Atheists on the march in America

Atheists on the march in America

There are 70652 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.

postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#66170 Dec 21, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And when he produces a testable hypothesis that does better than the standard view, he will have a point. Until then, he is simply speculating.
If speculation is acceptable then atheists should have no problem with people who speculate about religious matters. Yet, they do. Why?
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#66171 Dec 21, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but this was clearly written by someone who knows nothing of either relativity or quantum mechanics. In particular, quantum field theories, such as Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) are fully relativistic theories. There is no 'rigidity' of time in these theories than there is in spacial relativity. Furthermore, the idea of time being 'flexible and relative to the observer' is a phrase that is subject to misinterpretation, especially by those that know nothing of the subject.
According to you much of physics can be misinterpreted even by physicists themselves. What you are left with if not speculation?
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Clearly flat out wrong. Consciousness has nothing to say about anything happening faster than about 1 millisecond (and usually much slower--think the illusion of motion in cinemas). In particular, the time of the decay of a muon is something that will never be experienced by consciousness directly, but is still very relevant to modern physics.
Give me your hypothesis and explain how your assertions are based on observation or testable evidence that consciousness has nothing to do with it.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Pure fantasy. Nothing testable here.
Don't give me opinions. Give me your hypothesis and explain how your assertion is based on observation or testable evidence that it is pure fantasy.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#66172 Dec 21, 2012
The scientific method is only as good as a scientist's ability to process the evidence.

Say an archeologist at a prehistoric dig unearths a cylindrical clay object with several holes in it and surmises that it must be a primitive musical instrument - a flute of some sort. It would never occur to him that it could also be a douche nozzle because in his mind, a primitive society thousands of years old could not possess that kind of knowledge. I am being facetious of course, but my point is - science builds history from the present - based on its preconceptions about the past.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#66173 Dec 21, 2012
Do you out effort into making a complete jackass out of yourself or does it come naturally? Holy effing flying dogturds you are dumb.
postscriptt wrote:
The scientific method is only as good as a scientist's ability to process the evidence.
Say an archeologist at a prehistoric dig unearths a cylindrical clay object with several holes in it and surmises that it must be a primitive musical instrument - a flute of some sort. It would never occur to him that it could also be a douche nozzle because in his mind, a primitive society thousands of years old could not possess that kind of knowledge. I am being facetious of course, but my point is - science builds history from the present - based on its preconceptions about the past.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#66174 Dec 21, 2012
Dammit I went and broke another one!
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh huh, next you'll be telling us that global warming isn't man-made, but the fault of evil Muslim purple pixies who pull special magic Climat-O-Levers that control the weather.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#66175 Dec 21, 2012
Which is why you will never be a scientist mouth breather.

Leave that to your betters hmm?
postscriptt wrote:
The scientific method is only as good as a scientist's ability to process the evidence.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#66176 Dec 21, 2012
I'm an atheist, but I don't worship science.
Guess you're wrong.
postscriptt wrote:
Really? Can your hypothesis be tested? Because if it can't, you can't say it's wrong by scientific standards.
I wasn't offering a scientific hypothesis.

I was making a logical argument, based on the fact that I provided a counterexample to your universal claim.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#66177 Dec 21, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
If speculation is acceptable then atheists should have no problem with people who speculate about religious matters. Yet, they do. Why?
I'm an atheist, but I don't have any problem with people who speculate about religious matters.

Guess you're wrong.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66178 Dec 21, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
All fluff and no stuff. Figures.
So you don't like honesty, no big surprise, you prefer lies. Sorry, but unlike you, I do not lie.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#66179 Dec 21, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
If speculation is acceptable then atheists should have no problem with people who speculate about religious matters. Yet, they do. Why?
I have no problem with people who speculate about religious matters. I have a problem with people who think they have the truth about religious matters without any method of testing. Speculation is fine on a lazy Sunday afternoon when all you want is some good fiction. Truth is a different matter and is MUCH harder to find and verify.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#66180 Dec 21, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Precisely. Experience does not need to be tested. It is self evident and demonstrated through the changes it brings in a person's life.
But it can also be wrong. Experience does have to be interpreted and that interpretation can be seriously incorrect. So while the experience itself is untestable, the beliefs that derive from that experience need to be. As for bringing changes to a person's life; even falsehoods can do that. The question is whether you want a pleasant falsehood over an unpleasant reality. Or a falsehood that is easy to comprehend instead of a truth that is not.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#66181 Dec 21, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
According to you much of physics can be misinterpreted even by physicists themselves. What you are left with if not speculation?
testable predictions.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#66182 Dec 21, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
The scientific method is only as good as a scientist's ability to process the evidence.
Say an archeologist at a prehistoric dig unearths a cylindrical clay object with several holes in it and surmises that it must be a primitive musical instrument - a flute of some sort. It would never occur to him that it could also be a douche nozzle because in his mind, a primitive society thousands of years old could not possess that kind of knowledge. I am being facetious of course, but my point is - science builds history from the present - based on its preconceptions about the past.
Which is why we require more than one person to investigate and attempt to interpret. often, there are several different interpretations produced by different people and the question becomes how to test between them. Without a method of testing, the question can remain open for decades until new technology allows better tests.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#66183 Dec 21, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
Give me your hypothesis and explain how your assertions are based on observation or testable evidence that consciousness has nothing to do with it.
The decay of a muon? You cannot be serious. OK, we have a theory (quantum electrodynamics) that describes muons and when and how they decay. This theory has been tested in a wide variety of situations and has been verified in all of them. Furthermore, it does not require consciousness for any of its explanations.

Furthermore, actual testing concerning consciousness shows that very small time intervals cannot be perceived by conscious humans, and the time of decay of a muon is far below the level of perception.

These together show that consciousness is irrelevant to the decay of a muon.

Unless, of course, you have a theory involving consciousness that makes better predictions than QED.....
Don't give me opinions. Give me your hypothesis and explain how your assertion is based on observation or testable evidence that it is pure fantasy.
The burden of proof is on your side, not mine. You are the one claiming a new phenomenon that is in control of various situations, so *you* have to come up with the detailed theory that makes detailed predictions that can be tested. Until you can do that, you have nothing more than fantasy.
Independent

Alice, TX

#66184 Dec 21, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lots and lots of claims. Any proofs? No, of course not.
When one day you are on your death bed, you will look to God and hopefully it will not be too late for you. I guarantee you will think twice before the "Grim Reaper", pays you a permanent visit.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#66185 Dec 21, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So you don't like honesty, no big surprise, you prefer lies. Sorry, but unlike you, I do not lie.
Is this another one of your scientific hypotehsis for which you have no evidence other than opinion?
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#66186 Dec 21, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The burden of proof is on your side, not mine. You are the one claiming a new phenomenon that is in control of various situations, so *you* have to come up with the detailed theory that makes detailed predictions that can be tested. Until you can do that, you have nothing more than fantasy.
And yet science expects the world to accept its theories about a big bang and evolution at face value despite the lack of evidence that something comes from nothing and one species can magically turn into an entirely new species.

I've never doubted Intelligent Design exists, but you do and when you claim it does not them the onus lies with you to prove it.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#66187 Dec 21, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm an atheist, but I don't have any problem with people who speculate about religious matters.
Guess you're wrong.
I said "atheists' not you specifically, and here's my evidence that atheists are intolerant of religious speculation.

Skeptic: "You Creationists are so rubbish at basic research, no wonder nobody belies you useless liars."

Givemeliberty: "Catholics don't see Muhammad, Muslims do not see Jesus, Protestants don't see mother Mary and retards like you don't see reason."
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#66188 Dec 21, 2012
Last but not least:

Kittenkoder: "As it should be, based on reality instead of myths."

Some random dude: "Anybody that would argue that gravity is not a force is arguing pure semantics. I would have a hard time wasting my intellectual energy on them."

Thinking: "Stupid cults like you believe any old bollocks."

etc. etc. etc.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#66189 Dec 21, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
But it can also be wrong.
What else is new? Scientific opinion, speculation and hypothesis can be wrong as well.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Experience does have to be interpreted and that interpretation can be seriously incorrect.
The same can be said of science and often its intepretation of testable evidence is incorrect hence the need for more and more theories. Experience is a fact and we all know what it is. How would you propose that experience be studied when you admit that it is untestable? Dismiss it entirely as too subjective because it can't be examined using the all hallowed scientific method?
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>So while the experience itself is untestable, the beliefs that derive from that experience need to be. As for bringing changes to a person's life; even falsehoods can do that.
Indeed. Heavier than air machines cannot fly. If the Wright brothers believed that one, you can imagine the results. The theory that the earth is increasing in volume was never actually proven wrong, it was simply replaced with the theory of plate techtonics because it sounded less fantastical. There used to be Martian canals on the red planet, remember? And scientist's busied themselves drawing detailed maps tracing their paths, and making wild speculations about possible origins, use and an intelligent species. Hell - that went on until well into the 20th century - until imaging technology shut down all that speculative chatter. Let's not forget the blank slate theory - the one that said we are all born no built-in personality traits or proclivities. Now there’s little doubt that a person’s EXPERIENCES have a huge impact on their disposition. There's more, much more but I think you get my drift.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>The question is whether you want a pleasant falsehood over an unpleasant reality. Or a falsehood that is easy to comprehend instead of a truth that is not.
Falsehood - schmalsehood, if one believes it's real - it is! Science has a record of many falsehoods that were accepted as legitimate facts in the past, and people behaved as it those falsehoods were real.

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 Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 17 min ChristineM 242,954
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 30 min Chimney1 19,739
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 1 hr Brian_G 6,159
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 3 hr Thinking 9,152
Should atheists have the burden of proof? 17 hr Thinking 15
Atheists have morals too! Sun par five 3
News Atheism 101: The anti-intellectualism of religion Sun QUITTNER Jne 28 2015 53
More from around the web