Atheists on the march in America

Atheists on the march in America

There are 70645 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

#65126 Nov 24, 2012
Mystical scientists have always been the model builders, the ones who break through old paradigms. Kuhn, the philosopher of science, commented that the world needs two modes of thought - one that cares about truth and intuits what it is, and one which concerns itself with the logic of truth. To understand the true nature of reality, new age scientists must meld both the subjective and objective in their search for the origin of the universe.

Conventional science delegates the world of nature as the realm of exterior natural events. Its view of nature is therefore mechanistic. The natural self, however, like the rest of nature, possesses a rich dimension of inside psychological depth, that science because of its own definitions, cannot perceive.

To what ultimate end conventional scientific theories and experiments? The blueprints for reality reside "within". They are part of being. To get outside our camouflage physical universe we have to travel inward. So-called scientific, so-called objective experiments can continue for an eternity, but they will only probe further and further with physical instruments in a camouflage physical universe, getting further and further away from an understanding of the nonphysical source of existence.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65127 Nov 24, 2012
Consciousness is not physical in origin. It exists independent of form, but seeks form through which to express. It is not dependent upon tissues and bone, and yet there is no physical matter that is not brought into being by some portion of consciousness. Spirit made flesh is consciousness made physical.

Quantum theory holds that a vacuum, like atoms, is subject to quantum uncertainties. This means that things can materialize out of the vacuum, although based on research they seem to vanish back into it quickly. While this phenomenon has never been observed directly, measurements of the electron's magnetic strength imply that it is real and happening in the vacuum of space even now.

A true understanding of the way in which consciousness becomes physical matter would result in a complete revamping of our so-called modern technology. As long as the pschological reality behind physical matter is ignored, then science cannot use those methods effectively that do exist, nor can it take advantage of them.

You cannot understand the psychological reality that is the true impetus for your physical existence unless you first realize your own psychic reality, and independence from physical laws. You must clear away some of the intellectual and superstitious debris that prevents you from recognizing your own inner potentialities and freedom.

What we call 'God' is a supreme psychic gestalt of interrelated, ever expanding consciousness that creates simultaneous and instantaneously, universes and individuals that are given duration, psychic comprehension, intelligence, and ETERNAL validity. This supreme gestalt of awareized energy is so vast that it cannot be objectified (religion's gods), it can only be experienced. Its energy is so unbelievable that it does indeed form all universes; and because its energy is within and behind all universes, fields and systems, it is indeed aware of each sparrow that falls, for IT IS each sparrow that falls. God IS creation.

If we are to know the true nature of reality - we must return to true science, a discipline the Church of Conventional Science and its high priests of theory have forgotten, a science expanded to include an objective exploration of man's SUBJECTIVE reality - and a science that dares to be its own subject for a change.

If you would know God, you must study God "individualized" in YOU. Study yourself as closely as you study your sacred books and scientific journals.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65128 Nov 24, 2012
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you past on infertility if you are infertile?
Or did that little problem escape you?
Maybe she thinks we actually clone people, or something.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65129 Nov 24, 2012
postscript wrote:
Consciousness is not physical in origin.....
Can you stop making assertions and start providing evidence that supports them? I mean, this one's already been addressed so much it's stale, and anyone who makes it looks like a brain dead idiot.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65130 Nov 24, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you stop making assertions and start providing evidence that supports them? I mean, this one's already been addressed so much it's stale, and anyone who makes it looks like a brain dead idiot.
To discover yourself and thereby grow in understanding, you must leave behind your security blanket of comfortable beliefs and go into the wilderness of your intuition.

“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. We will not solve the problems of the world from the same level of thinking we were at when we created them. More than anything else, this new century demands new thinking: We must change our materially based analyses of the world around us to include broader, more multidimensional perspectives.” &#8213; Albert Einstein

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65131 Nov 24, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
To discover yourself and thereby grow in understanding, you must leave behind your security blanket of comfortable beliefs and go into the wilderness of your intuition.
“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. We will not solve the problems of the world from the same level of thinking we were at when we created them. More than anything else, this new century demands new thinking: We must change our materially based analyses of the world around us to include broader, more multidimensional perspectives.” &#8213; Albert Einstein
Einstein quote mines again, you fundies are all the same, not an original though in your heads.

He was from a primitive time, we now call it "common sense" and common sense, a trait we evolved, leads to confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is where you think you know something that you don't really know, but instead of investigating to confirm it, you accept what you think you know. It's one of the traits religion preys on. The con artist tells you what they think you want to hear, using fanciful and artistic, yet exceptionally unintelligent and senseless words. You buy into it because you don't want to put the effort into investigating it. That's called the sale.

So how long have you been a con artist?
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65132 Nov 24, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Einstein quote mines again, you fundies are all the same, not an original though in your heads.
He was from a primitive time, we now call it "common sense" and common sense, a trait we evolved, leads to confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is where you think you know something that you don't really know, but instead of investigating to confirm it, you accept what you think you know. It's one of the traits religion preys on. The con artist tells you what they think you want to hear, using fanciful and artistic, yet exceptionally unintelligent and senseless words. You buy into it because you don't want to put the effort into investigating it. That's called the sale.
So how long have you been a con artist?
Only the deluded expect proof from others when they cannot prove their own postulations.

The dogmatized, such as yourself, are afraid to question what you accept as true. The older scientific paradigms describing physical reality and validated by "theories" became known as Newtonian-Cartesian concepts, which claim there is no such thing as consciousness, or awareized energy.

These fundamental archaic concepts determined the design of all scientific experiments, to which you still subscribe to your own detriment. Today quantum physics has absolutely transcended every postulate in basic mechanical science. You think that solid matter is indestructible. Yet on the subatomic level of the particle, the mass cannot be found and particles seem essentially empty. We find only a wave of "energy" without dense form.

The fact that events can no longer be predicted with complete accuracy is known as the uncertainty principle. It states that the most accurate descriptions of phenomena lie in probability predictions, revealing to us that the world is actually blurry and always a bit uncertain. The laws of gravity are perfect examples. We are told that what goes up must come down by proponents of Newtonian-Cartesian concepts. And yet the Mars exploration vehicles, shot beyond the effects of gravity will not return.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65133 Nov 24, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
Only the deluded expect proof from others when they cannot prove their own postulations.
The dogmatized, such as yourself, are afraid to question what you accept as true. The older scientific paradigms describing physical reality and validated by "theories" became known as Newtonian-Cartesian concepts, which claim there is no such thing as consciousness, or awareized energy.
These fundamental archaic concepts determined the design of all scientific experiments, to which you still subscribe to your own detriment. Today quantum physics has absolutely transcended every postulate in basic mechanical science. You think that solid matter is indestructible. Yet on the subatomic level of the particle, the mass cannot be found and particles seem essentially empty. We find only a wave of "energy" without dense form.
The fact that events can no longer be predicted with complete accuracy is known as the uncertainty principle. It states that the most accurate descriptions of phenomena lie in probability predictions, revealing to us that the world is actually blurry and always a bit uncertain. The laws of gravity are perfect examples. We are told that what goes up must come down by proponents of Newtonian-Cartesian concepts. And yet the Mars exploration vehicles, shot beyond the effects of gravity will not return.
More con artist word dancing. How long have you been a con artist? That was my question.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65134 Nov 24, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
"Survival of the fittest" is a tautology, since there is no way to determine what is "fittest" apart from survival.
Not true. For example, you can determine what traits lead to better energy conservation, or better release of heat in a hot environment, or allow better detection of prey, or.....
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65135 Nov 24, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
More con artist word dancing. How long have you been a con artist? That was my question.
Your question is based on your personal biases and therefore does not warrant an answer.

Science as it exists has given us better mousetraps and other handy household gadgets, that can at least, contribute to our domestic ease, since in its pursuit of the nature of reality, it specializes in the production of better bombs and a nuclear technology that threatens to send us "to kingdom come " all too soon! But these improvements have not altered our concepts of ourselves, or our beliefs about reality. Although many readily accept the fruits of current scientific inventions, many remain slaves to established "official" scientific beliefs.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65136 Nov 24, 2012
postscript wrote:
Most of the time, scientists know what results they want, and that alone can influence the results they get.
This is at the heart of your misunderstanding of science and how it works. At worst, a desire to obtain one result over another will influence the end result only if the scientist is dishonest, doesn't record the contrary observations, or over interprets an extreme data point. This may happen to an individual, but it gets fixed over time as other scientists repeat the observations, often attempting to show the earlier results are wrong.

You drastically underestimate the effect of having *hundreds* of people proof-read your results, questioning their interpretation, and attempting to duplicate your setup to see if you really got it right. The debate over even minor aspects is intense and for major results you will have many people attempting to pick things apart. THAT is why the scientific method is self-correcting. It is not instantaneous, and it is always good to be skeptical of very new results for exactly this reason. But ideas that have survived at the core of a subject for more than a decade or so will be solid.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65137 Nov 24, 2012
postscript wrote:
Most of the time, scientists know what results they want, and that alone can influence the results they get.
I'd also point out that this is shown false by the many times that experiments did not support the standard view at the time. The Michelson-Morley experiment is a very important example (leading to relativity). Another is the results of the Rutherford experiment showing the existence of an atomic nucleus (the typical view at the time was Edison's 'plum pudding' model). Yet another is the spectrum of the hydrogen atom which didn't agree with the predictions of the physics at the time. And, more to the point, the lack of evidence for a global flood was critical for the demise of the catastrophist viewpoints of 200 years ago in geology.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65138 Nov 24, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
Your question is based on your personal biases and therefore does not warrant an answer.
Science as it exists has given us better mousetraps and other handy household gadgets, that can at least, contribute to our domestic ease, since in its pursuit of the nature of reality, it specializes in the production of better bombs and a nuclear technology that threatens to send us "to kingdom come " all too soon! But these improvements have not altered our concepts of ourselves, or our beliefs about reality. Although many readily accept the fruits of current scientific inventions, many remain slaves to established "official" scientific beliefs.
Aw, so your whole life you have been a con artist.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65139 Nov 24, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
Only the deluded expect proof from others when they cannot prove their own postulations.
The dogmatized, such as yourself, are afraid to question what you accept as true. The older scientific paradigms describing physical reality and validated by "theories" became known as Newtonian-Cartesian concepts, which claim there is no such thing as consciousness, or awareized energy.
NOT historically accurate! Cartesian philosophy said that consciousness existed as an independent thing from the material world. You simply got this wrong.
These fundamental archaic concepts determined the design of all scientific experiments, to which you still subscribe to your own detriment. Today quantum physics has absolutely transcended every postulate in basic mechanical science.
Again wrong. Quantum mechanics actually shows *how* many of the basic aspects of mechanical science come about through the interactions of many atoms.
You think that solid matter is indestructible. Yet on the subatomic level of the particle, the mass cannot be found and particles seem essentially empty. We find only a wave of "energy" without dense form.
Your lack of understanding of quantum mechanics doesn't help your case. Mass is an essential property of fundamental particles. For example, electrons have a different mass than quarks, and different types of quarks have different masses. Also, particles are not 'essentially empty'. Again, that is a misreading of what quantum mechanics says.
The fact that events can no longer be predicted with complete accuracy is known as the uncertainty principle.
Actually, the uncertainty principle relates in a precise manner the uncertainties of complimentary variables, such as position and momentum.
It states that the most accurate descriptions of phenomena lie in probability predictions, revealing to us that the world is actually blurry and always a bit uncertain. The laws of gravity are perfect examples. We are told that what goes up must come down by proponents of Newtonian-Cartesian concepts. And yet the Mars exploration vehicles, shot beyond the effects of gravity will not return.
Again, a complete misunderstanding of all aspects of the science here. First, Newtonian physics did NOT say 'what goes up must come down'. Second, Newtonian physics describes the spacecraft that went to Mars quite well; no quantum mechanics is required. Third, gravity has not been reconciled to quantum mechanics completely, so it is a very, very poor example of how QM affects science. Fourth, QM is mainly relevant for descriptions of *small* effects on the scale of atoms or below. macroscopic events are usually quite well described by Newtonian physics.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65140 Nov 24, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
But ideas that have survived at the core of a subject for more than a decade or so will be solid.
Despite what science tells us, objects don't have well defined boundaries. One can't simultaneously know the path and the position of moving objects. Many earlier indisputable laws are limited in application. Stephen Hawkings goes as far as to say that dynamic mechanical systems resemble human behavior in that there is little success in predicting from mathematical equations.

An older paradigm stating that time flows in an irrevisible direction from past to future. It is a common "solid" scientific belief that we can't stop time or reverse it even though Einstein consistently reminded us that this is not true. Time and space are constructs derived from our experiences and interporetations of events occurring in space, which then give rise to the idea of motion. Without motion, there is no time. We have observed that when people enter higher states of consciousness, they lose the sense of time.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65141 Nov 24, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
NOT historically accurate! Cartesian philosophy said that consciousness existed as an independent thing from the material world. You simply got this wrong.[/QOUTE]

Provide a source link.

[QUOTE who="polymath257"] <quoted text>
Again wrong. Quantum mechanics actually shows *how* many of the basic aspects of mechanical science come about through the interactions of many atoms.
This simply qualifies what I said earlier, it is impossible, even in principle, to predict the behavior of any SINGLE atom; all physicists can do is predict the average properties of a large collection of atoms
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your lack of understanding of quantum mechanics doesn't help your case. Mass is an essential property of fundamental particles. For example, electrons have a different mass than quarks, and different types of quarks have different masses. Also, particles are not 'essentially empty'. Again, that is a misreading of what quantum mechanics says.
Your interpretation, but not fact.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65142 Nov 24, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
Despite what science tells us, objects don't have well defined boundaries. One can't simultaneously know the path and the position of moving objects. Many earlier indisputable laws are limited in application. Stephen Hawkings goes as far as to say that dynamic mechanical systems resemble human behavior in that there is little success in predicting from mathematical equations.
An older paradigm stating that time flows in an irrevisible direction from past to future. It is a common "solid" scientific belief that we can't stop time or reverse it even though Einstein consistently reminded us that this is not true. Time and space are constructs derived from our experiences and interporetations of events occurring in space, which then give rise to the idea of motion. Without motion, there is no time. We have observed that when people enter higher states of consciousness, they lose the sense of time.
Wow, you are just a junkie.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65143 Nov 24, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is at the heart of your misunderstanding of science and how it works. At worst, a desire to obtain one result over another will influence the end result only if the scientist is dishonest, doesn't record the contrary observations, or over interprets an extreme data point. This may happen to an individual, but it gets fixed over time as other scientists repeat the observations, often attempting to show the earlier results are wrong.
You drastically underestimate the effect of having *hundreds* of people proof-read your results, questioning their interpretation, and attempting to duplicate your setup to see if you really got it right. The debate over even minor aspects is intense and for major results you will have many people attempting to pick things apart. THAT is why the scientific method is self-correcting. It is not instantaneous, and it is always good to be skeptical of very new results for exactly this reason. But ideas that have survived at the core of a subject for more than a decade or so will be solid.
While peer review has its place, the actual proof of scientific truth lies in replicating experiments and producing the same results. When we believed that truth was a single, unquestionable answer, this idea had merit. But the tenets of the quantum era show that the experimenter, as a part of every research he preforms, influences the results by what he chooses to study, the collection of data, and how he analyzes it - but even more importantly by his actual presence in an experimental situation. It seems that scientists cannot extricate themselves from the experiment. They are part of the field of interaction and a basic ingredient in what they study. In this sense, scientific truths will always be relative.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65144 Nov 24, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, you are just a junkie.
I do what you are afraid to do. I challenge scientific belief.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65145 Nov 24, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
I do what you are afraid to do. I challenge scientific belief.
You presume way too much.

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 9 min Dogen 1,418
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 18 min u196533dm 32,462
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... 1 hr Baffled 1,176
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) 6 hr Ben Avraham 100
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) Mon Dogen 78,757
what science will NEVER be able to prove Aug 11 Eagle 12 - 5
News What Ever Happened to the New Atheists?by Ellio... Aug 7 nanoanomaly 1
More from around the web