Atheists on the march in America

Aug 26, 2009 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: TurkishPress.com

When South Florida atheists held their first meeting, they were just five friends, having a beer at a bar.

Comments
62,361 - 62,380 of 70,959 Comments Last updated Monday Jul 7
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65029
Nov 19, 2012
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
“B”, the Big Bang. As the prime mover, it created a singularity from which everything else in the Universe, including your god delusion, derived. That’s my complete and final answer, Rege. Lock it in.
Now STFU, you stump.
<quoted text>
The Big Bang? Where did the stuff that went "bang" come from? What was it? Why did it go bang? To say that everything came from the Big Bang is like saying babies come from maternity wards, the theory don't go back far enough.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65030
Nov 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
The Big Bang? Where did the stuff that went "bang" come from? What was it? Why did it go bang? To say that everything came from the Big Bang is like saying babies come from maternity wards, the theory don't go back far enough.
This post just demonstrates that you lack even a rudimentary understanding of physics.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65031
Nov 19, 2012
 
postscript wrote:
The Big Bang? Where did the stuff that went "bang" come from?
We don't know yet.
postscript wrote:
What was it?
An inflaton field.
postscript wrote:
Why did it go bang?
Random quantum fluctuations triggering a phase transition.
postscript wrote:
To say that everything came from the Big Bang is like saying babies come from maternity wards, the theory don't go back far enough.
We don't have enough information to go farther back yet.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65032
Nov 19, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
This post just demonstrates that you lack even a rudimentary understanding of physics.
Or you cannot think beyond the box of acceptable scientific paradigms. The origin of the universe remains invisible to the usual kind of scientific scrutiny. Not that such understanding is beyond our comprehension, only that it is beyond the method's mistakenly used to acheive it. At present, science's net of evidence is equipped only to catch certain kinds of fish because its net is constructed of webs of "assumptions" that can only hold certain varieties of reality, while others escape its understanding entirely.

Example - quantum theory holds that probability, not absolutes, rules any physical system. Yet 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.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65033
Nov 19, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't know yet.
<quoted text>
An inflaton field.
<quoted text>
Random quantum fluctuations triggering a phase transition.
<quoted text>
We don't have enough information to go farther back yet.
The fact is nobody really knows where we came from. We have our theories - verified but inferential knowledge, grounded on unverifiable assumptions. What it boils down to then is whose package of "theoretical evidence" is more believable - makes more sense. It is entirely possible there was no Big Bang - that the universe has always existed - both expanding and contracting, recycling its energy.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65034
Nov 19, 2012
 
So Jesus and his magical fish did it right?:))
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
Or you cannot think beyond the box of acceptable scientific paradigms. The origin of the universe remains invisible to the usual kind of scientific scrutiny. Not that such understanding is beyond our comprehension, only that it is beyond the method's mistakenly used to acheive it. At present, science's net of evidence is equipped only to catch certain kinds of fish because its net is constructed of webs of "assumptions" that can only hold certain varieties of reality, while others escape its understanding entirely.
Example - quantum theory holds that probability, not absolutes, rules any physical system. Yet 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.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65035
Nov 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
Or you cannot think beyond the box of acceptable scientific paradigms. The origin of the universe remains invisible to the usual kind of scientific scrutiny. Not that such understanding is beyond our comprehension, only that it is beyond the method's mistakenly used to acheive it. At present, science's net of evidence is equipped only to catch certain kinds of fish because its net is constructed of webs of "assumptions" that can only hold certain varieties of reality, while others escape its understanding entirely.
Example - quantum theory holds that probability, not absolutes, rules any physical system. Yet 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.
You just posted more evidence that you know nothing of scientific understanding. Good job, you're making religious people look like fools still, the status quo.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65036
Nov 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact is nobody really knows where we came from. We have our theories - verified but inferential knowledge, grounded on unverifiable assumptions. What it boils down to then is whose package of "theoretical evidence" is more believable - makes more sense. It is entirely possible there was no Big Bang - that the universe has always existed - both expanding and contracting, recycling its energy.
If this was the case, then science still has more believable answers.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65037
Nov 19, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You just posted more evidence that you know nothing of scientific understanding. Good job, you're making religious people look like fools still, the status quo.
You prove you operate on assumptions. I never said I was religious.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65038
Nov 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
If this was the case, then science still has more believable answers.
Like religion - conventional science supports only those theories that it deems fit to espouse. In the same way organized religion considers its members "the chosen", conventional science believes its membership the only fitting place for the elite, the reasonable, and the logical. Any views considered "unscientific" are completely ignored. Like the New York Times, science publishes "all the news that's fit to print," meaning all the news that fits into the officially-accepted view of reality. That news is already invisibly censored, and yet we're supposed to live our lives in accordance with that official definition of experience.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65039
Nov 19, 2012
 
postscript wrote:
The fact is nobody really knows where we came from. We have our theories - verified but inferential knowledge, grounded on unverifiable assumptions.
The only "unverifiable assumption" that grounds scientific theories is that the Universe is understandable.

If it isn't, then you're free to make up whatever magical explanation you want to make yourself happy. But don't expect others to buy into it as "truth".
postscript wrote:
It is entirely possible there was no Big Bang - that the universe has always existed - both expanding and contracting, recycling its energy.
Is it possible? Certainly. Does current evidence point to that possibility? Not that I know of.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65040
Nov 19, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
The only "unverifiable assumption" that grounds scientific theories is that the Universe is understandable.
The same can be said of religion.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
If it isn't, then you're free to make up whatever magical explanation you want to make yourself happy. But don't expect others to buy into it as "truth".
The same can be said of science.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it possible? Certainly. Does current evidence point to that possibility? Not that I know of.
When you believe this - you shut yourself off to equally plausible albeit "unscientific" explanations.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65041
Nov 19, 2012
 
Is Jesus and his magical fish one if those plausible explanations?

:))

You half wits crack me up!
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
The same can be said of religion.
<quoted text>
The same can be said of science.
<quoted text>
When you believe this - you shut yourself off to equally plausible albeit "unscientific" explanations.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65042
Nov 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
You prove you operate on assumptions. I never said I was religious.
It's a logical and safe assumption, just because you want to lie and pretend to not be biased, you are demonstrating pure religious bias.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65043
Nov 19, 2012
 
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
The same can be said of religion.
<quoted text>
The same can be said of science.
<quoted text>
When you believe this - you shut yourself off to equally plausible albeit "unscientific" explanations.
You have really bad logic here. First, magic is when you give a non-answer, one of the more common non-answers is "god dun it." It's magic because there is no natural explanation, it's a non-answer because it helps no one. Most religions are nothing more than snake oil, that's why they like their one non-answer to everything, it prevents the believer from actually learning anything, thus they are easier to be controlled and conned.

The irony is that science isn't what you think it is, it's a way of skeptically interrogating the universe, a method, a means to an end, but unlike religion and philosophy, science offers real, substantial, and beneficial answers. Science is close to finding a cure for cancer, what illnesses has religion ever cured? Name one.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65044
Nov 19, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a logical and safe assumption, just because you want to lie and pretend to not be biased, you are demonstrating pure religious bias.
The point you seem to keep missing in your myopic ramblings is this: If the atheist won't allow priests to tell him how to live his life or how to interpret his experiences - why should he give that priviledge to science? Unless of course, he makes science his god.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65045
Nov 19, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>You have really bad logic here. First, magic is when you give a non-answer, one of the more common non-answers is "god dun it." It's magic because there is no natural explanation, it's a non-answer because it helps no one.


Answers are only non-answers if you think of them as such, which is still no indication that I am religious.
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Most religions are nothing more than snake oil, that's why they like their one non-answer to everything, it prevents the believer from actually learning anything, thus they are easier to be controlled and conned.
The ready-made symbols of both religion and science are helpful to many people, providing them with an orientation for understanding. If the arrangement becomes permanent, however, comprehension becomes programmed too rigidly. When you accept any dogma as true (whether religion or science) you allow yourself to become victimized by its dictates.
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>The irony is that science isn't what you think it is, it's a way of skeptically interrogating the universe, a method, a means to an end, but unlike religion and philosophy, science offers real, substantial, and beneficial answers. Science is close to finding a cure for cancer, what illnesses has religion ever cured? Name one.
The scientific method comes under fire regularly for its irreproducible results. Furthermore, science has been "close" to a cure for decades. In reality, the ultimate goal of preventing illness has largely eluded scientists. Science can at best ameliorate but it cannot cure cancer, AIDS, and other deadly diseases. After a quarter of a century of research and the expenditure of billions of dollars, the war on cancer has not produced a cure. Surrounded by technological affluence, we have fancy heart scans that can give us a nice picture of our clogged arteries, but science cannot prevent heart disease.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65046
Nov 19, 2012
 
The only "unverifiable assumption" that grounds scientific theories is that the Universe is understandable.
postscript wrote:
The same can be said of religion.
Nope, not the same. Remember all those people who say "God works in mysterious ways"? That's the problem with religion. You can make up anything you like, create any pantheon of deities that you like, invent any creation myth that you like, and one is just as good as another as predicting what will happen next (meaning, not good at all).

Nothing at all like science.

***

If it isn't, then you're free to make up whatever magical explanation you want to make yourself happy. But don't expect others to buy into it as "truth".
postscript wrote:
The same can be said of science.
Quite the contrary. If it can't make any predictions, then it isn't science. And if it makes predictions that don't pan out, then it has to be changed.

Never happens with religion. If the predictions don't pan out, the response is "Well, that's just how the god(s) want it to happen."

***

Is it possible? Certainly. Does current evidence point to that possibility? Not that I know of.
postscript wrote:
When you believe this - you shut yourself off to equally plausible albeit "unscientific" explanations.
"Unscientific" explanations don't actually *explain* anything. It always comes down to "Well, that's just how the god(s) want it to happen." It's all whim. No explanation. No justification.

And if they don't predict anything or aren't discarded when they predict incorrectly, then they aren't "equally plausible". They're fairy tales. And they belong in the fiction section of the bookstore or library.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65047
Nov 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, not the same. Remember all those people who say "God works in mysterious ways"? That's the problem with religion. You can make up anything you like, create any pantheon of deities that you like, invent any creation myth that you like, and one is just as good as another as predicting what will happen next (meaning, not good at all).
Scientists do their fair share of speculating, only they call it theorizing, which somehow makes it more acceptable. Is it more satisfactory to say the "universe" works in mysterious ways - its wonders to behold? It certainly wouldn't be far from the truth since science doesn't know everything there is to know about the universe.

Religion has its original sin - science, its survival of the "fittest" and man, the predatory animal. Science's dogma is as limiting as religion's! Why is it that both religion and conventional science concentrate on man's inequity? Both teach that our impulses, emotions, and intuitions will betray us. They are tempters. The voices of the devil. Or the lingering dark rages roused in our infancies. Or random chemical imbalances; chaotic desires rising from our evolutionary past against which we must constantly exert all of our will and reason. If we allow it - we can become as much a victim of scientific dictums, as we can a victim of Rome's infallible fallacies!
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite the contrary. If it can't make any predictions, then it isn't science. And if it makes predictions that don't pan out, then it has to be changed.
Meteorologists make predictions as a matter of course and are often wrong.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
And if they don't predict anything or aren't discarded when they predict incorrectly, then they aren't "equally plausible". They're fairy tales. And they belong in the fiction section of the bookstore or library.
Were Plato's ideas true? For generations we lived as if they were, and we found ourselves dwarfed by perfect models of ourselves to which no human being could conform. Unless you are a student of philosophies and religions, you don't have the knowledge necessary to identify what is equally plausible and what is not.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65048
Nov 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Givemeliberty wrote:
Read it slowly half wit.
I am glad to get you lined out on the differences between Horus and Osiris :)
You are welcome
<quoted text>
So, what you are saying is that you are taking one form of the myth of Horus from one distinct region of Egypt and applying it to the whole of the Myth.. Why not look at the myth as a whole instead of picking only one small bit to suit your needs?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••