Atheists on the march in America

Aug 26, 2009 Full story: TurkishPress.com 70,659

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

Read more

“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.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#65454 Dec 2, 2012
Good article with clear precise proof backing up your claims. Sadly man people like Nan don't want to hear anything different than what their preacher says in church. If your information doesn't include Jesus magicked everything into existence she won't be satisfied.

One must remember she is the same idiot who claimed to have a horrible disease that will take her life in less than a year and has no cure but then a few posts later says, nope I am already cured!

Lmfao! You just gotta shake your head at these creationist apologetic morons man. Until they open their eyes and are willing to honestly look at real science they are stuck in sheep mode, bleating all the way home.
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.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65455 Dec 3, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
So nobody has to prove their results to you for you to believe them?
Nobody has to "prove" a scientific fact or theory for me to *accept* it.

They just have to *support* it with sufficient evidence. Even then, it may eventually turn out to be wrong based on new evidence.

"Proof" is the province of mathematics and logic. Not science.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65456 Dec 3, 2012
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).
Nope.

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2012/1...

Pay special attention to the quote from physicist Michael Nauenberg: "the view that the implementation of the principles of quantum mechanics requires a conscious observer is based on misconceptions."

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#65457 Dec 3, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody has to "prove" a scientific fact or theory for me to *accept* it.
They just have to *support* it with sufficient evidence. Even then, it may eventually turn out to be wrong based on new evidence.
"Proof" is the province of mathematics and logic. Not science.
Mathematics is science.

"Because nature is mathematical, any science that intends to describe nature is completely dependent on mathematics. It is impossible to overemphasize this point, and it is why Carl Friedrich Gauss called mathematics "the queen of the sciences."

http://arachnoid.com/is_math_a_science/index....

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#65458 Dec 3, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2012/1...
Pay special attention to the quote from physicist Michael Nauenberg: "the view that the implementation of the principles of quantum mechanics requires a conscious observer is based on misconceptions."
The experiment did not establish that an observer is required. Read it again.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65459 Dec 3, 2012
BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
Mathematics is science.
"Because nature is mathematical, any science that intends to describe nature is completely dependent on mathematics. It is impossible to overemphasize this point, and it is why Carl Friedrich Gauss called mathematics "the queen of the sciences."
http://arachnoid.com/is_math_a_science/index....
Amusing article, but I fundamentally disagree. mathematics is NOT a science. The author of the article ignores a very important difference between math and the sciences: if a hypothesis in the sciences has withstood a great number of challenges and produces new results that are testable and survive the tests, then that hypothesis is accepted, at least provisionally.

This is not true in mathematics. For example, Goldbach's conjecture is the claim that every even number more than 4 can be written as a sum of two prime numbers. For example, 12=5+7. Here, 12 is even and 5,7 are both primes. Another: 100=47+53. The conjecture is that this is always possible for any even number more than 4.

Every even number (more than 4) we have ever tested can be written as a sum of two primes. If mathematics acted like a science, Goldbach's conjecture would be held to be validated simply by this fact. But, in practice, it is NOT. The reason is that mathematics doesn't use observation and testing to support the truth of a proposition: it uses formal proof. And that is the *only* support accepted in mathematics. So, while a single counter-example is enough to show a hypothesis to be wrong, a mathematical proposition is not accepted until it has been rigorously proven.

As the author of the article points out, such proof is possible in mathematics, but it is not possible in the natural sciences. This is a HUGE difference and reflects a basic difference in math and the sciences.

At this point, Goldbach's conjecture is neither accepted nor rejected by the mathematical community: it is seen as an interesting, but unresolved conjecture.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65460 Dec 3, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody has to "prove" a scientific fact or theory for me to *accept* it.
They just have to *support* it with sufficient evidence. Even then, it may eventually turn out to be wrong based on new evidence.
"Proof" is the province of mathematics and logic. Not science.
Your link shows nothing new, no proof that life came from nonlife.

When there is proof it will be known by everyone. There will be no room for doubt or further research.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65461 Dec 3, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>....
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?
If I escape a hungry tiger it is beneficial/good to me but harmful/bad to him, i.e., good and bad are subjective, the universe, in general, has no subjective values that I can see. How is it that you see a universe from nothing as being "good" or "beneficial" if its basest nature always lies in eternal balance? Life, as we know it, will not exist in the distant future; only time and the shredded remnants of what we once were. Do you attribute something of the subjective to that reality? Is it good or bad? Only purpose gives the universe subjective status.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65462 Dec 3, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody has to "prove" a scientific fact or theory for me to *accept* it.
They just have to *support* it with sufficient evidence. Even then, it may eventually turn out to be wrong based on new evidence.
"Proof" is the province of mathematics and logic. Not science.
Science can't go far without math or logic.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65463 Dec 3, 2012
Nobody has to "prove" a scientific fact or theory for me to *accept* it.
They just have to *support* it with sufficient evidence. Even then, it may eventually turn out to be wrong based on new evidence.
"Proof" is the province of mathematics and logic. Not science.
BBSting wrote:
Mathematics is science.
No, it isn't. It doesn't use the scientific method.

If mathematics were a science, we wouldn't have so many colleges or departments of "science and mathematics".

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65464 Dec 3, 2012
BBSting wrote:
The experiment did not establish that an observer is required. Read it again.
I read it.

It refutes the idea that quantum mechanics somehow supports the idea that non-living material is "conscious".

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65465 Dec 3, 2012
Nobody has to "prove" a scientific fact or theory for me to *accept* it.
They just have to *support* it with sufficient evidence. Even then, it may eventually turn out to be wrong based on new evidence.
"Proof" is the province of mathematics and logic. Not science.
nanoanomaly wrote:
Your link shows nothing new, no proof that life came from nonlife.
Science doesn't claim "proof".

You really need to learn that.

In any event, the article is a good summary indicating that we have learned a great deal about how life originated.

Much better than throwing up one's hands and saying "There is no way to know, a supernatural skydaddy poofed it all into existence".

That's *your* idea of how it began, isn't it?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65466 Dec 3, 2012
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?
nanoanomaly wrote:
If I escape a hungry tiger it is beneficial/good to me but harmful/bad to him, i.e., good and bad are subjective
Imagine that, you figured out that "good" and "bad" are relative to *specific* purposes. Not to some overarching objective "purpose of life" for everyone.
nanoanomaly wrote:
How is it that you see a universe from nothing...
I don't see a "universe from nothing". So your question is wrong from the beginning.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65467 Dec 3, 2012
Nobody has to "prove" a scientific fact or theory for me to *accept* it.
They just have to *support* it with sufficient evidence. Even then, it may eventually turn out to be wrong based on new evidence.
"Proof" is the province of mathematics and logic. Not science.
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Science can't go far without math or logic.
Which doesn't change the fact that scientific facts and theories are not "proved".

They are supported to a greater or lesser degree by evidence.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#65468 Dec 3, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence was a concern to Darwin himself! But instead of giving the matter serious thought, he kicked that can down the road, convinced that the necessary fossils to prove his theory would eventually turn up, but alas, they are still missing.
The fossil record that does exist, the one you point to with exuberant pride, is shamefully paltry compared to what should be a vast trove of fossilized evidence if the theory of evolution were actually true.
Without literally going back in time and watching the development of each successive organism in an evolutionary chain, science can not "prove" that an evolutionary relationship exists. You can claim that minor variations in species produced all the vast differences we see today, but you are still left without a fossil record. Without that record, scientists will never be sure some organism (transitional form) is actually an ancestor of an existing species.
Actually we have a very complete fossil record now.

If you understood anything about the conditions it takes to fossilize something, you'd understand how amazing it is that we have found as many fossils as we have.

Biological evolution is the most research areas of science worldwide and has been for over 150 years now. The vast amounts of evidence we have amassed and the overwhelming predictive benefit we have by the use of this theory, all continue to underscore and strengthen the overall confidence scientists in all Earth sciences disciplines have in the biological evolution.

You might want to read some layman level explinations from HidingFromYou to help with your understanding --

" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;

Or Polymath --

" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
John

United States

#65469 Dec 3, 2012
Drew you are embarassing yourself. Please continue.
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.

Fun fact of the day- for every 1 job created in the Obama administration 75 went on food stamps.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#65470 Dec 3, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
Large gaps in the fossil record that can't be explained away says you're full of it.
Why wouldn't there be large gaps in the fossils we have discovered? Think we have discovered every fossil there is? Think every animal who has died has been fossilized?

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#65471 Dec 3, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
Buddists are not atheists. They don't identify God as a supreme being, but more of an exalted state of consciousness i.e. the clear light of the eternal Buddha They do accept the existence of beings in higher realms however. Devas.
Buddhists don't believe in gods. That makes them atheists.
postscript wrote:
Reincarnation will not save you. The ideas you harbor about the nature of reality in life will strongly color your after death experience for you will interpret events in the light of your beliefs. The fear of death itself can cause such a psychological panic that out of a sense of self-preservation and defense, an individual will lower his consciouness so that he laspes into a coma which may then take some time to recover after transition. Those who do not believe in life after death may find themselves in a state of limbo, the most hindering state of all.
Any proof of this?

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 Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 15 min woodtick57 6,432
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 31 min Kaitlin the Wolf ... 236,907
News The Consequences of Atheism 39 min JesusWasNOTaJew -... 1,127
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 49 min DanFromSmithville 17,995
News Who is an atheist? (May '10) 4 hr Freebird USA 9,256
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 6 hr Patrick n Angela 14,507
News Confessions of a black atheist 9 hr Cordwainer Trout 20
More from around the web