Atheists on the march in America

Atheists on the march in America

There are 70650 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.

John

United States

#66109 Dec 19, 2012
Thinking wrote:
I believe in freedom despite whackjobs like you.
<quoted text>
Another Obama loving, baby killing, gun controlling, money stealing loon ducking a simple question. You are a real freedom fighter bigot.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#66110 Dec 19, 2012
Some Random Dude wrote:
Polymath and Postscript: Thanks for expanding my understanding of the subject. I guess I was being a bit of a jackass earlier... especially to DigitalDan (sorry again Dan). Sometimes I think science over-complicates things; but I understand the need. If we are ever going to save the human race, it won't be through our behavior here on earth. It will be because science finally figured out a way to get us the hell out of here. That's obviously going to take a thorough understanding of how things work at their most basic levels. Anyway... keep fighting the good fight fellas.
Don't be afraid.

Tho man's ignorance thrives in earnest!
And destruction be his goal;
Dust thou are, to dust thou returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#66111 Dec 19, 2012
Whereas your lot shoot six year olds in their gaptoothed faces...
John wrote:
<quoted text>
Another Obama loving, baby killing, gun controlling, money stealing loon ducking a simple question. You are a real freedom fighter bigot.

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#66112 Dec 19, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, this is a misunderstanding of the nature of forces. Forces do not cause motion. They cause *changes* in motion. The distinction may seem trivial, but it is one of the crucial differences between Aristotelean and Newtonian mechanics. For Aristotle, F=mv, force was mass times velocity. For newton, F=ma, force is mass times acceleration.
In a Newtonian system, objects will move in straight lines with the same velocity even in the absence of force. Force is not required for motion.
Now, in more modern systems, like general relativity or quantum mechanics, the same basic understanding of the concept of force still holds. There are complications due to curved spacetime or the probabilistic nature of the quantum world, but the same basic idea is that forces cause changes of motion, not the motion itself.
Hello polymath257

I have been looking at this thread for about a week now. And I have a couple of questions....

First: Do you find beauty in the explanations of the Universe, equations, and mathematics you express?

Secondly: If you do, find beauty, is that why you try to teach them here on this thread?

(If you do not find beauty, then to what end do you try to educate?)

Since: Mar 11

United States

#66113 Dec 19, 2012
Whereas religion says the great sky wizard did it and leave it at that.
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really think a catholic priest would suspend his religious beliefs to come up with a scientific hypothesis that excludes God from creation?
"Should a priest reject relativity because it contains no authoritative exposition on the doctrine of the Trinity? Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes. The doctrine of the Trinity is much more abstruse than anything in relativity or quantum mechanics; but, being necessary for salvation, the doctrine is stated in the Bible. If the theory of relativity had also been necessary for salvation, it would have been revealed to Saint Paul or to Moses.”
"The Holy Scriptures clearly attest to a "beginning" that one would expect to be reflected in the natural world. Scientific proof only comes from consistency with empirical evidence. Therefore, the distinction of orders is only relevant in the context of verification."
"Both of them (the scientist-believer and the scientist-nonbeliever) attempt at decoding the palimpsest of nature with multiple imbrications in which the traces of the various stages of the world's lengthy evolution has been overlapped and blended. The believer perhaps has an advantage of knowing that the riddle possesses a solution, that the underlying writing finally comes from an intelligent being, and consequently that the problem proposed by nature has been posed in order to be solved, therefore, that its degree of difficulty is presumably measurable with the present and future capacities of humanity."
Science is first of all about discovery. But the more science knows, the more it realizes what it doesn't know.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#66114 Dec 20, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really think a catholic priest would suspend his religious beliefs to come up with a scientific hypothesis that excludes God from creation?
Yes. LeMaitre did just that. He proposed a scientific theory that derived from Einstein's general relativity. He later chided the Pope for using that theory to support the Genesis account.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#66115 Dec 20, 2012
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello polymath257
I have been looking at this thread for about a week now. And I have a couple of questions....
First: Do you find beauty in the explanations of the Universe, equations, and mathematics you express?
In many, but not all, of them.
Secondly: If you do, find beauty, is that why you try to teach them here on this thread?
No. I try to teach them because they represent the hard work of many people over the centuries and are the best explanation we have for how the universe works.
(If you do not find beauty, then to what end do you try to educate?)
Education itself is the goal. I wish to live in an educated society.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#66116 Dec 20, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
It you saw it on TV, it was designed for lay public consumption, which means it's an oversimplification and may even be wrong according to polykoder. He/she suggests that such information be viewed with suspicion. In reality, this is just an excuse to cover the fact that scientists are generally lousy communicators and more often than not, fail to make their case to the public in comprehensible terms.
And I agree with this: scientists tend to be focussed enough on their work that they seldom attempt more than very basic explanations of what they are doing. Between research, teaching, and filling out grant requests, there is little time for popular writing. This is a deep shame.
Anyway, the description of gravity has changed somewhat since Newton and an apple collided. Alternative theories of gravity say it's not a force that objects exert upon each other. It's an effect and not the cause of anything. Instead it "emerges" from the interactions of more fundamental forces.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physic...
Not quite correct. The description of gravity *has* changed since Newton. In particular, Einstein gave a very different description of gravity which has been shown to be more accurate.

We know that gravity and quantum mechanics have to be merged in some way and there are a couple of proposals about how to do that. String theory (mentioned in your link) is one of them. It does not, however, have gravity 'emerging' so much as it is an essential aspect of the overall theory to make it consistent. The BIG problem at this time is that there is no way to *test* between the different proposals for quantum gravity. The energy scales involved are far, far higher than any we can produce right now.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#66117 Dec 20, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. LeMaitre did just that. He proposed a scientific theory that derived from Einstein's general relativity. He later chided the Pope for using that theory to support the Genesis account.
Because the bible is not a science textbook, which he explained in his quoted statements - not because he believed the universe happened by chance.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#66118 Dec 20, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And I agree with this: scientists tend to be focussed enough on their work that they seldom attempt more than very basic explanations of what they are doing. Between research, teaching, and filling out grant requests, there is little time for popular writing. This is a deep shame.
<quoted text>
Not quite correct. The description of gravity *has* changed since Newton. In particular, Einstein gave a very different description of gravity which has been shown to be more accurate.
We know that gravity and quantum mechanics have to be merged in some way and there are a couple of proposals about how to do that. String theory (mentioned in your link) is one of them. It does not, however, have gravity 'emerging' so much as it is an essential aspect of the overall theory to make it consistent. The BIG problem at this time is that there is no way to *test* between the different proposals for quantum gravity. The energy scales involved are far, far higher than any we can produce right now.
Like Ebenezer Scrooge, physicists see the shadows of things that might be, not the shadows of things that must be. For all anyone knows, gravity is part of an illusion, a side effect of something else going on at a deeper level of reality. Erik Verlinde, a respected string theorist and professor of physics at the University of Amsterdam, says gravity doesn't exist. He thinks physicists are looking at gravity the wrong way and that there is something more basic from which gravity “emerges."
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#66119 Dec 20, 2012
A parodox exists between relativity and quantum physics. In relativity, time and space are relative to the observer. Einstein's equations allow one to accurately transform position data from one reference frame to another. Quantum mechanics treats time and space as a rigid, fixed, four dimensional coordinate system, however it shows that it is impossible to place any object in this coordinate system with absolute precision. So either time and space are flexible and relative to the observer, or they are fixed. The observer's position as well as what he is observing can only be stated as a probability. Solving this paradox is the Holy Grail of modern physics and there are many theories that attempt to do so - that attempt to define a grand unified theory.

Why not throw out time altogether? It isn't a field, substance or particle that physics can measure. It's an illusion created by human consciousness. Enter Julian Barbour who is a physicist: Like Einstein, he says time is simultaneous. He suggests that the universe consists of an infinite number of "eternal nows". Because of our distorted perception of time, we only see one "now" at a time, as it moves along through all of the "nows" that make up our multidimensional lives. In Barbour's universe, you are being born, attending your first day of school, getting married, and lying on your deathbed all at once in different nows. However the only YOU you are aware of is the one reading this post. Barbour believes that by eliminating time as a fundamental property of the universe would remove much of the difficulty in uniting relativity with quantum physics and thereby slay the final dragon of science - the search for a unified theory. Surprisingly, many physicists and cosmologists think time will have to be left out of the a final equation, and many suspect the concept of space may have to go as well. Interestingly, paranormal experiences concur by demonstating that time is of no consequence.

When out of the body, whether by deliberate astral projection or NDEs - one experiences no concept of time. A universal observation among those who leave their bodies and return is that time has no meaning. They don't know if they were gone a few minutes, a couple of days or a hundred years. Losing track of time also ocurrs when one engages in deep meditation, when one removes himself from the illusion of a space/time continuum. In these altered state of consciousness, the terms "before" and "after" are meaningless because consciousness exists outside of time itself.

"Time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live." - Albert Einstein

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#66121 Dec 20, 2012
So Jesus' gas could be why we have gravity? I can just see the great sky wizard now with the angels. One angel says, hey boss most of the animals on earth aren't flying off into orbit! Jesus replies, sorry had the burrito for lunch.
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Like Ebenezer Scrooge, physicists see the shadows of things that might be, not the shadows of things that must be. For all anyone knows, gravity is part of an illusion, a side effect of something else going on at a deeper level of reality. Erik Verlinde, a respected string theorist and professor of physics at the University of Amsterdam, says gravity doesn't exist. He thinks physicists are looking at gravity the wrong way and that there is something more basic from which gravity “emerges."

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#66122 Dec 20, 2012
NDEs?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah a!
postscriptt wrote:
A parodox exists between relativity and quantum physics. In relativity, time and space are relative to the observer. Einstein's equations allow one to accurately transform position data from one reference frame to another. Quantum mechanics treats time and space as a rigid, fixed, four dimensional coordinate system, however it shows that it is impossible to place any object in this coordinate system with absolute precision. So either time and space are flexible and relative to the observer, or they are fixed. The observer's position as well as what he is observing can only be stated as a probability. Solving this paradox is the Holy Grail of modern physics and there are many theories that attempt to do so - that attempt to define a grand unified theory.
Why not throw out time altogether? It isn't a field, substance or particle that physics can measure. It's an illusion created by human consciousness. Enter Julian Barbour who is a physicist: Like Einstein, he says time is simultaneous. He suggests that the universe consists of an infinite number of "eternal nows". Because of our distorted perception of time, we only see one "now" at a time, as it moves along through all of the "nows" that make up our multidimensional lives. In Barbour's universe, you are being born, attending your first day of school, getting married, and lying on your deathbed all at once in different nows. However the only YOU you are aware of is the one reading this post. Barbour believes that by eliminating time as a fundamental property of the universe would remove much of the difficulty in uniting relativity with quantum physics and thereby slay the final dragon of science - the search for a unified theory. Surprisingly, many physicists and cosmologists think time will have to be left out of the a final equation, and many suspect the concept of space may have to go as well. Interestingly, paranormal experiences concur by demonstating that time is of no consequence.
When out of the body, whether by deliberate astral projection or NDEs - one experiences no concept of time. A universal observation among those who leave their bodies and return is that time has no meaning. They don't know if they were gone a few minutes, a couple of days or a hundred years. Losing track of time also ocurrs when one engages in deep meditation, when one removes himself from the illusion of a space/time continuum. In these altered state of consciousness, the terms "before" and "after" are meaningless because consciousness exists outside of time itself.
"Time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live." - Albert Einstein

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#66123 Dec 20, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
A parodox exists between relativity and quantum physics. In relativity, time and space are relative to the observer. Einstein's equations allow one to accurately transform position data from one reference frame to another. Quantum mechanics treats time and space as a rigid, fixed, four dimensional coordinate system, however it shows that it is impossible to place any object in this coordinate system with absolute precision. So either time and space are flexible and relative to the observer, or they are fixed. The observer's position as well as what he is observing can only be stated as a probability. Solving this paradox is the Holy Grail of modern physics and there are many theories that attempt to do so - that attempt to define a grand unified theory.
Why not throw out time altogether? It isn't a field, substance or particle that physics can measure. It's an illusion created by human consciousness. Enter Julian Barbour who is a physicist: Like Einstein, he says time is simultaneous. He suggests that the universe consists of an infinite number of "eternal nows". Because of our distorted perception of time, we only see one "now" at a time, as it moves along through all of the "nows" that make up our multidimensional lives. In Barbour's universe, you are being born, attending your first day of school, getting married, and lying on your deathbed all at once in different nows. However the only YOU you are aware of is the one reading this post. Barbour believes that by eliminating time as a fundamental property of the universe would remove much of the difficulty in uniting relativity with quantum physics and thereby slay the final dragon of science - the search for a unified theory. Surprisingly, many physicists and cosmologists think time will have to be left out of the a final equation, and many suspect the concept of space may have to go as well. Interestingly, paranormal experiences concur by demonstating that time is of no consequence.
When out of the body, whether by deliberate astral projection or NDEs - one experiences no concept of time. A universal observation among those who leave their bodies and return is that time has no meaning. They don't know if they were gone a few minutes, a couple of days or a hundred years. Losing track of time also ocurrs when one engages in deep meditation, when one removes himself from the illusion of a space/time continuum. In these altered state of consciousness, the terms "before" and "after" are meaningless because consciousness exists outside of time itself.
"Time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live." - Albert Einstein
postscript

Alter the phrase of A. Einstein...

Time and space are modes by which we think(which makes things apparent), and conditions in which we live(which makes things real)....

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#66124 Dec 20, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And if the contents of the bra have any magnetism, the force of gravity is paltry compared to the attraction from other magnetic objects.
My bf is attracted to them.:)

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#66125 Dec 20, 2012
John wrote:
<quoted text>
Another Obama loving, baby killing, gun controlling, money stealing loon ducking a simple question. You are a real freedom fighter bigot.
Why do con dumbs randomly insert Obama's name into every subject?

Anyway, I'm still waiting for you to debate.

1. If god exists, there is evidence for his existence.
Do you agree with that?
Do you think it's possible for the god of the buy-bull to exist, yet there be no evidence of his existence?

Stump John, ask him to debate.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#66126 Dec 20, 2012
john wrote:
How was the universe formed.
The Big Bang Theory explains that back to 13.5 billion years ago.

Before that, we don't yet know (assuming that "before that" has a meaning).
john wrote:
Do atheists allow no possibility of a prime mover, if not why?
Is a prime mover possible? Certainly. Has any evidence been presented to support the existence of a prime mover? No. Is there any reason to believe in the existence of a prime mover? No.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66127 Dec 20, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the bible is not a science textbook, which he explained in his quoted statements - not because he believed the universe happened by chance.
Yes, we know you feel worthless, but why do you ignore science too?
John

United States

#66128 Dec 20, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Whereas your lot shoot six year olds in their gaptoothed faces...
<quoted text>
What a wanker. You loons love diversions from your forum about nothing. Sheep like to be herded and controlled. Ask your government what you should do next LOL. Whereas your lot butchers them before they get to six. Save your drama for your lib friends.

Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.
John

United States

#66129 Dec 20, 2012
Oh great multiple loons submitting nothing. Rose, Obama is an obvious failure and your support is congruent with the rest of your agenda. No evidence, but full support.

If Rose had a conscience there would be evidence of one.
There is no evidence Rose has a conscience.
Therefore, Rose has no conscience.

-How daring of Rose and Drew to offer to debate their disbelief LOL.

Does a bang need a banger Drew? Your "big bang" does not have universal support or evidence. It also skips steps, but we covered that years ago. You like to revisit said to duck an accountable position.

Let's compare the evidences of a prime mover vs your ??????. Oh yeah, you are the guy with no evidence in a forum about nothing.

Do continue failing to provide any evidence at all that meets your criteria for evidence in this arena.

Nothing Bless

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 Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 16 min Shizle 10,634
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 34 min Paul Porter1 20,497
Is the Christian god good? 1 hr Shizle 3
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 hr Eagle 12 244,720
Atheist believe, they are just hiding!!! 3 hr Richardfs 18
Atheists should stop feeding the stereotypes 5 hr Shizle 7
There is no meaning without God 7 hr Shizle 3
More from around the web