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
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65689 Dec 9, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
If you're going to keep bringing up "problems" that have already been refuted by talkorigins, then I'm going to keep pointing out where in talkorigins your "problems" have already been refuted.
Got anything that *hasn't* been refuted yet?
Do you? It's all been hashed and rehashed a gazillion times over. The fact remains, religion can't prove God exists and science can't prove God doesn't exist. It's an endless circular argument - round and round it goes proving nothing. Using a raft of fallacious arguments based on the out-dated pseudo science of talkorigins doesn't make your assertions any more plausibe, or even intelligent for that matter.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65690 Dec 9, 2012
Got anything that *hasn't* been refuted yet?
postscriptt wrote:
Do you?
I'm not the one here claiming that the theory of evolution has problems. If you want make such a claim, then support your claim with evidence.
postscriptt wrote:
The fact remains, religion can't prove God exists and science can't prove God doesn't exist.
Science has no burden of proof in that matter. Religion does. If you're going to claim that something exists, then provide some evidence to support the claim.

Otherwise, the rational position is to reject the claim.
postscriptt wrote:
Using a raft of fallacious arguments based on the out-dated pseudo science of talkorigins...
Funny how you have failed to indicate what is "outdated" or "pseudo science" among the content from talkorigins presented to you.

Why is that?
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65691 Dec 9, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
.......
Content deleted due to redundancy.
Thinking

UK

#65692 Dec 9, 2012
Because unlike many religious people such as Hitler and his millions of christian followers, I strongly believe in doing the right thing now.

How does being "forgiven" by god for a shitty but eventually repentant-at-the-11th-hour life ever undo the hurt caused to others?
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you believe you came from nothing, you're going nowhere ao why worry about judgements?
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65693 Dec 9, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Because unlike many religious people such as Hitler and his millions of christian followers, I strongly believe in doing the right thing now.
<quoted text>
Two World Wars and the purges of Stalin and Mao can hardly be attributed to religion. Hitler did his evil in the name of an insane and unscientific eugenics theory. But then how would atheists who profess no moral guide know what's right?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65694 Dec 9, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Content deleted due to redundancy.
In other words, you're afraid to address it. Yeah, we get that.
Thinking

UK

#65695 Dec 9, 2012
Unscientific he may have been but Hitler was a catholic leading a majority protestant Germany.

He probably thought he could murder because he would be forgiven by your shitty god myth.
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Two World Wars and the purges of Stalin and Mao can hardly be attributed to religion. Hitler did his evil in the name of an insane and unscientific eugenics theory. But then how would atheists who profess no moral guide know what's right?
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65696 Dec 9, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Unscientific he may have been but Hitler was a catholic leading a majority protestant Germany.
He probably thought he could murder because he would be forgiven by your shitty god myth.
<quoted text>
And you? What's your moral guide, science?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65697 Dec 9, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
And you? What's your moral guide, science?
Compassion. There are two aspects of morality, as I see it: thinking and caring. As the quote goes, knowledge without compassion is inhuman and compassion without knowledge is ineffective. So science does inform my morality, but there is no science of morality. Morality comes from the simple fact that we are all social animals and that compassion is an inherent part of our psychologies.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65698 Dec 9, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Compassion. There are two aspects of morality, as I see it: thinking and caring. As the quote goes, knowledge without compassion is inhuman and compassion without knowledge is ineffective. So science does inform my morality, but there is no science of morality. Morality comes from the simple fact that we are all social animals and that compassion is an inherent part of our psychologies.
Under science's morality, anything goes if it furthers man's programmed agenda to control and dominate through its survival of the fittest theory. And where has this idea led us? Humans have run rampant across the face of this planet with little respect for it or other kinds of life precisely because they believe they have a scientific mandate to use the earth as they see fit. Is this the science that informs your morality?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65699 Dec 9, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Under science's morality, anything goes if it furthers man's programmed agenda to control and dominate through its survival of the fittest theory. And where has this idea led us? Humans have run rampant across the face of this planet with little respect for it or other kinds of life precisely because they believe they have a scientific mandate to use the earth as they see fit. Is this the science that informs your morality?
And that is why *compassion* is also required: not just knowledge. As I said.

I would also point out that it is the Biblical injunction to use the earth as we see fit that has motivated most of the wrongs you pointed out. Science only gives us knowledge. It does not say how we should *use* that knowledge.
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#65700 Dec 9, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And that is why *compassion* is also required: not just knowledge. As I said.
I would also point out that it is the Biblical injunction to use the earth as we see fit that has motivated most of the wrongs you pointed out. Science only gives us knowledge. It does not say how we should *use* that knowledge.
Exactly. Our out-of-control population expansion and our subjugation of the rest of the animal kingdom is based squarely on the religiously propagated myth that the world was created for man and it's man's duty to conquer and rule it.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65701 Dec 9, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And that is why *compassion* is also required: not just knowledge. As I said.
I would also point out that it is the Biblical injunction to use the earth as we see fit that has motivated most of the wrongs you pointed out. Science only gives us knowledge. It does not say how we should *use* that knowledge.
If science is not responsible for compassion, where does it come from?
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65702 Dec 9, 2012
Some Random Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. Our out-of-control population expansion and our subjugation of the rest of the animal kingdom is based squarely on the religiously propagated myth that the world was created for man and it's man's duty to conquer and rule it.
You are confusing good stewardship with domination. "Be fruitful and mulitiply, and replenish the earth."

It is precisely the scientific idea that we are no more than resilient machines that fosters a lack of caring and compassion. Instead this egregious notion has proven to generate destructive behavior to self and others. One cannot say that science has not advanced civilization however, for we now know how to kill each other more efficiently.
Thinking

UK

#65703 Dec 9, 2012
Do you kill witches? If not, you ignore your bible.
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
And you? What's your moral guide, science?
Thinking

UK

#65704 Dec 9, 2012
Evolution.
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
If science is not responsible for compassion, where does it come from?
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#65705 Dec 9, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
You are confusing good stewardship with domination. "Be fruitful and mulitiply, and replenish the earth."
It is precisely the scientific idea that we are no more than resilient machines that fosters a lack of caring and compassion. Instead this egregious notion has proven to generate destructive behavior to self and others. One cannot say that science has not advanced civilization however, for we now know how to kill each other more efficiently.
There is some truth to your assertion that the scientific community has reduced the value of life to a set of natural laws (so to speak). However, I would say religion's mythical notion that man is essentially the climax of creation has played an equally important role in the great fallacy that is civilized thought. Through science/technology (agriculture specifically), man has leaned how to defeat the earth's ecological negative feedback system; allowing our population to grow unchecked. Religion has offered the justification. The difference is that while religion has taken misguided notions and ran with them; science has continued to study and advance our knowledge, and we have had the option of adjusting our behavior based on these new discoveries.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65706 Dec 9, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Evolution.
<quoted text>
Science hasn't been any more successful proving that genes alone guide human conduct than it has its bogus theory of evolution.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65707 Dec 9, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Do you kill witches? If not, you ignore your bible.
<quoted text>
It appears you are stuck in the 15th century.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65708 Dec 9, 2012
Some Random Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
There is some truth to your assertion that the scientific community has reduced the value of life to a set of natural laws (so to speak). However, I would say religion's mythical notion that man is essentially the climax of creation has played an equally important role in the great fallacy that is civilized thought. Through science/technology (agriculture specifically), man has leaned how to defeat the earth's ecological negative feedback system; allowing our population to grow unchecked. Religion has offered the justification. The difference is that while religion has taken misguided notions and ran with them; science has continued to study and advance our knowledge, and we have had the option of adjusting our behavior based on these new discoveries.
None of which explains the "source" of what we recognize as compassion and caring in our species as well as others.

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) 17 min KiMare 227,381
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 21 min Eman 22,031
Atheism 101: What's the most aggravating argume... 1 hr Thinking 2
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 1 hr Thinking 183
Stump a theist with 2 questions 1 hr Patrick 16
Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns 4 hr Patrick 41
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 9 hr Thinking 69
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••