Atheists on the march in America

Aug 26, 2009 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: TurkishPress.com

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

Comments
63,181 - 63,200 of 70,985 Comments Last updated Tuesday Aug 5

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65876
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65877
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65878
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65879
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65880
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65881
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65883
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65884
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

How exactly do you distinguish between your *subjective* evidence and a vivid imagination?
postscriptt wrote:
If you have traveled the path inward, you wouldn't have to ask that question.
I'm asking *you*.

How exactly do you distinguish between your *subjective* evidence and a vivid imagination?

You don't know?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65885
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Spare me the pretense. Your knowledge about anything extends only as far as you are able to Google.
If true, then I have already demonstrated far more intelligence than you. Either way, you are an idiot.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65886
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
If true, then I have already demonstrated far more intelligence than you. Either way, you are an idiot.
YOu have demonstrated a peculiar mental denseness and I suspect it's because of an information overload from all the googling you do.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65887
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.
Is that what you think happens? Then you really have no idea what it takes to be a scientist. You have to put your neck on the line, making *testable* predictions of new phenomena or providing *testable* explanations of unexplained phenomena. You don't get to simply sit back and be passive like you do with metaphysics. Instead of sitting and gazing at ones navel, you actually ask nature what is going on. if you ask in the right way, you might get an answer.

But it really is so much easier to just sit and dream. i tis much harder to actually attempt to understand.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65888
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
If you have traveled the path inward, you wouldn't have to ask that question.
In other words, you don't distinguish them. You don't have to.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65889
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Drew Smith wrote:
How exactly do you distinguish between your *subjective* evidence and a vivid imagination?
<quoted text>
I'm asking *you*.
How exactly do you distinguish between your *subjective* evidence and a vivid imagination?
You don't know?
of course not. For PS, the two are the same thing. A vivid experience *is* reality for that mindset.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65890
Dec 13, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
How exactly do you distinguish between your *subjective* evidence and a vivid imagination?
<quoted text>
I'm asking *you*.
How exactly do you distinguish between your *subjective* evidence and a vivid imagination?
You don't know?
One is a tool, the other is reality.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65891
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that what you think happens? Then you really have no idea what it takes to be a scientist. You have to put your neck on the line, making *testable* predictions of new phenomena or providing *testable* explanations of unexplained phenomena. You don't get to simply sit back and be passive like you do with metaphysics. Instead of sitting and gazing at ones navel, you actually ask nature what is going on. if you ask in the right way, you might get an answer.
But it really is so much easier to just sit and dream. i tis much harder to actually attempt to understand.
You're not a scientist. You are a follower of science. You don't have to do anything but nod your head in agreement.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65892
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
YOu have demonstrated a peculiar mental denseness and I suspect it's because of an information overload from all the googling you do.
Now you enter into conspiracy nuttery.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65893
Dec 13, 2012
 
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not a scientist. You are a follower of science. You don't have to do anything but nod your head in agreement.
There you go with more assertions yet no evidence to back them up.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65894
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you enter into conspiracy nuttery.
And this from a nutball who needs fables and fantasies and all those white coated scientists selling pretty packaged lies.
obama sucks

Denver, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65895
Dec 13, 2012
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Changing your screen name doesn't boost your IQ. Your preacher is the guy who gives sermons on Sunday and tells you about NDEs being proof for God.
<quoted text>
I watch football on sunday. dingus.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••