Atheists on the march in America

Atheists on the march in America

There are 70629 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.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#67714 Feb 7, 2013
Science corrects itself and progresses whereas religion does not.
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
And scientists thought there were canals on Mars. As I said before, Professor Braindead....most of what we call science is no more than verified but inferential knowledge, grounded on unverifiable assumptions. "If this...then that" A likely story. Probably true, but by no means, certain. That sort of indecisiveness isn't going to change. One would be a fool to accept the doctrines of science as gospel truth. Why betray common sense for the sake of any theory, or doctrine? Why deny the truth of living experience out of deference to some body of nebulous scientific knowledge, no matter how complex, coherent and conclusive it might seem to be? I hurl this truth in the teeth of Copernicus, Laplace and Newton and all their dutiful, unquestioning, leaden eyed, successors...that daisy chain of white smocked clones. What's the gain in your campaign to rid the world of Judeo-Christian theology if you merely and meekly accept another vague ideology in its place?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#67715 Feb 8, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
And scientists thought there were canals on Mars.
Nope, an idiot theist interpreted what journalists interpreted and wrote up from a press release by Nasa is what happened.

You wouldnt know what science was if you picked up a textbook and willed yourself to read, because you a) stupid. b)willfully ignorant & c) a proven liar, lying about god.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#67717 Feb 8, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, an idiot theist interpreted what journalists interpreted and wrote up from a press release by Nasa is what happened.
You wouldnt know what science was if you picked up a textbook and willed yourself to read, because you a) stupid. b)willfully ignorant & c) a proven liar, lying about god.
I can see why Darwin's fables appeal to you. You're proof positive that manure can sprout legs and walk.:O
Thinking

Poole, UK

#67718 Feb 8, 2013
Straw man.
BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
I can see why Darwin's fables appeal to you. You're proof positive that manure can sprout legs and walk.:O
John

United States

#67719 Feb 8, 2013
I notice there are links and claims@ from you loons. Nothing knows why. It's clear you have no accountable position or evidence that meets the criteria you hold others to. You are cowards and bigots.

My something vs your nothing? I don't blame you for not taking the challenge.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#67720 Feb 8, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Guess who made those laws?
LOL you have no concept on what a creator means.
Yes, of course I have an idea what it means. It's a pretty simplistic idea, after all. But the fact is that you haven't *proven* the existence of a creator. You make claims that some creator made the laws of physics, but you have not shown how that is possible, or whether it actually happened. You have shown no way to distinguish between a universe that simply has natural laws and one that has been created to have laws. In the absence of such a difference, it is simpler to take the known existence of natural laws as fundamental.

And even with your assumptions, your claim that a crystal of salt is designed is false.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#67721 Feb 8, 2013
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
And scientists thought there were canals on Mars.
Mars is notoriously hard to observe from ground-based observatories. The proposed canals were 'observed' when there was no photography and were at the limit of the resolution of the telescope. They were doubted by the scientific community at the time, but the idea was picked up by the press and became a popular sensation.

Lesson: don't get your science from a sensational popular press.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#67722 Feb 8, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Science corrects itself and progresses whereas religion does not.
<quoted text>
to be fair...religions have changed the "word of God" many times to suit their needs and to keep from becoming absolutely irrelevent to society...
sickofit

Hayfield, MN

#67723 Feb 8, 2013
Time to take this nation back from the uber religous nazi pigs....Time to get this nation back in the hands of WE THE PEOPLE....No more religous control.
Thinking

Poole, UK

#67724 Feb 8, 2013
Why?
John wrote:
I notice there are links and claims@ from you loons. Nothing knows why. It's clear you have no accountable position or evidence that meets the criteria you hold others to. You are cowards and bigots.
My something vs your nothing? I don't blame you for not taking the challenge.

Since: Mar 11

Salem, IN

#67725 Feb 8, 2013
Their god has been reduced to lighting his Farr to create the Big Bang.
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>to be fair...religions have changed the "word of God" many times to suit their needs and to keep from becoming absolutely irrelevent to society...
Henry

Heilbad Heiligenstadt, Germany

#67726 Feb 8, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
They have and it's called the Bible.
Very funny,how could a manmade scripture proof the existance of a god??

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#67727 Feb 8, 2013
Henry wrote:
<quoted text>
Very funny,how could a manmade scripture proof the existance of a god??
it works like this...

i created cold fusion.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#67728 Feb 8, 2013
Henry wrote:
<quoted text>
Very funny,how could a manmade scripture proof the existance of a god??
Religious people read 1 book and think they have all the answers. Thinking people read hundreds of book and always have more questions.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#67729 Feb 8, 2013
if you want proof i created cold fusion, see my previous post that proves it.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#67730 Feb 8, 2013
Lighting his fart lol! Wtf iPhone!
Givemeliberty wrote:
Their god has been reduced to lighting his Farr to create the Big Bang.
<quoted text>
John

United States

#67731 Feb 8, 2013
Are you loons still fighting a God you don't believe in? Fight him! Call him names. No one will notice your insanity. Trust me.

Still no evidence or accountable position in the atheism forum. They have rules, but no evidence lmao.

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#67732 Feb 8, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>the bible proves that the bible is true? seriously? i know you are not lame...
The Bible is evidence (not proof) that there is a God.

Then there is this.

"The best evidence for design can be seen in the nature of the universe and how it came to be. The process of discovery continues, since one of the fundamental properties of the universe, dark energy (or the cosmological constant), was discovered late in the last century. New studies continue to add to our knowledge about the universe and its extremely unlikely makeup.

The Big Bang
The Big Bang theory states that the universe arose from a singularity of virtually no size, which gave rise to the dimensions of space and time, in addition to all matter and energy. At the beginning of the Big Bang, the four fundamental forces began to separate from each other. Early in its history (10^-36 to 10^-32 seconds), the universe underwent a period of short, but dramatic, hyper-inflationary expansion. The cause of this inflation is unknown, but was required for life to be possible in the universe.

Excess quarks
Quarks and antiquarks combined to annihilate each other. Originally, it was expected that the ratio of quarks and antiquarks to be exactly equal to one, since neither would be expected to have been produced in preference to the other. If the ratio were exactly equal to one, the universe would have consisted solely of energy - not very conducive to the existence of life. However, recent research showed that the charge ½parity violation could have resulted naturally given the three known masses of quark families.1 However, this just pushes fine tuning a level down to ask why quarks display the masses they have. Those masses must be fine tuned in order to achieve a universe that contains any matter at all.

Large, just right-sized universe
Even so, the universe is enormous compared to the size of our Solar System. Isn't the immense size of the universe evidence that humans are really insignificant, contradicting the idea that a God concerned with humanity created the universe? It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen.2 Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 10^59 larger,3 the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 10^80 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 10^21 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.

Early evolution of the universe
Cosmologists assume that the universe could have evolved in any of a number of ways, and that the process is entirely random. Based upon this assumption, nearly all possible universes would consist solely of thermal radiation (no matter). Of the tiny subset of universes that would contain matter, a small subset would be similar to ours. A very small subset of those would have originated through inflationary conditions. Therefore, universes that are conducive to life "are almost always created by fluctuations into these 'miraculous' states," according to atheist cosmologist Dr. L. Dyson.4

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/is_g...

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#67733 Feb 8, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>the bible proves that the bible is true? seriously? i know you are not lame...
Part 2

"Just right laws of physics
The laws of physics must have values very close to those observed or the universe does not work "well enough" to support life. What happens when we vary the constants? The strong nuclear force (which holds atoms together) has a value such that when the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass is converted into energy. If the value were 0.6% then a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. If the value were 0.8%, then fusion would happen so readily that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Other constants must be fine-tuned to an even more stringent degree. The cosmic microwave background varies by one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of diffuse gas, since no stars or galaxies could ever form. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist solely of large black holes. Likewise, the ratio of electrons to protons cannot vary by more than 1 part in 10^37 or else electromagnetic interactions would prevent chemical reactions. In addition, if the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational constant were greater by more than 1 part in 10^40, then electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing the formation of stars and galaxies. If the expansion rate of universe were 1 part in 10^55 less than what it is, then the universe would have already collapsed. The most recently discovered physical law, the cosmological constant or dark energy, is the closest to zero of all the physical constants. In fact, a change of only 1 part in 10^120 would completely negate the effect.

Universal probability bounds
"Unlikely things happen all the time." This is the mantra of the anti-design movement. However, there is an absolute physical limit for improbable events to happen in our universe. The universe contains only 10^80 baryons and has only been around for 13.7 billion years (10^18 sec). Since the smallest unit of time is Planck time (10^-45 sec),5 the lowest probability event that can ever happen in the history of the universe is:

1/1080 x 1/1018 x 1/1045 =1/10143"

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#67734 Feb 8, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>the bible proves that the bible is true? seriously? i know you are not lame...
Part 3

"So, although it would be possible that one or two constants might require unusual fine-tuning by chance, it would be virtually impossible that all of them would require such fine-tuning. Some physicists have indicated that any of a number of different physical laws would be compatible with our present universe. However, it is not just the current state of the universe that must be compatible with the physical laws. Even more stringent are the initial conditions of the universe, since even minor deviations would have completely disrupted the process. For example, adding a grain of sand to the weight of the universe now would have no effect. However, adding even this small amount of weight at the beginning of the universe would have resulted in its collapse early in its history.

What do cosmologists say?
Even though many atheists would like to dismiss such evidence of design, cosmologists know better, and have made statements such as the following, which reveal the depth of the problem for the atheistic worldview:

"This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine-tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."
"Polarization is predicted. It's been detected and it's in line with theoretical predictions. We're stuck with this preposterous universe."
"In all of these worlds statistically miraculous (but not impossible) events would be necessary to assemble and preserve the fragile nuclei that would ordinarily be destroyed by the higher temperatures. However, although each of the corresponding histories is extremely unlikely, there are so many more of them than those that evolve without "miracles," that they would vastly dominate the livable universes that would be created by Poincare recurrences. We are forced to conclude that in a recurrent world like de Sitter space our universe would be extraordinarily unlikely"

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/is_g...

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 7 min Chimney1 48,552
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 23 min Rings9780 21,867
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 1 hr JustASkeptic 17
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 6 hr Into The Night 23,503
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 9 hr New Age Spiritual... 258,040
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Dec 3 Eagle 12 4,907
Why you need to make sure you are saved before ... Dec 2 Scaritual 14
More from around the web