Atheists on the march in America

There are 70657 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.

postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65058 Nov 20, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
When you use the same canards that all the creatards use repeatedly you betray that you are nothing more than a christian attacking something you are too lazy to learn about. Since you know nothing of scientific understanding you are unfit and unqualified to even address it.
Hurling ad homiems only establishes the fact that you have no talking points. Who's the REAL idiot?
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65059 Nov 20, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
You're full of sh*t. Science is based on observable, repeatably testable evidence while religion is based on....
...bullf8cking sh*t and f*ck all.

That's the theory but not the reality. Many scientists will tell you that even in physics the theories are relative and questionable as to their universality, and yet many people are apt to accept these stories as credible reasoning that because they are "scientific" stories they are somehow more believable.

[QUOTE who="-Skeptic-"]< quoted text>Universal fact. Now go back to your cult and tell them you failed to convince anyone that science is on equal par with the written hallucinations of uneducated liars.
That is not my intention. I know from personal experience that trying to convince an atheist that science is not omnipotent is like trying to convince a Christian that God doesn't exist. I also know that some atheists, like some Christians, are capable of entertaining opposing points of view without working themselves into a frothing lather.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65060 Nov 20, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't need to know everything to know something.
You thiests always bring up philosophy because you think because philosophy or "questions without answers" exist, it should follow that "answers which cannot be questioned" should exist.(religion)
Which is utter baseless bullsh*t.
There is a reason for that. Science doesn't deal with ultimate origins and endings. It passes the buck. It refers the inquirer to theology or philosophy for answers.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65061 Nov 20, 2012
This bears repeating:
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
You're full of sh*t. Science is based on observable, repeatably testable evidence while religion is based on....
...bullf8cking sh*t and f*ck all.
That's the theory but not the reality. Many scientists will tell you that even in physics the theories are relative and questionable as to their universality, and yet many people are apt to accept these stories as credible reasoning that because they are "scientific" stories they are somehow more believable.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65062 Nov 20, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
Hurling ad homiems only establishes the fact that you have no talking points. Who's the REAL idiot?
If you had any valid points, you would not continue to use creatard canards nor a bunch of conspiracy nuttery.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65063 Nov 20, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
If you had any valid points, you would not continue to use creatard canards nor a bunch of conspiracy nuttery.
You repeat the same vacuous responses because you are out of your league.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65064 Nov 20, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
You repeat the same vacuous responses because you are out of your league.
Aw, you can't defend your position with real facts, sad that.
Thinking

Andover, UK

#65065 Nov 20, 2012
Science flies you to the Moon.
Religion flies you into buildings.
postscript wrote:
This bears repeating:
<quoted text>
That's the theory but not the reality. Many scientists will tell you that even in physics the theories are relative and questionable as to their universality, and yet many people are apt to accept these stories as credible reasoning that because they are "scientific" stories they are somehow more believable.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65066 Nov 20, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Science flies you to the Moon.
Religion flies you into buildings.
<quoted text>
What is the purpose of being? Religion, however distorted and commercialized, has a diagram at least. What does science have?

Seventy five percent of our nationís population breathes unhealthy amounts of air pollution - BUT - our cars are faster, our houses are bigger. More Americans are strung out on prescription psychoactive drugs than any other country in the world. This practice even has a name, it's called the "the medicalization of unhappiness."

In the midst of this scientific cornucopia - our oceans are dying, the atmosphere is poisoned, the earth itself is losing its capacity to support life and simply because the Holy Grail of science or "the meaning of life" has been new and improved - bigger and better.
Thinking

Andover, UK

#65067 Nov 20, 2012
Morality predates religion.
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the purpose of being? Religion, however distorted and commercialized, has a diagram at least. What does science have?
Seventy five percent of our nationís population breathes unhealthy amounts of air pollution - BUT - our cars are faster, our houses are bigger. More Americans are strung out on prescription psychoactive drugs than any other country in the world. This practice even has a name, it's called the "the medicalization of unhappiness."
In the midst of this scientific cornucopia - our oceans are dying, the atmosphere is poisoned, the earth itself is losing its capacity to support life and simply because the Holy Grail of science or "the meaning of life" has been new and improved - bigger and better.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65068 Nov 20, 2012
postscript wrote:
Scientists do their fair share of speculating, only they call it theorizing, which somehow makes it more acceptable.
No, scientific theories are based upon observable *evidence*. They are not "speculations". They are not tied to any particular set of scriptures. Scientists don't throw up their hands and say "God works in mysterious ways". Instead, they say "We don't know yet, but we'll see if we can find out".
postscript wrote:
Is it more satisfactory to say the "universe" works in mysterious ways - its wonders to behold?
Again, science works with the single assumption that the Universe *is* understandable. We may not understand all of it yet, but we understand more about it each day. We don't ascribe what we don't understand to some supernatural being's whims.
postscript wrote:
It certainly wouldn't be far from the truth since science doesn't know everything there is to know about the universe.
Nor does it claim to. Science doesn't claim "truth". It recognizes that new information may overturn established scientific facts and theories.

Religion, unfortunately, does claim "truth". It doesn't admit to being wrong about anything.
postscript wrote:
Religion has its original sin - science, its survival of the "fittest" and man, the predatory animal.
"Survival of the fittest" is the observation that those living organisms that are most closely fitted to their environment have a greater tendency to survive and pass their genes to the next generation than those organisms that are less fit.

And human beings have been both predator and prey throughout our existence. We may no longer be the prey of large animals (apart from the occasional kill by a grizzly bear or an alligator), but we are certainly still prey to parasites and microorganisms.
postscript wrote:
Science's dogma is as limiting as religion's!
What scientific dogma are you referring to?
postscript wrote:
Why is it that both religion and conventional science concentrate on man's inequity? Both teach that our impulses, emotions, and intuitions will betray us.
Actually, science teaches us that our impulses, emotions, and intuitions have evolved over time in order to make us more successful in our original environments. However, our modern technological environment is very different from the environment in which the species evolved, and so we have to be more careful with our impulses, emotions, and intuitions. But so what? Humans, like all other living things, were never "perfect", even in our natural state.

***

If it can't make any predictions, then it isn't science. And if it makes predictions that don't pan out, then it has to be changed.
postscript wrote:
Meteorologists make predictions as a matter of course and are often wrong.
And they are *more* often right, in the general sense. More to the point, meteorologists are not usually creating broad scientific theories, but instead are attempting to use the results of scientific models to predict very specific events. Those models have a margin of error. And they are constantly adjusted.

***
postscript wrote:
Were Plato's ideas true?
Which ones? He had many, did he not?
postscript wrote:
Unless you are a student of philosophies and religions, you don't have the knowledge necessary to identify what is equally plausible and what is not.
Inventing pantheons of deities (whether Zeus and Hera, or Jehovah and Satan) doesn't provide knowledge as to what is plausible or not. They are merely entertaining creation myths, and you'll find thousands of variations of such things from around the world. But we eventually figured out that determining the *real* cause of weather, volcanoes, earthquakes, eclipses floods, diseases, and so forth was far more useful to dealing with them than ascribing their origin to the whims of supernatural beings.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#65069 Nov 20, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
No what am I saying is that I am taking the oldest truest source material of the myth of the pre Jesus savior of all mankind. Let me use small words so you can understand. Hmmm in ancient times as the migration of... No no that will be beyond your ability.
Keep it so the lil IQ one can grasp it.
Ah ok. The reason I use the older source material vs the one used by our GREEK historian a whopping 2000 plus years later is because when the Greeks came around they incorporated the Egyptian gods along with their own. But they would radically alter the Egyptian gods combining them or radically changing their story. One could chalk this up to them misunderstanding the stories or them purposely trying to make the Egyptians look bad in comparison.
Whatever their motives were is irrelevant, the changes made almost always cast the Egyptian gods in a negative light, be it from mistranslation/misunderstandin g or purposely done.
Osiris born in heaven or the spirit world if you prefer to the earth god and sky goddess. Horus born on earth to a virgin.
There is actually a rather sweet, charming aspect to the Horus myth that sadly didn't get stolen for the Jesus myth. I am speaking of how Horus resurrects his own father and makes him greater than ever. The moral being how one's children can make them better and bring joy to them. How even after they die part of them like knowledge, art, laughter and so on will continue on through their children. Horus was not only the light of mankind but of his father's as well.
<quoted text>
Look here little missy . I am about as religious as you are retarded.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65071 Nov 20, 2012
Part 1
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
No, scientific theories are based upon observable *evidence*. They are not "speculations".
Then science should have no problem accepting the idea that Intelligent Design is behind life since it is everywhere observable.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
They are not tied to any particular set of scriptures.
Scientific paradigms are science's scriptures. Since we really can't know what the universe is, as it seems to exist apart from our finite experience of it, then most scientific theories are really myths and stories that people pretend are real.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't ascribe what we don't understand to some supernatural being's whims.

That's because science limits itself to explaining the natural world through natural causes exclusively, yet there is nothing stopping scientists from considering non-natural causes other than a deeply ingrained fear that they may appear to be...GASP... illogical. All patterns contain potential representations, therefore, what is seen is not necessarily what is.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Science doesn't claim "truth". It recognizes that new information may overturn established scientific facts and theories.
If science never claims truth, why believe what it tells you? Rather than flatly state that God does not exist, it would a truer statement to say science has not found God....yet.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
"Survival of the fittest" is the observation that those living organisms that are most closely fitted to their environment have a greater tendency to survive and pass their genes to the next generation than those organisms that are less fit.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65072 Nov 20, 2012
Part 2
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
"Survival of the fittest" is the observation that those living organisms that are most closely fitted to their environment have a greater tendency to survive and pass their genes to the next generation than those organisms that are less fit.
"Survival of the fittest" is a theory, not a fact. Darwin's pessimistic, prejudiced view of the natural world was distinctly European and entirely misinterpreted. His cataloguing of events and effects led him to perceive only competiveness and made him blind to the basic cooperative ventures existing between creatures and their environment, and between species.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
What scientific dogma are you referring to?
The doctrine that nature is "all there is". This is an unquestioned assumption among scientists but not a fact. It underlies not only natural science but intellectual scientific work of all kinds. As long as the Church of Science holds to its physically oriented dogmas - its preferred paradigms - the human being will be seen as a sophisticated but "mechanical" system that just happens to run itself and exists for no other purpose than to reproduce.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Humans, like all other living things, were never "perfect", even in our natural state.
How can nature be right in every respect but wrong when our species emerged?
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Which ones? He had many, did he not?
The erroneous notion that reason is the path to enlightenment and emotion, a sure road to human suffering. Plato, like science, viewed emotion as untrustworthy, unable to provide us with facts about anything. Yet we know that sometimes feelings themselves are the answers. Sometimes the heart already knows what the intellect must rationalize.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Inventing pantheons of deities (whether Zeus and Hera, or Jehovah and Satan) doesn't provide knowledge as to what is plausible or not. They are merely entertaining creation myths, and you'll find thousands of variations of such things from around the world. But we eventually figured out that determining the *real* cause of weather, volcanoes, earthquakes, eclipses floods, diseases, and so forth was far more useful to dealing with them than ascribing their origin to the whims of supernatural beings.


You admit that science does not have all the answers - that its theories are not proven - that it changes its mind depending on new information. You see all of this obfucation as plausible, yet you scorn those who find truth in their religions. If there can be reason without faith - there can be faith without reason.



Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65073 Nov 20, 2012
No, scientific theories are based upon observable *evidence*. They are not "speculations".
postscript wrote:
Then science should have no problem accepting the idea that Intelligent Design is behind life since it is everywhere observable.
Where do we observe "Intelligent Design"?

***

They are not tied to any particular set of scriptures.
postscript wrote:
Scientific paradigms are science's scriptures. Since we really can't know what the universe is, as it seems to exist apart from our finite experience of it, then most scientific theories are really myths and stories that people pretend are real.
If scientific theories, which are explanations, are not "real", then why are they effective in making predictions?

***

We don't ascribe what we don't understand to some supernatural being's whims.
postscript wrote:
That's because science limits itself to explaining the natural world through natural causes exclusively, yet there is nothing stopping scientists from considering non-natural causes...
What would a "non-natural" cause look like? How would it appear different from a natural cause?

***

Science doesn't claim "truth". It recognizes that new information may overturn established scientific facts and theories.
postscript wrote:
If science never claims truth, why believe what it tells you?
Because (1) it is demonstrably effective, and (2) it can be changed when shown to be incorrect.

Unfortunately, neither is true of religion.
postscript wrote:
Rather than flatly state that God does not exist...
Science makes no claim that a god does not exist. So I don't see your point.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65074 Nov 20, 2012
Survival of the fittest" is the observation that those living organisms that are most closely fitted to their environment have a greater tendency to survive and pass their genes to the next generation than those organisms that are less fit.
postscript wrote:
"Survival of the fittest" is a theory, not a fact.
No, it's a fact. We can certainly perform experiments on living organisms, modify their environments, and observe which organisms tend to be most successful in surviving and reproducing. These experiments have been done.
postscript wrote:
His cataloguing of events and effects led him to perceive only competiveness and made him blind to the basic cooperative ventures existing between creatures and their environment, and between species.
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.

***

What scientific dogma are you referring to?
postscript wrote:
The doctrine that nature is "all there is". This is an unquestioned assumption among scientists but not a fact.
Science necessarily employs methodological naturalism. It makes no statement about nature being "all there is".

***

Humans, like all other living things, were never "perfect", even in our natural state.
postscript wrote:
How can nature be right in every respect but wrong when our species emerged?
"Right" or "wrong" by what standard? When I say that no living thing is "perfect", I mean that there is always room for the species to be better fitted to its environment. But there is no "right" or "wrong".

***
postscript wrote:
The erroneous notion that reason is the path to enlightenment and emotion, a sure road to human suffering.
I see that idea as wrong. But I fail to see what it has to do with your argument.

***

Inventing pantheons of deities (whether Zeus and Hera, or Jehovah and Satan) doesn't provide knowledge as to what is plausible or not. They are merely entertaining creation myths, and you'll find thousands of variations of such things from around the world. But we eventually figured out that determining the *real* cause of weather, volcanoes, earthquakes, eclipses floods, diseases, and so forth was far more useful to dealing with them than ascribing their origin to the whims of supernatural beings.
postscript wrote:
You admit that science does not have all the answers - that its theories are not proven - that it changes its mind depending on new information. You see all of this obfucation
How is it "obfuscation"?
postscript wrote:
...yet you scorn those who find truth in their religions.
I scorn anyone who claims to have found "truth", regardless of its source. If a person is unwilling to entertain the possibility that they are mistaken in their ideas, what does it say about that person?

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#65075 Nov 20, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
The point you seem to keep missing in your myopic ramblings is this: If the atheist won't allow priests to tell him how to live his life or how to interpret his experiences - why should he give that priviledge to science? Unless of course, he makes science his god.
That is nonsense. Science and religion are not on equal footing. Belief in god is pure superstition.

“Arm the homeless!”

Since: Jul 12

The internet

#65076 Nov 20, 2012
postscript wrote:
Google the difference between ameliorate and cure.
None of the diseases you listed have been vanquished from the face of the earth. Better hygiene and sanitation has done more to
amerliorate these diseases than vaccinations.
Incorrect.
Smallpox. Completely vanquished from the face of the Earth.
Polio and guinea-worm disease are almost eradicated.

Hmmm...Hygiene and sanitation?
You have them thanks to Louis Pasteur (French Chemist)
So...you have science to thank for that as well.
postscript wrote:
"You cannot immunize sick children, malnourished children, and expect to get away with it. You'll kill far more children than would have died from natural infection."--Dr Kalokerinos (International Vaccine Newsletter June 1995)
<quoted text>
"This is a common misconception. The vaccine seems to work in some cases but only if the individual has not been exposed to HPV. The flu vaccine doesn't work either and for the same reason vaccinations don't cure diseases. Viruses mutate. You've heard of super bugs?
http://chemistry.about.com/cs/howthingswork/a...
You seem to misundertand what a vaccine does. It doesn't cure...it prevents. Of coarse it won't work on an infected subject.

I did say "cureable and/or preventable"

My list stands. All cureable or preventable through science and its vast discoveries.

Although it is cute how you lean on science to explain super bugs but scoff at it's ability to deal with them.

“Arm the homeless!”

Since: Jul 12

The internet

#65077 Nov 20, 2012
postscript wrote:
Part 1
<quoted text>
Then science should have no problem accepting the idea that Intelligent Design is behind life since it is everywhere observable.
Intelligent design is repackaged creationism being used in an attempt to gain a legal foothold in the classrooms of our children. It has no practical application. No testable hypothesis. It is not a science.
It is pseudoscience by definition.

In it's most respectable form, it is nothing more than a "god of the gaps" argument. We have seen this fail over and over throughout history.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65078 Nov 21, 2012
postscript wrote:
Part 2
<quoted text>
"Survival of the fittest" is a theory, not a fact. Darwin's pessimistic, prejudiced view of the natural world was distinctly European and entirely misinterpreted. His cataloguing of events and effects led him to perceive only competiveness and made him blind to the basic cooperative ventures existing between creatures and their environment, and between species.
<quoted text>
The doctrine that nature is "all there is". This is an unquestioned assumption among scientists but not a fact. It underlies not only natural science but intellectual scientific work of all kinds. As long as the Church of Science holds to its physically oriented dogmas - its preferred paradigms - the human being will be seen as a sophisticated but "mechanical" system that just happens to run itself and exists for no other purpose than to reproduce.
<quoted text>
How can nature be right in every respect but wrong when our species emerged?
<quoted text>
The erroneous notion that reason is the path to enlightenment and emotion, a sure road to human suffering. Plato, like science, viewed emotion as untrustworthy, unable to provide us with facts about anything. Yet we know that sometimes feelings themselves are the answers. Sometimes the heart already knows what the intellect must rationalize.
<quoted text>
You admit that science does not have all the answers - that its theories are not proven - that it changes its mind depending on new information. You see all of this obfucation as plausible, yet you scorn those who find truth in their religions. If there can be reason without faith - there can be faith without reason.
Survival of the fittest happens, it just is, it's there, in nature, all the time. One problem is your comprehension of what "fit" is.

Fact: Things evolve over time.

Fact: The most fit organisms have higher chances of reproducing.(This is just basic probability)

Fact: There was at one time no life, and now there is, therefore life had to come from non-life.

Fact: Tracing genetic lineages as well as fossil records show a tree of all life forms, where there is a pattern. We call that pattern the tree of life now.

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 Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 hr NoahLovesU 239,086
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 2 hr NoahLovesU 7,457
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 2 hr NoahLovesU 7,359
News Phil Robertson talks against Atheists 3 hr Rosa_Winkel 104
why Atheists believe in incest,pedophilia and b... 16 hr hpcaban 30
News .com | What hope is there without God? May 20 Kaitlin the Wolf ... 26
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) May 20 thetruth 2,171
More from around the web