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 (Page 3,219)

Showing posts 64,361 - 64,380 of70,904
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
John

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dowagiac, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.)
John

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#67095
Jan 16, 2013
 
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like John.
Do you still think Obama reduced government? LOL

Give me Liberty LOL, that's as accurate a name as freethinker. An Obama voter shouldn't question my iq.

I would love to debate my something vs your nothing, but you kids,are afraid to dive in.

My accountable position of belief is a prime mover. Yours??? I've asked since 2009 by the way :)

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#67096
Jan 16, 2013
 
Why should we accept that your prime mover is anything more than a figment of your imagination sheep?

Yes you will run like a coward from this question and bleat something about Obama.

Another day I ask this question and another day of ineptitude from the believer sheep! Stump a theist ask why we should believe!
John wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you still think Obama reduced government? LOL
Give me Liberty LOL, that's as accurate a name as freethinker. An Obama voter shouldn't question my iq.
I would love to debate my something vs your nothing, but you kids,are afraid to dive in.
My accountable position of belief is a prime mover. Yours??? I've asked since 2009 by the way :)

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#67097
Jan 16, 2013
 
Robert F wrote:
For me, God is bigger(outside of) than empiricism. God Created Creation.
And the evidence for any of this is...?
Robert F wrote:
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.
Quantum mechanics doesn't say that you can't observe an electron. It says only that you can't identify the electron's *exact* location.
Robert F wrote:
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.
But if one has no evidence for the existence of the mountain, on what rational basis can one claim that the mountain exists?
Robert F wrote:
Therefore merely using empirical data as evidence is not reasonable.
Why not?
John

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#67098
Jan 17, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Why should we accept that your prime mover is anything more than a figment of your imagination sheep?
Yes you will run like a coward from this question and bleat something about Obama.
Another day I ask this question and another day of ineptitude from the believer sheep! Stump a theist ask why we should believe!
<quoted text>
An Obama voter calling me a sheep. Umm, ok. Why don't we just compare the reasons and evidences for our beliefs. My accountable position of belief is a prime mover. What's yours? You just want a neverending off topic debate. I don't debate nothing.

Another antitheist with no evidence that meets the standards he holds others to.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#67099
Jan 17, 2013
 
Yes let's compare reasons and evidences. By all means. You made the assertion for the belief of a prime mover yet have shown no reason as to why we should accept this as anything more than your imagination. Do show this proof already.
John wrote:
<quoted text>
An Obama voter calling me a sheep. Umm, ok. Why don't we just compare the reasons and evidences for our beliefs. My accountable position of belief is a prime mover. What's yours? You just want a neverending off topic debate. I don't debate nothing.
Another antitheist with no evidence that meets the standards he holds others to.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#67100
Jan 17, 2013
 
John wrote:
<quoted text>
An Obama voter calling me a sheep...position of belief is a prime mover.
If you just believe in an impersonal prime mover, whats your problem?

If however you are a christian get used to being called a sheep, its what jesus calls you. The Sheep metaphor is an apt one for the religious condition.
John

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#67101
Jan 17, 2013
 
Adam- great name. You flatter yourself as if name calling from your kind does anything but let me know I'm correct.

Yeah, shackles I offered to debate what I believe vs any accountable position you make a case for. It is your forum. My initial questions just exposed the ridiculousness of your nothing and you guys lashed out. I took it a step further and you continue to southern away.

Are progressives intellectualy honest in anything? I'm waiting for you to march against drones, spying on citizens, government lists,,,,,,,,

Get your nothing out of here! I'm embarassed for you.
John

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#67102
Jan 17, 2013
 
Something from nothing is a scientific impossibility. No wonder you won't debate. This must be about bigotry for most of you.

Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#67103
Jan 17, 2013
 
So John claims to have proof for his god aka prime mover but when asked to show said proof he goes off on an unrelated temper tantrum.

Get your nothing out of here Mormon Mitt licker! Stump a theist ask them why we should believe!

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 64,361 - 64,380 of70,904
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••