Don't dictate beliefs

Sep 5, 2012 Full story: The Star Press 11,175

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

Full Story

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#9707 Dec 30, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
My objection-yes, dipshit. I reported you-was that you were loading page after page with cut and paste articles that you could have just linked to with a brief description.
They made navigating the threads cumbersome and time consuming.
You were being inconsiderate to every other poster, but your religion allows that as long as you're lying for Jesus.
You don't understand skepticism at all, do you.
It means skepticism of science.
I don't need to be skeptical of religion. I KNOW it's all BS.
All I have to do is look at you for proof.
Just you? LOL.

So you're the loser I was describing. I thought as much.

But that's fine - it didn't really accomplish anything By the time they are removed, they've usually already been read anyway, so it doesn't make much difference. I reported your post 9433, and commented about it to the forum. It's been removed whether it accompllished anything or not - except that "turn about is fair play".

So you do whatever you need to do, and I'll do the same, lol.

No matter what, you won't succeed in your efforts to dictate your failed beliefs on me.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#9709 Dec 30, 2012
Are science journals indistinguishable from fiction?

Pretty much so, yes. Science journals publish 20,000 fraudulent papers every year, which takes away their credibility.

It's amazing how can atheists expect the public to believe in science when we find that much fraud.

Yet, it's amazing how atheists pathetically try to promote science as irrefutable. LOL

http://io9.com/5931011/scientific-journals-pu...

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.
KJV

United States

#9710 Dec 30, 2012
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>Your religion has been around for nearly 2000 years and it still hasn't fixed Leviticus 14 .... it's a real hoot!!
Something wrong with Leviticus 14?
Did God tell you that some thing was inaccurate with that scripture?

Or are you so out of touch with the religion and the Bible of Christianity that you don't know what this scripture means?

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#9711 Dec 30, 2012
Let's take a trivia quiz.

Naaahhhh......atheists don't do well on quizzes, so let me just go ahead and give you the question and the answer all in one post.

Who sets the world record for faking data?

It's Dr. Yoshitaka Fujii of Toho University. Only 3 of his 209 papers published in 17 years were not fraudulent.

Yet he defends his work, lol. He probably have peers that support him also.

Some of his later papers are still under review and may be false as well.

http://www.science20.com/cool-links/dr_yoshit...

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#9712 Dec 30, 2012
The included link offers fascinating insight on the causes of scienctific fraud and misconduct.

Unfortunately, for fraudulent scientists, new software may make their misconduct more visible.

But can we depend on that?

Probably not. Corrupt science is a lucrative business, and crooked scientists, like other crooks, will find loopholes around any system.

After all, don't atheists think scientists are geniuses? Geniuses can find loopholes. It happens all the time.

http://esciencenews.com/sources/the.guardian....

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.
KJV

United States

#9713 Dec 30, 2012
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>It is hilarious how religibots will use computer simulations to "disprove" science. <<guffa!!!>>
You seem to be so out of touch with the subject matter of these postings that you're commenting on.

Nothing in that posting had anything to do with disproving science. In fact it was a posting that stated science programs prove the Bible correct on the subject of the star of Bethlehem.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#9714 Dec 30, 2012
KJV wrote:
If evolution really did happen and brought forth all this life on earth then everything we see is the product of randomness and mutations.

Then also the thoughts in our mind would have to follow this same line of randomness.
Some more than others.

Why do you think that a naturally existing god's mind would be fundamentally different from any other naturally existing mind? Even if the god were a greater being made of a different substance acting according to different rules, if nobody designed your god, why wouldn't it be subject to the same criticisms as an undesigned man?

These god arguments mostly fall under the heading of special pleading. Whatever your objections are to an undesigned universe, they never seem to apply to an undesigned god, do they? The god gets a pass. And the reason offered? Because it's a god. That's it.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#9715 Dec 30, 2012
KJV wrote:
You see we just want to make sure that while you're not in heaven but in the other place we want you to relive all of these moments that put you there. To haunt you for all eternity while flames burn the flesh off of your bones.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Somebody on another thread was asking why I thought Christians would still want to burn heretics. He thinks that you've been cured of your sadism. I hope you don't mind that I quoted you
KJV wrote:
Don't mind at all.
Thanks. I was getting tired of having to quote Just Results. I lost the link to Langoliers making similar comments
KJV wrote:
I hope you're capable of differentiating between sarcasm and real intent.
Yes, I am.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#9716 Dec 30, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Mumbai jumbo?
I'm so going to use that if we ever get a Hindu on here!
Lol!

It was a typo, but you're right. It would be perfect.

Feel free to use it at will.

With my blessings. ;)

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#9717 Dec 30, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Fraudulent scientists don't exist unless you've personally heard of them? LOL
My computer is working fine. Better check out your own if you can't find Dr. Dipak Das.
Hint: try google if you've ever heard of the infamous Dr. Das.
LMAO
Did I claim he didn't exist?

I MUST be losing it, because I don't remember EVER claiming that he didn't exist.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#9718 Dec 30, 2012
Khatru wrote:
ROFLMAO!! You have been warned. That not only explains why you now post a rider but also your weak attempts at retaliation by reporting other people for nothing at all. Don't be dim, Dim.
Good call! I didn't recognize what Dim was up to.
KJV

United States

#9719 Dec 30, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>The human eye - Already debunked, irreducible complexity is a canard.
Human morals - Easily explained by the theory of evolution.
The arts - Other animals exhibit art as well, fail canard.
Music - Other animals sing, another fail canard.
Writing - Hmm ... I think you may have one ... wait ...

Writing is a result of the combination of logic centers in our minds, it is simply an expression of communication. Our communication methods are more elaborate than other animals, but other animals do communicate as well. The logic traits that resulted in things like writing and structured linguistics are easily explained through the theory of evolution as species with the most complex communications systems could coordinate attacks and defenses much more easily, being capable of transmitting more complex concepts offers a tactical advantage over either prey or predator.
Not communication writing but story telling writing. Take for instance the book "evolution by means of natural selection" I think these kind of far fetched Sci-Fi writings so we are just too complex to have spawned from the Goo pool.

"The human eye - Already debunked"
No some one tried to explain how it happened. But did not satisfy very many Scientists. Again this shows where you and many like you are jumping at the first herring thrown their way. And that's what make for bad science.
The eye cannot be totally explained.
What one day an animal was just born with an eye? I know this is not how you religion tends to explain it. They love to throw in the billions and billions of years thing.

"Human morals - Easily explained by the theory of evolution."
Please do explain.

"The arts - Other animals exhibit art as well, fail canard."
But God created them too so where in evolution does art fall into? Why is it needed for survival?

"Music - Other animals sing, another fail canard."

See above!

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#9720 Dec 30, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
THE BIBLE WON'T FIT INTO ONE POST.
HEE SAAAAIIIIDDD, "TRYYYY POOOOSSSSTTTIIIINNNNGGG SOOOOMMMMEEETTTTHHHHIIIINNNGGG NNNOOOOONNNN BBBBIIIIAAAASSSSSEEEDDD.

There.

That was loud AND slow.

Maybe that will work.

<snork>

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#9721 Dec 30, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Just you? LOL.
So you're the loser I was describing. I thought as much.
But that's fine - it didn't really accomplish anything By the time they are removed, they've usually already been read anyway, so it doesn't make much difference. I reported your post 9433, and commented about it to the forum. It's been removed whether it accompllished anything or not - except that "turn about is fair play".
So you do whatever you need to do, and I'll do the same, lol.
No matter what, you won't succeed in your efforts to dictate your failed beliefs on me.
What failed beliefs?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#9722 Dec 30, 2012
derek4 wrote:
the message of the Bible when speaking of the star, was not intended to be a science lesson.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Obviously, Dim. It was intended to be a history lesson. Science tells us that it couldn't have happened. That's a science lesson. Hope that helps.
KJV wrote:
"Obviously, Dim. It was intended to be a history lesson."

Wikipedia : the Star of Bethlehem, also called the Christmas Star,[1] revealed the birth of Jesus to the Biblical Magi, and later led them to Bethlehem.

Wikipedia : The star of Bethlehem (the word star being used in its astrological connotation, a portent associated with a heavenly configuration, as in the phrase "his star is rising")
Is there an argument here? I'm guessing that you presented it in semaphore or pantomime, and forgot that I couldn't see you.

Reason is a specific pathway for thought, and you just skidded off the road. Whatever your point was there, you seem to be trying to tie an obvious myth about a star and a journey to truth, history and science. You can't, except with yourself.

But you really should recognize that you can't make that story sound like it has any basis in historical fact to somebody that doesn't already need it to be.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#9723 Dec 30, 2012
KJV wrote:
"Science tells us that it couldn't have happened. That's a science lesson."

Actually this is wrong. Science tells us that this in fact did happen.
Oh. OK. Your word will be good enough.
KJV

United States

#9724 Dec 30, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>I don't find hypocrisy humorous.
You're one sick puppy.
So now you're claiming that we can't use a computer and software to prove things in the bible are indeed accurate.

You don't get to make the rules in here.
I'll continue to use science as I feel like it. And I will stand against bad science. Bad science is what you will try and protect with every cell in your body.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#9725 Dec 30, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
So when you can rid the planet of the dominant religion, you'll go to work on the others?
LOL good luck with that.
It's more that I deal with the superstitions that affect those close to me. Like I said, I am quite happy to point out the flaws and immorality of Islam, just like I am happy to point out the flaws and immorality of Christianity.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#9726 Dec 30, 2012
derek4 wrote:
Are science journals indistinguishable from fiction?
Pretty much so, yes. Science journals publish 20,000 fraudulent papers every year, which takes away their credibility.
What percentage is this of the *total* number of articles published?

I found a figure of 1,350,000 science articles published in 2006. Your figure of 20,000 fraudulent articles puts the fraud rate at about 1.5%. If you add to that the fact that the fraud is *detected* and *corrected* by the scientific community, you find that the overall credibility is quite high.
It's amazing how can atheists expect the public to believe in science when we find that much fraud.
Yet, it's amazing how atheists pathetically try to promote science as irrefutable. LOL
Who said it was irrefutable? In addition to the fraud, there are a LOT of honest mistakes made in the search for knowledge. We go down blind alleys and stumble a lot in our quest.

But the point is that we recover and correct our errors. Over time the mistakes are found and corrected; the fraud is detected, corrected, and the perpetrator punished.

This is a record *far* better than any other source of information you can find. But, as I pointed out before, on the cutting edge of research it is good to be cautious simply because science *is* a human endeavor and humans make mistakes.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#9727 Dec 30, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible's not biased?
Care to share its views on equality for women, gays, people of other religions, etc?
No, I didn't think he would.

I'm not surprised.

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
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 23 min Aura Mytha 232,939
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 2 hr woodtick57 2,407
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 2 hr _Bad Company 23,208
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 2 hr _Bad Company 163
Yes, atheists can be fundamentalists 20 hr Thinking 3
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... Sun Mikko 2
Christians More Supportive of Torture Than Non-... Sun Thinking 3
More from around the web