Atheists on the march in America

Aug 26, 2009 Read more: TurkishPress.com 70,659

When South Florida atheists held their first meeting, they were just five friends, having a beer at a bar.

Read more
postscriptt

Placitas, NM

#66629 Jan 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you insist on thinking backwards. Evidence is there that something exists, you get the evidence long before the existence is apparent. You only know I exist because of the interactions that lead to the posts online, otherwise you have no way of validly asserting that I exist. My neighbor exists, I know this because I hear them moving about, the noise they make is evidence that they exist. I do not see my neighbor, and if there was no noise then me claiming they exist would be lunacy. The evidence precedes the fact, therefore, nothing is self evident.
To say that something exists, it must first be perceived. If you do not exist, you cannot perceive anything. If you concede that something can exist long before the evidence of its existence is apparent, or perceived, then you should have no problem accepting the idea that God existed long before the earth was formed.

The fact that you perceive something (noise or whatever) is self evidence that you exist. You perceive, therefore you are. I perceive your posts as evidence that you exist. I perceive your existence, therefore you are.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#66630 Jan 4, 2013
Yawn logical fallacies the favorite tool for Christians. So bottom line can you show a shred of observable testable data for the existence of god. Your own vivid imagination and word games don't count. Sorry.
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
To say that something exists, it must first be perceived. If you do not exist, you cannot perceive anything. If you concede that something can exist long before the evidence of its existence is apparent, or perceived, then you should have no problem accepting the idea that God existed long before the earth was formed.
The fact that you perceive something (noise or whatever) is self evidence that you exist. You perceive, therefore you are. I perceive your posts as evidence that you exist. I perceive your existence, therefore you are.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66631 Jan 4, 2013
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
To say that something exists, it must first be perceived. If you do not exist, you cannot perceive anything. If you concede that something can exist long before the evidence of its existence is apparent, or perceived, then you should have no problem accepting the idea that God existed long before the earth was formed.
The fact that you perceive something (noise or whatever) is self evidence that you exist. You perceive, therefore you are. I perceive your posts as evidence that you exist. I perceive your existence, therefore you are.
Just because the evidence is not known, does not mean that the evidence does not exist. All things which exist have evidence of their existence, it is delusional to state something exists when it is lacking evidence. Evidence, and therefore everything that does actually exist, exists whether we perceive it. You provide no evidence of your claims, therefore you are delusional for asserting that your claims are fact.

It's funny that you concede to my point at the end of your post too.
postscriptt

Placitas, NM

#66632 Jan 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because the evidence is not known, does not mean that the evidence does not exist. All things which exist have evidence of their existence, it is delusional to state something exists when it is lacking evidence. Evidence, and therefore everything that does actually exist, exists whether we perceive it. You provide no evidence of your claims, therefore you are delusional for asserting that your claims are fact.
It's funny that you concede to my point at the end of your post too.
Evidence that is not perceived cannot be "known".

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#66633 Jan 4, 2013
So why should anyone accept god as anything more than the work of someone's vivid imagination?
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidence that is not perceived cannot be "known".
postscriptt

Placitas, NM

#66634 Jan 4, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
So why should anyone accept god as anything more than the work of someone's vivid imagination?
<quoted text>
Science's unverified hypothesis are the work of imagination, yet you have no trouble accepting these. Why would the idea of a god seem any less worthy of consideration?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66635 Jan 4, 2013
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidence that is not perceived cannot be "known".
Yes, and nothing that has no evidence cannot be asserted as existing. Glad we cleared that up.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66636 Jan 4, 2013
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Science's unverified hypothesis are the work of imagination, yet you have no trouble accepting these. Why would the idea of a god seem any less worthy of consideration?
No, scientific claims are backed by evidence. Ignoring the evidence doesn't make it go away, that only works for gods.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#66637 Jan 4, 2013
postscriptt wrote:
If you concede that something can exist long before the evidence of its existence is apparent, or perceived, then you should have no problem accepting the idea that God existed long before the earth was formed.
Until you notice that there is no evidence for the existence of a "god".
postscriptt

Placitas, NM

#66638 Jan 4, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Until you notice that there is no evidence for the existence of a "god".
Or you don't perceive it.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#66639 Jan 4, 2013
Stop trying to change the subject. Why should anyone accept god as anything more than the product of someone's vivid imagination?
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Science's unverified hypothesis are the work of imagination, yet you have no trouble accepting these. Why would the idea of a god seem any less worthy of consideration?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66640 Jan 4, 2013
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Or you don't perceive it.
Anthropomorphic patterns in randomness is not evidence.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#66641 Jan 4, 2013
Until you notice that there is no evidence for the existence of a "god".
postscriptt wrote:
Or you don't perceive it.
If I don't perceive it, then why would I have any reason to believe that there is evidence?
Lincoln

United States

#66642 Jan 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, scientific claims are backed by evidence. Ignoring the evidence doesn't make it go away, that only works for gods.
Scientific evidence can be altered when Federal Grant Money is Near? Point !
postscriptt

Placitas, NM

#66643 Jan 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Anthropomorphic patterns in randomness is not evidence.
Explain.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66644 Jan 4, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Scientific evidence can be altered when Federal Grant Money is Near? Point !
Nope, if that was the case then why do scientists out the frauds so willingly? Even before being asked they will publish reports of the frauds. If what you said was true, they would never want people know of the frauds simply out of fear of being outed themselves.
postscriptt

Placitas, NM

#66645 Jan 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, scientific claims are backed by evidence. Ignoring the evidence doesn't make it go away, that only works for gods.
Really? What evidence does science have that supports the notion that something comes from nothing?
postscriptt

Placitas, NM

#66646 Jan 4, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
Until you notice that there is no evidence for the existence of a "god".
<quoted text>
If I don't perceive it, then why would I have any reason to believe that there is evidence?
You wouldn't of course, but others who do perceive that evidence would have reason to believe a god exists.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#66647 Jan 4, 2013
John wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no topic. The forum is about nothing and completely reliant on others to have a voice. Most of you loons voted for this trainwreck so I don't have a problem reminding you of your idiocy on that front either.
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.
The topic is:
"Atheists on the march in America".

Now, let's debate.
1. If god exists, there is evidence of his existence.
2. There is no evidence of his existence.
3. God does not exist.

Stump John! Ask him to debate.
Well, maybe one day his balls will drop, and he'll debate.
"Why do people say grow some balls? Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding." - Betty White
postscriptt

Placitas, NM

#66648 Jan 4, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Stop trying to change the subject. Why should anyone accept god as anything more than the product of someone's vivid imagination?
<quoted text>
Do you accept the idea that the big bang was a random ocurrence?

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) 59 min Chimney1 18,450
News Confessions of a black atheist 1 hr thetruth 310
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 1 hr Joe Corrilo 14,553
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 2 hr thetruth 7,398
News Atheists open up: What they want you to know 2 hr thetruth 16
News The Consequences of Atheism 2 hr thetruth 1,257
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 hr thetruth 237,691
More from around the web