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

#65763 Dec 10, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this”~ Albert Einstein
“Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history.””~ Albert Einstein
“A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”~ Albert Einstein
There are different ways to express a belief in a greater reality. Einstein was a pantheist, or someone who believes that God is creation. I happen to share that belief.

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." - Albert Einstein

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65764 Dec 10, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
Not legally in the US and most civilized countries as well. Some of what's on that list you posted is really just studying, not actual testing of chemicals on them.

Anyhow, I need to order a new batch of death row inmates, I'll be back in a bit.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65765 Dec 10, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
There are different ways to express a belief in a greater reality. Einstein was a pantheist, or someone who believes that God is creation. I happen to share that belief.
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." - Albert Einstein
While that's all fine and dandy, and really it's actually something of a lie you are telling since you clearly don't even know scientific information and often I see you post religious nonsense as a response, what order?

Einstein couldn't understand quantum physics because it opposes this whole "order" concept, things only appear solid, ordered, and coherent. Get down to the atomic level and beyond, you lose all sense of direction, all sense. He denied quantum physics, yet today we use it a lot, and it helps us advance a lot. There is no order, there is merely expected. We know how larger things react, and they tend to do as expected, thus why we have developed laws for that behavior, but on the atomic or subatomic level we are still barely to comprehend how these small particles behave and why they behave that way, they are, by definition, chaos.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65766 Dec 10, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
While that's all fine and dandy, and really it's actually something of a lie you are telling since you clearly don't even know scientific information and often I see you post religious nonsense as a response, what order?
Einstein couldn't understand quantum physics because it opposes this whole "order" concept, things only appear solid, ordered, and coherent. Get down to the atomic level and beyond, you lose all sense of direction, all sense. He denied quantum physics, yet today we use it a lot, and it helps us advance a lot. There is no order, there is merely expected. We know how larger things react, and they tend to do as expected, thus why we have developed laws for that behavior, but on the atomic or subatomic level we are still barely to comprehend how these small particles behave and why they behave that way, they are, by definition, chaos.
You need not be scientific to use your intuition. You need not be a slave to dialectics to understand the nature of reality. Until you have put in an appreciable amount of time studying (not googling) religions and philosophies, your opinions on the subject will always resemble something you haphazardly copied and pasted.

Einstein was a "mental physicist" who developed the ability to merge his consciousness with the consciousness of other forms. He understood far more than he could actually articulate in a way that his lessor informed colleagues could comprehend. His understanding of the universe and theirs were light years apart, in other words.

Science's idea of development and growth implies a single chronological march towards an end,(whether perfection of extinction), which is why it's difficult for scientist's to grasp the kind of order that actually pervades. An end presupposes that point beyond which development is impossible, and creativity stops. Ultimately a completed or finished God, or All That Is, would end up smothering its creation. For there would be an order in which only predestination could rule, each part automatically following some predetermined fate. What science calls chaos is freedom. The freedom of creativity that is characteristic of God and that guarantees its infinite becoming.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65767 Dec 10, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
You need not be scientific to use your intuition. You need not be a slave to dialectics to understand the nature of reality. Until you have put in an appreciable amount of time studying (not googling) religions and philosophies, your opinions on the subject will always resemble something you haphazardly copied and pasted.
Einstein was a "mental physicist" who developed the ability to merge his consciousness with the consciousness of other forms. He understood far more than he could actually articulate in a way that his lessor informed colleagues could comprehend. His understanding of the universe and theirs were light years apart, in other words.
Science's idea of development and growth implies a single chronological march towards an end,(whether perfection of extinction), which is why it's difficult for scientist's to grasp the kind of order that actually pervades. An end presupposes that point beyond which development is impossible, and creativity stops. Ultimately a completed or finished God, or All That Is, would end up smothering its creation. For there would be an order in which only predestination could rule, each part automatically following some predetermined fate. What science calls chaos is freedom. The freedom of creativity that is characteristic of God and that guarantees its infinite becoming.
Intuition, in other words "common sense," tells you that there are monsters in the shadows. It's an instinctual response that was evolved as a means to protect us from the actual monsters there, like lions, tigers, etc. The instinct is outdated, we no longer need it as most shadows contain nothing but inane objects now. But the instinct leads to confirmation bias, confirmation bias leads to inaccurate results, and will make you inherently wrong more often than not. This is why the scientific method works to eliminate the use of such flaws, and it is a flaw today. The instinct tells you to fight or flight when often either will get you killed in the modern day, as well.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#65768 Dec 10, 2012
John wrote:
<quoted text>
If Rose had a conscience there would be evidence of it.
There is no evidence Rose has a conscience.
We can conclude Rose has no conscience.
Will there ever be an antitheist willing to address their ridiculous nothing? It's indefensible bigotry. Not one evidence backed accountable position has been offered.
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.
Again, John, you avoid debating my position.
Stump John, ask him to debate.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65769 Dec 10, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
You've offered many scientific opinions but have yet to provide conclusive evidence to support any of them. There is no neurophysiological research which "conclusively" shows that the higher levels of mind are located in brain tissue.
But there is plenty that shows it beyond a reasonable doubt.
The fact that science cannot control human behavior should be your first clue. If it could, crime would not exist.
You have got to be kidding. Simply understanding that thoughts and emotions are physical processes in the brain doesn't automatically mean we can control them at the level of precision that would affect crime rates. For one thing, it would require some sort of brain implant that knows the 'language' of the brain in detail and affects the mechanisms in a desired direction. We are NOWHERE close to this even though we know where in the brain (not the specific neurons!) the processes happen.
Like your atheistic compadres. you're not defending science, you're defending atheism using unproven scientific theories as a smokescreen to justify your choice.
Garbage. You are simply ignoring the scientific evidence accumulated over the last century showing where in the brain things happen.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65770 Dec 10, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
Einstein was a "mental physicist" who developed the ability to merge his consciousness with the consciousness of other forms. He understood far more than he could actually articulate in a way that his lessor informed colleagues could comprehend. His understanding of the universe and theirs were light years apart, in other words.
And yet he was wrong concerning quantum mechanics, for example. Einstein was a very deep thinker, but had no 'inside path' to real knowledge.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65772 Dec 10, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Intuition, in other words "common sense," tells you that there are monsters in the shadows. It's an instinctual response that was evolved as a means to protect us from the actual monsters there, like lions, tigers, etc. The instinct is outdated, we no longer need it as most shadows contain nothing but inane objects now. But the instinct leads to confirmation bias, confirmation bias leads to inaccurate results, and will make you inherently wrong more often than not. This is why the scientific method works to eliminate the use of such flaws, and it is a flaw today. The instinct tells you to fight or flight when often either will get you killed in the modern day, as well.
Invest in a dictionary. Intuition involves impressions which has nothing to do with common sense. Stop trying to paraphrase googled information to avoid detection of your sources. It makes you comes across as an addlebrained old lady.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65773 Dec 10, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
But there is plenty that shows it beyond a reasonable doubt.
<quoted text>
You have got to be kidding. Simply understanding that thoughts and emotions are physical processes in the brain doesn't automatically mean we can control them at the level of precision that would affect crime rates. For one thing, it would require some sort of brain implant that knows the 'language' of the brain in detail and affects the mechanisms in a desired direction. We are NOWHERE close to this even though we know where in the brain (not the specific neurons!) the processes happen.
<quoted text>
Garbage. You are simply ignoring the scientific evidence accumulated over the last century showing where in the brain things happen.
Beyond a reasonable doubt? More like beyond believable. If, as you claim, the seat of thought is located in the brain, mind control experiments should work. They don't. Google Project MKUltra, a covert research operation experimenting in the behavioral engineering of humans through the CIA's Scientific Intelligence Division.

I'm quite familiar with scientific evidence, I just don't accept these assertions as the end all and be all.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65774 Dec 10, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet he was wrong concerning quantum mechanics, for example. Einstein was a very deep thinker, but had no 'inside path' to real knowledge.
This is a prime example of one of your half baked assumptions grounded in unverifiable opinion.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#65775 Dec 10, 2012
Einstein knew as most educated people that Spinoza was himself an atheist and his so called God is a joke purposely made to mock you idiots.

You do not share anything with Einstein as you repeatedly fight science as an evil entity and Einstein would certainly be the polar opposite of you there.

You are a Christhole nothing more.
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
There are different ways to express a belief in a greater reality. Einstein was a pantheist, or someone who believes that God is creation. I happen to share that belief.
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." - Albert Einstein

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#65776 Dec 11, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet he was wrong concerning quantum mechanics, for example. Einstein was a very deep thinker, but had no 'inside path' to real knowledge.
I wouldn't judge Einstein's reluctance so quickly. The jury is still out. Einstein's main objection was the incompleteness of Quantum Theory and he was not wrong. The theory contains within it some apparent conceptual paradoxes that even after eighty years remain unresolved

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt174729.html

"Quantum mechanics is very worthy of regard. But an inner voice tells me that this not yet the right track. The theory yields much, but it hardly brings us closer to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced that He does not play dice." - Albert Einstein

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#65777 Dec 11, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Einstein knew as most educated people that Spinoza was himself an atheist and his so called God is a joke purposely made to mock you idiots.
You do not share anything with Einstein as you repeatedly fight science as an evil entity and Einstein would certainly be the polar opposite of you there.
You are a Christhole nothing more.
<quoted text>
Isn't there a Bigot's Anonymous meeting you should be attending somewhere? Read Spinoza's book the "Ethics", moron.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65778 Dec 11, 2012
digitaldan wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn't judge Einstein's reluctance so quickly. The jury is still out. Einstein's main objection was the incompleteness of Quantum Theory and he was not wrong. The theory contains within it some apparent conceptual paradoxes that even after eighty years remain unresolved
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt174729.html
From later in the same thread:
"The foundational problems of quantum mechanics are these:

1) It takes years of study and experiment to acquire any real understanding of quantum mechanics.

2) People who can not or will not undertake the years of study and experiment lack that understanding.

3) Those who can not or do not understand quantum mechanics often claim that it is the theory that is flawed, and not their understanding."

The issues with QM mentioned in the article you linked *are* quantum mechanics. The theory actually predicts that only probabilities can be pre-determined. It actually predicts that the universe is inherently probabilistic. it also predicts in detail when the 'particle' and when the 'wave' aspects of any fundamental particle will dominate. Even more, the fact that *all* fundamental particles are described in essentially the same way is a HUGE unifying thread in the theory. It is a strength, not a weakness.
"Quantum mechanics is very worthy of regard. But an inner voice tells me that this not yet the right track. The theory yields much, but it hardly brings us closer to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced that He does not play dice." - Albert Einstein
And yet, Einstein was simply wrong about the predicted results of the EPR experiment. He originally proposed it as an example of the 'incompleteness' of quantum mechanics and thought that 'nature' simply would not agree with the quantum prediction. Well, the experiment was done by Arrow and the results agreed with QM and not with Einstein. Ergo, Einstein was wrong.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65779 Dec 11, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a prime example of one of your half baked assumptions grounded in unverifiable opinion.
Wrong. For example, Einstein used the EPR 'paradox' as an argument against quantum mechanics. he pointed out that the predictions of QM were very unusual in a particular siutation and Einstein thought that the prediction simply would not happen in the real world. he was wrong. The experiment has actually been done and the results agree with QM and not with Einstein.

More generally, Einstein was looking for a causal, local theory that would subsume QM. While this was a reasonable goal at the time, it turns out to be impossible. This is the content of Bell's inequalities: any causal, local theory has to obey certain inequalities in the correlations between distant events. QM violates those inequalities. For Einstein, this would have been an argument against QM. Well, once again the experiments have actually been done and the real world agrees with QM and not with Einstein. The real world simply does not obey any causal, local theory.

Now, QM is a non-causal, local theory and it predicts results in the real world incredibly well. There is a theory by Bohm that is a non-local, causal theory that agrees with basic QM in all predictions. Bohm's theory, however, is harder to use, makes the same predictions as QM, and cannot be extended to include electron spins, which are observed.

That means that some non-causal, local theory is the only game in town and that QM is the main contender. it also means that Einstein was wrong about these things.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#65780 Dec 11, 2012
Isn't there a GED class you should be taking somewhere? Spinoza was an atheist and his mocking other deities (God) was a knife in the side of believers.

Einstein had a wicked sense of humor and you idiots still haven't caught on.
digitaldan wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't there a Bigot's Anonymous meeting you should be attending somewhere? Read Spinoza's book the "Ethics", moron.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65781 Dec 11, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Beyond a reasonable doubt? More like beyond believable. If, as you claim, the seat of thought is located in the brain, mind control experiments should work.
Why would you believe that? We know that nuclear fusion is possible, because it happens on the sun, but we can't do it consistently in the lab. There is a difference between knowing how something works and knowning how to control it.
They don't. Google Project MKUltra, a covert research operation experimenting in the behavioral engineering of humans through the CIA's Scientific Intelligence Division.
I'm quite familiar with scientific evidence, I just don't accept these assertions as the end all and be all.
You base your conclusions on false hypotheses of sufficient technology. You are right, we do not have the technology to control minds. The level of detail required plus the individual factors are just too much for us to control (can I say fortunately?).

However, we do now have machines that read minds based on the electrical effects from the brain. It is simplistic right now, but getting better each year.(Again, scary in many ways)
John

United States

#65782 Dec 11, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, John, you avoid debating my position.
Stump John, ask him to debate.
You offer no accountable position of belief. There isn't any evidence that satisfies you and I don't debate nothing. There is a reason why you won't debate your illogical lunacy bigot.

Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65783 Dec 11, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet, Einstein was simply wrong about the predicted results of the EPR experiment. He originally proposed it as an example of the 'incompleteness' of quantum mechanics and thought that 'nature' simply would not agree with the quantum prediction. Well, the experiment was done by Arrow and the results agreed with QM and not with Einstein. Ergo, Einstein was wrong.
Einstein said Quantum theory wasn't the real thing. Bohr insisted the theory was the final thing. Nature has the last word however. She never behaves the way scientists expect her too.

The double slit experiment demonstrates this conundrum.

"The formation of the interference pattern requires the existence of two slits, but how can a single photon passing through one slit `know' about the existence of the other slit? We are stuck going back to thinking of each photon as a wave that hits both slits. Or we have to think of the photon as splitting and going through each slit separately (but how does the photon KNOW a pair of slits is coming?). The only solution is to give up the idea of a photon or an electron having location. The location of a subatomic particle is not defined until it is observed (such as striking a screen).

The quantum world can be not be perceived directly, but rather through the use of instruments. And, so, there is a problem with the fact that the act of measuring disturbs the energy and position of subatomic particles. This is called the measurement problem."

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_sci...

There has never been a demonstration to follow the arrival of molecules in two dimensions, in real time. Einstein insisted Quantum Theory was incomplete because he intuited two things: Energy is awareized and the closer you get to non-physical reality, the less likely you will be able to predict anything, which is why the double slit experiment only works with large molecules.

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) 6 min I Am No One_ 243,532
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 11 min NoahLovesU 9,507
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 8 hr USaWarringIDIOTSo... 6,224
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) Mon TC_Tia 14,656
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) Mon MikeF 19,806
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