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.

postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65682 Dec 9, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Well we have moved on past the universe was created by an ancient invisible sky wizard.
<quoted text>
From a sky god to a magical realm where dead matter mysteriously comes to life. A quantum leap indeed! LOL!
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65683 Dec 9, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Why?
<quoted text>
Because no matter how you spin it, there is nothing virtuous or socially redeeming in viewing oneself as a disposable survival machine.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65684 Dec 9, 2012
So far, you haven't successfully challenged the modern evolutionary synthesis. When do you plan to begin?
postscriptt wrote:
How about starting with Darwin hinself
Are you going to challenge the modern evolutionary synthesis, or just take potshots at Darwin, who died decades before the synthesis was created?
postscriptt wrote:
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."
That particular instance of quote mining is already addressed here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/p...
postscriptt wrote:
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."
That's his personal opinion. So what? Are you going to provide any actual *evidence* that refutes evolution, or just quote opinions?
postscriptt wrote:
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."
Already addressed here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.h...
Thinking

UK

#65685 Dec 9, 2012
We should be judged by our actions, not belief in myths.
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Because no matter how you spin it, there is nothing virtuous or socially redeeming in viewing oneself as a disposable survival machine.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65686 Dec 9, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
So far, you haven't successfully challenged the modern evolutionary synthesis. When do you plan to begin?
<quoted text>
Are you going to challenge the modern evolutionary synthesis, or just take potshots at Darwin, who died decades before the synthesis was created?
<quoted text>
That particular instance of quote mining is already addressed here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/p...
<quoted text>
That's his personal opinion. So what? Are you going to provide any actual *evidence* that refutes evolution, or just quote opinions?
<quoted text>
Already addressed here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.h...
Talkorgins again? Is that your ace in hole? Science is 99% opinion and 1% fact.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65687 Dec 9, 2012
Thinking wrote:
We should be judged by our actions, not belief in myths.
<quoted text>
Since you believe you came from nothing, you're going nowhere ao why worry about judgements?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65688 Dec 9, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
Talkorgins again? Is that your ace in hole?
If you're going to keep bringing up "problems" that have already been refuted by talkorigins, then I'm going to keep pointing out where in talkorigins your "problems" have already been refuted.

Got anything that *hasn't* been refuted yet?
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65689 Dec 9, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
If you're going to keep bringing up "problems" that have already been refuted by talkorigins, then I'm going to keep pointing out where in talkorigins your "problems" have already been refuted.
Got anything that *hasn't* been refuted yet?
Do you? It's all been hashed and rehashed a gazillion times over. The fact remains, religion can't prove God exists and science can't prove God doesn't exist. It's an endless circular argument - round and round it goes proving nothing. Using a raft of fallacious arguments based on the out-dated pseudo science of talkorigins doesn't make your assertions any more plausibe, or even intelligent for that matter.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65690 Dec 9, 2012
Got anything that *hasn't* been refuted yet?
postscriptt wrote:
Do you?
I'm not the one here claiming that the theory of evolution has problems. If you want make such a claim, then support your claim with evidence.
postscriptt wrote:
The fact remains, religion can't prove God exists and science can't prove God doesn't exist.
Science has no burden of proof in that matter. Religion does. If you're going to claim that something exists, then provide some evidence to support the claim.

Otherwise, the rational position is to reject the claim.
postscriptt wrote:
Using a raft of fallacious arguments based on the out-dated pseudo science of talkorigins...
Funny how you have failed to indicate what is "outdated" or "pseudo science" among the content from talkorigins presented to you.

Why is that?
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65691 Dec 9, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
.......
Content deleted due to redundancy.
Thinking

UK

#65692 Dec 9, 2012
Because unlike many religious people such as Hitler and his millions of christian followers, I strongly believe in doing the right thing now.

How does being "forgiven" by god for a shitty but eventually repentant-at-the-11th-hour life ever undo the hurt caused to others?
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you believe you came from nothing, you're going nowhere ao why worry about judgements?
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65693 Dec 9, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Because unlike many religious people such as Hitler and his millions of christian followers, I strongly believe in doing the right thing now.
<quoted text>
Two World Wars and the purges of Stalin and Mao can hardly be attributed to religion. Hitler did his evil in the name of an insane and unscientific eugenics theory. But then how would atheists who profess no moral guide know what's right?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65694 Dec 9, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Content deleted due to redundancy.
In other words, you're afraid to address it. Yeah, we get that.
Thinking

UK

#65695 Dec 9, 2012
Unscientific he may have been but Hitler was a catholic leading a majority protestant Germany.

He probably thought he could murder because he would be forgiven by your shitty god myth.
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Two World Wars and the purges of Stalin and Mao can hardly be attributed to religion. Hitler did his evil in the name of an insane and unscientific eugenics theory. But then how would atheists who profess no moral guide know what's right?
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65696 Dec 9, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Unscientific he may have been but Hitler was a catholic leading a majority protestant Germany.
He probably thought he could murder because he would be forgiven by your shitty god myth.
<quoted text>
And you? What's your moral guide, science?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65697 Dec 9, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
And you? What's your moral guide, science?
Compassion. There are two aspects of morality, as I see it: thinking and caring. As the quote goes, knowledge without compassion is inhuman and compassion without knowledge is ineffective. So science does inform my morality, but there is no science of morality. Morality comes from the simple fact that we are all social animals and that compassion is an inherent part of our psychologies.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65698 Dec 9, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Compassion. There are two aspects of morality, as I see it: thinking and caring. As the quote goes, knowledge without compassion is inhuman and compassion without knowledge is ineffective. So science does inform my morality, but there is no science of morality. Morality comes from the simple fact that we are all social animals and that compassion is an inherent part of our psychologies.
Under science's morality, anything goes if it furthers man's programmed agenda to control and dominate through its survival of the fittest theory. And where has this idea led us? Humans have run rampant across the face of this planet with little respect for it or other kinds of life precisely because they believe they have a scientific mandate to use the earth as they see fit. Is this the science that informs your morality?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65699 Dec 9, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Under science's morality, anything goes if it furthers man's programmed agenda to control and dominate through its survival of the fittest theory. And where has this idea led us? Humans have run rampant across the face of this planet with little respect for it or other kinds of life precisely because they believe they have a scientific mandate to use the earth as they see fit. Is this the science that informs your morality?
And that is why *compassion* is also required: not just knowledge. As I said.

I would also point out that it is the Biblical injunction to use the earth as we see fit that has motivated most of the wrongs you pointed out. Science only gives us knowledge. It does not say how we should *use* that knowledge.
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#65700 Dec 9, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And that is why *compassion* is also required: not just knowledge. As I said.
I would also point out that it is the Biblical injunction to use the earth as we see fit that has motivated most of the wrongs you pointed out. Science only gives us knowledge. It does not say how we should *use* that knowledge.
Exactly. Our out-of-control population expansion and our subjugation of the rest of the animal kingdom is based squarely on the religiously propagated myth that the world was created for man and it's man's duty to conquer and rule it.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65701 Dec 9, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And that is why *compassion* is also required: not just knowledge. As I said.
I would also point out that it is the Biblical injunction to use the earth as we see fit that has motivated most of the wrongs you pointed out. Science only gives us knowledge. It does not say how we should *use* that knowledge.
If science is not responsible for compassion, where does it come from?

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) 5 min dollarsbill 247,758
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 27 min thetruth 2,358
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 29 min thetruth 47,900
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 30 min thetruth 12,905
News As an atheist, how do I maintain my relationshi... 36 min Thinking 60
News Atheism, the Bible and sexual orientation 59 min Thinking 30
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) Wed macumazahn 20,900
More from around the web