Atheists on the march in America

Atheists on the march in America

There are 70645 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.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#65970 Dec 15, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Interesting, but I was thinking of one not caused by the individual experiencing it.
Ok, now I am confused
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#65971 Dec 15, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
No, you didn't. You identified no process for distinguishing between you claimed "evidence" and the products of a vivid imagination.
If you can't distinguish them, then nobody else has any reason to accept your claim
<quoted text>
You didn't answer the question, since you didn't identify any reliable process for distinguishing between your "subjective evidence" and the output of a vivid imagination.
<quoted text>
Suppose that you answer the question that you were asked.
<quoted text>
And this "different fashion" is what, exactly? The "another direction" is where, exactly?
<quoted text>
We weren't discussing intuition. We were discussing how you distinguish "subjective evidence" from the products of a vivid imagination.
So far you've identified no method for distinguishing them.
Subjective evidence can only be intuited or felt. You are making distinctions where none exist because you insist on viewing subjective knowledge as imaginary.

Since everything in your world must be defined and testable in physical terms before you can accept it as real, then I can see how things like intuition, revelation and inspiration would be viewed as figments of the imagination. Yet poets, artists, musicians, psychics etc. who rely on inner insight to express their creativity would take such a proposition as nothing more than the babble of a prosaic weirdo whose expectations rob his world of wonder. As a hardcore materialist, you inadvertently create a self imposed prison where you must live estranged from your own subjective reality.

When the existence of the psyche cannot be a scientific hypothesis then the scientist is forced to ignore his own nature.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#65972 Dec 15, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Subjective evidence can only be intuited or felt. You are making distinctions where none exist because you insist on viewing subjective knowledge as imaginary.
Since everything in your world must be defined and testable in physical terms before you can accept it as real, then I can see how things like intuition, revelation and inspiration would be viewed as figments of the imagination....
"Are there things in the Universe that we cannot know in the usual way of observing and measuring, but that we can know in some other way -- intuition, revelation, mad insight?

If so, how can you know that what you know in these non-knowing ways is really so?

Anything you know without knowing, others can know only through your flat statement without any proof other than 'I know!'

All this leads to such madness that I, for one, am content with the knowable. That is enough to know."

~ Isaac Asimov

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65973 Dec 15, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
Subjective evidence can only be intuited or felt. You are making distinctions where none exist because you insist on viewing subjective knowledge as imaginary.
I'm insisting that you have yet to identify any method to distinguish between what is imaginary and what is evidence.

When can you identify that method?

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#65974 Dec 15, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Ok, now I am confused
I had one that was not induced by meditation, drugs or trauma.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#65975 Dec 15, 2012
Well no but he can give long winded insults desperately trying to redirect you from the question.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm insisting that you have yet to identify any method to distinguish between what is imaginary and what is evidence.
When can you identify that method?

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#65976 Dec 15, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know anything about James, or the JREF.
Most of the money in the pot now is from donations, from people like me, who actually want to see something paranormal. We've been to all the graveyards, and "haunted" locations, seen no evidence of anything paranormal at all. We've been to psychic but because of being too observant we see through their guise. So, we increase the pot.
All tests are agreed on by the participants, who actually do design a lot of the tests themselves. which is rather ironic. If they were truly psychic or there was something paranormal, then there is more than a minimal amount of success in any situation. Something that is real can be repeated, with almost identical results each time, unless it's all based on chance, in which case, that's not paranormal, that's just chance.
Though I admire Randi, there is a major problem with the way his challenge is designed. He (and/or his organization) is the sole judge of the pre-qualifying test, and he has a million dollars on the line. More than a bit of conflict of interest. A person could lift a table with the power of their mind as claimed, and Randi could just say, "No, you didn't." (I don't believe anybody can, I'm just illustrating my point.)

I was going to try out for the challenge, I don't have any paranormal abilities, I wanted to show that EFT (Emotional Freedom Technique) works. He was impossible to deal with, and just ended up blocking my emails as I was trying to see if EFT would qualify, and attempting to design a test.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65977 Dec 15, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a mouth piece for science - eager to give its theories lip service although badly I might add. And now you think James Randi is a prophet and Wikipedia, the Bible! You are a misquided atheist zealot asleep in your own catatonic ignorance.
So, where did I say that? I just posted one of the sources to disprove your idiotic assertions.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65978 Dec 15, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Though I admire Randi, there is a major problem with the way his challenge is designed. He (and/or his organization) is the sole judge of the pre-qualifying test, and he has a million dollars on the line. More than a bit of conflict of interest. A person could lift a table with the power of their mind as claimed, and Randi could just say, "No, you didn't." (I don't believe anybody can, I'm just illustrating my point.)
I was going to try out for the challenge, I don't have any paranormal abilities, I wanted to show that EFT (Emotional Freedom Technique) works. He was impossible to deal with, and just ended up blocking my emails as I was trying to see if EFT would qualify, and attempting to design a test.
Actually, all these tests are performed for the public if the person attempting them wishes, if not then, and only then, are they done without witnesses. James himself no longer controls the pot either, he uses the gimmick "I have the check right here" because it's like a catch phrase now. In reality the JREF actually signs the check now, James' only real contribution anymore is a pretty face and a soft voice to present stuff, as well as being the genius to think up this idea of finding something that is truly paranormal, filtering out the scam artists.

People get angry with him for the same reason they get angry with the POTUS, he's the face of the organization. But being a great showman he doesn't mind, it's something he is use to, hecklers are part of entertainer's life, making him the perfect spokesperson to keep as long as he's willing to keep it up.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65979 Dec 15, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Subjective evidence can only be intuited or felt. You are making distinctions where none exist because you insist on viewing subjective knowledge as imaginary.
Since everything in your world must be defined and testable in physical terms before you can accept it as real, then I can see how things like intuition, revelation and inspiration would be viewed as figments of the imagination. Yet poets, artists, musicians, psychics etc. who rely on inner insight to express their creativity would take such a proposition as nothing more than the babble of a prosaic weirdo whose expectations rob his world of wonder. As a hardcore materialist, you inadvertently create a self imposed prison where you must live estranged from your own subjective reality.
When the existence of the psyche cannot be a scientific hypothesis then the scientist is forced to ignore his own nature.
Subjective evidence is based entirely on opinion, that is why it is not a good determination of what is reality, that is why scientific research only accepts objective evidence. That is also why real skeptics only accept objective evidence. Just because someone claims it's so, doesn't make it so, or every little girl would have a pony.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65980 Dec 15, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't answer the question, or I didn't give you the physical evidence you seem to need?
Suppose (and I am using my imagination here) that you stood in one spot all of your physical life because you were told that you must. You would only be able to see what was directly in front of you. Your periphearal vision would give you hints of what was to each side and you might hear sounds from behind you. If you were to turn you body to the right or left, you would not be imagining it, but simply changing your position in an effort to expand your over-all view. It's the same with consciousness. You simply use it in a different fashion and focus it in another direction to expand your awareness. What you perceive will not be seen of course, but felt through impressions. But again if you can't accept intuition as a reliable source of information, then nothing you intuit will seem real.
Well, we *know* that intuition is not a reliable source of information. That has been shown repeatedly.
Einstein often said that if he was a better mathematician, he would not have made the breakthroughs he did. He knew the dogmas of the science would have interfered with his natural ability to identify with various functions of the universe. He would not have been able to listen to the inner voice of matter. He was intuitively and emotionally led to his discoveries. He "leaned" against time and FELT it give and wobble. As I said before, he was a true mental physicist - a bold explorer - not just picking at the universe with small tools, but allowing his consciousness to flow into many open doors that cannot be examined with instruments, but only with the mind.
Einstein was human. He had incredibly good intuition, but he was far from perfect in his intuition. He was wrong about the universe being static, he was wrong about the cosmological constant, he was wrong about quantum mechanics. But he was right about special relativity, he was right about the photoelectric effect, and he was right about general relativity.

You win some and you lose some when it comes to intuition. Einstein won many times, but he also lost many times.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65981 Dec 15, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Subjective evidence can only be intuited or felt. You are making distinctions where none exist because you insist on viewing subjective knowledge as imaginary.
'Subjective evidence' is self-contradictory and 'subjective knowledge' is usually called *opinion*.
Since everything in your world must be defined and testable in physical terms before you can accept it as real, then I can see how things like intuition, revelation and inspiration would be viewed as figments of the imagination.
Yes, exactly. Figments of the imagination. Now, such figments are very important as the source of ideas to be tested, but they are not, in themselves reliable.
Yet poets, artists, musicians, psychics etc. who rely on inner insight to express their creativity would take such a proposition as nothing more than the babble of a prosaic weirdo whose expectations rob his world of wonder. As a hardcore materialist, you inadvertently create a self imposed prison where you must live estranged from your own subjective reality.
Why do you say that? I like literature, art, and music. I admire those who can create these things out of thin air. But I also don't consider fiction to be fact. Being able to make up fun ideas is a gift, but it is different than attempting to understand reality.
When the existence of the psyche cannot be a scientific hypothesis then the scientist is forced to ignore his own nature.
Why would you think the psyche cannot be tested? Ever hear of a PET scan?
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#65982 Dec 15, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm insisting that you have yet to identify any method to distinguish between what is imaginary and what is evidence.
When can you identify that method?
When you stop being as dumb as a box of rocks. Think you can manage that?
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#65983 Dec 15, 2012
"Nothing is so dangerous to the progress of the human mind than to assume that our views of science are ultimate, that there are no mysteries in nature, that our triumphs are complete and that there are no new worlds to conquer." - Humphry Davy

Ideas about waht is or isn't possible is reflected in both your private realities and the reality at large. The ideas that there is only one isolated universe, one self at the mercy of its past and one time sequence are examples of obstacles that prevent an expanded comprehension of what actually is. Not only does science suffer as a result of this sort of myopia, but your daily experience as a human being is far less than it could be.

Of the many states of "altered" consciousness including normal sleep and hypnosis, the most valuable is mediumship for it is in this state of consciousness that subjective reality can be investigated while one is "awake" and able to communicate. The self induction of a trance like state is preferable because it is relatively free of pathological conditions often produced by drugs, disease (coma) and hypnosis. Each person possesses and can develop his own extrasensory abilities. You can become your own medium so to speak, but first you must stop thinking of yourself as a physical creature bound by space and time - trapped in a universe where nothing exists unless it's physical and where communication with other dimensions and realities is impossible.

Edgar Cayce was able to tap into a virtually unlimited amount of information which he called the "Universal Mind". Another dimension of consciousness is called the "Akashic record" and has been the exclusive domain of mystics, scholars and saints for centuries. Neither of these experiential dimensions of wisdom, insight, guidance and healing are off limits to ordinary people unless they blind side themselves with beliefs in the impossible.
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#65984 Dec 15, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would you think the psyche cannot be tested? Ever hear of a PET scan?
How pray tell, would one produce a "three dimensional image" of something that is not physical? LOL!

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#65985 Dec 15, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
'Subjective evidence' is self-contradictory and 'subjective knowledge' is usually called *opinion*.
<quoted text>
Yes, exactly. Figments of the imagination. Now, such figments are very important as the source of ideas to be tested, but they are not, in themselves reliable.
<quoted text>
Why do you say that? I like literature, art, and music. I admire those who can create these things out of thin air. But I also don't consider fiction to be fact. Being able to make up fun ideas is a gift, but it is different than attempting to understand reality.
<quoted text>
Why would you think the psyche cannot be tested? Ever hear of a PET scan?
So emotion is not a fact in your world? There is nothing fictional about a song or painting or a poem that can move a person emotionally unless he is a psychopath and can't feel anything.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65986 Dec 15, 2012
I'm insisting that you have yet to identify any method to distinguish between what is imaginary and what is evidence.
When can you identify that method?
postscriptt wrote:
When you stop being as dumb as a box of rocks. Think you can manage that?
Translation: You're unable to answer the question, so you resort to childish insult.

No surprise.
postscriptt

Albuquerque, NM

#65987 Dec 15, 2012
Wrathbone wrote:
<quoted text>
So emotion is not a fact in your world? There is nothing fictional about a song or painting or a poem that can move a person emotionally unless he is a psychopath and can't feel anything.
I don't think the pilgrim is psychopathic, but I do know based on his comments that he's totally clueless about the creative process. I'm not sure if he's being deliberately obtuse, or if his pedestrian ideas render him incapable of perceiving anything beyond his five senses.

As an artist I can tell you that we are naturally philosophical. We spend a lot of time thinking about, delving into, trying to understand the very things that people like the pilgrim ignore. We are assailed by emotions that come from all over the place - from the sky, the earth, a scrap of paper in the street, a passing shadow, transient images. We have a heightened awareness of life that is never complacent - never content. We sense the raw truths of reality. I call it divine discontent - a state that is the source of artistic energy. Intuitively, we artists know that true creativity involves letting go of old concepts, opening oneself to new impressions, thus allowing inspiration to flow freely.

Since: Mar 11

Cuyahoga Falls, OH

#65988 Dec 15, 2012
I was touched when Mufasa died, but that doesn't mean I buy that he will speak to me from the clouds and if someone said Mufasa spoke to them from the clouds I would seriously question their judgement.
Wrathbone wrote:
<quoted text>
So emotion is not a fact in your world? There is nothing fictional about a song or painting or a poem that can move a person emotionally unless he is a psychopath and can't feel anything.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65989 Dec 16, 2012
Wrathbone wrote:
<quoted text>
So emotion is not a fact in your world? There is nothing fictional about a song or painting or a poem that can move a person emotionally unless he is a psychopath and can't feel anything.
Yes, emotions are facts and we could study how various emotions are caused by various physical things/processes like music, art, etc. But feeling that something is true does not make it true. Finding something moving doesn't make it important to anyone else.

There is a difference between fact and opinion. Facts are publicly verifiable; opinions are internal.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 min Science 78,476
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Science 32,431
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 3 hr Eagle 12 - 1,314
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... Aug 12 Eagle 12 - 1,152
what science will NEVER be able to prove Aug 11 Eagle 12 - 5
News What Ever Happened to the New Atheists?by Ellio... Aug 7 nanoanomaly 1
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
More from around the web