Atheists on the march in America

[Drew Smith]

John wrote:

You loons scream for evidence

Translation: John doesn't have any evidence for his claim.

[Drew Smith]

John wrote:

My claim is simply a response to your agenda based attempts to marginalize believers.

By your behavior in this thread, you marginalize yourself.

[postscriptt]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
So ... rocks are aware?

Awareness is the universal property of "all" matter, and that includes rocks. Just because the existence of consciousness in all things is beyond your level of comprehension, or can't be tested using the scientific method, doesn't mean it is not true. Scientists assume that consciousness "requires" a complex brain. They use this assumption to formulate other assumptions, which are then presented as scientific factoids (something resembling a fact, but not verified). They reason that in humans at least, consciousness must be located somewhere in the central cortex of the brain. One would think that if huge portions of the cerebral cortex were missing, awareness would likewise be missing, but predictably when one deals in assumptions - one is wrong more often than not.

"Some hydranencephalic children - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydranencephaly - give every appearance of genuine consciousness, or awareness. They respond to people and things in their environment. When someone calls, they perk up. The children smile, laugh and cry. They know the difference between familiar people and strangers. They move themselves towards objects they desire. And they prefer some kinds of music over others. If some children with hydranencephaly are conscious, then the brain does not require an intact cerebral cortex to produce consciousness."

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwave...

Research findings regarding other creatures challenge the scientific assumption that only complex brains are capable of possessing consciousness. Octopuses for example,- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus - are classified within the invertebrates in the mollusk family - and many mollusks, like clams, have no brain. Birds have more complex brains than an octopus yet these boneless, so-called mindless critters exhibit not only intelligence, but emotion and individual personalities. They can unscrew jar lids - they are escape artists finding clever ways to get out of aquariums - they can be trained to distinguish between different shapes and patterns - all examples of awarenss not dependent upon a complex brain. So much for scientific factoids, eh?

[postscriptt]

Thinking wrote:

Do remember to thank your god for making childhood leukaemia.
<quoted text>

Were you expecting utopia here on earth - a garden of Eden perhaps? The story of Adam and Eve is symbolic of the emergence of the ego "I". When man separated himself from nature, he separated himself from his own inner knowledge which includes natural healing among other abilities.

[postscriptt]

honest atheist wrote:

<quoted text> And thank him for sharks,aligators,lions,tornado s,tidal waves,volcanos,the plague,the kardasians,and hiltons.

Lions and tigers and bears - oh, my! For years, Jane Godall and Dian Fossey sat in the middle of chimpanzees and apes capable of tearing humans limb from limb and were never harmed. If you read the works of these women, you will find that they practiced a deep and abiding respect for nature.

As long as man's irresponsible gluttonous habits and insistence on engaging in a mindless global breeding spree push other living things to the edge of their natural habitats - to the edge of extinction in some cases - humans will pay the price. Tsunamis, tornados, and volcanos are natural events. As long as humans build on flood plains, live along coast lines, in tornado alleys, near volcanos - they will pay the price. Blaming a god, or even a devil for our own choices is a cop-out. The Kardashians? A fine example of our human proclivity to find something redeeming in sciolism.

[Drew Smith]

postscriptt wrote:

Awareness is the universal property of "all" matter, and that includes rocks.

How are rocks "aware"?

[KittenKoder]

postscriptt wrote:

<quoted text>
Awareness is the universal property of "all" matter, and that includes rocks. Just because the existence of consciousness in all things is beyond your level of comprehension, or can't be tested using the scientific method, doesn't mean it is not true. Scientists assume that consciousness "requires" a complex brain. They use this assumption to formulate other assumptions, which are then presented as scientific factoids (something resembling a fact, but not verified). They reason that in humans at least, consciousness must be located somewhere in the central cortex of the brain. One would think that if huge portions of the cerebral cortex were missing, awareness would likewise be missing, but predictably when one deals in assumptions - one is wrong more often than not.
"Some hydranencephalic children - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydranencephaly - give every appearance of genuine consciousness, or awareness. They respond to people and things in their environment. When someone calls, they perk up. The children smile, laugh and cry. They know the difference between familiar people and strangers. They move themselves towards objects they desire. And they prefer some kinds of music over others. If some children with hydranencephaly are conscious, then the brain does not require an intact cerebral cortex to produce consciousness."
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwave...
Research findings regarding other creatures challenge the scientific assumption that only complex brains are capable of possessing consciousness. Octopuses for example,- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus - are classified within the invertebrates in the mollusk family - and many mollusks, like clams, have no brain. Birds have more complex brains than an octopus yet these boneless, so-called mindless critters exhibit not only intelligence, but emotion and individual personalities. They can unscrew jar lids - they are escape artists finding clever ways to get out of aquariums - they can be trained to distinguish between different shapes and patterns - all examples of awarenss not dependent upon a complex brain. So much for scientific factoids, eh?

So ... you're reading headlines and running with them into something that has zero evidence suggesting it.

You are just making it up as you go.

[KittenKoder]

postscriptt wrote:

<quoted text>
Lions and tigers and bears - oh, my! For years, Jane Godall and Dian Fossey sat in the middle of chimpanzees and apes capable of tearing humans limb from limb and were never harmed. If you read the works of these women, you will find that they practiced a deep and abiding respect for nature.
As long as man's irresponsible gluttonous habits and insistence on engaging in a mindless global breeding spree push other living things to the edge of their natural habitats - to the edge of extinction in some cases - humans will pay the price. Tsunamis, tornados, and volcanos are natural events. As long as humans build on flood plains, live along coast lines, in tornado alleys, near volcanos - they will pay the price. Blaming a god, or even a devil for our own choices is a cop-out. The Kardashians? A fine example of our human proclivity to find something redeeming in sciolism.

You're capable of killing cats, do you do it everytime there's one around you?

[postscriptt]

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
How are rocks "aware"?

Not unlike the way you do. They perceive their own surroundings according to their degree - changing, reacting to natural forces both internal and external.

[postscriptt]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
You're capable of killing cats, do you do it everytime there's one around you?

Of course not, but neither do animals kill wantonly and mechanically if that is your implication.

[postscriptt]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
So ... you're reading headlines and running with them into something that has zero evidence suggesting it.
You are just making it up as you go.

Much like science does, eh?

[KittenKoder]

postscriptt wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course not, but neither do animals kill wantonly and mechanically if that is your implication.

No, that is the assertion creationists make. I am pointing out that social animals tend to form alliances, friendships are what we call them, even cross species. There are some that are not like that, but very few, all it proves is that we aren't that different from the other animals alive today.

[KittenKoder]

postscriptt wrote:

<quoted text>
Much like science does, eh?

No, science contributes to understanding of the universe, then journalists create catchy headlines to draw in readers, you're suppose to read it all.

[postscriptt]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
No, science contributes to understanding of the universe, then journalists create catchy headlines to draw in readers, you're suppose to read it all.

Like explaining how something comes from nothing?

[postscriptt]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
No, that is the assertion creationists make. I am pointing out that social animals tend to form alliances, friendships are what we call them, even cross species. There are some that are not like that, but very few, all it proves is that we aren't that different from the other animals alive today.

Yes, it is called cooperation and cooperation requires awareness.

[KittenKoder]

postscriptt wrote:

<quoted text>
Like explaining how something comes from nothing?

Physics has, that's why the singularity idea is being looked at more seriously now. So I fail to see your point. You say something came from nothing, you just changed what that something is.

[KittenKoder]

postscriptt wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, it is called cooperation and cooperation requires awareness.

Yes, but rocks don't cooperate, they certainly don't care about who or what they squish, and they don't move on their own.

[Drew Smith]

How are rocks "aware"?

postscriptt wrote:

Not unlike the way you do. They perceive their own surroundings according to their degree - changing, reacting to natural forces both internal and external.

Rocks have no change or reaction to natural forces beyond that required by basic chemistry and physics. When the concept of awareness is stretched to include nothing more than chemical and physical properties, it loses all useful meaning.

[postscriptt]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, but rocks don't cooperate, they certainly don't care about who or what they squish, and they don't move on their own.

You are superimposing your "human" perception of reality on a rock's reality. You are obviously not a rock, how could you know how they perceive reality?

[KittenKoder]

postscriptt wrote:

<quoted text>
You are superimposing your "human" perception of reality on a rock's reality. You are obviously not a rock, how could you know how they perceive reality?

No, see above post by Drew.