Don't dictate beliefs

Don't dictate beliefs

There are 11178 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

#9737 Dec 30, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Saying that when idiots like you use computers is hypocrisy is "sick" to you? Explains why preachers, straight parents, and a slew of religious people get away with molestations so much.
KJV

United States

#9738 Dec 30, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>To which it has already been pointed out that Ruse is a troll.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes Ruse
"derek4 wrote:
The below link is from Michael Ruse, atheist, authot, and philsopher of biology at Florida State University. In his conclusion, he makes the point of the damage atheists are doing in fighting to keep creationism out of public schools. He goes on to explain that the first ammendment doesn't ban teaching science in schools but if atheists get it established that Creationism is SCIENCE rather than religion, then they are creating a problem for themselves which will work against them.
Also, he explains that if teaching that God exists is a religion, then it's also a religion to teach God does not exist.
He sees P.Z. Myers as a disaster lol.
He also says that The God Delusion.(book) made him ashamed to be an atheist.
Thank you, Mr. Ruse.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/scienceandthesacred...
Statements in this post were authored by the poster and are not copyrighted material."

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#9739 Dec 30, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes Ruse
"derek4 wrote:
The below link is from Michael Ruse, atheist, authot, and philsopher of biology at Florida State University. In his conclusion, he makes the point of the damage atheists are doing in fighting to keep creationism out of public schools. He goes on to explain that the first ammendment doesn't ban teaching science in schools but if atheists get it established that Creationism is SCIENCE rather than religion, then they are creating a problem for themselves which will work against them.
Also, he explains that if teaching that God exists is a religion, then it's also a religion to teach God does not exist.
He sees P.Z. Myers as a disaster lol.
He also says that The God Delusion.(book) made him ashamed to be an atheist.
Thank you, Mr. Ruse.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/scienceandthesacred...
Statements in this post were authored by the poster and are not copyrighted material."
so now you're a broken record ... wait, you have always been one.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#9740 Dec 30, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong Religion has found fraud in the science community.
"Seems you are betting on a real loser"
Wrong again! See I peeked at the ending and I know who wins.
It's just funny that you obsess on the motes in science's eye while ignoring the BEAMS hanging out of religion's eye (with banners, flags and flashing lights). LOL
KJV

United States

#9741 Dec 30, 2012
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>Created by what or whom? And who or what created that creator?
I'll give you one guess.
KJV

United States

#9742 Dec 30, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Strawman.
Strawman? Me?

You think Cannibalism is ok if the majority of the tribe says it's ok.
"Do you believe that enjoyment, love and fun is all there is to life? If so, why should a child molester be denied his enjoyment and fun even if it is at the expense of others? If morals are in fact subjective, who are you to tell him that he is wrong given the subjective standard he has adopted?
Do you believe that man evolved? If so, is it not true that man also evolved a mechanism to kill his enemies, to spread his sexual seed via rape (which happens in the animal kingdom), to abide by natural selection? If so, is rape truly wrong seeing that it is just insuring the propagation of the human race AND BY WHAT STANDARD IS IT WRONG? Was Hitler truly wrong by killing 6 million Jews that he deemed to be slowing down the progression of the evolution of the human race? After all, these are tools of natural selection, are they not? Also, spontaneous generation has been disproven, so how do you account for non-life begetting life?
If man did in fact evolve, and there is nothing outside of the material universe, then there cannot be free will and free choice, can there? Meaning, if the material universe is all there is, then there is no such thing as an immaterial object; hence there can be no such thing as a law of thought, logic and morality. The result of this is that you do not have free will; you do not think freely; the reasons that you are stating this very thing is because your brain chemicals are forcing you to say such a thing. Why should I trust your brain chemicals over my brain chemicals? Why do you believe what you are stating if you cannot help what you are stating because it is simply an electro-chemical reaction? This once again leads us to ask the question; is truly wrong for a child molester to prey upon his victims? If so, what standard are you appealing to? My standard is the Bible, the very words of God Himself. My standard is a priori (apart form self) and objective. What is yours?"

Richardfs

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#9743 Dec 30, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Strawman? Me?
You think Cannibalism is ok if the majority of the tribe says it's ok.
"Do you believe that enjoyment, love and fun is all there is to life? If so, why should a child molester be denied his enjoyment and fun even if it is at the expense of others? If morals are in fact subjective, who are you to tell him that he is wrong given the subjective standard he has adopted?
Do you believe that man evolved? If so, is it not true that man also evolved a mechanism to kill his enemies, to spread his sexual seed via rape (which happens in the animal kingdom), to abide by natural selection? If so, is rape truly wrong seeing that it is just insuring the propagation of the human race AND BY WHAT STANDARD IS IT WRONG? Was Hitler truly wrong by killing 6 million Jews that he deemed to be slowing down the progression of the evolution of the human race? After all, these are tools of natural selection, are they not? Also, spontaneous generation has been disproven, so how do you account for non-life begetting life?
If man did in fact evolve, and there is nothing outside of the material universe, then there cannot be free will and free choice, can there? Meaning, if the material universe is all there is, then there is no such thing as an immaterial object; hence there can be no such thing as a law of thought, logic and morality. The result of this is that you do not have free will; you do not think freely; the reasons that you are stating this very thing is because your brain chemicals are forcing you to say such a thing. Why should I trust your brain chemicals over my brain chemicals? Why do you believe what you are stating if you cannot help what you are stating because it is simply an electro-chemical reaction? This once again leads us to ask the question; is truly wrong for a child molester to prey upon his victims? If so, what standard are you appealing to? My standard is the Bible, the very words of God Himself. My standard is a priori (apart form self) and objective. What is yours?"
Do you ever read the drivel you write??

Your entire post is based on the idea that only christians can be moral.

The reality is that the so called god you follow is an immoral mass murdering SOB.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#9744 Dec 30, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Did I claim he didn't exist?
I MUST be losing it, because I don't remember EVER claiming that he didn't exist.
No, you lost it long ago, and your observation that you hadn't heard of Dr. Das was irrelevant, like your other posts. There are many things you haven't heard of, lol.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#9745 Dec 30, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
HEE SAAAAIIIIDDD, "TRYYYY POOOOSSSSTTTIIIINNNNGGG SOOOOMMMMEEETTTTHHHHIIIINNNGGG NNNOOOOONNNN BBBBIIIIAAAASSSSSEEEDDD.
There.
That was loud AND slow.
Maybe that will work.
<snork>
Yes, you're slow......

THE BIBLE WON'T FIT INTO ONE POST.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#9746 Dec 30, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
If that's all it takes to make you happy, your happiness is shallow, like you.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#9747 Dec 30, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
You know, I have an idea – you might want to explain your thoughts to the publishers of the web page, but please remember that I don't need to hear your minimization of fraud.

Thank goodness the government and judicial systems consider it serious.

It would be interesting if we only knew how many lives have been lost from medications science produced hat should never have been marketed.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#9748 Dec 30, 2012
In the Colorado Springs Gazette, there is a story of what the police had to do to stop one atheist extremist when he went on a rampage trying to dictate his godless belief.

http://www.discovery.org/a/15271

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post. The link provides the details.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#9749 Dec 30, 2012
5 years ago, Pekka-Eric Auvinen, anti-human atheist and “social-Darwinist”, tried to dictate his ungodly beliefs in school. The included link tells how extreme he was in dictating those beliefs.

Fortunately, atheist Pekka is “no longer with us”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jokela_school_sh...

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#9750 Dec 30, 2012
Fraud and deceit in science often occur when an experimenter shapes the data he has recorded to match the result he wants to achieve, thereby distorting the truth.

Sometimes the entire scientific community of researchers on the projects gets corrupted and deluded.

Examples of this are scientific hoaxes such as the Piltdown man and the Beringer case. They are excellent examples of how gullible scientists can be.

I've included a link which explains in more detail and gives examples.

http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_expose/be...

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#9751 Dec 30, 2012
Atheist contributors to this forum give scientists far too much credit for catching fraud and correcting it.

It takes federal regulatory presence to monitor science. And certainly government agencies who monitor science do far more to uncover fraud than scientists do, since the regulatory agencies have no motive to hide fraud.

Even then, many episodes of scientific fraud go undetected for years. Many are still shrouded in mystery, like the Piltdown forgery, as only one example.

Thank God the news is more on top of things today in bringing fraudulent science to public attention.

I direct your attention to this science link which goes into more depth about these facts:

http://ebm.rsmjournals.com/content/224/4/211....

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#9752 Dec 30, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
You know, I have an idea – you might want to explain your thoughts to the publishers of the web page, but please remember that I don't need to hear your minimization of fraud.
I have no interest in explaining my thoughts to the publishers of the web page. I will present the comments here, where the thoughts have been presented by you.
Thank goodness the government and judicial systems consider it serious.
It would be interesting if we only knew how many lives have been lost from medications science produced hat should never have been marketed.
How about how many lives have been saved from the advancements of science? But I would agree: get the harmful medications off the shelves. If actual fraud was involved, punish it.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#9753 Dec 30, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
If that's all it takes to make you happy, your happiness is shallow, like you.
Oh, it is only a mild happiness to be obtained by this. Deeper happiness comes from understanding, teaching, loving, helping, and experiencing the joys of life.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#9754 Dec 30, 2012
derek4 wrote:
Fraud and deceit in science often occur when an experimenter shapes the data he has recorded to match the result he wants to achieve, thereby distorting the truth.
Sometimes the entire scientific community of researchers on the projects gets corrupted and deluded.
Examples of this are scientific hoaxes such as the Piltdown man and the Beringer case. They are excellent examples of how gullible scientists can be.
I've included a link which explains in more detail and gives examples.
http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_expose/be...
No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.
Agreed. And the scientific community eventually works out the truth of the matter. Again, that is why we require testability and reproducibility of results.

Fraud is a serious concern because it does distort the scientific process and makes it more difficult to get to truth. But, if the fraud is in an interesting and important area of study, the results will be tested by many independent scientists and the fraud made clear fairly quickly. Fraud in less significant areas can last longer, but again, the truth will be found by subsequent investigators when they attempt to reproduce the results.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#9755 Dec 30, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Strawman? Me?
You think Cannibalism is ok if the majority of the tribe says it's ok.
"Do you believe that enjoyment, love and fun is all there is to life? If so, why should a child molester be denied his enjoyment and fun even if it is at the expense of others? If morals are in fact subjective, who are you to tell him that he is wrong given the subjective standard he has adopted?
Do you believe that man evolved? If so, is it not true that man also evolved a mechanism to kill his enemies, to spread his sexual seed via rape (which happens in the animal kingdom), to abide by natural selection? If so, is rape truly wrong seeing that it is just insuring the propagation of the human race AND BY WHAT STANDARD IS IT WRONG? Was Hitler truly wrong by killing 6 million Jews that he deemed to be slowing down the progression of the evolution of the human race? After all, these are tools of natural selection, are they not? Also, spontaneous generation has been disproven, so how do you account for non-life begetting life?
If man did in fact evolve, and there is nothing outside of the material universe, then there cannot be free will and free choice, can there? Meaning, if the material universe is all there is, then there is no such thing as an immaterial object; hence there can be no such thing as a law of thought, logic and morality. The result of this is that you do not have free will; you do not think freely; the reasons that you are stating this very thing is because your brain chemicals are forcing you to say such a thing. Why should I trust your brain chemicals over my brain chemicals? Why do you believe what you are stating if you cannot help what you are stating because it is simply an electro-chemical reaction? This once again leads us to ask the question; is truly wrong for a child molester to prey upon his victims? If so, what standard are you appealing to? My standard is the Bible, the very words of God Himself. My standard is a priori (apart form self) and objective. What is yours?"
Yes, a strawman, and you even lit it afire yourself.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#9756 Dec 30, 2012
derek4 wrote:
In the Colorado Springs Gazette, there is a story of what the police had to do to stop one atheist extremist when he went on a rampage trying to dictate his godless belief.
http://www.discovery.org/a/15271
No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post. The link provides the details.
So ... instead of honoring the dead, remembering their lives, giving them meaning and a reason .... you smear their names, minimalise the loss, all for your own personal, hate filled, agenda. How very .... christian of you.

Still, if you want to play, almost all other such cases are christian, and most do so in the name of your pretend god. If one in one hundred murderers is not christian, that's a pretty good track record, no?

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) 5 min DanFromSmithville 40,858
Good arguments against Christianity 1 hr thetruth 118
A Universe from Nothing? 1 hr thetruth 105
News Atheism Destroyed with One Scientific Question 1 hr thetruth 12
www 3 hr www 1
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr ChristineM 16,428
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 4 hr thetruth 67
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 5 hr thetruth 256,128
More from around the web