Don't dictate beliefs

[derek4]

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.

[derek4]

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.

[derek4]

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.

[derek4]

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.

[polymath257]

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.

[polymath257]

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.

[polymath257]

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.

[KittenKoder]

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.

[KittenKoder]

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?

[KittenKoder]

derek4 wrote:

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.

"He had irregularly taken SSRI-antidepressants one year prior to his death. These antidepressants are said to cause suicidal tendencies as a side-effect in early ages between 18 and 24.[18]"

You love to ignore the details, don't you?

[KittenKoder]

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.

Already address, broken record, millions of times over. You also failed to mention that scientists corrected the error, not you.

[It aint necessarily so]

Buck Crick wrote:

I have often considered it conducive to societal happiness for me to beat someone's face into a pulp. And it worked.

Then you and your opinions on the matter are excused from the process.

Buck Crick wrote:

Stalin and Mao worked your system to perfection...almost.

See above.

[It aint necessarily so]

Buck Crick wrote:

The materialist scientist sees everything as the smallest element multiplied. That's why some on this thread have stated that the whole of biogenesis is only individual microevolution events multiplied over and over.

I think that you have confused materialism and reductionism.

[1] "Materialism - The doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications."

[2] "Reductionism can mean either (a) an approach to understanding the nature of complex things by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things or (b) a philosophical position that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents."

Also, the "multiplied" aspect is relevant. That's what changes the scale. One water molecule does not demonstrate thesame phenomena as a collection of them, which can freeze and be walked on, or melt and become wet, for example - things relevant only when the the smallest element is multiplied.

Do you know what emergent phenomena are? Wetness and hardness are emergent phenomena of water molecules. How about the fallacy of composition?

[3] "Emergence - the arising of novel and coherent structures, patterns and properties during the process of self-organization in complex systems ... The common characteristics are:(1) radical novelty (features not previously observed in systems); (2) coherence or correlation (meaning integrated wholes that maintain themselves over some period of time); (3) A global or macro "level" (i.e. there is some property of "wholeness")"

[4] "The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part). For example: "This fragment of metal cannot be fractured with a hammer, therefore the machine of which it is a part cannot be fractured with a hammer."

Buck Crick wrote:

Glad you see the fallacy in such errant materialist reduction.

I see your fallacy. I just named it. You can also call it the reductionist fallacy.

[It aint necessarily so]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

Where's the mystery? Moral behavior is conducive to survival and happiness. Why wouldn't it exist?

From http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... :

KJV wrote:

Because if indeed evolution was real even though you may believe you can't have one with out the other.

You forgot the predicate in this sentence.

KJV wrote:

The odds of the top dog on the planet exhibiting moral traits are very high against it and not normal in nature.

What?

KJV wrote:

The human eye
Human morals
The arts
Music
Writing
This is not evolution it's creation.

What?

Otherwise, great rebuttal!

[It aint necessarily so]

Khatru wrote:

Really? Who are "they"?

Where are the corrections made to the Bible that incorporate the Acts of Paul and Thecla? Just think how you believers can thrill with excitement at the part where Thecla leaps into a moat full of man-eating seals and how Jehovah sends down a thunderbolt to kill all the seals.

Where's the Gospel of Thomas? It was found in 1945 and no insertions, deletions or amendments have been made to the Bible.
What about the Gospel of Peter? That was found in 1886. Where are the changes to the Bible made by these people you refer to as "they"?

You would have thought that they (whoever they may be) would have changed the Bible to accomodate Peter. After all, Peter's gospel provides the only eye-witness account of Jesus emerging from the tomb.

You believers love your eye-witness accounts so why hasn't the Bible been changed?

Peter tells us that Jesus emerged from the tomb with two angels and was followed by a talking cross. Once in the open, Jesus and the angels grew to a height of thousands of feet until their heads were lost in the heavens. According to the account, this was witnessed by a Roman centurion and his soldiers (usually eighty men) and also the Jewish Elders.

Why isn't this in the Bible?

Perhaps it's because your claims of amendments being made every time new documents are found is just another of your many lies.

Why do you lie? You know it makes the baby Jesus weep.

Good post!

[It aint necessarily so]

KJV wrote:

Can no one see any humor around here?

When nobody's laughing, it's not the audience that has trouble identifying humor.

[It aint necessarily so]

derek4 wrote:

I would suggest that you read a Bible commentary on that passage

Nope. If it isn't in the bible, it's not a legitimate part of the religion. It's an excuse and an effort to cleanup mistakes after the fact. If your "god" can't explain himself properly by himself, he can't be my god.

[It aint necessarily so]

derek4 wrote:

Atheism is an ideology that is bleak and hopeless.

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.

[It aint necessarily so]

Khatru wrote:

Your claims that atheism is at exceedingly low levels are belied by your actions. Clearly, you see atheism as the greatest threat to your myth or you wouldn't be in here.

Are you concerned about Islam supplanting Christianity as the main religion? Obviously not. Are you worried about atheism and its rise to prominence? Absolutely!

Good point. Dim wouldn't have been sent here if his handlers didn't perceive a serious threat from the irreligious.

[It aint necessarily so]

KJV wrote:

As your great leader once said "by means of natural selection"
How can equal treatment be a means of survival of the species and work with "natural selection" ( survival of the fittest ). Equal treatment does not allow for the strongest to survive to pass along the best genes. All genes are passed along if everyone was treated equal, weakening the species.

Cultural evolution is radically different from biological evolution. Ethical philosophy and ethical dialectic thinking are goal oriented. Evolution is blind. Survival of the fittest is not an ethical principle. It is a fact of nature.