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.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#8507 Dec 14, 2012
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
You should have mined for the quote and put it in your post, Buck.
I expect %10 more from you. I'm disappointed.
It's because Sam never actually said anything that could be construed as such. ;) It's a red herring.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#8508 Dec 14, 2012
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Well, not YOU specifically, but if the government were to take legal action.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#8509 Dec 14, 2012
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You are forcing your morality onto others, plain and simple, that is wrong. Of course your morals are dead wrong but meh, if you remained like the Amish the rest of us would never have cared.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#8510 Dec 14, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
It's because Sam never actually said anything that could be construed as such. ;) It's a red herring.
He made it quite clear in his book, The Moral Landscape, that he looks forward to a future where he or someone like him could remove a person's ability to even think of religion. He spoke of drugs and genetic engineering to achieve his goal of eradicating religion from the human mind. Sounds suspiciously like Orwell's Thought Police.

I find it very funny that the creep calls himself a "free-thinker" but advocates mind control for anyone else who may think differently than he does.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#8511 Dec 14, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You are forcing your morality onto others, plain and simple, that is wrong.
Just as your idols, The Four Horsemen, hope to do. Hypocrite.

BTW, have they found a replacement for that old, assjacker Hitchens yet?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#8512 Dec 14, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Just as your idols, The Four Horsemen, hope to do. Hypocrite.
BTW, have they found a replacement for that old, assjacker Hitchens yet?
Have you found a replacement for your fake go that you lie about to your friends, family & colete strangers on the Internet.

At the end of the day, you're trying to sell us a god that simply doesn't exist, and no amount of lying is going to make us ignore fossils.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#8513 Dec 14, 2012
derek4 wrote:
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...
Your a creationist liar posting anti atheist and anti science propaganda, all the while having absolutely no proof of god whatsoever.

Good job argument loser.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#8514 Dec 14, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you found a replacement for your fake go that you lie about to your friends, family & colete strangers on the Internet.
At the end of the day, you're trying to sell us a god that simply doesn't exist, and no amount of lying is going to make us ignore fossils.
I'm not promoting any god, just pointing out liars and hypocrites who wish to force their will on the rest of society.

You are an idiot.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#8515 Dec 15, 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.
Shut up you Creationist too. Hitler was catholic, this was already demonstrated to you.

Show us all with your mighty intelligence where in atheism it says we must commit mass genocide.

Exactly, now quickly f*ck off back to your 6000 year old earth you fossil denying piece of creationist sh*t.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#8516 Dec 15, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not promoting any god, just pointing out liars and hypocrites who wish to force their will on the rest of society.
You are an idiot.
You're the liar, nobody believes your two-bit opinions about a god that doesn't exist. Fact.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#8517 Dec 15, 2012
I'm sorry that fossils offend you creationists so much.

But that's what happens when you live in the real world. yet imagine up a god and set of rules based on zero evidence and proven stupidity.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#8518 Dec 15, 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.
Hello Buck

Any chance of posting a link to this particular assertion?

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#8519 Dec 15, 2012
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You're right that the Church had a right to do and say what it did. Where you err is in assuming that it also has a right to a 501(c)(3) tax status. It doesn't. Only nonprofit organizations that abide by the rules governing that provision enjoy that privilege. When the Church organized a campaign to effect the California election, it broke those rules, which normally leads to a loss of that status. Only an organizational failure prevented the IRS from doing so. That needs to be fixed because until it is, there's nothing to stop nonprofit organizations from lobbing in their own interests.

On the face of it, the Church's activity may appear to have been within the code's limits. After all, they were not advocating for or against a candidate. But 501(c)(3) organizations are also prohibited from lobbying to influence legislation, and that includes referendum by legislation.* The Church clearly disregarded that requirement, and in the past, churches and other nonprofits have lost their status for doing much less. No exception should be made for LDS.

* http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#8520 Dec 15, 2012
Apologists always lose. It's in the name.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#8521 Dec 15, 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're leaving out a few details.

But that's just the way you are.

A liar for Jesus.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#8522 Dec 15, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>Hello Buck

Any chance of posting a link to this particular assertion?
If he did that, he'd have to deal with the entire subject, which would expose him for the ignorant, lying POS he is.

And no, buck. We're no buddies.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8523 Dec 15, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You are forcing your morality onto others, plain and simple, that is wrong. Of course your morals are dead wrong but meh, if you remained like the Amish the rest of us would never have cared.
So you're against the Constitution?

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8524 Dec 15, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Your a creationist liar posting anti atheist and anti science propaganda, all the while having absolutely no proof of god whatsoever.
Good job argument loser.
You're "slow", so for your convenience, we'll go through this one step at a time.

First of all, let me try to understand you so I can help you, since you need help very badly.

(1) Where was my lie? I lied about nothing because I made no personal comment. I simply posted a web page about Dr. Yoshitaka Fujii faking data, and I provided a link to the source of the information.[So you should be whining to the publisher of the web page instead of me.]

(2) Where is YOUR link that backs up your complaint and shows that “Dr. Yoshitaka Fujii Sets New World Record For Faking Data”, is a lie?[You don't have one.]

(3) Do you support Dr. Yoshitaka Fujii's fake data, just as you support other fraudulent science?[Yes.]

(4) What does Dr. Yoshitaka Fujii's fake data or any science fraud have to do with creationism?[Nothing]

(5) So you're telling us there is no God, and because of that, corrupt and fraudulent science is acceptable?[Yes]

Thank you for your congeniality and interesting but bizarre perspective.

We are glad to have you in the forum as a loser and an example of a crackpot. Stay with us.

LMAO

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8525 Dec 15, 2012
Bubble Fusion Scientist Disciplined

“After making headlines with claims of achieving nuclear fusion in a tabletop experiment, Rusi Taleyarkhan joined Purdue University's nuclear engineering department in 2004. His tenure there has been rocky. After a university investigation cited Taleyarkhan for two instances of research misconduct, the university imposed sanctions in August. Taleyarkhan will remain a member of the university's faculty and can serve on graduate committees, but he will no longer have a named professorship and will not be allowed to serve as a major professor for graduate students for at least three years.

The saga began in 2002, when Taleyarkhan was at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. He and his colleagues had subjected a flask of deuterated acetone to very intense, high-frequency sound waves, causing the formation of tiny bubbles that expanded and contracted in phase with the sound. Theorists had predicted that the compression induced shock wave in a sufficiently spherical bubble could create high enough temperatures and pressures for deuterons to fuse. Taleyarkhan's team presented evidence that such fusion had indeed occurred. But their report, published in Science, met with considerable skepticism.(See Physics TODAY, April 2002, page 16.)

Independent research groups have so far failed to confirm the results of Taleyarkhan's group, and controversy has dogged him. Some have criticized the experiments. Others have leveled charges of misconduct.”
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/inthenews/2008/Q...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8526 Dec 15, 2012
Harvard scientists disciplined for not declaring ties to drug companies

“Three US psychiatrists, responsible for trailblazing the use of antipsychotic drugs in children, are facing sanctions for their failure to declare their acceptance of millions of dollars from pharmaceutical companies between 2000 and 2007.

Joseph Biederman, Thomas Spencer and Timothy Wilens, child psychiatrists at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, were first identified three years ago in an investigation led by Iowa Republican Senator Charles Grassley as failing to disclose potential conflicts of interests that could have arisen due to payments from pharmaceutical companies.”
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/07/harvard_...

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 Scientist Richard Dawkins weighs in on Malaysia... 1 hr nanoanomaly 1
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 2 hr Frindly 3,243
High School Atheism 3 hr Eagle 12 - 40
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 4 hr Eagle 12 - 4,965
Where have all the Atheists gone? (Apr '17) 4 hr Eagle 12 - 132
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Frindly 83,830
hell is a real place. so.. ahtiesm is a faux li... 4 hr Eagle 12 - 17
More from around the web