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

#10618 Jan 8, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
No
LOL. Prove this prove that LMAO
Yes, would you buy a "magical cure" that would cure all ailments and let you live forever if there was no proof of these claims?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#10619 Jan 8, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
While of course if that's how it happened. The Bible teaches us that God made all animals in a mature state
So if this is correct then the chicken came first. Back to the old argument I'm afraid. Lol.
So you think the blue words are still red. Interesting.
KJV

United States

#10620 Jan 8, 2013
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>But you said *everyone* uses it.

They don't.

You're wrong.

Again.
Prove that you never once used 3.14 as Pi.
KJV

United States

#10621 Jan 8, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>Naaahhh - KFC can spot fakes – those chicken coins are only good for donation plates at atheist churches, where people love frauds.
I see. LOL
KJV

United States

#10622 Jan 8, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, I don't. I consider the whole pi argument concerning the Bible to be silly. They were using a fairly decent approximation that was common at the time. There are many more points where the Bible gets into trouble without focusing on a trivial one like this.
Agreed, that Pi in this Bible example is trivial and that it cannot be proven inaccurate with the known data at hand.

Remember 3 = Pi if you are using only whole numbers.

And yes there are much bigger disputed passages in the Bible.
KJV

United States

#10623 Jan 8, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Micro black holes have been postulated and are predicted by some theories of cosmology, but they have not been actually observed as yet. The main difficulty is how they would be produced. Under some cosmological theories, they are made in the very early universe when there are large density fluctuations. The problem is that smaller black holes evaporate by Hawking radiation and there doesn't appear to be any way to produce new ones after that initial phase.
Sense the string theory has failed in it's experiment to produce micro black hole things have been going south for string theory.

"String Theory Now on Life Support
Posted by Tom Hartsfield at Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:06:32

There are plenty of reasons not to like string theory. Philosophical and logical arguments against the theory have long been apparent. Strong scientific evidence is increasingly joining them. The discovery of the Higgs boson exactly where the Standard Model says it should be last summer at the LHC was a first blow. Now, more evidence is coming in.

This week, LHCb (LHC-B), one of the many huge experiments along the LHC ring, reported a major result. The result itself is very technical, but its implications are general: big trouble for physics theories that involve supersymmetry (SUSY), string theory and many similar theories included. If SUSY is discarded, string theory goes right out with it.

How is the new physics coming out of the LHC closing the window of validity for string theory?

When the LHC smashes its particles together at world record energies, a shower of debris (new particles) is created. Large detectors surround the circumference of the ring itself, like insulation built around a pipe. When a collision happens inside the pipe, the resulting particles get caught by the detector wrapped around it. The detector pours out a massive amount of data, telling where every particle goes.

The data itself is enough to fill a modern computer hard drive every second. To sift through all this information requires a tremendous amount of computer processing. What physicists ultimately want to know is the mass and trajectory of each particle that was created in the smash-up. They try to recreate the entire scene, from the collision through all the debris flying into the detector."

Read more at:
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/11/...
KJV

United States

#10624 Jan 8, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>I'd bet that 3.1416 is more commonly used as an approximation. After that, I'd guess that 22/7 is next. I' guessing 3.14 is in third place.

But *none* of these is equal to pi. They are all approximations.
You could be right I am only going off the data I read. 3.14 is used in most non technical application. In real science work there would of course be a need to take it much deeper. So 3.14 used in grade schools and everyday type of application out number the real problem solvers? Who care's. no one has ever used Pi they have alway used an approximation. You can write the Symbol of Pi in your formula but that's as close as you'll get to the real number.
KJV

United States

#10625 Jan 8, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>Aren't they hoping to produce some with the LHC?
This week, LHCb (LHC-B), one of the many huge experiments along the LHC ring, reported a major result. The result itself is very technical, but its implications are general: big trouble for physics theories that involve supersymmetry (SUSY), string theory and many similar theories included. If SUSY is discarded, string theory goes right out with it.

How is the new physics coming out of the LHC closing the window of validity for string theory?

When the LHC smashes its particles together at world record energies, a shower of debris (new particles) is created. Large detectors surround the circumference of the ring itself, like insulation built around a pipe. When a collision happens inside the pipe, the resulting particles get caught by the detector wrapped around it. The detector pours out a massive amount of data, telling where every particle goes.

The data itself is enough to fill a modern computer hard drive every second. To sift through all this information requires a tremendous amount of computer processing. What physicists ultimately want to know is the mass and trajectory of each particle that was created in the smash-up. They try to recreate the entire scene, from the collision through all the debris flying into the detector.

In this case, physicists were looking for a particular particle called the "strange B meson" (Bs) to break into two more particles, called mu particles (μ+ and μ-). These strange B mesons usually only live for roughly just less than one trillionth of a second before breaking apart (called decaying). Here's where the Standard Model (SM) vs. Supersymmetry (SUSY) argument comes in.

If the SM is correct, about once in every 280 million times the Bs decays, the two μ particles should be detected. The number found by the LHC? Roughly once every 310 million times, with some uncertainty. Very close agreement, especially for such a rare and hard to detect decay.

So what does this say about string theory? If supersymmetry is correct, then this decay should occur far more often. In fact, by establishing this number, nearly all reasonable string theory models have failed in a testable prediction.(Unfortunately this prediction is so technical that it would require its own entire essay to explain.)

Good reading:

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/11/...
KJV

United States

#10626 Jan 8, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>No it's not. What's in the bible is ten cubits across, thirty cubits around, and a hand thick. You have to make an unjustified ad hoc assumption -.
No not at all.
First off there is not enough data in that passage to determine if the accuracy that you're requiring was in fact needed

Remember in using just whole numbers
Pi = 3

Was there a need to go beyond whole numbers for this application. Also math is a 2 dimensional application. While the item being build was 3 dimensional thus needing some thickness to support it self and the water.

" Does the Bible Contain a Mathematically Incorrect Value for "Pi"?
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.

Does the Bible contain errors in math? If it does, this calls into question its moral and spiritual authority. Much is at stake. Let's carefully examine one of the most frequent charges of error.

When describing Solomon's Temple and its fixtures, Scripture tells of a great basin cast of molten brass "ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about,... and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about" (I Kings 7:23).

The circumference, c, of a circle is related to its diameter, d, by the ratio "pi" or "P" according to the equation c = Pd. Mathematical derivatives have calculated the precise value of P to many decimal places, but for most applications the approximation 3.14 is sufficient.

Inserting the value of circumference and diameter given by Scripture into the equation yields a value of P to be 3, and it is this apparent error which gives Bible detractors such glee.

Construction techniques in those days were surprisingly advanced. We can assume that their mathematics was precise and measurements handled with care. Notice that the basin "was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies" (v.26). A "hand breadth" is an inexact distance of about four inches, but sufficient for this general description. The whole basin flared out at the top, much like a lily. So, exactly what do the dimensions given really represent?

The diameter of the basin would be the inside diameter, measured from side to side. But the circumference would be measured by placing a cord around the outside, then measuring the length of the cord. Furthermore, at what elevation along the tapered basin was the measurement taken? Obviously, these are not intended to be precise, but to give the overall impression of great size and beauty.

Engineers have adopted a technique to insure that reported measurements are properly understood. To do this they use the convention called "significant figures." The number 10 is quite different from the number 10.0 or 10.00 in the precision it implies. To an engineer the number 10 can actually mean anything between 9.5 and 10.5. Likewise, the number 30 can actually mean anything between 29.5 and 30.5.

While the number P is accurate to many decimal places, the other two numbers do not have this precision. When one precise number is multiplied by an imprecise number, the product should be reported with no more precision than the least precise factor. Multiplying the diameter, 10 (i.e., 9.5 to 10.5) by P, is properly understood as implying a circumference somewhere between 29.8 and 33.0.

When constructing an object for which extremely high precision is needed (e.g., the space shuttle), numbers are designed, reported, and fabricated to several decimal places, but to expect such precision in a lay description of this huge basin cast from molten brass is not only improper, it shows lack of understanding of basic engineering concepts. Properly understood, the Bible is not only correct, it foreshadows modern engineering truth."
KJV

United States

#10627 Jan 8, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>If you said that the bowl was ten cubits across and 31 cubits, 2 hands around, you would get a ratio of 3.1444444..., whether you were discussing the inner or outer dimensions, however thick the bowl was, and without any ad hoc shenanigans.

Your god - or whoever speaks for him - screwed up.
I will have to ignore your misunderstanding of the whole intent of the passage that you seem to think needed as much mathematical description as a space shuttles engine combustion chamber. It was a bowl / basin that was being described that flared out at the top like a Lilly made of brass.
KJV

United States

#10628 Jan 8, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>Irrelevant.

Ten cubits across, and 31 cubits, two hands around. No fractions are needed to specify those dimensions.
"Does the Bible Contain a Mathematically Incorrect Value for "Pi"?
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.

Does the Bible contain errors in math? If it does, this calls into question its moral and spiritual authority. Much is at stake. Let's carefully examine one of the most frequent charges of error.

When describing Solomon's Temple and its fixtures, Scripture tells of a great basin cast of molten brass "ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about,... and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about" (I Kings 7:23).

The circumference, c, of a circle is related to its diameter, d, by the ratio "pi" or "P" according to the equation c = Pd. Mathematical derivatives have calculated the precise value of P to many decimal places, but for most applications the approximation 3.14 is sufficient.

Inserting the value of circumference and diameter given by Scripture into the equation yields a value of P to be 3, and it is this apparent error which gives Bible detractors such glee.

Construction techniques in those days were surprisingly advanced. We can assume that their mathematics was precise and measurements handled with care. Notice that the basin "was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies" (v.26). A "hand breadth" is an inexact distance of about four inches, but sufficient for this general description. The whole basin flared out at the top, much like a lily. So, exactly what do the dimensions given really represent?

The diameter of the basin would be the inside diameter, measured from side to side. But the circumference would be measured by placing a cord around the outside, then measuring the length of the cord. Furthermore, at what elevation along the tapered basin was the measurement taken? Obviously, these are not intended to be precise, but to give the overall impression of great size and beauty.

Engineers have adopted a technique to insure that reported measurements are properly understood. To do this they use the convention called "significant figures." The number 10 is quite different from the number 10.0 or 10.00 in the precision it implies. To an engineer the number 10 can actually mean anything between 9.5 and 10.5. Likewise, the number 30 can actually mean anything between 29.5 and 30.5.

While the number P is accurate to many decimal places, the other two numbers do not have this precision. When one precise number is multiplied by an imprecise number, the product should be reported with no more precision than the least precise factor. Multiplying the diameter, 10 (i.e., 9.5 to 10.5) by P, is properly understood as implying a circumference somewhere between 29.8 and 33.0.

When constructing an object for which extremely high precision is needed (e.g., the space shuttle), numbers are designed, reported, and fabricated to several decimal places, but to expect such precision in a lay description of this huge basin cast from molten brass is not only improper, it shows lack of understanding of basic engineering concepts. Properly understood, the Bible is not only correct, it foreshadows modern engineering truth."
KJV

United States

#10629 Jan 8, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>The nice thing about the non-religious is that, in general, they don't have a problem with established science or gays, and they don't try to push their beliefs.

You won't find too many "non religious evangelists".

They're the kind of people that an atheist can actually have an intelligent conversation with.
Good I am ever so glad that you've found away to stay clear of those evangelists.
KJV

United States

#10630 Jan 8, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>Zip my back to zero?

WTF?
The discussion was on the probability of human existence through evolution.
The claim was sense we are here the odds are 1:1 this would be true if there was no other explanation on the floor and if science had only looked at one planet for life. So if evolution was the only argument on the floor we have looked at many other planets and moons for life. So the 1:1 would still be incorrect. The other issue is you cannot use evolution as the only possible way we are here to day for there is another possibility out there and that being God created us so yes his math is wrong so zip he has to start back at zero.
KTMAN

South Africa

#10631 Jan 8, 2013
lets make one thing absolutely clear hear, there is nothing in the bible that suggest shoving what you believing in in someone else's throat. but the principal model of the bible is not undermining people 's intelligence, that is why we have a quote that says" you will know the truth, and the truth shall set you free", that quote says nothing about people you will hear the truth from, what is basically saying is that, people, on their own have ability to determine if they are being told the truth or lied to, but just in case they might not know, whats being said is, again based on common sense, that this truth that you will hear, you will know it by the impact creates, that means, oppression is married to lies, while freedom is married to the truth, and people who can say,"the only people you can hear the truth from are Jehova 's Witness Society" don't sound very free, thats oppressed

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#10632 Jan 8, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
All attempts to prove micro black holes has failed. While they do exist on paper we can't find or make any so far. If fact the micro black hole is giving string theory a bit of a hard time.
""Back in 2006 there was a lot of talk of testing String Theory. Well, today CERN has released a statement for the Compact Muon Solenoid Experiment. The short of it is simply that as far as they could tell,'No experimental evidence for microscopic black holes has been found.' The long statement indicates that since the highly precise CMS detector found no spray of sub-atomic particles of normal matter while LHC smashed particles together, the hypothesis by String Theory that micro black holes would be formed and quickly evaporated in this experiment was incorrect. These tests have given the team confidence to say that they can exclude a 'variety of theoretical models' for the cases of black holes with a mass of 3.5-4.5 TeV (1012 electron volts). Not Even Wrong points us to the arxiv prepublication for those of you well versed in Greek. While you may not be able to run around claiming that String Theory is dead and disproved, evidently there are some adjustments that need to be made."
http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/12/16/14...
String theory has never been established anyway.

And I think that shoud be 10^12 electron volts.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#10633 Jan 8, 2013
derek4 wrote:
Richard Dawkins is much like Stalin.
Note the similarities in the included link.
Dawkins tried to have the Pope arrested when he went to Britain.
[This is dictating beliefs.]
Dawkins isn't a seeker of truth, he seeks to dictate and destroy all who would oppose him.
Atheists don't like my posts against science, but they should read how Dawkins blasts and raves against Einstein, one of our most famous scientists of all time.
Dawkins is the Messiah for atheists.
There is much more to know about Dawkins here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rory-fitzgerald...
No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.
The pope is guilty of harboring fugitives from justice.

He SHOULD be arrested.
KJV

United States

#10634 Jan 8, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, would you buy a "magical cure" that would cure all ailments and let you live forever if there was no proof of these claims?
There is no proof that God exist or doesn't exist. There is only evidence.

Do you believe in string theory?
How did life spring forth in you world of proof?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#10635 Jan 8, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
What are the “new” documents which you continue failing to identify?
You'll need to speak to KJV about that.

It's HIS claim. Not Khatru's.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#10636 Jan 8, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
LMFAO!!
"The chicken egg came before the chicken. Deal with it."
WOW..... KJV, Derek how long have you guys have been putting up with oooooogabooooga nonsense?
Hey oga who sat on the egg so it would hatch?
( a little comic relief )
The ancestor to the chicken, just one or two mutations short of being a chicken, now extinct.

Try to pay attention.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#10637 Jan 8, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
The discussion was on the probability of human existence through evolution.
The claim was sense we are here the odds are 1:1 this would be true if there was no other explanation on the floor and if science had only looked at one planet for life. So if evolution was the only argument on the floor we have looked at many other planets and moons for life. So the 1:1 would still be incorrect. The other issue is you cannot use evolution as the only possible way we are here to day for there is another possibility out there and that being God created us so yes his math is wrong so zip he has to start back at zero.
Wrong.

But anyway, how do I zip my back to zero?

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) 2 min Subduction Zone 75,207
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 46 min Brendatucker 183
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 1 hr John 580
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 1 hr John 6,099
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr John 32,052
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 17 hr Nemesis 4,068
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Sat John 4,952
More from around the web