Atheists on the march in America

Aug 26, 2009 Full story: TurkishPress.com 70,983

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

Full Story
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#66523 Dec 31, 2012
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.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66524 Dec 31, 2012
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.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66525 Dec 31, 2012
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.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#66526 Dec 31, 2012
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

Santa Fe, NM

#66527 Dec 31, 2012
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?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66528 Dec 31, 2012
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.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#66529 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
How are rocks "aware"?
<quoted text>
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.
This is what it means to you as a human, but not a rock. Example, we perceive air as gaseous and breathable, but to a tree it could be as thick as pudding - a perception necessary to support its heavy branches.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#66530 Dec 31, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
You are obviously not a rock, how could you know how they perceive reality?
You are obviously not a rock, how could you know that they perceive it at all?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66531 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
You are obviously not a rock, how could you know that they perceive it at all?
Well, he's as dense as one.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#66532 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
You are obviously not a rock, how could you know that they perceive it at all?
My five senses tell me a rock is an object, but they can't tell me if it is aware.
John

United States

#66533 Dec 31, 2012
Still no evidence from the atheists using the criteria they hold others accountable to. Let's start another year of your collective dishonesty and bigotry.

They have 63,000 posts just to reiterate no claim. There isn't an agenda here though LOL. Well, if you believe in that you will probably believe in the ridiculousness of something from nothing.

Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#66534 Dec 31, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
My five senses tell me a rock is an object, but they can't tell me if it is aware.
Then how do we know that rocks are aware? Merely that they are physical objects that react to chemistry and physics?

We already have a concept for that. It's called "existence".
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#66535 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Then how do we know that rocks are aware? Merely that they are physical objects that react to chemistry and physics?
We already have a concept for that. It's called "existence".
Like your five senses, science can never tell you if a rock is aware since its focus is exclusively physical. The only way to know for certain is to rely on your inner senses - your ability to merge your consciousness with that of a rock - to "feel" its reality, otherwise you are confined to speculating endlessly about the awareness of matter or lack thereof based on physical preconceptions entirely.

We live, create, respond, feel, think, dream and do it without trying. From the materialist's point of view, it's all done for us. But where does the information come from that makes these things so effortlessly possible? In order to avoid getting hit by a truck for example, we must be able to react quickly. The inner mechanisms that make such reactions possible are based upon calculations that are not consciously available - do not reside in the brain. If they were, we would never be able to react promptly if we had to stop and consciously work all the muscles involved in motion before we could move. People certainly couldn't communicate if they had to be aware of all the mechanisms involved and manipulate them before a bystander could even utter the words, "Look out!". This information has a source and that source is consciousness which exists independent of the brain and which as awareized energy exists in all matter.

When science decided to concentrate its investigations on objective issues and provable hypothesis only, relying on the physical senses and later, their extensions through instruments, it ended up with a very limited picture of reality. Scientists can categorize things such as types of flowers - give them names - rip them apart petal by petal so that nothing "physical" escapes examination, but by practicing such exclusivity, it loses sight of the fact that some knowledge forever escapes fact's categories - knowledge just as valid and just as demonstrable of nature's true significance reflected in man's subjective experiences - his inner reality.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#66536 Dec 31, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
Like your five senses, science can never tell you if a rock is aware since its focus is exclusively physical. The only way to know for certain is to rely on your inner senses - your ability to merge your consciousness with that of a rock - to "feel" its reality
In other words, it's all a lot of New Age "woo".

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66537 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words, it's all a lot of New Age "woo".
New Age woowoo, not the same as the Old Aged woowoo, but still chalked full of nuts.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#66539 Jan 1, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
New Age woowoo, not the same as the Old Aged woowoo, but still chalked full of nuts.
Science prides itself on separating fact from religious fancy. Instead of delusions, it has given the world a practical picture of reality - a rational picture that has freed the human intellect from the leaden grip of magical myths.

In place of ancient fictions about beginnings, science says the universe was formed by chance from nothing. That dead matter gave rise to a rich and diverse range of mechanized biological forms, and the golden rule of life is survival of the fittest. Instead of fables about immortality, it tells us that one life is all we have; that life being the only game going in all of infinity. It's a game of no particular significance or value however since science tells us that the universe is slowly running down, its energy being dissipated and the whole works gradually disintegrating into chaos.

Science tells us that the human body is a machine with consciousness trapped inside and emotional truths just hallucinations - the result of erratic activity of neurons or chemicals. It says that illness comes from outside sources, from viruses and bacteria that cause our bodily mechanical parts to break down. By simply giving our machines an oil treatment (drugs) or some better parts - all is well in science's land-o-facts.

You have your woo, I have mine. The question is: Whose woo makes more sense?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66540 Jan 1, 2013
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Science prides itself on separating fact from religious fancy. Instead of delusions, it has given the world a practical picture of reality - a rational picture that has freed the human intellect from the leaden grip of magical myths.
In place of ancient fictions about beginnings, science says the universe was formed by chance from nothing. That dead matter gave rise to a rich and diverse range of mechanized biological forms, and the golden rule of life is survival of the fittest. Instead of fables about immortality, it tells us that one life is all we have; that life being the only game going in all of infinity. It's a game of no particular significance or value however since science tells us that the universe is slowly running down, its energy being dissipated and the whole works gradually disintegrating into chaos.
Science tells us that the human body is a machine with consciousness trapped inside and emotional truths just hallucinations - the result of erratic activity of neurons or chemicals. It says that illness comes from outside sources, from viruses and bacteria that cause our bodily mechanical parts to break down. By simply giving our machines an oil treatment (drugs) or some better parts - all is well in science's land-o-facts.
You have your woo, I have mine. The question is: Whose woo makes more sense?
Wow, you didn't just swallow the myth, you swallowed the entire collection. You think viruses don't cause illness? You think medicine doesn't help? I hope you never have children, such ignorance leads to child abuse.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#66541 Jan 1, 2013
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Science prides itself on separating fact from religious fancy. Instead of delusions, it has given the world a practical picture of reality - a rational picture that has freed the human intellect from the leaden grip of magical myths.
In place of ancient fictions about beginnings, science says the universe was formed by chance from nothing. That dead matter gave rise to a rich and diverse range of mechanized biological forms, and the golden rule of life is survival of the fittest. Instead of fables about immortality, it tells us that one life is all we have; that life being the only game going in all of infinity. It's a game of no particular significance or value however since science tells us that the universe is slowly running down, its energy being dissipated and the whole works gradually disintegrating into chaos.
Science tells us that the human body is a machine with consciousness trapped inside and emotional truths just hallucinations - the result of erratic activity of neurons or chemicals. It says that illness comes from outside sources, from viruses and bacteria that cause our bodily mechanical parts to break down. By simply giving our machines an oil treatment (drugs) or some better parts - all is well in science's land-o-facts.
You have your woo, I have mine. The question is: Whose woo makes more sense?
I'm sorry that you have no proof of god, but please don't take it out on science. After all it is thanks to science that you are able to post this boat load of anti-science horsesh*t propoganda,( that probably came from the discovery institute which wants everyone to believe th eearth is 6000 years old and fossils not being "real"), so hundreds of people can see what a lying ignorant creationist tool you really are.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#66542 Jan 1, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, you didn't just swallow the myth, you swallowed the entire collection. You think viruses don't cause illness? You think medicine doesn't help? I hope you never have children, such ignorance leads to child abuse.
In the U.S. children receive 35 vaccinations all told - 48 doses of 14 vaccines by the time they are just six years old. These vaccinations contain 113 different kinds of disease particles, 59 different chemicals, four types of animal cells/DNA from aborted fetal tissue and human albumin and there are 20 more vaccines currently in the Pharma pipeline and yet vaccine efficacy has never been proven! In fact, a common-sense study comparing the health outcomes of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children has never been done in the U.S. to prove the safety and effectiveness of the childhood vaccine regime. THIS is child abuse.

http://vaccineresistancemovement.org/...

In England, Michel Odent, MD showed in two studies that children having received no Pertussis vaccine had 5-6 times less asthma than those who were vaccinated for it.

The rate of autism in the U.S. is now an unthinkable 1 in 100. Those who are unvaccinated boast numbers that run in shocking contrast to the nationís statistics i.e. the incredible absence of autism in the unvaccinated Amish communities of Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Two studies done in New Zealand in 1992 and 1995 show that the unvaccinated children clearly have less allergies, less otitis (ear aches), less tonsillitis, less running noses, less epilepsies and less ADHD.

In Japan (1975-1980), a decision was made to begin the first vaccinations at two years of age instead of at two months. The reason was that more and more was discovered linking vaccines and crib-death (SIDS).

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2010/06/25/...

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2010/0...
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#66543 Jan 1, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry that you have no proof of god, but please don't take it out on science. After all it is thanks to science that you are able to post this boat load of anti-science horsesh*t propoganda,( that probably came from the discovery institute which wants everyone to believe th eearth is 6000 years old and fossils not being "real"), so hundreds of people can see what a lying ignorant creationist tool you really are.
A specious argument used one time too many on this forum. Instead of parroting what has already been stated ad nauseam - try to be original. Think you can manage that?

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 Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 16 min red and right 2,593
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Joe fortuna 233,034
Christians More Supportive of Torture Than Non-... 3 hr QUITTNER Dec 24 2014 5
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 4 hr ChristineM 1,449
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 6 hr polymath257 159
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 8 hr _Bad Company 192
Atheism: On the Rise? (Jan '13) 9 hr ratboyhunter 34
More from around the web