast majority of people who take statins are destined not to benefit from them. And then we have the problem, of course, of toxicity and side effects.

[Link contains links which give more detail. It will keep you busy and out of trouble - "plough" through, lol]
http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/bad-science-...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8500 Dec 14, 2012
“Trusting and unaware patients have been treated with potentially dangerous drugs by equally unaware but well-intentioned physicians who have been likewise trusting of the slick and obscenely profitable psychopharmaceutical drug companies aka, BigPharma, not to mention the Food and Drug Administration, an agency that is all-too-often in bed with the drug industry that they are supposed to be monitoring and regulating. The foxes of BigPharma have a close ally inside the henhouse.

That is the conclusion of two books by a courageous investigative journalist and health science writer named Robert Whitaker. His first book, entitled Mad in America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill, noted that there has been a 600 percent increase (since Thorazine was introduced in the U.S. in the mid-1950s) in the total and permanent disabilities of millions of psychiatric drug-takers.”
http://consortiumnews.com/2012/04/10/are-drug...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8501 Dec 14, 2012
News and Information about Personal Injury Lawsuits

[Avandia / Bad Science]

“The results of a large clinical study of Avandia’s heart side effects, which was paid for by the drug’s maker, GlaxoSmithKline, PLC, has come under intense criticism for using bad science.

The RECORD (Rosiglitazone Evaluated for Cardiac Outcomes and Regulation of Glycaemia in Diabetes) study, which was released last week and published in the medical journal Lancet, was touted as showing that Avandia side effects do not increase the risk of a heart attack.

Critics of the report, which include physicians, the FDA and Avandia attorneys representing plaintiffs who have filed a lawsuits against GlaxoSmithKline, say that the methodology of the study is flawed, with too small a sample size and researchers knowing which subjects were on what medication. In addition, the study involved the use of Avandia together with other drugs and 40% of the subjects actually stopped taking Avandia before the research was completed.

Avandia (rosiglitazone) is a type 2 diabetes drug approved by the FDA in 1999. It is a thiazolidinedione agent, which acts by increasing the body’s sensitivity to insulin and aiding in the management of blood sugar in diabetics.

Nearly a dozen other studies, including some by GlaxoSmithKline P.L.C., have indicated that the side effects of Avandia may increase the risk of heart attacks, congestive heart failure, liver failure, bone fractures, macular edema and death.

One May 2007 meta-analysis of 42 clinical studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that users faced a 43% increase in the risk of a heart attack on Avandia.

The FDA required that a “black box” warning be placed on Avandia in November 2007, indicating that the drug could increase the risk of heart attacks. However, the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen petitioned the FDA last year to issue an Avandia recall, indicating that the drug should not even be available, as any potential benefits provided by the medication are outweighed by the side effects.

The FDA denounced the RECORD study’s science two years ago, and GlaxoSmithKline has already started another study, known as TIDE, in response to FDA’s criticisms.

Last year, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommended against using Avandia. However, ADA officials say they will review the RECORD study’s results and determine whether they may change their recommendations.

GlaxoSmithKline PLC currently faces hundreds of lawsuits over Avandia heart risks filed by uses who suffered heart attacks, congestive heart failure and other cardiovascular injuries. All federal cases have been consolidated in an MDL, or Multidistrict Liigation, centralized in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe. The first Avandia lawsuit is scheduled for trial to begin early next summer.”
http://www.aboutlawsuits.com/avandia-heart-st...

[Gosh - are our peer review groups looking into these problems?]

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8502 Dec 14, 2012
re-posting:

Dr. Yoshitaka Fujii Sets New World Record For Faking Data

Dr. Yoshitaka Fujii, formerly an anesthesiologist at Toho University's medical school, has a record no published researcher can match. He is 209 and 3. The problem is the 3 are papers of his that are known not to be fraudulent between 1993 and 2011.

172 are clearly based on fabricated data, according to Retraction Watch. Naturally, Fujii claimed the studies were all randomized, double-blind, controlled trials and done at multiple institutions to throw off fact checkers, the way these guys always do. Some even had forged signatures of collaborators.

Apparently the whole field is a little sketchy. John Timmer at Ars Technica notes that 13% of papers retracted over the last four decades have been in anesthesiology.

37 of his papers were not included in the analysis so there is a chance he could extend his world record even more.
http://www.science20.com/cool-links/dr_yoshit...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#8503 Dec 14, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Sam Harris has devastating logic which he employs to great effect as he mops the floor with believers.
Devastating logic?

In one of his books, Harris advocated killing people for what they believe even before they committed any act based upon it.

You must think Hitler and Stalin had devastating logic.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#8504 Dec 14, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is the first line from you evidence
"haven't forgotten | May 12, 2012
Now, this is meant to be a nonsense challenge, and to mirror the other nonsense challenge thread called prove there is a god."
Dolt!
LOL
Yup. I was curious as to whether you would actually look at the link.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#8505 Dec 14, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Devastating logic?
In one of his books, Harris advocated killing people for what they believe even before they committed any act based upon it.
You must think Hitler and Stalin had devastating logic.
You should have mined for the quote and put it in your post, Buck.

I expect %10 more from you. I'm disappointed.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#8506 Dec 14, 2012
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
The provisions of 501(c)(3) are not about contributions. They are about advocacy and efforts to affect election outcomes, and the Church's actions in this regard are quite clear. Its status should be revised and it should be required to pay corporate income taxes.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had a right to do and say what it did.

See Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress
of grievances.

Why is that significant? Be believe part of our faith is defending moral truths.

"Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality. Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out."
(Gordon B Hinkley)

If you tell a church to "can it" and stop fighting for what they believe in when their doctrine compels them to speak out, you are "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion.

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
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Subduction Zone 74,878
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 1 hr Into The Night 6,087
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 6 hr Subduction Zone 130
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 7 hr Regolith Based Li... 32,065
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 7 hr John 4,952
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 10 hr Eagle 12 - 4,052
News Why do public atheists have to behave like such... Jun 21 Eagle 12 - 4
More from around the web