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 3,157)

Showing posts 63,121 - 63,140 of70,959
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65825
Dec 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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 ;)

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Capitola, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Capitola, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Capitola, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 63,121 - 63,140 of70,959
|
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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••