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 see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#9797 Dec 31, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Dimwit4 doesn't understand that we are really just as skeptical of science as we are of religion.

Only, more often than not, scientific mistakes and frauds are exposed and their findings rejected.

He also doesn't get that he has absolutely NO skepticism of religion, making it possible for him to believe wild, unfounded, fantastical and impossible claims.

He fights his way through truth to see only what he wants to see. What he's been indoctrinated to see.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#9798 Dec 31, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism isn't an ideology. Secular humanism is.
Until you can assimilate some basic understanding about what atheists are and what we claim, your credibility remains zero, and you have nothing to offer.
Incidentally, your life appears bleak to me, and your hope for heaven is baseless. It's a promise from a book that makes many fraudulent claims.
From Secularhumanism.org

"Far from living in a moral vacuum, secular humanists “wish to encourage wherever possible the growth of moral awareness.”(The quote comes from “A Secular Humanist Declaration,” the Council for Secular Humanism’s founding document, authored by Paul Kurtz.)

Secular humanists believe human values should express a commitment to improve human welfare in this world.(Of course, human welfare is understood in the context of our interdependence upon the environment and other living things.) Ethical principles should be evaluated by their consequences for people, not by how well they conform to preconceived ideas of right and wrong.

Secular humanism denies that meaning, values, and ethics are imposed from above. In that it echoes simple atheism. But secular humanism goes further, challenging humans to develop their own values. Secular humanism maintains that through a process of value inquiry, reflective men and women can reach rough agreement concerning values, and craft ethical systems that deliver desirable results under most circumstances.

Indeed, say secular humanists, the basic components of effective morality are universally recognized. Paul Kurtz has written of the “common moral decencies”—qualities including integrity, trustworthiness, benevolence, and fairness. These qualities are celebrated by almost every human religion, not because God ordained them, but because human beings cannot thrive in communities where these values are ignored.

Secular humanism offers a nonreligious template that may one day guide much of humanity in pursuing fulfilling and humane lives—lives that are rich intellectually, ethically, and emotionally, without reliance on religious faith."

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#9799 Dec 31, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Good post!
Thanks!

It stopped KJV in his tracks when he posted that nonsense about the Bible being amended to incorporate new documents that are found.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#9800 Dec 31, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Good point. Dim wouldn't have been sent here if his handlers didn't perceive a serious threat from the irreligious.
Thanks again!

It certainly shows that despite the bluster of the believers - they're running scared.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#9801 Dec 31, 2012
swerty wrote:
To all my atheist friends out there, happy new year and all the best for the year ahead.
Hope you have a good 4,550,000,000. <quoted text>
Cheers buddy!

It's Hogmanay!

All the best for 2013 to everyone!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#9802 Dec 31, 2012
swerty wrote:
To all my atheist friends out there, happy new year and all the best for the year ahead. Hope you have a good 4,550,000,000.
Thank you, swerty, and same to you. I guess you're using the Big Bang calendar here.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#9803 Dec 31, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I was talking about the kids, you sick demented sadist. The fact that you even forgot kids were killed betrays your vile attitude.
The atheist remembered the kids.

Does that please you?

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#9804 Dec 31, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, improperly diagnosed medications does tend to cause problems. sychiatry is based on the same principles as religion, and that's who diagnosis those ailments. Psychiatry is not based on the scientific method, but on stereotypes and assumptions, it's not medicine, it's quackery.
So thank you for demonstrating that religious "logic" is always a failure.
Psychiatrists don't develop medications without enlisting the help of laboratory scientists. As we have seen, often those scientists are fraudulent and on the payroll of mega drug companies.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#9805 Dec 31, 2012
derek4 wrote:
The cost to investigate a single case may be $525,000.00 or more.
With 20,000 fraudulent scientific papers published every year, as previously posted and documented, have you considered how astronomical these costs are?


Speaking of the cost of fraud - religious fraud, in this case - I know how to recover it at least several times over. Let's stipulate to your numbers - about ten billion dollars lost yearly to scientific fraud. Force the church to pay its fair share of taxes, which costs America over seventy billion dollars annually by conservative estimates http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/...

And here's some rockin' good news for everybody :

FFRF sues IRS over preferential treatment of churches
December 28, 2012

The Freedom From Religion Foundation filed a federal lawsuit yesterday challenging the Internal Revenue Service’s preferential treatment of churches in applying for and maintaining tax-exempt status. The IRS exempts churches and certain other religious organizations from paying expensive application fees and filing the onerous annual Form 990 required of non-church non-profits.

FFRF, a national state/church watchdog with more than 19,000 nonreligious members ... are challenging the preferential application and reporting exemptions given to churches.

FFRF and its chapter are tax-exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations that paid fees of several hundred dollars in order to apply for tax-exemption, and must annually file the annual Form 990.

The IRS requires non-church tax-exempt non-profits to file “detailed, intrusive, and expensive annual reports to maintain tax-exempt status, but such reports are not required for churches and certain other affiliated religious organizations,” the complaint notes.

“Why should churches be exempt from basic financial reporting requirements? Equally important, why would churches not wish to be accountable?” asks Annie Laurie Gaylor, FFRF co-president.

“The unfairness of this is so overwhelming,” says FFRF President Emerita Anne Nicol Gaylor.“Churches are allowed to play by different rules.”

The Form 990 requires detailed reports on revenue and functional expenses, activities, governance, management, how groups fulfill their mission, and what proportion is spent on programs, management and fundraising.

The “preferential treatment of churches” directly benefits churches, while discriminating against other non-profit organizations, including the plaintiffs,“solely on the basis of religious criteria,” FFRF’s complaint asserts. This “results in obligations imposed on secular non-profits, including the plaintiffs, that are not imposed on churches.”

FFRF asks the court find the church exemptions a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and the equal protection rights of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. FFRF seeks to enjoin the IRS from continuing to exempt churches and related organizations from the application and annual reporting required of all other non-profit organizations under §501(c)(3).

This is FFRF’s third ongoing lawsuit against IRS practices involving preferential treatment of churches.

In November, FFRF filed a high-profile lawsuit seeking to enforce the IRS’ non-electioneering code against churches. In late August, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb ruled that FFRF and three of its directors have standing to proceed in a challenge of the 1954 “parish exemption” act of Congress. That law, enacted to reward ministers for fighting what the law’s author, U.S. Rep. Peter Mack, called “a godless and antireligious world movement,” permits “ministers of the gospel” to deduct payment designated as a housing allowance from taxable income.

All three lawsuits were filed in U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin, and were brought on behalf of FFRF by attorney Richard L. Bolton.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#9806 Dec 31, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Still showing how well science finds the frauds and phonies.
So why doesn't your religion ever find frauds or phonies?
How do you know it was scientists, or the government watchdogs, or scientists who were under pressure by the investigations and had no choice?

There are no frauds and hoaxes in the Bible to find - that's the beauty of it. Thanks for realizing that when you point out they can't find any.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#9807 Dec 31, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Dimwit4 doesn't understand that we are really just as skeptical of science as we are of religion.
Only, more often than not, scientific mistakes and frauds are exposed and their findings rejected.
He also doesn't get that he has absolutely NO skepticism of religion, making it possible for him to believe wild, unfounded, fantastical and impossible claims.
He fights his way through truth to see only what he wants to see. What he's been indoctrinated to see.
Science is rooted in mythology and deception – and money greases the wheels that make it turn. Fraud abounds in science. We get new reports every day of it.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#9808 Dec 31, 2012
derek4 wrote:
“Belief in evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if that religious view is indistinguishable from atheism."
That's got to be pretty threatening to you, Dim. What chance does your sadistic, bronze age god have in this modern world?

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#9809 Dec 31, 2012
Do atheists realize that when they falsely attribute quotes to Thomas Jefferson that they seriously damage their own cause?

It makes the public realize they are just “jokes”.

Thank God the atheists know how to show themselves in the worst possible light to the whole world, lol.

Keep up the good work, atheists - we love it.

http://www.chicagonow.com/publius-forum/2011/...

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#9810 Dec 31, 2012
derek4 wrote:
Darwinism is headed for the waste bin, like other outmoded theories.
Between Darwin and Jesus, it's Jesus that will end up on the trash heap of history along with all of the other forgotten gods.

Here's a funny cartoon for you, Dim:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1040/546252526...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#9811 Dec 31, 2012
The Washington Post reports that 5% if scientists admitted they trashed data that contradicted their research, and 15% changed their results to please one of their sponsors (it's a money thing) or ignored observations which didn't match their findings.

Such actions are corrosive to science – and these problems are becoming more common.

Here's a link about the Washington Post report:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#9812 Dec 31, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
The atheist remembered the kids.
Does that please you?
Well yes, we did.

Oh, you mean the killer, well then that makes him better than you. Which sucks because it's nicer to think of him as the scumbag.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#9813 Dec 31, 2012
Diederik Alexander Stapel manufactured and manpulated data to match the results he wanted in his publications.

He was found out, and consequently suspended by the University of Groningen in the Netherlands.

Mr. Stapel's fraudulent work impacted a minimum of 30 scientific publications.

Why weren't our peer review groups working to prevent all that fraud from being published? Why did the scientists who self correct everything do something long before 30 publications were completed and published? I mean, it must take quite a long time to finish and publish 30 papers!

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

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#9814 Dec 31, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know it was scientists, or the government watchdogs, or scientists who were under pressure by the investigations and had no choice?
There are no frauds and hoaxes in the Bible to find - that's the beauty of it. Thanks for realizing that when you point out they can't find any.
World wide flood. Bats being birds. Hearsay presented as fact.

That's just my personal favorite fraudulent claims in the bible.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#9815 Dec 31, 2012
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
That seems to sum things up nicely. Why are we not all Materialists?
Some of us need magic to cope.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#9816 Dec 31, 2012
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
That's one of my favorite quotes. I usually sub politician for "king" to keep it current. Is that fair?
I like it! Happy New Year, my friend, to you, to those that you love, and to those that love you.

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 I quit atheism 3 min IB DaMann 692
A Universe from Nothing? 4 min IB DaMann 429
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 min IB DaMann 43,099
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 22 min IB DaMann 5,675
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 27 min IB DaMann 18,469
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 36 min Eagle 12 85
News Who is an atheist? (May '10) 39 min Eagle 12 9,361
More from around the web