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
62,841 - 62,860 of 70,983 Comments Last updated Tuesday Aug 5

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#65527 Dec 4, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
The only reason you give Darwinism any credence is because the whole silly notion excludes a creator, and to call yourself an atheist, you must mindlessly reject gods at every turn and corner. But obviously you doubt, or you would not feel compelled to defend your disbelief on public forums like this. To say absolutely that God does not exist, one would have to be omnipotent himself, he would have to know ALL things and based on the caliber of your posts, you fall dismally short of the target.
But that is NOT the atheistic position. That some strawman caricature someone has fed you, and it's a total fallacy.

Literally a-theism is "without theism". More accurately it is "without belief". It is most definitely NOT a substitution of one belief for another.

You claim that there is a god. As an atheist, I simply doubt YOUR claim made without evidence. And that's really no different than what you do with anybody else's "god" claim. When a Hindu person claims that Shiva, Vishnu, and Brahma exist, you doubt their claim and ask for evidence ... real, independently verifiable evidence.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65528 Dec 4, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Imagine if someone said "The only reason you give the Germ Theory of Disease any credence is because the whole silly notion excludes disease being caused by demons."
That's how I see your statement.
Scared of demons. Thought so. No god, no sin, no hell, is that it?
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65529 Dec 4, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
But that is NOT the atheistic position. That some strawman caricature someone has fed you, and it's a total fallacy.
Literally a-theism is "without theism". More accurately it is "without belief". It is most definitely NOT a substitution of one belief for another.
You claim that there is a god. As an atheist, I simply doubt YOUR claim made without evidence. And that's really no different than what you do with anybody else's "god" claim. When a Hindu person claims that Shiva, Vishnu, and Brahma exist, you doubt their claim and ask for evidence ... real, independently verifiable evidence.
Word games. Without theism means without a belief in God. But why all the hostility? Reread your Bible rant - post (#136) on a forum discussing myths about atheism.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#65530 Dec 4, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
Common ancestry? You mean like the fish Coelacanth for example, supposedly extinct 70 million years ago and presented by evolutionists as a "transitional form" between marine and land creatures? It was found alive and well in 1939 near Madagascar, and has been caught about 50 times since? LOL!
So what? There is no reason a transitional form can't still be alive. You seem to think there is some purpose or pattern to evolution. There is not. It's driven by random mutations.
postscript wrote:
There is no reason to believe that fish were radically different eons ago from what they are now. To suggest that they lived long enough in shallow water to turn gills into lungs is absurd hence the lack of transitional forms. Fish are fish. It was true then and it's true now.
Ever consider studying the subject?
We have a good reason to believe in evolution, we are here.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65531 Dec 4, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
So what? There is no reason a transitional form can't still be alive. You seem to think there is some purpose or pattern to evolution. There is not. It's driven by random mutations.
<quoted text>
Ever consider studying the subject?
We have a good reason to believe in evolution, we are here.
Nothing is random, least of all consciousness which is far more mobile than you will ever comprehend. You are wrong. You are both here and there. We are all multidimensional. There are channels of interrelatedness, connecting all physical matter - channels through which consciousness flows.

The physical sciences pretend that the centuries exist one after another, while physicists realize that all events are simultaneous. Archeologists merrily contine to date the remains of "past" civilizations, never asking themselves if the past they record is the one relative to their point of perception.

There is more in heaven and earth, Gomer, than is dreamt of in your feeble philosophy.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#65532 Dec 4, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing is random, least of all consciousness which is far more mobile than you will ever comprehend. You are wrong. You are both here and there. We are all multidimensional. There are channels of interrelatedness, connecting all physical matter - channels through which consciousness flows.
The physical sciences pretend that the centuries exist one after another, while physicists realize that all events are simultaneous. Archeologists merrily contine to date the remains of "past" civilizations, never asking themselves if the past they record is the one relative to their point of perception.
There is more in heaven and earth, Gomer, than is dreamt of in your feeble philosophy.
Then tell me next Friday's CA lottery's MegaMillion numbers.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#65533 Dec 4, 2012
Or tonight's.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65534 Dec 4, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Then tell me next Friday's CA lottery's MegaMillion numbers.
The time is not yet for you to live in the lap of luxury. You have many lessons to be learned.
Thinking

UK

#65535 Dec 4, 2012
Tell me what I suppose.
BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but what you see is not what you suppose.
Thinking

UK

#65536 Dec 4, 2012
Maybe they just like violence and stupidity.
Givemeliberty wrote:
Isn't it sad how hard they work to remain enslaved to the superstitious beliefs of ancient Palestinians?
<quoted text>

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#65537 Dec 4, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
The time is not yet for you to live in the lap of luxury. You have many lessons to be learned.
IOW, you can't come up with the winning numbers. Called you on your BS.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65538 Dec 4, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
IOW, you can't come up with the winning numbers. Called you on your BS.
You were expecting signs and wonders, perhaps? LOL! If you want answers - get in touch with the knowledge of your own subjective self.
Independent

Alice, TX

#65539 Dec 5, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No such thing as random, we perceive randomness because we lack the complex computations required to identify the patterns in everything, our computers do that better now. But atomic reactions, chemical reactions, are structured based on the atomic structures, that's not even close to conscious reaction, it's the same as what happens when you drop a ball.
You should really try to explain how a human eye or any eye evolved. It is so complex and irreducible complexity comes to mind here. What came first? The brain or the eye? Can't have one without the other for evolution to succeed. They have to continually 'evolve' together and the species needs to not become extinct for the concept of vision to prosper. Then you have the issue of different classes of creatures, whom are not even related, also "evolving" vision. The odds are astronomical, there fore we are all created by a creator. Evolution has the same chance of becoming, as a tornado tearing through a junkyard and when everything has settled, there is a Boeing 747 airliner, full of jet fuel, waiting for a pilot. A beautiful butterfly in all it's grandeur , requires a creator, as does an intricate pocket watch. Life cannot simply evolve because with time anything is possible, if that were the case, then the planets in our solar system that are not gaseous, would have had some sort of life thriving on each and everyone of them, but as far as we know, they don't.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#65540 Dec 5, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing is random, least of all consciousness which is far more mobile than you will ever comprehend. You are wrong. You are both here and there. We are all multidimensional. There are channels of interrelatedness, connecting all physical matter - channels through which consciousness flows.
The physical sciences pretend that the centuries exist one after another, while physicists realize that all events are simultaneous. Archeologists merrily contine to date the remains of "past" civilizations, never asking themselves if the past they record is the one relative to their point of perception.
There is more in heaven and earth, Gomer, than is dreamt of in your feeble philosophy.
You're a liar with no proof of god. It doesn't matter how much language you dress it up with.
postscript

Santa Fe, NM

#65542 Dec 5, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a liar with no proof of god. It doesn't matter how much language you dress it up with.
Remove consciousness from the origin equation and you atheists will always be left trying to prove that life came from dead matter. You are as intellectually bankrupt as you claim the religious are.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#65543 Dec 5, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
Remove consciousness from the origin equation and you atheists will always be left trying to prove that life came from dead matter. You are as intellectually bankrupt as you claim the religious are.
You're a liar with no proof of god at the end of the day.

You have to lie about atheists to further your fraudulent religious agenda. And at the same time you shamelessly try to sell us your cult's morals.

Try proving your fake god first, you liar, then you get to criticise atheists - people you know nothing about.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#65544 Dec 5, 2012
Independent wrote:
<quoted text>You should really try to explain how a human eye or any eye evolved. It is so complex and irreducible complexity comes to mind here. What came first? The brain or the eye? Can't have one without the other for evolution to succeed. They have to continually 'evolve' together and the species needs to not become extinct for the concept of vision to prosper. Then you have the issue of different classes of creatures, whom are not even related, also "evolving" vision. The odds are astronomical, there fore we are all created by a creator. Evolution has the same chance of becoming, as a tornado tearing through a junkyard and when everything has settled, there is a Boeing 747 airliner, full of jet fuel, waiting for a pilot. A beautiful butterfly in all it's grandeur , requires a creator, as does an intricate pocket watch. Life cannot simply evolve because with time anything is possible, if that were the case, then the planets in our solar system that are not gaseous, would have had some sort of life thriving on each and everyone of them, but as far as we know, they don't.
It's not atheist's fault that you don't know how the eye evolved. It's also not atheist's fault that you don't know why "irreducible complexity" is a non-argument which has been disproven time and time again.

Perhaps if you were intelligent enough to understand biology, you wouldn't be so ignorant of it. But then again, if you truly understood biology or science, you would be atheist after all...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#65545 Dec 5, 2012
I find it simultaneously sad and funny that people who've never picked up a test tube in their lives seem to be so adamant that evolution isn't real.

All creationist arguments are arguments from ignorance.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#65546 Dec 5, 2012
You want us to say, Jesus made eveything with his magic fish! OK feel better half wit? Tell us again how you think Chris Angel really has Magic powers and he really does all those tricks with no editing :))

Care for an Obama bumper sticker? I would send you a T-shirt but no way could your fatass squeeze into one. Seriously let me know and I will send you one to put on your car if you can afford one, if not you can put it on your singlewide's window :)

You're welcome lardass :)
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, I accept that you make things up.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#65547 Dec 5, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
Remove consciousness from the origin equation and you atheists will always be left trying to prove that life came from dead matter. You are as intellectually bankrupt as you claim the religious are.
I would have to agree. Atheists like to think that science has all but obliterated religion with its so-called objective facts. What the atheist doesn't understand is that science has simply changed the wording, but not the story.

The most pessimistic elements of Christianity have been given a new scientific face. Freud's theories have come to represent the darker aspects of human psychology, the soul cut free from the conventional belief in an omnipotent god...stripped of its power and delegated to a series of mechanical reactions called instinctive drives. Psychologists have replaced a theological hell with a psychological hell, and turned the concept of "original sin" into primitive implulses stamped upon the genes in infancy. Psychoanalysis has replaced the Catholic confessional. The psychologist is the new priest who stands between the conscious and subconscious elements of man. The drive for salvation (divine perfection), has been replaced with salvation through psychotropic drugs.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 4 min Eagle 12 226,378
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 7 min Mikko 56
The myth of the angry atheist 41 min _Bad Company 1
The Ultimate Evidence of God 1 hr Patrick 61
I left Creationism! Ask me anything! 1 hr Patrick 7
100% Faith Free 2 hr CunningLinguist 14
Should Uninformed Opinion Be Respected? 2 hr CunningLinguist 39
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••