Atheists on the march in America

Atheists on the march in America

There are 70650 comments on the TurkishPress.com story from Aug 26, 2009, titled Atheists on the march in America. In it, TurkishPress.com reports that:

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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TurkishPress.com.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#65662 Dec 8, 2012
Quite right, the proof for a historical Jesus of Nazareth is so light it's comical. The passage in Josephus is a forgery and Tacitus is even later and is merely commenting on Christians.

But for fun let's accept these two's brief mentions of Jesus and forget the obvious forgeries.

They both mention Hercules several times. So if this is the proof Christholes want to wave in everyone's faces they must also accept Hercules and Zeus exist as well.

Hell even famous christian hero and apologetic Justin martyr mentions Hercules, Zeus, Mithra, amongst other deities.

Ok Christians who wants to be the first to admit Hercules was a real person?:)
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't even prove that Jesus existed.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65663 Dec 8, 2012
digitaldan wrote:
<quoted text>
Adaptive mutation is evolutionary apologetics.
Once again, there is no proof that small scale changes within a species produce the massive changes necessary to form entirely new creatures, which the theory of evolution requires and which is why there are large gaps in the fossil record.
Where did I mention anything about "adaptive mutation?" Is that another of your creatard made up concepts?

I pointing to things we saw evolve, witnessed evolve, and you jump back to the "gaps in the fossil record" canard. You are a complete idiot or so dishonest you care more about being right than discussion.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65664 Dec 8, 2012
digitaldan wrote:
<quoted text>
None of which has anything to do with explaining the origin of man, or the meaning of life.
Actually, it does.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#65665 Dec 8, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did I mention anything about "adaptive mutation?" Is that another of your creatard made up concepts?
I pointing to things we saw evolve, witnessed evolve, and you jump back to the "gaps in the fossil record" canard. You are a complete idiot or so dishonest you care more about being right than discussion.
Adaptations and mutations within a species in not evolutuion in the traditional Darwinian sense. None of the species you listed evolved into entirely new species. The only one who is confused about this issue is you.

The fruit fly remains a fruit fly to this day despite experimentation.

"Out of 400 mutations that have been provided by Drosophila melanogaster, there is not one that can be called a new species. It does not seem, therefore, that the central problem of evolution can be solved by mutations."*Maurice Caullery, Genetics and Heredity (1964), p. 119.

By inducing mutations, scientists have merely produced weaker offspring.

"The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity." -Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126.

"Richard Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [insignificant] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species." -Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 33.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#65666 Dec 8, 2012
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't even prove that Jesus existed.
You are pathetically clueless.

Christ was a common name, so when I say there was a man named Christ involved in the events of those days, I do not mean to say that he was the biblical Christ. His life was one of those lives that were finally used to compose the composite image of the biblical Christ.

The world of events springs from the world of ideas. The mass psyche was seeking a change, an impetus, a new organization. The idea of a redeemer was hardly new, but ancient in many traditions. That part of the world was filled with would-be messiahs, self proclaimed prophets, and so forth, and in those terms it was only a matter of time before man's spiritual and psychic desires played out in a physical event.

There is nothing that happened in those times that is not happening now however. We have numberless gurus, great psychics, and people who seemingly perform miracles (and some have). So there were in those days some rather disconnected events that served as a focus point for psychic activity.

People wanted to believe, and their belief changed the course of history. It doesn't matter that the events as described in the Bible never happened, the belief happened. And the belief was man's response to intuitional spiritual knowledge.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65667 Dec 8, 2012
digitaldan wrote:
<quoted text>
Adaptations and mutations within a species in not evolutuion in the traditional Darwinian sense. None of the species you listed evolved into entirely new species. The only one who is confused about this issue is you.
The fruit fly remains a fruit fly to this day despite experimentation.
"Out of 400 mutations that have been provided by Drosophila melanogaster, there is not one that can be called a new species. It does not seem, therefore, that the central problem of evolution can be solved by mutations."*Maurice Caullery, Genetics and Heredity (1964), p. 119.
By inducing mutations, scientists have merely produced weaker offspring.
"The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity." -Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126.
"Richard Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [insignificant] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species." -Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 33.
http://cdnimg.visualizeus.com/thumbs/dc/2e/ar...
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17o9k1jy58big...

If those look the same to you, you need your eyes examined.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#65668 Dec 8, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
http://cdnimg.visualizeus.com/thumbs/dc/2e/ar...
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17o9k1jy58big...
If those look the same to you, you need your eyes examined.
The fact that your banana photos don't look alike doesn't mean they are not of the same species. An Araucana and a California Grey don't look alike either but they are both chickens.

Are you just naturally dense, or do you have to work at it?

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#65669 Dec 8, 2012
digitaldan wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that your banana photos don't look alike doesn't mean they are not of the same species. An Araucana and a California Grey don't look alike either but they are both chickens.
Are you just naturally dense, or do you have to work at it?
Seriously, how can an adult living in the 21st Century be so stupid they believe that creation myth!?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65670 Dec 8, 2012
digitaldan wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that your banana photos don't look alike doesn't mean they are not of the same species. An Araucana and a California Grey don't look alike either but they are both chickens.
Are you just naturally dense, or do you have to work at it?
Then how do you explain how they changed?

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#65671 Dec 8, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Then how do you explain how they changed?
They didn't. There are over 1,000 different types of bananas in the world. Your photos simply illustrated a banana with seeds and one without, the variety generally sold in grocery stores.

“I'm out hunting”

Since: Jan 10

For your mind and soul

#65672 Dec 8, 2012
digitaldan wrote:
<quoted text>
You are pathetically clueless.
Christ was a common name, so when I say there was a man named Christ involved in the events of those days, I do not mean to say that he was the biblical Christ. His life was one of those lives that were finally used to compose the composite image of the biblical Christ.
The world of events springs from the world of ideas. The mass psyche was seeking a change, an impetus, a new organization. The idea of a redeemer was hardly new, but ancient in many traditions. That part of the world was filled with would-be messiahs, self proclaimed prophets, and so forth, and in those terms it was only a matter of time before man's spiritual and psychic desires played out in a physical event.
There is nothing that happened in those times that is not happening now however. We have numberless gurus, great psychics, and people who seemingly perform miracles (and some have). So there were in those days some rather disconnected events that served as a focus point for psychic activity.
People wanted to believe, and their belief changed the course of history. It doesn't matter that the events as described in the Bible never happened, the belief happened. And the belief was man's response to intuitional spiritual knowledge.
I am not sure how to respond to this jibberish, except to say that it is pure crap. It matters not how many gurus and Jesuses there were, they were all false prophets, since prophets do not exist.
John

United States

#65673 Dec 9, 2012
You loons sure spend a lot of time fighting a God you don't believe in. What do you believe by the way? Make sure you bring some evidence for your nothing.

Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.
Thinking

UK

#65674 Dec 9, 2012
I believe you're a cu*t.
John wrote:
You loons sure spend a lot of time fighting a God you don't believe in. What do you believe by the way? Make sure you bring some evidence for your nothing.
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65675 Dec 9, 2012
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text> I am not sure how to respond to this jibberish, except to say that it is pure crap. It matters not how many gurus and Jesuses there were, they were all false prophets, since prophets do not exist.
Is this something you know because you have conclusive evidence, or something that inadvertently blew out your bigoted arse hole?

The science you laud as the only rational approach to reality originated in the Christian West, ya numbskull. Science's 17th century founders, Francis Bacon, René Descartes, Robert Boyle, and Isaac Newton held deep religious convictions. Crack a book once in awhile and stop embarrassing yourself.
Thinking

UK

#65676 Dec 9, 2012
Newton was also an alchemist. We've thrown away that rubbish, his religious convictions and kept the bits of Newton's work that, for want of a better word, actually work.
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Is this something you know because you have conclusive evidence, or something that inadvertently blew out your bigoted arse hole?
The science you laud as the only rational approach to reality originated in the Christian West, ya numbskull. Science's 17th century founders, Francis Bacon, René Descartes, Robert Boyle, and Isaac Newton held deep religious convictions. Crack a book once in awhile and stop embarrassing yourself.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65677 Dec 9, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Newton was also an alchemist. We've thrown away that rubbish, his religious convictions and kept the bits of Newton's work that, for want of a better word, actually work.
<quoted text>
You may as well toss the theory of evolution while you are cleaning science's house because it is likewise garbage.

You clueless atheists have boxed yourselves in. Science isn't omnipotent and since you are the first to admit that all the evidence isn't in yet, you can never claim your assertions are true. The minute your defense is challenged, it begins to unravel like a cheap sweater.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65678 Dec 9, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
You may as well toss the theory of evolution while you are cleaning science's house because it is likewise garbage.
Nope. The evidence says otherwise:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
postscriptt wrote:
Science isn't omnipotent
Nobody here claimed that it was.
postscriptt wrote:
and since you are the first to admit that all the evidence isn't in yet...
There is no such thing as "all the evidence being in". New evidence will always be discovered.
postscriptt wrote:
...you can never claim your assertions are true.
Science doesn't claim "truth". Religion does. That's an important difference.

Science claims only that its fact and theories are supported by the currently available evidence.
postscriptt wrote:
The minute your defense is challenged, it begins to unravel like a cheap sweater.
So far, you haven't successfully challenged the modern evolutionary synthesis. When do you plan to begin?

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#65679 Dec 9, 2012
Well we have moved on past the universe was created by an ancient invisible sky wizard.

Do catch up half wit.
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
You may as well toss the theory of evolution while you are cleaning science's house because it is likewise garbage.
You clueless atheists have boxed yourselves in. Science isn't omnipotent and since you are the first to admit that all the evidence isn't in yet, you can never claim your assertions are true. The minute your defense is challenged, it begins to unravel like a cheap sweater.
Thinking

UK

#65680 Dec 9, 2012
Why?
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
You may as well toss the theory of evolution while you are cleaning science's house because it is likewise garbage.
You clueless atheists have boxed yourselves in. Science isn't omnipotent and since you are the first to admit that all the evidence isn't in yet, you can never claim your assertions are true. The minute your defense is challenged, it begins to unravel like a cheap sweater.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65681 Dec 9, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
So far, you haven't successfully challenged the modern evolutionary synthesis. When do you plan to begin?
How about starting with Darwin hinself who said, "When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory."

Or Dr. Jonathan Wells who is not some anti-religious atheistic zealot like yourself but a qualified scientist, a post-doctoral biologist in the Department of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California at Berkley. He says,‘"the Darwinian paradigm is in serious trouble, of the kind that matters most in science. It doesn’t fit the evidence."

Or Biochemist Michael J. Denton who wrote: "It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the invertebrate fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient Paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today."

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 Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 min Eagle 12 243,502
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr Eagle 12 9,496
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 8 hr TC_Tia 14,656
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 hr MikeF 19,806
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) Sun thetruth 6,221
News Atheism must be about more than just not believ... Jul 4 Amused 2
Should atheists have the burden of proof? Jul 4 thetruth 38
More from around the web