Atheists on the march in America

Atheists on the march in America

There are 70645 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.

John

United States

#67032 Jan 15, 2013
Loving the attempts to rewrite history. Antitheists have no shame and will do whatever they wish to pursue their agenda. You won't find any evidence or even an attempt to engage in honest discussion.

Any tangential issue that keeps their nothing out of the equation will suffice. How often, does a sane person need to repeat they believe there is no evidence to support anything in this arena. We get it. That's not enough though. Nope, you want to marginalize believers and scurry away when pressed. Note. I have tirelessly offered to debate the evidences and reasons I believe in a prime mover vs any accountable position they make a case for. Don't forget your rules for evidence bigots. Not one taker in over three years. Exposed!

Kittie there is no point in discussing the evidences of a historical Jesus with lying bigots. We might as well have the same discussion on any number of historical figures that have much less evidence. Imhotep huh? How do you know its his body? His writing? Hearsay. Timeliness of accounts questionable,,,, whatever I choose.

Only zealots reject a historical Jesus. There is plenty of evidence from secular and non-Christian sources to satisfy all but a loon. Just because people tire of chasing whatever silliness you nothings throw out doesn't mean a thing. No point in engaging intellectually dishonest cowards.

I will remain on point. I know your kind hates that. I asked what you believe. You don't believe in Jesus. You don't believe in magic. You don't believe in Apple pie and Chevrolet. Great. I've never tried to convert a one of you. I simply want to know what you believe. You've been exposed, but please keep trotting out your nothing for me to laugh at.

Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.
John

United States

#67033 Jan 15, 2013
The reasonable assumption Drew is that you would have evidence that meets your criteria in this arena. Nothing reasonable about a liberal atheist. This is your forum.
Lincoln

United States

#67034 Jan 15, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
If a specific deity exists, matching the claims of people, it would have evidence suggesting it's interference. Se wee none so far, for the thousands of gods proposed we see no evidence any of them exists.
The majority is more often wrong, than correct, and makes more mistakes than the minority through all of history. Appealing to it is like appealing to the lowest common denominator.
Most atheists don't give two cents for the holidays, and many celebrate them as well because they are both secular holidays, technically.
Must be frustrating with all these excellent explanations to be largely ignored.
President Obama will end the oath with "..so Help Me God"

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#67035 Jan 15, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Must be frustrating with all these excellent explanations to be largely ignored.
President Obama will end the oath with "..so Help Me God"
Nope. It's funny, and simply proves the adage that the majority is wrong more often than the minority. It's reaffirming, in other words.
Lincoln

United States

#67036 Jan 15, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. It's funny, and simply proves the adage that the majority is wrong more often than the minority. It's reaffirming, in other words.
Majority is wrong more often than right.
Twice as many Americans believe in God than Europeans according to The Economist.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#67037 Jan 15, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Majority is wrong more often than right.
Twice as many Americans believe in God than Europeans according to The Economist.
Yes, and we're have the majority of population, which still supports that the majority is wrong more often than correct.
Lincoln

United States

#67038 Jan 15, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and we're have the majority of population, which still supports that the majority is wrong more often than correct.
Yes !
John

United States

#67040 Jan 15, 2013
LOL. Please continue.
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#67041 Jan 15, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
You are assuming god is a creator and is outside of creation. That is a logical fallacy known as special pleading.
<quoted text>
Givemeliberty

No. It is my definition of God, and is the bias from which I base my argument.

If you have no definition of God, then we are left to assumptions. I am not arguing that God is an assumption. But because you have no definition, therefore you are assuming there is no God. Thus, you are defining God to be Logic. Thus if God is Logic, then God exists because Logic exists....

Please reread, as I stated the definition of God....

"Point 1 "If god exists, there is evidence of his existence."
I disagree. It would be more correctly written, "If God exists, then is there evidence of God's existence?", or you could say, "Is there evidence of God's existence?", or you could say, "Does evidence exist that proves that God exists?".
You are assuming in your statement that God exists because there is evidence. And you make a conclusion with Point 2 based on an assumption. That assumption would be incorrect if God exists outside of Creation, and therefore outside of certain types of evidence.
To answer this one must consider what constitutes evidence, in what framework are we applying that evidence, and thirdly, can God(being Creator, and thus outside of Creation(by definition)) be evidenced within Creation?
If you agree, then we can go on.
If you disagree, then we can discuss this point further.
If you would rather not discuss the point. This ends now.
If we go on, then we have to agree what consitutes evidence, and the framework in which it is presented."

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#67042 Jan 15, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
The point that Rose makes is that, if any specific thing exists, then there must be evidence of the existence of that specific thing.
It's a reasonable assumption that existing things leave behind evidence of their existence.(If they do not, then on what logical basis could we possibly conclude that they exist?)
Would you agree?
Drew Smith

It is an assumption of empiricism, and the Laws of Cause and Effect. But this assumption breaks down on the quantum level....For me, God is bigger(outside of) than empiricism. God Created Creation.

If God Created Creation, which includes quantum mechanics(as we understand it...., which is only in its infancy in our tiny human minds), then it is not reasonable to assume that existing things leave behind evidence of their existence.( Example: On the quantum level observing an electron, it is many places at one time. Therefore, how could one empirically observe it. Quantum mechanics says you can't.)

Another simpler way to put it is this:

What you are saying is that one sees(empirically) a mountain.(One sees evidence.) But if one does not see the mountain, there are reasons. First it may be to far to see. Second there may be something wrong with the eye(blindness). Thirdly, there may be an obstruction between the eye and the mountain.

Therefore merely using empirical data as evidence is not reasonable.
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#67043 Jan 15, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
Acts 1:9 "Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight."
So lets get this straight, 1) a dead man raises from the dead, and 2) ascends to heaven on a cloud? Sounds made up to me.
I can understand that. This is not the kind of thing that happens everyday. You cannot account for the beginnings of Christianity and the church without these 2 events. Many have tried to disprove the resurrection for the past 2000 years and all have failed.
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#67044 Jan 15, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you have a few people who said a bunch of people said they saw it. It's called hearsay. Hercules has way more accounts, more writings, and more references. We have Imhotep's actual body, his tomb, and his own writings as well as many accounts from various people across the globe about his great healing skills, he was a doctor and the earliest scientist we know of.
Shiva is used in literature more than almost any of the gods, followed closely by Cthulhu and Nyarlethotep. Zeus if on the top of that list, we have more evidence of Zeus, based on your standards, than even gravity.
If the gospel accounts are hearsay then all of ancient history that records events are hearsay. Are you willing to bite that bullet?
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#67045 Jan 15, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Name these eye witness accounts give the names of the actual people and show proof that they themselves wrote it. What's that? Oh right you can't.
Your mythical god can do anything in his book of myths that's what fiction does.
<quoted text>
What kind of proof is needed to show if a person was an eyewitness to an ancient event? For example it is written that Nero burned Rome and claimed that that it was the Christians that did it. How would you prove this to be true? Who were the eyewitnesses that saw Nero burn Rome? Give me some names.
Lincoln

United States

#67046 Jan 15, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I can understand that. This is not the kind of thing that happens everyday. You cannot account for the beginnings of Christianity and the church without these 2 events. Many have tried to disprove the resurrection for the past 2000 years and all have failed.
proof, disprove, it comes down to faith

Since: Mar 11

Portage, MI

#67047 Jan 15, 2013
Bandwagon fallacy again? Do you have anything else dipsh!t?

Stop humiliating yourself.
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Christians seem popular, atheists not so much.
Myth of atheism as a growing religion, 18% claim seems a joke.

Since: Mar 11

Portage, MI

#67048 Jan 15, 2013
Get your nothing out of here! Another day I ask the question and another day of ineptitude from the believers. Why should anyone believe god is anything more than a product of your imagination?

Stump a theist ask why you should believe!
John wrote:
The reasonable assumption Drew is that you would have evidence that meets your criteria in this arena. Nothing reasonable about a liberal atheist. This is your forum.
Lincoln

United States

#67049 Jan 15, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Get your nothing out of here! Another day I ask the question and another day of ineptitude from the believers. Why should anyone believe God is anything more than a product of your imagination?

<quoted text>
Are You still frustrated by the low percentage of atheists in America?

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#67050 Jan 15, 2013
You are employing special pleading and circular arguing logical fallacies. You admit you have have a bias but that admission doesn't excuse your logical fallacies it only points out the obvious.

Are you low functioning? You certainly are not up to the task of arguing without logical fallacies.
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
Givemeliberty
No. It is my definition of God, and is the bias from which I base my argument.
If you have no definition of God, then we are left to assumptions. I am not arguing that God is an assumption. But because you have no definition, therefore you are assuming there is no God. Thus, you are defining God to be Logic. Thus if God is Logic, then God exists because Logic exists....
Please reread, as I stated the definition of God....

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#67051 Jan 15, 2013
Wow you love you some special pleading! Well since that I your favorite logical fallacy explain how we even have the concept or notion of god? If he is totally outside the observable how did the notion of there being a god even arise?
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
Drew Smith
It is an assumption of empiricism, and the Laws of Cause and Effect. But this assumption breaks down on the quantum level....For me, God is bigger(outside of) than empiricism. God Created Creation.
If God Created Creation, which includes quantum mechanics(as we understand it...., which is only in its infancy in our tiny human minds), then it is not reasonable to assume that existing things leave behind evidence of their existence.( Example: On the quantum level observing an electron, it is many places at one time. Therefore, how could one empirically observe it. Quantum mechanics says you can't.)
Another simpler way to put it is this:
What you are saying is that one sees(empirically) a mountain.(One sees evidence.) But if one does not see the mountain, there are reasons. First it may be to far to see. Second there may be something wrong with the eye(blindness). Thirdly, there may be an obstruction between the eye and the mountain.
Therefore merely using empirical data as evidence is not reasonable.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#67052 Jan 15, 2013
Nero didn't burn Rome this was a Christian apologetic lie as historians have clearly shown. Again you claimed there are all these contemporary eye witnesses to Jesus so stop stalling and name them and show their writings or documentation already.
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
What kind of proof is needed to show if a person was an eyewitness to an ancient event? For example it is written that Nero burned Rome and claimed that that it was the Christians that did it. How would you prove this to be true? Who were the eyewitnesses that saw Nero burn Rome? Give me some names.

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
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 15 min Regolith Based Li... 75,476
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 1 hr John 6,109
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 1 hr John 209
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 10 hr Nemesis 4,070
Majority of Scots now have no religion (May '16) 11 hr John 164
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 13 hr Eagle 12 - 32,055
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 16 hr Eagle 12 - 581
More from around the web