Atheists on the march in America

Atheists on the march in America

There are 70645 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.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66211 Dec 21, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
What is honesty if not marked by truth? Again, if you concede that there are no truths, you cannot claim someone is lying.
Honesty is telling the truth, in other words not contradicting what you know is correct, it is still not "a truth." You are lying, and you're doing it more each day.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66212 Dec 21, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Did I say it was? Reread my post. That's your problem. You can read but you don't comprehend what your read. Instead you jump to conclusions.
Morality is subjective, and "do unto others as you would unto yourself" is not a good moral stance. Would you just stand aside and let a person in a wheelchair through the door without opening the door? Would you expect a mentally handicapped person to pay for damaging property as a result of their handicap? Would you give a murderer all the same freedoms you partake as well?
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66213 Dec 21, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Gravity is unrelenting. Ethical systems change.
<quoted text>
That doesn't explain how these ideas impact YOUR life personally.
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66214 Dec 21, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
In your previous posting, you said "I said 'atheists' not you specifically".
If you did in fact mean "all atheists", then your claim must apply to me, since I'm an atheist. So you've just contradicted yourself.
<quoted text>
Nope, it was just a sloppy claim on your part, and you got caught.
No. I knew self rightious types would take that statement personally and you were the only one who responded.
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66215 Dec 21, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Morality is subjective, and "do unto others as you would unto yourself" is not a good moral stance. Would you just stand aside and let a person in a wheelchair through the door without opening the door? Would you expect a mentally handicapped person to pay for damaging property as a result of their handicap? Would you give a murderer all the same freedoms you partake as well?
If the idea "do unto others as you would have others do to you", guided my decisions, I would definitely open the door because I would want the same treatement extended to me if I were handcapped. If I do unto others as I would have them to me, I would not engage in murder. Why would I extend priviledges to those who do? THINK!

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#66216 Dec 21, 2012
You were discussing the Ten Commandments and then brought up do unto others which I correctly stated is not part of the Ten Commandments. Either you thought that was in the Ten Commandments or you are just wildly bouncing all over the place like a ADHD reject.

Care to make an even bigger jackass out of yourself?
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Did I say it was? Reread my post. That's your problem. You can read but you don't comprehend what your read. Instead you jump to conclusions.
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66217 Dec 21, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Honesty is telling the truth, in other words not contradicting what you know is correct, it is still not "a truth." You are lying, and you're doing it more each day.
What one thinks is correct is a matter of opinion, not truth.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#66218 Dec 21, 2012
Nobody's buying it jackass. You humiliated yourself again, move along.
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I knew self rightious types would take that statement personally and you were the only one who responded.
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66219 Dec 21, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
You were discussing the Ten Commandments and then brought up do unto others which I correctly stated is not part of the Ten Commandments. Either you thought that was in the Ten Commandments or you are just wildly bouncing all over the place like a ADHD reject.
Care to make an even bigger jackass out of yourself?
<quoted text>
And they were separate posts discussing different ideas. You jumped to a conclusion.

Since: Mar 11

Portage, MI

#66220 Dec 21, 2012
No you were arguing for the Ten Commandments remember? And used the do unto others as a positive notion remember? But that as I correctly stated is not in the Ten Commandments. So again you either mistook what is stated in the Ten Commandments or made a wild unrelated point.

Which is it?

Now go ahead and say something stupid.
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
And they were separate posts discussing different ideas. You jumped to a conclusion.

Since: Mar 11

Cuyahoga Falls, OH

#66221 Dec 21, 2012
So thinking commented on how relevant the Ten Commandments were to him and you replied this.
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
an idea as old as dirt that forms the basis of many ethical systems around which societies have been built? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Explain why.
Anything else I can humiliate you with tonight?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#66222 Dec 21, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
I knew self rightious types would take that statement personally and you were the only one who responded.
You yourself admitted that you intended the statement to refer to all atheists. Since I'm an atheist, I logically conclude that your statement must refer to me. Since your statement was incorrect, I pointed out your error.

I'm afraid that you got caught.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#66223 Dec 21, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
And they were separate posts discussing different ideas. You jumped to a conclusion.
Matthew 7:6 "Give not that which is holy to dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

These people are not interested in different ideas and they have nothing of value to impart to the world. They want only to preserve their deceptions because they fear God. Leave them to preach to the choir. When their lives are done, only then will they know the Truth, too late.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#66224 Dec 21, 2012
Independent wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Sorry, but Pascal's wager assumes that there are only two options. there are many, many more and the result is that disbelief is the safer route (even if you were to be so dishonest as to pretend to believe even if you do not really believe).

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66225 Dec 21, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
What one thinks is correct is a matter of opinion, not truth.
But telling what you know to be correct is truth, telling something different than what you know is lie.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#66226 Dec 21, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
First, contrary to popular belief, the Big bang theory does NOT say that something came from nothing. In fact, the basic Big bang theory says nothing at all previous to the time of nucleosynthesis (although extensions of it do).

Second, speciation is not a magical process. it has been observed in the lab and the evidence for it extends to the very DNA in our bodies. You lack of understanding of a concept doesn't make the concept wrong.
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.
No, the one making a positive existence claim is the one with the burden of proof. in this case, you have the burden to prove the existence of an intelligent designer. Now, there are certainly ways that you could go about attempting to do that: archaeology has a lot of material on how to distinguish designed artifacts from natural ones. But, nobody on the ID side has been able to give even one shred of evidence of a designer for life, the universe, or anything outside of human design.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#66227 Dec 21, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
What else is new? Scientific opinion, speculation and hypothesis can be wrong as well.
of course. But that is why there are self-correcting mechnisms built into the scientific process. Individuals can be wrong. Groups can be wrong for long periods of time. but eventually the evidence points out the mistakes and the truth wins out.
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?
There are a variety of ways to go about studying it from self-reports to PET scans.
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.
No, when the evidence shows something is wrong, it is wrong. Science has the flexibility to fix itself when it gets things wrong. And, over time, the accuracy of the results increases. A good example is the difference between Newtonian mechanics and the mechanics of Einstein. At base, the two systems are very different philosophically. But the practical difference can be seen in the orbit of Mercury: Newtonian physics was off by a mere 43 seconds of arc in the orbit *per century*. Einstein's ideas explained that difference. But we can still use Newtonian physics today because it is an incredibly good approximation. Einstein explained those situations where Newton was wrong, even if by minuscule amounts.

If an idea in the future replaces Einstein's theory, it will do so in those areas where Einstein predicts things wrong. But, in the context of our solar system and all the other places where Einstein's ideas have been verified, the differences with any new theory will have to be small becuase the actual observations agree with Einstein's theory to within our current error bounds.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#66228 Dec 22, 2012
But it does explain why they are of less importance.
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
That doesn't explain how these ideas impact YOUR life personally.

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#66229 Dec 22, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
Throughout history, gods have always been part of man's existence, which puts the unbelieving atheist in a quandary. He must stifle the natural human tendency to appeal to something greater than himself for assistance. If the atheist cries out, "Oh God,"even silently in times of severe personal distress, he must deny to himself that he ever uttered that word. The atheist must live in denial because science has taught him to fear feelings of reverence - to thank something as lifeless as "coincidence" instead of providence for his deliverance.
The atheist is no different than the religious. Instead of God, the object of his adoration and worship is science. For upon that object he places all of his hopes and dreams and yet the universe makes no such distinctions. The same sun shines upon us all whether we think ourselves saints or sinners, believers or non believers.
Too bad for you xtians, most cultures believed in many gods not one almighty one.
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66230 Dec 22, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
But telling what you know to be correct is truth, telling something different than what you know is lie.
How can you discern what I know when what I know is not what you know? Since you don't know what I know, you can't determine if it is truth or lies. When I express what I know, you can only say you disagree using what you know and accept as truth as explanations.

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 2 hr nanoanomaly 117
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr 15th Dalai Lama 74,760
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 5 hr Dogen 4,048
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 13 hr Subduction Zone 6,084
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Thu Subduction Zone 32,062
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Wed John 4,951
News Why do public atheists have to behave like such... Jun 21 Eagle 12 - 4
More from around the web