Atheists on the march in America

Aug 26, 2009 Full story: TurkishPress.com 70,983

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

Full Story

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65299 Nov 27, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
...
And from non-life. Otherwise, the first living thing wouldn't have existed.
Prove it.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65300 Nov 27, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Prove it.
You are made of carbon. There now give me my cookie for proving it.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65303 Nov 28, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>A thought is not a neuron, it only exists "inside" the neuron. Thoughts affect the brain but are smaller than a neuron, smaller even than an atom. They aren't the wave, they ride the wave.
Exactly the opposite. Thoughts are not 'in the neuron'. They are processes that involve lots of connected neurons. The thoughts are the program running on the hardware of the neurons.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65304 Nov 28, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>A thought is not a neuron, it only exists "inside" the neuron. Thoughts affect the brain but are smaller than a neuron, smaller even than an atom. They aren't the wave, they ride the wave.
No neuron has a thought. Thoughts are produced by the activity of many neurons.
test

Spain

#65305 Nov 28, 2012
test

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#65306 Nov 28, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No neuron has a thought. Thoughts are produced by the activity of many neurons.
Neurons are the collective?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65307 Nov 28, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Neurons are the collective?
It takes hundreds of neurons just for the concept of the number 1. There is a huge, massive, and elaborate way in which the brain processes just the number 1. Just thinking "1" requires the firing of hundreds of neurons. Counting 1 thing requires thousands of neurons.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65308 Nov 29, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
A thought is not a neuron, it only exists "inside" the neuron. Thoughts affect the brain but are smaller than a neuron, smaller even than an atom. They aren't the wave, they ride the wave.
That's like claiming that a photographic image in a newspaper exists "inside" each dot making up the newsprint.

Thoughts exist as *patterns* of neuronic activity. So they are not "smaller" than atoms (quite the contrary, since neuronic patterns involve countless atoms).

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65309 Nov 29, 2012
And from non-life. Otherwise, the first living thing wouldn't have existed.
nanoanomaly wrote:
Prove it.
The Earth was once incapable of supporting life.

Later, the Earth was capable of supporting life and in fact did support life.

Therefore, life on Earth came from non-life.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#65310 Nov 29, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
The Earth was once incapable of supporting life.
Later, the Earth was capable of supporting life and in fact did support life.
Therefore, life on Earth came from non-life.
Good logic. Like it.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65313 Nov 29, 2012
Both science and religion accept their facts about existence as the gospel truth, and other ideas that threaten their theories become almost heretical.

Only consciousness is real, for only the real cannot be threatened. Anything that can be threatened is not real. For that which can be threatened, can be changed.

Leave the priests to their heavens and hells, to their moldy ancient documents - their fossilized gods. Confine the scientists to their dying universe theory, leave them to count their invisible particles. Have the courage to open your mind's door and explore the unofficial thresholds -the true source of your being.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65316 Nov 29, 2012
postscript wrote:
Both science and religion accept their facts about existence as the gospel truth
Science does not claim "truth". Religion does.
postscript wrote:
Only consciousness is real, for only the real cannot be threatened.
What do you mean by "threatened"?
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65317 Nov 29, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
And from non-life. Otherwise, the first living thing wouldn't have existed.
<quoted text>
The Earth was once incapable of supporting life.
Later, the Earth was capable of supporting life and in fact did support life.
Therefore, life on Earth came from non-life.
And it was all the result of MAGIC! Science falls embarrassingly short of proving its theories about the origin of life as Christianity always has in an attempt to prove that its god created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh. Both are fairy tales.

It stands to reason that if life springs from non-life, science should be able to replicate this notion with Frankenstonian experiments. It should be able to produce a fully conscious being by combining a few basic elements but alas, it has failed dismally.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65318 Nov 29, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Science does not claim "truth". Religion does.
<quoted text>
What do you mean by "threatened"?
You wouldn't respond negatively when challenged if you thought science's "theories" could stand on their own merit. That's what I mean by threatened.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65319 Nov 29, 2012
The Earth was once incapable of supporting life.
Later, the Earth was capable of supporting life and in fact did support life.
Therefore, life on Earth came from non-life.
postscript wrote:
And it was all the result of MAGIC!
No, it was the result of natural chemical processes. No "magic" required.
postscript wrote:
Science falls embarrassingly short of proving its theories...
Science is not about "proof". "Proof" is the province of mathematics and logic.

Science is about providing *evidence* that supports its theories.

As for where current scientific research stands regarding the origin of life, this is a good summary:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/what-...
postscript wrote:
It stands to reason that if life springs from non-life, science should be able to replicate this notion with Frankenstonian experiments.
Why? You're describing an event that may have taken nearly a *billion* years to happen in the natural, sterile environment. Science has not been doing research in this area for very long, by comparison.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65320 Nov 29, 2012
What do you mean by "threatened"?
postscript wrote:
You wouldn't respond negatively when challenged if you thought science's "theories" could stand on their own merit. That's what I mean by threatened.
Science's theories *do* stand on their own merit, as they are supported by evidence.

So what do you mean by "responding negatively"? Refuting your baseless claims?

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65321 Nov 29, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
And from non-life. Otherwise, the first living thing wouldn't have existed.
<quoted text>
The Earth was once incapable of supporting life.
Later, the Earth was capable of supporting life and in fact did support life.
Therefore, life on Earth came from non-life.
Aargh, blargh....blah, blah, blah...

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc...

You know better than to use that argument. That's not proof.

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65322 Nov 29, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
That's like claiming that a photographic image in a newspaper exists "inside" each dot making up the newsprint.
Thoughts exist as *patterns* of neuronic activity. So they are not "smaller" than atoms (quite the contrary, since neuronic patterns involve countless atoms).
It is not and you know it. Thoughts travel through the brain, affecting it, but the thoughts themselves are not neurons, nor even atoms.

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65323 Nov 29, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, wow, you don't understand what fertility is, do you?
Most hermaphrodites are infertile, but not all. Some are fertile enough to pass on their condition to the next generation who likely *would* be born infertile.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65324 Nov 29, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Science is not about "proof". "Proof" is the province of mathematics and logic.
Both fail to support the silly notion that life springs from dead matter. I invite you to present information proving me wrong.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Science is about providing *evidence* that supports its theories.
And yet, science has not produced a single shred of evidence to support the fairy tale that life comes from non-life, as you call it.

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
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 min Eagle 12 227,602
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 32 min MUQ1 22,250
Stump a theist with 2 questions 52 min TheHeadlines 64
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 1 hr Jaimie 78
An atheist returns to Christ (Jan '09) 2 hr Patrick n Angela 4,105
Our world came from nothing? 2 hr Patrick n Angela 473
Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns 3 hr yup 105
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••