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 (Page 97)

Showing posts 1,921 - 1,940 of70,904
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Mystical Atheism for everyone!”

Since: Nov 08

El Cerrito California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1958
Sep 6, 2009
 
Charlie said "And haven't you read that God worked six days – don't read that literally – making the universe and all that exists, and on the seventh day, which is our day, He rested. "

Well, if we examine the process that is creation with our limited intelligence and observation skills we find that "Creation" is an ongoing process as well as "Destruction" which can be observed, documented, and even photographed!

Evolution is an observable component of the ongoing process of creation which again can be observed, documented, and photographed.

This is the wickedness of "Man's folly"
depending on the tools we have to work with rather than trusting in the words of a small number of "MEN" who wisely contradict everything that we observe in the name of an external god that only talks to them.

just say no to the insanity of the Patriarchal Religious Military Industrial Complex!
john

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1959
Sep 6, 2009
 
Stay on point. What position are you defending? The verbage you use is almost always in error when mirrored. Show me the common theme of all believers in a God. Some believers believe God is a sentient being; the God of Abraham and others a deist perspective and such. Conversely, as I am told atheists are all over the map. When a subset of similar believers organize it is called religion. How is it different for atheists? Is it in the organization. Atheists do organize. Frankly, I care more about the nothing you are trying to infect the schools, the laws, rewriting history. Shall we get rid of thou shalt not kill; actually it's murder in Hebrew. You will never diminish God which is of utmost importance to you. If you ever would stump me or like I have you God isn't changed by that. There are mysteries neither of us will ever understand. I, sir stumpington appreciate the flattering assesments and wish you well in finding that ever elusive position of the nothinker.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Stump: time for the stump speech. School him, Stump!'Stump a theist. Ask him what an atheist believes.'
Nobody in this world but you seems to understand English and logic, and I know that that just eats you up. Sheesh!
Come on Yawn-boy. Show him how fair and balanced you are. Well, fair, anyway. Well, maybe fair.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1960
Sep 6, 2009
 
John wrote:
Now, this neither enhances or diminishes God.
Correct. There is no god.

This debate has done considerable harm to the idea of a god. Thank you for your contribution, Stump

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1961
Sep 6, 2009
 
John wrote:
It's not that they didn't care Ian's they were stumped
LOL. They were Stumped all right.
progressive

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1962
Sep 6, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

john wrote:
Give me the observable and repeatable example that will explain origin. I have yet to say what I believe, purposefully until there is some sort of position antitheists want to defend. You believe in science, logic, ok you don't have a monopoly on that. I'm not being glig when I point out without a dragon to chase you are left with nothing. It's starting already and I guarrantee you the responses that attack God will continue and will not mask the deflection of the nothing. Stump an antitheist! Ask him what he believes.
<quoted text>
It is very useful to get rid of the dragons and dinosaurs of most theology. To believe in nothing of a cosmic or theological nature is much wiser than believing in nonsense beliefs. The essence of atheism is non-belief in all the theistic systems and theories ever advanced, that we know about. I am not sure what they think about theistic systems not advanced yet, or that they don't know about. I do not call myself an atheist. I am a very comfortable agnostic. Not knowing seems to me to be the most sensible attitude - even on far more matters than just the theological matters. I do not know what sort of policy I favor toward Afghansitan and Pakistan, for example. I need to know more, first, and probably I neeed to know things that are not knowable, to be really sure. I do not know how evolution worked, in detail. Who does? and who could? Is adequate information even there to find? I don't know. I doubt it, but why assert that it is or isn't? Nothing is wrong with not knowing yet, or even with not knowing, ever, if there is not enough information to be found. Why pretend to know when one does not? I do not like the so-called "hard" definition of atheism that asserts that No God entity exists. That is too dogmatic and it assumes the burden of proof. I don't think most atheists take that view. I think most atheists take the view that they do not believe in any god that they have heard about. I share that view with atheists, but won't go any further. That means I won't assert an alternative explanation that I claim to be true. And it also means I don't assume that I would not believe in any concept of God that could possibly be asserted, or developed in the future. That would be silly. Both the pantheistic view that God is the all, and the dualistic view, based more on an emphasis on ethics, that god is a name for trends toward goodness and kindness, are relatively sensible definitions for a God-concept, though completely unnecessary in my view. Good is a fine thing in itself and does not have to be God. And the All is an awesome thing (really big deal, it seems, though not necessarily a good - or even predominantly good - big thing), but does not need to be called god. Whatever Everything is, it doesn't need an additional name like God, with all sorts of emotional and spiritual connotations attached.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1963
Sep 6, 2009
 
Jammercolo wrote:
<quoted text>
BULL, I and many other told you what you asked.
What do you believe? Come on put up or shut up!
I'm going home and to bed, but I'll be back to see if you put up or shut up.
The quim gets pretty quiet at times like these.

He says that he doesn't like to argue-defend-argue-defend. What is likes better is to do his little bird dance: snipe-quail-snipe-quail.
progressive

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1964
Sep 6, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

I just read John's comment above mine, and am trying to decide whether he is more enthusiastic in bragging about himself or about God.

“Mystical Atheism for everyone!”

Since: Nov 08

El Cerrito California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1965
Sep 6, 2009
 
john said "Shall we get rid of thou shalt not kill"

Well although I agree with the sentiments of the law, I place more emphasis on the truth of healthy "Human Nature". If we look at the record of societies based on "Law" we can see the "Law" demonstrated more in the violation of it then in the compliance. We see the evolution of the sophisticated strategy of legal means of subverting human kindness and the plethora of "LAW Schools that we have cranking out these geniuses that are promptly hired by wealthy corporations to help take a little more from the poor to increase their profits, all done legally with the help of these educated cunning lawyers.

We live in a culture built on volumes and volumes of large collections of laws put down in a vain attempt to address the problem of evil. Look around. Are your precious Laws, enforced by the threat of eternal hell fire put down in your most sacred law book working?
progressive

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1966
Sep 6, 2009
 
Sensible people do not believe that ethics depend upon theology. There are plenty of religious persons who are all for killing certain people under some circumstances. So those religious zealots who claim that atheists would undermine the notion that killing is generally wrong, had better look at the hand gun, rifle, and assault weapons in their own hands, before they criticize the many atheists who are likely to be much more pacifistic and uninterested in killing people who disagree with them about religion. I am not entirely pacifistic, and would not mind seeing the extremist war-mongers of various religions killing each other off, if they could do so without hurting any innocents of any sort, but I think it is more likely that the various types of religious extremists would pick on the innocents first, rather than the extremists holding a different extreme view.
john

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1967
Sep 6, 2009
 

Judged:

1

How dare Glenn Beck question a self reported Marxist being given an important appointment. Crazy rightwinger. You previously bitched about code words. Socialism is what it is; this is. How dare we question bankrupting the next generation. You want that constitution to live and breathe so much it's irrelevant. I wouldn't doubt if you are on board with the fairness doctrine or some similar program aimed at stifling speech. Fox or faux to you is the only network that covered Jones excepting a few cursory blips. That's only one of the disgusting things Fox has covered on this trainwreck in office. News is supposed to be reported, instead it's covered up or spun. Those that preach tolerance are often the most intolerant. This is nothing more than a culture war. You probably supported Kennedy when it wasrevealed he attempted to subvert Reagan in unity with the Russians. Treason, yet for the most part swept under the rug like another inappropriate sexual dallience or inconvenient drowning. Letks discuss the disgusting number of anti-american radical buddies 0boomba is more than tangentially connected to. An ideology antithetical to the founding fathers. Don't blame God and don't blame Bush. He owns it. Every empire has been undone and if it takes a little teabagging (huge laughter from the left) or having a gun for what if or expressing outrage over health fraud count me in. I'm an 11 percenter quacky,. Now go to that script and bring on the charges of racism, homophobia, or whatever it is you need to do. The enemy within is more dangerous than any other. Be careful what you wish for.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have your tea bags and weapons ready to water the tree of liberty should the illegitimate Muslim socialist tread on you?
Are you a tenther, too? http://snipurl.com/rn2oc
"Tentherism, in a nutshell, proclaims that New Deal-era reformers led an unlawful coup against the "True Constitution," exploiting Depression-born desperation to expand the federal government's powers beyond recognition. Under the tenther constitution, Barack Obama's health-care reform is forbidden, as is Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The federal minimum wage is a crime against state sovereignty; the federal ban on workplace discrimination and whites-only lunch counters is an unlawful encroachment on local businesses.
"Tenthers divine all this from the brief language of the 10th Amendment, which provides that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In layman's terms, this simply means that the Constitution contains an itemized list of federal powers -- such as the power to regulate interstate commerce or establish post offices or make war on foreign nations -- and anything not contained in that list is beyond Congress' authority.
"The tenther constitution, however, reads each of these powers very narrowly -- too narrowly, it turns out, to permit much of the progress of the last century. As the nation emerges from the worst economic downturn in three generations, the tenthers would strip away the very reforms and economic regulations that beat back the Great Depression, and they would hamstring any attempt to enact new progressive legislation."
It's clear that Glenn Beck and others has the right wound very tight, and itching for a fight.
Spywolf55

Chico, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1968
Sep 6, 2009
 
progressive wrote:
Sensible people do not believe that ethics depend upon theology. There are plenty of religious persons who are all for killing certain people under some circumstances. So those religious zealots who claim that atheists would undermine the notion that killing is generally wrong, had better look at the hand gun, rifle, and assault weapons in their own hands, before they criticize the many atheists who are likely to be much more pacifistic and uninterested in killing people who disagree with them about religion. I am not entirely pacifistic, and would not mind seeing the extremist war-mongers of various religions killing each other off, if they could do so without hurting any innocents of any sort, but I think it is more likely that the various types of religious extremists would pick on the innocents first, rather than the extremists holding a different extreme view.
If but for religion, why is killing wrong?

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1969
Sep 6, 2009
 
Alex wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll probably get an OT for this, but maybe I can claim to be a Twinnist and slip it by.
Anyway, when I was in HS (1975-76 or so), my neighbor had a Norton "Yellow Peril"; 10.25:1 compression ratio; 70 bhp at 6500 rpm. He told I could ride it if I could start it. I tipped the scales at about 165lbs. in those days and the thing damn near threw me over the bars when I tried to kick it over. Never got another shot at that one, but I hope to someday.
I've never been up on an MV Agusta either. That is my dream bike.
Rode a lot of Bimmers too, but they leave me kind of cold. Great mechanics but no soul (yess! back on topic).
My friend had a Norton 750, the year was 1973. I mentioned my desire to ride it, and one fall morning he gave it to me for the day. It was a “raw mechanical” ride, the bike was a beast, with an untamed spirit and a desire to flex it’s muscle.

It left me with an everlasting desire to own a barhopper.
john

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1970
Sep 6, 2009
 

Judged:

1

Sounds like you never leave the house what with wrestling over that boxer or briefs decision at all. I don't have a problem with admitting what we don't know. I do have a problem with being utterly dismissive of the possible of a supernatural existence and mocking a belief with no skin in the game. Hang out on the sidelines fine, but entering the arena on either side is a decision even if unspoken. Failure to decide isn't always one of knowledge. You might not always have the luxury of waiting it out. If a burglar invades your home and has a knife to your wife's throat and there is a gun accesible; well, you don't have long to have an internal debate if you are a pacifist or not. That's not a spiritual analogy, but, can hold true there is well. Do you look for truth only in science or consider less limiting possibilities. Do you remain comfortably stagnant throwing your arms up in a, "oh well" some things we just don't have answers for. I find it interesting you would align yourself with either camp if you just don't know either way. I'd expect something noncommital.
progressive wrote:
<quoted text> It is very useful to get rid of the dragons and dinosaurs of most theology. To believe in nothing of a cosmic or theological nature is much wiser than believing in nonsense beliefs. The essence of atheism is non-belief in all the theistic systems and theories ever advanced, that we know about. I am not sure what they think about theistic systems not advanced yet, or that they don't know about. I do not call myself an atheist. I am a very comfortable agnostic. Not knowing seems to me to be the most sensible attitude - even on far more matters than just the theological matters. I do not know what sort of policy I favor toward Afghansitan and Pakistan, for example. I need to know more, first, and probably I neeed to know things that are not knowable, to be really sure. I do not know how evolution worked, in detail. Who does? and who could? Is adequate information even there to find? I don't know. I doubt it, but why assert that it is or isn't? Nothing is wrong with not knowing yet, or even with not knowing, ever, if there is not enough information to be found. Why pretend to know when one does not? I do not like the so-called "hard" definition of atheism that asserts that No God entity exists. That is too dogmatic and it assumes the burden of proof. I don't think most atheists take that view. I think most atheists take the view that they do not believe in any god that they have heard about. I share that view with atheists, but won't go any further. That means I won't assert an alternative explanation that I claim to be true. And it also means I don't assume that I would not believe in any concept of God that could possibly be asserted, or developed in the future. That would be silly. Both the pantheistic view that God is the all, and the dualistic view, based more on an emphasis on ethics, that god is a name for trends toward goodness and kindness, are relatively sensible definitions for a God-concept, though completely unnecessary in my view. Good is a fine thing in itself and does not have to be God. And the All is an awesome thing (really big deal, it seems, though not necessarily a good - or even predominantly good - big thing), but does not need to be called god. Whatever Everything is, it doesn't need an additional name like God, with all sorts of emotional and spiritual connotations attached.
john

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1971
Sep 6, 2009
 
Yes or no will suffice.
Grandpasmurf952 wrote:
john said "Shall we get rid of thou shalt not kill"
Well although I agree with the sentiments of the law, I place more emphasis on the truth of healthy "Human Nature". If we look at the record of societies based on "Law" we can see the "Law" demonstrated more in the violation of it then in the compliance. We see the evolution of the sophisticated strategy of legal means of subverting human kindness and the plethora of "LAW Schools that we have cranking out these geniuses that are promptly hired by wealthy corporations to help take a little more from the poor to increase their profits, all done legally with the help of these educated cunning lawyers.
We live in a culture built on volumes and volumes of large collections of laws put down in a vain attempt to address the problem of evil. Look around. Are your precious Laws, enforced by the threat of eternal hell fire put down in your most sacred law book working?

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1972
Sep 6, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

nmweatherman wrote:
it ain't necessarily so: "I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? She is 6 years old, healthy, and very smart. She doesn't want to be a slave, so that might be a problem...."
...and blah, blah, blah. Going to use the Old Testament, the Hebrews' Torah (first five books of Moses), against your hated Christians again?
will you deny your god twice more before the cock crows?

“Science, not faith.”

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1973
Sep 6, 2009
 
Charlie wrote:
<quoted text>
You miss the point! There is no mystery for God. However, for us mere mortals, there still remains mystery.
No, you're missing the point. When you attribute *everything* to "god", there is no mystery for you either. No matter what happens, goddidit.
Now, you are making metaphysical statements based on the assumption that there is no narrative, no purpose nor meaning to existence.
I could make the converse point, that you are basing your assumptions on your belief that there is an author, narrative, and grand purpose to life.
But this is not a rational position because you have no evidence for making this assumption. Your assumption is based on emotion.
Atheism is rational, it is based on the observable, the testable and the verifiable. Your position is based on faith, which is none of the above. It is purely emotional. My previous statement is based on facts. In July of 1994, astronomers watched remnants of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 impact with Jupiter. One only needs to look at the moon on a clear night to see the aftermath of collisions. There is also extensive geological evidence that objects have collided with Earth. This is indeed a real possibility, and can happen again. This is a rational position, not one of "faith."
So we have the two philosophical positions:
1) there is a point to existence
2) there is no point to existence
Why would one be more rational than the other?
Exactly, religion, or lack thereof, is a personal decision that everyone must weigh for themselves, and keep personal.

“His noodlyness astounds!”

Since: Feb 09

You tell me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1974
Sep 6, 2009
 
Spywolf55 wrote:
<quoted text>If but for religion, why is killing wrong?
For secular civilization to exist we must be free to live without fear of oppression, which includes the oppression of murder.

“Science, not faith.”

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1975
Sep 6, 2009
 
Charlie wrote:
<quoted text>
Tierco: God is not like us! He can do things that we can't. That's why He's God and we're not.
Yea, when you don't exist, you can do anything that man can imagine.

“Science, not faith.”

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1976
Sep 6, 2009
 
deer three pink wrote:
<quoted text>
Sin is universal. That why there is God. I know that will rip MELEVY's head wide open. So be it. We cannot avoid sin. We cannot avoid GOD. Atheism is still a belief system.
If you'll believe in "god" you'll believe, and rationalize, virtually anything.

“His noodlyness astounds!”

Since: Feb 09

You tell me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1977
Sep 6, 2009
 
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
My friend had a Norton 750, the year was 1973. I mentioned my desire to ride it, and one fall morning he gave it to me for the day. It was a “raw mechanical” ride, the bike was a beast, with an untamed spirit and a desire to flex it’s muscle.
It left me with an everlasting desire to own a barhopper.
I test drove a '79 Honda CBX(6cyl. 1054 cc). I was going 85 on the 101 in Ventura. Dropped down two, cranked it, and almost looped it at 100mph. Took that thing right back and said "gimme the 750, thank you very much!"

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1,921 - 1,940 of70,904
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••