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 3,158)

Showing posts 63,141 - 63,160 of70,907
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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?
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65838
Dec 12, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>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).
I'll make it easy for you . What immutable laws of physics support the notions that dead matter comes to life, or nothing produces something?
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Neither assertion that God did it or chance did it can be proved. You write as if those are the only alternatives.


By all means, feel free to interject another alternative.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Word games. There is no difference between a lack of belief in diety and a disbelief in diety.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, in fact, I do. The scientific method is simply asking for evidence before belief.
And yet you are willing to believe that God does not exist without ANY evidence to support your contention.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you think there is a purpose in the first place?
If you believed life has purpose, you wouldn't ask that question. A better project would be to examine the reasons why you think life has no purpose.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
It suggests that OBEs cannot be studied using the scientific method. BTW - there is nothing supernatural about consciousness. German physicist, Max Planck, one of the founding fathers of Quantum Theory gives us a glimpse, "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration which holds the atom together. We must assume behind this force is the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>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?
It says that when you tell an individual what's written on the paper you hide from them, they are bound to know. LOL! You crack me up! But seriously, the out-of-body experience is a phenomenon that has been known since ancient times. You would think science would take an interest in it but alas, it doesn't fit science's version of reality, so it is conveniently ignored.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65839
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.
Good thinking!
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65840
Dec 12, 2012
 
Some Random Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Exactly. If science can accept the existence of something without quantifying it, it should have no problem accepting a greater non-physical reality.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65841
Dec 12, 2012
 
LMFAO!

http://skepdic.com/nde.html

That was debunked a long time ago reject! Care to talk to us about ghosts or something next? Out of Body or NDE's were your proof for the supernatural? Not even close this can be easily dupilcated naturally. No Sky wizard needed.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahhahaha hahahahahahahhaa!!!
postscriptt wrote:
<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.
obama sucks

Aurora, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65842
Dec 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Givemeadicktoblow wrote:
Talk to your preacher about it.
<quoted text>
Who would that be? You're not very bright, are you?
obama sucks

Aurora, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65843
Dec 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.
"do to the influence"? you're funny.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65844
Dec 12, 2012
 
And I've provided evidence for those claims.
Where is the evidence for *your* claims?
postscriptt wrote:
You have provided opinion, innuendo and supposition
Nope, I've provided evidence.

Now, the question you keep avoiding: Where is the evidence for *your* claims?

Since: Mar 11

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65845
Dec 12, 2012
 
Changing your screen name doesn't boost your IQ. Your preacher is the guy who gives sermons on Sunday and tells you about NDEs being proof for God.
obama sucks wrote:
<quoted text>
Who would that be? You're not very bright, are you?
wasp

Rustburg, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65846
Dec 12, 2012
 
I dont beleive in atheists

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65847
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. 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.
<quoted text>
That's like saying that because we cannot see the stars during daylight hours, we can assume there are not there.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
The paranormal and OBEs would be a good place to start. Google it.
You should look up DMT and what happens when we dream or when the brain is shutting down when we die. That would explain a lot as it pertains to OBE, NDE, and the halucinations of the biblical prophets.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65848
Dec 13, 2012
 
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
It was probably a bit of both, although the timing is tricky to pick out of the geological record. We have the impact crater for the asteroid, we have the iridium layer left by it, we have the shocked rocks in Texas from the impact. There is no doubt that a large asteroid hit right at the time that the dinosaurs died out. Also, we have the lava layer in India, we know the effects of such massive volcanoes, etc. And no, it wasn't suffocation so much as blocking out the sunlight.

Yes, there is publicly available evidence of these claims.
Personal experience. Yes, you can trust your personal experience without science's stamp of approval.
Actually, I disagree with this. It is important to be especially skeptical of ideas you *want* to be true.
The same thing that happens when science speculates, theories.
And then those theories are tested by observations and the attempt is made to show them wrong. If many such attempts fail, we gain confidence in their validity.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65849
Dec 13, 2012
 
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. If science can accept the existence of something without quantifying it, it should have no problem accepting a greater non-physical reality.
We measure and quantify the effects of gravity. We can use the laws we have found for gravity to predict the motions of stars, planets, etc. Our descriptions of gravity are testable in a large variety of ways and have been tested and have passed those tests.

What do you offer for this 'greater non-physical reality'?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65850
Dec 13, 2012
 
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll make it easy for you . What immutable laws of physics support the notions that dead matter comes to life,
Chemistry
or nothing produces something?
Quantum mechanics.
Word games. There is no difference between a lack of belief in diety and a disbelief in diety.
Yes, there is. Perhaps an analogy can be made. Do you believe in the existence of axions? Unless you have studied physics, you probably have no belief one way or the other. This is a lack of belief in axions. Even if you have studied physics, you may find the evidence inconclusive and still have a lack of belief in them. Or, it is possible that you have studied the evidence and that evidence has lead you to think that they really do not exist. That is an active disbelief in axions. Finally, you may consider the evidence to be such that you think their existence has been established, in which case you believe in axions.

Similarly, it is possible to think that the question of the existence of deities is not specific enough to be answered at all. It is possible that you find the issue irrelevant and so have neither a belief nor a disbelief in deities. It is possible that you have looked at the evidence and find it inconclusive and so lack a belief in deities. That is different than having looked at the evidence and coming to the conclusion that no deity exists.

lack of belief is very different than a disbelief.
And yet you are willing to believe that God does not exist without ANY evidence to support your contention.
Evidence is required to show existence, not non-existence. The default position in the total absence of evidence is lack of belief.
If you believed life has purpose, you wouldn't ask that question. A better project would be to examine the reasons why you think life has no purpose.
I believe my life has a purpose: to live, to love, to learn, to help. But this is a purpose *I* give to my life. I don't believe that life has a 'cosmic purpose'.
It suggests that OBEs cannot be studied using the scientific method. BTW - there is nothing supernatural about consciousness. German physicist, Max Planck, one of the founding fathers of Quantum Theory gives us a glimpse, "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration which holds the atom together. We must assume behind this force is the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.
<quoted text>
It says that when you tell an individual what's written on the paper you hide from them, they are bound to know. LOL! You crack me up! But seriously, the out-of-body experience is a phenomenon that has been known since ancient times. You would think science would take an interest in it but alas, it doesn't fit science's version of reality, so it is conveniently ignored.
Not at all. it is a very interesting psychological event. it is interesting to figure out what is happening in the brain that makes such experiences happen. Certainly oxygen deprivation is a key aspect, but the build up of ketones is also probably relevant. You can mimic OOBE by a variety of techniques, from drugs to electrical stimulation, to 'fooling' the brain into thinking it is somewhere other than where it is.

Like I said: an interesting phenomenon that tells us about how the brain and consciousness work, but certainly not a demonstration of a 'non-physical reality'.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65851
Dec 13, 2012
 
wasp wrote:
I dont beleive in atheists
So your beliefs are wrong.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65852
Dec 13, 2012
 
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>You should look up DMT and what happens when we dream or when the brain is shutting down when we die. That would explain a lot as it pertains to OBE, NDE, and the halucinations of the biblical prophets.
Yes. DMT: The Spirit Molecule. I read that book. Fascinating! I also read the Scole Experiment, a five year investigation into life after death.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 63,141 - 63,160 of70,907
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••