Atheists on the march in America

Atheists on the march in America

There are 70652 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.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65929 Dec 14, 2012
How exactly do you distinguish between your *subjective* evidence and a vivid imagination?
You don't know?
postscriptt wrote:
One is a tool, the other is reality.
You're avoiding the question.

How do you distinguish between evidence that is the result of your vivid imagination and evidence that is the result of reality (but which is not available to anyone else, for some reason)?
obama sucks

Denver, CO

#65930 Dec 14, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
After you go to church you watch football you mean.
<quoted text>
I'm very good at saying what i mean, douche. You appear to have serious comprehension issues.
obama sucks

Denver, CO

#65931 Dec 14, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Loss of oxygen to the brain in any way is traumatic for the brain.
So many liberals having their heads up their asses gasping for air, that would explain a lot. lmao

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#65932 Dec 14, 2012
It's ok little loser you just talk to your preacher about it all this Sunday.:)
obama sucks wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm very good at saying what i mean, douche. You appear to have serious comprehension issues.
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#65933 Dec 14, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have been a reasearch mathematician for the last 25+ years. I am trained in physics and have worked as a physicist at an accelerator lab. I discuss the ramifications of various experiments on the different hypotheses that are current. My main interest is astrophysics, but there are also applications to accelerator physics in what I have done.
Try again.
I knew you weren't just the average poster. VERY few people on here can school me in any way, but you gave me something to think about.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#65934 Dec 14, 2012
Wanna buy those books? No seriously there is even some really old ones and an entire volume on becoming a boss hypnotist. It's all just so silly and fruity I got them back in the day to scam chicks at UCLA, light up some candles and incense do some carnival trick remote viewing and some bullsht psychic readings, have some crystals around the candles trying to get them chick's panties off and hey, it worked!

So back then I kept up on all the silly metaphysical nonsense for the poon factor.

A bag of weed stashed away never hurt either :))

Anyways I have grown past that and sure you can buy the old books and somewhere I still have those crystals, ankhs, and other assorted trinkets.

Just say the word and I can box them up and send them your way.
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm asking you and obviously you don't have an answer. So much for all that knowledge collecting dust on your shelves, eh?
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65935 Dec 14, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
How exactly do you distinguish between your *subjective* evidence and a vivid imagination?
You don't know?
<quoted text>
You're avoiding the question.
How do you distinguish between evidence that is the result of your vivid imagination and evidence that is the result of reality (but which is not available to anyone else, for some reason)?
I answered the question. You won't meet yourself following a set of dictums, or running from book to book. If you don't take the time to examine your own subjective states, then you can't complain if my answers elude you. The burdon of proof lies within yourself. It's an excercise in folly to expect science or anyone else for that matter, to prove the validity of your own subjective experience.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65936 Dec 14, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Wanna buy those books? No seriously there is even some really old ones and an entire volume on becoming a boss hypnotist. It's all just so silly and fruity I got them back in the day to scam chicks at UCLA, light up some candles and incense do some carnival trick remote viewing and some bullsht psychic readings, have some crystals around the candles trying to get them chick's panties off and hey, it worked!
So back then I kept up on all the silly metaphysical nonsense for the poon factor.
A bag of weed stashed away never hurt either :))
Anyways I have grown past that and sure you can buy the old books and somewhere I still have those crystals, ankhs, and other assorted trinkets.
Just say the word and I can box them up and send them your way.
<quoted text>
I can't imagine any woman being attracted do an ape-man like yourself. It's a freaking miracle that you are able to find your mouth with a fork every day!

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#65937 Dec 14, 2012
Long story short you make it up as you go, right?
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
I answered the question. You won't meet yourself following a set of dictums, or running from book to book. If you don't take the time to examine your own subjective states, then you can't complain if my answers elude you. The burdon of proof lies within yourself. It's an excercise in folly to expect science or anyone else for that matter, to prove the validity of your own subjective experience.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#65938 Dec 14, 2012
Primates are all of our common ancestors. Do you wanna buy those books or not?
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't imagine any woman being attracted do an ape-man like yourself. It's a freaking miracle that you are able to find your mouth with a fork every day!

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65939 Dec 14, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I do have something.
And no, it is not a first.
And no, it has not been demonstrated to be a scam. Ask scientists privately what they think. It's a different answer.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Still more assertions, still no evidence, and if you had demonstrated it to not be a scam, why is it that no one knows about it? James Randi has over a million bucks for such a thing. This money has remained unclaimed for decades now.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65940 Dec 14, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
A dingbat like you posting something stupid produces the same result every time.
Yes, which makes one wonder why you enjoy looking like a fool.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65941 Dec 14, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Another wild claim without any bases in fact. You're chock full of them.
Michelle Funk, a drowning victim, fell into the icy waters of Bell Canyon Creek in Utah as a child. Today she's a normal adult and shows no signs of her traumatic experience - no brain injury from oxygen deprivation even after 62 minutes under water. Moted.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_hypoxia
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...

Such a well understood phenomena there's even a wikipedia entry about it. Those are just two randomly selected scientific articles about it as well.

The brain can survive 2 minutes without oxygen before damage begins, takes a full 10 minutes for it to actually die. During that time the rapidly depleted energy, due to the lack of transmission chemicals, begins to fire into random neurons, sort of like cars finishing the race. This causes the brain to record random events, images, etc. all out of order, resulting in garbage data. To accommodate the missing parts, should the brain be revived successfully and soon enough, it fills in the gaps with whatever "fits" best based on it's own personal experiences, thus you have NDE/OBE hallucinations.

Oh, and then there's the "cold" effect, when a brain is cooled enough it slows down, a lot, to the point of entering a stasis like mode, where it can survive for hours with little to no oxygen, it's the whole basis for the concept of cryogenics.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65942 Dec 14, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_hypoxia
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
Such a well understood phenomena there's even a wikipedia entry about it. Those are just two randomly selected scientific articles about it as well.
The brain can survive 2 minutes without oxygen before damage begins, takes a full 10 minutes for it to actually die. During that time the rapidly depleted energy, due to the lack of transmission chemicals, begins to fire into random neurons, sort of like cars finishing the race. This causes the brain to record random events, images, etc. all out of order, resulting in garbage data. To accommodate the missing parts, should the brain be revived successfully and soon enough, it fills in the gaps with whatever "fits" best based on it's own personal experiences, thus you have NDE/OBE hallucinations.
Oh, and then there's the "cold" effect, when a brain is cooled enough it slows down, a lot, to the point of entering a stasis like mode, where it can survive for hours with little to no oxygen, it's the whole basis for the concept of cryogenics.
Offering explanations after the fact doesn't diminish the falsity of your original statement one iota.

"Loss of oxygen to the brain in ANY WAY is traumatic for the brain."
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65943 Dec 14, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Still more assertions, still no evidence, and if you had demonstrated it to not be a scam, why is it that no one knows about it? James Randi has over a million bucks for such a thing. This money has remained unclaimed for decades now.
James Randi likes to claim he's a sceptic, but he's really a cynic. Having been a stage magician for many years, he's smart enough to know how to prevent forking over a million dollars he doesn't have, which is why no one one can pass his prequalifying test. There's nothing scientific about choosing a series of experiments you know have a minimal chance of success.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#65944 Dec 14, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
James Randi likes to claim he's a sceptic, but he's really a cynic. Having been a stage magician for many years, he's smart enough to know how to prevent forking over a million dollars he doesn't have, which is why no one one can pass his prequalifying test. There's nothing scientific about choosing a series of experiments you know have a minimal chance of success.
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.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#65945 Dec 14, 2012
You're avoiding the question.
How do you distinguish between evidence that is the result of your vivid imagination and evidence that is the result of reality (but which is not available to anyone else, for some reason)?
postscriptt wrote:
I answered the question.
No, you didn't. The question was how to distinguish evidence of reality from imagination. You simply relabeled the two as categories, but provided no *method* on how to distinguish them.
postscriptt wrote:
If you don't take the time to examine your own subjective states, then you can't complain if my answers elude you.
You aren't providing answers. You're avoiding the question.

You can provide no method to distinguish real evidence from imagined evidence.

So why should anyone else accept your claims?
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65946 Dec 14, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
So why should anyone else accept your claims?
For the same reason not everybody accepts your claims.

I answered the question and I told you how to find your own evidence which is the only way you will know the difference between imagination and subjective states of mind. All of existence and consciousness is interwoven. It is only when you think of yourself as separate from creation that you insist on testable evidence.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#65947 Dec 14, 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.
Wrong. Randi put up his own money.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#65948 Dec 14, 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.
The JREF gives itself complete control. The test is one-sided and the applicant has absolutely no rights and no control. On the JREF website, it states that the test: "isn't going to be like taking a test. This is going to be like going to court."

http://voices.yahoo.com/exposing-unfair-truth...

btw....James Randi is being sued for fraud, misrepresentation and breach of contract, malfeasance and more.

http://www.bolenreport.com/feature_articles/D... 's-Data-v-Barrett/milliondolla rsuit1.htm

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 Governors vow to fight SCOTUS ruling on gay mar... 1 min woodtick57 454
News Why the Confederate flag flies in SC 2 min polandurass 1,848
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 3 min Calvin_Coolish 185,972
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min shinningelectr0n 1,250,199
News Texas Sen. Ted Cruz not backing down on same-se... 4 min American_Infidel 57
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 5 min Fed Up Again 332,312
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 5 min jh4freedom 191,864
More from around the web