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 3,156)

Showing posts 63,101 - 63,120 of70,904
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65788
Dec 11, 2012
 
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Science does not know how the "mind" works let alone where it exists.
We know quite well where it exists (in the brain) and are figuring out the details of how it works.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65789
Dec 11, 2012
 
Wow just wow. Do you have any clue how illogical your post was? I mean from word one to the last period.

It takes effort to be that ignorant.

Regardless my facts stand and you are way beyond your pay grade here chumpstain.
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
And you are a POSER. If you don't accept the Christian code of morality, why would you use the word evil which is traditionally associated with religious texts, rules and punishment?
You are on the wrong discussion board, Sparky. You're not an atheist. You're a quivering, sniveling heap of frothing fear. You are afraid of religion's hell and think that by hiding behind the label "atheist" you can avoid the eternal misery of perdition and damnation.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65790
Dec 11, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet, nature agrees with quantum mechanics in every experiment we have ever done.
<quoted text>
yes, you have to change your intuitions when doing quantum mechanics. Classical intuitions about waves and particles fail. if you want to think about a little ball going through a slit, you will never understand quantum mechanics.
<quoted text>
Resolved by an analysis of decoherence.
<quoted text>
Actually, there have been several such demonstrations. The double slit experiment, for example, can be done with a very low intensity beam so that only one electron goes through the apparatus at a time. The results of QM still hold: individual particles are detected at the screen and an interference effect builds up over time. Both wave and particle descriptions are required to agree with observation.
The results will hold as long as physical measurements are possible but when they are not, it's anybody's guess what's going on just as Einstein implied. Once you step outside the third dimension, you go where science's instruments cannot go. You enter the realm of consciousness - or the realm of awareized energy which can only be experienced.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65791
Dec 11, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
We know quite well where it exists (in the brain) and are figuring out the details of how it works.
That's an assumption, not a fact which renders figuring out the details nigh to impossible because the mind is not physical.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65792
Dec 11, 2012
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Wow just wow. Do you have any clue how illogical your post was? I mean from word one to the last period.
It takes effort to be that ignorant.
Regardless my facts stand and you are way beyond your pay grade here chumpstain.
<quoted text>
You're going to hell. Better pack some heat resistant clothing. LOL!
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65793
Dec 11, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet, nature agrees with quantum mechanics in every experiment we have ever done.
<quoted text>
yes, you have to change your intuitions when doing quantum mechanics. Classical intuitions about waves and particles fail. if you want to think about a little ball going through a slit, you will never understand quantum mechanics.
<quoted text>
Resolved by an analysis of decoherence.
<quoted text>
Actually, there have been several such demonstrations. The double slit experiment, for example, can be done with a very low intensity beam so that only one electron goes through the apparatus at a time. The results of QM still hold: individual particles are detected at the screen and an interference effect builds up over time. Both wave and particle descriptions are required to agree with observation.
Physical detection and observation, without those two things science has nothing.
Thinking

Zeals, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65794
Dec 11, 2012
 
Read your bible regarding what happens to those that judge others.
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
You're going to hell. Better pack some heat resistant clothing. LOL!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65795
Dec 11, 2012
 
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Physical detection and observation, without those two things science has nothing.
Exactly. That is what determines if something exists. it is what determines the truth of a scientific statement. And it is what determines rationality in these matters.

let me put it to you this way: what does it mean for a non-physical thing to exist? Does that mean it doesn't interact with anything physical? because if it did, that interaction would be detectable, and hence physical.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65796
Dec 11, 2012
 
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
The results will hold as long as physical measurements are possible but when they are not, it's anybody's guess what's going on just as Einstein implied.
a) without physical measurements, the statement that something exists is meaningless.

b) Einstein implied no such thing.
Once you step outside the third dimension, you go where science's instruments cannot go. You enter the realm of consciousness - or the realm of awareized energy which can only be experienced.
Garbage. There are many theoretical situations where measurements of other dimensions are possible. In fact, part of the job of the LHC is to search for such.

Consciousness is a physical process in the brain.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65797
Dec 11, 2012
 
John wrote:
<quoted text>
You offer no accountable position of belief. There isn't any evidence that satisfies you and I don't debate nothing. There is a reason why you won't debate your illogical lunacy bigot.
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.
That is a flat out lie, John.
I've stated my accountable position of belief many times. Here it is again.
1. If god exists, there is evidence of his existence.
2. There is no evidence of his existence.
3. There is no god.
So, let's debate.
Let's start with point 1. Do you agree with that? Or do you think your god could exist, yet we there be no evidence of his existence?
At this point we aren't talking about what such evidence might be, or even if it exists. We can deal with that while talking about point 2. But for some reason, I don't think you'll ever deal with point 1...
Stump John, ask him to debate. Again.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65798
Dec 11, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. That is what determines if something exists. it is what determines the truth of a scientific statement. And it is what determines rationality in these matters.
let me put it to you this way: what does it mean for a non-physical thing to exist? Does that mean it doesn't interact with anything physical? because if it did, that interaction would be detectable, and hence physical.
It does. But the physical "manifestations" of consciousness is all science can know. It will never understand the bigger picture, the actual blueprints of reality.

The big bang theory accepted by many as the origin of the universe is really the end of the line for scientific materialism and its observable experimentation because the energy that caused the stuff to go bang is not physical in nature and cannot be probed or measured with physical instruments. The answers lie behind the stuff that fashions science's relative theoretical laws describing a purposeless cosmology.

Science knows nothing about what matters most - the origin of the universe, the meaning of life, and the destiny of mankind. Without that metaphysical knowledge, it will only have theories shifted to physical facts and back again to theories. If it persists in its narrow and rigid view of reality, to will remain chained to a study of the "outside" of the inside, the answers that matter most forever out of reach.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65799
Dec 11, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
a) without physical measurements, the statement that something exists is meaningless.
Exactly. By accepting this supposition, science denies itself knowledge of a greater unknown reality.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
b) Einstein implied no such thing.
None are so blind as he who will not see.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Garbage. There are many theoretical situations where measurements of other dimensions are possible. In fact, part of the job of the LHC is to search for such.
Not going to happen as long as science remains stuck with its head in the sands of physicalism.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Consciousness is a physical process in the brain.
Balderdash. The brain is an event-forming psychomechanism through which consciousness operates. The tide of our consciousness splashes against the objective earth. The truth is light whirling from a thousand different suns and flickering briefly on the dark wall of the world. Science sees only the passing shadows and calls it "reality".

Since: Mar 11

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65801
Dec 12, 2012
 
Hell Hades Tartarus all created by worshippers of the Greek Gods. Sorry Zeus writer created myths later stolen by their neighbor christians don't scare me..
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
You're going to hell. Better pack some heat resistant clothing. LOL!

Since: Mar 11

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65802
Dec 12, 2012
 
Talk to your preacher about it.
sugarfoot7 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because an atheist isn't an expert on the religious in countries ruled by dictators? What would shock me is if my fellow atheists stopped being such haters.
Some Random Dude

Capitola, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65803
Dec 12, 2012
 
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Science knows nothing about what matters most - the origin of the universe, the meaning of life, and the destiny of mankind.


How was it determined that the origin of the universe, the meaning of life, and the destiny of mankind were the most important things?
As for the ACTUAL origin of the universe; science may or may not determine what it really is (if mankind doesn't kill itself off before science gets the chance). As for the meaning of life... It's not as complicated as we humans make it our to be; and same goes with our destiny (as they are essentially inter-related). Both questions are posed by a creature too hung up on it's own significance in the grand scheme and fraught with insecurity of it's own creation. None of these questions were even relevant until we invented a society that gave us a sense of detachment from the community of life.
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>Without that metaphysical knowledge, it will only have theories shifted to physical facts and back again to theories. If it persists in its narrow and rigid view of reality, to will remain chained to a study of the "outside" of the inside, the answers that matter most forever out of reach.
Metaphysical knowledge is just physical knowledge that's yet to be quantified.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65804
Dec 12, 2012
 
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
It does. But the physical "manifestations" of consciousness is all science can know. It will never understand the bigger picture, the actual blueprints of reality.
If there is no evidence that there is such a 'bigger picture', why would you believe in it? And if there is evidence, then that evidence can be studied by science.
The big bang theory accepted by many as the origin of the universe is really the end of the line for scientific materialism and its observable experimentation because the energy that caused the stuff to go bang is not physical in nature and cannot be probed or measured with physical instruments. The answers lie behind the stuff that fashions science's relative theoretical laws describing a purposeless cosmology.
Yet another person with a comic book understanding of what the Big bang theory says. The problem is in your phrase 'the energy that caused the stuff to go bang'. First, THE BIG BANG WAS NOT AN EXPLOSION. In explosions, matter moves through space, propelled by the pressure wave. In the expansion of the universe, it is space itself that is expanding. The Big Bang does NOT say that there was something that sat around for a long time that suddenly decided to explode. Second, whether it even makes sense to talk about a 'cause' for the Big Bang is a very deep question. If time started at the Big Bang (as some versions suggest), causality makes no sense at that point. If the universe sprung from a quantum fluctuation (as other theories suggest), then the start was uncaused (since quantum events are uncaused). And, if there was a previous contracting phase of the universe (as still other theories suggest), then the same laws of physics apply before the Big Bang and it is the *same type of energy* before as after.
Science knows nothing about what matters most - the origin of the universe, the meaning of life, and the destiny of mankind. Without that metaphysical knowledge, it will only have theories shifted to physical facts and back again to theories. If it persists in its narrow and rigid view of reality, to will remain chained to a study of the "outside" of the inside, the answers that matter most forever out of reach.
Metaphysics is simply self-satisfied fiction. Without actual evidence, which is the essence of science, the whole game of metaphysics simply becomes a trial of whose fantasy is more appealing.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65806
Dec 12, 2012
 
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. By accepting this supposition, science denies itself knowledge of a greater unknown reality.
prove that there *is* this 'greater unknown reality'. By the very phrase you use, you admit *you* don't know it exists. You simply *hope* it exists. It is a fantasy that you cannot support but that you fervently *want* to believe. Sorry, but reality doesn't have to agree with your sense of importance.
None are so blind as he who will not see.
True enough. But if you look and see nothing, it is reasonable to say nothing is there.
Not going to happen as long as science remains stuck with its head in the sands of physicalism.
And what do you suggest as an alternative? Give specific ways of establishing which of several competing ideas is correct *except* by looking at actual evidence. But that is the essence of the scientific method: look at actual evidence.
Balderdash. The brain is an event-forming psychomechanism through which consciousness operates. The tide of our consciousness splashes against the objective earth. The truth is light whirling from a thousand different suns and flickering briefly on the dark wall of the world. Science sees only the passing shadows and calls it "reality".
Nice claim. Any actual evidence for this? No, of course not. On the other hand, we have studies going back over 100 years using data from studies of stroke victims, gunshot victims, brain surgeries, PET scans, MRI scans, drug studies, etc, that thoughts are actually processes that happen in the brain.

So here's a challenge: provide a repeatable observation that shows that consciousness is not simply a phenomenon of the brain.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65810
Dec 12, 2012
 
Some Random Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
How was it determined that the origin of the universe, the meaning of life, and the destiny of mankind were the most important things?
As for the ACTUAL origin of the universe; science may or may not determine what it really is (if mankind doesn't kill itself off before science gets the chance). As for the meaning of life... It's not as complicated as we humans make it our to be; and same goes with our destiny (as they are essentially inter-related). Both questions are posed by a creature too hung up on it's own significance in the grand scheme and fraught with insecurity of it's own creation. None of these questions were even relevant until we invented a society that gave us a sense of detachment from the community of life.
<quoted text>
Metaphysical knowledge is just physical knowledge that's yet to be quantified.
While I agree with the majority of your post, I must take issue with your last statement. That which is without material form or substance cannot be physically quantified.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65811
Dec 12, 2012
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Hell Hades Tartarus all created by worshippers of the Greek Gods. Sorry Zeus writer created myths later stolen by their neighbor christians don't scare me..
<quoted text>
You know nothing about religion beyond what you can google. You use science to justify your atheism because somebody told you that in order to call yourself an atheist you have to embrace what's considered intelligent. So far you are batting zero. You have demonstrated time and again that you are as much an intellectual klutz as you claim the religious are. If anything, people like you do science a great disservice.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65812
Dec 12, 2012
 
Part - 1
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
If there is no evidence that there is such a 'bigger picture', why would you believe in it? And if there is evidence, then that evidence can be studied by science.
Because there is no evidence that a greater unknown reality doesn't exist, that's why. Be bold - crawl out from under your pile of official scientific beliefs and dare to speculate. As I have stated many times, as long as science remains obsessed with the physical, it will never detect the non-physical which in no way suggests that such realities do not exist.

The thinking person cares little for the conclusions of the learned experts. He doesn't feel bound by the actions of ecumenical councils, or the dictums of scientific paradigms. If academies, religions, and sciences cannot agree among themselves, there is no reason why all should hold to one opinion.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text> Yet another person with a comic book understanding of what the Big bang theory says. The problem is in your phrase 'the energy that caused the stuff to go bang'. First, THE BIG BANG WAS NOT AN EXPLOSION. In explosions, matter moves through space, propelled by the pressure wave. In the expansion of the universe, it is space itself that is expanding. The Big Bang does NOT say that there was something that sat around for a long time that suddenly decided to explode. Second, whether it even makes sense to talk about a 'cause' for the Big Bang is a very deep question. If time started at the Big Bang (as some versions suggest), causality makes no sense at that point. If the universe sprung from a quantum fluctuation (as other theories suggest), then the start was uncaused (since quantum events are uncaused). And, if there was a previous contracting phase of the universe (as still other theories suggest), then the same laws of physics apply before the Big Bang and it is the *same type of energy* before as after.
You simply assume that God is composed of the same sort of matter/energy as the universe, and is therefore subject to the same laws. In the non-physical realms, it is logical to assume that physical laws do not apply. Bang or no bang, for all you or science knows the universe has always existed. There was no beginning.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 63,101 - 63,120 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••