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

#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?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#65822 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. 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....
"Are there things in the Universe that we cannot know in the usual way of observing and measuring, but that we can know in some other way -- intuition, revelation, mad insight?

If so, how can you know that what you know in these non-knowing ways is really so?

Anything you know without knowing, others can know only through your flat statement without any proof other than 'I know!'

All this leads to such madness that I, for one, am content with the knowable. That is enough to know."

~ Isaac Asimov

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65823 Dec 12, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
Because there is no evidence that a greater unknown reality doesn't exist, that's why.
Whoops! And right here is where you go wrong. The burden of proof is on the one making the existence claim, not on the one denying or doubting it. Why? Because anything other leads to silliness and belief in every speculation that comes along, no matter how ridiculous.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65824 Dec 12, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Science will not ever prove that life has meaning because meaning is not a scientific question: it is a question of motivation and ethics. Science is fact based: it can inform our moral choices, but not dictate them. WE are the ones that have to supply reasons for our actions. That comes from within, not from without. But, in the same way, such motivations are individual: they are like tastes instead of facts.
John

United States

#65825 Dec 12, 2012
The antitheist circle jerk continues lmao. Rose refuses debate and purposefully confuses belief and disbelief. Drew reiterates nonclaims. Each time he attempts to enter the arena postscript plays whack a mole.
Please continue this charade of nothing. When you are ready to debate the evidences of the prime mover you mock against something of your own I will be waiting. The mocking doesn't mask your intellectual cowardice loons.

Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65826 Dec 12, 2012
John wrote:
When you are ready to debate the evidences of the prime mover...
What evidences are those?

You haven't identified any yet.

“ROCK ON ROCKERS!!”

Since: Mar 11

Rockin' USA ;)

#65827 Dec 12, 2012
ABOUT..FREAKIN' time...they should be done by now..Ya think?? Did they get donuts and coffee like the Wall Street protesters did, I wonder???

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#65828 Dec 12, 2012
What I stated is historical fact and there is a wealth of evidence to back it up.

Sorry you don't like the facts.
postscriptt wrote:
<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.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#65829 Dec 12, 2012
Lmfao! You are arguing for out of body experiences? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah a!

Sigh and for the billionth time agnosticism has to do with not having knowledge a noun. Atheism has to do with not actively believing a verb. So when one does not have adequate proof for an invisible sky wizard created by the legends of old it is reasonable not to believe. Be without belief be without theism a theism.

Atheism is not, matter how much Hovind tries to claim contrary, a belief system that God is 100% disproven. It would be more accurate to say unproven and not falling for it until real proof is offered for your sky wizard.
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The paranormal and OBEs would be a good place to start. Google it.
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#65830 Dec 12, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Yeah, I posted that just after I woke up. What I MEANT to say was "metaphysics is an ATTEMPT to explain that which has not yet been quantified". There are a lot of mysteries in the universe that science has yet to explain. Like I said before, science may or may not ever explain some or all of them. Nevertheless, people try to explain it for themselves through metaphysics and spirituality.

It's hard to elaborate on that point without going into some long-winded diatribe, but I'll try to give a simple example: Many people believe we have a soul from which we derive our "consciousness". I believe there IS something there that makes us animated as opposed to a rock or a chunk of metal, but it is not a conscious entity itself; rather it is simply concentrated energy. I believe it concentrates on organic focal points much the same way stars and planets cluster in the universe... through a sort of gravity. I believe when our body dies, that energy just disperses back into the universe and is recycled. Is a certain amount of our consciousness or awareness attached to this energy and thus recycled into other living things? I have no idea. It might explain how some people remember past lives; but at this point that would be a purely metaphysical theory.
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#65831 Dec 12, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
One more thing... "That which is without material form or substance cannot be physically quantified." How about gravity? We haven't been able to quantify it nor isolate it's material form, but we are certain of it's existence.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65832 Dec 12, 2012
Some Random Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I posted that just after I woke up. What I MEANT to say was "metaphysics is an ATTEMPT to explain that which has not yet been quantified". There are a lot of mysteries in the universe that science has yet to explain. Like I said before, science may or may not ever explain some or all of them. Nevertheless, people try to explain it for themselves through metaphysics and spirituality.
It's hard to elaborate on that point without going into some long-winded diatribe, but I'll try to give a simple example: Many people believe we have a soul from which we derive our "consciousness". I believe there IS something there that makes us animated as opposed to a rock or a chunk of metal, but it is not a conscious entity itself; rather it is simply concentrated energy. I believe it concentrates on organic focal points much the same way stars and planets cluster in the universe... through a sort of gravity. I believe when our body dies, that energy just disperses back into the universe and is recycled. Is a certain amount of our consciousness or awareness attached to this energy and thus recycled into other living things? I have no idea. It might explain how some people remember past lives; but at this point that would be a purely metaphysical theory.
You can believe anything you want. but the evidence says otherwise. For example, there is no 'life force' that differentiates living from non-living things. it is all a matter of chemistry and the organization of the chemicals involved.
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#65833 Dec 12, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
You can believe anything you want. but the evidence says otherwise. For example, there is no 'life force' that differentiates living from non-living things. it is all a matter of chemistry and the organization of the chemicals involved.
Thanks. I'll look into it. Do we at least agree that our nervous systems run on electricity? Our nerves, heartbeat and such? Electricity that wouldn't be found in a rock or a piece of metal; but would be found to some degree in any living thing?
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65834 Dec 12, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
"Are there things in the Universe that we cannot know in the usual way of observing and measuring, but that we can know in some other way -- intuition, revelation, mad insight?
If so, how can you know that what you know in these non-knowing ways is really so?
Anything you know without knowing, others can know only through your flat statement without any proof other than 'I know!'
All this leads to such madness that I, for one, am content with the knowable. That is enough to know."
~ Isaac Asimov
What makes you assume that what I know must be validated by what you know?
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65835 Dec 12, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Lmfao! You are arguing for out of body experiences? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah a!
Sigh and for the billionth time agnosticism has to do with not having knowledge a noun. Atheism has to do with not actively believing a verb. So when one does not have adequate proof for an invisible sky wizard created by the legends of old it is reasonable not to believe. Be without belief be without theism a theism.
Atheism is not, matter how much Hovind tries to claim contrary, a belief system that God is 100% disproven. It would be more accurate to say unproven and not falling for it until real proof is offered for your sky wizard.
<quoted text>
More sound and fury signifying nothing? If you have proved anything, it's that you dropped out of the trees later than your ape-man compadres.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65836 Dec 12, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
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.
<quoted text>
And I've provided evidence for those claims.
Where is the evidence for *your* claims?
You have provided opinion, innuendo and supposition that seems to change with the telling, but nothing that can be considered viable evidence. Only a fool expects from others what he can't give himself.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65837 Dec 12, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
That may be the intention but not the practice. What has science offered in lieu of the "unobservable" past, if not invented stories? Science tells us that a six mile wide astroid slammed into the Yucatan Peninsula and took out the dinosaurs in one fell swoop. On the other hand, it could have been a series of enormous volcanic eruptions we are told. Nope. The Deccan lavas spewed immense amounts poisonous sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere and suffocated them all. That's what happened! Is this the caliber of publicly available evidence you're referring to?
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Personal experience. Yes, you can trust your personal experience without science's stamp of approval.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Who determines that those with differing opinions are not engaged in a search for the truth? A thinking person would see such an assessment as based on personal bias.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
The same thing that happens when science speculates, theories.

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) 5 min Joe fortuna 232,895
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 46 min woodtick57 2,270
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 3 hr Yiago 148
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 8 hr _Bad Company 141
Islam is the Enemy (Sep '12) 9 hr thetruth 34
God' existence 9 hr thetruth 67
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) Fri _Bad Company 23,198
More from around the web