Atheists on the march in America

Aug 26, 2009 Full story: TurkishPress.com 70,979

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

#65756 Dec 10, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and the first bananas had too many seeds for us to eat, the others did not exist before humans did, we know when they existed, it was long after humans did. You must be a troll, or a Poe, because even Ray Comfort isn't this stupid. He even did a backtrack and tried to pretend he knew that when it was pointed out to him.
You provided links to two photos of the same plant species cobbled from googled images and now you're stuck trying to explain how these photos represent the theory of evolution. The variety commonly available at most grocery stores come from sterile triploid hybrids. Fruits that develop parthenocarpically are typically seedless. They can occur naturally although less frequently than a variety of types within a plant species developed through horticulural crossbreeding, which in not an example of evolution. It is an example of your egregious lack of comprehension however.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65757 Dec 10, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
You provided links to two photos of the same plant species cobbled from googled images and now you're stuck trying to explain how these photos represent the theory of evolution. The variety commonly available at most grocery stores come from sterile triploid hybrids. Fruits that develop parthenocarpically are typically seedless. They can occur naturally although less frequently than a variety of types within a plant species developed through horticulural crossbreeding, which in not an example of evolution. It is an example of your egregious lack of comprehension however.
Same plant species? Are you really that blind?
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65758 Dec 10, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Liar, lying about Einstein.
Einstein was atheist:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954.
You Creationists are so rubbish at basic research, no wonder nobody belies you useless liars.
Reread the quote. Einstein does not refer to a personal god.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65759 Dec 10, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you rather they tested on humans?
They do.

http://listverse.com/2008/03/14/top-10-evil-h...
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65760 Dec 10, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
You're full of sh*t and have no proof of god. Before you try and attack science, a subject that you clearly don't understand, try proving the god you're trying to lie to us about, there's a good dishonest religious drone.
Definintely an exemplary example of overt anti-religious bigotry. This must be your ward's computer hour. LOL!
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65761 Dec 10, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Same plant species? Are you really that blind?
Blaming others for your own myopia won't cut it. You got caught pretending to know what you're talking about. Moted.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#65762 Dec 10, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Reread the quote. Einstein does not refer to a personal god.
“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this”~ Albert Einstein

“Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history.””~ Albert Einstein

“A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”~ Albert Einstein
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65763 Dec 10, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this”~ Albert Einstein
“Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history.””~ Albert Einstein
“A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”~ Albert Einstein
There are different ways to express a belief in a greater reality. Einstein was a pantheist, or someone who believes that God is creation. I happen to share that belief.

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." - Albert Einstein

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65764 Dec 10, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
Not legally in the US and most civilized countries as well. Some of what's on that list you posted is really just studying, not actual testing of chemicals on them.

Anyhow, I need to order a new batch of death row inmates, I'll be back in a bit.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65765 Dec 10, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
There are different ways to express a belief in a greater reality. Einstein was a pantheist, or someone who believes that God is creation. I happen to share that belief.
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." - Albert Einstein
While that's all fine and dandy, and really it's actually something of a lie you are telling since you clearly don't even know scientific information and often I see you post religious nonsense as a response, what order?

Einstein couldn't understand quantum physics because it opposes this whole "order" concept, things only appear solid, ordered, and coherent. Get down to the atomic level and beyond, you lose all sense of direction, all sense. He denied quantum physics, yet today we use it a lot, and it helps us advance a lot. There is no order, there is merely expected. We know how larger things react, and they tend to do as expected, thus why we have developed laws for that behavior, but on the atomic or subatomic level we are still barely to comprehend how these small particles behave and why they behave that way, they are, by definition, chaos.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65766 Dec 10, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
While that's all fine and dandy, and really it's actually something of a lie you are telling since you clearly don't even know scientific information and often I see you post religious nonsense as a response, what order?
Einstein couldn't understand quantum physics because it opposes this whole "order" concept, things only appear solid, ordered, and coherent. Get down to the atomic level and beyond, you lose all sense of direction, all sense. He denied quantum physics, yet today we use it a lot, and it helps us advance a lot. There is no order, there is merely expected. We know how larger things react, and they tend to do as expected, thus why we have developed laws for that behavior, but on the atomic or subatomic level we are still barely to comprehend how these small particles behave and why they behave that way, they are, by definition, chaos.
You need not be scientific to use your intuition. You need not be a slave to dialectics to understand the nature of reality. Until you have put in an appreciable amount of time studying (not googling) religions and philosophies, your opinions on the subject will always resemble something you haphazardly copied and pasted.

Einstein was a "mental physicist" who developed the ability to merge his consciousness with the consciousness of other forms. He understood far more than he could actually articulate in a way that his lessor informed colleagues could comprehend. His understanding of the universe and theirs were light years apart, in other words.

Science's idea of development and growth implies a single chronological march towards an end,(whether perfection of extinction), which is why it's difficult for scientist's to grasp the kind of order that actually pervades. An end presupposes that point beyond which development is impossible, and creativity stops. Ultimately a completed or finished God, or All That Is, would end up smothering its creation. For there would be an order in which only predestination could rule, each part automatically following some predetermined fate. What science calls chaos is freedom. The freedom of creativity that is characteristic of God and that guarantees its infinite becoming.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65767 Dec 10, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
You need not be scientific to use your intuition. You need not be a slave to dialectics to understand the nature of reality. Until you have put in an appreciable amount of time studying (not googling) religions and philosophies, your opinions on the subject will always resemble something you haphazardly copied and pasted.
Einstein was a "mental physicist" who developed the ability to merge his consciousness with the consciousness of other forms. He understood far more than he could actually articulate in a way that his lessor informed colleagues could comprehend. His understanding of the universe and theirs were light years apart, in other words.
Science's idea of development and growth implies a single chronological march towards an end,(whether perfection of extinction), which is why it's difficult for scientist's to grasp the kind of order that actually pervades. An end presupposes that point beyond which development is impossible, and creativity stops. Ultimately a completed or finished God, or All That Is, would end up smothering its creation. For there would be an order in which only predestination could rule, each part automatically following some predetermined fate. What science calls chaos is freedom. The freedom of creativity that is characteristic of God and that guarantees its infinite becoming.
Intuition, in other words "common sense," tells you that there are monsters in the shadows. It's an instinctual response that was evolved as a means to protect us from the actual monsters there, like lions, tigers, etc. The instinct is outdated, we no longer need it as most shadows contain nothing but inane objects now. But the instinct leads to confirmation bias, confirmation bias leads to inaccurate results, and will make you inherently wrong more often than not. This is why the scientific method works to eliminate the use of such flaws, and it is a flaw today. The instinct tells you to fight or flight when often either will get you killed in the modern day, as well.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#65768 Dec 10, 2012
John wrote:
<quoted text>
If Rose had a conscience there would be evidence of it.
There is no evidence Rose has a conscience.
We can conclude Rose has no conscience.
Will there ever be an antitheist willing to address their ridiculous nothing? It's indefensible bigotry. Not one evidence backed accountable position has been offered.
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.
Again, John, you avoid debating my position.
Stump John, ask him to debate.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65769 Dec 10, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
You've offered many scientific opinions but have yet to provide conclusive evidence to support any of them. There is no neurophysiological research which "conclusively" shows that the higher levels of mind are located in brain tissue.
But there is plenty that shows it beyond a reasonable doubt.
The fact that science cannot control human behavior should be your first clue. If it could, crime would not exist.
You have got to be kidding. Simply understanding that thoughts and emotions are physical processes in the brain doesn't automatically mean we can control them at the level of precision that would affect crime rates. For one thing, it would require some sort of brain implant that knows the 'language' of the brain in detail and affects the mechanisms in a desired direction. We are NOWHERE close to this even though we know where in the brain (not the specific neurons!) the processes happen.
Like your atheistic compadres. you're not defending science, you're defending atheism using unproven scientific theories as a smokescreen to justify your choice.
Garbage. You are simply ignoring the scientific evidence accumulated over the last century showing where in the brain things happen.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65770 Dec 10, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
Einstein was a "mental physicist" who developed the ability to merge his consciousness with the consciousness of other forms. He understood far more than he could actually articulate in a way that his lessor informed colleagues could comprehend. His understanding of the universe and theirs were light years apart, in other words.
And yet he was wrong concerning quantum mechanics, for example. Einstein was a very deep thinker, but had no 'inside path' to real knowledge.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65772 Dec 10, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Intuition, in other words "common sense," tells you that there are monsters in the shadows. It's an instinctual response that was evolved as a means to protect us from the actual monsters there, like lions, tigers, etc. The instinct is outdated, we no longer need it as most shadows contain nothing but inane objects now. But the instinct leads to confirmation bias, confirmation bias leads to inaccurate results, and will make you inherently wrong more often than not. This is why the scientific method works to eliminate the use of such flaws, and it is a flaw today. The instinct tells you to fight or flight when often either will get you killed in the modern day, as well.
Invest in a dictionary. Intuition involves impressions which has nothing to do with common sense. Stop trying to paraphrase googled information to avoid detection of your sources. It makes you comes across as an addlebrained old lady.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65773 Dec 10, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
But there is plenty that shows it beyond a reasonable doubt.
<quoted text>
You have got to be kidding. Simply understanding that thoughts and emotions are physical processes in the brain doesn't automatically mean we can control them at the level of precision that would affect crime rates. For one thing, it would require some sort of brain implant that knows the 'language' of the brain in detail and affects the mechanisms in a desired direction. We are NOWHERE close to this even though we know where in the brain (not the specific neurons!) the processes happen.
<quoted text>
Garbage. You are simply ignoring the scientific evidence accumulated over the last century showing where in the brain things happen.
Beyond a reasonable doubt? More like beyond believable. If, as you claim, the seat of thought is located in the brain, mind control experiments should work. They don't. Google Project MKUltra, a covert research operation experimenting in the behavioral engineering of humans through the CIA's Scientific Intelligence Division.

I'm quite familiar with scientific evidence, I just don't accept these assertions as the end all and be all.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65774 Dec 10, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet he was wrong concerning quantum mechanics, for example. Einstein was a very deep thinker, but had no 'inside path' to real knowledge.
This is a prime example of one of your half baked assumptions grounded in unverifiable opinion.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#65775 Dec 10, 2012
Einstein knew as most educated people that Spinoza was himself an atheist and his so called God is a joke purposely made to mock you idiots.

You do not share anything with Einstein as you repeatedly fight science as an evil entity and Einstein would certainly be the polar opposite of you there.

You are a Christhole nothing more.
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
There are different ways to express a belief in a greater reality. Einstein was a pantheist, or someone who believes that God is creation. I happen to share that belief.
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." - Albert Einstein

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#65776 Dec 11, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet he was wrong concerning quantum mechanics, for example. Einstein was a very deep thinker, but had no 'inside path' to real knowledge.
I wouldn't judge Einstein's reluctance so quickly. The jury is still out. Einstein's main objection was the incompleteness of Quantum Theory and he was not wrong. The theory contains within it some apparent conceptual paradoxes that even after eighty years remain unresolved

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt174729.html

"Quantum mechanics is very worthy of regard. But an inner voice tells me that this not yet the right track. The theory yields much, but it hardly brings us closer to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced that He does not play dice." - Albert Einstein

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
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 17 min polymath257 14,676
Christianity Created Hitler 27 min polymath257 215
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 31 min polymath257 234,652
The Consequences of Atheism 43 min Thinking 79
Why Evil Disproves Atheism 12 hr Luke1981 7
Our world came from nothing? (Jul '14) 12 hr NoahLovesU 1,245
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 12 hr NoahLovesU 2,844
More from around the web