Atheists on the march in America

Atheists on the march in America

There are 70645 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: May 13

Trenton, NJ

#72441 May 31, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree.
Modern morals and ethics are superior to the bronze-age bible's in every single way you wish to measure them.
... meh.
superior how bob? superior in what way? a view isnt merely superior by what it prescribes. it can only be seen as superior once you set it up against a standard, and that standard cannot merely be made up. it must be objective to be valid or else it doesnt really mean anything. flavors of icecream are not objective, and thats what your view is like. its made up by man, so any culture gets an equal say in saying that its right.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#72442 May 31, 2013
Ray puelerico wrote:
<quoted text>
lol yes i can.
premise one was that anything that begins to exist has an explaination and a cause for its existance. the premise is completely logical. if it wasnt, science and our five senses would be useless at telling us how the world is. name anything that begins to exist that doesnt have a cause and that premise becomes invalid. and a hint, dont use quantum particles, their cause is flucuations in the energyfeild in a vacuum.
now, as for morals, theres a difference between moral preferences and moral foundation. one could say that God is evil, but it only makes sense if your framework can support the idea of actual evil. thats one of the reasons why many biblical arguments against God fail. the support is invalid so the claim is invalid. but more to the point lets hit my argument again.
1.if god doesnt exist, objective morals dont exist.
2.objective morals do exist (as shown by your attitude towards slavery and other things)
3.therefor god exists.
now the idea is simple. if man kind makes up morals, then there is no objectiveness to it. so any culture can believe what it wants and it doenst matter. if we just make it up, theres no guide as to what is better, theres no standard for judging between two morals, its simply an opinion of the way one thinks they should act. but if there is so much as one thing that is objective, if there is so much as one thing that is really wrong no matter who does it, then you have to ground it in something higher than man. but a moral law requires a moral law giver, and that moral law giver fits the description of God.
no that is not a real premise. you still have to show this explanation for all that exists, which you do not have. what you made is a supposition, or a guess, and it cannot be backed up with any fact at all. epic fail....

who said god is evil? all of the gods made up by man have been proven false and as yet there isn't even one teensy shred of evidence that any god, gods or goddesses ever existed. talk of any god is useless until that first shred is found....

again, you are supposing that morals have to come from this supposed god that there is no factual support for.

you do not understand logic or philosophy in even the slightest....

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#72443 May 31, 2013
Ray puelerico wrote:
<quoted text>
lol yes i can.
premise one was that anything that begins to exist has an explaination and a cause for its existance. the premise is completely logical. if it wasnt, science and our five senses would be useless at telling us how the world is. name anything that begins to exist that doesnt have a cause and that premise becomes invalid. and a hint, dont use quantum particles, their cause is flucuations in the energyfeild in a vacuum.
now, as for morals, theres a difference between moral preferences and moral foundation. one could say that God is evil, but it only makes sense if your framework can support the idea of actual evil. thats one of the reasons why many biblical arguments against God fail. the support is invalid so the claim is invalid. but more to the point lets hit my argument again.
1.if god doesnt exist, objective morals dont exist.
2.objective morals do exist (as shown by your attitude towards slavery and other things)
3.therefor god exists.
now the idea is simple. if man kind makes up morals, then there is no objectiveness to it. so any culture can believe what it wants and it doenst matter. if we just make it up, theres no guide as to what is better, theres no standard for judging between two morals, its simply an opinion of the way one thinks they should act. but if there is so much as one thing that is objective, if there is so much as one thing that is really wrong no matter who does it, then you have to ground it in something higher than man. but a moral law requires a moral law giver, and that moral law giver fits the description of God.
yes, man does make up morals and that is exactly why different cultures have different morals. you just proved your own bullshit wrong. good job....

Since: May 13

Trenton, NJ

#72444 May 31, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>jeez you are so poorly informed about the world you live in it is no wonder you got sucked into a cult that has already been proven to be false...
we can measure thoughts. have you heard of fMRIs? they show exactly how sections of the brain turn on for different thoughts and different types of brain activity.
by definition, your five senses can be seen felt and heard! how stupid....i think you had best stick to letting your cult think for you...you suck at it...
the scan only measures brai activity and shows its location. but that thing which the thought is about is not identified merely with a scan. interaction does not prove that the process is reducable to it.

second, your five senses cannot prove that your five senses are valid. the five senses cannot be found accurate simply by using the five senses.
John

United States

#72445 May 31, 2013
Do you have any evidence that meets the evidentiary standard you hold others accountable to? Yes or no.
How does an atheist decide which is most or least likely? Always was, prime mover, something from nothing. Show your work. You have no problem making statements about probability that's ground in what?
Contrary to your assertation that atheism is simply disbelief I submit to you this forum LOL.
1

Since: May 13

Trenton, NJ

#72446 May 31, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yes, man does make up morals and that is exactly why different cultures have different morals. you just proved your own bullshit wrong. good job....
lol im thoroughly amused. you miss the entire point of what i say just to assert the very thing you hae to prove. the logic of my argument still stands.
John

United States

#72447 May 31, 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 ithought on government size, abortion, tax rates?
If there isn't a position don't bother responding. How is the fence Bob, Septic, Tinkling,,,,? You got the post wedged good and deep yet? Stump an antitheist! Ask it what it believes. Still going strong 69,531 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: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#72448 May 31, 2013
Ray puelerico wrote:
<quoted text>
the scan only measures brai activity and shows its location. but that thing which the thought is about is not identified merely with a scan. interaction does not prove that the process is reducable to it.
second, your five senses cannot prove that your five senses are valid. the five senses cannot be found accurate simply by using the five senses.
it still measures thought, like you said was not possible.

seems you were wrong again. you really shouldn't state what you wish were true as fact before checking out the real world....

our five senses are how we know things are real or not. duh?

so still nothing yet that we know exists that cannot be quantified/ why can't you come up with even one?

Since: May 13

Trenton, NJ

#72449 May 31, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>no that is not a real premise. you still have to show this explanation for all that exists, which you do not have. what you made is a supposition, or a guess, and it cannot be backed up with any fact at all. epic fail....
who said god is evil? all of the gods made up by man have been proven false and as yet there isn't even one teensy shred of evidence that any god, gods or goddesses ever existed. talk of any god is useless until that first shred is found....
again, you are supposing that morals have to come from this supposed god that there is no factual support for.
you do not understand logic or philosophy in even the slightest....
im even more amused. you asked me to defend the premise. thats what i did. your asking for the conclusion of the argument, and that i can do, but please be more specific next time, becuase neither of us wants to missunderstand each other. but more to the point, is there anything in existance that begins to exist which does not have a cause for it existing? for example, our universe is ordered in a way, that so we have cause and effect. we do not know of anything in our world that does not come to existance without a cause. if you say that this point is not valid, id like to know why. now, the universe began to exist, and the universe is made up of all of space, time, and matter. so the cause must be outside of the material world, it must be outside of time, it must be powerful, and it mus be without change, and it must have the ability to act or to be personal. now i can explain eeach more, but its late, so ill just leave it there. the only thing that could fit the bill is God, as a creator.

second the statement you made about any God existing seems to be circular. it amounts to saying that your proof of god isnt valid until you prove god. thats what it seems to be saying.

next, im not supposing that morals come from him, im showing how morals can only be grounded if God exists. i dont have to presuppose that in my argument. i reach that as the conclusion to my argument.

my logic is still sound, if there are flaws, you need arguments, not just assetions.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#72450 May 31, 2013
Ray puelerico wrote:
<quoted text>
im even more amused. you asked me to defend the premise. thats what i did. your asking for the conclusion of the argument, and that i can do, but please be more specific next time, becuase neither of us wants to missunderstand each other. but more to the point, is there anything in existance that begins to exist which does not have a cause for it existing? for example, our universe is ordered in a way, that so we have cause and effect. we do not know of anything in our world that does not come to existance without a cause. if you say that this point is not valid, id like to know why. now, the universe began to exist, and the universe is made up of all of space, time, and matter. so the cause must be outside of the material world, it must be outside of time, it must be powerful, and it mus be without change, and it must have the ability to act or to be personal. now i can explain eeach more, but its late, so ill just leave it there. the only thing that could fit the bill is God, as a creator.
second the statement you made about any God existing seems to be circular. it amounts to saying that your proof of god isnt valid until you prove god. thats what it seems to be saying.
next, im not supposing that morals come from him, im showing how morals can only be grounded if God exists. i dont have to presuppose that in my argument. i reach that as the conclusion to my argument.
my logic is still sound, if there are flaws, you need arguments, not just assetions.
what is the cause for anything existing?

all of your suppositions start with the assuming a god exists, which, as we know, has no factual basis...you are starting from an assumed premise in all of your suppositions. not a single one of your guesses holds up to any logic or reason, they are just guesses, most of them based on proven false ideas.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#72451 May 31, 2013
Ray puelerico wrote:
<quoted text>
im even more amused. you asked me to defend the premise. thats what i did. your asking for the conclusion of the argument, and that i can do, but please be more specific next time, becuase neither of us wants to missunderstand each other. but more to the point, is there anything in existance that begins to exist which does not have a cause for it existing? for example, our universe is ordered in a way, that so we have cause and effect. we do not know of anything in our world that does not come to existance without a cause. if you say that this point is not valid, id like to know why. now, the universe began to exist, and the universe is made up of all of space, time, and matter. so the cause must be outside of the material world, it must be outside of time, it must be powerful, and it mus be without change, and it must have the ability to act or to be personal. now i can explain eeach more, but its late, so ill just leave it there. the only thing that could fit the bill is God, as a creator.
second the statement you made about any God existing seems to be circular. it amounts to saying that your proof of god isnt valid until you prove god. thats what it seems to be saying.
next, im not supposing that morals come from him, im showing how morals can only be grounded if God exists. i dont have to presuppose that in my argument. i reach that as the conclusion to my argument.
my logic is still sound, if there are flaws, you need arguments, not just assetions.
no, you are not showing that morals can only be grounded if god exists. that, again, is just your opinion. it has no logical basis. in fact, as the real world shows, morals are based upon the society that makes them. the society that invented your god thought slavery was Ok, so they gave that moral to the god htey invented...

Since: May 13

Trenton, NJ

#72452 May 31, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>it still measures thought, like you said was not possible.
seems you were wrong again. you really shouldn't state what you wish were true as fact before checking out the real world....
our five senses are how we know things are real or not. duh?
so still nothing yet that we know exists that cannot be quantified/ why can't you come up with even one?
you took two things out of my list of maybe seven things and claim that theres nothing? lol its late, so forgive me but im rather sleepy.

the scan doesnt measure the thought. it measures the brain activity related to thinking. big difference. thoughts are immaterial. you cant hold a thought, smell a thought, touch a thought, taste a thought, and you cant directy measure thought. your mixing up relation with equality. thought does not eual brain activity in the same sense thatyou digesting equals brain activity.

second, your senses can be decieved, and therefor youcannot test your five senses wth your five senses. it can tell you about the world around you only if you assume that they are working right. thats something you cant do with the five senses. im not talking about the usage, im talking about the experience and reliability of it.

Since: May 13

Trenton, NJ

#72453 May 31, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>what is the cause for anything existing?
all of your suppositions start with the assuming a god exists, which, as we know, has no factual basis...you are starting from an assumed premise in all of your suppositions. not a single one of your guesses holds up to any logic or reason, they are just guesses, most of them based on proven false ideas.
they dont begin with the presupposition that god exists. that isnt in the premises. your complaint isnt a valid one. your statement makes absolutely no sense in terms of logic. one cannot say that the argument for god is invalid because there is no argument for god. its called begging the question. you say not god exists and therefor your argment is invalid. your conclusion i in your argument and it istherefor invalid. but more to the point, you havent shown me one instance were ive assumed god exists. the argument has that as a conclusion, not a premise. but please, explain your complaint further, because you didnt mention where my premise assumed that god existed first.

Since: May 13

Trenton, NJ

#72454 May 31, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>no, you are not showing that morals can only be grounded if god exists. that, again, is just your opinion. it has no logical basis. in fact, as the real world shows, morals are based upon the society that makes them. the society that invented your god thought slavery was Ok, so they gave that moral to the god htey invented...
lol its in the premises. can you prove that morals are grounded in anything else but God to make them objective? this is a strawman argument that youve raised. im not asking where can you learn your morals from, im asking where can you ground them to make them objective and valid. dont just assert, explain. which premise that i listed are you disputing its validity? second, you comitted the genetic fallacy. trying to discredit a view by showing where it came from is an invlid argument, and not even relevant to the argument.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#72455 May 31, 2013
Ray puelerico wrote:
<quoted text>
you took two things out of my list of maybe seven things and claim that theres nothing? lol its late, so forgive me but im rather sleepy.
the scan doesnt measure the thought. it measures the brain activity related to thinking. big difference. thoughts are immaterial. you cant hold a thought, smell a thought, touch a thought, taste a thought, and you cant directy measure thought. your mixing up relation with equality. thought does not eual brain activity in the same sense thatyou digesting equals brain activity.
second, your senses can be decieved, and therefor youcannot test your five senses wth your five senses. it can tell you about the world around you only if you assume that they are working right. thats something you cant do with the five senses. im not talking about the usage, im talking about the experience and reliability of it.
it shows that thought is happening. it is a quantifier of thought. it shows it is a real phenomenon...

what else on your list is not measurable? you mentioned the five senses. they are all measurable...

you really seem to have nothing to support you myths...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#72456 May 31, 2013
Ray puelerico wrote:
<quoted text>
you took two things out of my list of maybe seven things and claim that theres nothing? lol its late, so forgive me but im rather sleepy.
the scan doesnt measure the thought. it measures the brain activity related to thinking. big difference. thoughts are immaterial. you cant hold a thought, smell a thought, touch a thought, taste a thought, and you cant directy measure thought. your mixing up relation with equality. thought does not eual brain activity in the same sense thatyou digesting equals brain activity.
second, your senses can be decieved, and therefor youcannot test your five senses wth your five senses. it can tell you about the world around you only if you assume that they are working right. thats something you cant do with the five senses. im not talking about the usage, im talking about the experience and reliability of it.
you still have yet to show me one thing that we know exists that cannot be measuerd or detected in some scientific way...

why is that? this would suggest your god that cannot be measured does not exist, does it not?
John

United States

#72457 May 31, 2013
Do you have a conscience Tick? You're getting eviscerated by the way. All for nothing.

Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe. True science that is repeatable and observable.
John

United States

#72458 May 31, 2013
Atheism is simply disbelief. Nothing more. I also believe the Obama administrations talking points on Benghazi, IRS, and Fox/AP.
You're dismissed offhandedly because I've been here four years and you don't have one example of evidence in this arena you hold others accountable to. Show me it.
This is a collection of bigots with zero intellectual honesty. It's why you can't answer my questions relevantly.
God doesn't meet your criteria. Nothing else does either. Yet you attack God with specificity.
I contend the evidences and reasons for a prime mover trump any other possibility. I am willing to debate that. What's your accountable position?
If you don't have one and can't show the methodology where a prime mover is somehow less likely than others you are just loons. It's obvious that's the case.
Your turn to repeat nothing.
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.2
John

United States

#72459 May 31, 2013
I contend the preponderance of evidence lies on the side of a prime mover vs any other accountable position of belief. Your entire forum is a nothing farce. I love watching you fight so hard for a supposed nonclaim.
Your whole narrative is reliant on God to have a voice. Logic and rationality are lost on liberal atheists. Do you have an example of evidence that meets the criteria you hold others accountable to?
How does a bigot measure the evidence for the following possibilities: prime mover, always was, something from nothing. Show your work.
You can't even make up an accountable position to debate vs a prime mover. The reason your forum won't engage is they realize just how futile their nonposition is.
Debate nothing with your other personalities. I don't debate nothing Stumpy.*2
John

United States

#72460 May 31, 2013
Absolutely. Right back at ya. Originally I simply asked the forum what they believed and noted that antitheism is in my experience all too often the default. Being a believer is/was irrelevant. I was accurate and antitheists showed their true colors, lashing out against a God they don't believe in and a God I was not attempting to shove down their throats.
Ruling out possibilities is not freethinking. We don't know what we don't know. Attacking/marginalizing belief isn't intellectually honest when nothing meets the repeatable and observable standard. Four years of no evidence in the atheism forum is enough for me to conclude this. I've asked the question hundreds of times and many claim to have provided it, but that's a lie. No sugarcoating it.
The conversation devolved quickly as (the way I see it) their was a group attack effort to bring this God they seem to hate into the equation. This did not dissuade me as I chose to stay on point. I was clear my intentions were not to make any claims, I was and am simply pointing out intellectual dishonesty.
I continued trying to get the "rules" for evidence after all attempts to get answers to legitimate questions failed. I sought these rules in response to the neverending attacks to further expose the forum. I offered to debate the evidences/reasons I believe in a prime mover vs any accountable position of belief that meets the criteria I was given. This challenge was not accepted. There will be claims otherwise but I guarrantee you won't find what I've asked. Now imagine doing this dance for four years simply because I refuse to debate nothing. I didn't set out to mock simple disbelief, that fine but this isn't that and I think you know it.
Name a subject I get to ask all the questions on and your job is to defend it, over and over and over and over again. How about science? Get my point? It's even more ridiculous considering I've exposed the standard. Remember my question regarding evidence quantification? Never answered relevantly.
Nonbelievers like yourself leave pretty quickly and they should. You may find it glib but what is the point of a forum about nothing? This is an agenda that stifles true freethought.
A simple I don't know...end forum would have sufficed. Now its a game to me to see how many years this forum will be intellectualy dishonest in their fight for nothing.
I appreciate your consideration but I've done this multiple times with decent folk like yourself. I won't debate in front of the kids without the reasonable prerequisites I've asked for. A simple no to my question should have been the response years ago LOL. Back to cut and paste. Yawn.
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
You weren't saying?20

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 Scientific, Philosophical Case for God's Existe... 1 hr superwilly 121
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 3 hr Rose_NoHo 6,080
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Endofdays 93,435
News Atheist inmate wins right to practice his faith... (Aug '15) 13 hr Eagle 12 - 235
News American Atheists terminates its president over... Apr 20 Eagle 12 - 19
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Apr 14 blacklagoon 3 4,141
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Apr 14 Into The Night 258,515