Atheists on the march in America

Atheists on the march in America

There are 70629 comments on the TurkishPress.com story from Aug 26, 2009, titled Atheists on the march in America. In it, TurkishPress.com reports that:

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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TurkishPress.com.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65950 Dec 14, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>possibly
http://recordofawakening.com/2012/04/21/relea...
DMT through Meditation
Interesting, but I was thinking of one not caused by the individual experiencing it.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65951 Dec 14, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't imagine any woman being attracted do an ape-man like yourself. It's a freaking miracle that you are able to find your mouth with a fork every day!
This guy's mom was obviously attracted to neanderthal types...

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2009070...

...which explains the unibrow and fangs.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#65952 Dec 14, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Still more assertions, still no evidence, and if you had demonstrated it to not be a scam, why is it that no one knows about it? James Randi has over a million bucks for such a thing. This money has remained unclaimed for decades now.
James Randi is a fraud, and there is no million dollar prize. Wise up.

Amazing Randi has been adjudicated in at least 2 court cases to be a liar. He has lied repeatedly about data submitted to him by aspirants to the prize. There is no prize.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#65953 Dec 14, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
James Randi likes to claim he's a sceptic, but he's really a cynic. Having been a stage magician for many years, he's smart enough to know how to prevent forking over a million dollars he doesn't have, which is why no one one can pass his prequalifying test. There's nothing scientific about choosing a series of experiments you know have a minimal chance of success.
There are groups who have passed Amazing Randi's test and are waiting for their prize.

They will wait a long time. There is no prize. Randi is a proven and documented liar and fraud.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#65954 Dec 14, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
So why should anyone else accept your claims?
<quoted text>
You didn't answer the question.
<quoted text>
No, you didn't. You identified no process for distinguishing between you claimed "evidence" and the products of a vivid imagination.
If you can't distinguish them, then nobody else has any reason to accept your claim.
Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65955 Dec 14, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Randi put up his own money.
You don't read too well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi_Educ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi_Educ...

Learn something, you idiot.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65956 Dec 14, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
James Randi is a fraud, and there is no million dollar prize. Wise up.
Amazing Randi has been adjudicated in at least 2 court cases to be a liar. He has lied repeatedly about data submitted to him by aspirants to the prize. There is no prize.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =YB3SAD-gHTcXX
Um, wow, you buy into anything. So one scam artist who's bilking millions out of people isn't interested in the prize money and suddenly James is a criminal? Lame attempt to discredit someone just because you can't put up the evidence.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65957 Dec 14, 2012
BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
The JREF gives itself complete control. The test is one-sided and the applicant has absolutely no rights and no control. On the JREF website, it states that the test: "isn't going to be like taking a test. This is going to be like going to court."
http://voices.yahoo.com/exposing-unfair-truth...
btw....James Randi is being sued for fraud, misrepresentation and breach of contract, malfeasance and more.
http://www.bolenreport.com/feature_articles/D... 's-Data-v-Barrett/milliondolla rsuit1.htm
Still nothing but scam artists trying to make excuses for not presenting evidence.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#65958 Dec 15, 2012
James routinely busts Buck's paranormal heroes so it's understandable why he hates him so much.
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, wow, you buy into anything. So one scam artist who's bilking millions out of people isn't interested in the prize money and suddenly James is a criminal? Lame attempt to discredit someone just because you can't put up the evidence.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#65959 Dec 15, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
James Randi likes to claim he's a sceptic, but he's really a cynic.
Theists like to claim god is real, but there's actually no evidence.

For your information james randi is quite well off, after a long career in stage magic.

I guess you creationists don't really understand science that well and so you don't understand what his challenge is about.

Or alternatively, you know exactly what his challenge is about and how is disproves your claims. And so you choose to lie about James randi in order to try and convince us all he's wrong and you're right.

I thought you might be smart, but you're just as stupid as the next creationist liar.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#65960 Dec 15, 2012
Wasn't there a theist poster in this forum earlier this year who thought Chris Angel could actually perform miracles?

heck if its that easy to mislead someone, no wonder these people are so stupid.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#65961 Dec 15, 2012
Why that was the lardassed one himself dumbfuckbuck if I am not mistaken :)
-Skeptic- wrote:
Wasn't there a theist poster in this forum earlier this year who thought Chris Angel could actually perform miracles?
heck if its that easy to mislead someone, no wonder these people are so stupid.
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#65962 Dec 15, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
You're avoiding the question.
How do you distinguish between evidence that is the result of your vivid imagination and evidence that is the result of reality (but which is not available to anyone else, for some reason)?
<quoted text>
No, you didn't. The question was how to distinguish evidence of reality from imagination. You simply relabeled the two as categories, but provided no *method* on how to distinguish them.
<quoted text>
You aren't providing answers. You're avoiding the question.
You can provide no method to distinguish real evidence from imagined evidence.
So why should anyone else accept your claims?
If atheism isn't a religion, why are you so intent on converting people to your point of view? You are becoming as obnoxious as a Jehovah Witness - quibbling over inconsequentials when the answers lie within your own subjective experience.

Try using your common sense. The materialist view of life is really one of death, it contains objects that are inert or subjects that are short-lived phantoms. It's a world of linear time that produces living things only to extinquish them and replace them in futile cycles of mortality. Ask yourself why a sentient species would be integrated in an objective world that has no use for subjective thought?
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#65963 Dec 15, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't read too well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi_Educ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi_Educ...
Learn something, you idiot.
You're a mouth piece for science - eager to give its theories lip service although badly I might add. And now you think James Randi is a prophet and Wikipedia, the Bible! You are a misquided atheist zealot asleep in your own catatonic ignorance.
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#65964 Dec 15, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Theists like to claim god is real, but there's actually no evidence.
For your information james randi is quite well off, after a long career in stage magic.
I guess you creationists don't really understand science that well and so you don't understand what his challenge is about.
Or alternatively, you know exactly what his challenge is about and how is disproves your claims. And so you choose to lie about James randi in order to try and convince us all he's wrong and you're right.
I thought you might be smart, but you're just as stupid as the next creationist liar.
Save your breath, Gomer. You'll need it to blow up your date.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65965 Dec 15, 2012
No, you didn't. You identified no process for distinguishing between you claimed "evidence" and the products of a vivid imagination.
If you can't distinguish them, then nobody else has any reason to accept your claim.
LucindaW wrote:
Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
Nope.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65966 Dec 15, 2012
You aren't providing answers. You're avoiding the question.
You can provide no method to distinguish real evidence from imagined evidence.
So why should anyone else accept your claims?
postscriptt wrote:
If atheism isn't a religion, why are you so intent on converting people to your point of view?
If being rational isn't a religion, why do people think that being rational is a good idea?
postscriptt wrote:
The materialist view of life is really one of death, it contains objects that are inert or subjects that are short-lived phantoms. It's a world of linear time that produces living things only to extinquish them and replace them in futile cycles of mortality.
"Phantoms" in what sense? "Futile" in what sense? You're engaged in a circular argument.
postscriptt wrote:
Ask yourself why a sentient species would be integrated in an objective world that has no use for subjective thought?
If you're asking why some living organisms (including humans) have the ability to imagine things that don't exist in reality, you might consider the evolutionary advantage of being able to imagine multiple different future scenarios and the likely outcomes of choices.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#65967 Dec 15, 2012
Avoiding the questions and facts like Buck avoiding green leafy vegetables. Just baseless assertions and insults is all the reject has.
Drew Smith wrote:
You aren't providing answers. You're avoiding the question.
You can provide no method to distinguish real evidence from imagined evidence.
So why should anyone else accept your claims?
<quoted text>
If being rational isn't a religion, why do people think that being rational is a good idea?
<quoted text>
"Phantoms" in what sense? "Futile" in what sense? You're engaged in a circular argument.
<quoted text>
If you're asking why some living organisms (including humans) have the ability to imagine things that don't exist in reality, you might consider the evolutionary advantage of being able to imagine multiple different future scenarios and the likely outcomes of choices.
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#65968 Dec 15, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
So why should anyone else accept your claims?
<quoted text>
You didn't answer the question.
<quoted text>
No, you didn't. You identified no process for distinguishing between you claimed "evidence" and the products of a vivid imagination.
If you can't distinguish them, then nobody else has any reason to accept your claim.
I didn't answer the question, or I didn't give you the physical evidence you seem to need?

Suppose (and I am using my imagination here) that you stood in one spot all of your physical life because you were told that you must. You would only be able to see what was directly in front of you. Your periphearal vision would give you hints of what was to each side and you might hear sounds from behind you. If you were to turn you body to the right or left, you would not be imagining it, but simply changing your position in an effort to expand your over-all view. It's the same with consciousness. You simply use it in a different fashion and focus it in another direction to expand your awareness. What you perceive will not be seen of course, but felt through impressions. But again if you can't accept intuition as a reliable source of information, then nothing you intuit will seem real.

Einstein often said that if he was a better mathematician, he would not have made the breakthroughs he did. He knew the dogmas of the science would have interfered with his natural ability to identify with various functions of the universe. He would not have been able to listen to the inner voice of matter. He was intuitively and emotionally led to his discoveries. He "leaned" against time and FELT it give and wobble. As I said before, he was a true mental physicist - a bold explorer - not just picking at the universe with small tools, but allowing his consciousness to flow into many open doors that cannot be examined with instruments, but only with the mind.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65969 Dec 15, 2012
No, you didn't. You identified no process for distinguishing between you claimed "evidence" and the products of a vivid imagination.
If you can't distinguish them, then nobody else has any reason to accept your claim
postscriptt wrote:
I didn't answer the question, or I didn't give you the physical evidence you seem to need?
You didn't answer the question, since you didn't identify any reliable process for distinguishing between your "subjective evidence" and the output of a vivid imagination.
postscriptt wrote:
Suppose (and I am using my imagination here) that you stood in one spot all of your physical life because you were told that you must.
Suppose that you answer the question that you were asked.
postscriptt wrote:
It's the same with consciousness. You simply use it in a different fashion and focus it in another direction to expand your awareness.
And this "different fashion" is what, exactly? The "another direction" is where, exactly?
postscriptt wrote:
...if you can't accept intuition as a reliable source of information...
We weren't discussing intuition. We were discussing how you distinguish "subjective evidence" from the products of a vivid imagination.

So far you've identified no method for distinguishing them.

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
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) 27 min Hedonist Heretic 1,966
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 29 min Messianic114 2,049
News Distrust of the non-religious runs deep in Amer... 31 min Hedonist Heretic 112
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 57 min Regolith Based Li... 27,537
News Washington court rules against florist in gay w... 1 hr Amused 65
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Dogen 58,667
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) 8 hr greymouser 198
More from around the web