Susan's Place Transgender Resources

40 Million Nonbelievers in America? The Secret Is Almost Out
By Ronald Aronson   
April 28, 2009

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/religionandtheology/1381/40_million_nonbelievers_in_america_the_secret_is_almost_out (http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/religionandtheology/1381/40_million_nonbelievers_in_america_the_secret_is_almost_out)

As reported in yesterday's New York Times, a South Carolina chapter of Habitat for Humanity prohibited a group of Secular Humanist volunteers from wearing their "Non-Prophet Organization" T-shirts; a Charleston-area teacher "came out" as a nonbeliever after years of church dinners and demurrals; and Humanist Loretta Haskell struggled over her role as a church musician. While such stories remain commonplace, a related story with a substantial bearing on these anecdotes is one of America's best-kept secrets.

A recent Newsweek cover—in a bid to (finally) match the celebrated 1966 "Is God Dead?" cover of Time—read, in the shape of a cross: "The Decline and Fall of Christian America." Editor Jon Meacham's story highlights Newsweek's latest poll results showing that 10% fewer Americans identify as Christian today than twenty years ago. But more importantly, and mentioned only in passing, is the growth among atheists and secularists of all stripes.

I do not think God is losing favor but religion is. Religion is now more of a social club. The word God has a very flexible meaning. It would be wrong to automatically call non believers atheists.

I would imagine that most nonbelievers would term themselves as 'agnostic' more than 'atheist.'

It's not that they deny the possibility and existence of senescence beings beyond us, they just think that in light of what we know, the previously agreed to stories, folktales, superstitions, myths and texts don't seem to ring true. It would seem that the vastness and complexity of the universe a god made in lovingly in our image and likeness ain't cutting it anymore.  At the very least, it's highly unlikely that what ever created both DNA and the universe we know see through Hubble and Chandra is spending their spare time writing - or dictating - books to humans.

And given the history of martyrs, pogroms, inquisitions, crusades, jihads, witch trials, suicide cults and suicide bombers, not to mention people who follow a prince of peace, or a religion of peace that have their own armies, people who claim that god hates drugs & gays and have meth habits and gay hookers, people who swear to poverty and live a live so lavish that kings would be shamed, there is not exactly a shortage of things not to like about the entire concept.

And, at that, I bet he 40 million number is way low.  Lots of people are afraid for saying so, and lots more 'believe' as some sort of business networking device than anything based on actual faith.

The article doesn't equate nonbeliever with atheist.

Atheism: absence of belief in the existence of deities.
i.e. non-belief.

As I understand the term, non-believers is an umbrella term that can include agnostics as well as atheists, and skeptics among others. An atheist is a non-believer, but not every non-believer is an atheist. I think the article was following that definition.

Like how if you look of the definition of a poodle, it will say a poodle is a dog, but not every dog is a poodle.

Or how a transsexual is a transgendered person, but not every transgendered person is a transsexual.

I'm an atheist by the way.

I despise Christianity with all my heart, they wrecked belief in the Old Gods with violence and oppression.  Still, they set a standard for a society without morals to cling to and gasp as they prospered in fake righteousness.

The decline of Christianity will continually result in freedom of intellect and reason to be practiced in every day deduction.  However, moral decay for most of humanity will follow: humans just aren't strong enough to follow a set of morals without some sort of spiritual fear instilled into them.

40 million non-believers in America, coinciding with a 48 billion dollar a year annual prison funding, increasing crime and drug usage, increasing spread of STDs and federal spending to treat STDs, increasing morbid obesity, increasing divorce rates and lack of family values, and a crumbling economy.  Sure they have nothing to do with each other.  I doubt the pope will think so though.

---

Post Merge: May 09, 2009, 09:22:24 PM

---

Quote from: Vexing on May 09, 2009, 09:23:31 PM
Atheism: absence of belief in the existence of deities.
i.e. non-belief.

Atheism is disbelief of a one or more deities.  It is the active belief that there isn't a god.

Agnosticism is indifference, a lack of belief, not an active and opposing belief.

Don't confuse the two.

I really doubt the authenticity of this data.  It appears closely tied to the way the question is asked. 

In 1966 , when the original Time Magazine article appeared, the population of the United States was 196,560,338.  Today is has topped 306,387,000.  Much of that is immigrant population from places that are not generally identified with typical American Christianity.  Yet, the questions asked seem to be the same while the world has changed.  I have done enough statistical data analysis in my time to know that this stuff can be massaged in any convenient way.  Beliefnet, a Christian organization also celebrates some positive trends in the numbers.  So who is to say?

Another consideration is the sample size.  They surveyed 54000 people.  That is just over 0.01% of the population.  The numbers were then extracted back to get a total number of nonbelievers in the United States.  I have trouble with that as the chances of accuracy are not as good as throwing darts at a board.  They may be right, but there is just no way to know if their sample represents anything like a true cross section of the population.  With its size I just doubt it.  While I know it sounds huge to say that the actual number nearly doubled, there is no necessary correlation with entire population.  A different group may have showed just the opposite.  Or perhaps not.  We will never know.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Personally, whether the data was accurate or not, I embrace such change.
There is no reason to live our 21st century lives by the mad ramblings of nomadic, bronze-age goatherds.

Quote from: Annwyn on May 09, 2009, 10:19:23 PM

Atheism is belief of a one or more deities. 

Absolutely ludicrous!

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Quote from: Kristi on May 09, 2009, 10:52:19 PM
Absolutely ludicrous!

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Typo.  Have some sympathy for the broken finger, seriously.

I don't care much for organized religion myself. I worship Mother Nature and the Garden is her Church  :laugh:

Kristi, actually, a sample size of 54,000 people is large enough to give a very accurate account of the US population. If they would have done the poll with  54,000 new people the results would have been the same due to how this polling organizations know how poll accurately.

As far as how the question was worded, the article doesn't give us the question. It also says the polls estimates the numbers of atheist and agnostic total in this country is only 3.6 million. The 40 million number comes from the article's author making assumptions.

The absolute best thing that could ever happen in the current world would be the immediate collapse and disappearance of ALL religious groups. No organized of any type religious believers on earth.

Believe, if you must, in caring for the cleanness and liveability of your home and the interrelatedness of various forms of life.

The Rules and strictures and organized worship of a few men posing as emissaries of some deity of any sort have ineluctably caused more human suffering, destruction and wanton violence and prejudice than any other one aspect of human existence throughout our history. Well, imo. :)

Quote from: ilikepotatoes on May 09, 2009, 11:26:27 PM
Kristi, actually, a sample size of 54,000 people is large enough to give a very accurate account of the US population. If they would have done the poll with  54,000 new people the results would have been the same due to how this polling organizations know how poll accurately.

As far as how the question was worded, the article doesn't give us the question. It also says the polls estimates the numbers of atheist and agnostic total in this country is only 3.6 million. The 40 million number comes from the article's author making assumptions.

Perhaps that is true and perhaps that is not.  For such an important study this is indeed in line with possible size requirements if and only if they would tell us their assumptions they used in selecting the sample.   Other organization such as Gallup do this.  Larger samples do not always mean more accurate results, but bad assumptions always mean skewed data.  As I said, we will just never know.

Nichole, my dear friend, of course we do not agree on this in the least.  We have had that discussion before and will not change each others' minds.  I simply ask you how it would feel if I said:

The absolute best thing that could ever happen in the current world would be the immediate collapse and disappearance of ALL non-religious groups. No type of non-religious on earth...

Personally I think we should refrain in trying to dictate what anyone believes or how they worship, let alone wishing for anyone's demise.  Believe (or don't) what you wish and I will support you in it.  But it seems pretty obvious that wishing for anything like that is practicing precisely what you are accusing religions of.  Prejudice is prejudice no matter what guise it is found in. 

Peace,
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Quote from: Kristi on May 09, 2009, 11:56:11 PM
let alone wishing for anyone's demise.

Yes.  Demise would be nice.

Like I've mentioned before, freedom of religion is a right in the US. Hell, worship the Cat in the Hat or Bugs Bunny for all I care  :laugh: >:-) :laugh:

Quote from: Virginia Marie on May 10, 2009, 12:08:45 AM
Like I've mentioned before, freedom of religion is a right in the US. Hell, worship the Cat in the Hat or Bugs Bunny for all I care  :laugh: >:-) :laugh:

Rights are only perceived as such when they can be enforced.

I wonder, when our military is downsized and the entire world pissed at us, when our streets are filled with even greater crime than they are now, who will be protecting the right to freedom of religion?

IMO, it's not religion or organized religion itself that's bad.  It's the type of religion that states "anyone who disagrees with me is going to hell, and I'm going to help them get there," and/or "this is what I believe, so I'm going to pass laws enforcing that belief on everyone, even those who disagree."  An atheism that basically states/practices the same thing using different words is just as bad.  If organized religion disappeared tomorrow, people would find new reasons to judge and recreate the same problems we have now.  Religion is used an as excuse to do bigoted things, but it is not the cause.

I consider myself a spiritual atheist, and I don't begrudge anyone their beliefs as long as they don't try to affect my life with them.

Quote from: TamTam on May 10, 2009, 12:37:56 AM

I consider myself a spiritual atheist, and I don't begrudge anyone their beliefs as long as they don't try to affect my life with them.

Such is impossible.  You cannot believe in something while you actively disbelieve in everything.

I do agree on the desperations of organized religion, specifically ones based off Judaism.

Quote from: Nichole on May 09, 2009, 11:27:05 PM
The absolute best thing that could ever happen in the current world would be the immediate collapse and disappearance of ALL religious groups. No organized of any type religious believers on earth.
...
The Rules and strictures and organized worship of a few men posing as emissaries of some deity of any sort have ineluctably caused more human suffering, destruction and wanton violence and prejudice than any other one aspect of human existence throughout our history. Well, imo.

I think...
The absolute best thing that could ever happen in the current world would be the immediate collapse and disappearance of ALL greed pursuant groups. No organized of any type greed pursuers on earth.
...
The organizations and organized actions of a few greedy individuals posing as emissaries of some better future of any sort have ineluctably caused more human suffering, destruction and wanton violence and prejudice than any other one aspect of human existence throughout our history. Well, imo.

Greed destroys the world - not religion.

EDIT - let me add 'control' to 'greed' as being the problem.  Some individuals use religion to satisfy the lusts of greed and control.

For both sides of this debate...

http://www.thearda.com/ (http://www.thearda.com/)

The above site is among the "gold standards" of sites regarding religious data.

The link comes from www.fivethirtyeight.com (//http://)  a great site when it comes to polling and statistical analysis.

I view the "numbers" in this article with a great deal of spectisism. They offer no explanation in regards to methodolgy. Among them being age, race, sex, location, economic, or education of the respondents. Also no mention of just how the poll was conducted. Worst way to gather poll data...internet surveys. Best way randomly generated phone calls, with additional questions to capture age, race, gender etc etc.

My conclusion.. America is becoming less religious in regards to organization, but remains predominatly spiritual.

Quote from: Annwyn on May 10, 2009, 12:21:04 AM
Rights are only perceived as such when they can be enforced.

I wonder, when our military is downsized and the entire world pissed at us, when our streets are filled with even greater crime than they are now, who will be protecting the right to freedom of religion?

That's a good question, with all the world trying to screw us over all the time and blame us for everything it is hard to tell how long anyones civil right will last

---

Post Merge: May 10, 2009, 01:07:35 AM

---

Quote from: interalia on May 10, 2009, 12:44:12 AM

Greed destroys the world - not religion.

EDIT - let me add 'control' to 'greed' as being the problem.  Some individuals use religion to satisfy the lusts of greed and control.

When you say greed pursuers, the first thing I think of is religions. Let me tell you about the invisible man. Oh, and I'll be wanting a monetary contribution at least once a month. And if you need any help we'll be sure to give you some crappy stuff that no-one wants. That way you wont ask for our help again. Don't forget to praise the invisible man  :laugh:

Annwyn, my dictionary states atheism is the belief that god does not exist.  It doesn't say anything about 'disbelieving in everything.'  I am fully capable of believing god does not exist, and still being spiritual. :)

I don't follow any particular religion. But folks often tell me I'm a spiritual person and ask what religion I belong to. When I tell them that I'm not into religion, they try to sell me on their's  :laugh:

I get fascinated by how some people get totally dependent on a religon. There are some who try different religions until they find the one that fits. Strange. I had a colleague who was a very respected and published scientist who proclaimed he did not agree the evolution existed but every thing was under divine control. When I asked him why he believed such Bull S**t he replied that his religion forbade belief in evolution. He was at comfort ignoring the results of his own work for a quasi religious belief. Strange.

Cindy James. Agnostic. Humanist.

Quote from: TamTam on May 10, 2009, 01:26:34 AM
Annwyn, my dictionary states atheism is the belief that god does not exist.  It doesn't say anything about 'disbelieving in everything.'  I am fully capable of believing god does not exist, and still being spiritual. :)

There's two definitions, one being the disbelief of a supreme being or beings, thus everything.

Spirits fall into the category of, "supreme being."

Well, we are certainly allowed to disagree.  I've been a spiritual atheist for years, so I'm inclined to believe it's possible. :P The definition I use suits me, I don't care what definition other people use.

QuoteI consider myself a spiritual atheist, and I don't begrudge anyone their beliefs as long as they don't try to affect my life with them.

Quote from: Annwyn on May 10, 2009, 12:39:53 AM
Such is impossible.  You cannot believe in something while you actively disbelieve in everything.

I do agree on the desperations of organized religion, specifically ones based off Judaism.

Like you said before an Atheist is someone who does not believe in the person's God or Gods that is using the word. Christians at one time were called Atheists.

Atheists can feel spiritual. They just do not believe it is created by a God of someone else's choosing. Much of religious tradition is to bring about spiritual feelings. Dogma on the other hand is to control people which is political power.

God does not have to be a deity.

God can be the answer to questions that have no answers yet. An agnostic can also be that but does not demand some else's beliefs are wrong they just do not embrace them.

Quote from: TamTam on May 10, 2009, 12:37:56 AM
I consider myself a spiritual atheist, and I don't begrudge anyone their beliefs as long as they don't try to affect my life with them.

Spiritual how?
If there is a rational basis for your spiritual belief, then sure.
Otherwise, applying the atheist label to yourself is doing a disservice to rational, freethinking atheists.

Quotefreethinking

Have you read "Freethinkers"  by Susan Jacoby  ?

Spiritual feelings are on the inside, you do not have to believe in any God or religion to have them. You also can believe that they do not have anything to do with a God. They are created by you in your brain with the help of perception.

No.

Define "Spiritual Feelings", as I have not idea what you are talking about.

Quote from: Virginia Marie on May 09, 2009, 11:24:51 PM
I don't care much for organized religion myself.

I much prefer disorganized religion.

Quote from: Vexing on May 10, 2009, 07:34:54 PM
Otherwise, applying the atheist label to yourself is doing a disservice to rational, freethinking atheists.

Lol.

I don't care if I 'do a disservice' to anyone. :P I do not believe in god.  That is the only qualification necessary to be an atheist.  If 'atheism' meant "disbelief in anything and everything related to the spiritual," that's what would be in the dictionary.

Ah. The dictionary.
The finest 10th grade resource available!
I'm not a huge fan of it, as far as defining reality goes :D

But sure; by that definition, you're certainly an atheist.
I'm curious; what 'spiritual' things do you believe in? What's your basis of evidence for believing in them?

I believe we have spirits/souls of some sort; because I have far too many family members and friends who I personally find credible who have had experiences with ghosts.  Including myself, to a certain degree.

I believe in an afterlife of some kind, again because of the ghost thing.

And I believe in reincarnation [though not karma], after extensive research [spent like two years researching it] and, well.. I'm tired and don't feel like repeating what I said in this post, (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,59106.msg376118.html#msg376118) lol.

I have a few other slightly more 'out-there' beliefs that I don't feel like getting into here, but those are my main ones.  I tend not to believe in anything without scrutinizing it first, until it stands up to my own standards.  I've gone through many a personal crisis after learning new information that puts into question a previously-held belief; however, either the belief stands up to the new info or it doesn't.  I don't like living in denial so if I find contradictory evidence, I have no problem taking it into account.  I don't consider myself the kind of person who is irrational, but I also don't think spiritual beliefs have to be irrational.

Apart from the reincarnation aspect (for which I would require much more evidence than anecdotal stories), I can understand your stance.
Personally, I wouldn't call your stance 'spiritual' at all.

What would you call it? ???

Having a good stance can be important at times. What it has to do spirituality, I'm not sure  :laugh:

Quote from: TamTam on May 11, 2009, 01:49:17 AM
What would you call it? ???

I wasn't aware that it required a label.
'Paranormal' will do.

Quote from: Vexing on May 11, 2009, 01:56:59 AM
I wasn't aware that it required a label.
'Paranormal' will do.

QuoteDefine "Spiritual Feelings", as I have not idea what you are talking about

The mind is a wonderful creator. Have you ever felt deja vu? It is something you know is not the physical reality but a mind reality.
Such is spiritual feelings although they are rare in some people. The ability for the mind to dream and also be conscious of the physical world at the same time.

Also some studies show that a part of the brain on the right in the back gives you your sense of self. When you reduce the blood flow to that area according to an fMRI scan you get the feeling of oneness with the universe like an out of body experience.

There is no evidence that 'deja vu' is a spiritual experience.
It has been suggested that it is your non-dominant eye seeing the same thing before your dominant eye, creating the mental illusion that you have been in that situation before.
Dreaming is not spiritual; it is the subconscious processing of events and problems from the recent past.

It's all chemicals and electrical impulses.
Nothing 'spiritual' about it :D

Quote from: Vexing on May 11, 2009, 03:27:02 PM
There is no evidence that 'deja vu' is a spiritual experience.
It has been suggested that it is your non-dominant eye seeing the same thing before your dominant eye, creating the mental illusion that you have been in that situation before.
Dreaming is not spiritual; it is the subconscious processing of events and problems from the recent past.

It's all chemicals and electrical impulses.
Nothing 'spiritual' about it :D

I think Lisa was agreeing with you, Vexing. And giving a suggestion as to how the process takes place.

Nichole

Quote from: Nichole on May 11, 2009, 03:33:33 PM
I think Lisa was agreeing with you, Vexing. And giving a suggestion as to how the process takes place.

Nichole

Thanks for being patronising :D

Quote from: Vexing on May 11, 2009, 03:36:30 PM
Thanks for being patronising :D

Hmm, you take offense rather easily for someone who seems to dish it pretty well.  :)

Nichole

Examples, thanks.

Quote from: Vexing on May 11, 2009, 03:43:48 PM
Examples, thanks.

Some things are difficult to explain. Feelings are only particular to an individual. Art for example is experienced differently by each person. Being in a church with all the tradition and music is suppose to encourage some of that spiritual feeling. As people get experienced at it like biofeedback they learn to create that more easily in their mind.

I agree with you that there is no evidence that a Deity is creating that feeling. The quantum mechanics of the brain is far from being understood and could be affected by something unknown , say another dimension. All this is far fetched and is only speculation not fact.

However the world around us effects how we perceive and adjust to it. The individual feelings are communicated the best that people can. Groups are formed on a basis of agreeing to the proprieties of those feelings and to the beliefs accounting for those feelings.

Quote from: lisagurl on May 11, 2009, 03:59:24 PM
Some things are difficult to explain. Feelings are only particular to an individual. Art for example is experienced differently by each person. Being in a church with all the tradition and music is suppose to encourage some of that spiritual feeling. As people get experienced at it like biofeedback they learn to create that more easily in their mind.

The tradition and music assist in self delusion. I've felt that as a child, then kicked myself for doing it afterward - trying so desperately hard to believe that something is real that you actually manage to convince yourself for a while.
Humans are very practised at self deception.

QuoteI agree with you that there is no evidence that a Deity is creating that feeling. The quantum mechanics of the brain is far from being understood and could be affected by something unknown , say another dimension. All this is far fetched and is only speculation not fact.

The brain isn't a quantum pehenomenon; it opperates on a biomechanical level - electricity and chemical. "Quantum mechanics of the brain" is at best a misinterpretation. At worst, pseudo-intellectualism.

QuoteHowever the world around us effects how we perceive and adjust to it. The individual feelings are communicated the best that people can. Groups are formed on a basis of agreeing to the proprieties of those feelings and to the beliefs accounting for those feelings.

You mean like the Nazis? ;)

Quote from: Vexing on May 11, 2009, 04:07:44 PM
The brain isn't a quantum pehenomenon; it opperates on a biomechanical level - electricity and chemical. "Quantum mechanics of the brain" is at best a misinterpretation. At worst, pseudo-intellectualism.

OK, this is seriously puzzling to me. Quantum mechanics deals with very small quanta and their interactions with one another.

Matter is all composed of those quanta on a very basic level.

Why would there be no possibility that the small quanta and their interactions wouldn't have an effect on large quanta and eventually/or directly on electrical impulses and chemical compounds within bodies?

Nichole

A tractor is likewise composed of matter.
You might as well claim that tractors opperate on a quantum level.
While the energy states that compose the overall tractor structure functional according to quantum properties, the tractor itself opperates under conventional, understandable, engineering principles.

Quote from: Vexing on May 11, 2009, 05:28:46 PM
A tractor is likewise composed of matter.
You might as well claim that tractors opperate on a quantum level.
While the energy states that compose the overall tractor structure functional according to quantum properties, the tractor itself opperates under conventional, understandable, engineering principles.

Really, what are those called? I'd never heard that before! :o

I think that perhaps the supposition before was simply that "there are more thing under heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." The fact that we cannot establish relationships at this time hardly rules out their never being established at any time.

Scepticism is often a positive quality, but understanding what one maybe doesn't know because she hasn't yet the capacity to understand everything doesn't seem like a bad quality either. Especially for a sceptic. :)

N~

Nichole

I am entirely skeptical that there is a teapot suspended in space, exactly halfway between the core of our galaxy and the core of the Andromeda galaxy.
I am open to the posibility, but all rational indicators point to "there is no such teapot".
All conventional theory suggests that our brains opperate on a biochemical level, not a quantum one.
While I am open to the possibility of our brains having a 'quantum' component that is important to the overall function (beyond the obvious interactions of base energy states), all rational and logical indicators point to no.

We opperate, day to day, on useful, real information.
We don't plan a trip to a specific supermarket based on the chance whether or not a Hellmouth will open under it and consume us while we are chosing which brand of cereal to eat.

Quote from: Vexing on May 11, 2009, 05:55:20 PM
I am entirely skeptical that there is a teapot suspended in space, exactly halfway between the core of our galaxy and the core of the Andromeda galaxy.
I am open to the posibility, but all rational indicators point to "there is no such teapot".
All conventional theory suggests that our brains opperate on a biochemical level, not a quantum one.
While I am open to the possibility of our brains having a 'quantum' component that is important to the overall function (beyond the obvious interactions of base energy states), all rational and logical indicators point to no.

We opperate, day to day, on useful, real information.
We don't plan a trip to a specific supermarket based on the chance whether or not a Hellmouth will open under it and consume us while we are chosing which brand of cereal to eat.

And there ya go. We all do operate that way, but operating in the "real world" and making rather farfetched examples of why you are sceptical still doesn't change the possibility that her choice of using quantum physics as perhaps effecting the electrical currents/chemical structures in one's brain/body is not a possibility, regardless of how sceptical any of us may be.

Sophistry is hardly a replacement for understanding that the "full & complete knowledge" of generations past has again and again been found to be less than complete.

N~

Let's stop equivocating:
She is claiming that the brain opperates on a quantum level.
Without any evidence to support her theory.

"But it might!" I hear you cry?
"But it might not," I counter "And all conventional, believable, current, peer reviewed theory states otherwise."

Let me propose a theory:
The brain operates acording to secret codes hidden in combinations of angelic script which are revealed when it is written out as a recipe for ginder snaps.
Y/N?

Quote from: Vexing on May 11, 2009, 06:11:00 PM


Let me propose a theory:
The brain operates acording to secret codes hidden in combinations of angelic script which are revealed when it is written out as a recipe for ginder snaps.
Y/N?

As answer I'll refer you back to my last comment on sophistry. A matter you seem well-versed in. It may be funny, but it is never more than comic.

All I said was that we don't always know it all no matter how many "modern" eras have aspired to knowing all truth. And claimed to have known that in their times.

You wish to be a sceptic? Then act like one, be sceptical most of all of your own povs.

Someone might argue that someone desiring to use her "schlong" and keep it is not TS at all. In fact, the point has been made rather frequently and by more than just a few angry people. Yet, how does one know any more than we know that your decision doesn't preclude you from being TS? Are the parameters of that condition somehow set in stone as fact or are they speculative and just beliefs by some people? I'll opt for beliefs and speculations.

That you may not believe something to be true, that I may not hardly makes that something untrue. It may simply be beyond our capacities to know. Lisa is a rather sceptical person. I've known her for years; and I don't find her much given to pipe-dreams.

She doesn't always write in ways that most might read as what is written is definitely there in her intention though. She may well agree with you about the "quantum mechanics of the mind" and have been making her own attempt at humor. Hard to say.

But if you leave nothing at all open to the fact that you would have no way of knowing in the short time you've been around her that she does such things .... Well, let's just say that you'd lack understanding in that area, no?

I appreciate your confidence, or at least what appears confident. Actually fairly nice to see among those who are often very unconfident. But dismissing all things you don't agree with as being absurd isn't confidence, but dogma. Not much different in kind from the dogma that might actually give some credence to your notion of angelic scripts and the secret being revealed through ginger snaps.

Nichole

Quote from: Nichole on May 11, 2009, 06:45:38 PM
As answer I'll refer you back to my last comment on sophistry. A matter you seem well-versed in. It may be funny, but it is never more than comic.

And...?
I'm not sure what your point is.

QuoteAll I said was that we don't always know it all no matter how many "modern" eras have aspired to knowing all truth. And claimed to have known that in their times.
You wish to be a sceptic? Then act like one, be sceptical most of all of your own povs.

We are not questioning my views; I'm pointing out that it is extremely unlikely that the brain functions on a quantum level.
I'm skeptical of the unlikely. My skepticism is low for things which are likely (like the brain being an organ that runs on biochemical processes).

QuoteSomeone might argue that someone desiring to use her "schlong" and keep it is not TS at all. In fact, the point has been made rather frequently and by more than just a few angry people. Yet, how does one know any more than we know that your decision doesn't preclude you from being TS? Are the parameters of that condition somehow set in stone as fact or are they speculative and just beliefs by some people? I'll opt for beliefs and speculations.

Sorry, was that supposed to be about me?
If so, it's woefully inaccurate.
FAIL.

QuoteThat you may not believe something to be true, that I may not hardly makes that something untrue. It may simply be beyond our capacities to know. Lisa is a rather sceptical person. I've known her for years; and I don't find her much given to pipe-dreams.

My belief is based on evidence.
A quantum-brain is fantasy, supported by ZERO evidence.

QuoteShe doesn't always write in ways that what most might read as being there always is there though. She may well agree with you about the "quantum mechanics of the mind" and have been making her own attempt at humor. Hard to say.
But if you leave nothing at all open to the fact that you would have no way of knowing in the short time you've been around her that she does such things .... Well, let's just say that you'd lack understanding in that area, no?

Oh, I see. I'm incapable of going through her posts and reviewing her online mannerisms.

Quoteappreciate your confidence, or at least what appears confident. Actually fairly nice to see among those who are often very unconfident. But dismissing all things you don't agree with as being absurd isn't confidence, but dogma. Not much different in kind from the dogma that might actually give some credence to your notion of angelic scripts and the secret being revealed through ginger snaps.

Dogma is blind belief without evidence.
My perception of reality is based purely on evidence.
Again, fail.

QuoteMy perception of reality is based purely on evidence.

You perception is based on your senses and your experience with those senses. Look at a plate from an angle. You see an oval disk. A plate is round but the evidence tells you it is oval. Look at the wall it is different shades of a similar color. But the wall is painted one color your senses are tricking you or your brain is living outside your head in the environment from a certain vantage point.

Humans can only perceive from moment to moment and focus on a small piece of the evidence. Memories are faulty and change each time we think of them.

Quote from: lisagurl on May 11, 2009, 07:33:10 PM
You perception is based on your senses and your experience with those senses. Look at a plate from an angle. You see an oval disk. A plate is round but the evidence tells you it is oval.

We have more than one sense.
Also, measurement and mathematics determine the size and shape of the object.
A masspectrometer can tell what it is made of.

QuoteLook at the wall it is different shades of a similar color. But the wall is painted one color your senses are tricking you or your brain is living outside your head in the environment from a certain vantage point.

Testing with light and chemical analyses will prove that the wall is painted with a single pigment.
I don't rely on singular points of evidence, but multiple points.

QuoteHumans can only perceive from moment to moment and focus on a small piece of the evidence. Memories are faulty and change each time we think of them.

That is why peer review and information sharing is an imortant part of the scientific process.

Well now, that last little screed certainly was enlightening and more than a little funny.  :laugh: :laugh:

Your sensory perceptions, conditionings and emotional mental inclinations amount to "truth" and "fail" occurs because you reject something?  :laugh: :laugh:

Yep. that certainly qualifies as sceptical alright.

I think I can rely on the fact that your "scepticism" is mostly composed of having no acceptance for anything that fails to suit your notion of "what is" while rejecting out-of-hand other possibility.

That's pretty common actually. Read the Church Fathers and a myriad other folk who've lived through the ages.

And, ftr, the non-op possibility wasn't directed toward you personally, sorry I used the general "you" and you took it personally.  :-*

Spoz you fit in pretty well. :)

Have a good evening.

P.S --

QuoteOh, I see. I'm incapable of going through her posts and reviewing her online mannerisms.

Certainly not "incapable" although I don't get the sense you're much inclined to go through much of anyone's previous posts anywhere, putting together a more complete view of their posting behaviors.

Quote from: Nichole on May 11, 2009, 07:47:56 PM
Well now, that last little screed certainly was enlightening and more than a little funny.  :laugh: :laugh:

Your sensory perceptions, conditionings and emotional mental inclinations amount to "truth" and "fail" occurs because you reject something?  :laugh: :laugh:

No, evidence amounts to truth.
I don't believe in things which lack credible evidence; for example, Invisible Pink Unicorns.

QuoteYep. that certainly qualifies as sceptical alright.

Strawman.
You presumed a set of behaviours which I do not possess.

QuoteI think I can rely on the fact that your "scepticism" is mostly composed of having no acceptance for anything that fails to suit your notion of "what is" while rejecting out-of-hand other possibility.

Speculation.

QuoteThat's pretty common actually. Read the Church Fathers and a myriad other folk who've lived through the ages.

If I set 'The Chruch Fathers' (a book I presume?) I'll be sure to pick it up and have a look.

QuoteAnd, ftr, the non-op possibility wasn't directed toward you personally, sorry I used the general "you" and you took it personally.  :-*

I did?
Looking at the post, it seems more like I querried whether or not it was about me. There was no insistence that it was about me.
However, you did quote my use of the word "Schlong", which is what seeded the possibility - I can't see why you would quote me otherwise :D

Quote from: Vexing on May 11, 2009, 08:01:14 PM
However, you did quote my use of the word "Schlong", which is what seeded the possibility - I can't see why you would quote me otherwise :D

:laugh: How quaint. perhaps there's some validity for ESP, or perhaps it's simply a matter of reading correctly what a person exemplifies in their writing.

Yep, you're right, I had read the post where you used that word. And I used it in my reply because I made a correct presumption that you'd manage to find that "your" word, and, so, imagine the post was about you and that you'd use the use of "schlong" to found your belief. :laugh:

Vexing, you've a goodly ways to travel along most any path it seems.

Just so you know, the use of the word "schlong" pre-dated your birth by some little time; and so, use of the word doesn't indicate a reference to you.

The rest of the post bore no particular reason to comment. As you've said and we've all pretty much agreed, you have opinions. You're not the first human being to have them nor will you be the last.

If I see something that appears worth the candle perhaps we'll have a discussion sometime. A mass of negations based on your "belief" isn't gonna be the discussion though.

Best,

Nichole

Quote from: Nichole on May 11, 2009, 08:56:15 PM
:laugh: How quaint. perhaps there's some validity for ESP, or perhaps it's simply a matter of reading correctly what a person exemplifies in their writing.

Yep, you're right, I had read the post where you used that word. And I used it in my reply because I made a correct presumption that you'd manage to find that "your" word, and, so, imagine the post was about you and that you'd use the use of "schlong" to found your belief. :laugh:

Or, in fewer words: yes, it was about Vexing. It was intentionally set up to bait her - nothing more; it had no relevance to the discussion.

QuoteVexing, you've a goodly ways to travel along most any path it seems

Baseless speculation. Ad hom attack.

QuoteJust so you know, the use of the word "schlong" pre-dated your birth by some little time; and so, use of the word doesn't indicate a reference to you.

However, you have admitted that you used it to bait me.
It's a little late to use that as a defense.

Vex, that wasn't a defense. Nor was it a "bait." It was testing out an opinion about you that I thought your board behavior would bear out. It did. That's all. I had a notion and thought I'd check it out empirically. I did. It was as I thought.

Make of that whatever you wish. You will at any rate.

N~

That's nice.
Interestingly, it revealed far more about your behaviour :D

I thought for sure that there was going to be a religous flamewar in here when I saw the page count climb by 3 pages so quickly.

/me leaves disappointed

Quote from: beth~chella on May 11, 2009, 09:34:36 PM
I thought for sure that there was going to be a religous flamewar in here when I saw the page count climb by 3 pages so quickly.

/me leaves disappointed

I didn't expect it to be about the definition of atheism... well that's how it seemed to start - have NO IDEA where it is now.

Yeah, Vexing and Nichole have been going at it all day. It was interesting for awhile...But then I got bored

Quote from: Virginia Marie on May 11, 2009, 09:41:42 PM
Yeah, Vexing and Nichole have been going at it all day. It was interesting for awhile...But then I got bored

it's not all bad, funny FAIL pics and MJ eating popcorn made it all worth it!

QuoteI didn't expect it to be about the definition of atheism... well that's how it seemed to start - have NO IDEA where it is now.

Does anyone look beyond the mask? Or are they too busy with their toys?

Quote from: lisagurl on May 11, 2009, 09:45:10 PM
Does anyone look beyond the mask?

Elaborate?

Quote from: Vexing on May 11, 2009, 09:48:35 PM
Elaborate?

Think!

Quote from: lisagurl on May 11, 2009, 09:55:17 PM
Think!

*Thinks*


Now what?

How many intellectuals does it take to change a light bulb? None, they prefer to read by candle light  :laugh: >:-) :laugh:

I wish the damn Rapture would happen, so that we can build cellphone towers where the churches were.

This is where the French can be your friends, while convincing people so go to a slaughterhouse (well, other than Wrigley Field) is hard to do, its even worse in the German das schlachthaus - but, ask if they would fancy an afternoon at the abattoir, well who could say no?

to myself I am atheist, to others I usually say agnostic.  i've had no use for organized religion ever. 

not to paraphrase rumsfeld, but the whole subject is a known unknown

nobody knows, nobody can know. faith is a delusion.  a nice delusion for some, but a delusion just the same

"Do you believe in God?  Say yes, and pull the trigger."

Quote from: Annwyn on May 15, 2009, 10:28:16 AM
"Do you believe in God?  Say yes, and pull the trigger."

Very, very sick.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

It's a song by a popular rock band called Flyleaf.

Quote from: tekla on May 07, 2009, 10:49:34 AM
I would imagine that most nonbelievers would term themselves as 'agnostic' more than 'atheist.'

I don't care what they call themselves. They're atheists.

Atheists make for stable countries that don't tend to invade other countries unnecessarily.

Atheists make for stable countries that don't tend to invade other countries unnecessarily

That explains the USSR invasion of Afghanistan and brutal crackdowns in Central Europe.

Or the Red Chinese sending ONE million men into S. Korea during the Korean War.

Yeah, systems that are officially atheist are so much better at respecting human rights as opposed to Western ones.

Quote from: michellesofl on June 26, 2009, 02:35:57 PM
Atheists make for stable countries that don't tend to invade other countries unnecessarily

That explains the USSR invasion of Afghanistan and brutal crackdowns in Central Europe.

Or the Red Chinese sending ONE million men into S. Korea during the Korean War.

Yeah, systems that are officially atheist are so much better at respecting human rights as opposed to Western ones.

You are confusing state-idolatry with atheism. You are doing this deliberately.

Commie-style state-idolatry is just as much a religion as Taoism if not more-so.

Ahem. Furthermore, because of America's very Protestant background, the majority of our population tends to have a much more liberal attitude toward religion than countries that have comparable rates of religious observance. I had almost forgotten that liberal and moderate Christians have worked very hard in their own right to put religious extremism in the past. They don't get enough credit for this, and I will be more affirming of this in the future.

A possible explanation behind the greater levels of social prosperity in Western countries that enjoy a low rate of religious observance is the fact that atheists are likely to be more receptive to the ideals that were generated during the Enlightenment and other periods of intellectual growth in Western history. Western philosophy has done more than any other force in history to transform our society for the better. It helped create the Scientific Revolution and other things that we tend to take for granted today.