Atheists on the march in America

Aug 26, 2009 Read more: 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

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#65533 Dec 4, 2012
Or tonight's.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65534 Dec 4, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Then tell me next Friday's CA lottery's MegaMillion numbers.
The time is not yet for you to live in the lap of luxury. You have many lessons to be learned.
Thinking

UK

#65535 Dec 4, 2012
Tell me what I suppose.
BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but what you see is not what you suppose.
Thinking

UK

#65536 Dec 4, 2012
Maybe they just like violence and stupidity.
Givemeliberty wrote:
Isn't it sad how hard they work to remain enslaved to the superstitious beliefs of ancient Palestinians?
<quoted text>

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#65537 Dec 4, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
The time is not yet for you to live in the lap of luxury. You have many lessons to be learned.
IOW, you can't come up with the winning numbers. Called you on your BS.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65538 Dec 4, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
IOW, you can't come up with the winning numbers. Called you on your BS.
You were expecting signs and wonders, perhaps? LOL! If you want answers - get in touch with the knowledge of your own subjective self.
Independent

Alice, TX

#65539 Dec 5, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No such thing as random, we perceive randomness because we lack the complex computations required to identify the patterns in everything, our computers do that better now. But atomic reactions, chemical reactions, are structured based on the atomic structures, that's not even close to conscious reaction, it's the same as what happens when you drop a ball.
You should really try to explain how a human eye or any eye evolved. It is so complex and irreducible complexity comes to mind here. What came first? The brain or the eye? Can't have one without the other for evolution to succeed. They have to continually 'evolve' together and the species needs to not become extinct for the concept of vision to prosper. Then you have the issue of different classes of creatures, whom are not even related, also "evolving" vision. The odds are astronomical, there fore we are all created by a creator. Evolution has the same chance of becoming, as a tornado tearing through a junkyard and when everything has settled, there is a Boeing 747 airliner, full of jet fuel, waiting for a pilot. A beautiful butterfly in all it's grandeur , requires a creator, as does an intricate pocket watch. Life cannot simply evolve because with time anything is possible, if that were the case, then the planets in our solar system that are not gaseous, would have had some sort of life thriving on each and everyone of them, but as far as we know, they don't.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#65540 Dec 5, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing is random, least of all consciousness which is far more mobile than you will ever comprehend. You are wrong. You are both here and there. We are all multidimensional. There are channels of interrelatedness, connecting all physical matter - channels through which consciousness flows.
The physical sciences pretend that the centuries exist one after another, while physicists realize that all events are simultaneous. Archeologists merrily contine to date the remains of "past" civilizations, never asking themselves if the past they record is the one relative to their point of perception.
There is more in heaven and earth, Gomer, than is dreamt of in your feeble philosophy.
You're a liar with no proof of god. It doesn't matter how much language you dress it up with.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65542 Dec 5, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a liar with no proof of god. It doesn't matter how much language you dress it up with.
Remove consciousness from the origin equation and you atheists will always be left trying to prove that life came from dead matter. You are as intellectually bankrupt as you claim the religious are.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#65543 Dec 5, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
Remove consciousness from the origin equation and you atheists will always be left trying to prove that life came from dead matter. You are as intellectually bankrupt as you claim the religious are.
You're a liar with no proof of god at the end of the day.

You have to lie about atheists to further your fraudulent religious agenda. And at the same time you shamelessly try to sell us your cult's morals.

Try proving your fake god first, you liar, then you get to criticise atheists - people you know nothing about.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#65544 Dec 5, 2012
Independent wrote:
<quoted text>You should really try to explain how a human eye or any eye evolved. It is so complex and irreducible complexity comes to mind here. What came first? The brain or the eye? Can't have one without the other for evolution to succeed. They have to continually 'evolve' together and the species needs to not become extinct for the concept of vision to prosper. Then you have the issue of different classes of creatures, whom are not even related, also "evolving" vision. The odds are astronomical, there fore we are all created by a creator. Evolution has the same chance of becoming, as a tornado tearing through a junkyard and when everything has settled, there is a Boeing 747 airliner, full of jet fuel, waiting for a pilot. A beautiful butterfly in all it's grandeur , requires a creator, as does an intricate pocket watch. Life cannot simply evolve because with time anything is possible, if that were the case, then the planets in our solar system that are not gaseous, would have had some sort of life thriving on each and everyone of them, but as far as we know, they don't.
It's not atheist's fault that you don't know how the eye evolved. It's also not atheist's fault that you don't know why "irreducible complexity" is a non-argument which has been disproven time and time again.

Perhaps if you were intelligent enough to understand biology, you wouldn't be so ignorant of it. But then again, if you truly understood biology or science, you would be atheist after all...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#65545 Dec 5, 2012
I find it simultaneously sad and funny that people who've never picked up a test tube in their lives seem to be so adamant that evolution isn't real.

All creationist arguments are arguments from ignorance.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#65546 Dec 5, 2012
You want us to say, Jesus made eveything with his magic fish! OK feel better half wit? Tell us again how you think Chris Angel really has Magic powers and he really does all those tricks with no editing :))

Care for an Obama bumper sticker? I would send you a T-shirt but no way could your fatass squeeze into one. Seriously let me know and I will send you one to put on your car if you can afford one, if not you can put it on your singlewide's window :)

You're welcome lardass :)
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, I accept that you make things up.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#65547 Dec 5, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
Remove consciousness from the origin equation and you atheists will always be left trying to prove that life came from dead matter. You are as intellectually bankrupt as you claim the religious are.
I would have to agree. Atheists like to think that science has all but obliterated religion with its so-called objective facts. What the atheist doesn't understand is that science has simply changed the wording, but not the story.

The most pessimistic elements of Christianity have been given a new scientific face. Freud's theories have come to represent the darker aspects of human psychology, the soul cut free from the conventional belief in an omnipotent god...stripped of its power and delegated to a series of mechanical reactions called instinctive drives. Psychologists have replaced a theological hell with a psychological hell, and turned the concept of "original sin" into primitive implulses stamped upon the genes in infancy. Psychoanalysis has replaced the Catholic confessional. The psychologist is the new priest who stands between the conscious and subconscious elements of man. The drive for salvation (divine perfection), has been replaced with salvation through psychotropic drugs.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65548 Dec 5, 2012
BBSting wrote:
Photo on the left is a 125 million year old fossil of a mayfly.
Photo on the right is the mayfly as it exists today. They are identical. No change, and this is just one of many examples. Here's the proof right before your eyes that the theory of evolution is a myth!
http://www.harunyahya.com/image/Atlas_of_crea...
Funny that you pick the mayfly, considering it's helping us to discover a natural cause for abiogenesis as well.

http://news.bio-medicine.org/biology-news-2/F...

Yeah, you need to catch up on science before attempting to address scientific matters. Not to mention physiological changes have been addressed by multiple posters, multiple scientists, and even a lot of other people so many times. Get an up to date "argument," you old crone.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65549 Dec 5, 2012
Wrathbone wrote:
<quoted text>
I would have to agree. Atheists like to think that science has all but obliterated religion with its so-called objective facts. What the atheist doesn't understand is that science has simply changed the wording, but not the story.
The most pessimistic elements of Christianity have been given a new scientific face. Freud's theories have come to represent the darker aspects of human psychology, the soul cut free from the conventional belief in an omnipotent god...stripped of its power and delegated to a series of mechanical reactions called instinctive drives. Psychologists have replaced a theological hell with a psychological hell, and turned the concept of "original sin" into primitive implulses stamped upon the genes in infancy. Psychoanalysis has replaced the Catholic confessional. The psychologist is the new priest who stands between the conscious and subconscious elements of man. The drive for salvation (divine perfection), has been replaced with salvation through psychotropic drugs.
How do you change the wording that 3 is pi, or bats are birds? Also, psychology does not deal in "sin" at all. It deals with understanding how we think. Psychiatry, a spin-off of religion, is the only arena that deals in something resembling "sin" at all, and that's not based on science, it's just enforcing personal stereotypes, exactly the same way religion does.

Scientific minds have demonstrated your bible to be wrong, so wrong it's a mockery to human literature considering people in eras prior to the writing of the bible got so much more accurate information recorded in tombs, the same people your bible attempts to paint as "monsters." Your ideology is out dated, useless, and nothing more than a weapon against anything that you disagree with. Science is a collection of methods and tools to reliably understand how the universe works, possibly even beyond but we have no way of even going beyond. Your bible assumes to speak for something which has demonstrably been proven to not exist, where in the sky is this "kingdom?" We've been in the sky, and beyond, and found nothing.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65550 Dec 5, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
Remove consciousness from the origin equation and you atheists will always be left trying to prove that life came from dead matter. You are as intellectually bankrupt as you claim the religious are.
Oh, you are so clueless, so then we weren't made from dirt according to your book of myths? That's what it says, that we were made from dead matter. Yet, you cannot demonstrate a difference between the matter that makes up a human, that that which makes up a rock.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65551 Dec 5, 2012
Independent wrote:
<quoted text>You should really try to explain how a human eye or any eye evolved. It is so complex and irreducible complexity comes to mind here. What came first? The brain or the eye? Can't have one without the other for evolution to succeed. They have to continually 'evolve' together and the species needs to not become extinct for the concept of vision to prosper. Then you have the issue of different classes of creatures, whom are not even related, also "evolving" vision. The odds are astronomical, there fore we are all created by a creator. Evolution has the same chance of becoming, as a tornado tearing through a junkyard and when everything has settled, there is a Boeing 747 airliner, full of jet fuel, waiting for a pilot. A beautiful butterfly in all it's grandeur , requires a creator, as does an intricate pocket watch. Life cannot simply evolve because with time anything is possible, if that were the case, then the planets in our solar system that are not gaseous, would have had some sort of life thriving on each and everyone of them, but as far as we know, they don't.
Here's a very simple explanation, with citations and that thing you hate called evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the...

The image showing it:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...

Stop being willfully naive for a change.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#65552 Dec 5, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, you are so clueless, so then we weren't made from dirt according to your book of myths? That's what it says, that we were made from dead matter. Yet, you cannot demonstrate a difference between the matter that makes up a human, that that which makes up a rock.


I've had no problem following postscript's comments on the nature of consciousness. What's your major malfunction?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#65553 Dec 5, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you change the wording that 3 is pi, or bats are birds? Also, psychology does not deal in "sin" at all. It deals with understanding how we think. Psychiatry, a spin-off of religion, is the only arena that deals in something resembling "sin" at all, and that's not based on science, it's just enforcing personal stereotypes, exactly the same way religion does.
Scientific minds have demonstrated your bible to be wrong, so wrong it's a mockery to human literature considering people in eras prior to the writing of the bible got so much more accurate information recorded in tombs, the same people your bible attempts to paint as "monsters." Your ideology is out dated, useless, and nothing more than a weapon against anything that you disagree with. Science is a collection of methods and tools to reliably understand how the universe works, possibly even beyond but we have no way of even going beyond. Your bible assumes to speak for something which has demonstrably been proven to not exist, where in the sky is this "kingdom?" We've been in the sky, and beyond, and found nothing.
It's where the next gap in our knowledge is. That's where it always has been and where it always will be.

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' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 1 hr Pastorbobby666 7,396
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr An NFL Fan 18,442
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 hr nanoanomaly 237,673
News Atheists open up: What they want you to know 3 hr nanoanomaly 10
News Confessions of a black atheist 4 hr UruEuWauWau 305
News Barney Frank Advises Politicians to Stay in the... 4 hr nanoanomaly 14
Atheist-Scientist talks about incest. 4 hr nanoanomaly 5
More from around the web