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.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8527 Dec 15, 2012
Yale Scientist Disciplined for Releasing Deadly Virus

http://www.google.com/url...

[The first post was about corrupt scientists from Harvard, now one from Yale – even scientists in our finest universities: JUST PLAIN CORRUPT.]

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8528 Dec 15, 2012
Excerpt from “Experimental Biology and Medicine” link:

... the initial reactions of many scientists who purported to speak for all of science, coupled with delays in university investigations and the development of ethics codes, not only resulted in further expansion of the federal regulatory presence on university campuses but also helped to create a situation in which an accusation of misconduct, whether warranted or not, can now trigger years of expensive and time-consuming litigation.
http://ebm.rsmjournals.com/content/224/4/211....

[misconduct = years of expensive and “time-consuming litigation”, not to mention potentially damaged lives from bogus research.]

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8529 Dec 15, 2012
Biologist spared jail for grant fraud

An immunologist who pleaded guilty to grant fraud in court has avoided jail after several prominent scientists wrote letters begging for clemency on his behalf. His sentence of home detention, community service and financial restitution, finalized on 15 June, suggests that coming clean promptly can be a good strategy for those who have committed scientific misconduct.

[“Prominent scientists” wanted him to go free...They must have been part of the peer review group, lol. So they got him off.....interesting.]

Luk Van Parijs was first confronted with evidence of data falsification by members of his laboratory in 2004, when he was an associate professor of biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge. Within two days, he had confessed to several acts of fabrication and agreed to cooperate with MIT's investigation. MIT fired him after a year-long inquiry, but he faced additional investigations by two other institutions — Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, where he had been a graduate student, and the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, where he had been a postdoc — as well as by the US government's Office of Research Integrity.

The investigation reports, obtained by Nature under the US Freedom of Information Act, show that Van Parijs was found to be solely responsible for more than 11 incidents of data fabrication in grant applications and papers submitted between 1997 and 2004. Many described efforts to study disease-related genes by shutting down the genes with virus-based techniques, including some that made use of the then-newly discovered mechanism of RNA interference.”
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110628/full/4...
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#8530 Dec 15, 2012
Where?
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
No it was correct you are wrong
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#8531 Dec 15, 2012
He didn't f**k kids, so he probably wasn't a christian.
derek4 wrote:
Biologist spared jail for grant fraud
An immunologist who pleaded guilty to grant fraud in court has avoided jail after several prominent scientists wrote letters begging for clemency on his behalf. His sentence of home detention, community service and financial restitution, finalized on 15 June, suggests that coming clean promptly can be a good strategy for those who have committed scientific misconduct.
[“Prominent scientists” wanted him to go free...They must have been part of the peer review group, lol. So they got him off.....interesting.]
Luk Van Parijs was first confronted with evidence of data falsification by members of his laboratory in 2004, when he was an associate professor of biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge. Within two days, he had confessed to several acts of fabrication and agreed to cooperate with MIT's investigation. MIT fired him after a year-long inquiry, but he faced additional investigations by two other institutions — Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, where he had been a graduate student, and the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, where he had been a postdoc — as well as by the US government's Office of Research Integrity.
The investigation reports, obtained by Nature under the US Freedom of Information Act, show that Van Parijs was found to be solely responsible for more than 11 incidents of data fabrication in grant applications and papers submitted between 1997 and 2004. Many described efforts to study disease-related genes by shutting down the genes with virus-based techniques, including some that made use of the then-newly discovered mechanism of RNA interference.”
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110628/full/4...

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#8532 Dec 15, 2012
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
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
Maybe they would relinquish their status if we could just arrange for direct transfer payments of taxpayer money to the LDS, like we do for Planned Parenthood and the labor unions.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#8533 Dec 15, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
You're leaving out a few details.
But that's just the way you are.
A liar for Jesus.
I'll take Jesus. You have Harris, Hitler, and Stalin.

Fair enough.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#8534 Dec 15, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
"The End of Faith", by Sam Harris.

pp. 52-53

“Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them”.

Harris' statement amazed even atheists, so much so, that he tried to backpedal it on the internet. Seems other people's interpretation was at fault, not his stupid statement.

He advocates considering that killing people for their dangerous ideas is ethical, even though they have committed no wrong. He also includes Christianity among his "dangerous ideas".

Sam Harris is an amoral louse and a fraud.

Aerobetty - you have called me a liar countless time, but you are yet to pin down one single lie.

You have an intellect that is ill-equipped to challenge me, so you call names. Go fuck yourself, weakling.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#8535 Dec 15, 2012
There's no proof of jesus.
Harris is a great writer.
Hitler was a catholic leader of a majority protestant country.
Stalin went to priest school.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll take Jesus. You have Harris, Hitler, and Stalin.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#8536 Dec 15, 2012
Thinking wrote:
There's no proof of jesus.
Harris is a great writer.
Hitler was a catholic leader of a majority protestant country.
Stalin went to priest school.
<quoted text>
1. False

2. False

3. True, but a Red Herring.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#8537 Dec 15, 2012
Full text here for the honest amongst us. No point you reading it, Buck.

www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-...
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
"The End of Faith", by Sam Harris.
pp. 52-53
“Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them”.
Harris' statement amazed even atheists, so much so, that he tried to backpedal it on the internet. Seems other people's interpretation was at fault, not his stupid statement.
He advocates considering that killing people for their dangerous ideas is ethical, even though they have committed no wrong. He also includes Christianity among his "dangerous ideas".
Sam Harris is an amoral louse and a fraud.
Aerobetty - you have called me a liar countless time, but you are yet to pin down one single lie.
You have an intellect that is ill-equipped to challenge me, so you call names. Go fuck yourself, weakling.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#8538 Dec 15, 2012
1. True
2. True
3. True
4. True
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
1. False
2. False
3. True, but a Red Herring.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#8539 Dec 15, 2012
"The End of Faith", by Sam Harris.

pp. 52-53

“Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them."

And the rest of that particular paragraph is --

"This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas."

But even that should be taken in context with the discussion leading up to this particular paragraph.

For anyone who is interested in further research on this -- " http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/respo... ;

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#8540 Dec 15, 2012
I see buck lacked the IQ to catch all four of them! Well at least he admits to accepting Jesus, he was pretending to not be a christian anymore even though he always praises the DI a christian think tank.

Lmfao!
Thinking wrote:
1. True
2. True
3. True
4. True
<quoted text>
KJV

United States

#8542 Dec 15, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
LOL. I know what you mean. You're posting items that back up your believes but are written by professionals in their field.

If you post your writings they would be all over you so you quote the pro's and then it's you have no thoughts of you own. LOL.

It's like arguing with children.
KJV

United States

#8543 Dec 15, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>You couldn't have said it better, thanks.
LOL
KJV

United States

#8544 Dec 15, 2012
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>Yup. I was curious as to whether you would actually look at the link.
So I passed your test?

:)
KJV

United States

#8545 Dec 15, 2012
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>Where?
When you said the article I posted was wrong.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#8546 Dec 15, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
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
You need to prove e god that you lie about before you try and "debunk" science. It's hilariously ironic that science is what lets your post your anti-science crap here n the atheist forum.

If you spend as much time trying to prove your god as you do posting propaganda, you would eventually become an atheist. I guess that's why you're afraid of proving to us that your god is real.

It much easier for you to lie about science instead isn't it?

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#8547 Dec 15, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
So I passed your test?
:)
Well, yeah, if you got the joke.

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) 2 hr Regolith Based Li... 87,315
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) Feb 17 superwilly 5,811
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Feb 14 ChristineM 4,032
Christianity almost did not happen Feb 12 Quatsch22 1
News Egypt's parliament takes serious actions to com... Feb 12 dollarsbillmom 19
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Feb 10 superwilly 5,154
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) Feb 9 Eagle 12 - 257
More from around the web