Atheists on the march in America

Aug 26, 2009 Full story: TurkishPress.com 70,983

When South Florida atheists held their first meeting, they were just five friends, having a beer at a bar.

Full Story
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65175 Nov 25, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>And yet, quantum mechanics gives very precise predictions for a host of different phenomena, from atomic spectra, to decay rates, to properties of solids.
Provide examples.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>The seasons come and go predictably because the Earth is tilted on its axis and presents a different angle to the Sun as it revolves around the Sun.[/Quote]

You are merely describing the physical mechanisms behind Intelligent Design as it operates in our system, which in no way nullifies the existence of Intelligent Design.

[QUOTE who="Drew Smith"]<quoted text>I'll say it again: Provide a specific example of "Intelligent Design" that is not explained by observed natural phenomena such as gravity or natural selection.[/Quote]

Psychic phenomena.

[QUOTE who="Drew Smith"]<quoted text>Science doesn't claim to have "the whole story".*Religion* does. It's equivalent to claiming "truth". As I said, science doesn't claim "truth". Any fact or theory of science can be overturned by new evidence.
When science presents its version of reality as the ONLY version, it is in effect claiming it has the ONLY answers and therefore knows the truth. And how convenient! When science's stories are no longer valid (the sun revolves around the earth) it can always assert that new information changed the ground rules. By doing so, it never has to hold itself accountable for its own false claims.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>Thoughts don't materialize out of vacuum. They are observable biological and chemical patterns in the brain.
How would you know when primarily, the brain has been studied in an airtight glass jar, a closed system? Science has yet to locate the seat of thought in the human brain and for a reason. The brain is primarily an event-forming psychomechanism through which consciousness operates. Both the brain and consciousness serve the body's existence, but not in the same way.

In the book, The Three Pound Universe: The Brain, a neuroanatomist known for his methodological vigor paused during his nerve cell study to comment, "I doubt we will ever get to consciousness from here. Who knows if the mind is even in the brain?" Candace Pert, while with the National Institute of Health, extensively researched neuropeptides. Initially she viewed the brain in Newtonian terms with the neurochemicals and their receptors operating like locks and keys. Now she sees the brain and its functions as a vibratory energy field with its locks and keys ways of perturbing the field. There is more, much more beyond the brain. It is no longer the end of the line. It is a receiver and amplifier of realities as yet unknown to science.

If a neuroanatomist doubts that consciousness is physical, you, as a member of the Church of Science have no reason, other than blind denial, to think otherwise.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65176 Nov 25, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>"Look like" refers to how we would distinguish a "non-natural" cause from a "natural" one. Provide a distinguishing characteristic so that we would know when we are observing one.
How can science, or YOU for that matter, distinquish the difference between a natural cause and a non-natural cause through observation when it doesn't recognize the existence of non-natural causes?
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>So why are you being dishonest in implying that I provided that link to address your question about cooperation?
Because you went off on tangent hoping that an explanation for the lack of a legitimate fossil record would somehow suffice.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>My response to your question about cooperation was this: "Computer simulations of mutations show that mutations leading to cooperation will result in more success than those that don't."
Simulations? Let me put in a context you might understand. Elephants create openings in forest canopies, allowing a greater variety of plant species to survive, which also helps many smaller animal species. This "cooperation" has nothing to do with genetic mutations.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>Until you can provide actual evidence for "higher non-physical realities", you're engaged in just so much woo.
Until science can turn its focus away from its obsession with the physical, it doesn't have a hope in hell of comprehending the bigger picture, and is therefore not a competent source of information.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>So you're saying that unless you are provided with an *external* purpose to your life, you would find your life dreary? That's odd, because I require no such external purpose, yet I don't find my life at all dreary. I enjoy it very much. And I don't require belief in "non-physical" realms in order to enjoy my life.
You sip from the thinnest broth of consciousness. And worse, you are not even aware of it.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65177 Nov 25, 2012
postscript wrote:
Drew Smith wrote: And yet, quantum mechanics gives very precise predictions for a host of different phenomena, from atomic spectra, to decay rates, to properties of solids.
I didn't write that.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65178 Nov 25, 2012
The seasons come and go predictably because the Earth is tilted on its axis and presents a different angle to the Sun as it revolves around the Sun.
postscript wrote:
You are merely describing the physical mechanisms behind Intelligent Design as it operates in our system, which in no way nullifies the existence of Intelligent Design.
I'm describing the mechanisms that fully account for the predictable coming and going of the seasons. You haven't provided any evidence for "Intelligent Design".

***

Provide a specific example of "Intelligent Design" that is not explained by observed natural phenomena such as gravity or natural selection.
postscript wrote:
Psychic phenomena.
Such as?

***
postscript wrote:
When science presents its version of reality as the ONLY version, it is in effect claiming it has the ONLY answers and therefore knows the truth.
Science doesn't claim that it's version of reality is the "only" version. However, it is the only version that has been shown to make usable predictions. Do you have any other version that has been shown to make usable predictions?
postscript wrote:
When science's stories are no longer valid (the sun revolves around the earth) it can always assert that new information changed the ground rules. By doing so, it never has to hold itself accountable for its own false claims.
Translation: Science, when it is shown to be in error, admits to the error and makes corrections. Therefore, it does not claim to have "truth".

Too bad that religion is incapable of such admissions, eh?

***

Thoughts don't materialize out of vacuum. They are observable biological and chemical patterns in the brain.
postscript wrote:
How would you know when primarily, the brain has been studied in an airtight glass jar, a closed system? Science has yet to locate the seat of thought in the human brain
Sure about that? Perhaps you need to read "Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain" by Antonio Damasio.
postscript wrote:
Candace Pert, while with the National Institute of Health, extensively researched neuropeptides. Initially she viewed the brain in Newtonian terms with the neurochemicals and their receptors operating like locks and keys. Now she sees the brain and its functions as a vibratory energy field...
Gee, you're able to commit plagiarism! Who knew? Got anything that Pert actually published as a peer-reviewed scientific research paper? No?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65179 Nov 25, 2012
postscript wrote:
How can science, or YOU for that matter, distinquish the difference between a natural cause and a non-natural cause through observation when it doesn't recognize the existence of non-natural causes?
If you can't even explain how one would know that they are dealing with a "non-natural" cause, then on what basis do you claim that they exist?

***

So why are you being dishonest in implying that I provided that link to address your question about cooperation?
postscript wrote:
Because you went off on tangent hoping that an explanation for the lack of a legitimate fossil record would somehow suffice.
You're the one who first brought up cooperation among species (which I addressed), followed by your claim that there was a lack of fossils (which I addressed with the link). So why are you implying that my response to your fossil claim was a response to your claim about cooperation? If the fossil claim is a "tangent", then you're the one who went off on it, and you're being dishonest.

***
postscript wrote:
Elephants create openings in forest canopies, allowing a greater variety of plant species to survive, which also helps many smaller animal species. This "cooperation" has nothing to do with genetic mutations.
It has everything to do with genetic mutations, since elephants are descended from animals that *didn't* create such openings. It was genetic mutations that led to modern elephants.

***
postscript wrote:
Until science can turn its focus away from its obsession with the physical...
As opposed to the *what*? The stuff you claim exists but for which you cannot provide any evidence?

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#65180 Nov 25, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
Where do we observe "Intelligent Design"?
<quoted text>
Be specific, instead of merely engaging in handwaving. Provide a specific example of "Intelligent Design" that is not explained by observed natural phenomena such as gravity or natural selection.
***
If scientific theories, which are explanations, are not "real", then why are they effective in making predictions?
<quoted text>
So you're saying that science is just one big conspiracy, and that scientific theories are incapable of predicting future observations?
***
What would a "non-natural" cause look like? How would it appear different from a natural cause?
<quoted text>
If thought is not physical in nature, how does it "manifest constructs that are physically perceptible"?(And you didn't answer my question: What would a "non-natural" cause look like, and how would it appear different from a natural cause?)
***
Now you're engaged in a straw man argument, since the modern evolutionary synthesis does not exclude the ideas of cooperation within species and between species. It is pointless for you to argue only against Darwin himself. You are many years too late.
<quoted text>
Computer simulations of mutations show that mutations leading to cooperation will result in more success than those that don't.
<quoted text>
How is it "contradictory"? That's like saying that a pool of water can't be wet because the individual water molecules are not wet. You're engaged in a Fallacy of Composition, in this case that because components of living things are not living, then we should not expect the composition to be living. That, of course, is nonsensical. We observe around us that complex things have features that are not features of the components.
<quoted text>
You mean, like the ones listed here?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.h...
***
Science makes no claim that a god does not exist. So I don't see your point.
<quoted text>
That's because science uses methodological naturalism. That means that it doesn't include supernatural entities in its models. Why should it? More to the point,*how* could it?
***
Science necessarily employs methodological naturalism. It makes no statement about nature being "all there is".
<quoted text>
As opposed to what *other* "reality?
***
<quoted text>
Such as?
Amazing post.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#65181 Nov 25, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it goes to fitness being determined by *environment*. In a given environment, some properties lead to better survival and, more importantly for evolution, procreation. Evolution always happens in an environment and the 'fitness' is always determined by that environment. But it is not a tautology because we can identify properties that help survival and procreation in various environments independently of evolutionary mechanisms.
And what is fitness? The ability to survive.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#65182 Nov 25, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
Consciousness is not subject to physical laws.
Then why can I render a person unconscious with a hammer?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65183 Nov 25, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
Consciousness is not subject to physical laws.
Yes, actually, it is. It is a product of the physical brain.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65184 Nov 25, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
The advanced order basic to the new physics (quantum), and all ancillary sciences was not discovered in particles of matter. It was found in the minds of scientists who had given up their preconceived notions about the physical world and reality, as the overwhelming idea of the oneness of life began to impinge upon their perceptions. They saw that things moved without following the laws of mechanical motion, that they moved disjointedly in a discontinuous manner, jumping almost effortlessly between two places. On the atomic scale, physicists saw that what they used to measure "data" created and determined what they found.
Once again, you are clearly getting your information about quantum mechanics from popularized sources instead of the actual physics literature. Your misunderstandings abound because of this. I would recommend actually learning some of the math and physics involved in QM before you attempt to speak about it. Otherwise, you only make yourself look foolish.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65185 Nov 25, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
Astral projection.
A figment of the imagination. Nothing real here except brain states.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65186 Nov 25, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
And what is fitness? The ability to survive.
But again, that is determined by things like energy flow that can be determined independently. The point is that we can determine which things would lead to better ability to survive by looking closely at the environment and the species itself. Evolution predicts that the population will change in the direction where those things leading to survival will be optimized.

“The Intrepid”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65187 Nov 25, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I never did much care for the liberal atheists either, but us conservative atheists need the balance they offer in order to keep the roads paved. A necessary evil if we ever want capitalism back and corporatism gone. Though I still wish the people with god delusions would just stop perverting the language so much, makes it difficult to actually get a point across when "conservative" means "god delusion" and "liberal" means "intelligent."
A conservative "anything" would be on youtube posting vlogs of himself dressed as a woman and using a voice modulator to convince little kids that he's a harmless female.

“The Intrepid”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65188 Nov 25, 2012
urr...

Make that, "...would NOT be..."

“The Intrepid”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65189 Nov 25, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You believe myths are real, your standards for facts are really too low to trust.
You expect us to believe that you are really a woman.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA AA

How deluded is that?

“The Intrepid”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65190 Nov 25, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe in humanity, and that is why I am smarter than you are.
You believe in delusions...or...at least you try very freaking hard to. Funny how you have just enough sanity left that you know you need the voice modulator not to frighten away the kiddies.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65191 Nov 25, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>A conservative "anything" would be on youtube posting vlogs of himself dressed as a woman and using a voice modulator to convince little kids that he's a harmless female.
Stop projecting, it's unbecoming of you men.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65192 Nov 25, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>You believe in delusions...or...at least you try very freaking hard to. Funny how you have just enough sanity left that you know you need the voice modulator not to frighten away the kiddies.
Funny how you can hear the traffic in some of my older vids, and it's not "modulated." You can't come to terms with what you are, so you project them onto everyone else. It must be hard for you to go into public knowing you sound like a guy, so tell us how hard it is.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65193 Nov 25, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>You expect us to believe that you are really a woman.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA AA
How deluded is that?
More projection.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65195 Nov 25, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why can I render a person unconscious with a hammer?
Consciousness is not physical and it does not reside in the brain. A blow to head therefore isn't going to affect its ability to function. After all, it survives death.

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.

2012 Presidential Election Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 15 min positronium 165,791
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 24 min Smart Alex 1,155,543
In 2016, Republicans will be fighting to hold S... 30 min serfs up 12
The uncomfortable truth about racism in America 36 min Le Jimbo 300
Mexico's Take Over Of California: Complete By 2... (Jun '09) 1 hr Cricket 23 27,516
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Learn to Read 182,038
Republicans in charge of Senate - but 2016 awaits 21 hr serfs up 30
More from around the web