Atheists on the march in America

Aug 26, 2009 Full story: TurkishPress.com 70,983

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

Full Story

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#65858 Dec 13, 2012
You guys remember when that other idiot from New Jersey was puking out all that out of body experience, NDE's, microwave ghosts and all sorts of other goofy conspiracy theories?

Lmfao! What an idiot!
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.
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.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65859 Dec 13, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
You guys remember when that other idiot from New Jersey was puking out all that out of body experience, NDE's, microwave ghosts and all sorts of other goofy conspiracy theories?
Lmfao! What an idiot!
<quoted text>
You're the reason man has a middle finger.
Thinking

Andover, UK

#65860 Dec 13, 2012
So you believe, like me, that the middle finger wasn't down to your god, then.
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the reason man has a middle finger.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65861 Dec 13, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe I brought this up already. What goes up doesn't necessarily come down. Space exploration probes do not return. The point being - the scientific method is not infallible. Not everything can be settled according to its canons.
Huh? Are you thinking that the non-return somehow violates the law of gravity? In fact, we 8use* the law of gravity deduced via science to know where and how to send the probes where we want.
Thinking

Andover, UK

#65862 Dec 13, 2012
And this is the mathematician that first worked out how to do gravity assist in 1961.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Minovitch

To create the tool to plan the Voyager courses was brilliance personified.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh? Are you thinking that the non-return somehow violates the law of gravity? In fact, we 8use* the law of gravity deduced via science to know where and how to send the probes where we want.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#65863 Dec 13, 2012
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah a! I thought that was you! Seen any old lady ghosts around your microwave lately?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah a!
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the reason man has a middle finger.

“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).

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
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 5 min ChristineM 231,960
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 52 min Morse 1,034
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 4 hr Morse 27
Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 4 hr Morse 14,450
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 7 hr QUITTNER Nov 27 2014 31
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 13 hr Richardfs 1,423
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 20 hr Gillette 5,946

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE