Atheists on the march in America

There are 70657 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.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#71522 Apr 20, 2013
John wrote:
<quoted text>
Your claims always seem to lack the evidence.
But I did prove you a liar!

You claimed that asking an atheist what he/she believed would stump them...

... I proved you a liar, by posting what I believed.

More?

I posted a link to Secular Humanism, which is all about what many atheists believe.

Which proves you to be a little hate-filled liar.

To 100%.

LOL!

It must suck to be as stupid and dishonest as you...
John

Atwater, OH

#71523 Apr 20, 2013
If you want to be purposefully obtuse knock yourself out. You might as well have posted you believe the Packers are better than the Dolphins.

You have been stumped for four years and proven to be a liar. Not claimed. Proven.

Origin Bob. As if you didn't know.

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

Atwater, OH

#71524 Apr 20, 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 68,661 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!
truths

Salmon Arm, Canada

#71525 Apr 21, 2013
Thinking wrote:
When I use co*k, cu*t, di*k and tw*t as insults there is no gender implied.
What's your favourite insult in the whole world?
<quoted text>
you have the morals of a christian
truths

Salmon Arm, Canada

#71526 Apr 21, 2013
John wrote:
... I've offered to debate the evidences/reasons I believe in a prime mover vs any accountable position of belief you want to make a case for.....
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe. 01
rational skeptics evaluate
religitards believe
discombobulated

Saint Paul, MN

#71527 Apr 21, 2013
Bippy ate fried potatoes in the bongo bongo and blew purple daisies out his nose until the sky fell into the moon and blinked the day to noon. Yellow pansies make strange bedfellows; but, pickles are euphoric angles calling from the bottom of my wagon.

Sincerely,

Three Fries Short of a Happy Meal
Logic

Saint Paul, MN

#71528 Apr 21, 2013
The summation of atheistic logic:

The following statement is False.
The previous statement is True.
discombobulated

Saint Paul, MN

#71529 Apr 21, 2013
The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round.

The windows the bus go up and down, up and down.

Silly Rabbit, Trix are for kids.

Sincerely,

Bonkers
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#71530 Apr 21, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct.
Some atheists also believe in Secular Humanism-- which is much more than simply disbelief.
Here's a linky " http://www.secularhumanism.org/" ;
Lots of lovely BELIEF on that page-- not that you can ... read...
Yes, but to say 'atheists believe in Secular Humanism' is to use religious language and might be seen as using a religious use of the word belief. It would be more accurate to say that 'secular humanism' is a world view accepted by many atheists. The difference is probably as important as distinguishing between whether someone is lying or is wildly incorrect.

I see myself as secular and would be happy to be called humanist, but I don't 'believe in' secularism or humanism. I don't believe in anything beyond what can be justified by reason and evidence, but I'm strongly inclined to favor both.

And the Council for Secular Humanism seem a bit nuts to me...
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php...
It seems to be defined by pretentious gobbledygook.
JMHO
Imhotep

United States

#71531 Apr 21, 2013
discombobulated wrote:
The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round.
The windows the bus go up and down, up and down.
Silly Rabbit, Trix are for kids.
Sincerely,
Bonkers
“You’re way off, I say you’re way off this time son!”

“I say, boy, pay attention when I’m talkin’ to ya, boy”

“Pay attention, boy, I’m cuttin’ but you ain’t bleedin’!”

“Smart boy, got a mind like a steel trap – full of mice”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#71533 Apr 21, 2013
I went to church today!:-o

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#71534 Apr 21, 2013
John wrote:
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit stumpee.
My accountable position of belief is a prime mover. Yours?
My petulant puppet will return with nothing.
John, I don't think I have known you as a poster very long, but since I have seen your posts, they do appear to be a lot of pasting the same posts day after day.

You state your accountable position of belief is a prime mover. Did you actually present a case to back your belief in a prime mover, or are you just making the statment that you have a belief? I ask because I did not read such a statement from you; likely because you presented it long ago, before I came here.

As for your many posts asking for an accountable position on atheism, I am pretty sure that you must know that atheism does not have an accountable position because atheism makes no claims. It is not a entity, or a philosophy; it is the lack of one. That one being the belief in a god or gods. Atheists do not have a belief in a god or gods, so that is the only thing that one can say to describe an atheist.

One might say that a person is not white, but that does not tell you what the person is, except they are anything except white. There obviously are not as many other things that a person might be, besides white, as there are beliefs that a person might hold besides theism, but I think it makes the same point, that stating what a person is not, tells you nothing about what they are.

You keep asking for something that no one has to give you because it doesn't exist; a philosophy held by someone who is not a theist.

An atheist does not spend any time trying to convince people that not believing in something that doesn't exist for him is a good thing to believe in. If an atheist spends time telling other people what they should do or not do, you would first have to pick a subject about which this person might have an opinion about which he could proselytized on.

Because I enjoy discussions and debates, and because I disapprove of certain opinions held by those who are theists, I can present my opinions about a theist, or at least specific theists, but I can't give any opinions about an atheist, until I know something about what that particular atheist does think, or does believe or does act on.
John

Atwater, OH

#71535 Apr 21, 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 an am.simply pointing out intellectual dishonesty.
I continued trying to get the "rules" for evidence after all attempts to get answers to legitiamate 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.
01

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#71536 Apr 21, 2013
John wrote:
You make the presuppositionIf 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 68,644 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!
John, I didn't read that post, because I think I have read it before. However evidence for the existence of a god, or if you prefer God, referring to the Abrahamic God which Jews, Christians and Muslims all claim to believe in, would be something that if you, or someone else, were to show it to me, or to the world as a whole, we would then look at it and say, yes that proves God exists, or no that does not prove that God exists.

Since we do not have a consensus in the world of God existing and we have even fewer people in the world who would agree on the same god if one did exist, man has not yet had evidence presented that has provided the necessary proof of the existence of God, or a god.

Some men have found things which they claim is evidence to support various things that they believe based on Bible stories. None of these things found have yet been accepted by any group of experts who would be able to make such a determination (whatever that group might be). So these pieces of "evidence" have not been accepted by 'man' as proof of God (I will stick to just God to reduce repetition).

In the meantime, man HAS found evidence which makes some of the stories taken from what some men call the 'Word of God', the Bible, not true factual accounts of events, but rather fictional or mythical writings. We know now from several disciplines of study, done by very expert people in the various fields of study, that a general Flood, as depicted in the Bible story of Noah and the Flood, did not actually occur on this earth during the period of time when man and other living things existed here. That has been determined by many things, but at least one of them would be evidence proving there has been no break in existence of living things in many parts of the world.

Also through relatively simple mathematical calculations man has determined how much volume of water it would require to cover all parts of the earth to the top of the highest part of the earth. I understand that to be several miles above the current sea level. It has been calculated that that amount of water would require about 5 times (5 or 7 I didn't go back and double-check that figure) the total amount of water that would have existed in, on, and above the earth.

Supposing that through some "miracle" power of God such an amount of water did exist for enough time to kill all living things, except the few things that could be crowded onto a boat, then it would be equally impossible, without some "miracle", for that water to just disappear within one year.

In other words the Flood, referring to a worldwide flood, is a myth.

If I remember correctly, the story about the Flood as appears in the Bible, talks about a nature phenomena, rain, that occurred for 40 days and 40 nights. It does not state anything about a god creating 5 times the total existing volume of water to Flood and kill all living creatures.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#71537 Apr 21, 2013
John wrote:
Atheism is simply disbelief. Nothing more. Not a thing more.
Agreed, John, atheism is simply disbelief. It is nothing more, so why keep asking for something that isn't?
John

Atwater, OH

#71538 Apr 21, 2013
Boots I didn't read that post because that seemed to be too involved to restate disbelief. Atheism is simply disbelief. Got it. End forum.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#71539 Apr 21, 2013
John wrote:
Absolutely. Right back at ya.
01
John, since you did not quote what post you were referring to in that post, I am going out on a limb and assuming it is my post to which you responded. Sorry if it was someone else's, but it appears to address some of the things I might have said.

I would clearly state that in regards to the existence of a God, I do not know, nor do I think anyone else knows. I believe the very best anyone can say is they do not know, except if someone does have real evidence of God's existence, then the very best response would be "here is the evidence", and when it is given we all say, "Yes, that does prove that God exists". Since I am aware that no god has been proved to exist, because we still have many people trying to convince others that a god does exist, which would be irrelevant if proof was known, I feel very comfortable in suspecting that the evidence does not exist because there actually are no gods.

While I may not have been on this particular thread that long, I have been on Topix since about July 2009, and I have not left quickly. However, my main reason for being here, besides addiction, which truly is the only valid reason, is to try to show people who make outlandish comments about other human beings which they back up by their 'belief that God says that such and such is true'. It seems that most of these claims are 1) those who don't believe will burn for eternity in Hell, a position that has absolutely no relevancy to someone who has no belief in God or life after death, but which can also be taken as an attack against that person, because it states something harmful even if mythical against someone else, 2) that gays are evil, or at least gays are evil if they do what it is that gives them the name gays or homosexuals in the first place, that being acting on their orientation to being sexually attracted only to someone of the same sex. I believe that all human beings should be treated fairly and equally, and that the only time any human being should be discriminated against, or have any of his rights taken away is when he has done something to someone else which causes them to not be equally able to enjoy life, such as wounding, killing, stealing from, denigrating in public so as to lead others to not trust that person, without just cause, etc.

I don't have a clue what the meaning of life is, or whether life has any actual meaning other than that something that is living has life while something that is not living has no life. However, because we humans, at least, are alive and we are also with an ability to think and reason about things, I would guess that the meaning of life is to be able to live that as long as is possible, and to be able to do so with the least amount of problems for yourself and those around you as possible.

Ultimately over a long period of time, the life of one individual, who has lived perhaps 80 years, will be valuable to the earth and to the people who live after that person is dead, in what that person did that might be carried forward to the following generations, such as items that he might have invented, or ideas he might have introduced which changed how humans do certain things, or just simply what people remember of how that life impacted theirs. Basically life after death would be whatever it was of you that remains with the world after you live no more.

For the individual themselves the meaning of life is what you give to it, or how you perceive it.
John

Atwater, OH

#71540 Apr 21, 2013
Did you really bring gays into an origin question? I feel no need to respond to this forums tangents.

Do you have any evidence in this arena you hold others accountable to? No

Atheism is simply disbelief I'm told over and over and over. When you try to marginalize belief I offered to debate. I contend the preponderance of evidence lies on the side of a prime mover vs any other position. Now, if your forum is simply disbelievers of anything in this arena you wouldn't feel the need for incessantly repeating that in various incarnations.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#71542 Apr 21, 2013
John wrote:
Boots I didn't read that post because that seemed to be too involved to restate disbelief. Atheism is simply disbelief. Got it. End forum.
True, John, so why have you not left, since for you the forum has ended. It would seem to me, if you are satisfied with what you just stated as being the end of the forum, is for you to leave it, and if the rest agree with that we would also do the same.

I don't think these discussion threads necessarily require that they formally be ended. I have on other discussions sites, though, seen that it is stated that no more posts will be accepted on this forum. That seems to be the case often, when people are debating in newspapers' letter to the editor sections. I suspect in those cases the owners or managers have decided that a particular discussion has run its course, and that it should not take up any more of space in subsequent publications. Cyberspace I guess has more space so if people continue to participate, along as the owners keep operating the site, then there is no end.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#71543 Apr 21, 2013
John wrote:
Did you really bring gays into an origin question? I feel no need to respond to this forums tangents.
Do you have any evidence in this arena you hold others accountable to? No
Atheism is simply disbelief I'm told over and over and over. When you try to marginalize belief I offered to debate. I contend the preponderance of evidence lies on the side of a prime mover vs any other position. Now, if your forum is simply disbelievers of anything in this arena you wouldn't feel the need for incessantly repeating that in various incarnations.
John, I have seen none of your claims of prime mover other than you stating that you had made the claim, so I don't really know what it is that I would be discussing.

If you refer to the recently popularized notion of there can not be a creation without a creator therefore God exists, I do not accept that as valid argument, because the first statement is not a given, so any conclusion drawn from the first statement need not necessarily follow. If we were to get past the first statement and agree that a Creation exists, then we would still be left not knowing or having evidence of who or what that creator was.

Personally, I do not believe that a Creation, as we commonly think of the term, exists. I see no evidence for that in the material world, but the evidence that does exist that we see now, came from a previous form, the earth from fragments of other objects, life from primitive life to what we see now, it makes some sense, with some very big holes yet to be filled in.

There are too many "impossible" assumptions built into a Creation theory to really accept it.

The fact that every action requires something to initiate that action could be extrapolated to show evidence of a Prime Mover, but then we still get back to a stalemate where the Prime Mover cannot be explained.

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 The President has failed us (Jun '12) 4 min Quirky 328,508
News Ireland same-sex marriage 8 min NorCal Native 108
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 9 min Bkitzking 164,069
News Rand Paul: Republican brand 'sucks' 20 min American_Infidel 5
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 27 min jimi-yank 309,888
News Pat Robertson Raves About Rubio's 'Strong' Anti... 35 min swedenforever 6
News Obama wins trade victory in the Senate 39 min swedenforever 9
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 39 min John Galt 1,233,371
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 58 min Sunshine 182,534
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 hr positronium 189,974
More from around the web