Atheists on the march in America

Aug 26, 2009 Full story: TurkishPress.com 70,979

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

Full Story

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65554 Dec 5, 2012
digitaldan wrote:
<quoted text>
I've had no problem following postscript's comments on the nature of consciousness. What's your major malfunction?
Yet, no one has proven that consciousness exists beyond the brain, we can trace consciousness in the brain, so where's your evidence that it exists outside of the physical brain?
John

Hartland, WI

#65555 Dec 5, 2012
Another day of ineptitude from the antitheists.*Note to lurkers* They have gone almost three years without giving one accountable position they are willing to debate. Three years without an example of evidence that meets their criteria for evidence. These are angry agenda driven folks that don't give a damn about the evidence.
If you want to subject yourself to this farce by all means see for yourself. Antitheists you could also just cut and paste one of the 62,880 posts to show otherwise.
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe. True science that is repeatable and observable.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#65556 Dec 5, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet, no one has proven that consciousness exists beyond the brain, we can trace consciousness in the brain, so where's your evidence that it exists outside of the physical brain?
If you don't get it by now, you never will.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65557 Dec 5, 2012
digitaldan wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don't get it by now, you never will.
Really bad cop-out fallacy.

If you don't have actual evidence, then you cannot make the assertion. You have no evidence, therefore all it is you have is wishful thinking.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#65558 Dec 5, 2012
Go read your book of talking snakes, talking donkeys, unicorns, giants and slavery. It has all the answers you need.
digitaldan wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don't get it by now, you never will.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#65559 Dec 5, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you change the wording that 3 is pi, or bats are birds? Also, psychology does not deal in "sin" at all. It deals with understanding how we think. Psychiatry, a spin-off of religion, is the only arena that deals in something resembling "sin" at all, and that's not based on science, it's just enforcing personal stereotypes, exactly the same way religion does.
Scientific minds have demonstrated your bible to be wrong, so wrong it's a mockery to human literature considering people in eras prior to the writing of the bible got so much more accurate information recorded in tombs, the same people your bible attempts to paint as "monsters." Your ideology is out dated, useless, and nothing more than a weapon against anything that you disagree with. Science is a collection of methods and tools to reliably understand how the universe works, possibly even beyond but we have no way of even going beyond. Your bible assumes to speak for something which has demonstrably been proven to not exist, where in the sky is this "kingdom?" We've been in the sky, and beyond, and found nothing.
The phrase, changed the wording, was used in a metaphoric sense, dummy.

At least within the dogma of religion the poor, the prostitute, the workingman, the scholar can become the saint. But within the confines of science, mankind is stripped of altruism and self - determination, his drives forever predetermined by genetic coding and neurotic conditioning.

The survival of the fittest theory is science's grandest example of amoral posturing. Compassion and sympathy not only went out of style, their expression was considered evidence of duplicity.

Encouraged by Freudian delusions and still operating under evolution's false premise [survival of the fittest] western civilization is faced with a thematic situation in which no individual is trustworthy but is automatically biologically geared to undertake any course to ensure survival. Survival of the fittest has mutated into might makes right. The arms race and destructive nuclear devices became necessary because we now believe we belong to a species that kills to survive. A species that lacks the grace of the natural world, while retaining an overly exaggerated beastliness, projected by science as man's natural state of existence. As a result of this lack of morality, the human animal is spreading his killer genes through the use of technology. Sadly, the natural world and its ecosystems have become fair game. This is science's amoral legacy. This is your god.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#65560 Dec 5, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Go read your book of talking snakes, talking donkeys, unicorns, giants and slavery. It has all the answers you need.
<quoted text>
For an atheist, you seem to be obsessed with the bible. You bring it up more often than your proponents. Perhaps your time would be better spent figuring out the reason why.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65561 Dec 5, 2012
Wrathbone wrote:
<quoted text>
The phrase, changed the wording, was used in a metaphoric sense, dummy.
At least within the dogma of religion the poor, the prostitute, the workingman, the scholar can become the saint. But within the confines of science, mankind is stripped of altruism and self - determination, his drives forever predetermined by genetic coding and neurotic conditioning.
The survival of the fittest theory is science's grandest example of amoral posturing. Compassion and sympathy not only went out of style, their expression was considered evidence of duplicity.
Encouraged by Freudian delusions and still operating under evolution's false premise [survival of the fittest] western civilization is faced with a thematic situation in which no individual is trustworthy but is automatically biologically geared to undertake any course to ensure survival. Survival of the fittest has mutated into might makes right. The arms race and destructive nuclear devices became necessary because we now believe we belong to a species that kills to survive. A species that lacks the grace of the natural world, while retaining an overly exaggerated beastliness, projected by science as man's natural state of existence. As a result of this lack of morality, the human animal is spreading his killer genes through the use of technology. Sadly, the natural world and its ecosystems have become fair game. This is science's amoral legacy. This is your god.
You call me a "dummy" then you pull the old "metaphor" canard, which is nothing more than the "context" canard really. Then you go and completely twist logic and reality to justify your ill-conceived notions. Without religion, everyone makes their own destiny, purpose, and reason, they are determined beneficial or detrimental based on their actions only. Your religion is the one taking away their right to choose, by force feeding them a destiny, purpose, and reason. It's religion that destroys the will, it's religion that drains one of purpose, it drains one of self fulfillment, it destroys a person's self image by turning them into a shell, making them believe that they are incapable of accomplishing anything, making them fear everyone and anything that is different. It's nothing more than a justification for acts of destruction and violence, that is what religion is.
barefoot2662

Tulsa, OK

#65562 Dec 5, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet, no one has proven that consciousness exists beyond the brain, we can trace consciousness in the brain, so where's your evidence that it exists outside of the physical brain?
When the brain dies, the consciousness ends. NO spirit, no soul, no light, nothing.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#65563 Dec 5, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You call me a "dummy" then you pull the old "metaphor" canard, which is nothing more than the "context" canard really. Then you go and completely twist logic and reality to justify your ill-conceived notions. Without religion, everyone makes their own destiny, purpose, and reason, they are determined beneficial or detrimental based on their actions only.
An eye for an eye? I blast your god, you blast mine, or what you think is mine. In many ways, you are quite religious.

Reality creation involves a study of consciousness. Without that knowledge you will have no control over what you experience. Your environment is the physical picture of your thoughts, emotions and beliefs made visible. You are the living picture of yourself. You project what you think you are outward into flesh. Your feelings, you conscious and unconscious thoughts, all alter and form your physical image. This is fairly easy for you to understand. It is not so easy, however, to realize that your feelings and thoughts form your exterior experience in the same way, or that the events that appear to happen to you are initiated by you within your mental or psychic inner environment.

I am not a bible thumping fundie, nor am I a clueless atheist. You simply must stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with science is religious.

Modern science rightly rebelled against the excesses, exaggerations and superstitions of religion and against a rigid system of beliefs that encouraged man to interpret the natural world only in the light of his religious dogmas. Yet science went overboard to prove itself, adopting many of religion's authoritative characteristics and denying the existence of any phenomenon [consciousness] that is not observable according to its own set of limited measurements, or does not agree with its basic theories.

Science claims it seeks the truth, but the literal interpretation of physical reality is as limiting as the literal interpretation of the bible!

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65564 Dec 5, 2012
Wrathbone wrote:
<quoted text>
An eye for an eye? I blast your god, you blast mine, or what you think is mine. In many ways, you are quite religious.
Reality creation involves a study of consciousness. Without that knowledge you will have no control over what you experience. Your environment is the physical picture of your thoughts, emotions and beliefs made visible. You are the living picture of yourself. You project what you think you are outward into flesh. Your feelings, you conscious and unconscious thoughts, all alter and form your physical image. This is fairly easy for you to understand. It is not so easy, however, to realize that your feelings and thoughts form your exterior experience in the same way, or that the events that appear to happen to you are initiated by you within your mental or psychic inner environment.
I am not a bible thumping fundie, nor am I a clueless atheist. You simply must stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with science is religious.
Modern science rightly rebelled against the excesses, exaggerations and superstitions of religion and against a rigid system of beliefs that encouraged man to interpret the natural world only in the light of his religious dogmas. Yet science went overboard to prove itself, adopting many of religion's authoritative characteristics and denying the existence of any phenomenon [consciousness] that is not observable according to its own set of limited measurements, or does not agree with its basic theories.
Science claims it seeks the truth, but the literal interpretation of physical reality is as limiting as the literal interpretation of the bible!
I don't have any gods, sorry, try again.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#65565 Dec 5, 2012
Independent wrote:
<quoted text>You should really try to explain how a human eye or any eye evolved. It is so complex and irreducible complexity comes to mind here. What came first? The brain or the eye? Can't have one without the other for evolution to succeed. They have to continually 'evolve' together and the species needs to not become extinct for the concept of vision to prosper. Then you have the issue of different classes of creatures, whom are not even related, also "evolving" vision. The odds are astronomical, there fore we are all created by a creator. Evolution has the same chance of becoming, as a tornado tearing through a junkyard and when everything has settled, there is a Boeing 747 airliner, full of jet fuel, waiting for a pilot. A beautiful butterfly in all it's grandeur , requires a creator, as does an intricate pocket watch. Life cannot simply evolve because with time anything is possible, if that were the case, then the planets in our solar system that are not gaseous, would have had some sort of life thriving on each and everyone of them, but as far as we know, they don't.
You are just copying talking points from creation "science" web sites.
If something complex requires a creator, then who created the creator?

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#65566 Dec 5, 2012
I sense a special pleading argument along the lines of, God exists outside of time and space!
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
You are just copying talking points from creation "science" web sites.
If something complex requires a creator, then who created the creator?
John

United States

#65567 Dec 6, 2012
It's safe to assume today will pass without one antitheist willing to debate the evidences of their ???? vs my something. A forum about nothing LOL. What loons!

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#65568 Dec 6, 2012
John, I'm willing to debate. Still.
1. If god exists, there is evidence of his existence.
2. There is no evidence of his existence.
3. There is no god.

We've yet to deal with point one.
Do you think it's possible for god to exist, yet there be no evidence of his existence?

A simple yes or no question. At this point we aren't dealing with what that evidence would be, or even if the evidence exists.

Stump John, ask him to debate. Again.
Lucy greyxx

UK

#65569 Dec 6, 2012
Obama making rasist remarks secret camra http://youtu.be/oH6W4sGKxqs

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65570 Dec 6, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
John, I'm willing to debate. Still.
1. If god exists, there is evidence of his existence.
2. There is no evidence of his existence.
3. There is no god.
We've yet to deal with point one.
Do you think it's possible for god to exist, yet there be no evidence of his existence?
A simple yes or no question. At this point we aren't dealing with what that evidence would be, or even if the evidence exists.
Stump John, ask him to debate. Again.
He won't answer, he's SchlockofGod junior. Say something, then whoever disagrees he claims is wrong without ever presenting any evidence, then declares victory. It's a symptom of all delusions.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#65571 Dec 6, 2012
It's a hilarious collection of myths thanks.
Wrathbone wrote:
<quoted text>
For an atheist, you seem to be obsessed with the bible. You bring it up more often than your proponents. Perhaps your time would be better spent figuring out the reason why.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65572 Dec 6, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing is random, least of all consciousness which is far more mobile than you will ever comprehend. You are wrong. You are both here and there. We are all multidimensional. There are channels of interrelatedness, connecting all physical matter - channels through which consciousness flows.
Nice claims. Any evidence?
The physical sciences pretend that the centuries exist one after another, while physicists realize that all events are simultaneous.
False.
Archeologists merrily contine to date the remains of "past" civilizations, never asking themselves if the past they record is the one relative to their point of perception.
Simply delusional.
There is more in heaven and earth, Gomer, than is dreamt of in your feeble philosophy.
All too true. But your delusions are not part of it.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65573 Dec 6, 2012
postscript wrote:
<quoted text>
You atheists are a riot. You revere scientists, but only when they agree with your half-baked unsubstantiated notions.
No, actually, we revere observation, data, and testable hypotheses. A scientist gets status only to the extent that they can either provide data or explanations for the data. The goal is to figure out the truth no matter what it might be. That is done through observation, making hypotheses and testing those hypotheses: in other words, the scientific method.

YOU, on the other hand, simply want to prove your viewpoint is true. You misquote people to support your points. You falsify data to support your points. You ignore evidence that disproves your point. And you refuse to actually understand the facts that show your point is wrong. In the case above, you misquoted a scientist, taking his comments out of context and twisting them in a way that makes it look like the scientist supports your viewpoint, when in fact, he does not. The full story shows you are a liar that refuses to admit when you are wrong. For scientists, that is wrong. For religionists, that is simply apologetics.

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 Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Teaman 1,190,189
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 6 min Agents of Corruption 312,494
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 7 min Jay 171,762
Terri Schiavo's Painful Deprivation of Food and... (Mar '09) 15 min hornback12 1,198
How Should the US Government Respond to ISIS? 23 min Willothewisp 2,857
Scott Walker has no college degree. That's norm... 31 min Fortunate Son 1968 1,770
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 32 min Belle Sexton 57,800
Giuliani explains why Obama doesn't love America 1 hr Fortunate Son 1968 503
More from around the web