Don't dictate beliefs

Don't dictate beliefs

There are 11176 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

#9960 Jan 2, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Put it in context, dingbat, and see what it changes.
Changes nothing.
You're another one of the “nones”
“None”- that's a perfect description of an atheist.
Have nothing, do nothing, are nothing.
So you like repeating your spam, I see. Another broken record, someone please get a repair person here for this one now.
KJV

United States

#9961 Jan 2, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>You've got the haughty arrogance part down, now its time to work on your intelligence.
Hey Septic I'll send you the pumper truck over.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#9962 Jan 2, 2013
Reported to my dog as hilariously stupid.
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Is aerobatty a “religitard”?
Are you our “honest atheist for the day”?
KJV

United States

#9963 Jan 2, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>"However, subsequent attempts to replicate the findings by other researchers failed to establish any link with chronic fatigue syndrome."

Science wins again.

You just don't get how this game is played, do you.
" Friday 2 November 2012 03.00 EDT

Scientific fraud is rife: it's time to stand up for good science

The way we fund and publish science encourages fraud. A forum about academic misconduct aims to find practical solutions

A meeting room. Photograph: Alamy
Pete Etchells and Suzi Gage

Science is broken. Psychology was rocked recently by stories of academics making up data, sometimes overshadowing whole careers. And it isn't the only discipline with problems - the current record for fraudulent papers is held by anaesthesiologist Yoshitaka Fujii, with 172 faked articles.

These scandals highlight deeper cultural problems in academia. Pressure to turn out lots of high-quality publications not only promotes extreme behaviours, it normalises the little things, like the selective publication of positive novel findings – which leads to "non-significant" but possibly true findings sitting unpublished on shelves, and a lack of much needed replication studies."

http://m.guardiannews.com/science/blog/2012/n...
KJV

United States

#9964 Jan 2, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>You can't stop bad science unless you know good science, which you obviously don't.

You don't stop anything.

Science takes care of itself.
http://m.guardiannews.com/science/blog/2012/n...

"Scientific fraud is rife: it's time to stand up for good science"
KJV

United States

#9965 Jan 2, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>Lol

That's about the size of it.

Every anti-science post that Dim makes is actually a testament to the proven reliability of science.
BONG!!!

LMAO.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#9966 Jan 2, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
http://m.guardiannews.com/science/blog/2012/n...
"Scientific fraud is rife: it's time to stand up for good science"
Yet ... it's always scientists who find the frauds and fallacies, not you. Why haven't you found any before the scientists themselves?

Go on, answer the question, why is it that only scientists are finding the fraudulent and fallacious scientific data?
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#9967 Jan 2, 2013
Lay off it. You make no sense.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
BONG
KJV

United States

#9968 Jan 2, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>Lol

That's about the size of it.

Every anti-science post that Dim makes is actually a testament to the proven reliability of science.
"Every anti-science post that Dim makes is actually a testament to the proven reliability of science."

Really?

So science is trying to be fraudulent and accept bribes to prove bad medication works when it fails? Science is suppose to publish fraudulent papers. Sciences job is to follow big money and not practice real science, science of discovery and truth is long gone.

Dolt!

Hoofinmouth disease.
KJV

United States

#9969 Jan 2, 2013
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>Wow. You really don't seem to have a clue. Were you raised in some kind of 'compound' or something? Has anybody ever explained to you 'why' you are healthy? Would there be any point? Do you REALLY think everything in your life comes from 'magic'? Surely you have SOME doubts.
You Dolts don't seem to understand that there are two types of science.

1) real science that benefit all humans
That comes up with new actually working medication and other discoveries.

2) bad science. Has a preset goal on some items that are impossible to know
(Big Bang, Evolution) but science does not let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
KJV

United States

#9970 Jan 2, 2013
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>You are clearly marching to someone's drum. There's no way you can claim the ability to differentiate good science from bad and then suggest we all abandon evolution. Evolution is clear, it's commonsensical, it's easily demonstrated and religion is the ONLY reason it took so long for us to figure it out. Y'all mute, hamper and slow down all progress. Y'all are the puppets of Priests and Politicians whose agenda is keeping themselves in power at OUR great expense. Wake up!! Snap out of it!!! Use your ability to type for good, not to serve the evil Puppet Masters!!!!
"Evolution is clear, it's commonsensical, it's easily demonstrated"

""Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless," says Professor Louis Bouroune, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research, as quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.

On many campuses, any professor who admits having doubts about the "factual" nature of evolution would be laughed off the campus (and out of his job). But today, more and more courageous scientists are publicly admitting what they have known privately for years: believing in evolution requires an act of blind faith.

Does evolution square with the facts? Here are the statements of several scientific leaders as found in The Quote Book, published by Creation Science Foundation Ltd.

Evolutionists Great Con Men

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." (Dr. T.N. Tahmisian. Atomic Energy Commission, The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959.

"...most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument made in favor of Darwinian interpretation of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true." (Dr. David Raup, Curator, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago. Quoted from "Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50 (1), 1979.)

Do Fossils Prove It?

"...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transition in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils...I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." (Personal letter from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to L. Sunderland.)

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them..." (David B. Kitts, Ph.D.-- Zoology, Head Curator, Department of Geology, Stoval Museum, and well-known evolutionary paleontologist. Evolution, Vol. 28, Sept. 1974."

http://www.chick.com/bc/1987/evolution.asp
KJV

United States

#9971 Jan 2, 2013
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>You are clearly marching to someone's drum. There's no way you can claim the ability to differentiate good science from bad and then suggest we all abandon evolution. Evolution is clear, it's commonsensical, it's easily demonstrated and religion is the ONLY reason it took so long for us to figure it out. Y'all mute, hamper and slow down all progress. Y'all are the puppets of Priests and Politicians whose agenda is keeping themselves in power at OUR great expense. Wake up!! Snap out of it!!! Use your ability to type for good, not to serve the evil Puppet Masters!!!!
http://www.chick.com/bc/1987/evolution.asp

"But What About Those Bones?

"...not being a paleontologist, I don't want to pour too much scorn on paleontologists, but if you were to spend your life picking up bones and finding little fragments of head and little fragments of jaw, there's a very strong desire to exaggerate the importance of those fragments..." (Dr. Greg Kirby in an address given at a meeting of the Biology Teachers Association of South Australia in 1976. Dr. Kirby was the Senior Lecturer in Population Biology at Flinders University and was giving the case for evolution.)

"A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be the collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib...The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone." (Dr. Tim White, anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley, quoted in New Scientist, April 28, 1983.

But the World Is So Old...Isn't It?

"All the above (radiometric) methods for dating the age of the earth, its various strata, and its fossils are questionable, because the rates are likely to have fluctuated widely over earth history...It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock.' The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologist and evolutionists..." (W.D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytech State University, The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, 1987.

Carbon-14 Will Tell Us...Won't It?

"When the blood of a seal, freshly killed at McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic was tested by carbon-14, it showed the seal had died 1,300 years ago." (From W. Dort Jr., Ph.D.-- Geology, Professor, University of Kansas, quoted in Antarctic Journal of the United States, 1971.

"The hair on the Chekurovka mammoth was found to have a carbon-14 age of 26,000 years but the peaty soil in which is was preserved was found to have a carbon-14 dating of only 5,600 years." (Radiocarbon Journal, Vol. 8, 1966.)

When Did Dinosaurs Really Live?

The existence of dinosaurs long before man came along has been almost a basic tenet of faith for the evolutionist. But what if the footprints of both man and dinosaur were found together?

In the Journal of Geological Education, Vol. 31, 1983, David H Milne and Steven D Schafersman tell us "Such an occurrence, if verified, would seriously disrupt conventional interpretations of biological and geological history and would support the doctrine of creationism and catastrophism."

Well gentlemen, not only have both man and dinosaur prints been found together in Mexico, New Mexico, Arizona, Missouri, Kentucky and Illinois, but other U.S. locations as well."
KJV

United States

#9972 Jan 2, 2013
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>You are clearly marching to someone's drum. There's no way you can claim the ability to differentiate good science from bad and then suggest we all abandon evolution. Evolution is clear, it's commonsensical, it's easily demonstrated and religion is the ONLY reason it took so long for us to figure it out. Y'all mute, hamper and slow down all progress. Y'all are the puppets of Priests and Politicians whose agenda is keeping themselves in power at OUR great expense. Wake up!! Snap out of it!!! Use your ability to type for good, not to serve the evil Puppet Masters!!!!
"Why Do They Do It?

"One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator." (Dr. Michael Walker, Senior Lecturer in Anthropology, Sydney University, quoted in Quadrant, October, 1982.)

Since the facts do not prove evolution, since the fossil record does not show any transition from one species to another, since "scientific" dating methods have been proven unreliable, let us remember that for those who desperately desire to reject God, evolution is a religion of last resort. If there is no Creator, there can be no sin, and no need of a Saviour.

http://www.chick.com/bc/1987/evolution.asp
A. Lunn summed up the curious faith of the evolutionist as follows: "Faith is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links unseen." (The Collapse of Evolution, by Dr. Scott Huse.) Those supposedly omniscient scientists who still teach evolution as though it were fact are finally seen for what they are...frail men willing to believe a lie because it helps them avoid the truth."

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#9973 Jan 2, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Every anti-science post that Dim makes is actually a testament to the proven reliability of science."
Really?
So science is trying to be fraudulent and accept bribes to prove bad medication works when it fails? Science is suppose to publish fraudulent papers. Sciences job is to follow big money and not practice real science, science of discovery and truth is long gone.
Dolt!
Hoofinmouth disease.
First, science is a method, not an entity, so it can't want anything.

Secondly, if scientists wanted to be fraudulent, they would publicly announce the frauds they discover.

You project too much, you just inserted your entire leg.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#9974 Jan 2, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
You Dolts don't seem to understand that there are two types of science.
1) real science that benefit all humans
That comes up with new actually working medication and other discoveries.
2) bad science. Has a preset goal on some items that are impossible to know
(Big Bang, Evolution) but science does not let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
So you are twisting what we told you to mean something completely different. Not a surprise.
KJV

United States

#9976 Jan 2, 2013
EmpAtheist wrote:
<quoted text>Judges 21:10-24

But it doesn't matter. I was pointing out that christians are moral with or without the bible. You missed my point completely and went on the defensive.

I was pointing out that atheists aren't out being criminals like christians seem to think they should be without god. Humanists are out fighting for equal human rights. Our morals do not come from the bible but they do come from the same place. You can call it god if you want... Of course, however, I would disagree.
http://debunkedevil.blogspot.com/2009/10/rape...

"4) Laws of rape (Deut 22.28-29): Here Mariano was a great resource by providing the etymology of the verse. The word used here, translated as rape, is the Hebrew word shakab, meaning lying down. Taphas is the Hebrew word for catching, handling, taking hold, and isn't used. If you look at most other translations it merely says "a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he lays hold of her and lies with her." Where in the verse does it say the intercourse was forced? The verse even ends with "and they were found". It doesn't say he was caught, THEY were caught. This shows that they were engaging in fornication, not rape. This made them have to get married because the woman was not even previously betrothed.

5) Death to the rape victim (Deut. 22. 23-24): Here it is interesting to note than EB has been citing the NLT, and now switches to the NAB for the remainder of the article. The NLT's verse is even farther away from citing rape, while the NAB is closer, and therefore suits EB's purpose, deliberate misinterpretation, better. The NLT says "suppose a man meets a young woman, a virgin engaged to a man, and has sexual intercourse with her..." Again, no rape. This is fornication, and both are punished for it. They cannot get married like #4 because she is already engaged, so they must be punished, and God has rules set for that. Also, there is a part EB conveniently left out in the very next verse. It says "But if the man meets the engaged woman out in the country, and he rapes her, than only the man must die." Sound like condoning rape to you?

Also, for those who would point out the "but" to mean it meant it in the first part as well, literal translations of the first one say "but she did not cry out", and in the countryside crying out is far less likely to help at all. This shows that the woman was in fact raped, while if she didn't cry out people would know it wasn't rape.

6) David's punishment- Polygamy, rape, baby killing, and God's "forgiveness" (2 Samuel 12. 11-14): To start God is punishing David for polygamy and adultery, so condoning that is out of the question. Deuteronomy 17:15, 17 says: "You shall set a king over you...He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray." "
KJV

United States

#9977 Jan 2, 2013
EmpAtheist wrote:
<quoted text>Judges 21:10-24

But it doesn't matter. I was pointing out that christians are moral with or without the bible. You missed my point completely and went on the defensive.

I was pointing out that atheists aren't out being criminals like christians seem to think they should be without god. Humanists are out fighting for equal human rights. Our morals do not come from the bible but they do come from the same place. You can call it god if you want... Of course, however, I would disagree.
"7) Rape of female captives (Deut 21. 10-14): This was cited earlier in order to show that there wasn't rape, see the process at the end of #1. The process showed that they must be married in order to have sexual relations. None of this was forced, including the marriage. There's not rape, once again EB inserts a very disturbing misinterpretation.

8) Rape and the Spoils of War (Judges 5. 30): Again there is rape inserted by EB's author. None actually in the verse. A girl for each man means as a slave, not a sex slave. Furthermore, this was actually a lyrical poem sang by Deborah, not meant to be interpreted literally like has been by EB.

9) Sex Slaves (Exodus 21. 7-11): I have already dealt with this in my slavery post: www.debunkedevil.blogspot.com/2009/10/slavery... . A quick refresher, this never says sex anywhere, nor implies it. These were laws handling the treatment of female slaves, nothing more. It even states that a man may marry her to one of his sons. This must occur for any sex; otherwise it would be fornication, which the Bible is patently against. Women were sold into slavery by their families or willingly went in order to pay off debts that they owed, which was more like indentured slavery, a term that didn't exist at the time. Apparently EB sees "woman" and "slave" and immediately thinks "sex slave".

10) God Assists Rape and Plunder (Zechariah 12:1-2): Again EB takes a verse out of context, and those who use biblegateway.com or another such site in reference to this (Good idea, by the way), pull up just one more verse after this. It reads: "Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against these nations". Another translation of verse one "Behold, the day of the Lord cometh." This verse has Israel being defeated for turning away from God, and then God will come to redeem them. The rape described here is the disgusting acts of other nations, and God punishes them for it when he redeems Israel. Hardly condoning rape.

Conclusion: Thus ends Evilbible.com 's unfounded rant about the Bible condoning rape. It should be known by now that it clearly doesn't, in fact just the opposite. There is a clear difference between it being in the Bible, and the Bible condoning it. Also, massive assumptions aren't acceptable as evidence. It doesn't explicitly say rape in 90% of these verses, that part is inserted. It helps to understand the slavery side of this as well, so check it out. My link was posted in one of the answers above. Thanks!"
KJV

United States

#9978 Jan 2, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>Not only do they not get it, but they promote BAD science.

For example, Kitten thinks law breaking scientists should go free. She tells us so in her post 9867 when she writes,“You only care about that law because it opposes scientific research. If it was say, a person who bombed an abortion clinic in the name of your religion, you wouldn't care, would you?”

So if some crackpot bombs an abortion clinic, that means fraudulent scientists should be ignored, excused, forgiven.

Hahahaha - that's atheist logic for you - LMAO.
There really appears to be a pretty strong connection for lack of sense and atheist.
KJV

United States

#9979 Jan 2, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>So it's okay with you that Judy “removed data”(stole data) from her employer? In your eyes she is honest? That's the kind of reputable science you like? You have confidence in dishonest scientists? That's the kind of morality and law breaking attitude that is prevalent among atheists and corrupt scientists, which is the very problem I've been bringing to the attention of the forum. I often enjoy seeing your posts since they prove my points so well. Thank you.
Hoofinmouth!!
KJV

United States

#9980 Jan 2, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>Who said I'm going to Hell?

Not me.

I'm not going to Hell - I refuse to go.
LOL. To funny. Like that will work. LOL

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) 58 min Subduction Zone 74,920
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 1 hr Subduction Zone 6,092
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 hr Subduction Zone 32,045
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 6 hr Subduction Zone 143
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 9 hr Dogen 4,059
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Sat John 4,952
News Why do public atheists have to behave like such... Jun 21 Eagle 12 - 4
More from around the web