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.

Thinking

Andover, UK

#65784 Dec 11, 2012
I believe you're a tosspot.
John wrote:
<quoted text>
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

#65785 Dec 11, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Science does not know how the "mind" works let alone where it exists.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65786 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>
And you are a POSER. If you don't accept the Christian code of morality, why would you use the word evil which is traditionally associated with religious texts, rules and punishment?

You are on the wrong discussion board, Sparky. You're not an atheist. You're a quivering, sniveling heap of frothing fear. You are afraid of religion's hell and think that by hiding behind the label "atheist" you can avoid the eternal misery of perdition and damnation.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65787 Dec 11, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
And yet, nature agrees with quantum mechanics in every experiment we have ever done.
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).
yes, you have to change your intuitions when doing quantum mechanics. Classical intuitions about waves and particles fail. if you want to think about a little ball going through a slit, you will never understand quantum mechanics.
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."
Resolved by an analysis of decoherence.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/2 1st_century_science/lectures/l ec13.html
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.
Actually, there have been several such demonstrations. The double slit experiment, for example, can be done with a very low intensity beam so that only one electron goes through the apparatus at a time. The results of QM still hold: individual particles are detected at the screen and an interference effect builds up over time. Both wave and particle descriptions are required to agree with observation.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65788 Dec 11, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Science does not know how the "mind" works let alone where it exists.
We know quite well where it exists (in the brain) and are figuring out the details of how it works.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#65789 Dec 11, 2012
Wow just wow. Do you have any clue how illogical your post was? I mean from word one to the last period.

It takes effort to be that ignorant.

Regardless my facts stand and you are way beyond your pay grade here chumpstain.
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
And you are a POSER. If you don't accept the Christian code of morality, why would you use the word evil which is traditionally associated with religious texts, rules and punishment?
You are on the wrong discussion board, Sparky. You're not an atheist. You're a quivering, sniveling heap of frothing fear. You are afraid of religion's hell and think that by hiding behind the label "atheist" you can avoid the eternal misery of perdition and damnation.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65790 Dec 11, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet, nature agrees with quantum mechanics in every experiment we have ever done.
<quoted text>
yes, you have to change your intuitions when doing quantum mechanics. Classical intuitions about waves and particles fail. if you want to think about a little ball going through a slit, you will never understand quantum mechanics.
<quoted text>
Resolved by an analysis of decoherence.
<quoted text>
Actually, there have been several such demonstrations. The double slit experiment, for example, can be done with a very low intensity beam so that only one electron goes through the apparatus at a time. The results of QM still hold: individual particles are detected at the screen and an interference effect builds up over time. Both wave and particle descriptions are required to agree with observation.
The results will hold as long as physical measurements are possible but when they are not, it's anybody's guess what's going on just as Einstein implied. Once you step outside the third dimension, you go where science's instruments cannot go. You enter the realm of consciousness - or the realm of awareized energy which can only be experienced.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65791 Dec 11, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
We know quite well where it exists (in the brain) and are figuring out the details of how it works.
That's an assumption, not a fact which renders figuring out the details nigh to impossible because the mind is not physical.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65792 Dec 11, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Wow just wow. Do you have any clue how illogical your post was? I mean from word one to the last period.
It takes effort to be that ignorant.
Regardless my facts stand and you are way beyond your pay grade here chumpstain.
<quoted text>
You're going to hell. Better pack some heat resistant clothing. LOL!
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65793 Dec 11, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet, nature agrees with quantum mechanics in every experiment we have ever done.
<quoted text>
yes, you have to change your intuitions when doing quantum mechanics. Classical intuitions about waves and particles fail. if you want to think about a little ball going through a slit, you will never understand quantum mechanics.
<quoted text>
Resolved by an analysis of decoherence.
<quoted text>
Actually, there have been several such demonstrations. The double slit experiment, for example, can be done with a very low intensity beam so that only one electron goes through the apparatus at a time. The results of QM still hold: individual particles are detected at the screen and an interference effect builds up over time. Both wave and particle descriptions are required to agree with observation.
Physical detection and observation, without those two things science has nothing.
Thinking

Andover, UK

#65794 Dec 11, 2012
Read your bible regarding what happens to those that judge others.
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
You're going to hell. Better pack some heat resistant clothing. LOL!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65795 Dec 11, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Physical detection and observation, without those two things science has nothing.
Exactly. That is what determines if something exists. it is what determines the truth of a scientific statement. And it is what determines rationality in these matters.

let me put it to you this way: what does it mean for a non-physical thing to exist? Does that mean it doesn't interact with anything physical? because if it did, that interaction would be detectable, and hence physical.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65796 Dec 11, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
The results will hold as long as physical measurements are possible but when they are not, it's anybody's guess what's going on just as Einstein implied.
a) without physical measurements, the statement that something exists is meaningless.

b) Einstein implied no such thing.
Once you step outside the third dimension, you go where science's instruments cannot go. You enter the realm of consciousness - or the realm of awareized energy which can only be experienced.
Garbage. There are many theoretical situations where measurements of other dimensions are possible. In fact, part of the job of the LHC is to search for such.

Consciousness is a physical process in the brain.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#65797 Dec 11, 2012
John wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
That is a flat out lie, John.
I've stated my accountable position of belief many times. Here it is again.
1. If god exists, there is evidence of his existence.
2. There is no evidence of his existence.
3. There is no god.
So, let's debate.
Let's start with point 1. Do you agree with that? Or do you think your god could exist, yet we there be no evidence of his existence?
At this point we aren't talking about what such evidence might be, or even if it exists. We can deal with that while talking about point 2. But for some reason, I don't think you'll ever deal with point 1...
Stump John, ask him to debate. Again.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65798 Dec 11, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. That is what determines if something exists. it is what determines the truth of a scientific statement. And it is what determines rationality in these matters.
let me put it to you this way: what does it mean for a non-physical thing to exist? Does that mean it doesn't interact with anything physical? because if it did, that interaction would be detectable, and hence physical.
It does. But the physical "manifestations" of consciousness is all science can know. It will never understand the bigger picture, the actual blueprints of reality.

The big bang theory accepted by many as the origin of the universe is really the end of the line for scientific materialism and its observable experimentation because the energy that caused the stuff to go bang is not physical in nature and cannot be probed or measured with physical instruments. The answers lie behind the stuff that fashions science's relative theoretical laws describing a purposeless cosmology.

Science knows nothing about what matters most - the origin of the universe, the meaning of life, and the destiny of mankind. Without that metaphysical knowledge, it will only have theories shifted to physical facts and back again to theories. If it persists in its narrow and rigid view of reality, to will remain chained to a study of the "outside" of the inside, the answers that matter most forever out of reach.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65799 Dec 11, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
a) without physical measurements, the statement that something exists is meaningless.
Exactly. By accepting this supposition, science denies itself knowledge of a greater unknown reality.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
b) Einstein implied no such thing.
None are so blind as he who will not see.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Garbage. There are many theoretical situations where measurements of other dimensions are possible. In fact, part of the job of the LHC is to search for such.
Not going to happen as long as science remains stuck with its head in the sands of physicalism.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Consciousness is a physical process in the brain.
Balderdash. The brain is an event-forming psychomechanism through which consciousness operates. The tide of our consciousness splashes against the objective earth. The truth is light whirling from a thousand different suns and flickering briefly on the dark wall of the world. Science sees only the passing shadows and calls it "reality".

Since: Mar 11

United States

#65801 Dec 12, 2012
Hell Hades Tartarus all created by worshippers of the Greek Gods. Sorry Zeus writer created myths later stolen by their neighbor christians don't scare me..
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
You're going to hell. Better pack some heat resistant clothing. LOL!

Since: Mar 11

United States

#65802 Dec 12, 2012
Talk to your preacher about it.
sugarfoot7 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because an atheist isn't an expert on the religious in countries ruled by dictators? What would shock me is if my fellow atheists stopped being such haters.
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#65803 Dec 12, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Science knows nothing about what matters most - the origin of the universe, the meaning of life, and the destiny of mankind.


How was it determined that the origin of the universe, the meaning of life, and the destiny of mankind were the most important things?
As for the ACTUAL origin of the universe; science may or may not determine what it really is (if mankind doesn't kill itself off before science gets the chance). As for the meaning of life... It's not as complicated as we humans make it our to be; and same goes with our destiny (as they are essentially inter-related). Both questions are posed by a creature too hung up on it's own significance in the grand scheme and fraught with insecurity of it's own creation. None of these questions were even relevant until we invented a society that gave us a sense of detachment from the community of life.
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>Without that metaphysical knowledge, it will only have theories shifted to physical facts and back again to theories. If it persists in its narrow and rigid view of reality, to will remain chained to a study of the "outside" of the inside, the answers that matter most forever out of reach.
Metaphysical knowledge is just physical knowledge that's yet to be quantified.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65804 Dec 12, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
It does. But the physical "manifestations" of consciousness is all science can know. It will never understand the bigger picture, the actual blueprints of reality.
If there is no evidence that there is such a 'bigger picture', why would you believe in it? And if there is evidence, then that evidence can be studied by science.
The big bang theory accepted by many as the origin of the universe is really the end of the line for scientific materialism and its observable experimentation because the energy that caused the stuff to go bang is not physical in nature and cannot be probed or measured with physical instruments. The answers lie behind the stuff that fashions science's relative theoretical laws describing a purposeless cosmology.
Yet another person with a comic book understanding of what the Big bang theory says. The problem is in your phrase 'the energy that caused the stuff to go bang'. First, THE BIG BANG WAS NOT AN EXPLOSION. In explosions, matter moves through space, propelled by the pressure wave. In the expansion of the universe, it is space itself that is expanding. The Big Bang does NOT say that there was something that sat around for a long time that suddenly decided to explode. Second, whether it even makes sense to talk about a 'cause' for the Big Bang is a very deep question. If time started at the Big Bang (as some versions suggest), causality makes no sense at that point. If the universe sprung from a quantum fluctuation (as other theories suggest), then the start was uncaused (since quantum events are uncaused). And, if there was a previous contracting phase of the universe (as still other theories suggest), then the same laws of physics apply before the Big Bang and it is the *same type of energy* before as after.
Science knows nothing about what matters most - the origin of the universe, the meaning of life, and the destiny of mankind. Without that metaphysical knowledge, it will only have theories shifted to physical facts and back again to theories. If it persists in its narrow and rigid view of reality, to will remain chained to a study of the "outside" of the inside, the answers that matter most forever out of reach.
Metaphysics is simply self-satisfied fiction. Without actual evidence, which is the essence of science, the whole game of metaphysics simply becomes a trial of whose fantasy is more appealing.

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 Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 44 min karl44 10,946
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 2 hr Ooogah Boogah 14,665
John 3:16 3 hr Shizle 80
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 5 hr Aura Mytha 244,949
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 hr dirtclod 20,623
Atheists should stop feeding the stereotypes 22 hr NightSerf 18
News Si Robertson, 'Duck Dynasty' Star, Says Atheist... Fri thetruth 42
More from around the web