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

Albuquerque, NM

#66777 Jan 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Thus why the vast majority of the human population is delusional. ;)
Not just christian, but any religion. Religious belief gets a free pass, and yet they are delusional,
You are engaging in stereotypical thinking. "If one is agin science, one must be fer religion, right?" While such an interpretation may be satisfyingly simple, it's also nonsense and another indication that you are prone to unhinged thinking.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#66778 Jan 7, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not wasting time here. This is very productive time. I'm learning, teaching, and having fun. It's so much fun that I am here whenever I have time and there are more posts that I haven't read yet.
REASONS TO POST ON TOPIX
[1] Learn from one another. This is atheist school, and we have many gifted minds here.
[2] Sway any possible uncommitted lurkers or future readers.
[3] Practice formulating better and more cogent arguments.
[4] Practice writing skills.
[5] Observe the parade of theists - I'd pay for that
....
What's to learn about "being" an unbeliever"? Either you are one or you are not; ideology is a concept not a skill.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#66779 Jan 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Thus why the vast majority of the human population is delusional. ;)
Not just christian, but any religion. Religious belief gets a free pass, and yet they are delusional,
So you aren't confused at all about that gherkin under your skirt?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66781 Jan 7, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>So you aren't confused at all about that gherkin under your skirt?
Still trying to get away with lying, I see. So ... where is your evidence again? You still haven't shown any that your assertions are based on reality.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66782 Jan 7, 2013
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
You are engaging in stereotypical thinking. "If one is agin science, one must be fer religion, right?" While such an interpretation may be satisfyingly simple, it's also nonsense and another indication that you are prone to unhinged thinking.
I said nothing of the sort, you are putting words into my post. I stated, based on the definition of delusion, that religious people are delusional. That is not because they disagree with anything, but because they assert something is reality while lacking any evidence to demonstrate it.

Since: Jan 13

Largo, FL

#66783 Jan 7, 2013
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Is worshipping science a perceptible indication that one is sane in your world? Not much difference between an invisble friend and a superhero.
You make the same idiotic argument that many "believers" make. When did I ever say I "worship" science? Again, you are trying to drag me down to your level. I don't think there is anything magical about science. It's just that science and math are based upon fact.

Let me explain to you the diffrence between worshipping, and stating facts:

When you get down on your knees and thank God for your many blessings, or beg him to cure your illness, you are worshipping.

When I say that ice is cold, or that 2 plus 2 equals 4, I am stating facts.

See the diffrence?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#66784 Jan 7, 2013
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Obfuscation will get you nowhere. Erik Verlinde, professor of Theoretical Physics says gravity is an illusion:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/11/...
Actually, Verlinde has proposed that gravity is not fundamental, but is a result of the other forces and of thermodynamics (the Entropic theory of gravity). This happens in a similar way to temperature. Temperature does not make sense when there is only one atom, so it is not a fundamental concept. Instead, it turns out to be related to the *average* kinetic energy of the atoms in the sample we are taking the temperature of.

It should be pointed out that things still fall (or orbit) and that the Einstein equations for gravity are an incredibly good approximation, even if Verlinde is correct. Of course, the real question is whether Verlinde can make any testable predictions using his model. That, at yet, has not happened.

Oh, even in Verlinde's theory, the universe was once much hotter and denser than it is now: so the basic Big Bang scenario still holds. Any modifications would be at times before the inflationary epoch.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66785 Jan 7, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, Verlinde has proposed that gravity is not fundamental, but is a result of the other forces and of thermodynamics (the Entropic theory of gravity). This happens in a similar way to temperature. Temperature does not make sense when there is only one atom, so it is not a fundamental concept. Instead, it turns out to be related to the *average* kinetic energy of the atoms in the sample we are taking the temperature of.
It should be pointed out that things still fall (or orbit) and that the Einstein equations for gravity are an incredibly good approximation, even if Verlinde is correct. Of course, the real question is whether Verlinde can make any testable predictions using his model. That, at yet, has not happened.
Oh, even in Verlinde's theory, the universe was once much hotter and denser than it is now: so the basic Big Bang scenario still holds. Any modifications would be at times before the inflationary epoch.
Hmm, now I like this Verlinde guy. Maybe I should have checked the link and not assumed it actually agree with postcript's idiotic notions. lol
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66786 Jan 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I said nothing of the sort, you are putting words into my post. I stated, based on the definition of delusion, that religious people are delusional. That is not because they disagree with anything, but because they assert something is reality while lacking any evidence to demonstrate it.
Amazing! You will even go as far as to deny the content of your own posts.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66787 Jan 7, 2013
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Amazing! You will even go as far as to deny the content of your own posts.
Amazing that you cannot even provide logical or valid evidence to support this notion.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#66788 Jan 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmm, now I like this Verlinde guy. Maybe I should have checked the link and not assumed it actually agree with postcript's idiotic notions. lol
I can find some more reliable links if you wish, although they would be technical. Verlinde's ideas are being actively debated.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#66789 Jan 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmm, now I like this Verlinde guy. Maybe I should have checked the link and not assumed it actually agree with postcript's idiotic notions. lol
Here's alist of articles discussing entropic gravity and various consequences.
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+Verlinde...

This, by the way, shows the lie to the claim that science never considers outside ideas. In point of fact, it does so frequently. It simply demands that any new theory explain at least as much as the current theory does. That is not yet the case with Verlinde's ideas.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66790 Jan 7, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I can find some more reliable links if you wish, although they would be technical. Verlinde's ideas are being actively debated.
I don't understand most physics, the math is just beyond my head. lol I can employ the maths in computer models for simulations, but actually understanding them I often fail. I just finally figured out how Lambert's Cosine Law works, I mean actually "get" it and not just how to apply it. So yeah, thanks but I will stick with the lower level stuff until I understand all that before trying to comprehend the parts that are being debated.:P

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#66791 Jan 7, 2013
postscriptt wrote:
Why should anyone accept science's theories as truthworthy when they change all the time?
They don't change "all the time", but only when new evidence requires an improved theory.

And *that* is why they are trustworthy. If they didn't change to reflect the evidence, then we would be dealing with...

...dogmatic religious scripture.

Since: Jan 13

Largo, FL

#66792 Jan 7, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't change "all the time", but only when new evidence requires an improved theory.
And *that* is why they are trustworthy. If they didn't change to reflect the evidence, then we would be dealing with...
...dogmatic religious scripture.
Can anyone explain to me why religious nuts are so anxious that everybody else buy into their nonsense? I mean, ok, I don't beleive in god. So how is that any skin off a believer's nose?

Thoughts?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#66793 Jan 7, 2013
Calm Liberal wrote:
<quoted text>
Can anyone explain to me why religious nuts are so anxious that everybody else buy into their nonsense? I mean, ok, I don't beleive in god. So how is that any skin off a believer's nose?
Thoughts?
I strongly suspect that they secretly believe that there is some sort of sales quota with a reward system based on how many converts they get, and they are hoping for a nicer house in heaven as a result.(Or maybe prettier wings or a flashier harp.)

Since: Jan 13

Largo, FL

#66794 Jan 7, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
I strongly suspect that they secretly believe that there is some sort of sales quota with a reward system based on how many converts they get, and they are hoping for a nicer house in heaven as a result.(Or maybe prettier wings or a flashier harp.)
Ok, I will be sending you a bill for the cleaning of my shirt. I had a mouth full of coffee when I read your post.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#66795 Jan 7, 2013
Calm Liberal wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, I will be sending you a bill for the cleaning of my shirt. I had a mouth full of coffee when I read your post.
You are new here so let me warn you that drinking hot liquids while reading posts in these threads is never a smart idea.

Also, either get a set of industrial strength irony meters or keep them away from the computer while reading. They will blow up.
John

United States

#66796 Jan 7, 2013
You make the presupposition that there is no evidence without admitting you do not have the scientifically measurable evidence to support your position of nothing. You have placed limits on what may be limitless. You have placed limits where they need not be. Thus far I have seen no evidence provided by an atheist that would support what is disingenuously called natural mechanisms only. If you think there isn't evidence of design you would be wrong. Admittedly, this can not be proven using your constricting criteria, but nothing in this arena has been proven using this standard. You know this by now. That is why it is so frustrating to the forum when it's pointed out. Judging by the ever-growing anecdotal evidence of this forum overwhelmingly congregated by atheists, atheism is something else entirely. There is a large contingent of antitheists, a portion devoted to secular humanism, and some interplay with other assorted isms. The common denominator is that every single one of these positions is lacking in evidence. The notion that man is the be all end all is flawed in my opinion. Of course you wish to shirk any burden of proof. That's transparent and shows a weak position. Atheism has been co-opted by the new atheist. Much more vocal and commited to breaking down the populace writ large that actually do have a position. I've given more than enough opportunity for atheists to engage in debate that is not circular. The brilliance and weakness of atheism is no accountability. That's why it's not challenging to debate this topic with you loons. Apologies to the few that aren't driven by more than uncertainty. When Reagan debated Gorbachev on our nuclear arsenals each man had a position. If there was a political debate the political atheist would attack the other position and not have to be responsible for one himself. If one football team was atheist and the other was not they would have the ball on offense the whole game. Fumble, and the ball would be returned. This is what you ask for here, but is unacceptable in every other topic. I'm conservative btw. A rational freethinker. I'm sure you are a centrist LOL. What's the mushy middle thought on government size, abortion, tax rates?
If there isn't a position don't bother responding. How is the fence DREW, Curious, Mikey,,,,? You got the post wedged good and deep yet? Stump an antitheist! Ask it what it believes. Still going strong 64,100 plus posts in.
Still nothing about atheism in the atheist forum. No position, no post #. Lies, spin, ad hominem, and boredom.
Waiting for an example of what passes the cut for evidence from atheists. Cowards!

Since: Jan 13

Largo, FL

#66797 Jan 7, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
You are new here so let me warn you that drinking hot liquids while reading posts in these threads is never a smart idea.
Also, either get a set of industrial strength irony meters or keep them away from the computer while reading. They will blow up.
Thanks for the safety tips!

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
Atheists and the "Moses Syndrome" 16 min Anonymous1386 1
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 46 min woodtick57 10,588
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 3 hr Anon 244,633
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr dirtclod 20,447
Atheist believe, they are just hiding!!! 6 hr Richardfs 17
Atheists should stop feeding the stereotypes 7 hr Thinking 4
John 3:16 19 hr Thinking 65
More from around the web