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.

postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66246 Dec 22, 2012
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
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))
There is never faith without reason. Ask a Christian why he believes in God and he will give you a reason. Faith in God or man or nature is imperative, or all the facts of science are meaningless. No more than collected paraphernalia, or the categorizing of chaotic chaffs of chance without dignity.A kind of obsessed blind numbering of events within a universe in which events themselves (men and animals) are playthings of a mechanical process without intent.

With misplaced faith in a evil cause, man can suffer tragedy better than he can bear happiness in a universe without meaning, stripped of all the heroic elements that are part of his psychological heritage. He can at least grit his teeth and show contempt for the fate he believes controls his life, but a meaningless universe leaves him without recourse.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#66247 Dec 22, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
Reason, a human function, utilizing knowledge and deliberation has a record of producing questionable deductions.
A small percentage overwhelmed by the record of producing verifiable and *useful* deductions.
postscriptt wrote:
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.
No, they tinker with the idea because they want to produce an explanation that is capable of explaining what is observed. "Faith" has nothing to do with it.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#66248 Dec 22, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Genetic mutations do not produce new genes
Yes, in fact, they do. This is seen in the lab.
and therefore new life forms. Scientists have yet to produce an entirely new species in laboratory experiments.
What, exactly, do you mean by the phrase 'entirely new species'? Species are defined by the inability of one population to procreate with another. This has been seen in the lab and in the wild. The problem is that when speciation happens, it tends to be a small change (one type of mosquito to another) and you don't call that an 'entirely new species', even though it is.

The other factor is that *large* scale changes take a long time. Each stage is adaptation, but the changes accumulate over the generations. We do see this in the lab and in the wild, but because there are few (less than 100,000) generations, we don't expect to see the really large changes. But we *do* see these changes in the fossil record.
There are gazillions of living things on planet earth but we never observe emerging "new" forms, we only observe extinctions.
And this is simply false. We have seen new species of bacteria and of fruit flies in the lab. We have seen new species of mosquito in the wild.
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,
Actually, in fact, it is haphazard in the way you would expect from evolution and NOT ordered in the way you would expect from creation. Instead of having systems that are clearly well thought out and working seamlessly, living things have systems that are cobbled together, derived from previous systems, and are forced modifications who only 'logic' is that they allowed populations to survive.
it is highly complex and intricately integrated implying the involvement of extraordinary intelligence.
Actually, this is most definitely NOT what we see when we actually look at DNA over many species.
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.
Wrong. The default for any existence claim is that the burden of proof is on the one making the positive existence claim. That is *your* job, not mine. Even if everyone believes in this mysterious intelligent agent, the burden of proof is on those who believe, not those who disbelieve.
buckwheat

Tulsa, OK

#66249 Dec 22, 2012
Where does your merciful god go when children are being hurt and killed? I suppose he's off somewhere working in mysterious ways, and demanding I not question him. Grow the fcuk up. god does not exist.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#66250 Dec 22, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
As for the universe, the postulations of science are equally questionable. Some physicists say dark matter exists for example though it is unobservable.
Who said it was unobservable? We *do* observe dark matter through its gravitational interactions. The problem is that you think observations only happen using light, which is simply wrong. While we would certainly *prefer* to observe using light (because light carries a lot of information), it is certainly possible to observe using other information carriers (like gravity).
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.
Wrong yet again. We can use gravitational lensing to actually map out dark matter and see how it differs in location from ordinary matter. This is fairly new technology, but has produced some amazing results. perhaps you are too limited in what you think it means to 'observe'.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#66251 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".
You're funny.

Science and scientists do NOT work on "faith" by any stretch of the imagination.

Science and scientists depend on CONFIDENCE in direct proportion to the amount of independent verifiable evidence available.

As far as the Sun appearing to rise in the East due to the planet's rotation -- scientists have a very high level of confidence that it will appear again tomorrow. But "faith" is never part of the equation.
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66252 Dec 22, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>What, exactly, do you mean by the phrase 'entirely new species'?
I mean distinctive living forms like fish, polar bears, lobsters etc.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Species are defined by the inability of one population to procreate with another. This has been seen in the lab and in the wild. The problem is that when speciation happens, it tends to be a small change (one type of mosquito to another) and you don't call that an 'entirely new species', even though it is.
We've been over this ground before, but apparently you feel that repeating the same disinformation makes it true. You and others have tried to use the mutation angle to support the theory of evolution without success. Shuffling genes within a species results in the loss of genetic information, not the generation of new genetic information which would be necessary in order to produce an entirely different form from a specific species, which the theory of evolution requires. Furthermore, forced mutations in lab experiments produce inferior progeny compared to their wild counterparts - many are unable to reproduce and tend to die off much faster. The same is true of genetically altered bacteria.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>But we *do* see these changes in the fossil record.
As has already been stated umpteen times by me and others, there are huge gaps in the fossil record specifically in regard to transitional forms that would provide the evidence to prove the fantasical assertions that fish came from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, man from monkeys - etc. etc.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, in fact, it is haphazard in the way you would expect from evolution and NOT ordered in the way you would expect from creation. Instead of having systems that are clearly well thought out and working seamlessly, living things have systems that are cobbled together, derived from previous systems, and are forced modifications who only 'logic' is that they allowed populations to survive.
Give me an example of a natural system that's cobbled together or forever hold your peace. This is unadulterated nonsence! Humans don't develop from infancy to adulthood in a haphazard manner. Neither does any species or system in nature for that matter. If it appears so to you, it's because you don't have all the information necessary to understand the interrelated complexity of various natural functions.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>lt for any existence claim is that the burden of proof is on the one making the positive existence claim. That is *your* job, not mine. Even if everyone believes in this mysterious intelligent agent, the burden of proof is on those who believe, not those who disbelieve.
A belief in God is not a claim. It is the acceptance of an idea.
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66253 Dec 22, 2012
buckwheat wrote:
Where does your merciful god go when children are being hurt and killed? I suppose he's off somewhere working in mysterious ways, and demanding I not question him. Grow the fcuk up. god does not exist.
As god-stuff incarnate we have been given all the tools necessary to create a sane and just society in which to live - not only privately but at large. God doesn't create the terrors and glories we experience during our physical existence, WE DO. And until we can accept that responsibility, we will go on encountering one heinous human created catastrophe after another. The next time you go to the WalMart, get a brain.
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66254 Dec 22, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Who said it was unobservable? We *do* observe dark matter through its gravitational interactions. The problem is that you think observations only happen using light, which is simply wrong. While we would certainly *prefer* to observe using light (because light carries a lot of information), it is certainly possible to observe using other information carriers (like gravity).We can use gravitational lensing to actually map out dark matter and see how it differs in location from ordinary matter. This is fairly new technology, but has produced some amazing results. perhaps you are too limited in what you think it means to 'observe'.
From wiki - Dark matter is a type of matter hypothesized to account for a large part of the total mass in the universe. It's existence and properties are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe.

Do words like hypothesized and inferred make facts in your world? Dark matter is an inferential supposition based on speculation, and not all physicists agree with the idea.

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/120417...
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66255 Dec 22, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
You're funny.
Science and scientists do NOT work on "faith" by any stretch of the imagination.
Science and scientists depend on CONFIDENCE in direct proportion to the amount of independent verifiable evidence available.
Faith and confidence are one in the same. "I have every confidence that you will succeed." - or - "I have faith in your ability to meet our requirements." One in the same.

What's verifiable about an effect without a cause as in the big bang theory? Polykoder has complete faith in this postulation and without verifiable evidence. He thinks the point of the Big Bang annihilated all information prior to the event meaning science doesn't have to explain what came before. And again - without evidence. Now how can he believe this stuff without evidence? Because he has complete confidence, or faith that these fables are true.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66256 Dec 22, 2012
Some Random Dude wrote:
God said it. I believe it. That settles it.
Psyche!
Bwahahahahahahahaha!
That's the funny part, that god has been pretty silent since .... well, forever.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66257 Dec 22, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
From wiki - Dark matter is a type of matter hypothesized to account for a large part of the total mass in the universe. It's existence and properties are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe.
Do words like hypothesized and inferred make facts in your world? Dark matter is an inferential supposition based on speculation, and not all physicists agree with the idea.
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/120417...
Nowhere did it say that the existence of dark matter itself was hypothesized, or inferred. Care to point out that specific part?
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66258 Dec 22, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Nowhere did it say that the existence of dark matter itself was hypothesized, or inferred. Care to point out that specific part?
DUH!--->the WIKI part<---

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66259 Dec 22, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
DUH!--->the WIKI part<---
So, something exists there, we give it a label, and somehow you think that just because we are working out what that "dark matter" is, means that it "might not exist." English, learn it, please.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#66260 Dec 23, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Faith and confidence are one in the same.....
Only to people who don't understand science.

Richardfs

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#66261 Dec 23, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Only to people who don't understand science.
If you don't mind, I would like to make a small change:-

"Only to people who wont understand science."

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#66262 Dec 23, 2012
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don't mind, I would like to make a small change:-
"Only to people who wont understand science."
Yeah, okay. But for most the sheeple, they've been preconditioned to block any and all scientific information, so it's hard to tell if the just won't or really can't.

“They were allowed to stay there on one condition, and that is that they didn't eat of the tree of knowledge. That has been the condition of the Christian church from then until now. They haven't eaten as yet, as a rule they do not.”~ Clarence Darrow

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#66263 Dec 23, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
A belief in God is not a claim.
So if you believe in God, you're not claiming that God exists?

Seriously?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#66264 Dec 23, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
I mean distinctive living forms like fish, polar bears, lobsters etc.
That is not speciation. That is producing new phyla, which won't happen in the time periods you are talking about.
We've been over this ground before, but apparently you feel that repeating the same disinformation makes it true. You and others have tried to use the mutation angle to support the theory of evolution without success. Shuffling genes within a species results in the loss of genetic information, not the generation of new genetic information which would be necessary in order to produce an entirely different form from a specific species, which the theory of evolution requires.
You have a mistaken idea of what is required by evolution. That leads to mistaken criticisms of the theory. You also have a hugely mistaken idea of what 'new forms' means and how they come about.
Furthermore, forced mutations in lab experiments produce inferior progeny compared to their wild counterparts - many are unable to reproduce and tend to die off much faster. The same is true of genetically altered bacteria.
There is a balance between the mutation rate, which changes the range of variance in a population and natural selection, which changes the average in the population. Making too large of a mutation rate just broadens the bell curve.

Evolution happens in an environment. The do have speciation in the wild. We do have speciation in the lab. We do have inproved survival *in the environment provided*.
As has already been stated umpteen times by me and others, there are huge gaps in the fossil record specifically in regard to transitional forms that would provide the evidence to prove the fantasical assertions that fish came from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, man from monkeys - etc. etc.
You mean amphibians from fish (well documented). The dinosaur to bird transitions are well demonstrated as are the human from *apes*(not monkeys--learn the difference).
A belief in God is not a claim. It is the acceptance of an idea.
It is a claim of existence. Without evidence.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66265 Dec 23, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
So if you believe in God, you're not claiming that God exists?
Seriously?
You just can't make this kind of stupid up, huh? No wonder the greatest comedians all use religion as part of their material, it's endless laughs.

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 Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 7 min Frank Merton 9,605
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr scientia potentia... 29,520
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr scientia potentia... 11,588
Religion Down Suicide Up 2 hr Patrick 87
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 4 hr Richard 50,963
Atheism is not a belief 4 hr Patrick 188
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 4 hr Patrick 254,935
More from around the web