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
62,641 - 62,660 of 70,963 Comments Last updated 12 hrs ago
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65325
Nov 29, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
What do you mean by "threatened"?
<quoted text>
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?
Refute or deny?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65326
Nov 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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.
nanoanomaly wrote:
Aargh, blargh....blah, blah, blah...
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
If life did not come from non-life, then where did it come from? Magic?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65327
Nov 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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).
nanoanomaly wrote:
It is not and you know it.
What is "it"?
nanoanomaly wrote:
Thoughts travel through the brain
No,*signals* travel through the brain. Thoughts include patterns of signals. But the thoughts themselves don't "travel".

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65328
Nov 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

postscript wrote:
Both fail to support the silly notion that life springs from dead matter.
Of course life springs from dead matter. The individual molecules in your body are not alive. They are "dead matter". But you are alive. Therefore, your life springs from dead matter.
postscript wrote:
And yet, science has not produced a single shred of evidence to support the fairy tale that life comes from non-life
On the contrary, it has:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/what-...

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65329
Nov 29, 2012
 
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?
postscript wrote:
Refute or deny?
Both, since a refutation is a type of denial.

Now, I ask you again, since you avoided my question the first time: What do you mean by "responding negatively"? Refuting your baseless claims?

“talk to the kitteh”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65330
Nov 29, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Science does not claim "truth".....
No?

" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical" ;

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65331
Nov 29, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Science does not claim "truth"
nanoanomaly wrote:
The word "science" didn't appear in that article.

Apparently you missed that.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65332
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.
<quoted text>
If life did not come from non-life, then where did it come from? Magic?
Consciousness. Everything that is was first thought.

“talk to the kitteh”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65333
Nov 29, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
Science does not claim "truth"
<quoted text>
The word "science" didn't appear in that article.
Apparently you missed that.
No?

" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_metho... ;

Don't be such a boor, Drew.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65334
Nov 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

If life did not come from non-life, then where did it come from? Magic?
postscript wrote:
Consciousness. Everything that is was first thought.
What is the evidence that non-living matter is conscious?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65335
Nov 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

The word "science" didn't appear in that article. Apparently you missed that.
nanoanomaly wrote:
No?
No, it didn't. Funny how you failed to admit your error, eh?

Now, since a scientific theory must be falsifiable in order to be considered science (as your second link pointed out in the discussion about Popper), then tell us how science can claim "truth".

This should prove interesting.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65336
Nov 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Science does not claim "truth". Religion does.
...How brilliant.

November 11, 2012 9:23 AM

"The Scientific Truth About Climate Change"
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-57548138...

"Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming"

[Paperback]
Naomi Oreskes (Author), Erik M. M. Conway (Author)
4.2 out of 5 stars See all reviews (99 customer reviews)|

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65337
Nov 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Drew Smith wrote:
The word "science" didn't appear in that article. Apparently you missed that.
<quoted text>
No, it didn't. Funny how you failed to admit your error, eh?
Now, since a scientific theory must be falsifiable in order to be considered science (as your second link pointed out in the discussion about Popper), then tell us how science can claim "truth".
This should prove interesting.
You are confused.

The requirement for a theory to be "falsifiable" does not require that it can be "falsified". Falsifiability is simply being susceptible to being proven false if it is, in fact, false. To say that a theory is falsifiable is NOT in conflict with using it as a claim to truth.

Hope this helps you.

“talk to the kitteh”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65338
Nov 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Drew Smith wrote:
The word "science" didn't appear in that article. Apparently you missed that.
<quoted text>
No, it didn't. Funny how you failed to admit your error, eh?
Now, since a scientific theory must be falsifiable in order to be considered science (as your second link pointed out in the discussion about Popper), then tell us how science can claim "truth".
This should prove interesting.
What error? The one where science DOESN'T rely on "empirical evidence"? You're still being boorish. You know why I posted the empirical evidence link. This is what you do instead of providing proof? Over and over again? Really? You are pathetic, Drew.

“talk to the kitteh”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65339
Nov 29, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
The word "science" didn't appear in that article. Apparently you missed that.
<quoted text>
No, it didn't. Funny how you failed to admit your error, eh?
Now, since a scientific theory must be falsifiable in order to be considered science (as your second link pointed out in the discussion about Popper), then tell us how science can claim "truth".
This should prove interesting.
If a theory is testable/falsifiable/provable with repeatedly verified results then it is true/truth. If the results can't be repeated then it is not truth/real. Reality is truth.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65340
Nov 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Whoosh.
right over yer head.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65341
Nov 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Drew Smith wrote:
Science does not claim "truth"
<quoted text>
The word "science" didn't appear in that article.
Apparently you missed that.
If science doesn't claim truth then what does it claim.. according to you?

“talk to the kitteh”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65342
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.
As usual,

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/11/...

...I see "if, might, could, and presumably" describing someone's currently, untested mathematical model describing how they think life "may" have come from nonliving matter. It lacks snap, crackle and pop. Oh yeah, and fizz.
xD

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65343
Nov 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are confused.
The requirement for a theory to be "falsifiable" does not require that it can be "falsified". Falsifiability is simply being susceptible to being proven false if it is, in fact, false. To say that a theory is falsifiable is NOT in conflict with using it as a claim to truth.
Hope this helps you.
F off you neocon creationist pig liar.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

8 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 20 min Buck Crick 224,647
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 41 min Magyar 101 21,407
Talking some sense into you people... 42 min CunningLinguist 28
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 54 min ChristineM 845
Our world came from nothing? 2 hr CunningLinguist 260
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 2 hr CunningLinguist 30
Atheists, give up your lost religion and seek t... (Nov '13) 11 hr CunningLinguist 229
•••
•••