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 (Page 3,132)

Showing posts 62,621 - 62,640 of70,959
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“talk to the kitteh”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65298
Nov 27, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect assumption. Plants react to harm by attempting to heal themselves. That is one of the many functions of living things. That does not imply 'awareness', but simply the ability to respond to events. No consciousness required; only 'reflexes' of a sort.
<quoted text>
Plants are alive. Higher plants have sophisticated methods of defense and the ability to heal and to respond to the chemical signals of other plants.
Once again, that is not the same as consciousness. There is no more self-awareness here than there is in the mammalian immune system.
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.

“talk to the kitteh”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65300
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65303
Nov 28, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65304
Nov 28, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65305
Nov 28, 2012
 
test

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65306
Nov 28, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65307
Nov 28, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65308
Nov 29, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65309
Nov 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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?

“talk to the kitteh”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“talk to the kitteh”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“talk to the kitteh”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 62,621 - 62,640 of70,959
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

6 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 41 min CunningLinguist 223,061
Why do i deserve no respect. 5 hr Patrick 6
Our world came from nothing? 9 hr Igor Trip 24
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 18 hr Mikko 21,328
Introducing The Universal Religion Wed NightSerf 718
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Wed ChristineM 802
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) Wed Buck Crick 324
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••