Atheists on the march in America

Aug 26, 2009 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: TurkishPress.com

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

Comments
65,601 - 65,620 of 70,959 Comments Last updated Monday Jul 7

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68368
Feb 15, 2013
 
John wrote:
Rose continues to cite disbelief as her accountable position of belief. Coward Bob thinks collecting dozens of BS responses and linking them proves something.
We are right where we started in 2009. These bigots have no evidence in this arena that meets their own criteria. Notice their response has and will validate that claim.
How does an atheist quantify the possibility of always was, prime mover, something from nothing? Please show your work. Notice their response will not address their futility.
Now that I've exposed their nonsense I am still willing to debate the evidences/reasons to believe in a prime mover vs ?????. Your forum loons. You've basically treated it like Paris Hilton has her inheritance.
Get your nothing out of here!
What even makes you think "always was, prime mover, and something from nothing" area possibility?
John

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68370
Feb 15, 2013
 
You skipped the questions. I'm very curious how long you will continue a forum about nothing. Some of my friends and I are betting on this. It appeared to be dead a few times, but I know what strings my puppets respond to.

March away!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68371
Feb 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

John wrote:
You skipped the questions. I'm very curious how long you will continue a forum about nothing. Some of my friends and I are betting on this. It appeared to be dead a few times, but I know what strings my puppets respond to.
March away!
Like you have friends...sure pal, sure...
Thinking

Hounslow, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68372
Feb 15, 2013
 
John's socks are his friends. Fundies have got to bulk up those falling numbers somehow...
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Like you have friends...sure pal, sure...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68373
Feb 15, 2013
 
Thinking wrote:
John's socks are his friends. Fundies have got to bulk up those falling numbers somehow...
<quoted text>
At least he has his imaginary sky buddy. "so he's got that going for him...which is nice."

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68374
Feb 15, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's examine your assertion here a bit more, I know you hate it when we actually look at your assertions but meh.
1. Big Bang is supported by some very obvious facts that cannot be refuted, in which case everything is expanding, or moving away from each other in other words.
That's the assumption anyway, but it doesn't explain what "caused" the big bang.
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>2. Thus everything had to be really small at one point, at least the things moving away from each other, and thus there had to be a rapid expansion at some point, thus the misnomer "big bang."
3. Everything had to come from somewhere, that's where the theory ends and a new one must be formulated and tested to produce an answer to.
So the story goes, but science cannot explain where this really small SOMETHING came from, or why it suddenly expanded to form the universe.
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Then your creationism:
1. Everything was made by something else.
2. That something else therefore had to come from somewhere, which you don't know if that something is even intelligent much less if it's your "god" thing.
Science does not acknowledge a "something else" leaving one to assume that NOTHING caused this very small SOMETHING to expand. To say everything came from the Big Bang is like saying babies come from maternity wards, the theory doesn't go back far enough.
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
3. This is all based on zero evidence, as there is no evidence suggesting it, therefore it can be dismissed before even going into the really hard questions that this notion creates.
Like the big bang theory, there is an hypothesis: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness. Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve." - Max Planck
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>4. The new question is how did this thing cause it?
5. Another new question is where did this thing come from?
6. Another question is how does this thing exist?
7. Another is how is it this thing is intelligent, or even if it is?
8..... and on ad infinitum ....
Simplest answers are often the correct ones, thus by default your creationism has made itself impossible.
Enter God, a primary nonphysical gestalt of consciousness, which was, is and will always be. And which exists within and behind all systems and universes. What it boils down to then, is whose THEORY is more believable and makes more sense. Primary consciousness is more believable and makes more sense than NOTHING.
Thinking

Yeovil, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68375
Feb 15, 2013
 
www.smellyourmum.com/believe-thats-nice-imagi...
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>At least he has his imaginary sky buddy. "so he's got that going for him...which is nice."
Thinking

Yeovil, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68376
Feb 15, 2013
 
Better link here:

http://www.smellyourmum.com/images/believegod...
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>At least he has his imaginary sky buddy. "so he's got that going for him...which is nice."
Thinking

Yeovil, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68377
Feb 15, 2013
 
Why?
BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the assumption anyway, but it doesn't explain what "caused" the big bang.
<quoted text>
So the story goes, but science cannot explain where this really small SOMETHING came from, or why it suddenly expanded to form the universe.
<quoted text>
Science does not acknowledge a "something else" leaving one to assume that NOTHING caused this very small SOMETHING to expand. To say everything came from the Big Bang is like saying babies come from maternity wards, the theory doesn't go back far enough.
<quoted text>
Like the big bang theory, there is an hypothesis: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness. Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve." - Max Planck
<quoted text>
Enter God, a primary nonphysical gestalt of consciousness, which was, is and will always be. And which exists within and behind all systems and universes. What it boils down to then, is whose THEORY is more believable and makes more sense. Primary consciousness is more believable and makes more sense than NOTHING.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68378
Feb 15, 2013
 
BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the assumption anyway, but it doesn't explain what "caused" the big bang.
<quoted text>
So the story goes, but science cannot explain where this really small SOMETHING came from, or why it suddenly expanded to form the universe.
<quoted text>
Science does not acknowledge a "something else" leaving one to assume that NOTHING caused this very small SOMETHING to expand. To say everything came from the Big Bang is like saying babies come from maternity wards, the theory doesn't go back far enough.
<quoted text>
Like the big bang theory, there is an hypothesis: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness. Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve." - Max Planck
<quoted text>
Enter God, a primary nonphysical gestalt of consciousness, which was, is and will always be. And which exists within and behind all systems and universes. What it boils down to then, is whose THEORY is more believable and makes more sense. Primary consciousness is more believable and makes more sense than NOTHING.
Why would you "Enter God..." when there is no evidence at all that one exists?

that would be like Einstein throwing in his cosmological constant to explain what he couldn't figure out; his greatest mistake...
John

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68379
Feb 15, 2013
 
You loons skipped my questions. Must be tough running from your nothing day after day. Prove there is no evidence of God Woodtick. Nothing is evidence to you so your nonpoints aren't necessary. Since you bigots are so fixated on a God you don't believe in I welcome debating my accountable position vs whatever nonsense you choose.

It's revealing you cowards won't dare take that challenge. Still going strong since 2009. Contrary to your claims many disciplines have found reasons/evidences for something larger than us. It's the only position with evidence LOL. Just not enough for you. That's fine. Your nothing is on record. End forum.

Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68380
Feb 15, 2013
 
John wrote:
You loons skipped my questions. Must be tough running from your nothing day after day. Prove there is no evidence of God Woodtick. Nothing is evidence to you so your nonpoints aren't necessary. Since you bigots are so fixated on a God you don't believe in I welcome debating my accountable position vs whatever nonsense you choose.
It's revealing you cowards won't dare take that challenge. Still going strong since 2009. Contrary to your claims many disciplines have found reasons/evidences for something larger than us. It's the only position with evidence LOL. Just not enough for you. That's fine. Your nothing is on record. End forum.
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.
i have proved the re isno evidence of god. i've asked you for one shred for years and you have provided not one...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68381
Feb 15, 2013
 
John wrote:
Rose continues to cite disbelief as her accountable position of belief. Coward Bob thinks collecting dozens of BS responses and linking them proves something.
It does prove something:

It proves to 100% that YOU are TOO COWARD to click on any.

For you KNOW they prove you to be a liar.

LOL!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68382
Feb 15, 2013
 
BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the assumption anyway, but it doesn't explain what "caused" the big bang.
Doesn't matter.

One thing is >>certain<<.

Your mythical god was NOT the cause.

That is certain to 100%, too.

I've already outlined why...

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68383
Feb 15, 2013
 
BSing wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the assumption anyway, but it doesn't explain what "caused" the big bang.
So what?
That doesn't change the fact that the creation story in Genesis is a Bronze Age myth.
BSing wrote:
So the story goes, but science cannot explain where this really small SOMETHING came from, or why it suddenly expanded to form the universe.
<quoted text>
So what?
That doesn't mean "Zap! God did it!".
BSing wrote:
Science does not acknowledge a "something else" leaving one to assume that NOTHING caused this very small SOMETHING to expand. To say everything came from the Big Bang is like saying babies come from maternity wards, the theory doesn't go back far enough.
<quoted text>
Have you taken a basic science class?
It doesn't seem like you have.
Science doesn't acknowledge a "something else" because there is no evidence for it. You can assume what you like. Personally, I believe our concepts of cause and effect had no meaning at the point of the big bang.
BSing wrote:
Like the big bang theory, there is an hypothesis: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness. Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve." - Max Planck
<quoted text>
Enter God,
Something made up to fill in the blanks.
BSing wrote:
a primary nonphysical gestalt of consciousness, which was, is and will always be. And which exists within and behind all systems and universes. What it boils down to then, is whose THEORY is more believable and makes more sense. Primary consciousness is more believable and makes more sense than NOTHING.
Straw man.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68384
Feb 15, 2013
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>incorrect. there is no proof of any god so it isn't up for discussion yet. when your cult finds that proof, then it will even be an issue.

basically i'm saying your deepest held beliefs are a non-issue in the real world.
There is no proof that the Big Bang was an exploding singularity but you'll see people talking about that all the time.

God is up for discussion just not with Dolts like you.

Your positive assertion is showing.
Atheist - Have a belief that no God exist. Not the absents of belief, if that was the case they that would be agnostic.
The atheist belief is a positive assertion therefore it is a religion and falls under the same rules as all positive assertion Those rules would be that the burden of proof falls on you.

Ticky;
Where is your proof of no God?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68385
Feb 15, 2013
 
Rose_NoHo wrote:
Still waiting for ANY evidence of god's existence.
Free clues:
Buy-bull quotes don't count, and asking me for proof god doesn't exist doesn't count.
I said Quiet Ho!

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68386
Feb 15, 2013
 
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>There's no such thing as god, satan or souls. You are projecting your mental illness on us all.
No you're projecting your positive assertion of no God.

Do you have your helmet on?
I would Hate to have you fall down and cause Yourself to have more brain damage.

See I do care about you sceptic.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68387
Feb 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
I said Quiet Ho!
Why, are you embarrassed by not having an answer?
John

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68388
Feb 15, 2013
 
Thanks for nothing Richard. You should be embarrased at how easily exposed your nonsense is. Let's compare the evidence of a prime mover vs ????. Be proud of your ???

Still no evidence or accountable position in the atheism.forum.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

5 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Introducing The Universal Religion 3 hr nanoanomaly 735
Our world came from nothing? 3 hr Reason Personified 247
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 4 hr Aura Mytha 224,514
What does "Atheism" mean? 10 hr Patrick 34
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 10 hr Patrick 395
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 12 hr religionisillness 19
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 12 hr Growupchildren 21,401
•••
•••