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

#65146 Nov 24, 2012
Fact or fiction?

The second law of thermodynamics describes the disorganization of matter over time, that is, things become less structured and they decay. Leaves fall and create mulch, an example of the downside of nature. This raises the question of how evolution could take place if the prevailing tendency is toward disorder and decay. Transistion to a higher order according to Ilya Prigogine, is universally accompained by perturbation. He has shown that if energy is introduced to matter, the disintegration process is altered and matter takes on a higher organization. So, entrophy can be both the evidence of decay as well as the first step in the creation of new materials. Jahn refers to the possibility that consciousness has an entropy-reducing capacity which creates an ordering influence on otherwise random physical processes, thereby reversing their normal thermodynamic tendency of disintegration.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65147 Nov 24, 2012
postscript wrote:
Fact or fiction?
The second law of thermodynamics describes the disorganization of matter over time, that is, things become less structured and they decay. Leaves fall and create mulch, an example of the downside of nature. This raises the question of how evolution could take place if the prevailing tendency is toward disorder and decay. Transistion to a higher order according to Ilya Prigogine, is universally accompained by perturbation. He has shown that if energy is introduced to matter, the disintegration process is altered and matter takes on a higher organization. So, entrophy can be both the evidence of decay as well as the first step in the creation of new materials. Jahn refers to the possibility that consciousness has an entropy-reducing capacity which creates an ordering influence on otherwise random physical processes, thereby reversing their normal thermodynamic tendency of disintegration.
You lack knowledge in chemistry, so you assume it's all impossible just because you don't know how chemical reactions work. Dishonest to the core.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65148 Nov 24, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You lack knowledge in chemistry, so you assume it's all impossible just because you don't know how chemical reactions work. Dishonest to the core.
Why don't you educate me instead of relying on inane criticism to cover your own scientific illiteracy? And try to do it without copying and pasting what you Google.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#65149 Nov 24, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
That is exceptionally excellent point.
Thanks.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#65150 Nov 24, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>As usual, you make no sense at all.
I used a word you don't understand, "tautology".

If you are claiming I am wrong, tell us how we determine which organisms are the fittest.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#65151 Nov 24, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
I've heard more coherent statements from a schizophrenic with Tourette's syndrome.
IOW, KittenKoder handed your backside to you on a platter.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#65152 Nov 24, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Abnormalities that cause infertility should not be passed on to following generations. THAT is detrimental to a species' continued survival.
Moron.
Um, stupid, if an organism is infertile, it can't reproduce and pass anything along.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#65153 Nov 24, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
oh look, another post from John without proof of god. Lets wait for another one.
No, it's not another post from John, it's the same one.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#65154 Nov 24, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.....
Actually, a good example of what I am talking about, we can measure the release of heat independently of survival. But release of heat is an advantage in a hot environment, a disadvantage is a cold one. So, you can't say "survival of those with the best release of heat into the environment." Again, it goes back to "fitness" being determined by survival.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65155 Nov 24, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you educate me instead of relying on inane criticism to cover your own scientific illiteracy? And try to do it without copying and pasting what you Google.
Because if you were interested in learning, you'd Google it anyway.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#65156 Nov 24, 2012
The loser needs to get off Hovind's jock.
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, you are just a junkie.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#65157 Nov 24, 2012
Amongst most topics it seems.
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, wow, you don't understand what fertility is, do you?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65158 Nov 25, 2012
Where do we observe "Intelligent Design"?
postscript wrote:
Within and all around us.
Be specific, instead of merely engaging in handwaving. Provide a specific example of "Intelligent Design" that is not explained by observed natural phenomena such as gravity or natural selection.

***

If scientific theories, which are explanations, are not "real", then why are they effective in making predictions?
postscript wrote:
Most of the time, scientists know what results they want, and that alone can influence the results they get.
So you're saying that science is just one big conspiracy, and that scientific theories are incapable of predicting future observations?

***

What would a "non-natural" cause look like? How would it appear different from a natural cause?
postscript wrote:
What does thought look like? While it can manifest constructs that are physically perceptible, thought itself is not physical in nature.
If thought is not physical in nature, how does it "manifest constructs that are physically perceptible"?(And you didn't answer my question: What would a "non-natural" cause look like, and how would it appear different from a natural cause?)

***

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.
postscript wrote:
Exactly how do genetic mutations, or neo-Darwinian synthesis, demonstate cooperation among the various species?
Computer simulations of mutations show that mutations leading to cooperation will result in more success than those that don't.
postscript wrote:
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.
How is it "contradictory"? That's like saying that a pool of water can't be wet because the individual water molecules are not wet. You're engaged in a Fallacy of Composition, in this case that because components of living things are not living, then we should not expect the composition to be living. That, of course, is nonsensical. We observe around us that complex things have features that are not features of the components.
postscript wrote:
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?
You mean, like the ones listed here?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.h...

***

Science makes no claim that a god does not exist. So I don't see your point.
postscript wrote:
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.
That's because science uses methodological naturalism. That means that it doesn't include supernatural entities in its models. Why should it? More to the point,*how* could it?

***

Science necessarily employs methodological naturalism. It makes no statement about nature being "all there is".
postscript wrote:
By focusing on the external reality exclusively, science makes its particular bias more than obvious.
As opposed to what *other* "reality?

***
postscript wrote:
Science seeks mechanisms, not meanings. Human experiences that don't fit the scientific picture of reality are simply excluded.
Such as?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65159 Nov 25, 2012
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?
postscript wrote:
It says, like science, the person will accept no evidence of anything but "official" beliefs.
Science accepts evidence if it's actually evidence. What evidence do *you* have to offer?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65160 Nov 25, 2012
Where do we observe "Intelligent Design"?
postscript wrote:
Within and all around us.
Be specific. Provide a specific example of "Intelligent Design" that is not explained by observed natural phenomena such as gravity or natural selection.

***

If scientific theories, which are explanations, are not "real", then why are they effective in making predictions?
postscript wrote:
Most of the time, scientists know what results they want, and that alone can influence the results they get.
So you're saying that science is just one big conspiracy, and that scientific theories are incapable of predicting future observations?

***

What would a "non-natural" cause look like? How would it appear different from a natural cause?
postscript wrote:
What does thought look like? While it can manifest constructs that are physically perceptible, thought itself is not physical in nature.
If thought is not physical in nature, how does it "manifest constructs that are physically perceptible"?(And you didn't answer my question: What would a "non-natural" cause look like, and how would it appear different from a natural cause?)

***

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.
postscript wrote:
Exactly how do genetic mutations, or neo-Darwinian synthesis, demonstate cooperation among the various species?
Computer simulations of mutations show that mutations leading to cooperation will result in more success than those that don't.
postscript wrote:
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.
How is it "contradictory"? That's like saying that a pool of water can't be wet because the individual water molecules are not wet. You're engaged in a Fallacy of Composition, in this case that because components of living things are not living, then we should not expect the composition to be living. That, of course, is nonsensical. We observe around us that complex things have features that are not features of the components.
postscript wrote:
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?
You mean, like the ones listed here?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.h...

***

Science makes no claim that a god does not exist. So I don't see your point.
postscript wrote:
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.
That's because science uses methodological naturalism. That means that it doesn't include supernatural entities in its models. Why should it? More to the point,*how* could it?

***

Science necessarily employs methodological naturalism. It makes no statement about nature being "all there is".
postscript wrote:
By focusing on the external reality exclusively, science makes its particular bias more than obvious.
As opposed to what other "reality?

***
postscript wrote:
Science seeks mechanisms, not meanings. Human experiences that don't fit the scientific picture of reality are simply excluded.
Such as?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65161 Nov 25, 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.
But this fact is only significant for small things because of the small size of Planck's constant. Anything significantly above the level of atoms has a well defined position.
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.
At best, that is a misreading of what he said.
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.
And where, exactly, did Einstein say any of this?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65162 Nov 25, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
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
Even this is not completely true. But it does show how macroscopic deterministic properties arise from the probabilistic quantum level.
Your interpretation, but not fact.
What? That elementary particles have mass? Want some quotes from the particle data sheet?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65163 Nov 25, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
And yet, quantum mechanics gives very precise predictions for a host of different phenomena, from atomic spectra, to decay rates, to properties of solids. Again, your understanding of quantum mechanics is flawed, probably because it is derived from popular accounts instead of the actual, technical science.

An experimenter affects things by setting up an experiment to measure what happens. Quantum mechanics does a very good job of predicting the types of events that can happen in any given set-up and the probabilities of each happening.

But, it is true that the universe is inherently probabilistic and not deterministic at the fundamental level. That is one of the big lessons from quantum mechanics.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65164 Nov 25, 2012
postscript wrote:
Fact or fiction?
The second law of thermodynamics describes the disorganization of matter over time, that is, things become less structured and they decay. Leaves fall and create mulch, an example of the downside of nature. This raises the question of how evolution could take place if the prevailing tendency is toward disorder and decay. Transistion to a higher order according to Ilya Prigogine, is universally accompained by perturbation. He has shown that if energy is introduced to matter, the disintegration process is altered and matter takes on a higher organization. So, entrophy can be both the evidence of decay as well as the first step in the creation of new materials. Jahn refers to the possibility that consciousness has an entropy-reducing capacity which creates an ordering influence on otherwise random physical processes, thereby reversing their normal thermodynamic tendency of disintegration.
Mostly fiction. It starts with a popular, but misleading description of the second law of thermodynamics. There are many situations where organization is driven by entropy (as opposed to disorganization). It ends up with a claim that consciousness reverses entropy, when consciousness is just as subject to the second law as anything else is. Local effects are always balanced by larger global effects.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65165 Nov 25, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, a good example of what I am talking about, we can measure the release of heat independently of survival. But release of heat is an advantage in a hot environment, a disadvantage is a cold one. So, you can't say "survival of those with the best release of heat into the environment." Again, it goes back to "fitness" being determined by survival.
No, it goes to fitness being determined by *environment*. In a given environment, some properties lead to better survival and, more importantly for evolution, procreation. Evolution always happens in an environment and the 'fitness' is always determined by that environment. But it is not a tautology because we can identify properties that help survival and procreation in various environments independently of evolutionary mechanisms.

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 ... 2 hr replaytime 711
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr SoE 76,871
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) 7 hr The FACTory 4,299
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 8 hr Aerobatty 258,475
hell is a real place. so.. ahtiesm is a faux li... 16 hr Ben Avraham 11
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Jul 18 John 4,952
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Jul 18 John 32,164
More from around the web