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

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

Santa Cruz, CA

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65813 Dec 12, 2012
Part - 2
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Nonsense! The true skeptic questions established belief systems (yours included) and the bases upon which those beliefs rest. Even animals explore their physical environment. Shall we do less with the psychic environment that is so much a part of our natural heritage? Atheists often hold religion to a standard that when applied to their own impoverished worldview brings it crashing down in a cloud of dust. That should be your cue to look elsewhere for answers.

Talk about fictions - according to Richard Dawkins, in order to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist you must believe that everything magically made it itself. In his book, "The God Delusion" he wrote, "Think about it. On one planet, and possibly only one planet in the entire universe, molecules that would normally make nothing more complicated than a chunk of rock, gather themselves together into chunks of rock-sized matter of such staggering complexity that they are capable of running, jumping, swimming, flying, seeing, hearing, capturing and eating other such animated chunks of complexity; capable in some cases of thinking and feeling, and falling in love with yet other chunks of complex matter. We now understand essentially how the trick is done, but only since 1859.(p. 366367).

This is the guy who is trying to convince his readership that believers in God are deluded! There is no difference between this contrived magical malarky and talking animals, sticks turning into snakes, and people walking on water! Wake up and smell the scent of truth!
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65814 Dec 12, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You want to believe it, but you don't really know with certainty that random chance created the universe. Neither assertion that God did it or chance did it can be proved. The default position, if you are intellectualy honest, should be one of agnosticism. You can't know since you don't have enough data one way or another. The lack of evidence showing that God does not exist, or that the universe has no purpose, puts such assertions on the same level as stories about Sasquatch. It is therefore logically inconsistent to continue to espouse atheism.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>True enough. But if you look and see nothing, it is reasonable to say nothing is there.
That's like saying that because we cannot see the stars during daylight hours, we can assume there are not there.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Once again, you are assuming that only the scientific method can provide rational answers. If you begin with a flawed premise, you will end with flawed conclusions. Perhaps the universe has other purposes than ours, and the trees and the earth and even the stars are funiture in a different kind of galaxy than science can surmise.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
The paranormal and OBEs would be a good place to start. Google it.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65815 Dec 12, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
"Mind control?" You mean psychic nonsense. You have so little understanding it's almost funny. It's quite the reverse, since thought and mind patterns are bound to the physical, they cannot be changed with fancy words or any such thing, it requires chemicals, but do to the complexity of the brain, where thought is, the chemicals will have unpredictable results more often than not.

This was proven to the CIA a long time ago when an obsessed psychiatrist thought he could alter a person's behavior with nocturnal audio messages and hallucinogenic drugs, all of which proved less than adequate. Surgery is the only permanent method of altering a person's thoughts, and that works 100% of the time, only the results are still unpredictable and often the best you can hope for is removing portions of memory or personality, there is no way to change them.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65816 Dec 12, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
"Mind control?" You mean psychic nonsense. You have so little understanding it's almost funny. It's quite the reverse, since thought and mind patterns are bound to the physical, they cannot be changed with fancy words or any such thing, it requires chemicals, but do to the complexity of the brain, where thought is, the chemicals will have unpredictable results more often than not.
This was proven to the CIA a long time ago when an obsessed psychiatrist thought he could alter a person's behavior with nocturnal audio messages and hallucinogenic drugs, all of which proved less than adequate. Surgery is the only permanent method of altering a person's thoughts, and that works 100% of the time, only the results are still unpredictable and often the best you can hope for is removing portions of memory or personality, there is no way to change them.
You are barking up the wrong tree. None of the above has anything to do with altered states of consciousness. Mediumship is a fascinating and provocative subject for it touches upon essential questions about the human mind. A medium, or a sensitive can enter voluntarily into one of these states without the use of surgery or drugs, and can at the same time maintain a communication line to the external world.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65817 Dec 12, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
Because there is no evidence that a greater unknown reality doesn't exist, that's why.
There is no evidence that the entire Universe wasn't created Last Thursday, but that's hardly a reason to believe that it *was*.

Until you've got evidence that a "greater unknown reality" exists, you've flunked your burden of proof, and your claim can be dismissed immediately.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65818 Dec 12, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no evidence that the entire Universe wasn't created Last Thursday, but that's hardly a reason to believe that it *was*.
Until you've got evidence that a "greater unknown reality" exists, you've flunked your burden of proof, and your claim can be dismissed immediately.
I could say the same of your origin and evolutionary claims. If hearts had to hold back their beating, until science proved that life had meaning, we'd have no life at all. But the heart beats predictably, giving its own evidence of a life experiment no technology can duplicate.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65819 Dec 12, 2012
Until you've got evidence that a "greater unknown reality" exists, you've flunked your burden of proof, and your claim can be dismissed immediately.
postscriptt wrote:
I could say the same of your origin and evolutionary claims.
And I've provided evidence for those claims.

Where is the evidence for *your* claims?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65820 Dec 12, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
Part - 1
<quoted text>
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.
Speculation is all fine and good on a Sunday afternoon while conversing with guests. But speculation is easy. Wild fantasies can be dreamt up with no connection to reality. So the question is how to test the validity of any particular speculation. You speculate one way and I speculate another. Which is to be believed? How do we decide which, if either, is right? The only basis for such a test is publicly available evidence and observation. Once again, that *is* the basis of science.
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.
If detection requires prior belief, then it is all in your mind. So here's a question: how do we *test* between different claims on the 'non-physical'? If two different views are being discussed, by what standard do we choose between them? Which one happens to tickle our funny bone? Seems like a very poor way to determine reality.
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.
But when those who have looked at the evidence do agree among themselves and those of differing opinions all have reasons other than a search for the truth to state their viewpoint, a thinking person would see that rejection for the sake of rejection is unwise.
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.
And yet you give us no way to test the laws that would apply in the non-physical. You say we should speculate, but what happens after that trivial step?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65821 Dec 12, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
You want to believe it, but you don't really know with certainty that random chance created the universe.
I'm not even sure how to make sense of that claim. Creation requires laws of physics (even a physics of the non-physical). Those laws mean it isn't 'random chance'(unless, of course, the laws say it is).
Neither assertion that God did it or chance did it can be proved.
You write as if those are the only alternatives.
The default position, if you are intellectualy honest, should be one of agnosticism. You can't know since you don't have enough data one way or another. The lack of evidence showing that God does not exist, or that the universe has no purpose, puts such assertions on the same level as stories about Sasquatch. It is therefore logically inconsistent to continue to espouse atheism.
Yes, belief in a deity is equivalent to belief in a Sasquatch. Both have meager and faulty evidence in their support. I am an atheist in the sense that I lack a belief in a deity. If you could supply sufficient evidence, I would change my mind. But the quality and amount of such evidence would need to be very high to support such a large claim.
That's like saying that because we cannot see the stars during daylight hours, we can assume there are not there.
Not at all. It is like saying that because nobody has seen an elephant in my bedroom that there is no such elephant. We know stars exist and under correct circumstances can see them in the day (eclipses are only one example). If you know where to look and have the correct optics, you can see the brighter stars in broad daylight. But even that is irrelevant. We have evidence that stars exist. We have no such evidence for deities. It is reasonable to ask for such evidence to be presented before belief and to require that evidence to be of high quality and quantity.
Once again, you are assuming that only the scientific method can provide rational answers.
Yes, in fact, I do. The scientific method is simply asking for evidence before belief.
If you begin with a flawed premise, you will end with flawed conclusions.
Which is why it is good to require evidence for beliefs instead of accepting any speculation that comes along.
Perhaps the universe has other purposes than ours, and the trees and the earth and even the stars are funiture in a different kind of galaxy than science can surmise.
Perhaps. But do you have any evidence of such? Why do you think there is a purpose in the first place?
The paranormal and OBEs would be a good place to start. Google it.
I have. When sufficient, reasonable constraints are put on the collecting of evidence (double blind studies, etc), the effects disappear. That suggests strongly that these are social effects and not actually supernatural effects.

Here's a good example: put a piece of paper with writing in a location that cannot be seen. Make sure the subject has NO interaction with anyone that knows what the paper says. You will find no OOBE cases that reliably describe the paper. Now, if there *is* interaction with someone who knows what is on the paper, You *do* get such descriptions. What does that evidence tell you?

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
Richard Dawkins needs to get a life 5 min Thinking 29
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 min One way or another 14,597
Christianity Created Hitler 10 min Thinking 191
why? 27 min Thinking 37
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 36 min thetruth 300
Our world came from nothing? (Jul '14) 42 min thetruth 1,242
Why Evil Disproves Atheism 45 min thetruth 6
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr ChristineM 234,628
More from around the web