Atheists on the march in America

Atheists on the march in America

There are 70650 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.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65292 Nov 27, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The dot test. You put a red dot on their forehead and see if they attempt to touch it on themselves. it shows they know that the object in the mirror is them.
That's the one, thank you. Saw it in a lecture once and forgot what the test was completely.
Thinking

Andover, UK

#65293 Nov 27, 2012
Why do nearly half of fertilised eggs die through no fault of their originators?

Why is your god aborting nearly half of these "life forces" (as you term them)?
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text> Our life force is carried from conception onward, derived from the combination of a live sperm and a live egg. Life comes from life.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65294 Nov 27, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect assumption. Plants react to harm by attempting to heal themselves. That is one of the many functions of living things. That does not imply 'awareness', but simply the ability to respond to events. No consciousness required; only 'reflexes' of a sort.
<quoted text>
Plants are alive. Higher plants have sophisticated methods of defense and the ability to heal and to respond to the chemical signals of other plants.
Once again, that is not the same as consciousness. There is no more self-awareness here than there is in the mammalian immune system.
You have done nothing but repeat yourself in a grim determination to prove something you don't understand.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65295 Nov 27, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
Our life force is carried from conception onward, derived from the combination of a live sperm and a live egg.
There is no "life force". There are simply ongoing chemical reactions that, taken as a complex system, constitute "life".
nanoanomaly wrote:
Life comes from life.
And from non-life. Otherwise, the first living thing wouldn't have existed.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#65296 Nov 27, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Who needs a brain to be aware of existence?
http://www.damninteresting.com/amoebic-morali...
Don't forget plants. They are finding evidence that plants are aware. But amoebic morality is damn interesting.
:)

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65297 Nov 27, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Why do nearly half of fertilised eggs die through no fault of their originators?
Why is your god aborting nearly half of these "life forces" (as you term them)?
<quoted text>
There is no supernatural being deciding which baby doesn't make it to term. Shyt just happens.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65298 Nov 27, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect assumption. Plants react to harm by attempting to heal themselves. That is one of the many functions of living things. That does not imply 'awareness', but simply the ability to respond to events. No consciousness required; only 'reflexes' of a sort.
<quoted text>
Plants are alive. Higher plants have sophisticated methods of defense and the ability to heal and to respond to the chemical signals of other plants.
Once again, that is not the same as consciousness. There is no more self-awareness here than there is in the mammalian immune system.
A thought is not a neuron, it only exists "inside" the neuron. Thoughts affect the brain but are smaller than a neuron, smaller even than an atom. They aren't the wave, they ride the wave.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65299 Nov 27, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
...
And from non-life. Otherwise, the first living thing wouldn't have existed.
Prove it.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65300 Nov 27, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Prove it.
You are made of carbon. There now give me my cookie for proving it.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65303 Nov 28, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>A thought is not a neuron, it only exists "inside" the neuron. Thoughts affect the brain but are smaller than a neuron, smaller even than an atom. They aren't the wave, they ride the wave.
Exactly the opposite. Thoughts are not 'in the neuron'. They are processes that involve lots of connected neurons. The thoughts are the program running on the hardware of the neurons.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65304 Nov 28, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>A thought is not a neuron, it only exists "inside" the neuron. Thoughts affect the brain but are smaller than a neuron, smaller even than an atom. They aren't the wave, they ride the wave.
No neuron has a thought. Thoughts are produced by the activity of many neurons.
test

Spain

#65305 Nov 28, 2012
test

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#65306 Nov 28, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No neuron has a thought. Thoughts are produced by the activity of many neurons.
Neurons are the collective?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65307 Nov 28, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Neurons are the collective?
It takes hundreds of neurons just for the concept of the number 1. There is a huge, massive, and elaborate way in which the brain processes just the number 1. Just thinking "1" requires the firing of hundreds of neurons. Counting 1 thing requires thousands of neurons.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65308 Nov 29, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
A thought is not a neuron, it only exists "inside" the neuron. Thoughts affect the brain but are smaller than a neuron, smaller even than an atom. They aren't the wave, they ride the wave.
That's like claiming that a photographic image in a newspaper exists "inside" each dot making up the newsprint.

Thoughts exist as *patterns* of neuronic activity. So they are not "smaller" than atoms (quite the contrary, since neuronic patterns involve countless atoms).

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65309 Nov 29, 2012
And from non-life. Otherwise, the first living thing wouldn't have existed.
nanoanomaly wrote:
Prove it.
The Earth was once incapable of supporting life.

Later, the Earth was capable of supporting life and in fact did support life.

Therefore, life on Earth came from non-life.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#65310 Nov 29, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
The Earth was once incapable of supporting life.
Later, the Earth was capable of supporting life and in fact did support life.
Therefore, life on Earth came from non-life.
Good logic. Like it.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65313 Nov 29, 2012
Both science and religion accept their facts about existence as the gospel truth, and other ideas that threaten their theories become almost heretical.

Only consciousness is real, for only the real cannot be threatened. Anything that can be threatened is not real. For that which can be threatened, can be changed.

Leave the priests to their heavens and hells, to their moldy ancient documents - their fossilized gods. Confine the scientists to their dying universe theory, leave them to count their invisible particles. Have the courage to open your mind's door and explore the unofficial thresholds -the true source of your being.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65316 Nov 29, 2012
postscript wrote:
Both science and religion accept their facts about existence as the gospel truth
Science does not claim "truth". Religion does.
postscript wrote:
Only consciousness is real, for only the real cannot be threatened.
What do you mean by "threatened"?
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65317 Nov 29, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
And from non-life. Otherwise, the first living thing wouldn't have existed.
<quoted text>
The Earth was once incapable of supporting life.
Later, the Earth was capable of supporting life and in fact did support life.
Therefore, life on Earth came from non-life.
And it was all the result of MAGIC! Science falls embarrassingly short of proving its theories about the origin of life as Christianity always has in an attempt to prove that its god created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh. Both are fairy tales.

It stands to reason that if life springs from non-life, science should be able to replicate this notion with Frankenstonian experiments. It should be able to produce a fully conscious being by combining a few basic elements but alas, it has failed dismally.

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 min Aura Mytha 244,766
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 25 min Shizle 10,689
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 32 min Paul Porter1 20,524
Santa vs. God: logic? 3 hr Shizle 2
Atheists should stop feeding the stereotypes 6 hr Shizle 11
Is the Christian god good? 7 hr Shizle 4
Atheist believe, they are just hiding!!! Tue Richardfs 18
More from around the web