Atheists on the march in America

Atheists on the march in America

There are 70631 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.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#67650 Feb 7, 2013
StarsplashTaiwan wrote:
<quoted text>
With what? rocks and sticks?
They didn't have machine guns or bombs back then.
And yet, humans contributed greatly to the extinction of mammoths, mastodons, giant sloths, and the rest of the megafauna in North America. And yes, that was with sticks and stones.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#67651 Feb 7, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
You said
"How does this support a creation? if anything, it supports exactly the opposite."
The opposite of creation (intelligent design) I would think would be randomness.
Wrong. The opposite of randomness is order, not design. A salt crystal is very ordered, but it isn't designed: it forms spontaneously under the right conditions. The early universe was ordered (more precisely, it was low entropy) but that says nothing about design. The laws of physics are not 'random': they are very specific (even when all they predict is probabilities) and the early universe was governed by the same laws of physics as today.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#67652 Feb 7, 2013
BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
What's the alternative? Let's look at the atheist's favorite fairy tale, Darwin's brainstorm, called the theory of evolution. Say you're making a giraffe. The necessary mutation would be a long neck for eating leaves. But first the giraffe has to be a pre-giraffe because a long neck isn't going to help a pre-lion who eats meat, or a pre-zebra who eats grass. The long neck mutation is only useful to an animal that already lives under trees, who is already trying to reach higher leaves before the mutation. But wait, if the pre-giraffe couldn't reach the leaves before the mutation, why the freak was it there in the first place? Was it just hanging around wistfully looking up at leaves waiting for a mutation? If this sounds ridiculous, it is! The combination of specific mutation and specific environment is so unlikely that even God couldn't make sense of it. LMAO!
Why don't creationists ever understand the Archimedian property: if you add a lot of small changes, it gives rise to a large change.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#67653 Feb 7, 2013
BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
What's the alternative? Let's look at the atheist's favorite fairy tale, Darwin's brainstorm, called the theory of evolution. Say you're making a giraffe. The necessary mutation would be a long neck for eating leaves. But first the giraffe has to be a pre-giraffe because a long neck isn't going to help a pre-lion who eats meat, or a pre-zebra who eats grass. The long neck mutation is only useful to an animal that already lives under trees, who is already trying to reach higher leaves before the mutation. But wait, if the pre-giraffe couldn't reach the leaves before the mutation, why the freak was it there in the first place? Was it just hanging around wistfully looking up at leaves waiting for a mutation? If this sounds ridiculous, it is! The combination of specific mutation and specific environment is so unlikely that even God couldn't make sense of it. LMAO!
Just because you're not smart enough to understand or appreciate the fact of evolution does not mean that everyone has to accomodate your mental illness.

When you've managed to prove your god, then you can talk about science as much as you like. Go and get a DNA test if you seriously doubt darwin.
John

United States

#67654 Feb 7, 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 64,900 posts to show otherwise.
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe. True
science that is repeatable and observable.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#67655 Feb 7, 2013
John wrote:
They have gone almost three years without giving one accountable position they are willing to debate.
You are one crazy mofo.
Thinking

Poole, UK

#67656 Feb 7, 2013
John: Poe, mental or both?
John can't be as thick as he appears in his posts, can he?
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
You are one crazy mofo.
insidesecrets

Santa Fe, NM

#67657 Feb 7, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't creationists ever understand the Archimedian property: if you add a lot of small changes, it gives rise to a large change.
On paper it works, but not in reality. There is no evidence in fossils or experiments that mutations create "new" forms.

The theory of evolution has gone the way of gravity, accepted as an ultimate law, mathematically and physically defined but unresolved into any causes.
insidesecrets

Santa Fe, NM

#67658 Feb 7, 2013
BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
What's the alternative? Let's look at the atheist's favorite fairy tale, Darwin's brainstorm, called the theory of evolution. Say you're making a giraffe. The necessary mutation would be a long neck for eating leaves. But first the giraffe has to be a pre-giraffe because a long neck isn't going to help a pre-lion who eats meat, or a pre-zebra who eats grass. The long neck mutation is only useful to an animal that already lives under trees, who is already trying to reach higher leaves before the mutation. But wait, if the pre-giraffe couldn't reach the leaves before the mutation, why the freak was it there in the first place? Was it just hanging around wistfully looking up at leaves waiting for a mutation? If this sounds ridiculous, it is! The combination of specific mutation and specific environment is so unlikely that even God couldn't make sense of it. LMAO!
Good one!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#67659 Feb 7, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
On paper it works, but not in reality. There is no evidence in fossils or experiments that mutations create "new" forms.
Fossils cannot show mutations because they don't preserve DNA. They *do* show that species change over time. Lab experiments *do*show that mutations can 'create' new forms.
The theory of evolution has gone the way of gravity, accepted as an ultimate law, mathematically and physically defined but unresolved into any causes.
It is circular to ask for causes of physical laws.
insidesecrets

Santa Fe, NM

#67660 Feb 7, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Fossils cannot show mutations because they don't preserve DNA. They *do* show that species change over time. Lab experiments *do*show that mutations can 'create' new forms.
<quoted text>
It is circular to ask for causes of physical laws.
Science knows HOW to some extent, but it doesn't know WHY. The chief "causes" for the orderly evolution of creatures is entirely unknown, which means that science is looking for truth in all the wrong places.

It needs a new superhero to show the way. Stephen Hawkings is a defector. His theories would turn science into another religion. "If the Grand Unification Theory were constructed, then the greatest triumph in human endeavor would be realized. For then we would know the mind of God." - A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking.

The narcissistic Richard Dawkins is too busy debating Christians for the publicity to spend any time filling the gaping holes in the theory of evolution.

No. Science needs a hero with the mythical qualities of a "phoenix" to arise out of the ashes of its dead evolution theory, and explain the production of a blade of grass using natural laws ordained by no intention. A magical feat indeed!

The conundrum for science has always been backasswards thinking. From matter backward into energy rather than from energy forward into matter and form. It places the cart before the horse.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#67661 Feb 7, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
On paper it works, but not in reality. There is no evidence in fossils or experiments that mutations create "new" forms.
The theory of evolution has gone the way of gravity, accepted as an ultimate law, mathematically and physically defined but unresolved into any causes.
You're full of sh*t and have no proof of god at the end of the day.

You're trying to sell us morals while lying about god. Good luck trying to convert us to your stupidity.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#67662 Feb 7, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
Science knows HOW to some extent, but it doesn't know WHY. The chief "causes" for the orderly evolution of creatures is entirely unknown, which means that science is looking for truth in all the wrong places.
It needs a new superhero to show the way. Stephen Hawkings is a defector. His theories would turn science into another religion. "If the Grand Unification Theory were constructed, then the greatest triumph in human endeavor would be realized. For then we would know the mind of God." - A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking.
The narcissistic Richard Dawkins is too busy debating Christians for the publicity to spend any time filling the gaping holes in the theory of evolution.
No. Science needs a hero with the mythical qualities of a "phoenix" to arise out of the ashes of its dead evolution theory, and explain the production of a blade of grass using natural laws ordained by no intention. A magical feat indeed!
The conundrum for science has always been backasswards thinking. From matter backward into energy rather than from energy forward into matter and form. It places the cart before the horse.
You can't criticise science until you've proven the god you lie about every day.

its been that simple since the dawn of time itself

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#67663 Feb 7, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Could be! But he doesn't seem complex and sophisticated enough to be a collection of computer code.
It could be ineptly written code.

In keeping with the ineptly written bible, of course.

:)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#67664 Feb 7, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
They are taught to be sheeplike. Herd mentality waiting to be sheared. Look in their eyes and see a programmed drone.
When you look at us from early tribal people to today you can see we are hunters. Clever, resourceful, doing what we need to do for us and our tribe to survive and progress.
Let them be sheep my friend, we'll be hunters :)
<quoted text>
Yep.

To be a True Believer™? You must first learn how to suppress any and all..

... thoughts.

:)

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#67665 Feb 7, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong. The opposite of randomness is order, not design. A salt crystal is very ordered, but it isn't designed: it forms spontaneously under the right conditions. The early universe was ordered (more precisely, it was low entropy) but that says nothing about design. The laws of physics are not 'random': they are very specific (even when all they predict is probabilities) and the early universe was governed by the same laws of physics as today.
Wrong

A salt crystal was designed.

"The laws of physics are not 'random': they are very specific"

They were designed too.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#67666 Feb 7, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Bollocks.
<quoted text>
Indeed it is. I never read his shyte as a matter of course.

I see the poster, and skip to the next one.
John

United States

#67667 Feb 7, 2013
Good grief you antitheists are bat shit crazy. You have zero evidence that meet your rules for evidence. You post nothing in a forum about nothing. You hate a God you don't believe in. Keep up your convincing nonargument LOL.

In response to your fumbling attacks against believers I offered to debate the evidences/reasons for belief in a prime mover vs any accountable position. Your nothing has never been louder. It's interesting to watch cowards becoome bullies on the internet though.

Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#67668 Feb 7, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
You are one crazy mofo.
He lied. When he wrote his first ugly post here? Most of the responders back then, were atheists, and most replied.

Giving many and countless positions.

He ran away for weeks soon after, then returned and pretended nobody answered.

He's been doing that ever since: pretending nobody answers. When countless people have.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#67669 Feb 7, 2013
Any resistance to science on these forums has the effect of splashing holy water on the possessed. It agitates you atheistic demons, provoking a slabbering flurry of foul language and nonsensical blather. Who needs movies like the Exocist? This is far more entertaining!

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) 4 min Eagle 12 21,429
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 min River Tam 20,349
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 min Into The Night 45,574
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 hr Joe Fortuna 257,171
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 3 hr Demon Finder 10,380
What is of greater value for humanity: Chrisita... 3 hr Eagle 12 455
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 5 hr Thinking 407
More from around the web