Atheists on the march in America

Aug 26, 2009 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: TurkishPress.com

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

Comments
21 - 40 of 70,983 Comments Last updated Tuesday Aug 5

“Science, not faith.”

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#21 Aug 28, 2009
john wrote:
Ok, that is reasonable. Perhaps I'm being unfair because of other threads. There is a difference between atheism and antitheism that usually ends up with attacks from one side or another. In a debate each party needs a position to defend . I can do a pretty good job of questioning science if all I have to do is throw out what ifs and theories that were once axiomatic that are no longer. So, if this isn't the case- wonderful. I doubt it though. I didn't think asking for a position was such a difficult task to fulfill.
<quoted text>
Ending each post with the challenge "Stump an antitheist! Ask him what he believes" doesn't exactly give the impression that you're looking for a civil debate. Rather, you look like the playground bully, standing with your fists up, looking for someone to fight. Come in with an attitude and you're likely to get pummeled.
John

Saint Louis, MO

#22 Aug 28, 2009
melevy wrote:
<quoted text>Ending each post with the challenge "Stump an antitheist! Ask him what he believes" doesn't exactly give the impression that you're looking for a civil debate. Rather, you look like the playground bully, standing with your fists up, looking for someone to fight. Come in with an attitude and you're likely to get pummeled.
Yeah, I've heard that before and got superfluous bs in reply to a simple question. Actually it's just habit from another thread.
jack13

United States

#23 Aug 29, 2009
John wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't get it even when I spelled it out for you in advance. What are you defending? I have yet to see an antitheist be able to post a substantive position without attacking someone else's belief system. Worry about something of your own to believe in. When you find your nothing let me know and we will discuss whatever you would like.
Until then nothing is all you got and it's ridiculously pompous in light of the fact to act pompous about it.
Stump an antitheist! Ask him what he believes.
Of course you ignored post 9. He clearly stated what he believes. So your denial that he has a belief is silly. Now if you ask him, does he have faith, the answer is no. The only pompous ass I see here is you.

“l'enfer, c'est les autres”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#24 Aug 29, 2009
Five guys sitting in some bar with the stink of alcohol and cigarette smoke, talking about their godlessness. Massaging each other's "intellect" and oogling the barmaids.

No thanks. I'll take the incense and flowers and clean people found in a worship service over that any time.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#25 Aug 29, 2009
john wrote:
You believe in science, logic
I accept them as fact.
john wrote:
Stump an antitheist! Ask him what he believes.
Stump john! Answer his question!

“Science, not faith.”

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#26 Aug 29, 2009
nmweatherman wrote:
Five guys sitting in some bar with the stink of alcohol and cigarette smoke, talking about their godlessness. Massaging each other's "intellect" and oogling the barmaids.
No thanks. I'll take the incense and flowers and clean people found in a worship service over that any time.
You do that. You are not welcome at the atheist bar. We'll be the ones having fun while you're on your knees.
nina

Canada

#27 Aug 29, 2009
melevy wrote:
<quoted text>Ending each post with the challenge "Stump an antitheist! Ask him what he believ..d.
he's probably in that class that give 20% of the grade for being a net troll
john

United States

#28 Aug 29, 2009
This is like pulling teeth. How was the universe formed. Do atheists allow no possibility of a prime mover, if not why? What is your position on origin? What are you defending?
ScienceRules

Plainfield, VT

#29 Aug 29, 2009
john wrote:
How was the universe formed.
The big bang theory explains this from the first trillionth of a second or so. Prior to the big bang, no one knows what physical existence was, if anything; there are a number of interesting hypotheses. This has been explained to you ad nauseam, every reader knows that, so you must enjoy being the dupe.
john wrote:
Do atheists allow no possibility of a prime mover,
Yes, they allow the possibility. They simply see no evidence for one and tons of evidence that debunks specific versions of the 'prime mover'. Even if there is a 'prime mover' it seems more likely that there is no consciousness and 'purpose' in the way we think of it; no reason the 'uncaused first cause' need to be a conscious entity/deity. It could simply be a state of the natural world that has not been discovered yet. This has been explained to you ad nauseam, every reader knows that, so you must enjoy being the dupe.
john wrote:
What is your position on origin?
Origin of what, John? The origin of the universe? Depending on how you define origin, what we now know as the universe was a 'singularity' containing all the matter and energy (regardless of what form it was) that exists in the universe until the beginning of the expansion we call the big bang. The origin of organic life? All the evidence indicates the natural forces/laws of chemistry, physics and biology resulted in a series of reactions that gradually 'evolved' into organic, self-replicating life, either here on earth, elsewhere in the universe, or both. Origin of species? Evolution has that one nailed down pat. This has all been explained to you ad nauseam, every reader knows that, so you must enjoy being the dupe.
john wrote:
What are you defending?
Human reason against the cancer of fundamentalist beliefs.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#30 Aug 29, 2009
john wrote:
This is like pulling teeth. How was the universe formed. Do atheists allow no possibility of a prime mover, if not why? What is your position on origin? What are you defending?
For myself (and I am the only person I can answer this question for)...

First of all, I see no evidence of a prime mover. Why should I "believe" in something for which I see no evidence. I find the platitudes of theists unconvincing.

Secondly, I see no need to hypothesize a prime mover. There are so many things that we have been told in the past required a god. And over and over it has turned out not to be the case. The closer I look at the universe, the more I see natural causation...and thus the less need I see for a prime mover.

As has been stated by others, the Big Bang has done a very good job of explaining the universe as we see it, back to a tiny fraction of a second of the beginning of time.

Am I to believe that God is hiding in that tiny fraction of a second?

Am I absolutely certain of this? No. But it is my opinion that the odds are pretty darned good.
jack13

United States

#31 Aug 29, 2009
jack13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you ignored post 9. He clearly stated what he believes. So your denial that he has a belief is silly. Now if you ask him, does he have faith, the answer is no. The only pompous ass I see here is you.
For some reason this pop up. So let me ask you a question what facts do you have that your god is the true one when over three thousands are out there to choose from? How do you know you made the correct choice? Why do you reject all the other gods? Do you have any proof their god is not just as possible as yours? Or are you so igotistical to insist all the millions of people who have believed in their gods are wrong and your god is the right one? Go ahead.
Proove it.
redneck

United States

#32 Aug 29, 2009
john wrote:
This is like pulling teeth. How was the universe formed. Do atheists allow no possibility of a prime mover, if not why? What is your position on origin? What are you defending?
Study the 'Big Bang Theory'.
john

United States

#33 Aug 29, 2009
Does a bang need a banger? Science of the gaps is just as silly as God of the gaps. Many scientific axioms have been disproven. Repeatable and observable is the standard set and that means none of us can factually ay they know. Only allowing for natural possibilities may mean the evidence will never be there. If there is a supernatural science is not the arena to address it. We can only imagine the compexities of the universe that are often so perfectly ordered despite mathematical improbabilities. Writing off any possibility of a supernatural world seems to be disengenious.
stop

Chicago, IL

#34 Aug 29, 2009
stop this

“Science, not faith.”

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#35 Aug 29, 2009
stop wrote:
stop this
Stop what? And who are you to show up and demand anything?

“Science, not faith.”

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#36 Aug 29, 2009
john wrote:
Writing off any possibility of a supernatural world seems to be disengenious.
Your "supernatural world" is but one of the infinite number of possible explanations. There's no more evidence to support it than the universe was sneezed into existence by a giant hedgehog. Until we know the real answer (we may never) it seems a bit disingenuous to me to latch on to any particular explanation. If you wish to, that's certainly your right, but don't denigrate those who don't subscribe to or agree with your particular choice.

There's no dishonor in admitting that we collectively or individually just don't know.

“Science, not faith.”

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#37 Aug 29, 2009
john wrote:
Does a bang need a banger? Science of the gaps is just as silly as God of the gaps.
Not quite. Thousands of years ago, "god" was all there was as the collective knowledge of the time created one big "gap." As science progressed, many things that were attributed to deities (Apollo carrying the Sun across the sky, for example) were shown to have rational explanations. As a result, the number of things that were attributable to a "god" diminished. Science continues to remove "god" from the equation.
john

United States

#38 Aug 29, 2009
Science has not diminished God one iota. He exists or he doesn't. I understand not knowing and wanting verifiable evidence for things. However, II contend some things may be beyond science or science is the process for a larger plan. In order for the universe to function as it does requires seemingly mathematical impossibilities in perfect sequential order, just the right amount of gas combinations, exact planet alignments etc. I don't view these things as chance. Many scientists including Francis Collins who mapped our entire genetic code see purposeful design. Does this address questions of God being a sentient being or any of the thousand of other questions we have no. It should however, allow for an open mind and an inquisitiveness as to man's place or possible purpose. Waiting for science to answer matters of faith, supernatural and the like will be long and in the wrong library section. Science is wonderful, but, limited and I have not been duped into seeing it as the be all end all.
oneear69

Hamilton, Canada

#39 Aug 29, 2009
yes religion might have been in some odd way,a morale and social guide,and has played a major role in human history for the last 8000 years or so, starting with Egyptian mythology.but facts are facts,we are now in the 21st century the world has now become a small place,it is time to abolish religion and there backward ideals and this is the same for all religions.atheism is not a religion but a practical and common sense way of thinking.for instance i believe in life and respecting my environment and the people around me.i do not need a spirit or god to forgive my sins, cause i havent committed any.i do however feel ashamed and very sadden to hear of atrocities happening around the world to my fellow man and the earth itself.now if people want to believe in fairy tales thats fine,but do not be defining our laws or the very structure of our society based on religious bullshit.because my friend when we are dead thats it no pearly gates no 99 virgins no coming back as a cow,there is no chosen race.we all just become dust,so enjoy life while your alive and appreciate it,stop the wars,help your fellow man and enjoy.after all if i told you i was that guy would you believe me.lol
john

United States

#40 Aug 29, 2009
Ironically, believers and unbelievers arew all subject to the natural law. What standard is it that offends you? This is beyond socialization, mores, etc. You are probably not familiar with it as it is not quantifiable or observable in a petri dish. You do not have the right to outlaw belief sir. No attempts were made to outlaw the nothing you speak of.

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
Should Uninformed Opinion Be Respected? 6 min Patrick 27
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 8 min New Age Spiritual... 226,292
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 16 min Patrick 172
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 20 min Patrick 21,501
Our world came from nothing? 24 min Patrick 418
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 1 hr True Christian wi... 44
100% Faith Free 3 hr Thinking 11
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••