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
John

Glencoe, MO

#65347 Nov 30, 2012
Drew your nothing is as illogical and silly as it was years ago. This is your forum. Are you ready to compare the evidences of your nothing vs my something?

Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe. True science that is repeatable and observable.
John

Glencoe, MO

#65348 Nov 30, 2012
Another day of ineptitude from the antitheists.*Note to lurkers* They have gone almost three years without giving one accountable position they are willing to debate. Three years without an example of evidence that meets their criteria for evidence. These are angry agenda driven folks that don't give a damn about the evidence.
If you want to subject yourself to this farce by all means see for yourself. Antitheists you could also just cut and paste one of the 62,720 posts to show otherwise.
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe. True science that is repeatable and observable.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#65349 Nov 30, 2012
"Recent news has shown that the majority of studies geared towards cancer research are inaccurate and fraudulent by nature. Findings published in the journal Nature show that 88% of major studies on cancer that have been published in reputable journals over the years can not be reproduced to show their accuracy. This means that the research findings published are flat out false.

Author of the review and former head of cancer research at Amgen C. Glenn Begley was unable to replicate the results of 47 of the 53 studies he examined. This suggests that researchers are fabricating their findings simply to create the illusion of positive findings instead of publishing their actual results. This ensures the continuation of their steady stream of funding and grants."

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2012/04/2...

So much for peer review and science's noble search for the truth!

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#65350 Nov 30, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>If science doesn't claim truth then what does it claim.. according to you?
Confidence in direct proportion to the independently verifiable evidence available which supports a given scientific position.

Any given scientific position cannot be tested under every circumstance, so scientists never assume that ANY scientific position is infallible (ref: inductive reasoning). A scientific position is accepted as such only for as long as it provides independently verifiable predictive results and is supported by independently verifiable evidence.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#65351 Nov 30, 2012
Fundies often set up a sort of "Pascal's Wager" when it comes to the origin of the universe. And like the real Pascal's Wager, it sets up a false dichotomy. Either you know exactly how the universe was created via science and can answer any and all questions about it, or the buy-bull's Bronze Age creation myth must be literally true. I admit I don't know exactly how life, the universe and everything began. But I do know the creation story is Genesis is absurd. That story has plants growing before there is a sun. That is impossible. It has a woman being created with a rib from a man, that is impossible, because their DNA would be the same, and our gender is determined by our DNA.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#65352 Nov 30, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Confidence in direct proportion to the independently verifiable evidence available which supports a given scientific position.
Any given scientific position cannot be tested under every circumstance, so scientists never assume that ANY scientific position is infallible (ref: inductive reasoning). A scientific position is accepted as such only for as long as it provides independently verifiable predictive results and is supported by independently verifiable evidence.
Which in no way implies that just because science cannot detect something, that it cannot exist.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65353 Nov 30, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
...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)|
Goal post fallacy, dismissed.

“The Intrepid”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65354 Nov 30, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
That's why your god isn't real. So you do understand.
I didn't notice God in my posts. BTW, why are you so afraid of something that you believe is not real? Why is it all you ever *talk* about?

“The Intrepid”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65355 Nov 30, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
F off you neocon creationist pig liar.
You are an embarrassment to intelligent atheists everywhere.
drink The hive

New York, NY

#65356 Nov 30, 2012
How Many Tentacles Do U Have In These Dream'?- Might Help Us 2 Narrow The Planet Down...

http://comps.fotosearch.com/bigcomps/CSP/CSP7...

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#65357 Nov 30, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Confidence in direct proportion to the independently verifiable evidence available which supports a given scientific position.
Any given scientific position cannot be tested under every circumstance, so scientists never assume that ANY scientific position is infallible (ref: inductive reasoning). A scientific position is accepted as such only for as long as it provides independently verifiable predictive results and is supported by independently verifiable evidence.
Okeedoke . I didnt realize that you were Drew

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#65358 Dec 1, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't notice God in my posts. BTW, why are you so afraid of something that you believe is not real? Why is it all you ever *talk* about?
Why are you so afraid to prove the imaginary bullsh*t you believe in?

Why do you have to lie about atheists and scientists in order to further your cult?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#65359 Dec 1, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>You are an embarrassment to intelligent atheists everywhere.
Says the idiot who failed to convince anyone that the earth is 6000 years old or the jesus rode on the backs of dinosaurs.

I mean seriously, you deny the existence of fossils, why do you even come to this forum you stupid tw*t?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#65360 Dec 1, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Okeedoke . I didnt realize that you were Drew
Creationist posing as an agnostic atheist with tag team member nanoanomaly.

Both here to sideline and derail any conversations that become critical of creationism...while claiming to be agnostic...

you're so dishonest it makes me laugh in pity.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#65361 Dec 1, 2012
Wrathbone wrote:
<quoted text>
Which in no way implies that just because science cannot detect something, that it cannot exist.
You don't need to know everything in order to know something. And the something we know thanks to science is that there's no such thing as the f*cking imaginary god that humans have been proven to have lied about since science came along and kicked the liars a$$es with evidence and experimentation.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65362 Dec 1, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't need to know everything in order to know something. And the something we know thanks to science is that there's no such thing as the f*cking imaginary god that humans have been proven to have lied about since science came along and kicked the liars a$$es with evidence and experimentation.
That's what YOU imagine - not what science knows.

To the atheist, this life is all there is. That's why they are afraid of dying because it means total annihilation. For the religious, living has a purpose and dying is not an end. For the atheist, it's fade to black. Everything they accomplish in life of personal value is of no consequence. At death there will be nothing - as if their living never happened. For all life is worth to the atheist, he may as well live it as a toadstool.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65363 Dec 1, 2012
Science does not claim "truth". Religion does.
Buck Crick wrote:
...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"
So you've confused journalism with science?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65364 Dec 1, 2012
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.
Buck Crick wrote:
You are confused.
The requirement for a theory to be "falsifiable" does not require that it can be "falsified".
On the contrary, the word "falsifiable" means "can be falsified".
Buck Crick wrote:
Falsifiability is simply being susceptible to being proven false if it is, in fact, false.
How can something be "susceptible to being proven false" if it is "truth"?

Clearly, the fact that science does not accept anything as a scientific theory unless it is falsifiable means that science does not claim any of its theories as "truth".

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65365 Dec 1, 2012
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.
nanoanomaly wrote:
What error? The one where science DOESN'T rely on "empirical evidence"?
Your error when you provided a link that didn't even have the word "truth" in it, when you attempted (and failed) to refute the point that science doesn't claim "truth".
nanoanomaly wrote:
You're still being boorish.
Is "boorish" your new childish insult-du-jour to mean "Drew refuted nano again"?
nanoanomaly wrote:
You know why I posted the empirical evidence link.
Nope, since it still doesn't support any claim of yours that science claims "truth" in its facts or theories.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65366 Dec 1, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
If a theory is testable/falsifiable/provable with repeatedly verified results then it is true/truth.
No, it isn't.

As Stephen J. Gould said (using evolution and gravity as examples): "Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

If gravity is "truth", then why would Gould point out that it is a "possibility" that apples could rise?

Do you know what the word "provisional" means in Gould's phrase "provisional consent"? Guess why he uses 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
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 18 min _Bad Company 141
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 34 min woodtick57 2,410
Islam is the Enemy (Sep '12) 40 min thetruth 34
God' existence 42 min thetruth 67
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 54 min thetruth 142
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 58 min thetruth 232,879
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 16 hr _Bad Company 23,198
More from around the web