Atheists on the march in America

Atheists on the march in America

There are 70650 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

#66474 Dec 30, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, so you made a bunch of assertions, where is the evidence that suggests any of this is at all reality?
Since I possess no scientific credentials and have not set up camp in science's land-o-facts, I am not required to provide observable testable evidence. I need not pretend to preserve acclaimed scientific facts, nor do I worry about losing face with my colleagues. As a non-subscriber, I have the freedom to stray beyond "official" scientific beliefs in my search for truth.

Atheists on the other hand, as subscribers to science and dwellers in the land-o-facts, must provide what science serves and requires - and that is, proof. Yet how reliable is the science loving atheist's proof? While they can crank out extraordinary statements like funny money, they cannot substantiate these claims with any authority when science's testable observable "evidence" keeps changing. Science has compromised itself by overstructuring and overburdening its repertoire of affirmations. It has stifled itself with an overproduction of "temporary truths" that in the sciences spring up like weeds - tomorrow to be trampled underfoot, barely living through a season before being replaced with a new batch of weeds, which in turn meets the same fate - falling by the wayside.

To complicate matters, each specific field of scientific inquiry in order to maintain its identity as biology, or physics, or psychology, accumulates its own body of temporary truths, or factoids to which it can become slavishly devoted (paradigms). These factoids are usually isolated - taken out of context to some extent and considered only as they relate to a certain discipline, not as they connect with other fields of study even when one set of factoids contradicts another set of factoids. This obfuscation and unreliability is the reason seekers see science as an undependable source of truth, and fewer young people choose science as a career.
John

United States

#66475 Dec 30, 2012
I have simply made a statement in response to bigots that seek to marginalize believers that I will debate the evidences and reasons I believe in a prime mover vs any accountable position of their choice. The challenge has not been taken. This forum has nowhere to go when its time to bring out evidence or answer questions. I guess they just start a forum and hope someone that believes in a higher power makes a post. The very thing they despise is the one thing they need for a voice. Fight that God you don't believe in loons.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#66476 Dec 30, 2012
John wrote:
As a lying, unethical, and intellectually dishonest antitheist...
The only liar here is John. He's the one who claimed that he had an "accountable" position.

But he never seems able to account for it.

Ergo, it's not accountable. Ergo, he lied.
John wrote:
he expects his forum to use arbitrary rules for evidence
Funny how John can't seem to explain why it's "arbitrary" to have the rules that evidence should be objective and unambiguous.
John wrote:
and not be able to give one example of something that meets that criteria.
John lies yet again since he was given such an example.
John wrote:
If I am lying Drew show everyone the example of evidence in this arena that meets the evidentiary standard you hold others accountable to.
The arena is "things that either exist or don't exist". I gave the example of evidence for something that is claimed to exist.

That you don't like it isn't anyone else's problem.
John wrote:
Here is my accountable position.
Prove that it's accountable, John. I'm betting that you can't.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#66477 Dec 30, 2012
How does an atom "perceive" anything?
postscriptt wrote:
It is aware. All things possess awareness, or consciousness.
You're just repeating the claim, not answering the question. How does an atom "perceive" or "possess awareness"?
postscriptt wrote:
Before anything is, it it first thought.
How do you know?
John

United States

#66478 Dec 30, 2012
Pssst. Notice Drew didn't answer my questions. Notice Drew didn't provide an accountable position. Notice Drew can't meet his own rules. Notice Drew didn't didn't provide that example of evidence.

The arena is origin Drewsie. Thanks for being my dancing puppet and exposing atheism.

Nothing to see here folks. No takers for my simple proposal. Just the usual content bereft nothing.

Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#66479 Dec 30, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
How does an atom "perceive" anything?
<quoted text>
You're just repeating the claim, not answering the question. How does an atom "perceive" or "possess awareness"?
<quoted text>
How do you know?
Humans and animals who possess awareness are made up of atoms.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#66480 Dec 30, 2012
John wrote:
Notice Drew didn't answer my questions.
Notice that I answered all of them, but because John doesn't like hearing the answers that he gets, he asks them repeatedly.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#66481 Dec 30, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
Humans and animals who possess awareness are made up of atoms.
Which doesn't tell us that atoms possess awareness:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_divis...
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#66482 Dec 30, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Which doesn't tell us that atoms possess awareness:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_divis...
It doesn't tell us that atoms don't possess awareness either.
John

United States

#66483 Dec 30, 2012
How does Drew decide which is most or least likely of the following: always was, something from nothing, prime mover. Show us your work Drew. You did not answer this or much of anything else. You lie. It's the atheist way.

Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.
buckwheat

Tulsa, OK

#66484 Dec 30, 2012
You can't debate a christian about god. Anybody who believes in a magical being who lives in the sky is beyond rational thought. Religion is the best scam ever ran on gullible people, and I doff my hat to the Holy Scammers.

christians give their money to "god's collectors" with the PROMISE of eternal life in heaven. The evangelists do not have to worry about anybody coming back from death and asking for a refund.

IF god is real he can come to my house and collect his tithes in person. Until then, I think I'll spend my 10% on reality.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#66485 Dec 30, 2012
John wrote:
Pssst. Notice Drew didn't answer my questions. Notice Drew didn't provide an accountable position. Notice Drew can't meet his own rules. Notice Drew didn't didn't provide that example of evidence.
The arena is origin Drewsie. Thanks for being my dancing puppet and exposing atheism.
Nothing to see here folks. No takers for my simple proposal. Just the usual content bereft nothing.
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.
John, you are lying. Drew did answer your questions.
You lie when you say I haven't presented an accountable position. I have, but you refuse to debate.
1. If god exists, there is evidence for this existence.
2. There is no evidence for his existence.
3. There is no god.
You won't even start debating point 1!
Stump John, ask him to debate.
John

United States

#66486 Dec 30, 2012
Nope. Drew lies and you lie. Just cut and paste these relevant answers. This is an atheism forum Rose not a q and a of what I believe. Your disbelief is not belief.

If you want to debate the evidences and reasons I believe in a prime mover vs any accountable position of belief you would have done that years ago. You have nothing of your own.

If Rose had a conscience she would have evidence of it.
There is no evidence Rose has a conscience.
Rose has no conscience.

More lies. More nothing. No evidence from the bigots.
John

United States

#66487 Dec 30, 2012
Anyone who believes in something from nothing is anti-science.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#66488 Dec 30, 2012
John wrote:
How does Drew decide which is most or least likely of the following: always was, something from nothing, prime mover.
Based on the evidence. Is there any evidence presented for a prime mover? No? Then I guess that's not a likely solution.

I'm not claiming either of the others, so why would I need to decide whether or not they were likely?
neutral observer

Lake Worth, FL

#66489 Dec 30, 2012
John wrote:
Anyone who believes in something from nothing is anti-science.
Anyone believes they know the ultimate truth about how the universe came into being and what set off the big bang creation event is pushing a religious agenda. Science has no clue as to what started it all off. Atheism is no less a religion than is Christianity. Atheists even feel the need to spread their one true faith to humanity at large... just like the Christians and Moslems.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66490 Dec 30, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Since I possess no scientific credentials and have not set up camp in science's land-o-facts, I am not required to provide observable testable evidence. I need not pretend to preserve acclaimed scientific facts, nor do I worry about losing face with my colleagues. As a non-subscriber, I have the freedom to stray beyond "official" scientific beliefs in my search for truth.
Atheists on the other hand, as subscribers to science and dwellers in the land-o-facts, must provide what science serves and requires - and that is, proof. Yet how reliable is the science loving atheist's proof? While they can crank out extraordinary statements like funny money, they cannot substantiate these claims with any authority when science's testable observable "evidence" keeps changing. Science has compromised itself by overstructuring and overburdening its repertoire of affirmations. It has stifled itself with an overproduction of "temporary truths" that in the sciences spring up like weeds - tomorrow to be trampled underfoot, barely living through a season before being replaced with a new batch of weeds, which in turn meets the same fate - falling by the wayside.
To complicate matters, each specific field of scientific inquiry in order to maintain its identity as biology, or physics, or psychology, accumulates its own body of temporary truths, or factoids to which it can become slavishly devoted (paradigms). These factoids are usually isolated - taken out of context to some extent and considered only as they relate to a certain discipline, not as they connect with other fields of study even when one set of factoids contradicts another set of factoids. This obfuscation and unreliability is the reason seekers see science as an undependable source of truth, and fewer young people choose science as a career.
All fine and dandy, so ... where's the evidence that suggests your assertions are at all based on reality?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66491 Dec 30, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
It is aware. All things possess awareness, or consciousness.
<quoted text>
Before anything is, it it first thought.
So ... rocks are aware?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66492 Dec 30, 2012
John wrote:
Nope. Drew lies and you lie. Just cut and paste these relevant answers. This is an atheism forum Rose not a q and a of what I believe. Your disbelief is not belief.
If you want to debate the evidences and reasons I believe in a prime mover vs any accountable position of belief you would have done that years ago. You have nothing of your own.
If Rose had a conscience she would have evidence of it.
There is no evidence Rose has a conscience.
Rose has no conscience.
More lies. More nothing. No evidence from the bigots.
You work in a movie theater.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66493 Dec 30, 2012
neutral observer wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone believes they know the ultimate truth about how the universe came into being and what set off the big bang creation event is pushing a religious agenda. Science has no clue as to what started it all off. Atheism is no less a religion than is Christianity. Atheists even feel the need to spread their one true faith to humanity at large... just like the Christians and Moslems.
We aren't the ones saying some god thing started it. We're saying "we don't know what started it." You're the ones saying you know it all.

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) 2 min Eagle 12 245,231
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 29 min Chimney1 20,739
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 32 min Igor Trip 11,083
John 3:16 1 hr Thinking 100
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 12 hr thetruth 14,671
Atheists and the "Moses Syndrome" 16 hr Shizle 23
Atheists should stop feeding the stereotypes Mon Thinking 19
More from around the web