Atheists on the march in America

Atheists on the march in America

There are 70634 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.

“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.
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66231 Dec 22, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Genetic mutations do not produce new genes and therefore new life forms. Scientists have yet to produce an entirely new species in laboratory experiments. There are gazillions of living things on planet earth but we never observe emerging "new" forms, we only observe extinctions. The proof of Intelligent Design is right there in front of geneticists in the exquisite structure and language of DNA. This data is not haphazard and disorganized as if it were created randomly, it is highly complex and intricately integrated implying the involvement of extraordinary intelligence.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
A belief in Intelligent Design only becomes an issue when an atheist (a nonbeliever) makes it one! It is therefore encumbent upon the dissenter, or the atheist, to provide the evidence to prove his opposition.
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66232 Dec 22, 2012
LucindaW wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Wise words indeed! I have taken them into consideration and thanks. While I don't think retribution awaits the unbeliever, I do think your advice is sound. No point in spinning my wheels. I will comment only on those posts that I think warrant a response deleting parts that have become tediously repetitious.
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66233 Dec 22, 2012
Publius2 wrote:
Why is it so improtant for atheists to evangelize?
Good point! Although I am not sure atheists seek converts as much as they try to qualify their lack of belief using science as justification.
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66234 Dec 22, 2012
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text> Too bad for you xtians, most cultures believed in many gods not one almighty one.
A belief in diety is a belief in diety whether expressed in the acceptance of many gods or one.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#66235 Dec 22, 2012
Prove the designer and we can talk intelligent design until that time it is a Christhole fantasy nothing more.
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Genetic mutations do not produce new genes and therefore new life forms. Scientists have yet to produce an entirely new species in laboratory experiments. There are gazillions of living things on planet earth but we never observe emerging "new" forms, we only observe extinctions. The proof of Intelligent Design is right there in front of geneticists in the exquisite structure and language of DNA. This data is not haphazard and disorganized as if it were created randomly, it is highly complex and intricately integrated implying the involvement of extraordinary intelligence.
<quoted text>
A belief in Intelligent Design only becomes an issue when an atheist (a nonbeliever) makes it one! It is therefore encumbent upon the dissenter, or the atheist, to provide the evidence to prove his opposition.
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66236 Dec 22, 2012
Circular arguments. Round and round they go - where they stop nobody knows.

Atheists on the march in America. Why are you marching? Are you looking for converts or recognition that your point of view is a viable alternative to religion? If so, this public forum is an opportunity for you to shine, to set an example, to convince people that atheism is the better way, the logical way, the intelligent way. But no, reading over your comments, what you do more often than not, is disregard everything as rubbish that doesn't agree your particular world view. Such an approach alienates people. It doesn't compel to want to be atheists.

On the other hand, I could be wrong. If the only reason atheists are on the march in America is to set themselves apart from others to avoid being lumped in with the common rabble, or what they perceive as the deluded masses, then they are merely conforming to nonconformity in an effort to elevate themselves.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#66237 Dec 22, 2012
It's called theism half wit. Thou shalt not put any other gods before me.

I goes you just violated one of your precious commandments. A hellworthy offense yes?
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
A belief in diety is a belief in diety whether expressed in the acceptance of many gods or one.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#66238 Dec 22, 2012
Pointing out your religitard BS is not proselytising.
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Good point! Although I am not sure atheists seek converts as much as they try to qualify their lack of belief using science as justification.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#66239 Dec 22, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
But no, reading over your comments, what you do more often than not, is disregard everything as rubbish that doesn't agree your particular world view.
You mean, we identify rubbish *as* rubbish.

If you think that it isn't rubbish, then argue in favor of it. Go ahead.
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#66240 Dec 22, 2012
God said it. I believe it. That settles it.

Psyche!

Bwahahahahahahahaha!
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66241 Dec 22, 2012
Atheists make much ado about "faith" as opposed to reason, but what is reason if not "faith" in knowledge? You believe what you are told is true. You don't know with certainty that it is, but you have faith that it is. You don't realize that each person possesses faith despite their scientific or religious affiliations. Without it there would be no family groups, civilizations or governments. It may seem that the threat of legal punishment for example, holds our society together and controls the criminal element to insure more stable living conditions, but our laws are necessarily based on our faith that they will be followed. Otherwise they would be useless.

You have faith that there will be tomorrow. In fact, faith is a constant in each life. It underpins organizations and relationships, and it is based upon the innate, natural knowledge possessed by each of us that our lifes are sustained by the greater source that gave us birth. You cannot be alive without faith, yet faith can be distorted. It can move mountains, but it can also create catastrophes.

There is good faith, but there is also faith in "evil". In usual terms, faith takes it for granted that a certain desired end will be achieved, even though the means may not be known. In usual terms again, there is no direct evidence, otherwise you would have no need for faith. When you believe the worst will happen, you are showing quite real faith, but in a backwards manner. With no direct evidence of disaster that you can detect, you are convinced that it will occur. You have faith in what you believe will occur in other words, although a "misplaced faith".

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#66242 Dec 22, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
Atheists make much ado about "faith" as opposed to reason, but what is reason if not "faith" in knowledge?
No, reason is a *tool* that is used to understand the Universe. Because it has a successful track record, it does not require "faith" to use it.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#66243 Dec 22, 2012
Reason can be objectively tested and verified. Something god cannot. He has been shy for 2000 plus years.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
No, reason is a *tool* that is used to understand the Universe. Because it has a successful track record, it does not require "faith" to use it.

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#66244 Dec 22, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
Atheists make much ado about "faith" as opposed to reason, but what is reason if not "faith" in knowledge? You believe what you are told is true. You don't know with certainty that it is, but you have faith that it is. You don't realize that each person possesses faith despite their scientific or religious affiliations. Without it there would be no family groups, civilizations or governments. It may seem that the threat of legal punishment for example, holds our society together and controls the criminal element to insure more stable living conditions, but our laws are necessarily based on our faith that they will be followed. Otherwise they would be useless.
You have faith that there will be tomorrow. In fact, faith is a constant in each life. It underpins organizations and relationships, and it is based upon the innate, natural knowledge possessed by each of us that our lifes are sustained by the greater source that gave us birth. You cannot be alive without faith, yet faith can be distorted. It can move mountains, but it can also create catastrophes.
There is good faith, but there is also faith in "evil". In usual terms, faith takes it for granted that a certain desired end will be achieved, even though the means may not be known. In usual terms again, there is no direct evidence, otherwise you would have no need for faith. When you believe the worst will happen, you are showing quite real faith, but in a backwards manner. With no direct evidence of disaster that you can detect, you are convinced that it will occur. You have faith in what you believe will occur in other words, although a "misplaced faith".
postscript

Faith seeks understanding....(St. Anselm)

(Likewise understanding does not seek faith....You cannot make someone have faith with your understanding)

Faith without reason is blind, but reason without faith is empty....(Immanuel Kant)

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth...(Blessed John Paul II...,Fides et Ratio(Faith and Reason))
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66245 Dec 22, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
No, reason is a *tool* that is used to understand the Universe. Because it has a successful track record, it does not require "faith" to use it.
Reason, a human function, utilizing knowledge and deliberation has a record of producing questionable deductions. The annals of history are filled with examples (often bloody) of the same faulty logic wheeling ceaselessly around the parade ground of the centuries.

As for the universe, the postulations of science are equally questionable. Some physicists say dark matter exists for example though it is unobservable. They continue to tinker with the idea theoretically however because they have "faith" in their reasoning that it is out there. Without faith, no scientific theory as yet unverified would survive long enough to be tested.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 min renee 35,599
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 11 min An NFL Fan 20,203
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 13 min Thinking 255,566
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 57 min Amused 4,509
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr ChristineM 15,025
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 11 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 45
News Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 11 hr ChristineM 23,879
More from around the web