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
64,081 - 64,100 of 70,983 Comments Last updated Tuesday Aug 5

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66785 Jan 7, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, Verlinde has proposed that gravity is not fundamental, but is a result of the other forces and of thermodynamics (the Entropic theory of gravity). This happens in a similar way to temperature. Temperature does not make sense when there is only one atom, so it is not a fundamental concept. Instead, it turns out to be related to the *average* kinetic energy of the atoms in the sample we are taking the temperature of.
It should be pointed out that things still fall (or orbit) and that the Einstein equations for gravity are an incredibly good approximation, even if Verlinde is correct. Of course, the real question is whether Verlinde can make any testable predictions using his model. That, at yet, has not happened.
Oh, even in Verlinde's theory, the universe was once much hotter and denser than it is now: so the basic Big Bang scenario still holds. Any modifications would be at times before the inflationary epoch.
Hmm, now I like this Verlinde guy. Maybe I should have checked the link and not assumed it actually agree with postcript's idiotic notions. lol
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66786 Jan 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I said nothing of the sort, you are putting words into my post. I stated, based on the definition of delusion, that religious people are delusional. That is not because they disagree with anything, but because they assert something is reality while lacking any evidence to demonstrate it.
Amazing! You will even go as far as to deny the content of your own posts.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66787 Jan 7, 2013
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Amazing! You will even go as far as to deny the content of your own posts.
Amazing that you cannot even provide logical or valid evidence to support this notion.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#66788 Jan 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmm, now I like this Verlinde guy. Maybe I should have checked the link and not assumed it actually agree with postcript's idiotic notions. lol
I can find some more reliable links if you wish, although they would be technical. Verlinde's ideas are being actively debated.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#66789 Jan 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmm, now I like this Verlinde guy. Maybe I should have checked the link and not assumed it actually agree with postcript's idiotic notions. lol
Here's alist of articles discussing entropic gravity and various consequences.
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+Verlinde...

This, by the way, shows the lie to the claim that science never considers outside ideas. In point of fact, it does so frequently. It simply demands that any new theory explain at least as much as the current theory does. That is not yet the case with Verlinde's ideas.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66790 Jan 7, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I can find some more reliable links if you wish, although they would be technical. Verlinde's ideas are being actively debated.
I don't understand most physics, the math is just beyond my head. lol I can employ the maths in computer models for simulations, but actually understanding them I often fail. I just finally figured out how Lambert's Cosine Law works, I mean actually "get" it and not just how to apply it. So yeah, thanks but I will stick with the lower level stuff until I understand all that before trying to comprehend the parts that are being debated.:P

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#66791 Jan 7, 2013
postscriptt wrote:
Why should anyone accept science's theories as truthworthy when they change all the time?
They don't change "all the time", but only when new evidence requires an improved theory.

And *that* is why they are trustworthy. If they didn't change to reflect the evidence, then we would be dealing with...

...dogmatic religious scripture.

Since: Jan 13

Largo, FL

#66792 Jan 7, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't change "all the time", but only when new evidence requires an improved theory.
And *that* is why they are trustworthy. If they didn't change to reflect the evidence, then we would be dealing with...
...dogmatic religious scripture.
Can anyone explain to me why religious nuts are so anxious that everybody else buy into their nonsense? I mean, ok, I don't beleive in god. So how is that any skin off a believer's nose?

Thoughts?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#66793 Jan 7, 2013
Calm Liberal wrote:
<quoted text>
Can anyone explain to me why religious nuts are so anxious that everybody else buy into their nonsense? I mean, ok, I don't beleive in god. So how is that any skin off a believer's nose?
Thoughts?
I strongly suspect that they secretly believe that there is some sort of sales quota with a reward system based on how many converts they get, and they are hoping for a nicer house in heaven as a result.(Or maybe prettier wings or a flashier harp.)

Since: Jan 13

Largo, FL

#66794 Jan 7, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
I strongly suspect that they secretly believe that there is some sort of sales quota with a reward system based on how many converts they get, and they are hoping for a nicer house in heaven as a result.(Or maybe prettier wings or a flashier harp.)
Ok, I will be sending you a bill for the cleaning of my shirt. I had a mouth full of coffee when I read your post.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#66795 Jan 7, 2013
Calm Liberal wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, I will be sending you a bill for the cleaning of my shirt. I had a mouth full of coffee when I read your post.
You are new here so let me warn you that drinking hot liquids while reading posts in these threads is never a smart idea.

Also, either get a set of industrial strength irony meters or keep them away from the computer while reading. They will blow up.
John

United States

#66796 Jan 7, 2013
You make the presupposition that there is no evidence without admitting you do not have the scientifically measurable evidence to support your position of nothing. You have placed limits on what may be limitless. You have placed limits where they need not be. Thus far I have seen no evidence provided by an atheist that would support what is disingenuously called natural mechanisms only. If you think there isn't evidence of design you would be wrong. Admittedly, this can not be proven using your constricting criteria, but nothing in this arena has been proven using this standard. You know this by now. That is why it is so frustrating to the forum when it's pointed out. Judging by the ever-growing anecdotal evidence of this forum overwhelmingly congregated by atheists, atheism is something else entirely. There is a large contingent of antitheists, a portion devoted to secular humanism, and some interplay with other assorted isms. The common denominator is that every single one of these positions is lacking in evidence. The notion that man is the be all end all is flawed in my opinion. Of course you wish to shirk any burden of proof. That's transparent and shows a weak position. Atheism has been co-opted by the new atheist. Much more vocal and commited to breaking down the populace writ large that actually do have a position. I've given more than enough opportunity for atheists to engage in debate that is not circular. The brilliance and weakness of atheism is no accountability. That's why it's not challenging to debate this topic with you loons. Apologies to the few that aren't driven by more than uncertainty. When Reagan debated Gorbachev on our nuclear arsenals each man had a position. If there was a political debate the political atheist would attack the other position and not have to be responsible for one himself. If one football team was atheist and the other was not they would have the ball on offense the whole game. Fumble, and the ball would be returned. This is what you ask for here, but is unacceptable in every other topic. I'm conservative btw. A rational freethinker. I'm sure you are a centrist LOL. What's the mushy middle thought on government size, abortion, tax rates?
If there isn't a position don't bother responding. How is the fence DREW, Curious, Mikey,,,,? You got the post wedged good and deep yet? Stump an antitheist! Ask it what it believes. Still going strong 64,100 plus posts in.
Still nothing about atheism in the atheist forum. No position, no post #. Lies, spin, ad hominem, and boredom.
Waiting for an example of what passes the cut for evidence from atheists. Cowards!

Since: Jan 13

Largo, FL

#66797 Jan 7, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
You are new here so let me warn you that drinking hot liquids while reading posts in these threads is never a smart idea.
Also, either get a set of industrial strength irony meters or keep them away from the computer while reading. They will blow up.
Thanks for the safety tips!

Since: Jan 13

Largo, FL

#66798 Jan 7, 2013
John wrote:
There is a large contingent of antitheists, a portion devoted to secular humanism, and some interplay with other assorted isms. The common denominator is that every single one of these positions is lacking in evidence. The notion that man is the be all end all is flawed in my opinion. Of course you wish to shirk any burden of proof. That's transparent and shows a weak position. Atheism has been co-opted by the new atheist. Much more vocal and commited to breaking down the populace writ large that actually do have a position. I've given more than enough opportunity for atheists to engage in debate that is not circular. The brilliance and weakness of atheism is no accountability. That's why it's not challenging to debate this topic with you loons. Apologies to the few that aren't driven by more than uncertainty. When Reagan debated Gorbachev on our nuclear arsenals each man had a position. If there was a political debate the political atheist would attack the other position and not have to be responsible for one himself. If one football team was atheist and the other was not they would have the ball on offense the whole game. Fumble, and the ball would be returned. This is what you ask for here, but is unacceptable in every other topic. I'm conservative btw. A rational freethinker. I'm sure you are a centrist LOL. What's the mushy middle thought on government size, abortion, tax rates?
If there isn't a position don't bother responding. How is the fence DREW, Curious, Mikey,,,,? You got the post wedged good and deep yet? Stump an antitheist! Ask it what it believes. Still going strong 64,100 plus posts in.
Still nothing about atheism in the atheist forum. No position, no post #. Lies, spin, ad hominem, and boredom.
Waiting for an example of what passes the cut for evidence from atheists. Cowards!
Your say, "Of course you wish to shirk any burden of proof." Any first year college student knows that it is not necessary to prove a negative. You say that God exists. I say that God does not exist. The burden of proof is on you, not me. I really don't care if you have been deluded into believing in Old and New Testament fairy tales. I don't see any reason to prove that God doesn't exist, any more than I feel obligated to prove that Santa Clause doesn't exist. But if you want me to believe in God, YOU have to prove it.
You also say, "That's why it's not challenging to debate this topic with you loons." How ironic that you view people who don't believe in God "loons". Only in your world is a person a "loon" because he doesn't belive in an invisible man in the sky.
But my favorite offering from you is this little tidbit of foolishness and self-contradiction: "Lies, spin, ad hominem, and boredom. Waiting for an example of what passes the cut for evidence from atheists. Cowards!" You complain about "ad hominem" attacks then type "Cowards!" LOL. What exactly is so "cowardly" about being an atheist?
Here is the bottom line, Ace. You believe in an invisible super-hero. And you are angry that some of us are not big enough suckers to share your belief. I suspect that the reason your post is so verbose is that you think that by piling up enough words, you can obscure the fact that, far from being a "rational freethinker", your are a superstitious dolt. Being pompous about it doesn't help. It just means you're a pompous, superstitious dolt.
(dusting off my hands) Ok, I'm done with you.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#66799 Jan 7, 2013
Which naturally doesn't count.
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
My direct personal experience.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#66800 Jan 7, 2013
Because god is a self projection of themselves. A projection they are usually taught from childhood and it is a self assuring mechanism for them. Notice god always agrees with the theist. So when we say we do not believe in god they take it as a personal insult which is why we see their anger and vitriol and only verifies my point.

I proposed a simple question to the theists and all of them have refused to answer to even try to answer. Why should anyone accept god as anything more than a product of one's imagination? It seems simple enough yet they day after day fail to answer it.

The only attempt any of them made was, when you believe completely in god you can feel god. Which is no different than a child and Santa Claus. Or men who delude themselves into thinking they could land a playboy playmate if they just had the chance to meet her. Both the child with santa or the chump thinking Heff needs to sweat him will get upset if you don't play along just like people with God. Imagination and delusion are powerful forces.
Calm Liberal wrote:
<quoted text>
Can anyone explain to me why religious nuts are so anxious that everybody else buy into their nonsense? I mean, ok, I don't beleive in god. So how is that any skin off a believer's nose?
Thoughts?

Since: Jan 13

Largo, FL

#66801 Jan 8, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Because god is a self projection of themselves. A projection they are usually taught from childhood and it is a self assuring mechanism for them. Notice god always agrees with the theist. So when we say we do not believe in god they take it as a personal insult which is why we see their anger and vitriol and only verifies my point.
I proposed a simple question to the theists and all of them have refused to answer to even try to answer. Why should anyone accept god as anything more than a product of one's imagination? It seems simple enough yet they day after day fail to answer it.
The only attempt any of them made was, when you believe completely in god you can feel god. Which is no different than a child and Santa Claus. Or men who delude themselves into thinking they could land a playboy playmate if they just had the chance to meet her. Both the child with santa or the chump thinking Heff needs to sweat him will get upset if you don't play along just like people with God. Imagination and delusion are powerful forces.
<quoted text>
You raise some good points. I was having an argument with a religious nut who was ranting about Clinton being responsible for 9/11. According to the nut, President Clinton did not take any action against terrorists that might have prevented the 9/11 attacks. So I asked the nutjob whether or not he thought God could have prevented the attacks.

The nut replied, "Of course". So I asked, "Then why didn't he?" The nut replied that 9/11, like everything else, was "God's will". Which led me to this question: "Then why do you think Clinton should have interfered in God's will?" The nutjob replied that I was an idiot, mumbled someting about Israel and the Old Testament, then suddenly remembered he was late for an appointment. LOL

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#66802 Jan 8, 2013
Reason is not the theist's friend :) great job making his head spin btw. I used to make theists squirm by asking them when was the last time they realized god disagreed with them. When they pause and stutter I don't know I say, well all believers answer as you did. How could one god agree with all of you unless he were merely a self projection? Doesn't it seem more likely that way that he is a self projection hence why so many people different as night and day all think god is in lock step with them, or that one deity rapidly canges his POV billions of times a second to fit his believers?

Lol
Calm Liberal wrote:
<quoted text>
You raise some good points. I was having an argument with a religious nut who was ranting about Clinton being responsible for 9/11. According to the nut, President Clinton did not take any action against terrorists that might have prevented the 9/11 attacks. So I asked the nutjob whether or not he thought God could have prevented the attacks.
The nut replied, "Of course". So I asked, "Then why didn't he?" The nut replied that 9/11, like everything else, was "God's will". Which led me to this question: "Then why do you think Clinton should have interfered in God's will?" The nutjob replied that I was an idiot, mumbled someting about Israel and the Old Testament, then suddenly remembered he was late for an appointment. LOL

Since: Jan 13

Largo, FL

#66803 Jan 8, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Reason is not the theist's friend :) great job making his head spin btw. I used to make theists squirm by asking them when was the last time they realized god disagreed with them. When they pause and stutter I don't know I say, well all believers answer as you did. How could one god agree with all of you unless he were merely a self projection? Doesn't it seem more likely that way that he is a self projection hence why so many people different as night and day all think god is in lock step with them, or that one deity rapidly canges his POV billions of times a second to fit his believers?
Lol
<quoted text>
LOL. Good argument. Here is another. Ask a theist if he thinks God knows everything that is going to happen in the future. He will probably say "Yes". Then ask him if God gets angry when people sin. Again he will probably say yes. Then ask him, "Well, why should God get mad at a person for sinning if he already knew the person was going to sin?"
John

United States

#66804 Jan 8, 2013
Calm liberal LOL, how about outed loon. You purposefully and incorrectly submitted multiple claims I have made. That's what liberals do; calm or otherwise.

I've simply noted you have no evidence that meets your own criteria in this arena.

I've simply noted you loons spend an inordinate amount of time fighting a God you don't believe in.

I've simply noted your intellectual cowardice and hypocrisy.

When you get over your nothing let me know what your nothing is. I don't debate nothing.

I will debate the evidences and reasons for belief in a prime mover vs whatever nonsense you choose. You can't even dip your little toe in the big boy pool though can you bigot? My evidence will be the nothing you respond with.

I especially like Obama voting nothings patting theirselves on the back as if they are the intellectuals. Honey, you got nothing except a forum about nothing.

Stump an antitheist? Ask them what they believe. So?

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 requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Patrick 226,561
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 3 hr Thinking 21,529
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 4 hr Thinking 5,921
The Ultimate Evidence of God 9 hr James 68
The myth of the angry atheist 20 hr _Bad Company 3
Our world came from nothing? Mon Patrick 436
It seems there are more Atheists in the Christi... (Jun '13) Mon Patrick 13
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••