Atheists on the march in America

Aug 26, 2009 Full story: TurkishPress.com 70,979

When South Florida atheists held their first meeting, they were just five friends, having a beer at a bar.

Full Story

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.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#67183 Jan 20, 2013
John wrote:
You make the presupposition that there is no evidence ...
It's not a presupposition until after you supply the evidence. Where is the evidence? If you do not present the evidence, then you are lying when you claim you have it, and we are correct in dismissing your claim. End of story.
John

United States

#67184 Jan 20, 2013
Nope. The forum about nothing likes to make up their own version of a claim and attribute it to me. We have danced around evidence for three years as I've easily exposed this whole idea of the way evidence is used here.

Nothing is evidence to this forum. Go ahead, provide an example of evidence in this arena that meets your criteria. My challenge is rather simple, and of course not accepted. Rather than debate what is or isn't evidence why not just make the case for your nothing and I will do the same with my something?

This is an atheism forum. You attack believers and then cower when its time to compare evidences/reasons.

Step up, or cease the bigotry. The God you don't believe in is all you talk about. Your nothing reels of bigotry and intellectual cowardice. Not a good combo.

Still mo evidence in the atheism forum.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#67185 Jan 20, 2013
John wrote:
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've stated my position, but you won't debate!
All you do is repost your 3 or 4 posts.
But I will try again. Well, not the whole thing this time.
1. If god exists, there is evidence of his existence.

Do you agree with that statement or not!?
Why won't you answer?
Don't you understand it?
John

United States

#67186 Jan 20, 2013
You don't believe in God, so quit leaning on him when someone asks what you believe.

March, march, march.

Why do you like pepper Rose? Evidence shows salt is bad for you. I don't like the taste of salt. Prove to me salt is good. Screw salt. Salt is not freethinking. Only nuts believe in salt.

Get your nothing out of here!

As always...stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#67187 Jan 20, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
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.
<quoted text>
Givemeliberty

1. and 2....If a butterfly flapping its wings causes hurricanes by scientific speculation, then the wind from the whips also can change the wind can cause hurricanes....

3. There is a difference between ritual, religion, and society. If you don't understand. You will need somebody to explain it to you.
(Also what is moral, immoral, amoral.)

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#67188 Jan 20, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
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?
<quoted text>
Givemeliberty

In a way I agree. Some people have no imagination. They have no "minds eye". I would call them walking robots. Maybe there are more than just some.... That is why one enters the kingdom of God like a child. They have imagination. Society seeks conformity....

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#67189 Jan 20, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
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.
<quoted text>
Givemeliberty

The essence of a thing does have transcendental qualities.

Essence is the quality of "suchness"

Suchness has a dimension called richness.

Your friend unfortunately does not have the richness of the experience of roses....

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#67190 Jan 20, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
KittenKodder

The rose still smells good.

It is your allervy, fear of an allergic reaction, and conditioned response that makes a rose the richness of a rose to be avoided.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#67191 Jan 20, 2013
I believe you f**k sheep.
John wrote:
Ask them what they believe.

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#67192 Jan 20, 2013
1: and 2: The butterfly effect was already gently explained to you once. You are just making a retarded jackass out of yourself now.
3: Uhm are you mentally deficient? No seriously you are dancing very close to the turd which needs to be flushed status as it seems now you are just posting word salad.
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
Givemeliberty
1. and 2....If a butterfly flapping its wings causes hurricanes by scientific speculation, then the wind from the whips also can change the wind can cause hurricanes....
3. There is a difference between ritual, religion, and society. If you don't understand. You will need somebody to explain it to you.
(Also what is moral, immoral, amoral.)

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#67193 Jan 20, 2013
Enters the kingdom of god like a child. Well it took you long enough to get into the zombie Jesus horsesht didn't it?

Society says you would live a better life if you got back on your medication screwball.
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
Givemeliberty
In a way I agree. Some people have no imagination. They have no "minds eye". I would call them walking robots. Maybe there are more than just some.... That is why one enters the kingdom of God like a child. They have imagination. Society seeks conformity....

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#67194 Jan 20, 2013
And you are showing great stupidness and lameness. Perhaps you should talk to your doctor about getting you on some antipsychotics -ness?

And we see Robert dive head first into the deep end of stupidity.
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
Givemeliberty
The essence of a thing does have transcendental qualities.
Essence is the quality of "suchness"
Suchness has a dimension called richness.
Your friend unfortunately does not have the richness of the experience of roses....
John

United States

#67195 Jan 20, 2013
Another day of ineptitude from the antitheists.*Note to lurkers* They have gone almost three years without giving one accountable position they are willing to debate. Three years without an example of evidence that meets their criteria for evidence. These are angry agenda driven folks that don't give a damn about the evidence.
If you want to subject yourself to this farce by all means see for yourself. Antitheists you could also just cut and paste one of the 64,400 posts to show otherwise.
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe. True
science that is repeatable and observable.

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
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 18 min ChristineM 234,628
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 31 min ChristineM 14,592
Why Evil Disproves Atheism 2 hr Luke1981 5
why? 3 hr Luke1981 35
Christianity Created Hitler 11 hr The_Box 188
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 11 hr thetruth 298
Our world came from nothing? (Jul '14) 13 hr polymath257 1,239
More from around the web