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 3,150)

Showing posts 62,981 - 63,000 of70,904
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65666
Dec 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't even prove that Jesus existed.
You are pathetically clueless.

Christ was a common name, so when I say there was a man named Christ involved in the events of those days, I do not mean to say that he was the biblical Christ. His life was one of those lives that were finally used to compose the composite image of the biblical Christ.

The world of events springs from the world of ideas. The mass psyche was seeking a change, an impetus, a new organization. The idea of a redeemer was hardly new, but ancient in many traditions. That part of the world was filled with would-be messiahs, self proclaimed prophets, and so forth, and in those terms it was only a matter of time before man's spiritual and psychic desires played out in a physical event.

There is nothing that happened in those times that is not happening now however. We have numberless gurus, great psychics, and people who seemingly perform miracles (and some have). So there were in those days some rather disconnected events that served as a focus point for psychic activity.

People wanted to believe, and their belief changed the course of history. It doesn't matter that the events as described in the Bible never happened, the belief happened. And the belief was man's response to intuitional spiritual knowledge.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65667
Dec 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

digitaldan wrote:
<quoted text>
Adaptations and mutations within a species in not evolutuion in the traditional Darwinian sense. None of the species you listed evolved into entirely new species. The only one who is confused about this issue is you.
The fruit fly remains a fruit fly to this day despite experimentation.
"Out of 400 mutations that have been provided by Drosophila melanogaster, there is not one that can be called a new species. It does not seem, therefore, that the central problem of evolution can be solved by mutations."*Maurice Caullery, Genetics and Heredity (1964), p. 119.
By inducing mutations, scientists have merely produced weaker offspring.
"The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity." -Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126.
"Richard Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [insignificant] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species." -Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 33.
http://cdnimg.visualizeus.com/thumbs/dc/2e/ar...
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17o9k1jy58big...

If those look the same to you, you need your eyes examined.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65668
Dec 8, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
http://cdnimg.visualizeus.com/thumbs/dc/2e/ar...
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17o9k1jy58big...
If those look the same to you, you need your eyes examined.
The fact that your banana photos don't look alike doesn't mean they are not of the same species. An Araucana and a California Grey don't look alike either but they are both chickens.

Are you just naturally dense, or do you have to work at it?

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65669
Dec 8, 2012
 
digitaldan wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that your banana photos don't look alike doesn't mean they are not of the same species. An Araucana and a California Grey don't look alike either but they are both chickens.
Are you just naturally dense, or do you have to work at it?
Seriously, how can an adult living in the 21st Century be so stupid they believe that creation myth!?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65670
Dec 8, 2012
 
digitaldan wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that your banana photos don't look alike doesn't mean they are not of the same species. An Araucana and a California Grey don't look alike either but they are both chickens.
Are you just naturally dense, or do you have to work at it?
Then how do you explain how they changed?

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65671
Dec 8, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Then how do you explain how they changed?
They didn't. There are over 1,000 different types of bananas in the world. Your photos simply illustrated a banana with seeds and one without, the variety generally sold in grocery stores.

“If God was real”

Since: Jan 10

He would look like this

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65672
Dec 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

digitaldan wrote:
<quoted text>
You are pathetically clueless.
Christ was a common name, so when I say there was a man named Christ involved in the events of those days, I do not mean to say that he was the biblical Christ. His life was one of those lives that were finally used to compose the composite image of the biblical Christ.
The world of events springs from the world of ideas. The mass psyche was seeking a change, an impetus, a new organization. The idea of a redeemer was hardly new, but ancient in many traditions. That part of the world was filled with would-be messiahs, self proclaimed prophets, and so forth, and in those terms it was only a matter of time before man's spiritual and psychic desires played out in a physical event.
There is nothing that happened in those times that is not happening now however. We have numberless gurus, great psychics, and people who seemingly perform miracles (and some have). So there were in those days some rather disconnected events that served as a focus point for psychic activity.
People wanted to believe, and their belief changed the course of history. It doesn't matter that the events as described in the Bible never happened, the belief happened. And the belief was man's response to intuitional spiritual knowledge.
I am not sure how to respond to this jibberish, except to say that it is pure crap. It matters not how many gurus and Jesuses there were, they were all false prophets, since prophets do not exist.
John

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65673
Dec 9, 2012
 
You loons sure spend a lot of time fighting a God you don't believe in. What do you believe by the way? Make sure you bring some evidence for your nothing.

Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.
Thinking

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65674
Dec 9, 2012
 
I believe you're a cu*t.
John wrote:
You loons sure spend a lot of time fighting a God you don't believe in. What do you believe by the way? Make sure you bring some evidence for your nothing.
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65675
Dec 9, 2012
 
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text> I am not sure how to respond to this jibberish, except to say that it is pure crap. It matters not how many gurus and Jesuses there were, they were all false prophets, since prophets do not exist.
Is this something you know because you have conclusive evidence, or something that inadvertently blew out your bigoted arse hole?

The science you laud as the only rational approach to reality originated in the Christian West, ya numbskull. Science's 17th century founders, Francis Bacon, René Descartes, Robert Boyle, and Isaac Newton held deep religious convictions. Crack a book once in awhile and stop embarrassing yourself.
Thinking

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65676
Dec 9, 2012
 
Newton was also an alchemist. We've thrown away that rubbish, his religious convictions and kept the bits of Newton's work that, for want of a better word, actually work.
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Is this something you know because you have conclusive evidence, or something that inadvertently blew out your bigoted arse hole?
The science you laud as the only rational approach to reality originated in the Christian West, ya numbskull. Science's 17th century founders, Francis Bacon, René Descartes, Robert Boyle, and Isaac Newton held deep religious convictions. Crack a book once in awhile and stop embarrassing yourself.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65677
Dec 9, 2012
 
Thinking wrote:
Newton was also an alchemist. We've thrown away that rubbish, his religious convictions and kept the bits of Newton's work that, for want of a better word, actually work.
<quoted text>
You may as well toss the theory of evolution while you are cleaning science's house because it is likewise garbage.

You clueless atheists have boxed yourselves in. Science isn't omnipotent and since you are the first to admit that all the evidence isn't in yet, you can never claim your assertions are true. The minute your defense is challenged, it begins to unravel like a cheap sweater.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65678
Dec 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

postscriptt wrote:
You may as well toss the theory of evolution while you are cleaning science's house because it is likewise garbage.
Nope. The evidence says otherwise:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
postscriptt wrote:
Science isn't omnipotent
Nobody here claimed that it was.
postscriptt wrote:
and since you are the first to admit that all the evidence isn't in yet...
There is no such thing as "all the evidence being in". New evidence will always be discovered.
postscriptt wrote:
...you can never claim your assertions are true.
Science doesn't claim "truth". Religion does. That's an important difference.

Science claims only that its fact and theories are supported by the currently available evidence.
postscriptt wrote:
The minute your defense is challenged, it begins to unravel like a cheap sweater.
So far, you haven't successfully challenged the modern evolutionary synthesis. When do you plan to begin?

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65679
Dec 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Well we have moved on past the universe was created by an ancient invisible sky wizard.

Do catch up half wit.
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
You may as well toss the theory of evolution while you are cleaning science's house because it is likewise garbage.
You clueless atheists have boxed yourselves in. Science isn't omnipotent and since you are the first to admit that all the evidence isn't in yet, you can never claim your assertions are true. The minute your defense is challenged, it begins to unravel like a cheap sweater.
Thinking

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65680
Dec 9, 2012
 
Why?
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
You may as well toss the theory of evolution while you are cleaning science's house because it is likewise garbage.
You clueless atheists have boxed yourselves in. Science isn't omnipotent and since you are the first to admit that all the evidence isn't in yet, you can never claim your assertions are true. The minute your defense is challenged, it begins to unravel like a cheap sweater.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65681
Dec 9, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
So far, you haven't successfully challenged the modern evolutionary synthesis. When do you plan to begin?
How about starting with Darwin hinself who said, "When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory."

Or Dr. Jonathan Wells who is not some anti-religious atheistic zealot like yourself but a qualified scientist, a post-doctoral biologist in the Department of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California at Berkley. He says,‘"the Darwinian paradigm is in serious trouble, of the kind that matters most in science. It doesn’t fit the evidence."

Or Biochemist Michael J. Denton who wrote: "It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the invertebrate fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient Paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today."
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65682
Dec 9, 2012
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Well we have moved on past the universe was created by an ancient invisible sky wizard.
<quoted text>
From a sky god to a magical realm where dead matter mysteriously comes to life. A quantum leap indeed! LOL!
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65683
Dec 9, 2012
 
Thinking wrote:
Why?
<quoted text>
Because no matter how you spin it, there is nothing virtuous or socially redeeming in viewing oneself as a disposable survival machine.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65684
Dec 9, 2012
 
So far, you haven't successfully challenged the modern evolutionary synthesis. When do you plan to begin?
postscriptt wrote:
How about starting with Darwin hinself
Are you going to challenge the modern evolutionary synthesis, or just take potshots at Darwin, who died decades before the synthesis was created?
postscriptt wrote:
who said, "When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory."
That particular instance of quote mining is already addressed here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/p...
postscriptt wrote:
Or Dr. Jonathan Wells who is not some anti-religious atheistic zealot like yourself but a qualified scientist, a post-doctoral biologist in the Department of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California at Berkley. He says,‘"the Darwinian paradigm is in serious trouble, of the kind that matters most in science. It doesn’t fit the evidence."
That's his personal opinion. So what? Are you going to provide any actual *evidence* that refutes evolution, or just quote opinions?
postscriptt wrote:
Or Biochemist Michael J. Denton who wrote: "It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the invertebrate fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient Paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today."
Already addressed here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.h...
Thinking

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65685
Dec 9, 2012
 
We should be judged by our actions, not belief in myths.
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Because no matter how you spin it, there is nothing virtuous or socially redeeming in viewing oneself as a disposable survival machine.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 62,981 - 63,000 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••