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.

KJV

United States

#11356 Jan 15, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>Good point. The standard practice amongst Christians is to say your denomination is the only correct one, worshipping the one, true God, and the other 33,999 sects are false, the other 999 gods false, and the other 9,999 religions also false. What amazing luck to be born into the right one!!!
You are so wise Adam. First off to have been in a religion and not having a clue what it was. Then you leave your parents faith and join the ranks of the cool kids as an Atheist. Where you can sit back and lie about the faith you abandoned in an effort to draw praise from the cool kids. This kind of behavior dates back hundreds of years, it's like when the cool kids gets the little weasel to toss a rock through the store front window. The weasel doesn't really want to do it but is so hard up looking for acceptance he does it.

This is how you look to me, nothing more.
KJV

United States

#11357 Jan 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>If you look, the date of that lecture is 1996, which was before the detailed information from COBE and WMAP. Hawking's estimate of 15 billion years was the best estimate at the time. Before the data on the background radiation, the estimates of the age of the universe ran from about 11 billion years to almost 20 billion years. That range was narrowing by about 1996, but getting more accuracy from the data than 'about 15 billion years' was impossible at that point. Now, we have much better data and more decimal places of accuracy.

The best estimate for the age of the universe at this point is 13.772+-.059 billion years. Expect narrower error bars when more data comes in.
I read it In at 2012 speech he gave also but when I went back looking for it a few days later I could not find it.

I'll try a dig up his 2012 speech that on includes him claiming the universe is 15 billion years old.
KJV

United States

#11358 Jan 15, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>No he's not.

I am.
Well maybe not his greatest but definitely one of his most mind boggling creations.
KJV

United States

#11359 Jan 15, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>I got the figures from a book I'm reading, "Why people believe weird things" Michael Shermer.
While then it must be true.
(Fiction)?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11360 Jan 15, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
I read it In at 2012 speech he gave also but when I went back looking for it a few days later I could not find it.
I'll try a dig up his 2012 speech that on includes him claiming the universe is 15 billion years old.
Once again, the level of accuracy is the relevant factor here. It is not at all uncommon to *approximate* by rounding to the nearest 10 or 5. In this case, an approximation obtained by rounding to the nearest 5 gives 15 billion. And that is accurate to within 10%. If you want a more accurate figure, use 13.7 billion.

I am wondering why you are having such a hard time understanding this basic principle. Hawking wasn't 'adding another 1.3 billion years'. He was giving a first approximation.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11361 Jan 15, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
I read it In at 2012 speech he gave also but when I went back looking for it a few days later I could not find it.
I'll try a dig up his 2012 speech that on includes him claiming the universe is 15 billion years old.
I don't think you realize just how far we've come in the past two decades in this field. When I was young, the estimates for the age of the universe were 15+-5 billion years: in other words, somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years. That's a uncertainty of a factor of 2! When Hawking started working, that was the state of the art. In the last decade or two, that uncertainty has decreased to give an age of 13.77+-.06 billion years. I don't find it strange that he would give an *approximate* answer of 15 billion years as a rule of thumb estimate even today. If you want more accuracy, use the more accurate result.
KJV

United States

#11362 Jan 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Once again, the level of accuracy is the relevant factor here. It is not at all uncommon to *approximate* by rounding to the nearest 10 or 5. In this case, an approximation obtained by rounding to the nearest 5 gives 15 billion. And that is accurate to within 10%. If you want a more accurate figure, use 13.7 billion.

I am wondering why you are having such a hard time understanding this basic principle. Hawking wasn't 'adding another 1.3 billion years'. He was giving a first approximation.
Well at first it's round up to the nearest 5
Then who knows add a couple billion years here and there and soon your at 20 billion and so on. The only reason I bring this up or seem concerned about it is in my life time the earth and universe has aged billions of years. And as you know the more time science puts on the books the odds of spontaneous life or the the mystery of the Big Bang seem to be come less concerning to the masses because the billions and billions of years is simple pretty hard to conceive.

Science for a few years have give the age of the universe at 13.7 billion years then one of if not the top dog in science starts throwing around 15 billions years and no one blinks an eye at the addition of 1.3 billion years. That's a very long time.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#11363 Jan 15, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Well at first it's round up to the nearest 5
Then who knows add a couple billion years here and there and soon your at 20 billion and so on.
No, it won't go that high. The error bars are much, much less than they were even fairly recently.
The only reason I bring this up or seem concerned about it is in my life time the earth and universe has aged billions of years. And as you know the more time science puts on the books the odds of spontaneous life or the the mystery of the Big Bang seem to be come less concerning to the masses because the billions and billions of years is simple pretty hard to conceive.
Science for a few years have give the age of the universe at 13.7 billion years then one of if not the top dog in science starts throwing around 15 billions years and no one blinks an eye at the addition of 1.3 billion years. That's a very long time.
It's a factor of 10%. Our estimates are much better now than they were even a few years ago. We have the age down to within less than a percent. The figure of 15 billion years is a fair approximation.

I really think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. If I met someone who was 27-8 years old and I said they were close to 30, you wouldn't blink an eye. Hawking's estimate is off by the same factor.

You are beginning to sound like the man in the joke. He went to a geology lecture and the speaker asked if anyone knew how old the earth is. The man replied that it is 4,600,000,003 years old. The speaker asked how he got that figure, to which he replied that he had heard the same lecture 3 years ago and it was 4,600,000,000 years old then.

The point is that the amounts we are off tend to be in *percentages* of the true amount rather than actual number of years off. So we had an estimate of 15 billion years with a possible error of 10%. Now we have a figure of 13.772 billion years with a possible error of .4%.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#11364 Jan 15, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
That is the Best you can do to
defend unpopular atheism?
United States recently reelected a Christian President and VP.
Appeal to authority, that is a fallacy.
Lincoln

United States

#11365 Jan 15, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Appeal to authority, that is a fallacy.
President Obama being a Christian is "not an appeal to authority" as President Obama is Not an authority on religion.

May be "fallacy of bandwagon"?
All the president have been Christian except of a unitarian or two. None have been professed atheists.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#11366 Jan 15, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
President Obama being a Christian is "not an appeal to authority" as President Obama is Not an authority on religion.
May be "fallacy of bandwagon"?
All the president have been Christian except of a unitarian or two. None have been professed atheists.
You are pretty stupid if you don't recognize this argument as "appeal to authority". All of the popes have been catholic, so I guess that means you should be as well, right?
Lincoln

United States

#11367 Jan 15, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
You are pretty if you don't recognize this argument as "appeal to authority". All of the Popes have been Catholic, so I guess that means you should be as well, right?
Not at all...bandwagon.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#11368 Jan 15, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
President Obama being a Christian is "not an appeal to authority" as President Obama is Not an authority on religion.
May be "fallacy of bandwagon"?
All the president have been Christian except of a unitarian or two. None have been professed atheists.
I stand correct, the bandwagon is correct.
Lincoln

United States

#11369 Jan 15, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I stand correct, the bandwagon is correct.
Not a big deal.
What do we do with our lives today?
How can we make the world a better place?
Peace

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#11371 Jan 15, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all...bandwagon.
bandwagon is more of an "appeal to numbers". For example, "trillions of flies eat cr@p, so we should too.".

Whereas the "presidents" argument is more of an "important people say so .." which is more of an "appeal to authority". You lose!!

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#11370 Jan 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you look, the date of that lecture is 1996, which was before the detailed information from COBE and WMAP. Hawking's estimate of 15 billion years was the best estimate at the time. Before the data on the background radiation, the estimates of the age of the universe ran from about 11 billion years to almost 20 billion years. That range was narrowing by about 1996, but getting more accuracy from the data than 'about 15 billion years' was impossible at that point. Now, we have much better data and more decimal places of accuracy.
The best estimate for the age of the universe at this point is 13.772+-.059 billion years. Expect narrower error bars when more data comes in.
Thanks for leaving your math specialty long enough to read a bit and post some unlinked material in an effort to explain away how science continues to blunder and fail to get things right.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#11372 Jan 15, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
Not judge, just a healthy degree of skepticism.
We are not responsible for the programming we received as children. But as an adult are responsible for fixing it.
Okey-Dokey --- I hope you get yourself “fixed”.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#11373 Jan 15, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text> do we really want to believe in a load of tosh just cause we cant cope with reality???
WE?
I don't. That's why I reject the theory of evolution as a “load of tosh”, since you put it that way for us. Thank you.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#11374 Jan 15, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
A very reliable poster tells us that you think your god is a moron.
Is this true?
Come on, Dim. I'll be a friend, you can lean on my shoulder, let it all out.
Have a cry if you want.
Would you like a hug?
I appreciate your friendship, and surely you know how much it means to me, lol.

But watch out for those "very reliable" moron posters you trust. "your god"????--- nope - that doesn't describe the God I believe in.

You must be thinking of your science god.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#11375 Jan 15, 2013
Even some atheists defend the value of religion.

The included link is a Washington Post article where an atheist tells us that humanity is so much better off with religion than without it.

If the poor thing understands that much, he should convert and come out of his godless, empty religion.

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/gue...

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.

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) 3 hr Regolith Based Li... 93,406
News Scientific, Philosophical Case for God's Existe... 5 hr blacklagoon 3 89
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 10 hr superwilly 6,056
News American Atheists terminates its president over... Apr 20 Eagle 12 - 19
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Apr 14 blacklagoon 3 4,141
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Apr 14 Into The Night 258,515
News The Anti-Christian Movement Apr 10 blacklagoon 3 11