Atheists on the march in America

Aug 26, 2009 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: TurkishPress.com

When South Florida atheists held their first meeting, they were just five friends, having a beer at a bar.

Comments (Page 3,139)

Showing posts 62,761 - 62,780 of70,959
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65445
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

nanoanomaly wrote:
I don't recall mentioning "good" or "bad" regarding anything
Again, you made a statement about "it" (my previous statement in which I referred to "good" things). What else was your "it" in reference too, then?
nanoanomaly wrote:
only wondered why you should be so hostile regarding an opposing fantasy/theory.
Scientific research into the origin of life aren't "fantasies".

Postulating non-existent magical skydaddies (without a shred of evidence to support their existence) is indeed a fantasy, and should be labelled as such.
nanoanomaly wrote:
As long as nobody can prove how life began...
No fact or theory of science is ever "proved".
nanoanomaly wrote:
...one point of view is just as good as another.
So inventing a magical skydaddy that "poofs" life into existence is "just as good" as explanations that depend only upon chemical processes actually observed in nature?

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/what-...
nanoanomaly wrote:
you appear to be labeling something(life) "good" when you don't even know "how" it started.
Why is something's being "good" dependent upon how it started?
nanoanomaly wrote:
To be good, life would, necessarily, have a purpose.
Why? Don't you judge something to be good if you find it beneficial to your life? Why does "purpose" have anything to do with it?

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65446
Dec 2, 2012
 
You beat me to it! Lol!

Good grief what an idiot! You'd think after all te times she has been factually crushed and humiliated she would have had enough! But nope back she comes making a jackass out of herself yet again.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Just look what the tiniest shred of research can reveal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganeura

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65447
Dec 2, 2012
 
And the ultra low IQ jackass brats on! Lmfao!

Hey do you have anymore of those easliy cured incurable diseases?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah a!
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>What? He's not pretty enough for you?

“talk to the kitteh”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65448
Dec 2, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>... research....
That's funny.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65449
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Scientific research into the origin of life aren't "fantasies".
nanoanomaly wrote:
That's funny.
You find scientific research funny?

In that case, I suggest that you stop using anything that was the product of scientific research.

“talk to the kitteh”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65450
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Drew Smith wrote:
Scientific research into the origin of life aren't "fantasies".
<quoted text>
You find scientific research funny?
In that case, I suggest that you stop using anything that was the product of scientific research.
Let me know when you have confirmed any of these steps regarding abiogenesis. You claim that science doesn't "prove" anything but it will have to prove this "concept/fantasy" for it to be believed.

" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research#Scienti... ;

Any theories about it are still nothing more than fantasy. You must have some knowledge of the phenomenon not just suspicion that it is true. Brighter minds than yours are still mystified concerning the source of life.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65451
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

nanoanomaly wrote:
Let me know when you have confirmed any of these steps regarding abiogenesis.
You mean the steps already confirmed and described here?

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/what-...
nanoanomaly wrote:
...it will have to prove this "concept/fantasy" for it to be believed.
You mean, for *you* to believe it. I'm afraid that you were never elected to speak on behalf of everyone else.

“talk to the kitteh”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65452
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean the steps already confirmed and described here?
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/what-...
<quoted text>
You mean, for *you* to believe it. I'm afraid that you were never elected to speak on behalf of everyone else.
So nobody has to prove their results to you for you to believe them? That's hilarious, Drew.

You sound religious.

xD

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65453
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>So nobody has to prove their results to you for you to believe them? That's hilarious, Drew.
You sound religious.
xD
brilliant.. Though I am sure that the concept will be lost on them.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65454
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Good article with clear precise proof backing up your claims. Sadly man people like Nan don't want to hear anything different than what their preacher says in church. If your information doesn't include Jesus magicked everything into existence she won't be satisfied.

One must remember she is the same idiot who claimed to have a horrible disease that will take her life in less than a year and has no cure but then a few posts later says, nope I am already cured!

Lmfao! You just gotta shake your head at these creationist apologetic morons man. Until they open their eyes and are willing to honestly look at real science they are stuck in sheep mode, bleating all the way home.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean the steps already confirmed and described here?
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/what-...
<quoted text>
You mean, for *you* to believe it. I'm afraid that you were never elected to speak on behalf of everyone else.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65455
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

nanoanomaly wrote:
So nobody has to prove their results to you for you to believe them?
Nobody has to "prove" a scientific fact or theory for me to *accept* it.

They just have to *support* it with sufficient evidence. Even then, it may eventually turn out to be wrong based on new evidence.

"Proof" is the province of mathematics and logic. Not science.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65456
Dec 3, 2012
 
BBSting wrote:
Quantum physics indicates that consciousness is related to the awareness that an electron appears to show in the wave/particle duality (double slit experiment).
Nope.

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2012/1...

Pay special attention to the quote from physicist Michael Nauenberg: "the view that the implementation of the principles of quantum mechanics requires a conscious observer is based on misconceptions."

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65457
Dec 3, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody has to "prove" a scientific fact or theory for me to *accept* it.
They just have to *support* it with sufficient evidence. Even then, it may eventually turn out to be wrong based on new evidence.
"Proof" is the province of mathematics and logic. Not science.
Mathematics is science.

"Because nature is mathematical, any science that intends to describe nature is completely dependent on mathematics. It is impossible to overemphasize this point, and it is why Carl Friedrich Gauss called mathematics "the queen of the sciences."

http://arachnoid.com/is_math_a_science/index....

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65458
Dec 3, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2012/1...
Pay special attention to the quote from physicist Michael Nauenberg: "the view that the implementation of the principles of quantum mechanics requires a conscious observer is based on misconceptions."
The experiment did not establish that an observer is required. Read it again.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65459
Dec 3, 2012
 
BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
Mathematics is science.
"Because nature is mathematical, any science that intends to describe nature is completely dependent on mathematics. It is impossible to overemphasize this point, and it is why Carl Friedrich Gauss called mathematics "the queen of the sciences."
http://arachnoid.com/is_math_a_science/index....
Amusing article, but I fundamentally disagree. mathematics is NOT a science. The author of the article ignores a very important difference between math and the sciences: if a hypothesis in the sciences has withstood a great number of challenges and produces new results that are testable and survive the tests, then that hypothesis is accepted, at least provisionally.

This is not true in mathematics. For example, Goldbach's conjecture is the claim that every even number more than 4 can be written as a sum of two prime numbers. For example, 12=5+7. Here, 12 is even and 5,7 are both primes. Another: 100=47+53. The conjecture is that this is always possible for any even number more than 4.

Every even number (more than 4) we have ever tested can be written as a sum of two primes. If mathematics acted like a science, Goldbach's conjecture would be held to be validated simply by this fact. But, in practice, it is NOT. The reason is that mathematics doesn't use observation and testing to support the truth of a proposition: it uses formal proof. And that is the *only* support accepted in mathematics. So, while a single counter-example is enough to show a hypothesis to be wrong, a mathematical proposition is not accepted until it has been rigorously proven.

As the author of the article points out, such proof is possible in mathematics, but it is not possible in the natural sciences. This is a HUGE difference and reflects a basic difference in math and the sciences.

At this point, Goldbach's conjecture is neither accepted nor rejected by the mathematical community: it is seen as an interesting, but unresolved conjecture.

“talk to the kitteh”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65460
Dec 3, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody has to "prove" a scientific fact or theory for me to *accept* it.
They just have to *support* it with sufficient evidence. Even then, it may eventually turn out to be wrong based on new evidence.
"Proof" is the province of mathematics and logic. Not science.
Your link shows nothing new, no proof that life came from nonlife.

When there is proof it will be known by everyone. There will be no room for doubt or further research.

“talk to the kitteh”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65461
Dec 3, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>....
Why? Don't you judge something to be good if you find it beneficial to your life? Why does "purpose" have anything to do with it?
If I escape a hungry tiger it is beneficial/good to me but harmful/bad to him, i.e., good and bad are subjective, the universe, in general, has no subjective values that I can see. How is it that you see a universe from nothing as being "good" or "beneficial" if its basest nature always lies in eternal balance? Life, as we know it, will not exist in the distant future; only time and the shredded remnants of what we once were. Do you attribute something of the subjective to that reality? Is it good or bad? Only purpose gives the universe subjective status.

“talk to the kitteh”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65462
Dec 3, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody has to "prove" a scientific fact or theory for me to *accept* it.
They just have to *support* it with sufficient evidence. Even then, it may eventually turn out to be wrong based on new evidence.
"Proof" is the province of mathematics and logic. Not science.
Science can't go far without math or logic.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65463
Dec 3, 2012
 
Nobody has to "prove" a scientific fact or theory for me to *accept* it.
They just have to *support* it with sufficient evidence. Even then, it may eventually turn out to be wrong based on new evidence.
"Proof" is the province of mathematics and logic. Not science.
BBSting wrote:
Mathematics is science.
No, it isn't. It doesn't use the scientific method.

If mathematics were a science, we wouldn't have so many colleges or departments of "science and mathematics".

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65464
Dec 3, 2012
 
BBSting wrote:
The experiment did not establish that an observer is required. Read it again.
I read it.

It refutes the idea that quantum mechanics somehow supports the idea that non-living material is "conscious".

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 62,761 - 62,780 of70,959
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

10 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 4 min Buck Crick 223,131
Our world came from nothing? 1 hr Richardfs 48
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 5 hr Buck Crick 21,333
Why do i deserve no respect. 11 hr Carchar king 7
Introducing The Universal Religion Wed NightSerf 718
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Wed ChristineM 802
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) Wed Buck Crick 324
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••