Atheists on the march in America

[postscriptt]

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.

[Drew Smith]

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?

[KittenKoder]

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]

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]

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.

[Drew Smith]

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]

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.

[Drew Smith]

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".

[KittenKoder]

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]

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?

[KittenKoder]

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.

[-Skeptic-]

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]

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 nation’s 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]

-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?

[-Skeptic-]

postscriptt wrote:

<quoted text>
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 nation’s 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...

Full of sh*t creationist with no morals. Posting anti-science propoganda because he's got no proof of god whatsover.

[-Skeptic-]

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?

This is officially the most retarded thing I've read today.

[-Skeptic-]

postscriptt wrote:

<quoted text>
My five senses tell me a rock is an object, but they can't tell me if it is aware.

Your five senses don't work correctly - it's why you have such difficulty with understanding science.

[EdSed]

http://www.badscience.net/

I recommend reading Bad Science, by Ben Goldacre.

(It probably won't help the superstitious, but its cogent and a good read)

[KittenKoder]

postscriptt wrote:

<quoted text>
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 nation’s 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...

Um, that's what a vaccine is, it's a dead version of the virus. So of course it will contain the disease, that's how it works.

[KittenKoder]

postscriptt wrote:

<quoted text>
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?

No, it's actually an assertion and one with gigabytes of evidence to support it, on this website alone. Tetrabytes likely on just the US servers.