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: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#67500 Jan 31, 2013
Since there is no evidence for a god, there is no reason to even entertain the idea that there is one. So, atheists are not obligated to come up with an explanation to how life, the universe and everything began apart from god. Theists are obligated to come up with some evidence for god. We've been waiting...any millennium now...
John

United States

#67501 Jan 31, 2013
I'll ignore the strawmen and simply laugh at your nothing. Maybe in the next millenium you will have an example of evidence in this arena that meets your own standards, Obama will have a booming economy, and you'll be able to fit into skinny jeans again.

Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.
You lied again BTW. So predictable. My little puppet.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#67502 Jan 31, 2013
John wrote:
I'll ignore the strawmen and simply laugh at your nothing. Maybe in the next millenium you will have an example of evidence in this arena that meets your own standards, Obama will have a booming economy, and you'll be able to fit into skinny jeans again.
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.
You lied again BTW. So predictable. My little puppet.
Your nothing is looking pretty much like nothing still.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#67503 Jan 31, 2013
Poor, poor John-- he's still searching for a fight that he can cowardly run away from.

Again.

Very sad.

It's a damn shame about his brains.

Did they ever find it? I understand they used a scanning electron-microscope... set to scan for individual atoms... and still couldn't fine a brain for John.
John

United States

#67504 Jan 31, 2013
Your forum loons. Still nothing since 2009. Yawn.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#67505 Jan 31, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
Since there is no evidence for a god, there is no reason to even entertain the idea that there is one. So, atheists are not obligated to come up with an explanation to how life, the universe and everything began apart from god. Theists are obligated to come up with some evidence for god. We've been waiting...any millennium now...
&au toplay=1
Thinking

Saffron Walden, UK

#67506 Feb 1, 2013
"Your" - nobjockey!
John wrote:
Your forum loons. Still nothing since 2009. Yawn.
John

United States

#67507 Feb 1, 2013
Evidence and gun free zone. Might as well be a Chicago public school.

Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#67508 Feb 1, 2013
John wrote:
Evidence and gun free zone. Might as well be a Chicago public school.
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.
oh look, its another post with no proof of god in it.
John

United States

#67509 Feb 1, 2013
....and you nothings consider yourself intellectuals. Still no evidence or accountable position from the bigots.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#67510 Feb 1, 2013
John wrote:
....and you nothings consider yourself intellectuals. Still no evidence or accountable position from the bigots.
more no proof from the nothingness expert

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#67511 Feb 1, 2013
John wrote:
....and you nothings consider yourself intellectuals. Still no evidence or accountable position from the bigots.
You're right, you don't have any evidence of accountable position. I'm glad you admit that.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#67512 Feb 1, 2013
How many more years will the ignorant c@cks@cker waste here?

Lmfao!

“My hand is over my crotch.”

Since: Jan 10

It's time to put it to use

#67513 Feb 1, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
Poor, poor John-- he's still searching for a fight that he can cowardly run away from.
Again.
Very sad.
It's a damn shame about his brains.
Did they ever find it? I understand they used a scanning electron-microscope... set to scan for individual atoms... and still couldn't fine a brain for John.
Remember that story in the buybull about how one prophet called the priest of Baal and demanded that they ask him to prove his existence by asking Baal to send down a fire. When Baal did not, the prophet killed his priests. Well we are waiting for priest John to have his god send us some proof, should we dispose of him if he does not like his god's people did to the priests of Baal?
John

United States

#67514 Feb 1, 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 64,780 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!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#67515 Feb 1, 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 64,780 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!
oh look another worthless post with no proof of god in it from the king of liars
John

United States

#67516 Feb 1, 2013
You don't believe in God and no in here is trying to convert you. Your nothing is so small without this God you don't believe in though.

Thanks for nothing.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#67517 Feb 1, 2013
John wrote:
You don't believe in God and no in here is trying to convert you. Your nothing is so small without this God you don't believe in though.
Thanks for nothing.
Thanks for more "no proof" of god!!! but will you stop lying about it? Nah....

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#67518 Feb 2, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks for more "no proof" of god!!! but will you stop lying about it? Nah....
Septic,
Or should I call you Tank for short?
Play with this for awhile if its not to tough for you.

"Evolutionists generally believe that although the spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter was a highly improbable event, the amount of time available is long enough to overcome this problem. This fallacy is because they (and most of us, really) just haven’t gotten around to some actual calculating on some of these problems.
The difficult thing is to conceive the size of some of the figures obtained. James F. Coppedge in the bookEvolution: Possible or Impossible? has given some fascinating examples, one of which is here presented. Consider first this statement from the evolutionist George Wald writing on The Origin of Life in the Scientific American (1954):
Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless there. Given so much time, the “impossible” becomes possible; the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself performs the miracles.
Now using Coppedge’s figures, let’s take a look at the time it would take for one simple gene to arrange itself by chance. Remember, natural selection cannot operate until a self-replicating system is produced. Of course, this gene by itself is still only a dead molecule in the absence of other genes and other complex chemicals all perfectly arranged in time and space. Nevertheless, let us use as many sets as there are atoms in the universe. Let us give chance the unbelievable number of attempts of eight trillion tries per second in each set! At this speed on average it would take 10^147 years to obtain just one stable gene. What does this number really mean? Let’s look at Coppedge’s example; assume we have an amoeba—and let’s assume that this little creature is given the task of carrying matter, one atom at a time from one edge of the universe to the other (though to be about thirty billion light years in diameter). Let’s further assume that this amoeba moves at the incredible slow pace of one Angstrom until (about the diameter of a hydrogen atom) every fifteen billion years (this is the assumed age of the universe assigned by many evolutionists). How much matter could this amoeba carry in this time calculated to arrange just one usable gene by chance? The answer is that he would be able to carry 2 x 10^21 complete universes!
This means that all the people living on earth, man, woman and child, counting day and night, would be counting for five thousand years just to count the number of entire universes which this amoeba would have transported across a distance of thirty billion light years, one atom at a time.
Coppedge’s book makes fascinating reading in other respects and is one of the few works that really comes to grips with this matter of molecular biology and probability mathematics.
Evolutionists would have us believe that modern molecular biology lends its support to their world view, but the more information comes to hand, the more preposterous the whole idea of a naturalistic origin of life becomes."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v...

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#67519 Feb 2, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Septic,
Or should I call you Tank for short?
Play with this for awhile if its not to tough for you.
"Evolutionists generally believe that although the spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter was a highly improbable event, the amount of time available is long enough to overcome this problem. This fallacy is because they (and most of us, really) just haven’t gotten around to some actual calculating on some of these problems.
The difficult thing is to conceive the size of some of the figures obtained. James F. Coppedge in the bookEvolution: Possible or Impossible? has given some fascinating examples, one of which is here presented. Consider first this statement from the evolutionist George Wald writing on The Origin of Life in the Scientific American (1954):
Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless there. Given so much time, the “impossible” becomes possible; the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself performs the miracles.
Now using Coppedge’s figures, let’s take a look at the time it would take for one simple gene to arrange itself by chance. Remember, natural selection cannot operate until a self-replicating system is produced. Of course, this gene by itself is still only a dead molecule in the absence of other genes and other complex chemicals all perfectly arranged in time and space. Nevertheless, let us use as many sets as there are atoms in the universe. Let us give chance the unbelievable number of attempts of eight trillion tries per second in each set! At this speed on average it would take 10^147 years to obtain just one stable gene. What does this number really mean? Let’s look at Coppedge’s example; assume we have an amoeba—and let’s assume that this little creature is given the task of carrying matter, one atom at a time from one edge of the universe to the other (though to be about thirty billion light years in diameter). Let’s further assume that this amoeba moves at the incredible slow pace of one Angstrom until (about the diameter of a hydrogen atom) every fifteen billion years (this is the assumed age of the universe assigned by many evolutionists). How much matter could this amoeba carry in this time calculated to arrange just one usable gene by chance? The answer is that he would be able to carry 2 x 10^21 complete universes!
This means that all the people living on earth, man, woman and child, counting day and night, would be counting for five thousand years just to count the number of entire universes which this amoeba would have transported across a distance of thirty billion light years, one atom at a time.
Coppedge’s book makes fascinating reading in other respects and is one of the few works that really comes to grips with this matter of molecular biology and probability mathematics.
Evolutionists would have us believe that modern molecular biology lends its support to their world view, but the more information comes to hand, the more preposterous the whole idea of a naturalistic origin of life becomes."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v...
So you accept a flat out lie from a source just because it supports your delusion, not surprising.

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
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 min Mugwump 16,523
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 5 min positronium 4,711
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 10 min Patrick n Angela 235,540
The Consequences of Atheism 38 min polymath257 686
Is Religion Childish? 57 min Thinking 125
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 1 hr Patrick n Angela 6,029
.com | Why is Atheism on the Rise - Final Response 8 hr QUITTNER Feb 26 2015 2
More from around the web