Atheists on the march in America

Atheists on the march in America

There are 70638 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.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#65350 Nov 30, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>If science doesn't claim truth then what does it claim.. according to you?
Confidence in direct proportion to the independently verifiable evidence available which supports a given scientific position.

Any given scientific position cannot be tested under every circumstance, so scientists never assume that ANY scientific position is infallible (ref: inductive reasoning). A scientific position is accepted as such only for as long as it provides independently verifiable predictive results and is supported by independently verifiable evidence.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#65351 Nov 30, 2012
Fundies often set up a sort of "Pascal's Wager" when it comes to the origin of the universe. And like the real Pascal's Wager, it sets up a false dichotomy. Either you know exactly how the universe was created via science and can answer any and all questions about it, or the buy-bull's Bronze Age creation myth must be literally true. I admit I don't know exactly how life, the universe and everything began. But I do know the creation story is Genesis is absurd. That story has plants growing before there is a sun. That is impossible. It has a woman being created with a rib from a man, that is impossible, because their DNA would be the same, and our gender is determined by our DNA.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#65352 Nov 30, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Confidence in direct proportion to the independently verifiable evidence available which supports a given scientific position.
Any given scientific position cannot be tested under every circumstance, so scientists never assume that ANY scientific position is infallible (ref: inductive reasoning). A scientific position is accepted as such only for as long as it provides independently verifiable predictive results and is supported by independently verifiable evidence.
Which in no way implies that just because science cannot detect something, that it cannot exist.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65353 Nov 30, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
...How brilliant.
November 11, 2012 9:23 AM
"The Scientific Truth About Climate Change"
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-57548138...
"Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming"
[Paperback]
Naomi Oreskes (Author), Erik M. M. Conway (Author)
4.2 out of 5 stars See all reviews (99 customer reviews)|
Goal post fallacy, dismissed.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65354 Nov 30, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
That's why your god isn't real. So you do understand.
I didn't notice God in my posts. BTW, why are you so afraid of something that you believe is not real? Why is it all you ever *talk* about?

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65355 Nov 30, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
F off you neocon creationist pig liar.
You are an embarrassment to intelligent atheists everywhere.
drink The hive

New York, NY

#65356 Nov 30, 2012
How Many Tentacles Do U Have In These Dream'?- Might Help Us 2 Narrow The Planet Down...

http://comps.fotosearch.com/bigcomps/CSP/CSP7...

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#65357 Nov 30, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Confidence in direct proportion to the independently verifiable evidence available which supports a given scientific position.
Any given scientific position cannot be tested under every circumstance, so scientists never assume that ANY scientific position is infallible (ref: inductive reasoning). A scientific position is accepted as such only for as long as it provides independently verifiable predictive results and is supported by independently verifiable evidence.
Okeedoke . I didnt realize that you were Drew

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#65358 Dec 1, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't notice God in my posts. BTW, why are you so afraid of something that you believe is not real? Why is it all you ever *talk* about?
Why are you so afraid to prove the imaginary bullsh*t you believe in?

Why do you have to lie about atheists and scientists in order to further your cult?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#65359 Dec 1, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>You are an embarrassment to intelligent atheists everywhere.
Says the idiot who failed to convince anyone that the earth is 6000 years old or the jesus rode on the backs of dinosaurs.

I mean seriously, you deny the existence of fossils, why do you even come to this forum you stupid tw*t?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#65360 Dec 1, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Okeedoke . I didnt realize that you were Drew
Creationist posing as an agnostic atheist with tag team member nanoanomaly.

Both here to sideline and derail any conversations that become critical of creationism...while claiming to be agnostic...

you're so dishonest it makes me laugh in pity.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#65361 Dec 1, 2012
Wrathbone wrote:
<quoted text>
Which in no way implies that just because science cannot detect something, that it cannot exist.
You don't need to know everything in order to know something. And the something we know thanks to science is that there's no such thing as the f*cking imaginary god that humans have been proven to have lied about since science came along and kicked the liars a$$es with evidence and experimentation.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65362 Dec 1, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't need to know everything in order to know something. And the something we know thanks to science is that there's no such thing as the f*cking imaginary god that humans have been proven to have lied about since science came along and kicked the liars a$$es with evidence and experimentation.
That's what YOU imagine - not what science knows.

To the atheist, this life is all there is. That's why they are afraid of dying because it means total annihilation. For the religious, living has a purpose and dying is not an end. For the atheist, it's fade to black. Everything they accomplish in life of personal value is of no consequence. At death there will be nothing - as if their living never happened. For all life is worth to the atheist, he may as well live it as a toadstool.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65363 Dec 1, 2012
Science does not claim "truth". Religion does.
Buck Crick wrote:
...How brilliant.
November 11, 2012 9:23 AM
"The Scientific Truth About Climate Change"
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-57548138...
"Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming"
So you've confused journalism with science?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65364 Dec 1, 2012
Now, since a scientific theory must be falsifiable in order to be considered science (as your second link pointed out in the discussion about Popper), then tell us how science can claim "truth".
This should prove interesting.
Buck Crick wrote:
You are confused.
The requirement for a theory to be "falsifiable" does not require that it can be "falsified".
On the contrary, the word "falsifiable" means "can be falsified".
Buck Crick wrote:
Falsifiability is simply being susceptible to being proven false if it is, in fact, false.
How can something be "susceptible to being proven false" if it is "truth"?

Clearly, the fact that science does not accept anything as a scientific theory unless it is falsifiable means that science does not claim any of its theories as "truth".

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65365 Dec 1, 2012
No, it didn't. Funny how you failed to admit your error, eh?
Now, since a scientific theory must be falsifiable in order to be considered science (as your second link pointed out in the discussion about Popper), then tell us how science can claim "truth".
This should prove interesting.
nanoanomaly wrote:
What error? The one where science DOESN'T rely on "empirical evidence"?
Your error when you provided a link that didn't even have the word "truth" in it, when you attempted (and failed) to refute the point that science doesn't claim "truth".
nanoanomaly wrote:
You're still being boorish.
Is "boorish" your new childish insult-du-jour to mean "Drew refuted nano again"?
nanoanomaly wrote:
You know why I posted the empirical evidence link.
Nope, since it still doesn't support any claim of yours that science claims "truth" in its facts or theories.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65366 Dec 1, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
If a theory is testable/falsifiable/provable with repeatedly verified results then it is true/truth.
No, it isn't.

As Stephen J. Gould said (using evolution and gravity as examples): "Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

If gravity is "truth", then why would Gould point out that it is a "possibility" that apples could rise?

Do you know what the word "provisional" means in Gould's phrase "provisional consent"? Guess why he uses it.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65367 Dec 1, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
If science doesn't claim truth then what does it claim.. according to you?
Not merely according to me, but according to others. As H.J. Muller wrote in 1959, "When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly."

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65368 Dec 1, 2012
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.
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>As usual,
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/11/...
...I see "if, might, could, and presumably" describing someone's currently, untested mathematical model describing how they think life "may" have come from nonliving matter. It lacks snap, crackle and pop. Oh yeah, and fizz.
xD
I notice that you've provided no alternative scientific theory as to where life came from, if not from non-life. Why is that?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65369 Dec 1, 2012
What is the evidence that non-living matter is conscious?
postscript wrote:
Science can't disprove that consciousness creates form. That's the evidence.
That consciousness can create form does not allow us to conclude that whatever creates form is conscious.

Your argument is like saying that because poison kills things that if something is killed it must have been done by poison.

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) 9 min Insults Are Easier 253,311
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 14 min GTID62 5,963
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 22 min Patrick n Angela 3,073
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 41 min Gary Coaldigger 8,070
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Eagle 12 27,265
News Speaking for God 5 hr hpcaban 1
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 5 hr 4 leaf clover 18,774
More from around the web