Atheists on the march in America

[digitaldan]

POLYANNA. OOPS! I mean, Polymath257 <------- a prime candidate for natural deselection.

[digitaldan]

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.

[digitaldan]

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]

Look at the truth at, http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god-toc.htm

[John]

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]

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!

[KittenKoder]

John wrote:

You make the presupposition that there is no evidence without ...

Then where is this evidence?

[BBSting]

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...

[Hedonist]

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.

[Givemeliberty]

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...

[Hedonist]

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]

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...

[KittenKoder]

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]

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.

[John]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Then where is this evidence?

Yeah, where is it? Nothing is evidence to you. This is your forum so provide some evidence. If you want to debate my accountable position of something vs your nothing make your case.

All you loons are simple bigots. Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.

[EdSed]

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...

But you quote the Daily Mail - a publication known for its propensity to mislead.

Prof Dawkins didn't 'admit' being an atheist. He hasn't claimed to be anything else. Like me perhaps, it probably doesn't bother him if people wish to think of him as an atheist or an agnostic. Atheist & agnostic define people in terms of religious beliefs in god(s), of which he has none.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnostic

He clearly doesn't believe in any Abrahamic god(s). Nor any of these..
http://www.godchecker.com/
I think the point he tries to make is that whether one is religious, agnostic or atheist one would accept the existence of a god if it was proven scientifically, beyond a reasonable doubt. Such evidence doesn't exist. And further, that in the absense of such evidence, such beliefs are at best superstitious. At worst they are delusional, divisive or even dangerous.

[John]

The scientific standard you subscribe to has meant nothing in this arena is evidence to you. Fine, move on. A forum about nothing isn't necessary.

Of course you need to go further and attempt to marginalize belief using the term superstition. Faith can be reasoned. In fact, belief in a higher power can be completely reasonable from many perspectives in and out of science. Does it meet your standard LOL. Of course not. Nothing does.

What is ridiculous is the nothing you loons keep trotting out. Shall we compare your nothing to my something? You can't. Your forum is filled with intellectual cowards.

Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe. True science that is repeatable and observable.

[John]

Who will be next to parrot this nothing nonsense? Rose, Drew, Septic?

[-Skeptic-]

John wrote:

The scientific standard you subscribe to has meant nothing in this arena is evidence to you. Fine, move on. A forum about nothing isn't necessary.
Of course you need to go further and attempt to marginalize belief using the term superstition. Faith can be reasoned. In fact, belief in a higher power can be completely reasonable from many perspectives in and out of science. Does it meet your standard LOL. Of course not. Nothing does.
What is ridiculous is the nothing you loons keep trotting out. Shall we compare your nothing to my something? You can't. Your forum is filled with intellectual cowards.
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe. True science that is repeatable and observable.

Oh look, it's another idiot thiest with no proof of god, who lies about atheists at any and every opportunity.

[EdSed]

John wrote:

The scientific standard you subscribe to has meant nothing in this arena is evidence to you. Fine, move on. A forum about nothing isn't necessary.
Of course you need to go further and attempt to marginalize belief using the term superstition. Faith can be reasoned. In fact, belief in a higher power can be completely reasonable from many perspectives in and out of science. Does it meet your standard LOL. Of course not. Nothing does.
What is ridiculous is the nothing you loons keep trotting out. Shall we compare your nothing to my something? You can't. Your forum is filled with intellectual cowards.
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe. True science that is repeatable and observable.

Wow! You're rattled, aren't you?
:-)

Religion = superstition
Relax and get over it...

From:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/WhyIamanAth...
"..I began to question everything. In hindsight, losing my virginity was a breeze. Losing my religion took me a whole year to get over!..." Unquote.

Religion gets people into such a muddle. People don't 'lose faith', they see religious faith for what it is - superstition. That's all.