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.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65338 Nov 29, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
The word "science" didn't appear in that article. Apparently you missed that.
<quoted text>
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.
What error? The one where science DOESN'T rely on "empirical evidence"? You're still being boorish. You know why I posted the empirical evidence link. This is what you do instead of providing proof? Over and over again? Really? You are pathetic, Drew.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65339 Nov 29, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
The word "science" didn't appear in that article. Apparently you missed that.
<quoted text>
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.
If a theory is testable/falsifiable/provable with repeatedly verified results then it is true/truth. If the results can't be repeated then it is not truth/real. Reality is truth.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#65340 Nov 29, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Whoosh.
right over yer head.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#65341 Nov 29, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
Science does not claim "truth"
<quoted text>
The word "science" didn't appear in that article.
Apparently you missed that.
If science doesn't claim truth then what does it claim.. according to you?

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65342 Nov 30, 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.
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

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#65343 Nov 30, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are confused.
The requirement for a theory to be "falsifiable" does not require that it can be "falsified". Falsifiability is simply being susceptible to being proven false if it is, in fact, false. To say that a theory is falsifiable is NOT in conflict with using it as a claim to truth.
Hope this helps you.
F off you neocon creationist pig liar.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#65344 Nov 30, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>If science doesn't claim truth then what does it claim.. according to you?
Science claims that religious idiots need to prove the gods they claim exist otherwise years liars.

That's how science works, it tries to get closer to how e work actually works. Your using a computer today that shows just how effective science is.

And in return you have zero evidence for god...and counting...

That's how f*cked up your anti science arguments are. Well what can we expect from a wilfully ignorant creationist?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#65345 Nov 30, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>If a theory is testable/falsifiable/provable with repeatedly verified results then it is true/truth. If the results can't be repeated then it is not truth/real. Reality is truth.
That's why your god isn't real. So you do understand.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65346 Nov 30, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the evidence that non-living matter is conscious?
Science can't disprove that consciousness creates form. That's the evidence.

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance and he is about to conquer the highest peak. As he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." - Robert Jastrow, Former Director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies
John

Glencoe, MO

#65347 Nov 30, 2012
Drew your nothing is as illogical and silly as it was years ago. This is your forum. Are you ready to compare the evidences of your nothing vs my something?

Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe. True science that is repeatable and observable.
John

Glencoe, MO

#65348 Nov 30, 2012
Another day of ineptitude from the antitheists.*Note to lurkers* They have gone almost three years without giving one accountable position they are willing to debate. Three years without an example of evidence that meets their criteria for evidence. These are angry agenda driven folks that don't give a damn about the evidence.
If you want to subject yourself to this farce by all means see for yourself. Antitheists you could also just cut and paste one of the 62,720 posts to show otherwise.
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe. True science that is repeatable and observable.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#65349 Nov 30, 2012
"Recent news has shown that the majority of studies geared towards cancer research are inaccurate and fraudulent by nature. Findings published in the journal Nature show that 88% of major studies on cancer that have been published in reputable journals over the years can not be reproduced to show their accuracy. This means that the research findings published are flat out false.

Author of the review and former head of cancer research at Amgen C. Glenn Begley was unable to replicate the results of 47 of the 53 studies he examined. This suggests that researchers are fabricating their findings simply to create the illusion of positive findings instead of publishing their actual results. This ensures the continuation of their steady stream of funding and grants."

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2012/04/2...

So much for peer review and science's noble search for the truth!

“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

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) 42 min waaasssuuup 247,434
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 51 min thetruth 12,658
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 56 min thetruth 47,804
Proof of God for the Atheist 1 hr Cujo 122
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 2 hr ChristineM 2,353
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 5 hr thetruth 14,715
News Atheism, the Bible and sexual orientation 10 hr thetruth 7
More from around the web