Atheists on the march in America

Aug 26, 2009 Full story: TurkishPress.com 70,983

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

Full Story

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65570 Dec 6, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
John, I'm willing to debate. Still.
1. If god exists, there is evidence of his existence.
2. There is no evidence of his existence.
3. There is no god.
We've yet to deal with point one.
Do you think it's possible for god to exist, yet there be no evidence of his existence?
A simple yes or no question. At this point we aren't dealing with what that evidence would be, or even if the evidence exists.
Stump John, ask him to debate. Again.
He won't answer, he's SchlockofGod junior. Say something, then whoever disagrees he claims is wrong without ever presenting any evidence, then declares victory. It's a symptom of all delusions.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#65571 Dec 6, 2012
It's a hilarious collection of myths thanks.
Wrathbone wrote:
<quoted text>
For an atheist, you seem to be obsessed with the bible. You bring it up more often than your proponents. Perhaps your time would be better spent figuring out the reason why.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65572 Dec 6, 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.
Nice claims. Any evidence?
The physical sciences pretend that the centuries exist one after another, while physicists realize that all events are simultaneous.
False.
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.
Simply delusional.
There is more in heaven and earth, Gomer, than is dreamt of in your feeble philosophy.
All too true. But your delusions are not part of it.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65573 Dec 6, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
You atheists are a riot. You revere scientists, but only when they agree with your half-baked unsubstantiated notions.
No, actually, we revere observation, data, and testable hypotheses. A scientist gets status only to the extent that they can either provide data or explanations for the data. The goal is to figure out the truth no matter what it might be. That is done through observation, making hypotheses and testing those hypotheses: in other words, the scientific method.

YOU, on the other hand, simply want to prove your viewpoint is true. You misquote people to support your points. You falsify data to support your points. You ignore evidence that disproves your point. And you refuse to actually understand the facts that show your point is wrong. In the case above, you misquoted a scientist, taking his comments out of context and twisting them in a way that makes it look like the scientist supports your viewpoint, when in fact, he does not. The full story shows you are a liar that refuses to admit when you are wrong. For scientists, that is wrong. For religionists, that is simply apologetics.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65574 Dec 6, 2012
digitaldan wrote:
<quoted text>
I've had no problem following postscript's comments on the nature of consciousness. What's your major malfunction?
The question isn't one of understanding postscripts comments. The question is whether they are true. PS has not supplied any reason to think the comments are, in fact, valid in the real world. On the other hand, all living things are made completely from 'non-living matter' since no atom in your body is alive. Life is a matter of organization and not of something special being added.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#65575 Dec 6, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
He won't answer, he's SchlockofGod junior. Say something, then whoever disagrees he claims is wrong without ever presenting any evidence, then declares victory. It's a symptom of all delusions.
You are so right!

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#65576 Dec 6, 2012
POLYANNA. OOPS! I mean, Polymath257 <------- a prime candidate for natural deselection.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#65577 Dec 6, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, actually, we revere observation, data, and testable hypotheses. A scientist gets status only to the extent that they can either provide data or explanations for the data. The goal is to figure out the truth no matter what it might be. That is done through observation, making hypotheses and testing those hypotheses: in other words, the scientific method.
YOU, on the other hand, simply want to prove your viewpoint is true. You misquote people to support your points. You falsify data to support your points. You ignore evidence that disproves your point. And you refuse to actually understand the facts that show your point is wrong. In the case above, you misquoted a scientist, taking his comments out of context and twisting them in a way that makes it look like the scientist supports your viewpoint, when in fact, he does not. The full story shows you are a liar that refuses to admit when you are wrong. For scientists, that is wrong. For religionists, that is simply apologetics.
In contrast, your comments are nothing more than the deluded rant of a card carrying pseudoscientist.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#65578 Dec 6, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
On the other hand, all living things are made completely from 'non-living matter' since no atom in your body is alive. Life is a matter of organization and not of something special being added.
Just your run of the mill standard textbook scientific prejudices.
James

Brisbane, Australia

#65579 Dec 7, 2012
John

Saint Louis, MO

#65580 Dec 7, 2012
John wrote:
Rose continues to confuse belief and disbelief. You don't believe in God but you are reliant on him for even your nonclaim.
If Rose had a conscience she would have evidence of it.
There is no evidence Rose has a conscience
Rose has no conscience.
Your nothing is laughable Rose. You are desperate to avoid it.
John

Saint Louis, MO

#65581 Dec 7, 2012
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 62,900 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!

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65582 Dec 7, 2012
John wrote:
You make the presupposition that there is no evidence without ...
Then where is this evidence?

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#65583 Dec 7, 2012
If Richard Dawkins can say he can't be certain that God doesn't exist, so can you.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-21058...

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#65584 Dec 7, 2012
digitaldan wrote:
<quoted text>
POLYANNA. OOPS! I mean, Polymath257 <------- a prime candidate for natural deselection.
...
In contrast, your comments are nothing more than the deluded rant of a card carrying pseudoscientist.
...
Just your run of the mill standard textbook scientific prejudices.
When people resort to nothing more than ad hominem attacks, it's a sure indication that they've lost the argument and know it.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#65585 Dec 7, 2012
Yes he has stated God is in the same category as pink fluffy flying unicorns and invisible elves.
BBSting wrote:
If Richard Dawkins can say he can't be certain that God doesn't exist, so can you.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-21058...

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#65586 Dec 7, 2012
BBSting wrote:
If Richard Dawkins can say he can't be certain that God doesn't exist, so can you.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-21058...
We do.

I also can't be 100% certain that there are not fairies at the bottom of the well in my garden who are keeping everything growing. But the idea is still too absurd to warrant serious consideration.
Thinking

UK

#65587 Dec 7, 2012
Old news.
Non story.
He wrote that himself in the God Delusion.
He knows the christian god can't exist, though.

He's a 6 on the scale in the link, as are most Atheists. What number are you?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_pr...
BBSting wrote:
If Richard Dawkins can say he can't be certain that God doesn't exist, so can you.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-21058...

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65588 Dec 7, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Old news.
Non story.
He wrote that himself in the God Delusion.
He knows the christian god can't exist, though.
He's a 6 on the scale in the link, as are most Atheists. What number are you?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_pr...
<quoted text>
That scale was one of the mistakes Dawkins made, almost everyone inject personal "feelings" into things, and it leads to improper judgment calls. This "scale" was one of Dawkins, but then he prefers to quantify everything, even things which cannot be.
Thinking

UK

#65589 Dec 7, 2012
There's an argument that a 7 (there can not possibly be any form of god) is a belief system, whereas a 6 is a lack-of-belief system. Yet both 6s and 7s are referred to as Atheists, even though they are not fungible.

I don't know many 7s.

I think his intent was to clear that up that longstanding issue.
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
That scale was one of the mistakes Dawkins made, almost everyone inject personal "feelings" into things, and it leads to improper judgment calls. This "scale" was one of Dawkins, but then he prefers to quantify everything, even things which cannot be.

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
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 10 min waaasssuuup 232,656
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 13 min woodtick57 2,164
God' existence 52 min polymath257 55
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 1 hr polymath257 112
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... 1 hr Geezerjock 1
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 1 hr _Bad Company 1,436
Australia: black magic pervert retard 2 hr Thinking 4
Evidence for God! 4 hr ChristineM 366