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

#67581 Feb 4, 2013
John wrote:
Of course this has no evidentiary relevance. My goodness you bigots are hateful. You don't give a damn about evidence.
Nothing again from the illogical, irrational, marchers for nothing.
Provide some evidence of god's existence, and we'll get started.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#67582 Feb 4, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
So he was basically using the argument from authority logical fallacy.
<quoted text>
Yes, but I doubt he's aware if it. To have awareness of such, one needs to be sentient.

He does not qualify.

:D

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#67583 Feb 4, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
As soon as he presents ANY evidence for god, I'm willing to debate him.
Until then...
\

Oh, any number of non-godbots have offered. On the first day he posted, I answered ALL of his inane questions.

I foolishly believed he was sincere, and an actual human being.

Now, my working hypothesis is that he's severely brain-damaged to the point of non-sentience. In an institution somewhere or other, or perhaps just a collection of computer code.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#67584 Feb 4, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>\
Oh, any number of non-godbots have offered. On the first day he posted, I answered ALL of his inane questions.
I foolishly believed he was sincere, and an actual human being.
Now, my working hypothesis is that he's severely brain-damaged to the point of non-sentience. In an institution somewhere or other, or perhaps just a collection of computer code.
Could be! But he doesn't seem complex and sophisticated enough to be a collection of computer code.
John

United States

#67585 Feb 4, 2013
Lots of claims from the loons. Still no evidence that meets their own criteria. No accountable position. No intellectual honesty. Just hate for a God they don't believe in. Sad, really.

March,.march, march, march, 4 nothing!
John

United States

#67586 Feb 4, 2013
Provide some evidence of your nothing. If you loons had an ounce of self respect you would have let this forum about nothing die long ago. I don't mind exposing you and making you dance like puppets though. Don't carry on. As you weren't.

Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#67587 Feb 4, 2013
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 :)
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but I doubt he's aware if it. To have awareness of such, one needs to be sentient.
He does not qualify.
:D
John

United States

#67588 Feb 5, 2013
Hunt for some evidence that meets the evidentiary standard you hold others to. It just annoys you to know end that man is not the pinnacle of existence LOL. The false hybris you attempt is comical. The great anti 2nd amendment, bigot hunter. You couldn't catch a cold.

Still no evidence or accountable position in an atheism forum. Mine is a prime mover btw.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#67589 Feb 5, 2013
John wrote:
Hunt for some evidence that meets the evidentiary standard you hold others to. It just annoys you to know end that man is not the pinnacle of existence LOL. The false hybris you attempt is comical. The great anti 2nd amendment, bigot hunter. You couldn't catch a cold.
Still no evidence or accountable position in an atheism forum. Mine is a prime mover btw.
Nope, that isn't proof of god either, you can stop lying now. After thousands of years, you shouldn't be surprised that your cult is shrinking.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#67590 Feb 5, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
It's always a good time reading you comments. Thanks.
Look how quiet the creationists get when they're confronted with the reality that fossils bust their 6000 year old creationist lie wide open for all to see how crazy it actually is.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#67591 Feb 5, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>IOW, you can't counter my argument.
LOL !!

Been doing any LDS lately?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#67592 Feb 5, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL !!
Been doing any LDS lately?
A pity they don't teach you how to spell properly at your local creationist brainwashing center.
Thinking

Gillingham, UK

#67593 Feb 5, 2013
What is your issue with mormons?
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL !!
Been doing any LDS lately?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#67594 Feb 5, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>Provide some evidence of god's existence, and we'll get started.
"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. 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. 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, 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.

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

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#67595 Feb 5, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>Provide some evidence of god's existence, and we'll get started.
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 10^37or 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), 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"

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#67596 Feb 5, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>Provide some evidence of god's existence, and we'll get started.
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...
Thinking

Gillingham, UK

#67597 Feb 5, 2013
Bollocks.
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"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. 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. 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, 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.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/is_g...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#67598 Feb 5, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
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.
While unknown, the cause of the inflation is speculated on: it has to be a scalar particle like the Higg's particle, but relatively long-lived.
However, recent research showed that the charge ½parity violation could have resulted naturally given the three known masses of quark families. 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.
parity violations can happen through a wide variety of mechanisms. In particular, the matter/anti-matter assymetry is not a result of a fine-tuning.
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. 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, 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.
This is a misunderstanding of what the science actually says: the rate of expansion is the relevant factor. But that is determined from the inflationary stage mentioned above and is not finely tuned as claimed since *any* inflationary scenario leads to almost the same end state.
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.
How does this support a creation? if anything, it supports exactly the opposite.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#67599 Feb 5, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
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?
Why do you think it is physically possible to 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.
Except that the masses of protons and neutrons are not fundamental: they are the effects of all the quarks and gluons inside. Given the protons and neutrons are both made from quarks and gluons and that the up and down quark masses themselves are not as relevant as their interaction energies, the proton and neutron masses are not as random as you lead people to think. Also, a decrease from .7% to .6% is a decrease of 14%. Again, this is not fine tuning!
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.
you are getting cause and effect mixed up here. The CMB was produced from the conditions about 300,000 years into the current expansion.
So you are essentially saying that the variations in the matter in the universe 300,000 years ago determine the state of matter today. This is correct, but you claim 'slight' changes would drastically affect the current state, which is wrong. the smoothness (1 part in 100,000) is *predicted from the inflationary scenario above, I might add.
Likewise, the ratio of electrons to protons cannot vary by more than 1 part in 10^37or 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.
Once again, you lie through ratios:
I the*actual* ratio between gravitational and electromagnetic forces is about 10^43. If *that ratio* changed by one part in 10^40, there would be no detectable change. i tis only if that ration doubles or worse that we would see such a change.
If the expansion rate of universe were 1 part in 10^55 less than what it is, then the universe would have already collapsed.
Except, once again, the fine tuning aspect of this is negated by the inflationary stage. The curvature is *expected* to be close to 0 (leading to the rate of expansion seen) from this model.
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.
This again depends strongly on how you calculate it and suggests the naive calculation of the cosmological constant from quantum effects. Since we don't have a quantum theory of gravity, we don't know the correct calculations. Perhaps the discovery of the CC will help with this.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#67600 Feb 5, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"The best evidence for design can be seen in the nature ...
Isn't it amazing how well a pothole is designed to exactly fit the water inside of it after a rain?

You entire argument is a long-winded version of a puddle of water claiming the hole it's in was intelligently designed.

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
The Consequences of Atheism 33 min Lay Worker 728
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 1 hr Eagle 12 4,782
Reply to an Atheist on the terms freethough and... 1 hr geezerjock 1
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr thewordofme 235,589
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 4 hr EdSed 319
Well that's religitards for you... 4 hr EdSed 2
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 7 hr Denisova 16,707
More from around the web