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
62,401 - 62,420 of 70,967 Comments Last updated Yesterday

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65069
Nov 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Givemeliberty wrote:
No what am I saying is that I am taking the oldest truest source material of the myth of the pre Jesus savior of all mankind. Let me use small words so you can understand. Hmmm in ancient times as the migration of... No no that will be beyond your ability.
Keep it so the lil IQ one can grasp it.
Ah ok. The reason I use the older source material vs the one used by our GREEK historian a whopping 2000 plus years later is because when the Greeks came around they incorporated the Egyptian gods along with their own. But they would radically alter the Egyptian gods combining them or radically changing their story. One could chalk this up to them misunderstanding the stories or them purposely trying to make the Egyptians look bad in comparison.
Whatever their motives were is irrelevant, the changes made almost always cast the Egyptian gods in a negative light, be it from mistranslation/misunderstandin g or purposely done.
Osiris born in heaven or the spirit world if you prefer to the earth god and sky goddess. Horus born on earth to a virgin.
There is actually a rather sweet, charming aspect to the Horus myth that sadly didn't get stolen for the Jesus myth. I am speaking of how Horus resurrects his own father and makes him greater than ever. The moral being how one's children can make them better and bring joy to them. How even after they die part of them like knowledge, art, laughter and so on will continue on through their children. Horus was not only the light of mankind but of his father's as well.
<quoted text>
Look here little missy . I am about as religious as you are retarded.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65071
Nov 20, 2012
 
Part 1
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
No, scientific theories are based upon observable *evidence*. They are not "speculations".
Then science should have no problem accepting the idea that Intelligent Design is behind life since it is everywhere observable.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
They are not tied to any particular set of scriptures.
Scientific paradigms are science's scriptures. Since we really can't know what the universe is, as it seems to exist apart from our finite experience of it, then most scientific theories are really myths and stories that people pretend are real.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't ascribe what we don't understand to some supernatural being's whims.

That's because science limits itself to explaining the natural world through natural causes exclusively, yet there is nothing stopping scientists from considering non-natural causes other than a deeply ingrained fear that they may appear to be...GASP... illogical. All patterns contain potential representations, therefore, what is seen is not necessarily what is.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Science doesn't claim "truth". It recognizes that new information may overturn established scientific facts and theories.
If science never claims truth, why believe what it tells you? Rather than flatly state that God does not exist, it would a truer statement to say science has not found God....yet.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
"Survival of the fittest" is the observation that those living organisms that are most closely fitted to their environment have a greater tendency to survive and pass their genes to the next generation than those organisms that are less fit.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65072
Nov 20, 2012
 
Part 2
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
"Survival of the fittest" is the observation that those living organisms that are most closely fitted to their environment have a greater tendency to survive and pass their genes to the next generation than those organisms that are less fit.
"Survival of the fittest" is a theory, not a fact. Darwin's pessimistic, prejudiced view of the natural world was distinctly European and entirely misinterpreted. His cataloguing of events and effects led him to perceive only competiveness and made him blind to the basic cooperative ventures existing between creatures and their environment, and between species.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
What scientific dogma are you referring to?
The doctrine that nature is "all there is". This is an unquestioned assumption among scientists but not a fact. It underlies not only natural science but intellectual scientific work of all kinds. As long as the Church of Science holds to its physically oriented dogmas - its preferred paradigms - the human being will be seen as a sophisticated but "mechanical" system that just happens to run itself and exists for no other purpose than to reproduce.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Humans, like all other living things, were never "perfect", even in our natural state.
How can nature be right in every respect but wrong when our species emerged?
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Which ones? He had many, did he not?
The erroneous notion that reason is the path to enlightenment and emotion, a sure road to human suffering. Plato, like science, viewed emotion as untrustworthy, unable to provide us with facts about anything. Yet we know that sometimes feelings themselves are the answers. Sometimes the heart already knows what the intellect must rationalize.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Inventing pantheons of deities (whether Zeus and Hera, or Jehovah and Satan) doesn't provide knowledge as to what is plausible or not. They are merely entertaining creation myths, and you'll find thousands of variations of such things from around the world. But we eventually figured out that determining the *real* cause of weather, volcanoes, earthquakes, eclipses floods, diseases, and so forth was far more useful to dealing with them than ascribing their origin to the whims of supernatural beings.


You admit that science does not have all the answers - that its theories are not proven - that it changes its mind depending on new information. You see all of this obfucation as plausible, yet you scorn those who find truth in their religions. If there can be reason without faith - there can be faith without reason.



Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65073
Nov 20, 2012
 
No, scientific theories are based upon observable *evidence*. They are not "speculations".
postscript wrote:
Then science should have no problem accepting the idea that Intelligent Design is behind life since it is everywhere observable.
Where do we observe "Intelligent Design"?

***

They are not tied to any particular set of scriptures.
postscript wrote:
Scientific paradigms are science's scriptures. Since we really can't know what the universe is, as it seems to exist apart from our finite experience of it, then most scientific theories are really myths and stories that people pretend are real.
If scientific theories, which are explanations, are not "real", then why are they effective in making predictions?

***

We don't ascribe what we don't understand to some supernatural being's whims.
postscript wrote:
That's because science limits itself to explaining the natural world through natural causes exclusively, yet there is nothing stopping scientists from considering non-natural causes...
What would a "non-natural" cause look like? How would it appear different from a natural cause?

***

Science doesn't claim "truth". It recognizes that new information may overturn established scientific facts and theories.
postscript wrote:
If science never claims truth, why believe what it tells you?
Because (1) it is demonstrably effective, and (2) it can be changed when shown to be incorrect.

Unfortunately, neither is true of religion.
postscript wrote:
Rather than flatly state that God does not exist...
Science makes no claim that a god does not exist. So I don't see your point.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65074
Nov 20, 2012
 
Survival of the fittest" is the observation that those living organisms that are most closely fitted to their environment have a greater tendency to survive and pass their genes to the next generation than those organisms that are less fit.
postscript wrote:
"Survival of the fittest" is a theory, not a fact.
No, it's a fact. We can certainly perform experiments on living organisms, modify their environments, and observe which organisms tend to be most successful in surviving and reproducing. These experiments have been done.
postscript wrote:
His cataloguing of events and effects led him to perceive only competiveness and made him blind to the basic cooperative ventures existing between creatures and their environment, and between species.
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.

***

What scientific dogma are you referring to?
postscript wrote:
The doctrine that nature is "all there is". This is an unquestioned assumption among scientists but not a fact.
Science necessarily employs methodological naturalism. It makes no statement about nature being "all there is".

***

Humans, like all other living things, were never "perfect", even in our natural state.
postscript wrote:
How can nature be right in every respect but wrong when our species emerged?
"Right" or "wrong" by what standard? When I say that no living thing is "perfect", I mean that there is always room for the species to be better fitted to its environment. But there is no "right" or "wrong".

***
postscript wrote:
The erroneous notion that reason is the path to enlightenment and emotion, a sure road to human suffering.
I see that idea as wrong. But I fail to see what it has to do with your argument.

***

Inventing pantheons of deities (whether Zeus and Hera, or Jehovah and Satan) doesn't provide knowledge as to what is plausible or not. They are merely entertaining creation myths, and you'll find thousands of variations of such things from around the world. But we eventually figured out that determining the *real* cause of weather, volcanoes, earthquakes, eclipses floods, diseases, and so forth was far more useful to dealing with them than ascribing their origin to the whims of supernatural beings.
postscript wrote:
You admit that science does not have all the answers - that its theories are not proven - that it changes its mind depending on new information. You see all of this obfucation
How is it "obfuscation"?
postscript wrote:
...yet you scorn those who find truth in their religions.
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?

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65075
Nov 20, 2012
 
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
That is nonsense. Science and religion are not on equal footing. Belief in god is pure superstition.

“Arm the homeless!”

Since: Jul 12

The internet

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65076
Nov 20, 2012
 
postscript wrote:
Google the difference between ameliorate and cure.
None of the diseases you listed have been vanquished from the face of the earth. Better hygiene and sanitation has done more to
amerliorate these diseases than vaccinations.
Incorrect.
Smallpox. Completely vanquished from the face of the Earth.
Polio and guinea-worm disease are almost eradicated.

Hmmm...Hygiene and sanitation?
You have them thanks to Louis Pasteur (French Chemist)
So...you have science to thank for that as well.
postscript wrote:
"You cannot immunize sick children, malnourished children, and expect to get away with it. You'll kill far more children than would have died from natural infection."--Dr Kalokerinos (International Vaccine Newsletter June 1995)
<quoted text>
"This is a common misconception. The vaccine seems to work in some cases but only if the individual has not been exposed to HPV. The flu vaccine doesn't work either and for the same reason vaccinations don't cure diseases. Viruses mutate. You've heard of super bugs?
http://chemistry.about.com/cs/howthingswork/a...
You seem to misundertand what a vaccine does. It doesn't cure...it prevents. Of coarse it won't work on an infected subject.

I did say "cureable and/or preventable"

My list stands. All cureable or preventable through science and its vast discoveries.

Although it is cute how you lean on science to explain super bugs but scoff at it's ability to deal with them.

“Arm the homeless!”

Since: Jul 12

The internet

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65077
Nov 20, 2012
 
postscript wrote:
Part 1
<quoted text>
Then science should have no problem accepting the idea that Intelligent Design is behind life since it is everywhere observable.
Intelligent design is repackaged creationism being used in an attempt to gain a legal foothold in the classrooms of our children. It has no practical application. No testable hypothesis. It is not a science.
It is pseudoscience by definition.

In it's most respectable form, it is nothing more than a "god of the gaps" argument. We have seen this fail over and over throughout history.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65078
Nov 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

postscript wrote:
Part 2
<quoted text>
"Survival of the fittest" is a theory, not a fact. Darwin's pessimistic, prejudiced view of the natural world was distinctly European and entirely misinterpreted. His cataloguing of events and effects led him to perceive only competiveness and made him blind to the basic cooperative ventures existing between creatures and their environment, and between species.
<quoted text>
The doctrine that nature is "all there is". This is an unquestioned assumption among scientists but not a fact. It underlies not only natural science but intellectual scientific work of all kinds. As long as the Church of Science holds to its physically oriented dogmas - its preferred paradigms - the human being will be seen as a sophisticated but "mechanical" system that just happens to run itself and exists for no other purpose than to reproduce.
<quoted text>
How can nature be right in every respect but wrong when our species emerged?
<quoted text>
The erroneous notion that reason is the path to enlightenment and emotion, a sure road to human suffering. Plato, like science, viewed emotion as untrustworthy, unable to provide us with facts about anything. Yet we know that sometimes feelings themselves are the answers. Sometimes the heart already knows what the intellect must rationalize.
<quoted text>
You admit that science does not have all the answers - that its theories are not proven - that it changes its mind depending on new information. You see all of this obfucation as plausible, yet you scorn those who find truth in their religions. If there can be reason without faith - there can be faith without reason.
Survival of the fittest happens, it just is, it's there, in nature, all the time. One problem is your comprehension of what "fit" is.

Fact: Things evolve over time.

Fact: The most fit organisms have higher chances of reproducing.(This is just basic probability)

Fact: There was at one time no life, and now there is, therefore life had to come from non-life.

Fact: Tracing genetic lineages as well as fossil records show a tree of all life forms, where there is a pattern. We call that pattern the tree of life now.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65079
Nov 21, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Survival of the fittest happens, it just is, it's there, in nature, all the time. One problem is your comprehension of what "fit" is.
Fact: Things evolve over time.
Fact: The most fit organisms have higher chances of reproducing.(This is just basic probability)
Fact: There was at one time no life, and now there is, therefore life had to come from non-life.
Fact: Tracing genetic lineages as well as fossil records show a tree of all life forms, where there is a pattern. We call that pattern the tree of life now.
Survival of the fittest isn't necessarily true in Human evolution. We tend to care for the weak of our species. Which why we should broaden our use of eugenics in society instead of limiting it.
Thinking

Zeals, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65080
Nov 21, 2012
 
Who's to say that working a particular system to propagate your genes isn't just another example of adaptation.
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Survival of the fittest isn't necessarily true in Human evolution. We tend to care for the weak of our species. Which why we should broaden our use of eugenics in society instead of limiting it.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65081
Nov 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Survival of the fittest isn't necessarily true in Human evolution. We tend to care for the weak of our species. Which why we should broaden our use of eugenics in society instead of limiting it.
Caring for the weaker of your species does make your species more fit. The only way a species genetics could be strong is with diversity, destroying those who are unique, in any way, weakens the species as a whole, and thus would lead to extinction. It is one reason reptiles are less fit, they did not develop the nurturing instincts until later, so their genetic diversity is lower than that of most mammals. Then there is the lack of comprehending what fit is. Intelligence has a huge impact on how fit an organism is, in spite of all his weaknesses, Hawking, for example, is exceptionally fit for survival, so long as the species is willing to accept the intelligent information given by these organisms, we can become even more fit.

This is the evolutionary advantage humans have had, our capability to defend and even remove ourselves from natural selection itself, it's part of that being able to change ourselves trait that makes us stand out from the other animals. It is not our similarities that give us strength, or make us fit, it is our differences.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65083
Nov 21, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Caring for the weaker of your species does make your species more fit. The only way a species genetics could be strong is with diversity, destroying those who are unique, in any way, weakens the species as a whole, and thus would lead to extinction. It is one reason reptiles are less fit, they did not develop the nurturing instincts until later, so their genetic diversity is lower than that of most mammals. Then there is the lack of comprehending what fit is. Intelligence has a huge impact on how fit an organism is, in spite of all his weaknesses, Hawking, for example, is exceptionally fit for survival, so long as the species is willing to accept the intelligent information given by these organisms, we can become even more fit.
This is the evolutionary advantage humans have had, our capability to defend and even remove ourselves from natural selection itself, it's part of that being able to change ourselves trait that makes us stand out from the other animals. It is not our similarities that give us strength, or make us fit, it is our differences.
Unless those differences make the individual unable to survive without constant assistance. Once an individual reaches maturity they should be able to head out on their own to succeed or fail, live or die, propagate or not.
Thinking

Zeals, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65084
Nov 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Define constant assistance: I have grown to expect running water, sewerage, supermarket food, transport and communications. I'd really struggle to live off the land.

I think you're talking about paying your way.
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Unless those differences make the individual unable to survive without constant assistance. Once an individual reaches maturity they should be able to head out on their own to succeed or fail, live or die, propagate or not.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65085
Nov 21, 2012
 
I am 6'3" with a bigger shlong then anyone in your family. Your daughter may suck me off and you can watch no charge providing she is cute enough and gargles my man yogurt.

Talk to your preacher this Sunday for words of comfort half wit.

Maybe one day you will progress beyond finger foods but baby steps half wit, baby steps.
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Look here little missy . I am about as religious as you are retarded.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65086
Nov 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Unless those differences make the individual unable to survive without constant assistance. Once an individual reaches maturity they should be able to head out on their own to succeed or fail, live or die, propagate or not.
So in other words, you hate the people that cannot physically match your capability. We are the first species to ever become dominate due to our intelligence, and you want us to give up that trophy to again wallow in the mud.

Hawking offers us a lot of advances, because of his intellect only, and no one capable of physical activity can match his mind. You want to give up all your technology, medicine, and everything else you enjoy just because they can't lift rocks.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65087
Nov 21, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Where do we observe "Intelligent Design"?
Within and all around us.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>If scientific theories, which are explanations, are not "real", then why are they effective in making predictions?
Most of the time, scientists know what results they want, and that alone can influence the results they get.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>What would a "non-natural" cause look like? How would it appear different from a natural cause?

What does thought look like? While it can manifest constructs that are physically perceptible, thought itself is not physical in nature.

[QUOTE who="Drew Smith"]<quoted text>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.
Exactly how do genetic mutations, or neo-Darwinian synthesis, demonstate cooperation among the various species? 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. 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? The hypothetical evolutionary tree of life demands that such in-between forms existed. It seems that by now paleontologists should have unearthed enough signs of them to at least make a modest case in defense of Darwin's misconstrued theory of evolution.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>Science makes no claim that a god does not exist. So I don't see your point.
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.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>No, it's a fact. We can certainly perform experiments on living organisms, modify their environments, and observe which organisms tend to be most successful in surviving and reproducing. These experiments have been done.
Unlike Darwin's theory of evolution, selective breeding and hybridization at least represents development through "conscious" intent despite the results which are often destructive.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>Science necessarily employs methodological naturalism. It makes no statement about nature being "all there is".

By focusing on the external reality exclusively, science makes its particular bias more than obvious.

[QUOTE who="Drew Smith"]<quoted text>I see that idea as wrong. But I fail to see what it has to do with your argument.
Science seeks mechanisms, not meanings. Human experiences that don't fit the scientific picture of reality are simply excluded.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>How is it "obfuscation"?
Stiff competition for funding tends to encourage scientists to engage in self promotion - put the most favorable spin on test results by playing on ambiguities.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>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?
It says, like science, the person will accept no evidence of anything but "official" beliefs.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65088
Nov 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
Within and all around us.
Non-answer. Do you ever actually provide a real answer to anything?
Thinking

Zeals, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65089
Nov 21, 2012
 
Bollocks.
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
Within and all around us.
<quoted text>
Most of the time, scientists know what results they want, and that alone can influence the results they get.
<quoted text>
Exactly how do genetic mutations, or neo-Darwinian synthesis, demonstate cooperation among the various species? 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. 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? The hypothetical evolutionary tree of life demands that such in-between forms existed. It seems that by now paleontologists should have unearthed enough signs of them to at least make a modest case in defense of Darwin's misconstrued theory of evolution.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
Unlike Darwin's theory of evolution, selective breeding and hybridization at least represents development through "conscious" intent despite the results which are often destructive.
<quoted text>
Science seeks mechanisms, not meanings. Human experiences that don't fit the scientific picture of reality are simply excluded.
<quoted text>
Stiff competition for funding tends to encourage scientists to engage in self promotion - put the most favorable spin on test results by playing on ambiguities.
<quoted text>
It says, like science, the person will accept no evidence of anything but "official" beliefs.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65090
Nov 21, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Survival of the fittest happens, it just is, it's there, in nature, all the time. One problem is your comprehension of what "fit" is.
Kinda like the "mysteries of God? Careful you're approaching God speak (laugh)
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Fact: Things evolve over time.
Fact: The most fit organisms have higher chances of reproducing.(This is just basic probability)
If that were true, genetic abnormalities would not be passed from one generation to the next.
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Fact: There was at one time no life, and now there is, therefore life had to come from non-life.
Do you have scientific evidence to support your rather simplistic hypothesis? Or are you like a Christian, merely spinning your own rendition of the origin of life?
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Fact: Tracing genetic lineages as well as fossil records show a tree of all life forms, where there is a pattern. We call that pattern the tree of life now.
There is no fossil record. Define what you mean by patterns.

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.

•••
•••