Atheists on the march in America

Atheists on the march in America

There are 70650 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.

Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#67163 Jan 18, 2013
What breed of rose can only be smelled once? Do tell.
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
Hedonist
You must understand that the enjoyment I have in smelling a rose, is not shared. Nor do some even like roses, because of the thorns.
I don't make anyone take what is freely given. Smell the Rose of Sharon.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#67164 Jan 18, 2013
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
Rose Hoho
Well...,lets disagree to agree(smile).
I am just trying to understand, so in the end, my point is not that I prove or disprove God's existence based on evidence. But if I can understand someone elses view, then I have better understanding....
I would say, that distance does make a difference in determing if one can "see" God....Using the elephant again, if you were 20 miles away, I doubt you could see the elephant. Or if your eyeball were right on the elephant, you could not see the elephant. So the distance becomes important between the object and viewer.
In modern spiritualism, there is this "sense" of seeing God. But I would deny this is God. And I think this is where most are lacking in understanding.
Why?
If God is Truth, then one is bonded to Truth by definition, and this is Religion.
But if Religion is Truth, then one is bonded to Oneself, and is therefore a Lie.
(If one looks infinitely far, or infinitely within, then one is bonded....In other words practicing Religion.
If one looks on the surface or within an infinite framework, then one is bonded to Oneself, and practicing a Lie.)
It is the incorrectness, the flaw one sees, the Lie, not in God, but in the individual in practicing Religion that makes brings doubt on God's existence.
So the "sense" of seeing God becomes a Lie, as spiritualism is merely looking at oneself. This makes the practioner of spiritualism a Liar.
Yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#67165 Jan 18, 2013
1:It's not hard to answer as we have the writings, art and other remnants of how these people believed. They thought doing rituals and such could change the weather or crops growth and so on. You are grasping at straws.

2: It has nothing to do with the complexity of the society nor did I say that. I said we have advancements in our observational abilities that allow us to better understand the body and world around us. Which is why we no longer smack our buttocks for an hour taunting the wind god into blowing in the direction we want. We enjoying examining our past generations to see how they lived and cheer when they got something right and cringe or laugh when they got something wrong.

3: The ancient societies had it right? So you are claiming that sacrificing a child to the harvest god will really help the crops grow all year? Are you batsh!t insane?

4: Some of us are not gracious guests for our stay here and now like then there are selfish greedy people who could care less about preserving the earth and only focus on profit or their wants. But this is hardly a modern development our ancient people's hacked down forests and over fished and hunted causing extinction and damage. They just didn't have the bulldozers lol!

Your dream about the past being so wonderful is a fantasy not based in reality at all. You would be lucky to reach adulthood back then and your quality of life would be atrocious in comparison. Religion and belief in god will bring about our extinction far faster than anything else. That is the gospel truth.( sorry I couldn't help myself there :p)
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
Givemeliberty
Well....Its hard to answer a chicken/egg issue.
A notion is different than a concept. So it hard to make a single answer in both catagories.
So let me go with the concept you express.
You think because society is more complex, that people now, compared to a mere 2000, 5000, 10000,....etc years ago, because they did not have the tools for our complex society, were not sophisticated in their thinking? And therefore we should cut our ties with the past...?
Your explanation of "primitive" society assigning observation to form concepts may not be complex, but that does not mean they were wrong. In fact they were correct, otherwise we would not exist.
On the other hand....
As a matter of fact, with our modern society, we have greater natural and manmade disasters in many cases that were not present in the past.(Mainly, I am thinking ecological disaster.) So, at some point, when the ecology is dead, life will cease in a modern complex society, and your supposition that we should break with the past will cause the collapse.
So the opposite may be true. Modern notions will cause extinction
Givemeliberty or give me death....

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#67166 Jan 18, 2013
We have humored your nonsense haven't we? You're whole argument is just silly and childish you are claiming that you can't demonstrate god but then say go is on the outside of the speed of light or whatever which is you making a claim for god!

You rely on all these what ifs and maybes which basically just says, god is there but impossible to detect. And again if this was so how did the ancient people detect them? Walk with gods, eat with gods, hunt with gods, go to war with gods fighting along side them, wrestling gods all night, even having sex and babies with gods yet we are unable for the last 2000 years to detect them?

Did the gods all become shy? Or were they all just made up on purpose or by mistaken observation?

I will go with option two as the most likely.
Robert F wrote:
Sorry I meant to say you seriously took pleasure....
You are getting me confused. I always thought hedonists were serious pleasure seekers....
You have no humor.

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#67167 Jan 19, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
1:It's not hard to answer as we have the writings, art and other remnants of how these people believed. They thought doing rituals and such could change the weather or crops growth and so on. You are grasping at straws.
2: It has nothing to do with the complexity of the society nor did I say that. I said we have advancements in our observational abilities that allow us to better understand the body and world around us. Which is why we no longer smack our buttocks for an hour taunting the wind god into blowing in the direction we want. We enjoying examining our past generations to see how they lived and cheer when they got something right and cringe or laugh when they got something wrong.
3: The ancient societies had it right? So you are claiming that sacrificing a child to the harvest god will really help the crops grow all year? Are you batsh!t insane?
4: Some of us are not gracious guests for our stay here and now like then there are selfish greedy people who could care less about preserving the earth and only focus on profit or their wants. But this is hardly a modern development our ancient people's hacked down forests and over fished and hunted causing extinction and damage. They just didn't have the bulldozers lol!
Your dream about the past being so wonderful is a fantasy not based in reality at all. You would be lucky to reach adulthood back then and your quality of life would be atrocious in comparison. Religion and belief in god will bring about our extinction far faster than anything else. That is the gospel truth.( sorry I couldn't help myself there :p)
<quoted text>
Givemeliberty

1. But science today proposes that the wind from the wings of a butterfly on the otherside of the world will be the cause of a hurricane on this side of the world....If that isn't grasping at straws, I don't know what is...?

2. I am not defending religous practices, as they may or may not be correct.

3. You paint ancient religion with such a broad stroke, there is no picture, just a canvas with one color.

4. You have a point. Some ancient societies notoriously abused their natural resources, and suffered extinction, or near extinction. But here is where you break down, if the ancients had bull dosers to destroy everything, then why is modern mad doing the same?

You are kind of saying, that ancient and modern man suffer from having some lunatics running the world and wrecking it for everyone. And this I agree. But it is because of human vice that drives the destruction.....I just saw an interesting documentary on Cameroon, where the natives have reduced the forest, due to farming, and frogs were disappearing. Their main source of protein was/is from frogs, now they hunt the tadpoles. They were offered pigs, but really didn't want them....

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#67168 Jan 19, 2013
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
Givemeliberty
1. But science today proposes that the wind from the wings of a butterfly on the otherside of the world will be the cause of a hurricane on this side of the world....If that isn't grasping at straws, I don't know what is...?
I just want to jump in on this one. The so-called butterfly effect is an aspect of the mathematical equations of fluid flow. In practice, it simply shows that our ability to predict the weather is inherently limited by our ability to accurately measure weather phenomena. Because of the instability of the mathematical equations themselves, we may never be able to predict weather two months ahead of time. That is because even unmeasurably small differences (like the wind from butterfly wings) can grow to very large scale differences (like hurricanes) over such a time period. It is far from guaranteed that this particular sequence will happen, but the instability does affect our ability to accurately predict, even when the equations we use are known to be correct.

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#67169 Jan 19, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
We have humored your nonsense haven't we? You're whole argument is just silly and childish you are claiming that you can't demonstrate god but then say go is on the outside of the speed of light or whatever which is you making a claim for god!
You rely on all these what ifs and maybes which basically just says, god is there but impossible to detect. And again if this was so how did the ancient people detect them? Walk with gods, eat with gods, hunt with gods, go to war with gods fighting along side them, wrestling gods all night, even having sex and babies with gods yet we are unable for the last 2000 years to detect them?
Did the gods all become shy? Or were they all just made up on purpose or by mistaken observation?
I will go with option two as the most likely.
<quoted text>
Givemeliberty

"William Falconer, The Shipwreck (1762), Canto I, line 104.

The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."

You are assuming that observation is the basis of an "either/or" decision. While true in a practical empirical way, this may or may not be true....At last! We have gotten to what is true!? Took a little while. Thank you for having humored my nonsense, though that may be more patience and tolerance on your part....

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#67170 Jan 19, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I just want to jump in on this one. The so-called butterfly effect is an aspect of the mathematical equations of fluid flow. In practice, it simply shows that our ability to predict the weather is inherently limited by our ability to accurately measure weather phenomena. Because of the instability of the mathematical equations themselves, we may never be able to predict weather two months ahead of time. That is because even unmeasurably small differences (like the wind from butterfly wings) can grow to very large scale differences (like hurricanes) over such a time period. It is far from guaranteed that this particular sequence will happen, but the instability does affect our ability to accurately predict, even when the equations we use are known to be correct.
polymath257

What you mention to me is something akin to a quantum problem I have as of late been thinking on. That even though we have some equations, this does not mean we can have changing quantum equations(instability), such that we cannot predict from small effects to larger ones.

More specifically, if a quantum fluctuation may "resonance", can we detect it, from a single point to the universe. I am inclined to say no at this time. And further, if there was a basic change in the universe we might not be able to detect it....

I don't have the math skills to write it out, but it is more a concept, and idea....

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#67171 Jan 19, 2013
Thinking wrote:
What breed of rose can only be smelled once? Do tell.
<quoted text>
Thinking

I just meant, that I might enjoy smelling a rose, while someone else may not. Therefore we cannot share the enjoyment(take pleasure in) of the rose in the same way.... And also, though we all have the ability to smell the rose, we may not all enjoy it.

I think rather slowly..., I enjoy it.(smile)

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#67172 Jan 19, 2013
March on to freedom my fellow atheist no more shall the tyranical christians oppress us.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#67173 Jan 19, 2013
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
Thinking
I just meant, that I might enjoy smelling a rose, while someone else may not. Therefore we cannot share the enjoyment(take pleasure in) of the rose in the same way.... And also, though we all have the ability to smell the rose, we may not all enjoy it.
I think rather slowly..., I enjoy it.(smile)
And such is the difference between fact (such as the fact that roses release certain chemicals) and opinion (such as the opinion that roses smell good). Facts are, by their nature public. Opinions are, by their nature, private.

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#67174 Jan 19, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And such is the difference between fact (such as the fact that roses release certain chemicals) and opinion (such as the opinion that roses smell good). Facts are, by their nature public. Opinions are, by their nature, private.
polymath257

I would and...,

In this case, that roses release certain chemicals....But this is not a simple fact, it is a compounded fact. It would be better to say a rose smells good, and not the chemicals released smell good.

When we have a compound fact, one reduces a fact to its simplist form, in this case we are speaking of the essence of the rose, which is observed through the senses.

And also we have a remembrance(opinion) of a rose, which also, changes in time. Each time one remembers, the memory changes. But this did not change when the rose was first smelled.

A fact doesn't change. Accumulating and remembering a fact does change in time....
Lincoln

United States

#67175 Jan 19, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Convenient since there is no evidence for any deity's existence.
<quoted text>
You just type out whatever nonsense pops into you head.
Some evidence that America does Not trust atheists.
Presidential candidates seem to be Christian.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#67176 Jan 19, 2013
Robert F wrote:
Actually an electron is mostly space
According to whom?
Robert F wrote:
Does one need evidence for a rational basis/claim?
This is actually two question.
In general, I think no for both, because one might use reason instead of evidence.
Answer: I could be led into a room blindfolded and hear someone turn a light switch. By reason I think it is either to turn it on or off. There is no evidence the light is on or off.
So the question is the light on, or off, I cannot determine and that there is no evidence?
How do you even know that there is a light? All you've heard is a sound that sounds like a light switch. It could be the recording of a light switch being turned. Even if it's a real switch in the room, how do you know that it is wired to anything?

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#67177 Jan 19, 2013
1: This answer removes any doubt of your ignorance, holy effing hell man! And worse it has nothing to do with my previous statement.
2: So taunting the wind by brandishing and smacking your buttocks for an hour may actually change the weather? Sacrificing children may really help the crops grow? Are you insane?
3: Unless you can demonstrate how what I said is incorrect your comeback is meaningless, much like all your posts.
4: All societies have had their share of crimes against the environment but this is completely off topic.
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
Givemeliberty
1. But science today proposes that the wind from the wings of a butterfly on the otherside of the world will be the cause of a hurricane on this side of the world....If that isn't grasping at straws, I don't know what is...?
2. I am not defending religous practices, as they may or may not be correct.
3. You paint ancient religion with such a broad stroke, there is no picture, just a canvas with one color.
4. You have a point. Some ancient societies notoriously abused their natural resources, and suffered extinction, or near extinction. But here is where you break down, if the ancients had bull dosers to destroy everything, then why is modern mad doing the same?
You are kind of saying, that ancient and modern man suffer from having some lunatics running the world and wrecking it for everyone. And this I agree. But it is because of human vice that drives the destruction.....I just saw an interesting documentary on Cameroon, where the natives have reduced the forest, due to farming, and frogs were disappearing. Their main source of protein was/is from frogs, now they hunt the tadpoles. They were offered pigs, but really didn't want them....

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#67178 Jan 19, 2013
Wow 1762!

Look you are in desperation mode trying to change the subject. Atheists can and have weighed out both options from dozens of different standpoints. I have been to Buddhist temples, more new age spiritual gurus in California than I care I admit lol! I have researched this god concept with Christians, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Native American mystics even animist shamans in the Philippines! Not to mention my buddy is a self described Druid! But in the end it all boils down to using your imagination to accept a supernatural proposition no matter how you slice it.

Even your abstract argument, isn't that really just a nicer way of saying you have to use your imagination to accept god because there is nothing there? Honestly isn't that the long and short of it?
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
Givemeliberty
"William Falconer, The Shipwreck (1762), Canto I, line 104.
The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."
You are assuming that observation is the basis of an "either/or" decision. While true in a practical empirical way, this may or may not be true....At last! We have gotten to what is true!? Took a little while. Thank you for having humored my nonsense, though that may be more patience and tolerance on your part....

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#67179 Jan 19, 2013
I have a smoking hot Russian friend and she is deathly allergic to roses. Not just the scent but even if she touches a petal or stem let alone the thorns!

She hates them from the look to smell to feel everything she can't stand them. So again your imaginary essence example falls flat. It is completely subjective to the person and their personal tastes.

As usual you are way off.
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
polymath257
I would and...,
In this case, that roses release certain chemicals....But this is not a simple fact, it is a compounded fact. It would be better to say a rose smells good, and not the chemicals released smell good.
When we have a compound fact, one reduces a fact to its simplist form, in this case we are speaking of the essence of the rose, which is observed through the senses.
And also we have a remembrance(opinion) of a rose, which also, changes in time. Each time one remembers, the memory changes. But this did not change when the rose was first smelled.
A fact doesn't change. Accumulating and remembering a fact does change in time....
John

United States

#67180 Jan 19, 2013
March, march, march. Fight, fight, fight. Nothing=good, God=bad.

Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.
John

United States

#67181 Jan 19, 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 64,470 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!

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#67182 Jan 20, 2013
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
polymath257
I would and...,
In this case, that roses release certain chemicals....But this is not a simple fact, it is a compounded fact. It would be better to say a rose smells good, and not the chemicals released smell good.
When we have a compound fact, one reduces a fact to its simplist form, in this case we are speaking of the essence of the rose, which is observed through the senses.
And also we have a remembrance(opinion) of a rose, which also, changes in time. Each time one remembers, the memory changes. But this did not change when the rose was first smelled.
A fact doesn't change. Accumulating and remembering a fact does change in time....
You lack the understanding of what is fact, and what is theory ... and what is subjective opinion.

I can't stand the smell of roses, they make me ill, and dizzy. I have a sever pollen allergy, so floral scents have that effect on me. So to me, and others with the same allergic reaction to pollen that have lived on farms and in suburban landfills (pet name for them), the scent of flowers, all flowers, will make us want to vomit. "Good" and "bad" are always, completely, subjective terms, never are they facts.

Now, the scent of the flowers actually is a chemical reaction, congrats, you got that part right, but that is not a "compound fact," it's simply a fact. It's a fact because it's always true, regardless of the circumstances, all scent is chemical reactions, our noses process this into information that we call "scent," this information then triggers a series of neurons, firing through the brain, which are more chemical reactions, producing a response to them. That does not make the scent a "compound fact" though, it's still just a fact, nor does it make the subjective response any less or more of a fact, because the subjective response is still subjective in all cases.

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 Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 21 min Eagle 12 9,340
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 28 min Eagle 12 243,319
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 38 min thetruth 19,770
Should atheists have the burden of proof? 45 min thetruth 34
Disney Buys The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latte... (Nov '12) 2 hr millertr1 5
News Study: Public opinion not swayed by atheist arg... 9 hr geezerjock 2
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 11 hr dirtclod 6,213
More from around the web