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 3,140)

Showing posts 62,781 - 62,800 of70,904
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

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".

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65465
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.
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?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65466
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65467
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.
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.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65468
Dec 3, 2012
 
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

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65469
Dec 3, 2012
 
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.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65470
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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?

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65471
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65472
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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!

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65473
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65474
Dec 3, 2012
 
John wrote:
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.
Why do con dumbs just randomly insert Obama's name into conversations?
postscript

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65475
Dec 3, 2012
 
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
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... ;
Science has suppositions which translated means "nada". You might want to invest in a spell checker.
postscript

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65476
Dec 3, 2012
 
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Nothing is random. The problem with science's version of the origin of the universe is this: Like religion, it assumes genesis was an isolated event. It wasn't. Consciousness out of which all else springs forms all systems simultaneously. In other words, the universe is always being created.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65477
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Because it was Jesus who did it right?

Rotflmfao!
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing is random. The problem with science's version of the origin of the universe is this: Like religion, it assumes genesis was an isolated event. It wasn't. Consciousness out of which all else springs forms all systems simultaneously. In other words, the universe is always being created.

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65478
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Givemeliberty wrote:
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.
<quoted text>
It's too bad that you have to lie to try and sound intelligent.

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65479
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Drew Smith wrote:
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?
<quoted text>
Imagine that, you figured out that "good" and "bad" are relative to *specific* purposes. Not to some overarching objective "purpose of life" for everyone.
<quoted text>
I don't see a "universe from nothing". So your question is wrong from the beginning.
Bullshyt. A couple years ago you were espousing Krauss's theory of a universe from nothing....then somebody brought up the fact that virtual particles do not "poof" into existence from "nothing". You are about as relevant as a smoke ring in a snowstorm.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65480
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

nanoanomaly wrote:
A couple years ago you were espousing Krauss's theory of a universe from nothing
Prove it.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65481
Dec 3, 2012
 
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Even more so, does every dead animal (or plant, fungus, etc) have an equal likelihood of becoming a fossil? Is the rate of fossilization such that we would expect a continuous record? Do the 'gaps' match what we know about fossilization in general and the likelihood of fossilization in various environments? Are species that live in environments that we would predict to higher rates of fossilization better represented in the record?

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65482
Dec 3, 2012
 
Says the retard who posted she had less than a year to live from a horrible disease and then poof she's all cured now.

Lmfao!

Hey post those so called atheist doctrines half wit! Go ahead it's probably in your apologetic book. Hurry up now or accept defeat yet again.

We so humiliate you and it's sad you lack the IQ to see it.
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>It's too bad that you have to lie to try and sound intelligent.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 62,781 - 62,800 of70,904
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••