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
8,381 - 8,400 of 11,175 Comments Last updated Jan 18, 2014

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#8876 Dec 19, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Most Women truly do enjoy the feel of a circumcised penis. A penis sliding back and forth in its own foreskin has far less sensation for the woman.
You are most women? ha, ha, somebody lied to you.

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#8877 Dec 19, 2012
Langoqueers has ran that simulation hundreds of times with hundreds of volunteers from the homeless shelter.
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>You are most women? ha, ha, somebody lied to you.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#8878 Dec 20, 2012
Your second sentence was not put together correctly.
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
You're another great example of a idiot that can't put together a logical sentence. No worry nothing lost by you
Being muted.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8879 Dec 20, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Hey Derek any chance your off topic spam will have some proof for deities? If not it will all be ignored as usual.
Seriously gang when are you going to start reporting that forum clogging spambot?
I would expect you to ignore my posts. Am I surprised? No. Do I care? No.

Your posts are always “light reading”(short, irrelevant; without substance).

So I hardly ever skip them since they're a breeze.

But, speaking of "off topic" - what do my posts have to do with proof of deities, and when did I say I was in the forum to prove God to you? So, you're off topic.

Why don't you reinstall your avatar of the baby picture? I always thought it was a great symbol of your undeveloped mind. It becomes you so.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8880 Dec 20, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Derek is post articles on atheist and bad science. Why must you dolts alway think we need to defend or prove to you God? Not too many of us care to share our believes with you. We simple disprove everything you post and get a good laugh out of other posts.
You go ahead and set up your destiny however you want. I could not give a rats ass.
Some of us simply put are not going to stand by and let you and science lie to us. We post against all your attempts at
Justifying your falsified documents and lies.
Yet you keep whining about us not proving our faith. Well keep on whining.
You simpletons just don't get it!
The atheists would like to have news reports of fraudulent science removed, and your posts removed as well. In fact, they would like to have everything they disagree with removed so all that remains is atheists agreeing with one another, lol. They think this makes them winners.

Are they winners because they get all posts removed that they disagree with? Unfortunately for them, no. Our posts have already been read, so removing them in the next day or so won't really do much for their cause, lmao.

This forum is about dictating beliefs, which is the specialty of atheists. They do it by attempting to rewrite history and substitute all truth with atheist propaganda. Isn't it sad for them they can't get the news accounts about fraudulent science reported in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal removed from the internet and censor all news reports?

But if that's the way they want to play, that's fine - I always see a lot of atheist posts that should be removed for various reasons, and reporting works both ways.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#8881 Dec 20, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
How did life start?
We do not know.
How did the first life live long enough to figure out how to reproduce?
This is part of the definition of 'life'. The question is how the chemicals stayed together long enough to reproduce.
Was the first life plant or animal?
No, it was bacterial.
How did it split to both plant and animal?
No. There was a separation of billions of years between the first life and the first plants and animals.
How could a stack of mutation create you? Oh never mind on that last question. We already know the answer.
Well, it did take almost 4 billion years.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8882 Dec 20, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Dishonest BSer.
<quoted text>
Yes, you are indeed a “dishonest Bser”- thanks for admitting that to the forum.

But there was nothing dishonest in me posting a book review.

Tell you what - since you enjoyed my post, I'll re-post it for your convenience:

“Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False”, by Thomas Nagel

“The modern materialist approach to life has conspicuously failed to explain such central mind-related features of our world as consciousness, intentionality, meaning, and value. This failure to account for something so integral to nature as mind, argues philosopher Thomas Nagel, is a major problem, threatening to unravel the entire naturalistic world picture, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology.
Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history, either. An adequate conception of nature would have to explain the appearance in the universe of materially irreducible conscious minds, as such.
Nagel's skepticism is not based on religious belief or on a belief in any definite alternative. In Mind and Cosmos, he does suggest that if the materialist account is wrong, then principles of a different kind may also be at work in the history of nature, principles of the growth of order that are in their logical form teleological rather than mechanistic.
In spite of the great achievements of the physical sciences, reductive materialism is a world view ripe for displacement. Nagel shows that to recognize its limits is the first step in looking for alternatives, or at least in being open to their possibility.”
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0199919755

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8883 Dec 20, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
We do not know.
Right.

But we do.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8884 Dec 20, 2012
Top Science Scandals of 2012

“A widely discussed research study published this year showed that more than sloppy mistakes or accidental omissions, retracted papers are most likely to be withdrawn from publication because of scientific misconduct or knowlingly publishing false data. In fact, more than 65 percent of the 2,000 or so papers studied were retracted because of poor ethical judgment. According to that report, high impact journals have been hardest hit by the increasing rate of retractions over the past decade.

In light of these findings, researchers and other observers have proposed several initiatives to help the scientific community with its apparent honesty issues.”

continued at conclusion:

“Rather than falsify data in order to get published, researchers have taken a new tack this year by writing glowing expert reviews for their own papers. When asked by journal editors to suggest names of experts in their field who were not involved in their research, at least four submitting authors suggested names and emails that then forwarded back to their own inboxes. The trend, first reported by Retraction Watch, was caught by one journal editor when author Hyung-In Moon, assistant professor at Dong-A University in Busan, South Korea, offered up names of reviewers with Google and Yahoo rather than university email accounts.“It should be a wake-up call to any journals that don’t have rigorous reviewer selection and screening in place,” Irene Hames, a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics, told The Chronicle of Higher Education.”
http://www.the-scientist.com/...

[Anyone have a PDF file summary handy on the peer-review info on Darwin's work? LOL]

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8885 Dec 20, 2012
A favorite mall for atheists:

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8886 Dec 20, 2012
Federal Inquiry Finds Misconduct By a Discoverer of the AIDS Virus
After three years of investigations, the Federal Office of Research Integrity today found that Dr. Robert C. Gallo, the American co-discoverer of the cause of AIDS, had committed scientific misconduct. The investigators said he had "falsely reported" a critical fact in the scientific paper of 1984 in which he described isolating the virus that causes AIDS.

The new report said Dr. Gallo had intentionally misled colleagues to gain credit for himself and diminish credit due his French competitors. The report also said that his false statement had "impeded potential AIDS research progress" by diverting scientists from potentially fruitful work with the French researchers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...

[This happens a lot – scientific progress is impeded by dishonest scientists.]

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8887 Dec 20, 2012
From Science Magazine:

The World Champion of Fraud

“When the Nobel Prize committee announces this year's winners of science's highest accolade, one category they'll omit will be research fraud. But were there a prize for scientific malfeasance, the top contender would doubtlessly be Japanese anesthesiologist Yoshitaka Fujii, formerly of Toho University in Tokyo.

"Perhaps the greatest academic fraudster of the last 10 years," in the words of the Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription required for this article), Fujii reportedly authored (if that's the word) 193 journal articles, 172 of which investigators have declared fraudulent. This astounding figure makes him the record holder for most retractions, and "nearly doubles that of the current unofficial retraction record holder, Joachim Boldt," according to Retraction Watch.

In the course of 23 years of extraordinary achievement in the realm of fraud, Fujii faked not only whole studies but even his affiliations with hospitals. He also used the names, and sometimes the forged signatures, of other researchers as co-authors on phony articles. "His work was almost a complete fiction, but he kept saying that it stood up because it had been accepted by so many journals," the Chronicle quotes Koji Sumikawa, president of Japan's Society of Anesthesiologists, as saying.
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/sciencecareers/20...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8888 Dec 20, 2012
Scientific Fraud

“Note: For the purpose of categorization, scientific fraud is considered to be different than scientific hoaxes. Scientific fraud implies a criminal intent. Scientific hoaxes, on the other hand, have a satirical or humorous intent. Some cases do not fit well into either category, so it is worth checking the listings for individual disciplines for a fuller listing of scientific deceptions.[see below - butterfly]


The Charlton Brimstone Butterfly, 1702 (1702 (exposed in 1793))

Shortly before his death in 1702, butterfly collector William Charlton (1642-1702) sent a specimen to esteemed London entomologist James Petiver. Petiver thought it was quite remarkable. He wrote, "It exactly resembles our English Brimstone Butterfly (R. Rhamni), were it not for those black spots and apparent blue moons on the lower wings. This is the only one I have seen."

Carl Linnaeus had a chance to examine the rare butterfly in 1763 and declared it to be a new species that he named Papilio ecclipsis. He included it in the 12th edition (1767) of his Systema Naturae.

But thirty years later, in 1793, the Danish entomologist John Christian Fabricius examined it more closely and realized it was a fake. The black spots had been painted on the wings. The rare butterfly, the only one of its kind ever seen, was nothing more than a common Brimstone (Gonepteryx rhamni).”
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/archive/di...

[Stories like this remind me of how Darwin praised Haeckel, who contributed fake drawings of embryos.]

[“Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) was a major supporter and popularizer of the idea of descent from a common ancestor. In The Descent of Man (1871), Charles Darwin praises him, and references him at least eleven times.
One of Haeckel's proofs for his so-called "law" was a diagram of several embryos in different stages of development. However, he selected, arranged, and redrew these embryos to make it look like evolutionary history was retraced as the embryo developed. That is to say, he twisted and created data to fit his hypothesis. He did the same thing in comparing a dog and human embryo. Thus, Haeckel created the impression that there was solid evidence for the idea of descent from a common ancestor.”]
http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu/~etmcmull...

[Even now, atheists defend Haeckel's drawings, since they would rather support something that's obviously false, as long as it's all in the name of their science god.]

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#8889 Dec 20, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Right.
But we do.
No, you have a simplistic non-explanation that fails to address any of the issues involved.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#8890 Dec 20, 2012
I have never had a baby picture as my profile picture. Wow you can't even get that right can you half wit?

Your off topic spam means nothing because they in no way offer proof for deities so basically you are babbling.

You see jackass I became an atheist by reading the bible cover to cover and shaking my head that people would fall for it. Evolution, the Big Bang science in general had zilch to do with my atheism then and my atheism now. Honestly that is the case for many of us.

So when a mouth breather like you posts something about a scientist caught another scientist doing something wrong it's not like when we post about a priest/preacher raping children. We don't worship science we accept it but that has nothing to do with atheism in fact more believers by the day are accepting evolution and the Big Bang.

A better way for you to spam I mean post is post a link and a brief summary of what you want people to see there. It won't gunk up the threads and some may actually read what you post.
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
I would expect you to ignore my posts. Am I surprised? No. Do I care? No.
Your posts are always “light reading”(short, irrelevant; without substance).
So I hardly ever skip them since they're a breeze.
But, speaking of "off topic" - what do my posts have to do with proof of deities, and when did I say I was in the forum to prove God to you? So, you're off topic.
Why don't you reinstall your avatar of the baby picture? I always thought it was a great symbol of your undeveloped mind. It becomes you so.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#8891 Dec 20, 2012
Dishonest BSer.
derek4 wrote:
Top Science Scandals of 2012
“A widely discussed research study published this year showed that more than sloppy mistakes or accidental omissions, retracted papers are most likely to be withdrawn from publication because of scientific misconduct or knowlingly publishing false data. In fact, more than 65 percent of the 2,000 or so papers studied were retracted because of poor ethical judgment. According to that report, high impact journals have been hardest hit by the increasing rate of retractions over the past decade.
In light of these findings, researchers and other observers have proposed several initiatives to help the scientific community with its apparent honesty issues.”
continued at conclusion:
“Rather than falsify data in order to get published, researchers have taken a new tack this year by writing glowing expert reviews for their own papers. When asked by journal editors to suggest names of experts in their field who were not involved in their research, at least four submitting authors suggested names and emails that then forwarded back to their own inboxes. The trend, first reported by Retraction Watch, was caught by one journal editor when author Hyung-In Moon, assistant professor at Dong-A University in Busan, South Korea, offered up names of reviewers with Google and Yahoo rather than university email accounts.“It should be a wake-up call to any journals that don’t have rigorous reviewer selection and screening in place,” Irene Hames, a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics, told The Chronicle of Higher Education.”
http://www.the-scientist.com/...
[Anyone have a PDF file summary handy on the peer-review info on Darwin's work? LOL]

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#8892 Dec 20, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>Right.

But we do.
No you don't.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#8893 Dec 20, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
mar·riage\ˈmer-ij,ˈma-rij\
noun
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law:
Gays can have a civil union with all the same rights as marriage. Just don't change the meaning of a word to fit your needs. Like you're trying to change the meaning of atheist to add to your congregation.
Meanings change. You need to get with the times. Marriage is not defined by your religion - if you can't get used to that fact then you've got a problem.

Definition of marriage

(in some jurisdictions) a union between partners of the same
sex
Langoliers wrote:
Khatru,
How did life start?
How did the first life live long enough to figure out how to reproduce?
Was the first life plant or animal?
How did it split to both plant and animal?
How could a stack of mutation create you? Oh never mind on that last question. We already know the answer.
You know the answer?

Is this it here?

FIRST STAGE

The next point revealed by the Quran in connection with the creation of man is that the first stage was a condition of non-existence. A controversial subject. The view of the Arya Samajists is that matter from which the universe has been shaped, is eternal. God did no more than to bring the soul to matter together into a close relationship and so man was created. This belief is repudiated by the Quran which teaches that matter is not eternal but it is a creation of God and that man was created. God says in the Holy Quran:
Does not man remember that We created him before, when he was naught?(19:68)

Human birth now takes place from the seed of the male. This verse refers to the first original creation of the species, or the first man. it should be carefully noted that the Quran does not say that existence was created from non-existence. It says that prior to the stage when matter and other things came into being, there was a stage when nothing existed. We say that a chair can be made from a piece of wood; or we say that a chain can be made from a piece of iron. Here we have matter in one form which can be utilized to make another article. Atheists often raise the objection that it is not possible to shape out anything from nothing. This, however, is not what is meant by the Quran. What is meant is that prior to the creation of the universe there was a stage when nothing existed. Then came creation and the creation of man. God has not given knowledge to man as to how this came about, possibly because it is beyond the comprehension of man to grasp. If man could visualize how creation took place then he would be in a position to create man himself.

SECOND STAGE
It appears from the Holy Quran that the second stage in the creation of man was a state of existence when the human body was there but the brain or its active faculties which distinguish a human being from the lower animals were not operative and active as they came to be later. There was, so to say, a human body which was not yet a human being or, in other words, there was the physical human body minus the evolved and perfected human brain or mind. We are not in a position to say whether in this state he was a kind of rock formation or a kind of plant. We can say, however, that he was not yet an animal. The Quran says: There has certainly come upon man a period of time when he was not a thing spoken of. In other words, there has been a stage in the history of man when it was not madhkur, i.e., it was not aware of itself, lacked consciousness at the time and was not capable of recognition. He was a form of being without consciousness and intelligence, not aware of himself or of other things.

More of your answer to come..

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#8894 Dec 20, 2012
More of your answer...

THIRD STAGE

The third stage in the evolution of man was reached when he attained to a state of being where the production of the species began to take place through the seed of the male planted in the body of the female through sexual intercourse. From this point onwards occurs the almost infinite variety of individual human temperaments. Among animals there are varieties not characterized by sex. God says in the Quran that a stage came in the course of the evolution of man when he developed into an animal characterized by sex, divided into males and females, when his procreation began to take place through the seed of the male which is a characteristic of the higher forms of animal life. His procreation began to occur from a nutratin amshajin, from the male sperm drop embracing a combination of a number of elements. God says in the Holy Quran:

Indeed: We have created man from a mingled sperm-drop, that We might try him, so We made him hearing, seeing. From this stage his procreation began to be compounded from many elements because his role in the universe was to be many sided which necessitated that he should possess a wide range of qualities.

More of your answer t ocome....

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#8895 Dec 20, 2012
More of your answer..

FOURTH STAGE

The fourth stage came when the human brain reached perfection and characterized by a highly developed form of awareness and intelligence. From having the capacity of hearing and seeing which are qualities also to be found in the lower animals, he became capable of exercising his intelligence to a point where, through a sustained spirit of inquiry and search, inference and invention came within the range of his faculties. Here he rose one very distinct step higher than the other forms of animal life, an animal capable of sustained thought and speech.
These links in the chain of the evolution of man are the initial links of the various stages, The intervening periods between the emergence of these links have not been clearly brought out by the Quran for it is not a scientific treatise on the subject. The Quran refers to these matters which were necessary for bringing out a point of moral spiritual truth, leaving the filling in of the gaps to the human mind. We glean from other passages in the Quran that there are also other links in the chain of human evolution:

And Allah created you from dust, then from a sperm-drop, then he made you pairs.
Elsewhere the Quran says:'And Allah caused you to grow from the earth, a good growth ', while here it is said:'Allah created you from dust, then from a sperm-drop'. The remaining links have been omitted, till He made you pairs. i.e., a being capable of living in social units the point from which emerges what we call civilization and culture, with a system and order of life.

The meaning of Azwaj used in the Arabic text of the verse which I have just quoted does not mean division into male and female because that point has already been covered in the mention of creation by a sperm-drop. Then he made you pairs, coming after sperm-drop has to be interpreted to mean something beyond the emergence of sex. In Arabic the word zauj also means kind, variety or complimentary groups; and this is the meaning implied here. When the human mind fully developed and a variety of temperaments emerged, individuals began to evince leanings towards or away from certain other individuals. This gave rise to the emergence of social units on this or that basis such as family groups or combination of certain individuals well disposed towards each other.

The evolution of man may be summed up by saying that at first man was only a clod of earth or some kind of rock formation. After some intermediary stages which the Quran has not mentioned, man reached a stage where he became a kind of animal growth divided into male and female and procreating through sexual intercourse. Again the Quran leaves out some intermediary stages until man emerges as a social being divided into several groups as a result of which there sprung up a variety of mental, physical or economic affiliations. This is the point where the story of human civilization begins.

Among the stages of the evolution of man is when water mingled with the particular dust, clod of earth or rocky substance. This mingling of the dry clod with water which resulted in a kind of life being born in it is mentioned in the Quran:

More of your answer to come...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 3 min Thinking 21,542
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 10 min Thinking 226,606
Becoming a parent changed everything. 1 hr Givemeliberty 1
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 2 hr greymouser 5,922
It seems there are more Atheists in the Christi... (Jun '13) 2 hr Mikko 18
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 2 hr Mikko 63
Our world came from nothing? 11 hr Thinking 438
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••