Don't dictate beliefs

Sep 5, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Star Press

No one else can say otherwise? That is basically saying those who do "believe in God" are better? Hardly.

Comments
10,401 - 10,420 of 11,175 Comments Last updated Jan 18, 2014

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10969 Jan 11, 2013
derek4 wrote:
A report from the VIII International Scientific Conference explores the mistakes of modern science.
In the spirit of their concern about honesty, atheists should want to rid the planet of bad science.
http://www.ikz.ru/~smulski/smul1/English1/Fou...
No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.
That article didn't even rise to the level of bad science. It was simply wrong in most particulars (which we know you wouldn't understand).
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10970 Jan 11, 2013
I can't fix your stupid.(With thanks to Ron White)
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your constant replies to me and you futile meaningless rebuttals plus your resort to juvenile language all point to your deep frustrations and inablitiy to make valid points. Thanks, lol.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10971 Jan 11, 2013
Which one. All your posts are an abuse.
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
post reported as abuse

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10972 Jan 11, 2013
How bad reporting affects the public view of science:

http://www.ted.com/talks/molly_crockett_bewar...

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#10973 Jan 11, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism is a scientific religion requiring great faith.
Actually, an atheist could live in a hut and never, ever even care about science.

You lose.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#10974 Jan 11, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, atheism is a religion.
http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion
Did you really just use a Christian Fundamentalist website to "prove" atheism is a religion?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#10976 Jan 11, 2013
derek4 wrote:
Recognizing true and genuine science is becoming extremely complex.
Its not too bad. Just avoid creationist websites :)
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10978 Jan 11, 2013
Therefore a magic man dunnit?[sic]
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"The strongest scientific argument in favor of string theory is that it appears to contain a theory of gravity embedded within it and thus may provide a solution to the thorny problem of reconciling Einstein's general relativity with quantum mechanics and the rest of particle physics. There are, however, two fundamental problems, which are hard to get around.
First, string theory predicts that the world has 10 space-time dimensions, in serious disagreement with all the evidence of one's senses. Matching string theory with reality requires that one postulate six unobserved spatial dimensions of very small size wrapped up in one way or another. All the predictions of the theory depend on how you do this, but there are an infinite number of possible choices, and no one has any idea how to determine which is correct.
The second concern is that even the part of string theory that is understood is internally inconsistent. This aspect of the theory relies on a series expansion, an infinite number of terms that one is supposed to sum together to get a result. Whereas each of the terms in the series is probably finite, their sum is almost certainly infinite. String theorists actually consider this inconsistency to be a virtue, because otherwise they would have an infinite number of consistent theories of gravity on their hands (one for each way of wrapping up six dimensions), with no principle for choosing among them.
The "M" Word
These two problems have been around since the earliest work on string theory along with the hope that they would somehow cancel each other out. Perhaps some larger theory exists to which string theory is just an approximate solution obtained by series expansion, and this larger theory will explain what's going on with the six dimensions we can't see. The latest version of this vision goes under the name of "M-theory," where the "M" is said variously to stand for "Membrane," "Matrix," "Mother," "Meta," "Magic" or "Mystery"ýalthough "Mythical" may be more appropriate, given that nearly eight years of work on this idea have yet to lead to even a good conjecture about what M-theory might be."
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/issue...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10979 Jan 11, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"The strongest scientific argument in favor of string theory is that it appears to contain a theory of gravity embedded within it and thus may provide a solution to the thorny problem of reconciling Einstein's general relativity with quantum mechanics and the rest of particle physics. There are, however, two fundamental problems, which are hard to get around.
First, string theory predicts that the world has 10 space-time dimensions, in serious disagreement with all the evidence of one's senses. Matching string theory with reality requires that one postulate six unobserved spatial dimensions of very small size wrapped up in one way or another. All the predictions of the theory depend on how you do this, but there are an infinite number of possible choices, and no one has any idea how to determine which is correct.
The second concern is that even the part of string theory that is understood is internally inconsistent. This aspect of the theory relies on a series expansion, an infinite number of terms that one is supposed to sum together to get a result. Whereas each of the terms in the series is probably finite, their sum is almost certainly infinite. String theorists actually consider this inconsistency to be a virtue, because otherwise they would have an infinite number of consistent theories of gravity on their hands (one for each way of wrapping up six dimensions), with no principle for choosing among them.
The "M" Word
These two problems have been around since the earliest work on string theory along with the hope that they would somehow cancel each other out. Perhaps some larger theory exists to which string theory is just an approximate solution obtained by series expansion, and this larger theory will explain what's going on with the six dimensions we can't see. The latest version of this vision goes under the name of "M-theory," where the "M" is said variously to stand for "Membrane," "Matrix," "Mother," "Meta," "Magic" or "Mystery"ýalthough "Mythical" may be more appropriate, given that nearly eight years of work on this idea have yet to lead to even a good conjecture about what M-theory might be."
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/issue...
Yes, string theory is going out of favor for exactly these reasons. Once again, the essence of a scientific theory is the ability to predict new observations. String theory has been given a lot of rope, but has produced very little except a few frayed results.

Are you thinking there are no alternative theories out there?

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#10981 Jan 11, 2013
I have said before we atheists should be able to use this forum as a tax wrote off for all the teaching and council we give to the theists.

Surely this counts as volunteer work?
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
I know I used to myself defend imaginary sky people when I was on the kool aid. But you would think instead they would show a little gratitude for helping them out.
KJV

United States

#10982 Jan 11, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, string theory is going out of favor for exactly these reasons. Once again, the essence of a scientific theory is the ability to predict new observations. String theory has been given a lot of rope, but has produced very little except a few frayed results.

Are you thinking there are no alternative theories out there?
No there is a theory out there that will replace Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Not uniting them but replacing them both. That's my thoughts.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#10983 Jan 11, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
No there is a theory out there that will replace Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Not uniting them but replacing them both. That's my thoughts.
you don't have thoughts, you're a creationist.
KJV

United States

#10984 Jan 11, 2013
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>No he hasn't. Because you're lying.
Posted earlier by derek4

Study: Atheists Have Lowest 'Retention Rate' Compared to Religious Groups

Only about 30 percent of those who grow up in an atheist household remain atheists as adults. This "retention rate" was the lowest among the 20 separate categories in the study.

There were 1,387 atheists (weighted) in the survey. Four-hundred thirty-two weighted respondents said they were raised atheist. Of those, 131 self-identified as atheist.

Continued:

Gray also noted that, "of those raised as atheists, 30% are now affiliated with a Protestant denomination, 10% are Catholic, 2% are Jewish, 1% are Mormon, and 1% are Pagan."

Jehovah's Witness, congregationalist and holiness churches had the next lowest retention rates at 37 percent, 37 percent and 32 percent, respectively. Thirty-eight percent of those who grew up with no particular religious faith or belief system remained that way.

Hindus had the highest retention rate at 84 percent, followed by Jews (76 percent), Muslims (76 percent), Greek Orthodox (73 percent), Mormons (70 percent) and Catholics (68 percent).

Baptists had the highest retention rate of the Protestant Christian categories at 60 percent, followed by Lutheran (59 percent) and Pentecostal (50 percent).
http://www.christianpost.com/news/study-athei...

[Right; NO thinking people don't want to be atheists.]

From: Deseret News / Salt Lake City, UT

July, 2012

“Atheists abandon their beliefs more often than people in other religious groups, study finds”

A new study has found that people raised in an atheist home abandon those beliefs as adults more often than people raised with other religious belief systems, putting atheism at a 30 percent retention rate. Conclusions and interpretations of the study are that atheists are more often "made" as adults rather than "raised." The highest retention rates are in the Hindu faith, which holds onto about 84 percent of adherents.

Those who grow up in an atheist household are least likely to maintain their beliefs about religion as adults, according to a study by Georgetown University's Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA).

Only about 30 percent of those who grow up in an atheist household remain atheists as adults. This "retention rate" was the lowest among the 20 separate categories in the study.

There were 1,387 atheists (weighted) in the survey. Four-hundred thirty-two weighted respondents said they were raised atheist. Of those, 131 self-identified as atheist.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765589392/...

[Who would want to be an atheist? LOL]
KJV

United States

#10985 Jan 11, 2013
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>7+ posts in a row gets you another "Cuntard of the Day" award.

Way to go, cuntard!
Way to respond with nothing AGAIN!

Aturd of the Day!
KJV

United States

#10986 Jan 11, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>Interesting. I was also a believer when I first went on topix.
So the twisting of scripture by Satan's little helper and their all out lies about it has halted your believe? I guess you really didn't know what you believed anyways. Enjoy your life!
KJV

United States

#10987 Jan 11, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>Not necessarily attractive. Just a question of chosing REALITY over fanasty.
Please explain spontaneous life.

REALITY LOL.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#10988 Jan 11, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Please explain spontaneous life.
REALITY LOL.
Please explain "God of the Gaps". I hear he gets smaller every day.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10989 Jan 11, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I, for one, will reply in this forum. You can ignore the posts if you really want to, but the discussion can happen here even if you don't participate.
What an amazing expression of insecurity when you feel the need to announce your plans.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10990 Jan 11, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, an atheist could live in a hut and never, ever even care about science.
You lose.
Lose what? We're not playing the lottery here, lol.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10991 Jan 11, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
That article didn't even rise to the level of bad science. It was simply wrong in most particulars (which we know you wouldn't understand).
Remember to share your dubious expertise with the web page publishers, lol.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
The Ultimate Evidence of God 15 min Ben_Masada 57
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 30 min Patrick 52
I left Creationism! Ask me anything! 33 min Patrick 1
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 37 min Patrick 173
Atheists that tout free thinking use bully tact... 39 min Patrick 14
Our world came from nothing? 41 min Patrick 425
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 41 min River Tam 226,359
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••