Atheists on the march in America

Atheists on the march in America

There are 70650 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: Feb 12

Taipei, Taiwan

#68364 Feb 14, 2013
John wrote:
More claims of accountable positions, but strangely none was posted. Ignore the noise from the loons. They just ignore the questions and refuse to debate.
Nothing Bless
I dont see you putting anything up either.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#68365 Feb 14, 2013
John wrote:
Bob was too embarrased to open his evidence free link. His agenda has clouded his thinking LOL.
Lie.

I opened the first dozen or so-- they are all 100% proof you are a cowardly liar.

And you are.

" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;

" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;

" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;

" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;

" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;

" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;

" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;

" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;

" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;

" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#68366 Feb 14, 2013
John wrote:
Bob was too embarrased to open his evidence free link. His agenda has clouded his thinking LOL.
And I notice YOU failed to refute ANY of the 100's of links.

Why?

Oh! Right-- you are a cowardly liar.
John

East Saint Louis, IL

#68367 Feb 15, 2013
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!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#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

East Saint Louis, IL

#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

#68371 Feb 15, 2013
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

Yeovil, UK

#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

#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

#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

Hounslow, UK

#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

Hounslow, UK

#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

Hounslow, UK

#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

#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

East Saint Louis, IL

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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?

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min Grey Ghost 1,263,791
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 5 min Calvin_Coolish 190,294
News Clinton Slams 'New York Times' Over False ... 9 min Synque 33
News Hillary Clinton is promising that all homes wil... 13 min District 9 57
News Hillary, Bill Clinton earn more than $139M betw... 17 min xxxrayted 14
News Donald Trump blasts John McCain over 'crazies' ... 22 min Synque 668
Iran Nuclear Agreement: Black Mark or Gold Star... 23 min Hoosier Hillbilly 388
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Justus von Liebig 194,598
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr ChristineM 171,930
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 3 hr Why Lee Coyote 336,752
More from around the web