Atheists on the march in America

Atheists on the march in America

There are 70650 comments on the TurkishPress.com story from Aug 26, 2009, titled Atheists on the march in America. In it, TurkishPress.com reports that:

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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TurkishPress.com.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65419 Dec 2, 2012
postscript wrote:
The fossil record that does exist, the one you point to with exuberant pride, is shamefully paltry compared to what should be a vast trove of fossilized evidence if the theory of evolution were actually true.
Already addressed here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1...

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#65420 Dec 2, 2012
Well I won't waste time trying to figure out how a peon half wit like yourself comprehends proven scientific data.

You lack the skills set that we do.

Reject!
Independent wrote:
<quoted text>I have seen this in the past, looks like just another extinct bat to me, no developing wings, or feet. Just another extinct bat.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65421 Dec 2, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Erm, what? Insects several hundred million years ago were huge. Imagine a dragonfly that could eat you, and that looks the same as they do today?
I don't recall any giant dragonflies in the fossil record. Linky?

xD

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65422 Dec 2, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
I notice that you've provided no alternative scientific theory as to where life came from, if not from non-life. Why is that?
<quoted text>
Why would it need a "catalyst"? Do you mean the fact that molecules on a sterile Earth would be constantly altered and mixed together by natural forces, such as gravity, heat from the Sun, heat from the internals of the Earth, impacts from icy comets, water currents, lightning, and so forth?
Now, I ask you again: What is your alternative scientific theory as to where life came from?
It looks as if we are at a stalemate, Drew. Do you feel shame in that?

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65423 Dec 2, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
If you can't explain why things happen as they do, then why do you attribute some of those things to a "god", and why do you fail to attribute other of those things to the same "god"? It sounds as if you only attribute good things to your "god" but fail to blame him for the bad things. Isn't that rather one-sided?
It is just as reasonable a fantasy as yours, so why begrudge a stranger his beliefs until there is proof either way?

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#65424 Dec 2, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
That consciousness can create form does not allow us to conclude that whatever creates form is conscious.
<quoted text>
How does anything in that definition tell us that whatever creates form is conscious?
<quoted text>
How do you conclude that whatever creates form must be "aware"?
Have you ever seen a comatose patient paint a picture?

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65425 Dec 2, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No such thing as random, we perceive randomness because we lack the complex computations required to identify the patterns in everything, our computers do that better now. But atomic reactions, chemical reactions, are structured based on the atomic structures, that's not even close to conscious reaction, it's the same as what happens when you drop a ball.
You are a clueless twit.

" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion&... ;

I'm getting tired of educating you.

Go take a physics class.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65426 Dec 2, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
...
You lack the skills set that we do.
Reject!
<quoted text>
You are nothing more than parrots lacking even their endearing qualites.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65427 Dec 2, 2012
Why would it need a "catalyst"? Do you mean the fact that molecules on a sterile Earth would be constantly altered and mixed together by natural forces, such as gravity, heat from the Sun, heat from the internals of the Earth, impacts from icy comets, water currents, lightning, and so forth?

Now, I ask you again: What is your alternative scientific theory as to where life came from?
nanoanomaly wrote:
It looks as if we are at a stalemate, Drew. Do you feel shame in that?
No stalemate. Just your refusing to answer the questions. The only person who should feel any shame in that is you.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65428 Dec 2, 2012
How do you conclude that whatever creates form must be "aware"?
BBSting wrote:
Have you ever seen a comatose patient paint a picture?
Nope. Then again, comatose patients do not represent the totality of that which is not aware, and painted pictures do not represent the totality of that which is a form.

I've seen mindless forces of nature create patterns. Ever heard of a rainbow, for instance?

So I ask again: How do you conclude that whatever creates form must be "aware"?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65429 Dec 2, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
I don't recall any giant dragonflies in the fossil record.
Just look what the tiniest shred of research can reveal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganeura

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65430 Dec 2, 2012
If you can't explain why things happen as they do, then why do you attribute some of those things to a "god", and why do you fail to attribute other of those things to the same "god"? It sounds as if you only attribute good things to your "god" but fail to blame him for the bad things. Isn't that rather one-sided?
nanoanomaly wrote:
It is just as reasonable a fantasy as yours,
It's reasonable to assume that everything that happens in the Universe that is "good" was due to a "god", but that everything that isn't "good" wasn't due to the same "god"?

How is that reasonable, exactly?

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65431 Dec 2, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Just look what the tiniest shred of research can reveal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganeura
Having a wingspan "up to 2.1 feet wide hardly makes it a giant that could eat me like your friend suggested.

Geez, I was expecting to see something pteradactyl-sized the way you carried on.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65432 Dec 2, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
If you can't explain why things happen as they do, then why do you attribute some of those things to a "god", and why do you fail to attribute other of those things to the same "god"? It sounds as if you only attribute good things to your "god" but fail to blame him for the bad things. Isn't that rather one-sided?
<quoted text>
It's reasonable to assume that everything that happens in the Universe that is "good" was due to a "god", but that everything that isn't "good" wasn't due to the same "god"?
How is that reasonable, exactly?
I never mentioned attributing anything to a god; you did.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65433 Dec 2, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
Having a wingspan "up to 2.1 feet wide hardly makes it a giant that could eat me like your friend suggested.
Your exact words were: "I don't recall any giant dragonflies in the fossil record."

I provided an example of one.

And you were also wrong about Kitten being a friend.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65434 Dec 2, 2012
It's reasonable to assume that everything that happens in the Universe that is "good" was due to a "god", but that everything that isn't "good" wasn't due to the same "god"?
How is that reasonable, exactly?
nanoanomaly wrote:
I never mentioned attributing anything to a god; you did.
Your exact words were: "It is just as reasonable...".

Your statement was in response to my statement "It sounds as if you only attribute good things to your "god" but fail to blame him for the bad things."

So you're saying that you don't even remember what your own pronoun references are referencing?
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65435 Dec 2, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
How do you conclude that whatever creates form must be "aware"?
<quoted text>
Nope. Then again, comatose patients do not represent the totality of that which is not aware, and painted pictures do not represent the totality of that which is a form.
I've seen mindless forces of nature create patterns. Ever heard of a rainbow, for instance?
So I ask again: How do you conclude that whatever creates form must be "aware"?
A rainbow is a mindless force of nature. Really? Based on what? Your own hairbrained observations, or science's ridiculous contention that dead matter can soar into life without provocation?

What, pray tell, represents totality in your little world? I mean, besides the bogus theory of evolution. Just as no single human being can express the full potential of the species, no single scientific theory can explain reality in its totality.

You are not interested in a search for the truth. You are grimly determined to preserve your insatiable desire to worship at the altar of science.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#65436 Dec 2, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
A rainbow is a mindless force of nature. Really? Based on what? Your own hairbrained observations, or science's ridiculous contention that dead matter can soar into life without provocation?
What, pray tell, represents totality in your little world? I mean, besides the bogus theory of evolution. Just as no single human being can express the full potential of the species, no single scientific theory can explain reality in its totality.
You are not interested in a search for the truth. You are grimly determined to preserve your insatiable desire to worship at the altar of science.
You need to prove your f*cking imaginary god before you attempt and fail to criticize science.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65437 Dec 2, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to prove your f*cking imaginary god before you attempt and fail to criticize science.
You need to grow a brain before you attempt to engage in a debate that is obviously way over your empty pointy little head.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65438 Dec 2, 2012
Nope. Then again, comatose patients do not represent the totality of that which is not aware, and painted pictures do not represent the totality of that which is a form.
I've seen mindless forces of nature create patterns. Ever heard of a rainbow, for instance?
So I ask again: How do you conclude that whatever creates form must be "aware"?
postscript wrote:
A rainbow is a mindless force of nature. Really?
No, I said that a rainbow is *created* by a mindless force of nature.
postscript wrote:
Based on what?
Based on the fact that photons, water, and atmosphere show no evidence of a "mind".
postscript wrote:
What, pray tell, represents totality in your little world?
Everything that exists. It's your world, too. Or are you claiming that comatose patients are the only things that exist in the world?
postscript wrote:
You are not interested in a search for the truth.
Says the guy who can't seem to produce any evidence of consciousness among non-living matter. I guess you just buy into things without evidence, eh?

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.

Religion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Islam Will Conquer Italy and the Entire West (Sep '10) 4 min Rasputin 462,664
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 5 min -Stray Dog 247,610
News Religion, higher education and critical thinking 11 min Big Al 211
News What If Jesus Is not God? 12 min Knowledge- 1,399
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 13 min Thinking 47,862
News Who Is Allah? (Aug '07) 14 min Thinking 230,824
News Archbishop assails Trump over birthright citize... 31 min Asian Guy 1
More from around the web