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

#8548 Dec 15, 2012
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>Well, yeah, if you got the joke.
Well I saw a link named exactly what was stated that Christians don't do. So yes there was one. However it was posted as a mirror to the ridicules threads started time and time again by atheist (and God hating Theist which I find many on these thread that are calling themselves atheist.)

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#8549 Dec 15, 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?
You reverence for life, or rather lack of it, has already been made clear, you are christian after all.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8550 Dec 15, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Are you OK with your religion affecting only people like you that choose to be so affected, but not people like me? If so, do you support our vision of a church that has no relevance except with its own? Or would you rather impose Christian values on unbelievers as well? As I understand it, in 2008, your church poured a lot of out-of-state money into a California election to support a proposition to ban same sex marriage, which carried and became law. Gays in California can't marry because Mormons in Utah didn't approve. Do you think that that was appropriate? I don't.
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
Defending the institution of marriage is appropriate.


It sounds like you consider the institution of marriage yours to regulate. I notice that you framed it as if others' opinions are an assault on you.
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
If an individual finds significance in how a marriage is defined, I think that individual should have a say in how it is defined.
I think you mean dictated, not defined. You don't just want a say in how marriage is defined. You want a say in how it is enforced. You want a say in what other people are allowed to do even if it is unfair and even if it doesn't affect you.

You probably don't realize that that attitude is exactly why it is incumbent on the rest of us to actively campaign against your church, to try to wrest political and social control from it, and to work to keep it small and irrelevant if we want a tolerant, pluralistic society that maximizes personal freedom and equal rights under the law.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8551 Dec 15, 2012
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
I don't have a problem with anyone who is attracted to the same gender and neither does the church.(see http://www.mormonsandgays.org/ ) However, I don't condone homosexual activity.
Then I recommend that you not engage in it.
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
I think its impossible to have a church that has no relevance except with its own ...
Of course it's possible. It would be possible if your church was a good neighbor and adopted a "live and let live" policy. But we both know that that will never happen. Like you, the church seems to feel that it has a right to dictate what others may do even when there is no better reason for that than a claims that some god wills it.

And it will also be possible if we simply wait for your church to shrink, take the reigns of society, and retool society to reflect our values.

The good news for you is that will still be free not to have gay sex, marry the same gender, refuse therapy developed using stem cell research, or refuse an abortion.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#8552 Dec 15, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're against the Constitution?
The US Constitution is one of the things religious organizations are ignoring, and more often than not, except the Amish and a few others in the US. The US Constitution does not deal in morality, because morality is subjective, it deals in equality, which is not subjective. Your religious nuts trying to make the US Constitution enforce morality is breaking the US Constitution itself.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8553 Dec 15, 2012
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
... at least not a church as Christ would have it.
Well there's the bone of contention right there, isn't it? Many of us have no interest what you think Jesus wants to impose on us.
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
Is it my place to say what is legally permitted? The government thinks so, since it gave me the right to vote on the issue.
That question wasn't asked was it? I was talking about your moral right,not what the law permitted.
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
Was it right for me to vote yes on prop 8? Yes.
I also didn't ask that. I asked whether you thought that it was appropriate for Salt Lake City to pour money into California - probably all accumulated tax free - to impose its will on Californians.

No doubt you also thought that it was right to restrict the rights and freedoms of others even when it did not benefit you or anybody else. That's what I'd like to emphasize here. You epitomize your church, which I equate with an octopus.
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
I feel that marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think the law should reflect that and I have a right to express that.
You seem also seem to think that you have the right to impose your religious beliefs on others. That should not be overlooked or forgotten.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8554 Dec 15, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
I think it's safe to say that Dim realises this and in grim desperation he floods this thread with his spam.
For all the good it does, his spamming is simply re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.
Agreed. Perhaps he is trying to stem the tide. But he's like a beast wallowing up to its neck in tar. The more he struggles, the greater our resolve to oppose his church.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8555 Dec 15, 2012
derek4 wrote:
The atheists are working on removing that right.
That is correct. And just.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8556 Dec 15, 2012
NightSerf wrote:
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.
That bears repeating.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8557 Dec 15, 2012
Thinking wrote:
1. True
2. True
3. True
4. True
<quoted text>
If you know what you say is true, you shouldn't keep whining and trying to reaffirm it over and over. When you do that, it shows us you're weak, and sends up red flags, letting us know we can safely assume that what you say is false.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8558 Dec 15, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Wrong. Science doesn't "let" me post the facts of fraudulent science. I don't need their permission, lol.

Further, scientists (particularly biological scientists) don't get credit for inventing the technology of computers and the internet. Many experts in various walks of like contributed to that. And the technology of computers is irrelevant to the fraudulent theory of evolution. Also, I have no burden of proving God's existence to you, and God's existence has nothing to do with fraudulent science.

You say I've lied about science. No, I haven't. I've posted news accounts about science fraud and misconduct that have been confirmed in reputable newspapers and science journals.

So the lies are all yours, and you have no points, as usual. You're fighting a lost cause and failing miserably.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8559 Dec 15, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
The US Constitution is one of the things religious organizations are ignoring, and more often than not, except the Amish and a few others in the US. The US Constitution does not deal in morality, because morality is subjective, it deals in equality, which is not subjective. Your religious nuts trying to make the US Constitution enforce morality is breaking the US Constitution itself.
I need no lesson from you, so you can come down off your crumbling, moldy pedestal and cut the fancy language you try to impress us with.

I don't think you have any idea what the Constitution says.

“The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is also the first section of the Bill of Rights. It is arguably the most important part of the U.S. Constitution, as it guarantees freedoms of religion, speech, writing and publishing, peaceful assembly, and the freedom to raise grievances with the Government. In addition, it requires that a wall of separation be maintained between church and state. It reads:

"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."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/amend_1.htm

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8560 Dec 15, 2012
[Source: FBI – U.S. Department of Justice:]

“WASHINGTON—Stewart David Nozette, 54, a scientist who once worked for the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the White House’s National Space Council, was sentenced today to 13 years in prison for attempted espionage, conspiracy to defraud the United States, and tax evasion.

The sentence covered charges in two cases. In one, Nozette pleaded guilty in September 2011 to attempted espionage for providing classified information to a person he believed to be an Israeli intelligence officer. In the other, he pleaded guilty in January 2009 to fraud and tax charges stemming from more than $265,000 in false claims he submitted to the government.

The sentencing, which took place this morning in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, was announced by Ronald C. Machen Jr., U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia; Lisa Monaco, Assistant Attorney General for National Security; and Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General John A. DiCicco of the Tax Division.

continued:

In addition to the prison term, the Honorable Paul L. Friedman ordered that Nozette pay more than $217,000 in restitution to the government agencies he defrauded.

Nozette has been in custody since his arrest for attempted espionage on October 19, 2009. At the time, he was awaiting sentencing on the fraud and tax evasion charges. FBI agents arrested Nozette following an undercover operation in which he provided classified materials on three occasions, including one that formed the basis for his guilty plea. He was subsequently indicted by a federal grand jury. The indictment does not allege that the government of Israel or anyone acting on its behalf committed any offense under U.S. laws in this case.

“Stewart Nozette’s greed exceeded his loyalty to our country,” said U.S. Attorney Machen.“He wasted his talent and ruined his reputation by agreeing to sell national secrets to someone he believed was a foreign agent. His time in prison will provide him ample opportunity to reflect on his decision to betray the United States.”
http://www.fbi.gov/washingtondc/press-release...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8561 Dec 15, 2012
FORENSIC FRAUD

“This is an archive of more than a hundred cases involving alleged, admitted, and/ or demonstrable forensic fraud. That is, it is an archive of cases where forensic science and law enforcement experts have provided sworn testimony, documents, or reports intended for the court that contain deceptive or misleading information, findings, opinions, or conclusions. Such information, findings, or conclusions have been deliberately offered by the expert in order to secure an unfair or unlawful gain as determined by their employers, by the courts, and in many cases by their own admission. Subsequently, no opinions have been added to the referenced sources.

This archive is maintained solely for educational and informational purposes, to raise professional and public awareness regarding the nature and extent of forensic fraud. Curiously, though fraud in these contexts is largely considered a crime, it only infrequently results in consequences for the fraudster - ranging from demotion, to firing, to criminal prosecution.

It should be noted that this is not an archive of mere forensic mistakes, mishaps, or misidentifications ...”

The Forensic fraud cases can be found here:
http://www.corpus-delicti.com/forensic_fraud....

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8562 Dec 15, 2012
From The New York Times (science section):

“Global Trend: More Science, More Fraud”

“Experts say the problem is only getting worse, as research projects, and the journals that publish the findings, soar.

Science is often said to bar dishonesty and bad research with a triple safety net. The first is peer review, in which experts advise governments about what research to finance. The second is the referee system, which has journals ask reviewers to judge if manuscripts merit publication. The last is replication, whereby independent scientists see if the work holds up.

But a series of scientific scandals in the 1970's and 1980's challenged the scientific community's faith in these mechanisms to root out malfeasance. In response the United States has over the last two decades added extra protections, including new laws and government investigative bodies.

And as research around the globe has increased, most without the benefit of such safeguards, so have the cases of scientific misconduct.”

continued here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/science/20r...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8563 Dec 15, 2012
Another one from The New York Times:

A Shallow Diagnosis of Science Fraud

“A surprising number of cases of scientific fraud have come to light recently, many at leading medical schools. Perturbed, the Association of American Medical Colleges has issued a report advising medical schools what to do when a faculty researcher is accused of inventing data.

The advice boils down to saying act quickly, fairly and thoroughly. But exception can be taken to the naive assumptions on which it is based. Science is self-correcting, says the report, and the principal deterrent to fudging an experiment ''is the overwhelming probability that fraudulent data will be detected soon after their presentation.''

[Continue reading to find how the “self-correcting” system is failing us.]

“Had the reports' authors looked more carefully at the cases that prompted their inquiry, they would have noticed that none of the frauds was originally brought to light through the standard mechanisms by which scientists check each other's work.[Right]

These mechanisms include the review by scientists of each other's applications for Federal grants, the appraisal of articles before publication and the replication of published experiments.

But those who were caught faking scientific data evaded these mechanisms with ease. They were mostly caught because associates had private doubts about their veracity. Colleagues of a cardiology researcher at Harvard became suspicious of his prodigious output and surreptitiously observed him forging evidence. Faked research at Yale's School of Medicine came to light only because a re-searcher who fortuitously discovered plagiarism of her work insisted on an audit.

Those who forge scientific data must judge the probability of detection as less than overwhelming, or they would not take the risk. Besides, how can the physicians who wrote the report presume to assess that probability unless they also know the number of undetected frauds? Since much published research goes unchecked, possibly even unread, the amount of undetected fraud may well be significant.

Prevention being better than cure, the detection of fraud in science is less important than discouraging the temptation to commit it. Conceivably the propensity to fraud is accounted for by the intense pressure to get into medical school; stories are rife of cheating among medical school entrants. Then, too, research has its own pressures, including the rewards for publishing as many papers as possible, with laboratory chiefs indiscriminately adding their names to the work of subordinates.

The report recognizes the distortion of credit produced by this common practice: it advises that named authors should have had a genuine role in the research. But it shrinks from looking under the stone it has lifted up. In the pursuit of credit lies the incentive to commit fraud. For how, except with this purpose in mind, could those committed to the pursuit of scientific truth ever even be tempted to publish lies?”
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/07/26/opinion/a-s...

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#8564 Dec 15, 2012
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.
The operative word there is "may".

I know nuance escapes you, but that is important.

You rely on misrepresentation to make almost every argument I've ever seen from you. It's pretty f_cking pathetic.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8565 Dec 15, 2012
“1 in 4 Scientists in Survey Suspect Fraud by Peers”

“A surprising one in four scientists suspect their peers of engaging in intellectual fakery, according to a new survey.

Driving the suspicious acts, respondents said, was the rat race atmosphere of modern science.

A decade ago science leaders often dismissed scientific charlatans as "bad apples" that were extraordinarily rare. But since then the annals of scientific crime have grown greatly, as have questions about whether fraud is actually on the rise or simply being publicly reported more often.

To explore the issue, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society, surveyed 1,500 of its members in November.

A summary of the 469 replies appears in the current issue of the association's magazine, Science, under the headline: "In the Trenches, Doubts About Scientific Integrity." Many Encounter Fakery

Some 27 percent of the respondents said they believed they had personally encountered the fabrication, falsification or theft of research in the past decade. Moreover, these respondents said they have witnessed, on average, 2.5 cases of suspected fakery in that period.”
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/27/us/1-in-4-s...
KJV

United States

#8566 Dec 15, 2012
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>The operative word there is "may".

I know nuance escapes you, but that is important.

You rely on misrepresentation to make almost every argument I've ever seen from you. It's pretty f_cking pathetic.
Another brilliant God hating Theist.
F bombs show off your real IQ. LOL
Dim bulb!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8567 Dec 16, 2012
KJV wrote:
"Disagree. Is your sex life relevant to me? No. If you keep your religion as private as your sex life"
But yet you're posting all over the place about your religion. No double standard here. Oh that's right your believe in a unprovable thing is not a religion while my believe in an unprovable thing is Religion.
athe·ist\ˈā-thē-ist\
noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
Who "BELIEVES"
be·lieve\bə-ˈlēv\
intransitive verb
1 a : to have a firm religious faith
Ummmm what do know about that?
No double standard.

Think of it like this: I may advocate peace, but if you hit me, I may knock you out. I may advocate tolerance, but if you are intolerant, you won't be tolerated.

I'm telling you that your personal beliefs should stay private. Meanwhile, the octopus - your church - has been declaiming my beliefs for centuries while promoting its own. That's an intolerance for my beliefs - a verbal punch in the mouth with the love of Jesus, so to speak.

In defense, unbelievers retaliate. And if we can disenthrone your selfish ism and replace it with our pluralistic one, then we can all stop talking about gods and no gods.

No double standard.

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 1 hr Eagle 12 - 1,312
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr 15th Dalai Lama 78,469
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Eagle 12 - 32,426
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... Aug 12 Eagle 12 - 1,152
what science will NEVER be able to prove Aug 11 Eagle 12 - 5
News What Ever Happened to the New Atheists?by Ellio... Aug 7 nanoanomaly 1
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
More from around the web