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.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66656 Jan 4, 2013
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain.
A pattern generated by completely natural means will always be matched up by the observer's mind to some commonplace image, either imaginary or real, as a means of compression in the memory system. It's why you can remember anything at all, actually. Without it your brain would run out of space by about 20 years of age. This is also why we experience "de ja vue," which is really the mind skipping the process of recording an event that was similar enough to a past event the two seem identical. It's also the same effect we see in hallucinations, the mind reproduces the same "solid" images that it knows which closely match the random visual and auditory input, thus pink elephants when your visual nerves are seeing blood soaked, and virtually random, images from the alcohol or illness.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#66657 Jan 4, 2013
Your question is irrelevant to mine I mean do you have A.D.D. Or something? But for laughs you answer my question that you keep cowering away from and I will answer your irrelevant off topic question, fair enough?

Now yet again. Why should anyone accept god as anything other than a product of someone's vivid imagination?
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words, Mr. Gump, you refuse to answer the question.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66658 Jan 4, 2013
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
You wouldn't of course, but others who do perceive that evidence would have reason to believe a god exists.
It's called confirmation bias, the same reason that "common sense" is not considered valid evidence in scientific research. It is the exact same notion that leads to monsters under the bed or in the closet, actually. A throwback to the time we first climbed from the trees, the instinct served us then, preventing us from entering shadows we could not see or venturing too close to the edge of a cliff, but now it's simply in the way.
postscriptt

Placitas, NM

#66659 Jan 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, we're here, aren't we? Our very existence is proof that something had to come from nothing somehow. The how is the question, you avoid the question with a non-answer, I'd rather wait until someone has a real answer before even considering it valid.
Yet another ridiculous assertion from the stupid gallery. Our existence is proof of no such thing! Every effect has a cause (principle of causality). Everything that begins has a cause except the big bang and Darwin's evolution. You would rather fall on a sword than admit that these scientific ideas are conspicuously flawed.
postscriptt

Placitas, NM

#66660 Jan 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
A pattern generated by completely natural means will always be matched up by the observer's mind to some commonplace image, either imaginary or real, as a means of compression in the memory system. It's why you can remember anything at all, actually. Without it your brain would run out of space by about 20 years of age. This is also why we experience "de ja vue," which is really the mind skipping the process of recording an event that was similar enough to a past event the two seem identical. It's also the same effect we see in hallucinations, the mind reproduces the same "solid" images that it knows which closely match the random visual and auditory input, thus pink elephants when your visual nerves are seeing blood soaked, and virtually random, images from the alcohol or illness.
Do you moonlight as a televangelist? Your logic is comparable. LOL!
postscriptt

Placitas, NM

#66661 Jan 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called confirmation bias, the same reason that "common sense" is not considered valid evidence in scientific research. It is the exact same notion that leads to monsters under the bed or in the closet, actually. A throwback to the time we first climbed from the trees, the instinct served us then, preventing us from entering shadows we could not see or venturing too close to the edge of a cliff, but now it's simply in the way.
The lack of common sense in scientific research would explain why something can come from nothing and dead matter creates life.
postscriptt

Placitas, NM

#66662 Jan 4, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Your question is irrelevant to mine I mean do you have A.D.D. Or something? But for laughs you answer my question that you keep cowering away from and I will answer your irrelevant off topic question, fair enough?
Now yet again. Why should anyone accept god as anything other than a product of someone's vivid imagination?
<quoted text>
Anything logical would be irrelevant to an ape-man. You have the IQ of lint. You prove it every time you post a comment. You'd be out of your depth in a parking lot puddle.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66663 Jan 4, 2013
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet another ridiculous assertion from the stupid gallery. Our existence is proof of no such thing! Every effect has a cause (principle of causality). Everything that begins has a cause except the big bang and Darwin's evolution. You would rather fall on a sword than admit that these scientific ideas are conspicuously flawed.
Not everything has a cause though. Effects and things are two different ... well things.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66664 Jan 4, 2013
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
The lack of common sense in scientific research would explain why something can come from nothing and dead matter creates life.
So then why do you have a myth that states the same thing, only you don't present even a possible method of how it happens?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66665 Jan 4, 2013
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Anything logical would be irrelevant to an ape-man. You have the IQ of lint. You prove it every time you post a comment. You'd be out of your depth in a parking lot puddle.
In other words he "nailed it."

Since: Mar 11

United States

#66666 Jan 4, 2013
Inability to answer a simple question we see the subject grow agitated and lash out with an ad hom attack.

Stop stalling. It's a simple question and if you are unable to answer that then there is no way you have the mental abilities to discuss more advanced subjects.

So yet again. Why should anyone accept god as anything more than the product of someone's vivid imagination?
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Anything logical would be irrelevant to an ape-man. You have the IQ of lint. You prove it every time you post a comment. You'd be out of your depth in a parking lot puddle.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#66667 Jan 5, 2013
postscriptt wrote:
Aside from the fact that design in nature (specified complexity) necessitates a designer
Argumentum ad ignorantiam is a logical fallacy.

Furthermore:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_comple...
postscriptt wrote:
billions of people believe a god(s) exist.
Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.
postscriptt

Placitas, NM

#66668 Jan 5, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Inability to answer a simple question we see the subject grow agitated and lash out with an ad hom attack.
Stop stalling. It's a simple question and if you are unable to answer that then there is no way you have the mental abilities to discuss more advanced subjects.
So yet again. Why should anyone accept god as anything more than the product of someone's vivid imagination?
<quoted text>
It wasn't an attack, it is my perception of you. When you can answer my question, I'll answer yours. Why would the idea of a god be any less worthy of consideration than science's big bang theory?
postscriptt

Placitas, NM

#66669 Jan 5, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Argumentum ad ignorantiam is a logical fallacy.
Furthermore:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_comple...
<quoted text>
Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.
The distinction made was one of relevance, not popularity. If a majority of people believe something and have for centuries, it can't be attributed to imagination alone.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66670 Jan 5, 2013
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
It wasn't an attack, it is my perception of you. When you can answer my question, I'll answer yours. Why would the idea of a god be any less worthy of consideration than science's big bang theory?
Because no evidence suggests or even hints at a god.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66671 Jan 5, 2013
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
The distinction made was one of relevance, not popularity. If a majority of people believe something and have for centuries, it can't be attributed to imagination alone.
Actually, it can be. The majority of people believed the Earth was flat for a very long time, it's not flat. The majority is also wrong more often than not, so basing anything on the majority is folly.
postscriptt

Placitas, NM

#66672 Jan 5, 2013
The information that comes to us directly through dreams, impulses, hunches, intuition and the like -is organized differently from the information we receive through our physical senses.

You perceive physical events as happening in time, one following the other and thus when you recount your experiences, you automatically organize them in time sequences. You are so tied to the concept of time that it is difficult for you to grasp other types of organization. This why you think dreams and intuition are unreliable, and why you are more likely to disregard an impulse than notice it. Inner information is organized through emotional association - not according to time. When your "monitor of prosaic logic" is turned off while in dreams or other altered states of consciousness - emotional associations are allowed to flow freely adding valuable input to your waking experience. But whether or not you use that information depends on the degree of your parochialism.

You can't trust you physical senses alone to give you an accurate picture of reality. They can be consumate liars. You can hardly grow into your full potential if you believe that you are a creature bound by the physical limitations of time and space, mindlessly following a path to extinction.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66673 Jan 5, 2013
postscriptt wrote:
The information that comes to us directly through dreams, impulses, hunches, intuition and the like -is organized differently from the information we receive through our physical senses.
You perceive physical events as happening in time, one following the other and thus when you recount your experiences, you automatically organize them in time sequences. You are so tied to the concept of time that it is difficult for you to grasp other types of organization. This why you think dreams and intuition are unreliable, and why you are more likely to disregard an impulse than notice it. Inner information is organized through emotional association - not according to time. When your "monitor of prosaic logic" is turned off while in dreams or other altered states of consciousness - emotional associations are allowed to flow freely adding valuable input to your waking experience. But whether or not you use that information depends on the degree of your parochialism.
You can't trust you physical senses alone to give you an accurate picture of reality. They can be consumate liars. You can hardly grow into your full potential if you believe that you are a creature bound by the physical limitations of time and space, mindlessly following a path to extinction.
Where is the evidence suggesting any of this?
postscriptt

Placitas, NM

#66674 Jan 5, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is the evidence suggesting any of this?
Within yourself. Learn to trust that evidence. Your earthbound assessments are not the limit of your reality.
postscriptt

Placitas, NM

#66675 Jan 5, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it can be. The majority of people believed the Earth was flat for a very long time, it's not flat. The majority is also wrong more often than not, so basing anything on the majority is folly.
And yet a belief in god(s) persists despite science's theorizing and litany of changing facts.

The human psyche senses the existence of a greater non-physical reality. A belief in god(s) is a manifestation of this inner knowing and religions are attempts to objecify this knowledge.

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) 8 min -Stray Dog 244,975
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 23 min Gary Coaldigger 20,630
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 2 hr emperorjohn 10,952
John 3:16 4 hr thetruth 83
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 4 hr thetruth 14,666
Atheists should stop feeding the stereotypes Sat NightSerf 18
News Si Robertson, 'Duck Dynasty' Star, Says Atheist... Fri thetruth 42
More from around the web