I will not be hurt if esp-psi is proven to exist. On the contrary, I would be excited. But I can't see there's enough proof for it. We should get maybe 20-100 articles proving it first (now we have one that at least can be analyzed in a thread like this). And not 100-1000 articles finding no proof for it whatsoever at the same time.

so you didn't read the last one I just posted, huh?

Then they will have greeters.

"Welcome to the Mars Walmart"

Just looked. Didn't look convincing. But I'm sure the "best minds" are looking, at least glancing, at these things, and they will go for it if there's potential, count on it. They want to succeed, and the Noble Prize is a given fact for anyone convincingly finding psi-esp. I now lean back and watch how the coming years develop. But I have estimated that the probability psi-esp exists in any form is so low that I have to primarily concentrate on other things.

desperad0oo7, you can talk until your mouth runs dry, but in twenty years ESP/PSI and parapsychology will still be where it is today. Tiny effects in non-replicated studies with shoddy experimental design and small sample sizes.

how do you know, you're psychic?

Can't at least blame you for un-wittiness

You may have already posted this, but what was the question asked?

http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion

but idiots laugh anyway

You link me to one paper that claims atheism is a religion and that's supposed to be case closed?

The paper, or article, or whatever you want to call it fails right from the first sentence (lol!).

Many atheists simply lack belief in God, which is very very different than believing their is no God.

But I doubt you can tell the difference seeing how you actually just posted that garbage of a link.

It gets even better!

Evolution has NOTHING to do with where everything came from. How can you seriously link this garbage in SMP?

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to the rescue, folks. No need to rehash semantic/conceptual quarrels about the definition of 'atheism' versus 'agnosticism' here.

An atheist may deny the existence of the Christian God, but say, "I don't know" when asked if a God of any kind may exist. In RGT they're referred to as "soft atheism" and "strong atheism."

There's been several threads debating this topic and many atheists don't agree with each other on these definitions.

I linked a paper that explains my point of view. I am not trying to make a case. Just showing you that a case COULD be made.Any further than that I have no interest in having a discussion with a professional troll like yourself.

Athiesm = no god. A(no) thiesm (god).

agnosticism = can't be sure.

^ a very dumb misunderstanding but hey,

So you're not trying to make a case, but you link an explanation of your viewpoint, then call me dumb for not agreeing with you?

I understand you're frustrated from being utterly destroyed itt, but calmdownbro.jpg.

Both links you provided, supporting your "case for God vs. Atheists" were complete garbage (an understatement).
This type of pseudo-scientific, pseudo-intellectual undertone makes those who try to "make a case for their ideology" (read: some supernatural bull****e) look even less intelligent than those who simply claim to "know, because it's in the Bible, the source of all Truth".

That's that (really, that whole ""Darwinism" led to the Nazis" crap is so played out; when the authors of this nonsense happen to be Americans, they should at least cite how exterminating the weaker Native Americans, or letting only the strongest slaves reach the West African coast (Trans-Saharan slave trade) and only the pre-selected, strongest slaves reach America...........wasn't based on the "survival of the fittest"...........or...whatever). I almost cried reading all that "scientific evidence" for the existence of God.

Now (I guess you already knew that) to the supernatural-I-can-read-your-mind stuff. Ghosts, Gods, leprechauns, alien abductions, 50-feet-tall-ancient-giant-human-beings, supersonic-speed-sprinters, you name it..........it all sounds great on paper.........as a sci-fi novel, religious gibberish, a sign of creativity (Dadaistic, absurd sometimes) of our mind.

But when you claim to know something, that is so widely believed (to this day), provide EVIDENCE. For centuries, when you yawned, you covered your mouth, so that evil spirits couldn't enter your body (and eat your soul).
Where's the evidence for that (namely: demons/spirits, how they enter your body, what/where is the soul)??? You guessed it, there's zero evidence.

There are no observations which would make you "believe" it to be any other way - it is bull****e. Pre-cognition might even be "real". And work through some unknown principle. The funny thing about all of this is, that while claiming "supernatural" principles to be "in effect", those who say they KNOW all this mumbo-jumbo to be true, use "science" to prove it.
"Science" that relies on statistically insignificant sample sizes and experiments that somehow never can be replicated............to produce the same results.
Mind you, we don't speak of some insignificant stuff nobody cares about.
It's something that would completely revolutionize the way we see the world.
It's research and evidence that anyone would love to get their Nobel Prize for.

Tesla claimed that his radio-waves and electricity would be one day used to transmit voice, (motion) pictures and texts into every home; we got radio, television and the internet.
Einstein claimed that mass bends space; it was later observed.
Some smart dudes came up with the whole Quantum World stuff; turns out they were right.
Someone speculated long time ago, that something like Black Holes could exist; turns out, they do.
500 years ago, some dude said "**** You!" to the Catholic Church and claimed that the Universe is filled with starts and that they have planets and that there are probably lifeforms there; we find dozens of Earth-like planets and with the help of spectroscopy will one day find Earth-like life somewhere in the Universe on one of these Earth-like planets.
This list goes on forever. Even the wildest speculations, when based on SOUND SCIENCE and EVIDENCE, can be shown to be "real" eventually.

But that whole God/ESP/ghosts/superpowers-thing is slightly different. No science behind it, no evidence. Millions of those who claim to "know", no one being able to SHOW. And it seems to only exist, when you DON'T look.
Unlike all that other "Darwinistic, blasphemous science stuff", which somehow isn't scared of instruments in a laboratory or sane people.

no, I didn't even read the article. Just wanted to hopefully make you pay attention to the ridiculously simple distinction between atheism and agnosticism which you're clearly oblivious to. I assumed the more intelligent types will be able to make that logical leap when I made my initial statement. I couldn't care less what you think or feel convinced of. You simply outed yourself as ignorant

lol. The distinction between atheist and agnostic is anything but simple.

Like I said, go to RGT and look at the discussion that went down there about this very subject.

I lack belief in any god you can name.

I can't know about some unknowable god, yet I still lack belief in them up to this point because there's no evidence for them. I don't claim it's unknowable, but at this point in time we have no evidence.

I am an atheist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRI-A3vakVg

I am, I am, I AM.

lol

zeno, plz move this to outer limits.

The "Feeling the future thread" is now a mess of intertwined hoopla and I should have move it weeks ago. It is now moved to a proper place for containment.

Also, cease personal attacks – infractions are forthcoming.

-Zeno

Good decision. In the beginning it was interesting to look at and find the arguments. Looking into this matter once more, skimming different texts. Recently, not so much.

The debunking thread is the right place for theories without any consistent proof whatsoever.