Atheists on the march in America

Atheists on the march in America

There are 70634 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.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#66266 Dec 23, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
From wiki - Dark matter is a type of matter hypothesized to account for a large part of the total mass in the universe. It's existence and properties are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe.
Do words like hypothesized and inferred make facts in your world? Dark matter is an inferential supposition based on speculation, and not all physicists agree with the idea.
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/120417...
Your information is out of date. Alternative theories (such as modified gravity) have failed to explain the observations that separate dark matter effects from the distribution of matter.

Yes, its existence and distribution is inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter. We infer the location of things from effects on light all the time. The difference is minimal. The main question right now is not the existence of dark matter, but what it is made of.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#66267 Dec 23, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
From wiki - Dark matter is a type of matter hypothesized to account for a large part of the total mass in the universe. It's existence and properties are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe.
Do words like hypothesized and inferred make facts in your world? Dark matter is an inferential supposition based on speculation, and not all physicists agree with the idea.
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/120417...
More specifically, the link you gave is reporting on a paper that has been shown to be inaccurate in its assumptions:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4033

When the *correct* analysis is done, dark matter is found in the expected amounts.

From the abstract:
"Using the approximation that the circular velocity curve is flat in the mid-plane, we find that the data imply a local dark-matter density of 0.008 +/- 0.003 Msun/pc^3 = 0.3 +/- 0.1 GeV/cm3, fully consistent with standard estimates of this quantity. This is the most robust direct measurement of the local dark-matter density to date. "
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66268 Dec 23, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So, something exists there, we give it a label, and somehow you think that just because we are working out what that "dark matter" is, means that it "might not exist."
By Jove, I think you've got it! Remove dark matter and insert Intelligent Design and read your post again. I realize it's one of those "trigger" words that cause atheist folks to seize up like a bull's arse in January, but try it anyway.

You use Wikipedia quite freely as a source to support your comments, but let an opponent do the same and Wikipedia suddenly becomes untrustworthy and questionable. Now why is that? ;)
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66269 Dec 23, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
So if you believe in God, you're not claiming that God exists?
Seriously?
I don't accept the Christian version of God. There are many versions of diety by the way, become acquainted with the different models.
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66270 Dec 23, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not speciation. That is producing new phyla, which won't happen in the time periods you are talking about. You have a mistaken idea of what is required by evolution. That leads to mistaken criticisms of the theory. You also have a hugely mistaken idea of what 'new forms' means and how they come about.
I am more inclined to believe that you are one of science's apologists dedicated to finding different ways to exculpate its many contradictions and inconsistencies.
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66271 Dec 23, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your information is out of date.
Out of date and inaccurate, or just contrary to your point of view? I notice you tend to rely on this schtick when you are confronted with opposing scientific perspectives that challenge your own. If you refute the findings of scientists when they disagree, you can't expect the public to do any less with your interpretations. This is, after all, a public forum.
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66272 Dec 23, 2012
As a pantheist, a proponent of metaphysics and the natural spirituality of the human psyche, I can see how orthodox religion fails as an organized belief system, but I can also see how science is twice as vulnerable of falling into the same trap. Some of its unfortunate results threaten humankind with a physical destruction far more immediate than religion's threat of an afterlife hell. A possible holocaust that destroys the entire world seen as an "act of God" is one thing to the public - the same destruction brought on by the misuse of science is quite another. The public will undermine science in the most insidious ways before it will permit it to destroy the world it is supposed to be exploring. While science produces, mankind will enjoy the fruits of its labor, but let him decide that science has served its purposes, let him be convinced science serves only science and is willing to sacrifice even planetary life to satisfy bloated, neurotic appetites and the public will close off funds, foundations and grants with unbelievable swiftness. Science will find itself in the same shoes as modern orthodox religion - splintered, robbed of its fury, thunder and effectiveness.

The fallibility of science, as practiced, is becoming increasingly obvious to the public. Science cannot afford to go on inventing more sophisticated weapons of mass destruction, wantonly polluting the planet with its industrial technology, maiming and killing people with its dubious Pharma while divorcing itself from the study of moral values or the innate rights of human consciousness.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#66273 Dec 23, 2012
So if you believe in God, you're not claiming that God exists?
Seriously?
postscriptt wrote:
I don't accept the Christian version of God. There are many versions of diety by the way, become acquainted with the different models.
Since I didn't mention the Christian version of God, I fail to see how your statement addresses my question.

If you insist, however, I'll rephrase it.

If you believe in a version of deity, are you not claiming that your particular version of deity exists?

Yes or no?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66274 Dec 23, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
By Jove, I think you've got it! Remove dark matter and insert Intelligent Design and read your post again. I realize it's one of those "trigger" words that cause atheist folks to seize up like a bull's arse in January, but try it anyway.
You use Wikipedia quite freely as a source to support your comments, but let an opponent do the same and Wikipedia suddenly becomes untrustworthy and questionable. Now why is that? ;)
You are projecting, I don't use it that often, and wikipedia requires sources or marks the unsupported claims. Secondly, there is no evidence of any intelligence involved in the existence of our universe. When you find it, it would be of great interest, until then it is nothing but a baseless assertion, so try again.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66275 Dec 23, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
As a pantheist, a proponent of metaphysics and the natural spirituality of the human psyche, I can see how orthodox religion fails as an organized belief system, but I can also see how science is twice as vulnerable of falling into the same trap. Some of its unfortunate results threaten humankind with a physical destruction far more immediate than religion's threat of an afterlife hell. A possible holocaust that destroys the entire world seen as an "act of God" is one thing to the public - the same destruction brought on by the misuse of science is quite another. The public will undermine science in the most insidious ways before it will permit it to destroy the world it is supposed to be exploring. While science produces, mankind will enjoy the fruits of its labor, but let him decide that science has served its purposes, let him be convinced science serves only science and is willing to sacrifice even planetary life to satisfy bloated, neurotic appetites and the public will close off funds, foundations and grants with unbelievable swiftness. Science will find itself in the same shoes as modern orthodox religion - splintered, robbed of its fury, thunder and effectiveness.
The fallibility of science, as practiced, is becoming increasingly obvious to the public. Science cannot afford to go on inventing more sophisticated weapons of mass destruction, wantonly polluting the planet with its industrial technology, maiming and killing people with its dubious Pharma while divorcing itself from the study of moral values or the innate rights of human consciousness.
So instead of one doomsday myth, you buy into another. Demonstrate that the world is more dangerous or violent than ... well ... any point in known history. Go ahead, pick any point in history and show that it was more peaceful and safer than now. Dare you to try.
1 post removed
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66277 Dec 23, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
So if you believe in God, you're not claiming that God exists?
Seriously?
<quoted text>
Since I didn't mention the Christian version of God, I fail to see how your statement addresses my question.
If you insist, however, I'll rephrase it.
If you believe in a version of deity, are you not claiming that your particular version of deity exists?
Yes or no?
I am saying that I accept the idea.

Since: Mar 11

Portage, MI

#66278 Dec 23, 2012
Out of date and inaccurate.

Also the idea of dark matter comes from actual observations, whereas God the intelligent designer comes from starting at the answer and working backwards filling in any unknown with God done it!

Lmfao!
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Out of date and inaccurate, or just contrary to your point of view? I notice you tend to rely on this schtick when you are confronted with opposing scientific perspectives that challenge your own. If you refute the findings of scientists when they disagree, you can't expect the public to do any less with your interpretations. This is, after all, a public forum.
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66279 Dec 23, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So instead of one doomsday myth, you buy into another. Demonstrate that the world is more dangerous or violent than ... well ... any point in known history. Go ahead, pick any point in history and show that it was more peaceful and safer than now. Dare you to try.
Do you really expect to find examples of nonviolence when both science and religion (two systems of beliefs underpining civilization)condone violence?
1 post removed

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66281 Dec 23, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really expect to find examples of nonviolence when both science and religion (two systems of beliefs underpining civilization)condone violence?
No, I expect you to back up your claims with some evidence. Your inferred claim was that we are worse off today than .... well one could only assume another point in history, in spite of the fact that this is the most peaceful time, we live the longest, and most of us live pretty awesome lives as well. Compared to previous eras, this is literally the best time to be alive. So, back up your claims or learn to stop making them.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#66282 Dec 23, 2012
Strawman cuntard.
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really expect to find examples of nonviolence when both science and religion (two systems of beliefs underpining civilization)condone violence?
buckwheat

Tulsa, OK

#66283 Dec 23, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
As god-stuff incarnate we have been given all the tools necessary to create a sane and just society in which to live - not only privately but at large. God doesn't create the terrors and glories we experience during our physical existence, WE DO. And until we can accept that responsibility, we will go on encountering one heinous human created catastrophe after another. The next time you go to the WalMart, get a brain.
You're the one who believes in a fairy tale. If you truly think there is a god somewhere in space, you are the one who needs a brain. There is no god, no heaven and no afterlife. Grow the fcuk up. That crap was created to control the people and passed on to children who grew into simpletons such as yourself.

I don't understand how intelligent people, who could not be scammed out of their money by the best grifters, will willingly hand it over by the handful to someone who claims it is for god.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#66284 Dec 23, 2012
If you believe in a version of deity, are you not claiming that your particular version of deity exists?
Yes or no?
postscriptt wrote:
I am saying that I accept the idea.
Do you believe in a version of deity? Yes or no?

Do you claim that a version of deity exists? Yes or no?
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66285 Dec 23, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I expect you to back up your claims with some evidence. Your inferred claim was that we are worse off today than .... well one could only assume another point in history, in spite of the fact that this is the most peaceful time, we live the longest, and most of us live pretty awesome lives as well. Compared to previous eras, this is literally the best time to be alive. So, back up your claims or learn to stop making them.
That's rich! You come up with claims based on your own misinterpretations and I'm supposed to verify them? You crack me up!

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66286 Dec 23, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
That's rich! You come up with claims based on your own misinterpretations and I'm supposed to verify them? You crack me up!
So this looming apocalypse you implied was not your assertion? Therefore there is no increase in danger, pollutions, or threats of any sort. Good. Glad we agree on something.
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#66287 Dec 23, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So this looming apocalypse you implied was not your assertion? Therefore there is no increase in danger, pollutions, or threats of any sort. Good. Glad we agree on something.
As stated in my post, the calamity I see is the one awaiting science if it continues along its chosen course.

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
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 2 min Cheech the Conser... 388,135
News If Donald Trump Was President, Here's What Woul... (Oct '15) 3 min WasteWater 9,770
News News 28 Mins Ago 'Not the America we want': Oba... 4 min Synque 285
News Hillary Clinton wavers on Second Amendment righ... 6 min okimar 1,138
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 8 min BIBLE NEWS 1,395,428
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 10 min HILLARY 2016 228,612
News Trump's 'unlimited' wealth may not be enough to... 10 min Ross 53
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 26 min WasteWater 3,466
News African-Americans should start voting for Repub... 3 hr Democrat Hero 280
More from around the web