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.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65864 Dec 13, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Reality is what we take to be true.
What we take to be true is what we believe.
What we believe is based upon our perceptions.
What we perceive depends upon what we look for.
What we look for depends upon what we think.
What we think depends upon what we perceive.
What we perceive determines what we believe.
What we believe determines what we take to be true.
What we take to be true is our reality.
Essentially all of these statements are fundamentally wrong. How do I know? We can be surprised. In fact, there have been many times in the history of science qwhere the prevailing view was that an experiment would go one way and it, in fact, went the other. In fact, this is exactly how science is done: we actually look at the real world and let that determine what we regard as true or false. And often the real world simply doesn't agree with our intuitions.
Be an atheist - that's your choice. Legitimize your decision with science - that's also your choice. But if you are truly interested in expanding your version of reality, the only way to start is by considering other points of view - other perceptions.
I am interested in the truth. If that means I should 'expand my version of reality, then I will'. But that is done when the *evidence* says so, not when I get warm fuzzies from an idea.

It may surprise you that at one time I had 6 different 'systems of reality' that I looked at everything through. They ranged from solipsism to an intricate one where there were seven layers of spiritual reality. Eventually I realized that without basing my system on evidence, it was all essentiually mental masturbation. Maybe, eventually, you will realize that also.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65865 Dec 13, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Essentially all of these statements are fundamentally wrong. How do I know? We can be surprised. In fact, there have been many times in the history of science qwhere the prevailing view was that an experiment would go one way and it, in fact, went the other. In fact, this is exactly how science is done: we actually look at the real world and let that determine what we regard as true or false. And often the real world simply doesn't agree with our intuitions.
<quoted text>
I am interested in the truth. If that means I should 'expand my version of reality, then I will'. But that is done when the *evidence* says so, not when I get warm fuzzies from an idea.
It may surprise you that at one time I had 6 different 'systems of reality' that I looked at everything through. They ranged from solipsism to an intricate one where there were seven layers of spiritual reality. Eventually I realized that without basing my system on evidence, it was all essentiually mental masturbation. Maybe, eventually, you will realize that also.
Perhaps you will realize that the real world is an illusion. A camouflage - a manifestation of the greater reality within it. The physical senses are attuned to perceive only the illusion. To sense the greater reality within requires a different sort of attention, and more delicate manipulations than the physical senses provide.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65866 Dec 13, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
Perhaps you will realize that the real world is an illusion. A camouflage - a manifestation of the greater reality within it.
What evidence do you have for a "greater reality"?

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#65867 Dec 13, 2012
The old last microwave ghost told him :))
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
What evidence do you have for a "greater reality"?
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65868 Dec 13, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
What evidence do you have for a "greater reality"?
The evidence you expect must be experienced.

You are like one of many people living in New York city for years who never take a tour of the Empire State Building. YOu have a physical address, but you ignore what is essentially a strange and miraculous psychic and psychological structure within you own system of reality. Take the tour.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65869 Dec 13, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you will realize that the real world is an illusion. A camouflage - a manifestation of the greater reality within it. The physical senses are attuned to perceive only the illusion. To sense the greater reality within requires a different sort of attention, and more delicate manipulations than the physical senses provide.
Yes, I am familiar with that viewpoint also. I even saw it as plausible for a while. Then I realized I was just playing with myself.
John

Kansas City, KS

#65870 Dec 13, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
What evidences are those?
You haven't identified any yet.
When you are done going on and on and on about your nothing let me know. It's impossible to debate your illogical nothing and I know you have no intention of attempting to.

Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65871 Dec 13, 2012
What evidence do you have for a "greater reality"?
postscriptt wrote:
The evidence you expect must be experienced.
So you admit that there is zero *objective* evidence for a "greater reality"?

How exactly do you distinguish between your *subjective* evidence and a vivid imagination?
postscriptt wrote:
You are like one of many people living in New York city for years who never take a tour of the Empire State Building.
There are videos and photos of the Empire State Building. Objective evidence.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65872 Dec 13, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
You are barking up the wrong tree. None of the above has anything to do with altered states of consciousness. Mediumship is a fascinating and provocative subject for it touches upon essential questions about the human mind. A medium, or a sensitive can enter voluntarily into one of these states without the use of surgery or drugs, and can at the same time maintain a communication line to the external world.
Still hitting that metaphysical bong, I see. "Mediums" in the form of psychic phenomena? I know a bit about. They aren't real, and yes, it's all a scam.

"Altered states of consciousness," you mean getting high, that's fully explainable in neurology.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65873 Dec 13, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
The evidence you expect must be experienced.
You are like one of many people living in New York city for years who never take a tour of the Empire State Building. YOu have a physical address, but you ignore what is essentially a strange and miraculous psychic and psychological structure within you own system of reality. Take the tour.
Yes, we know of the scams already, we just aren't stupid enough to buy them.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65874 Dec 13, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I am familiar with that viewpoint also. I even saw it as plausible for a while. Then I realized I was just playing with myself.
It takes practice and diligence to develop the skills necessary to venture inward. I can see why you adopted scientific dogma instead. It's easier to have someone tell you what to believe.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65875 Dec 13, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, we know of the scams already, we just aren't stupid enough to buy them.
But you are stupid enough to be unwitting hypocrites. Conventional science arose out of a religious world filled with "witchcraft". It began as a protection from, and a defense against some of the mysteries of the natural world. It has since found itself denying the realities it was designed to tame. It worships skepticism, until skepticism is applied to its hypotheses, procedures, or methods, that is. Hypocrisy.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65876 Dec 13, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
It takes practice and diligence to develop the skills necessary to venture inward. I can see why you adopted scientific dogma instead. It's easier to have someone tell you what to believe.
"Skills?" Junkies in the shelters get the exact same insights you posit.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65877 Dec 13, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
But you are stupid enough to be unwitting hypocrites. Conventional science arose out of a religious world filled with "witchcraft". It began as a protection from, and a defense against some of the mysteries of the natural world. It has since found itself denying the realities it was designed to tame. It worships skepticism, until skepticism is applied to its hypotheses, procedures, or methods, that is. Hypocrisy.
No, it was actually organized by the Catholic church as a way to determine false claims of "miracles" and such as what you are posting. There was never any magic as you are hinting at here, and that is why the Catholics support scientific research a lot today, even if they don't like the results. It was organized to weed out confirmation bias, falsified data, and instinctual alterations to the findings. It got us to the moon, created computers, allows us to fly, and a slew of other things, all done within 200 years, that's how old the scientific method is. In that short time it has opened our eyes to possibilities we never dreamed of, even in your drug induced haze you cannot come close to I, Robot (the book).
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65878 Dec 13, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Still hitting that metaphysical bong, I see. "Mediums" in the form of psychic phenomena? I know a bit about. They aren't real, and yes, it's all a scam.
"Altered states of consciousness," you mean getting high, that's fully explainable in neurology.
You like to refer to yourself as intelligent but you can't explain why you can think at all.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65879 Dec 13, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
"Skills?" Junkies in the shelters get the exact same insights you posit.
Junkies in shelters have more humanity than your god science acknowledges. In that respect, they are light years ahead of you.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65880 Dec 13, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
What evidence do you have for a "greater reality"?
How exactly do you distinguish between your *subjective* evidence and a vivid imagination?
If you have traveled the path inward, you wouldn't have to ask that question.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65881 Dec 13, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
You like to refer to yourself as intelligent but you can't explain why you can think at all.
Actually, I can' as do many neurologists who I have talked to, developing AI requires a bit more understanding of the brain than working in a Burger King like you. Thinking is a result of chemical reactions within the organ called the brain, which is a collection of stable cells called neurons. These neurons process information much like our computers, but with a slightly more dynamic thread system that we cannot, as of yet, emulate perfectly in digital formats. The neurons, when starting out, all contain random weights, values, as one path of neurons results in positive results those weights increase accordingly, when they result in negative results they decrease accordingly. The scale of how much of an increase or decrease occurs is based on the total response of the complete complex organism, each cell is itself and organism you see. For example, a sociopath brain will not weigh in emotional responses, while an empathic brain will always weigh them in. A balanced brain weighs them in when appropriate. Then when the same situation arises the brain fires a shot through the neural pathways, the weights of each "guide" the direction of that information to, what it hopes, is the best resulting neurons to produce a response for the complex organism. Because the brain is a learning engine, these responses are not always going to result in desirable, or accurate, reactions, however, because it is a learning engine it adapts, should the complex organism survive.

Anymore stupid questions?
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65882 Dec 13, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it was actually organized by the Catholic church as a way to determine false claims of "miracles" and such as what you are posting. There was never any magic as you are hinting at here, and that is why the Catholics support scientific research a lot today, even if they don't like the results. It was organized to weed out confirmation bias, falsified data, and instinctual alterations to the findings. It got us to the moon, created computers, allows us to fly, and a slew of other things, all done within 200 years, that's how old the scientific method is. In that short time it has opened our eyes to possibilities we never dreamed of, even in your drug induced haze you cannot come close to I, Robot (the book).
You mean biased confirmation don't you? Only the deluded would beleive we come from chaos, are ascending via "survival of the fittest" to reach a utopia of our own making which includes computers, airplanes and trips to the moon. Zowie!
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65883 Dec 13, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I can' as do many neurologists who I have talked to, developing AI requires a bit more understanding of the brain than working in a Burger King like you. Thinking is a result of chemical reactions within the organ called the brain, which is a collection of stable cells called neurons. These neurons process information much like our computers, but with a slightly more dynamic thread system that we cannot, as of yet, emulate perfectly in digital formats. The neurons, when starting out, all contain random weights, values, as one path of neurons results in positive results those weights increase accordingly, when they result in negative results they decrease accordingly. The scale of how much of an increase or decrease occurs is based on the total response of the complete complex organism, each cell is itself and organism you see. For example, a sociopath brain will not weigh in emotional responses, while an empathic brain will always weigh them in. A balanced brain weighs them in when appropriate. Then when the same situation arises the brain fires a shot through the neural pathways, the weights of each "guide" the direction of that information to, what it hopes, is the best resulting neurons to produce a response for the complex organism. Because the brain is a learning engine, these responses are not always going to result in desirable, or accurate, reactions, however, because it is a learning engine it adapts, should the complex organism survive.
Anymore stupid questions?
Spare me the pretense. Your knowledge about anything extends only as far as you are able to Google.

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 7 min Eagle 12 239,057
News Phil Robertson talks against Atheists 8 hr thetruth 101
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 9 hr thetruth 7,272
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 9 hr thetruth 7,448
why Atheists believe in incest,pedophilia and b... Thu thetruth 29
News .com | What hope is there without God? May 20 Kaitlin the Wolf ... 26
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) May 20 thetruth 2,171
More from around the web