Atheists on the march in America

Atheists on the march in America

There are 70657 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.

Jennifer

United States

#67070 Jan 16, 2013
Our numbers are rising. I think we have always been here but are finally able to speak freely and come out about being non believers. I've felt alone in my beliefs for a long time. And that will defiantly make you strong, because all you believers are the biggest bullies, you push your beliefs down our throats, you never listen, you judge and lots of other immoral things. Believers say we're satanist, sorry that's your religion not ours. Why can't they understand if we don't believe in god why would we believe in the devil. Religion was the biggest scam of all. Just a way of controling the masses. And so many people still believe in the invisible man that's always broke on Sundays.I just don't get it.
My name is Jennifer and I'm an atheist!!! I'm glad I'm not alone.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#67071 Jan 16, 2013
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello Rose
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.
When I say "god", I mean the type of god worshiped by the Abrahamic faiths. One who is all powerful, all knowing, truthful, interested in what we do, and says he will answer our prayers.
If such a god exists, then I feel there would be evidence of his existence. A Deist version of god could exist without there being any evidence of his existence.
I use point 1 because people often say that you can't prove a negative. I disagree. I can prove there isn't an elephant in my kitchen. How? Well if there were one, there would be evidence of one.
Do you agree with that?

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#67073 Jan 16, 2013
John wrote:
<quoted text>
Stay on point bigots. Oh, what's your point again. Still no evidence in an atheism forum. Still no takers to debate something vs nothing. You loons are marginalized and ridiculed not because you don't believe, but because of lying, obfuscation, and intellectual dishonesty. You spend your days fighting a God you don't believe in. That's bizzare behavior. No guns for you Obama voters.
Why do con dumbs randomly insert Obama's name into every discussion?
And John, I've stated my position many times, but you refuse to debate!
There is no god, so I don't fight him. I counter idiots like you who believe in him. Why? Because so many of you want our laws to reflect what you believe your god wants. Because so many of you harass people at funerals for their loved ones.
John

United States

#67078 Jan 16, 2013
Aren't you the loon that says Obama has reduced government? It doesn't matter how many times you loons are proven wrong, you'll just keep marching off the cliff.

I read the article and immediately thought; deaf, blind, and dead but still smarter than Rose.

We could discuss health fraud as well, but you wouldn't accept those facts either. A true freethinker!

Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.
John

United States

#67079 Jan 16, 2013
I'm in tears Jennifer. Maybe post some letters from children and have a press conference. Excuse me folks..."is this on" taps mic. I have called you here for nothing. We must fight for it. March, march,,

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#67080 Jan 16, 2013
John wrote:
I'm in tears Jennifer. Maybe post some letters from children and have a press conference. Excuse me folks..."is this on" taps mic. I have called you here for nothing. We must fight for it. March, march,,
So no proof of god then. Better sh*t the f* ck up again then.
John

United States

#67081 Jan 16, 2013
That's debateable. All I've required of you is an accountable position that meets your own criteria for evidence.

We need to pass some sort of anti-bullying legislation so I no longer have to endure the hate speech of the tolerant liberal atheist LOL. March nothings, march LOL.

As always no evidence from the atheists in their own forum. Let's watch the loons play with some yarn.

How would an ahem freethinker quantify the possibilities of the following: always was, prime mover, something from nothing? Show your work bigots. Mix it up a little now and again. Even if just for show. Attack something rose beside the God you don't believe in. After all, nothing is evidence to the atheist. Yet, here you are posting day after day, year after year.

God...boo!!!!

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#67082 Jan 16, 2013
John wrote:
Aren't you the loon that says Obama has reduced government? It doesn't matter how many times you loons are proven wrong, you'll just keep marching off the cliff.
I read the article and immediately thought; deaf, blind, and dead but still smarter than Rose.
We could discuss health fraud as well, but you wouldn't accept those facts either. A true freethinker!
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.
Why do con dumbs randomly insert Obama's name into every discussion?

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#67083 Jan 16, 2013
John wrote:
That's debateable. All I've required of you is an accountable position that meets your own criteria for evidence.
We need to pass some sort of anti-bullying legislation so I no longer have to endure the hate speech of the tolerant liberal atheist LOL. March nothings, march LOL.
As always no evidence from the atheists in their own forum. Let's watch the loons play with some yarn.
How would an ahem freethinker quantify the possibilities of the following: always was, prime mover, something from nothing? Show your work bigots. Mix it up a little now and again. Even if just for show. Attack something rose beside the God you don't believe in. After all, nothing is evidence to the atheist. Yet, here you are posting day after day, year after year.
God...boo!!!!
1. If god exists, there is evidence of his existence.
2. There is no evidence of god's existence.
3. There is no god.

No matter how many times I present my position, you won't debate, you just copy/paste your same few posts. Then go on a off-topic rant about Obama.
John

United States

#67084 Jan 16, 2013
Are you going to apologize for lying about Obama reducing government?

Thats disbelief Rose. Are you going to apologize for pretending you are willing to debate?

You didnt answer how you would rank my possibilities above. Go find another pet project, you suck at this one.

America thanks you for the lowest misery index ever comrade.

Stump Rose! Debate damn near anything.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#67085 Jan 16, 2013
John wrote:
Are you going to apologize for lying about Obama reducing government?
Thats disbelief Rose. Are you going to apologize for pretending you are willing to debate?
You didnt answer how you would rank my possibilities above. Go find another pet project, you suck at this one.
America thanks you for the lowest misery index ever comrade.
Stump Rose! Debate damn near anything.
Why do con dumbs randomly insert Obama's name into arguments?
John

United States

#67086 Jan 16, 2013
No apology for your lie that Obama has reduced government?

You won't touch that claim now.

Move on to your nothing then. Tell me about that. Careful though, I catch you in lies quite often.

You didn't answer my questions either.

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#67087 Jan 16, 2013
Same reason they are unable to answer any question we ask, ultra low IQ.
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do con dumbs randomly insert Obama's name into arguments?

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#67088 Jan 16, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
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.
<quoted text>
Giveme liberty

Since one must begin with a bias in an argument(proof), and I defined my bias, you assume it is fallacious....You may assume it is correct or incorrect. But you are assuming.

This means we cannot engage in a debate....You are saying to me, I cannot have a bias and a definition of that bias.

In doing this you logically argue that one cannot argue logically.

You have reduced our possibility for a proof to a fallacy.

You have made the question become absurd.

The fallcy is your argument from ignorance.

In other words, you prefer not to explore and to know, you remain in ignorance.

Good day.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#67089 Jan 16, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Same reason they are unable to answer any question we ask, ultra low IQ.
<quoted text>
Sounds like John.

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#67090 Jan 16, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
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?
<quoted text>
Givemeliberty

I will not argue fallacy issues again. It simply reduces everything to ignorance....

Your asking of my explanation of how we have a concept or notion of God is simple....

If humanity can understand abstract ideas, then one can understand the concept of God.(Note, that doesn't mean we understand God, rather that we understand the concept, which is what you asked.) Example. Math, Logic, quantum mechanics are abstract(to some degree), and language(in part) is used to convey concepts.

Thus human being have abstract ideas, and concepts. And therefore the concept of God exists.

To your second question. I did not say that God was totally outside the observable.( Although it may be so. But this is a totally empirical question. I am not limiting God to empiricism.)

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#67091 Jan 16, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
When I say "god", I mean the type of god worshiped by the Abrahamic faiths. One who is all powerful, all knowing, truthful, interested in what we do, and says he will answer our prayers.
If such a god exists, then I feel there would be evidence of his existence. A Deist version of god could exist without there being any evidence of his existence.
I use point 1 because people often say that you can't prove a negative. I disagree. I can prove there isn't an elephant in my kitchen. How? Well if there were one, there would be evidence of one.
Do you agree with that?
Rose Hoho

I can agree to disagree.

First. You are going on a "feeling" I am not sure of what this "feeling" is or is not. I assume it is intuitive....

But you are basing your evidence on what is visible....I suggest evidence may be abstract, conceptual, and may be undefinable....

So the only way I can demonstrate that evidence may or may not exist of what is visible is by analogy:

One sees a mountain....
One may not see the mountain. Why?

The mountain is to far away to be seen.(distance)
There is something wrong with the eye to see the mountain.(obscurity/blindness)
There is something between the eye to see and the mountain to be seen(obstruction).

And of course there may be a combination of these (4) possibilites of not seeing the mountain.

(One can use a similar analogy with any of the senses.)

Likewise, your argument about the elephant in the kitchen assumes you can see empirically the evidence, and empirically see God.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#67092 Jan 16, 2013
You can't argue with me because I won't allow you to use logical fallacies my low IQ mouth breather.

Simply put you are out of your league, when you are able to man up and debate properly without incorporating logical fallacies let us know.

Until then you are just another peon for Christ.
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
Giveme liberty
Since one must begin with a bias in an argument(proof), and I defined my bias, you assume it is fallacious....You may assume it is correct or incorrect. But you are assuming.
This means we cannot engage in a debate....You are saying to me, I cannot have a bias and a definition of that bias.
In doing this you logically argue that one cannot argue logically.
You have reduced our possibility for a proof to a fallacy.
You have made the question become absurd.
The fallcy is your argument from ignorance.
In other words, you prefer not to explore and to know, you remain in ignorance.
Good day.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#67093 Jan 16, 2013
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
Rose Hoho
I can agree to disagree.
First. You are going on a "feeling" I am not sure of what this "feeling" is or is not. I assume it is intuitive....
Maybe "felling" is the wrong word.
Let me put on my Spock ears:
If there is an all-powerful, all-knowing, honest deity who cares about us and what we do, and who has promised to answer our prayers, logic dictates there is evidence of his existence.
(At this point I'm not saying what would or wouldn't "count" as evidence, or if the evidence exists, or not.)
Robert F wrote:
But you are basing your evidence on what is visible....I suggest evidence may be abstract, conceptual, and may be undefinable....
So the only way I can demonstrate that evidence may or may not exist of what is visible is by analogy:
One sees a mountain....
One may not see the mountain. Why?
The mountain is to far away to be seen.(distance)
This god is supposed to be everywhere, so distance could not be an issue.
Robert F wrote:
There is something wrong with the eye to see the mountain.(obscurity/blindness)
There is something between the eye to see and the mountain to be seen(obstruction).
And of course there may be a combination of these (4) possibilites of not seeing the mountain.
(One can use a similar analogy with any of the senses.)
But mountains aren't all powerful, and they aren't interested in what we do.
Robert F wrote:
Likewise, your argument about the elephant in the kitchen assumes you can see empirically the evidence, and empirically see God.
Well, if there were an elephant in my kitchen, I would see, hear, and smell the evidence. And an elephant isn't even all powerful. But my main point was that in some cases, you can prove a negative.
Maybe we do have to agree to disagree.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#67094 Jan 16, 2013
I didn't ask how is it possible that human's can think about the abstract you are hiding from my question as expected. Again what I asked was is where did the concept or notion of a god come from? Where does the idea originate from?

This seems to terrify you and your logical fallacies. Let's see if you can actually answer this and stop humiliating yourself on front of those who are way smarter than you. Way way way way smarter than you.
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
Givemeliberty
I will not argue fallacy issues again. It simply reduces everything to ignorance....
Your asking of my explanation of how we have a concept or notion of God is simple....
If humanity can understand abstract ideas, then one can understand the concept of God.(Note, that doesn't mean we understand God, rather that we understand the concept, which is what you asked.) Example. Math, Logic, quantum mechanics are abstract(to some degree), and language(in part) is used to convey concepts.
Thus human being have abstract ideas, and concepts. And therefore the concept of God exists.
To your second question. I did not say that God was totally outside the observable.( Although it may be so. But this is a totally empirical question. I am not limiting God to empiricism.)

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) 1 hr NoahLovesU 19,150
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr NoahLovesU 7,666
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 3 hr NoahLovesU 240,047
News Phil Robertson talks against Atheists 8 hr The_Box 139
The Ultimate Evidence of God (Mar '14) 12 hr Reason Personified 166
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 12 hr Reason Personified 14,660
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 13 hr Thinking 2,237
More from around the web