Atheists on the march in America

Aug 26, 2009 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: TurkishPress.com

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

Comments
63,921 - 63,940 of 70,983 Comments Last updated Tuesday Aug 5
postscriptt

Placitas, NM

#66623 Jan 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing is "self evident," as I pointed out to you. That is just a cop-out, an excuse, a way to tell anyone who disagrees with you, in spite of them having all the actual evidence supporting their assertions, that they are wrong, and only idiots, I mean die hard, total buffoons, think that can actually serve as evidence for anything.
Imagine if a physicist said that quantum theory is self evident. Or if electricity was just called "self evident?" We'd never have computers.
The fact that you exist is self-evident. You can deny that you exist of course - it won't change the fact that you do and in our society it could put you in a strait jacket.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66624 Jan 4, 2013
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that you exist is self-evident. You can deny that you exist of course - it won't change the fact that you do and in our society it could put you in a strait jacket.
It is not self evident. Evidence of existence is that I can influence the world around me, I can make things interact, and things interact with me. So again, "self evident" is merely dodging the burden of proof because you know you lack any evidence for your assertion.
postscriptt

Placitas, NM

#66625 Jan 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not self evident. Evidence of existence is that I can influence the world around me, I can make things interact, and things interact with me. So again, "self evident" is merely dodging the burden of proof because you know you lack any evidence for your assertion.
You would not perceive influence and interaction with the world around you if you did not exist. Again - the fact that you exist is self-evident and you can't prove it isn't.
John

United States

#66626 Jan 4, 2013
Another day of ineptitude from the antitheists.*Note to lurkers* They have gone almost three years without giving one accountable position they are willing to debate. Three years without an example of evidence that meets their criteria for evidence. These are angry agenda driven folks that don't give a damn about the evidence.
If you want to subject yourself to this farce by all means see for yourself. Antitheists you could also just cut and paste one of the 63, 940 posts to show otherwise.
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe. True science that is repeatable and observable.
John

United States

#66627 Jan 4, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you con dumbs bring up Obama's name in every forum?
(Didn't bother to read the rest of your post. I figured it was 100% off topic.)
There is no topic. The forum is about nothing and completely reliant on others to have a voice. Most of you loons voted for this trainwreck so I don't have a problem reminding you of your idiocy on that front either.

Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66628 Jan 4, 2013
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
You would not perceive influence and interaction with the world around you if you did not exist. Again - the fact that you exist is self-evident and you can't prove it isn't.
Why do you insist on thinking backwards. Evidence is there that something exists, you get the evidence long before the existence is apparent. You only know I exist because of the interactions that lead to the posts online, otherwise you have no way of validly asserting that I exist. My neighbor exists, I know this because I hear them moving about, the noise they make is evidence that they exist. I do not see my neighbor, and if there was no noise then me claiming they exist would be lunacy. The evidence precedes the fact, therefore, nothing is self evident.
postscriptt

Placitas, NM

#66629 Jan 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you insist on thinking backwards. Evidence is there that something exists, you get the evidence long before the existence is apparent. You only know I exist because of the interactions that lead to the posts online, otherwise you have no way of validly asserting that I exist. My neighbor exists, I know this because I hear them moving about, the noise they make is evidence that they exist. I do not see my neighbor, and if there was no noise then me claiming they exist would be lunacy. The evidence precedes the fact, therefore, nothing is self evident.
To say that something exists, it must first be perceived. If you do not exist, you cannot perceive anything. If you concede that something can exist long before the evidence of its existence is apparent, or perceived, then you should have no problem accepting the idea that God existed long before the earth was formed.

The fact that you perceive something (noise or whatever) is self evidence that you exist. You perceive, therefore you are. I perceive your posts as evidence that you exist. I perceive your existence, therefore you are.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#66630 Jan 4, 2013
Yawn logical fallacies the favorite tool for Christians. So bottom line can you show a shred of observable testable data for the existence of god. Your own vivid imagination and word games don't count. Sorry.
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
To say that something exists, it must first be perceived. If you do not exist, you cannot perceive anything. If you concede that something can exist long before the evidence of its existence is apparent, or perceived, then you should have no problem accepting the idea that God existed long before the earth was formed.
The fact that you perceive something (noise or whatever) is self evidence that you exist. You perceive, therefore you are. I perceive your posts as evidence that you exist. I perceive your existence, therefore you are.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66631 Jan 4, 2013
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
To say that something exists, it must first be perceived. If you do not exist, you cannot perceive anything. If you concede that something can exist long before the evidence of its existence is apparent, or perceived, then you should have no problem accepting the idea that God existed long before the earth was formed.
The fact that you perceive something (noise or whatever) is self evidence that you exist. You perceive, therefore you are. I perceive your posts as evidence that you exist. I perceive your existence, therefore you are.
Just because the evidence is not known, does not mean that the evidence does not exist. All things which exist have evidence of their existence, it is delusional to state something exists when it is lacking evidence. Evidence, and therefore everything that does actually exist, exists whether we perceive it. You provide no evidence of your claims, therefore you are delusional for asserting that your claims are fact.

It's funny that you concede to my point at the end of your post too.
postscriptt

Placitas, NM

#66632 Jan 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because the evidence is not known, does not mean that the evidence does not exist. All things which exist have evidence of their existence, it is delusional to state something exists when it is lacking evidence. Evidence, and therefore everything that does actually exist, exists whether we perceive it. You provide no evidence of your claims, therefore you are delusional for asserting that your claims are fact.
It's funny that you concede to my point at the end of your post too.
Evidence that is not perceived cannot be "known".

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#66633 Jan 4, 2013
So why should anyone accept god as anything more than the work of someone's vivid imagination?
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidence that is not perceived cannot be "known".
postscriptt

Placitas, NM

#66634 Jan 4, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
So why should anyone accept god as anything more than the work of someone's vivid imagination?
<quoted text>
Science's unverified hypothesis are the work of imagination, yet you have no trouble accepting these. Why would the idea of a god seem any less worthy of consideration?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66635 Jan 4, 2013
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidence that is not perceived cannot be "known".
Yes, and nothing that has no evidence cannot be asserted as existing. Glad we cleared that up.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66636 Jan 4, 2013
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Science's unverified hypothesis are the work of imagination, yet you have no trouble accepting these. Why would the idea of a god seem any less worthy of consideration?
No, scientific claims are backed by evidence. Ignoring the evidence doesn't make it go away, that only works for gods.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#66637 Jan 4, 2013
postscriptt wrote:
If you concede that something can exist long before the evidence of its existence is apparent, or perceived, then you should have no problem accepting the idea that God existed long before the earth was formed.
Until you notice that there is no evidence for the existence of a "god".
postscriptt

Placitas, NM

#66638 Jan 4, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Until you notice that there is no evidence for the existence of a "god".
Or you don't perceive it.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#66639 Jan 4, 2013
Stop trying to change the subject. Why should anyone accept god as anything more than the product of someone's vivid imagination?
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Science's unverified hypothesis are the work of imagination, yet you have no trouble accepting these. Why would the idea of a god seem any less worthy of consideration?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66640 Jan 4, 2013
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Or you don't perceive it.
Anthropomorphic patterns in randomness is not evidence.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#66641 Jan 4, 2013
Until you notice that there is no evidence for the existence of a "god".
postscriptt wrote:
Or you don't perceive it.
If I don't perceive it, then why would I have any reason to believe that there is evidence?
Lincoln

United States

#66642 Jan 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, scientific claims are backed by evidence. Ignoring the evidence doesn't make it go away, that only works for gods.
Scientific evidence can be altered when Federal Grant Money is Near? Point !

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 23 min MUQ1 21,535
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 37 min Eagle 12 226,603
It seems there are more Atheists in the Christi... (Jun '13) 5 hr Amused 17
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 8 hr Jaimie 62
Our world came from nothing? 8 hr Thinking 438
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 19 hr Thinking 5,921
The Ultimate Evidence of God 23 hr James 68
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••