Atheists on the march in America

[Givemeliberty]

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.

[Drew Smith]

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.

[Drew Smith]

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."

[BBSting]

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....

[BBSting]

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.

[polymath257]

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.

[nanoanomaly]

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.

[nanoanomaly]

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.

[nanoanomaly]

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.

[Drew Smith]

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".

[Drew Smith]

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".

[Drew Smith]

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.

nanoanomaly wrote:

Your link shows nothing new, no proof that life came from nonlife.

Science doesn't claim "proof".

You really need to learn that.

In any event, the article is a good summary indicating that we have learned a great deal about how life originated.

Much better than throwing up one's hands and saying "There is no way to know, a supernatural skydaddy poofed it all into existence".

That's *your* idea of how it began, isn't it?

[Drew Smith]

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?

nanoanomaly wrote:

If I escape a hungry tiger it is beneficial/good to me but harmful/bad to him, i.e., good and bad are subjective

Imagine that, you figured out that "good" and "bad" are relative to *specific* purposes. Not to some overarching objective "purpose of life" for everyone.

nanoanomaly wrote:

How is it that you see a universe from nothing...

I don't see a "universe from nothing". So your question is wrong from the beginning.

[Drew Smith]

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.

nanoanomaly wrote:

<quoted text>Science can't go far without math or logic.

Which doesn't change the fact that scientific facts and theories are not "proved".

They are supported to a greater or lesser degree by evidence.

[Hedonist]

postscript wrote:

<quoted text>
Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence was a concern to Darwin himself! But instead of giving the matter serious thought, he kicked that can down the road, convinced that the necessary fossils to prove his theory would eventually turn up, but alas, they are still missing.
The fossil record that does exist, the one you point to with exuberant pride, is shamefully paltry compared to what should be a vast trove of fossilized evidence if the theory of evolution were actually true.
Without literally going back in time and watching the development of each successive organism in an evolutionary chain, science can not "prove" that an evolutionary relationship exists. You can claim that minor variations in species produced all the vast differences we see today, but you are still left without a fossil record. Without that record, scientists will never be sure some organism (transitional form) is actually an ancestor of an existing species.

Actually we have a very complete fossil record now.

If you understood anything about the conditions it takes to fossilize something, you'd understand how amazing it is that we have found as many fossils as we have.

Biological evolution is the most research areas of science worldwide and has been for over 150 years now. The vast amounts of evidence we have amassed and the overwhelming predictive benefit we have by the use of this theory, all continue to underscore and strengthen the overall confidence scientists in all Earth sciences disciplines have in the biological evolution.

You might want to read some layman level explinations from HidingFromYou to help with your understanding --

" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;

Or Polymath --

" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;

[John]

Drew you are embarassing yourself. Please continue.
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.

Fun fact of the day- for every 1 job created in the Obama administration 75 went on food stamps.

[Rose_NoHo]

postscript wrote:

<quoted text>
Large gaps in the fossil record that can't be explained away says you're full of it.

Why wouldn't there be large gaps in the fossils we have discovered? Think we have discovered every fossil there is? Think every animal who has died has been fossilized?

[Rose_NoHo]

postscript wrote:

<quoted text>
Buddists are not atheists. They don't identify God as a supreme being, but more of an exalted state of consciousness i.e. the clear light of the eternal Buddha They do accept the existence of beings in higher realms however. Devas.

Buddhists don't believe in gods. That makes them atheists.

postscript wrote:

Reincarnation will not save you. The ideas you harbor about the nature of reality in life will strongly color your after death experience for you will interpret events in the light of your beliefs. The fear of death itself can cause such a psychological panic that out of a sense of self-preservation and defense, an individual will lower his consciouness so that he laspes into a coma which may then take some time to recover after transition. Those who do not believe in life after death may find themselves in a state of limbo, the most hindering state of all.

Any proof of this?

[John]

You make the presupposition that there is no evidence without admitting you do not have the scientifically measurable evidence to support your position of nothing. You have placed limits on what may be limitless. You have placed limits where they need not be. Thus far I have seen no evidence provided by an atheist that would support what is disingenuously called natural mechanisms only. If you think there isn't evidence of design you would be wrong. Admittedly, this can not be proven using your constricting criteria, but nothing in this arena has been proven using this standard. You know this by now. That is why it is so frustrating to the forum when it's pointed out. Judging by the ever-growing anecdotal evidence of this forum overwhelmingly congregated by atheists, atheism is something else entirely. There is a large contingent of antitheists, a portion devoted to secular humanism, and some interplay with other assorted isms. The common denominator is that every single one of these positions is lacking in evidence. The notion that man is the be all end all is flawed in my opinion. Of course you wish to shirk any burden of proof. That's transparent and shows a weak position. Atheism has been co-opted by the new atheist. Much more vocal and commited to breaking down the populace writ large that actually do have a position. I've given more than enough opportunity for atheists to engage in debate that is not circular. The brilliance and weakness of atheism is no accountability. That's why it's not challenging to debate this topic with you loons. Apologies to the few that aren't driven by more than uncertainty. When Reagan debated Gorbachev on our nuclear arsenals each man had a position. If there was a political debate the political atheist would attack the other position and not have to be responsible for one himself. If one football team was atheist and the other was not they would have the ball on offense the whole game. Fumble, and the ball would be returned. This is what you ask for here, but is unacceptable in every other topic. I'm conservative btw. A rational freethinker. I'm sure you are a centrist LOL. What's the mushy middle thought on government size, abortion, tax rates?
If there isn't a position don't bother responding. How is the fence DREW, Curious, Mikey,,,,? You got the post wedged good and deep yet? Stump an antitheist! Ask it what it believes. Still going strong 62,800 plus posts in.
Still nothing about atheism in the atheist forum. No position, no post #. Lies, spin, ad hominem, and boredom.
Waiting for an example of what passes the cut for evidence from atheists. Cowards!

[Rose_NoHo]

BBSting wrote:

Photo on the left is a 125 million year old fossil of a mayfly.
Photo on the right is the mayfly as it exists today. They are identical. No change, and this is just one of many examples. Here's the proof right before your eyes that the theory of evolution is a myth!
http://www.harunyahya.com/image/Atlas_of_crea...

That doesn't prove squat.(And that's assuming what they are saying is accurate.) Mutations are random, so some species may not have changed at all, or at least to the point you can tell just by looking.