Atheists on the march in America

Atheists on the march in America

There are 70657 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.

“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.
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.

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) 7 min The_Box 7,681
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 13 min Aura Mytha 240,106
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 1 hr Thinking 2,248
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 7 hr MikeF 19,151
News Phil Robertson talks against Atheists 20 hr The_Box 139
The Ultimate Evidence of God (Mar '14) Tue Reason Personified 166
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) Tue Reason Personified 14,660
More from around the web