Atheists on the march in America

There are 20 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.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65434 Dec 2, 2012
It's reasonable to assume that everything that happens in the Universe that is "good" was due to a "god", but that everything that isn't "good" wasn't due to the same "god"?
How is that reasonable, exactly?
nanoanomaly wrote:
I never mentioned attributing anything to a god; you did.
Your exact words were: "It is just as reasonable...".

Your statement was in response to my statement "It sounds as if you only attribute good things to your "god" but fail to blame him for the bad things."

So you're saying that you don't even remember what your own pronoun references are referencing?
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65435 Dec 2, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
How do you conclude that whatever creates form must be "aware"?
<quoted text>
Nope. Then again, comatose patients do not represent the totality of that which is not aware, and painted pictures do not represent the totality of that which is a form.
I've seen mindless forces of nature create patterns. Ever heard of a rainbow, for instance?
So I ask again: How do you conclude that whatever creates form must be "aware"?
A rainbow is a mindless force of nature. Really? Based on what? Your own hairbrained observations, or science's ridiculous contention that dead matter can soar into life without provocation?

What, pray tell, represents totality in your little world? I mean, besides the bogus theory of evolution. Just as no single human being can express the full potential of the species, no single scientific theory can explain reality in its totality.

You are not interested in a search for the truth. You are grimly determined to preserve your insatiable desire to worship at the altar of science.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#65436 Dec 2, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
A rainbow is a mindless force of nature. Really? Based on what? Your own hairbrained observations, or science's ridiculous contention that dead matter can soar into life without provocation?
What, pray tell, represents totality in your little world? I mean, besides the bogus theory of evolution. Just as no single human being can express the full potential of the species, no single scientific theory can explain reality in its totality.
You are not interested in a search for the truth. You are grimly determined to preserve your insatiable desire to worship at the altar of science.
You need to prove your f*cking imaginary god before you attempt and fail to criticize science.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65437 Dec 2, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to prove your f*cking imaginary god before you attempt and fail to criticize science.
You need to grow a brain before you attempt to engage in a debate that is obviously way over your empty pointy little head.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65438 Dec 2, 2012
Nope. Then again, comatose patients do not represent the totality of that which is not aware, and painted pictures do not represent the totality of that which is a form.
I've seen mindless forces of nature create patterns. Ever heard of a rainbow, for instance?
So I ask again: How do you conclude that whatever creates form must be "aware"?
postscript wrote:
A rainbow is a mindless force of nature. Really?
No, I said that a rainbow is *created* by a mindless force of nature.
postscript wrote:
Based on what?
Based on the fact that photons, water, and atmosphere show no evidence of a "mind".
postscript wrote:
What, pray tell, represents totality in your little world?
Everything that exists. It's your world, too. Or are you claiming that comatose patients are the only things that exist in the world?
postscript wrote:
You are not interested in a search for the truth.
Says the guy who can't seem to produce any evidence of consciousness among non-living matter. I guess you just buy into things without evidence, eh?

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#65439 Dec 2, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
Nope. Then again, comatose patients do not represent the totality of that which is not aware, and painted pictures do not represent the totality of that which is a form.
Nothing represents totality in thw world of science. What we get are glimpses.

The message of quantum physics is this: the world is not made of matter, neither is it determined entirely by material causation.

Quantum physics indicates that consciousness is related to the awareness that an electron appears to show in the wave/particle duality (double slit experiment).

Quantum physicists have shown that the electron behaves differently when being observed by a human. When the electron is not being observed, the electron behaves like a wave, but when an observing instrument is placed in the experiment, the electron behaves like a particle. This experience indicates that the electron will change its behavior/reality depending on whether or not the electron is being observed as if the electron is "aware" that it is being observed. This awareness is very similar, if not the same, as human awareness and may be related to the same consciousness.

http://endgametime.wordpress.com/the-awakenin...

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65440 Dec 2, 2012
Nope. Then again, comatose patients do not represent the totality of that which is not aware, and painted pictures do not represent the totality of that which is a form.
BBSting wrote:
Nothing represents totality in thw world of science. What we get are glimpses.
None of those glimpses provide evidence that non-living matter is "conscious".
BBSting wrote:
The message of quantum physics is this: the world is not made of matter
Quantum mechanics provides no such message.
BBSting wrote:
Quantum physics indicates that consciousness is related to the awareness that an electron appears to show in the wave/particle duality (double slit experiment). Quantum physicists have shown that the electron behaves differently when being observed by a human.
That isn't evidence that the electron has any "awareness". It demonstrates only that the *act* of observation has an effect upon the experiment.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65441 Dec 2, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Your exact words were: "I don't recall any giant dragonflies in the fossil record."
I provided an example of one.
And you were also wrong about Kitten being a friend.
If it's smaller than me it isn't a giant.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65442 Dec 2, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Your exact words were: "I don't recall any giant dragonflies in the fossil record."
I provided an example of one.
And you were also wrong about Kitten being a friend.
What? He's not pretty enough for you?

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65443 Dec 2, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
It's reasonable to assume that everything that happens in the Universe that is "good" was due to a "god", but that everything that isn't "good" wasn't due to the same "god"?
How is that reasonable, exactly?
<quoted text>
Your exact words were: "It is just as reasonable...".
Your statement was in response to my statement "It sounds as if you only attribute good things to your "god" but fail to blame him for the bad things."
So you're saying that you don't even remember what your own pronoun references are referencing?
I don't recall mentioning "good" or "bad" regarding anything, only wondered why you should be so hostile regarding an opposing fantasy/theory. As long as nobody can prove how life began, one point of view is just as good as another. Like I said, let me know when you have evidence of how it began.

BTW, you appear to be labeling something(life) "good" when you don't even know "how" it started. To be good, life would, necessarily, have a purpose. Atheism says life has no original purpose, that it just "is".

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65444 Dec 2, 2012
And you were also wrong about Kitten being a friend.
nanoanomaly wrote:
What? He's not pretty enough for you?
Since I'm not on Topix to flirt and date (unlike you, apparently), a person's appearance is irrelevant.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65445 Dec 2, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
I don't recall mentioning "good" or "bad" regarding anything
Again, you made a statement about "it" (my previous statement in which I referred to "good" things). What else was your "it" in reference too, then?
nanoanomaly wrote:
only wondered why you should be so hostile regarding an opposing fantasy/theory.
Scientific research into the origin of life aren't "fantasies".

Postulating non-existent magical skydaddies (without a shred of evidence to support their existence) is indeed a fantasy, and should be labelled as such.
nanoanomaly wrote:
As long as nobody can prove how life began...
No fact or theory of science is ever "proved".
nanoanomaly wrote:
...one point of view is just as good as another.
So inventing a magical skydaddy that "poofs" life into existence is "just as good" as explanations that depend only upon chemical processes actually observed in nature?

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/what-...
nanoanomaly wrote:
you appear to be labeling something(life) "good" when you don't even know "how" it started.
Why is something's being "good" dependent upon how it started?
nanoanomaly wrote:
To be good, life would, necessarily, have a purpose.
Why? Don't you judge something to be good if you find it beneficial to your life? Why does "purpose" have anything to do with it?

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#65446 Dec 2, 2012
You beat me to it! Lol!

Good grief what an idiot! You'd think after all te times she has been factually crushed and humiliated she would have had enough! But nope back she comes making a jackass out of herself yet again.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Just look what the tiniest shred of research can reveal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganeura

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#65447 Dec 2, 2012
And the ultra low IQ jackass brats on! Lmfao!

Hey do you have anymore of those easliy cured incurable diseases?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah a!
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>What? He's not pretty enough for you?

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65448 Dec 2, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>... research....
That's funny.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65449 Dec 2, 2012
Scientific research into the origin of life aren't "fantasies".
nanoanomaly wrote:
That's funny.
You find scientific research funny?

In that case, I suggest that you stop using anything that was the product of scientific research.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65450 Dec 2, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
Scientific research into the origin of life aren't "fantasies".
<quoted text>
You find scientific research funny?
In that case, I suggest that you stop using anything that was the product of scientific research.
Let me know when you have confirmed any of these steps regarding abiogenesis. You claim that science doesn't "prove" anything but it will have to prove this "concept/fantasy" for it to be believed.

" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research#Scienti... ;

Any theories about it are still nothing more than fantasy. You must have some knowledge of the phenomenon not just suspicion that it is true. Brighter minds than yours are still mystified concerning the source of life.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65451 Dec 2, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
Let me know when you have confirmed any of these steps regarding abiogenesis.
You mean the steps already confirmed and described here?

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/what-...
nanoanomaly wrote:
...it will have to prove this "concept/fantasy" for it to be believed.
You mean, for *you* to believe it. I'm afraid that you were never elected to speak on behalf of everyone else.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65452 Dec 2, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean the steps already confirmed and described here?
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/what-...
<quoted text>
You mean, for *you* to believe it. I'm afraid that you were never elected to speak on behalf of everyone else.
So nobody has to prove their results to you for you to believe them? That's hilarious, Drew.

You sound religious.

xD

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#65453 Dec 2, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>So nobody has to prove their results to you for you to believe them? That's hilarious, Drew.
You sound religious.
xD
brilliant.. Though I am sure that the concept will be lost on them.

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) 56 min Rosa_Winkel 238,377
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 9 hr Denisova 18,852
News Confessions of a black atheist 14 hr Mikko 475
why Atheists believe in incest,pedophilia and b... Sun Amused 25
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) Sun thetruth 6,124
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Sun thetruth 2,094
News The Consequences of Atheism Sat Koala_Gums 1,340
More from around the web