Atheists on the march in America

There are 20 comments on the Aug 26, 2009, TurkishPress.com story 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.

“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.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#65079 Nov 21, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Survival of the fittest isn't necessarily true in Human evolution. We tend to care for the weak of our species. Which why we should broaden our use of eugenics in society instead of limiting it.
Thinking

Andover, UK

#65080 Nov 21, 2012
Who's to say that working a particular system to propagate your genes isn't just another example of adaptation.
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Survival of the fittest isn't necessarily true in Human evolution. We tend to care for the weak of our species. Which why we should broaden our use of eugenics in society instead of limiting it.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65081 Nov 21, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Survival of the fittest isn't necessarily true in Human evolution. We tend to care for the weak of our species. Which why we should broaden our use of eugenics in society instead of limiting it.
Caring for the weaker of your species does make your species more fit. The only way a species genetics could be strong is with diversity, destroying those who are unique, in any way, weakens the species as a whole, and thus would lead to extinction. It is one reason reptiles are less fit, they did not develop the nurturing instincts until later, so their genetic diversity is lower than that of most mammals. Then there is the lack of comprehending what fit is. Intelligence has a huge impact on how fit an organism is, in spite of all his weaknesses, Hawking, for example, is exceptionally fit for survival, so long as the species is willing to accept the intelligent information given by these organisms, we can become even more fit.

This is the evolutionary advantage humans have had, our capability to defend and even remove ourselves from natural selection itself, it's part of that being able to change ourselves trait that makes us stand out from the other animals. It is not our similarities that give us strength, or make us fit, it is our differences.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#65083 Nov 21, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Caring for the weaker of your species does make your species more fit. The only way a species genetics could be strong is with diversity, destroying those who are unique, in any way, weakens the species as a whole, and thus would lead to extinction. It is one reason reptiles are less fit, they did not develop the nurturing instincts until later, so their genetic diversity is lower than that of most mammals. Then there is the lack of comprehending what fit is. Intelligence has a huge impact on how fit an organism is, in spite of all his weaknesses, Hawking, for example, is exceptionally fit for survival, so long as the species is willing to accept the intelligent information given by these organisms, we can become even more fit.
This is the evolutionary advantage humans have had, our capability to defend and even remove ourselves from natural selection itself, it's part of that being able to change ourselves trait that makes us stand out from the other animals. It is not our similarities that give us strength, or make us fit, it is our differences.
Unless those differences make the individual unable to survive without constant assistance. Once an individual reaches maturity they should be able to head out on their own to succeed or fail, live or die, propagate or not.
Thinking

Andover, UK

#65084 Nov 21, 2012
Define constant assistance: I have grown to expect running water, sewerage, supermarket food, transport and communications. I'd really struggle to live off the land.

I think you're talking about paying your way.
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Unless those differences make the individual unable to survive without constant assistance. Once an individual reaches maturity they should be able to head out on their own to succeed or fail, live or die, propagate or not.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#65085 Nov 21, 2012
I am 6'3" with a bigger shlong then anyone in your family. Your daughter may suck me off and you can watch no charge providing she is cute enough and gargles my man yogurt.

Talk to your preacher this Sunday for words of comfort half wit.

Maybe one day you will progress beyond finger foods but baby steps half wit, baby steps.
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Look here little missy . I am about as religious as you are retarded.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65086 Nov 21, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Unless those differences make the individual unable to survive without constant assistance. Once an individual reaches maturity they should be able to head out on their own to succeed or fail, live or die, propagate or not.
So in other words, you hate the people that cannot physically match your capability. We are the first species to ever become dominate due to our intelligence, and you want us to give up that trophy to again wallow in the mud.

Hawking offers us a lot of advances, because of his intellect only, and no one capable of physical activity can match his mind. You want to give up all your technology, medicine, and everything else you enjoy just because they can't lift rocks.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65087 Nov 21, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Where do we observe "Intelligent Design"?
Within and all around us.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>If scientific theories, which are explanations, are not "real", then why are they effective in making predictions?
Most of the time, scientists know what results they want, and that alone can influence the results they get.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>What would a "non-natural" cause look like? How would it appear different from a natural cause?

What does thought look like? While it can manifest constructs that are physically perceptible, thought itself is not physical in nature.

[QUOTE who="Drew Smith"]<quoted text>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.
Exactly how do genetic mutations, or neo-Darwinian synthesis, demonstate cooperation among the various species? The idea of natural selection is flawed in and of itself and presents a conundrum for science. Ruling out any question of a design, a planner, or a God behind "living" matter, leaves unexplained the same question relative to the structure of "nonliving" matter, which obviously preceded life. How is it that as living creatures we are made up of ingredients - atoms of iron, molecules of water for instance, from a supposedly dead world? In the scientific view we are utterly dependent upon this contradictory situation. And while I am on the subject of scientific conundrums, where are all the remnants of those creatures that linked birds, reptiles, cats, monkeys and human beings? The hypothetical evolutionary tree of life demands that such in-between forms existed. It seems that by now paleontologists should have unearthed enough signs of them to at least make a modest case in defense of Darwin's misconstrued theory of evolution.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>Science makes no claim that a god does not exist. So I don't see your point.
Science doesn't have to make that claim when there are no scientific models of the universe where divinity is either required, productive, or useful.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Unlike Darwin's theory of evolution, selective breeding and hybridization at least represents development through "conscious" intent despite the results which are often destructive.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>Science necessarily employs methodological naturalism. It makes no statement about nature being "all there is".

By focusing on the external reality exclusively, science makes its particular bias more than obvious.

[QUOTE who="Drew Smith"]<quoted text>I see that idea as wrong. But I fail to see what it has to do with your argument.
Science seeks mechanisms, not meanings. Human experiences that don't fit the scientific picture of reality are simply excluded.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>How is it "obfuscation"?
Stiff competition for funding tends to encourage scientists to engage in self promotion - put the most favorable spin on test results by playing on ambiguities.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>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?
It says, like science, the person will accept no evidence of anything but "official" beliefs.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65088 Nov 21, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
Within and all around us.
Non-answer. Do you ever actually provide a real answer to anything?
Thinking

Andover, UK

#65089 Nov 21, 2012
Bollocks.
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
Within and all around us.
<quoted text>
Most of the time, scientists know what results they want, and that alone can influence the results they get.
<quoted text>
Exactly how do genetic mutations, or neo-Darwinian synthesis, demonstate cooperation among the various species? The idea of natural selection is flawed in and of itself and presents a conundrum for science. Ruling out any question of a design, a planner, or a God behind "living" matter, leaves unexplained the same question relative to the structure of "nonliving" matter, which obviously preceded life. How is it that as living creatures we are made up of ingredients - atoms of iron, molecules of water for instance, from a supposedly dead world? In the scientific view we are utterly dependent upon this contradictory situation. And while I am on the subject of scientific conundrums, where are all the remnants of those creatures that linked birds, reptiles, cats, monkeys and human beings? The hypothetical evolutionary tree of life demands that such in-between forms existed. It seems that by now paleontologists should have unearthed enough signs of them to at least make a modest case in defense of Darwin's misconstrued theory of evolution.
<quoted text>
Science doesn't have to make that claim when there are no scientific models of the universe where divinity is either required, productive, or useful.
<quoted text>
Unlike Darwin's theory of evolution, selective breeding and hybridization at least represents development through "conscious" intent despite the results which are often destructive.
<quoted text>
Science seeks mechanisms, not meanings. Human experiences that don't fit the scientific picture of reality are simply excluded.
<quoted text>
Stiff competition for funding tends to encourage scientists to engage in self promotion - put the most favorable spin on test results by playing on ambiguities.
<quoted text>
It says, like science, the person will accept no evidence of anything but "official" beliefs.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65090 Nov 21, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Kinda like the "mysteries of God? Careful you're approaching God speak (laugh)
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Fact: Things evolve over time.
Fact: The most fit organisms have higher chances of reproducing.(This is just basic probability)
If that were true, genetic abnormalities would not be passed from one generation to the next.
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Fact: There was at one time no life, and now there is, therefore life had to come from non-life.
Do you have scientific evidence to support your rather simplistic hypothesis? Or are you like a Christian, merely spinning your own rendition of the origin of life?
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>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.
There is no fossil record. Define what you mean by patterns.
Thinking

Andover, UK

#65091 Nov 21, 2012
Why?
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
If that were true, genetic abnormalities would not be passed from one generation to the next.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65092 Nov 21, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
Kinda like the "mysteries of God? Careful you're approaching God speak (laugh)
<quoted text>
If that were true, genetic abnormalities would not be passed from one generation to the next.
<quoted text>
Do you have scientific evidence to support your rather simplistic hypothesis? Or are you like a Christian, merely spinning your own rendition of the origin of life?
<quoted text>
There is no fossil record. Define what you mean by patterns.
Your total lack of genetic understanding is painful to witness.

Every offspring has mutations from the parents, you don't look exactly like your parents do you? That's mutation, every difference between you and your parents ... mutation. Anomalies happen, it's the result of a bad mutation.

You call me simplistic, yet it's you who ignores so much just to make a fallacious statement. Keep it up, it's fun watching you make a complete fool of yourself.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65093 Nov 21, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Every offspring has mutations from the parents, you don't look exactly like your parents do you?
The fact that I don't look like my parents is not a genetic abnormality.(laugh) You crack me up!
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Anomalies happen, it's the result of a bad mutation.
Is that what happened to you? Or were you behind the door when God passed out brains?

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#65094 Nov 21, 2012
I went to school with a guy who was blind and in a wheelchair and wore hearing aids and still could just barely hear. Still he was very intelligent and made fascinating clay sculptures that the school still has on display to this day.

Now in Lil IQ's world that young man due to his disabilities should be left somewhere to die. But what should one expect from that troll?
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So in other words, you hate the people that cannot physically match your capability. We are the first species to ever become dominate due to our intelligence, and you want us to give up that trophy to again wallow in the mud.
Hawking offers us a lot of advances, because of his intellect only, and no one capable of physical activity can match his mind. You want to give up all your technology, medicine, and everything else you enjoy just because they can't lift rocks.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65095 Nov 21, 2012
Human perception of reality is not the true face of reality because it depends on what we "think" about what we perceive. And what we think depends on what we take to be true. What we take to be true is not necessarily true. Yet so eager are atheists to point out this "human tendency" in the religious - they don't see it in themselves.

To comprehend the function of a part, one must understand the whole.

The scientific method brings together both theory and evidence in order to produce knowledge. However the caliber of that knowledge is wholly dependent upon the perceptions of the observer. In other words, the scientific method is limited by the scientist's perception of reality.

As a species, we are infants as yet, wandering in sheltered cosmic backyards. Outside the box of scientific paradigms and orthodox religious beliefs there is other knowledge available, but only to those who are capable of perceiving it.
Thinking

Andover, UK

#65096 Nov 21, 2012
Religion is like Santa Claus. I've grown out of it.
postscript wrote:
Human perception of reality is not the true face of reality because it depends on what we "think" about what we perceive. And what we think depends on what we take to be true. What we take to be true is not necessarily true. Yet so eager are atheists to point out this "human tendency" in the religious - they don't see it in themselves.
To comprehend the function of a part, one must understand the whole.
The scientific method brings together both theory and evidence in order to produce knowledge. However the caliber of that knowledge is wholly dependent upon the perceptions of the observer. In other words, the scientific method is limited by the scientist's perception of reality.
As a species, we are infants as yet, wandering in sheltered cosmic backyards. Outside the box of scientific paradigms and orthodox religious beliefs there is other knowledge available, but only to those who are capable of perceiving it.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#65097 Nov 21, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Survival of the fittest isn't necessarily true in Human evolution. We tend to care for the weak of our species. Which why we should broaden our use of eugenics in society instead of limiting it.
"Survival of the fittest" is a tautology, since there is no way to determine what is "fittest" apart from survival.

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) 22 min Uncle Sam 238,217
News Who is an atheist? (May '10) 3 hr Freebird USA 9,341
News Confessions of a black atheist 3 hr audy17 417
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 3 hr Thinking 6,108
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 4 hr Thinking 2,064
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 11 hr Denisova 18,697
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 12 hr prophecydotorg 7,408
More from around the web