So, we are all nontheists. Okay, but I am fascinated by ESP, and I'll tell you why: you can try it out on the internet. Prior to the internet, I would write my predictions down and seal them in an envelope. Once I opened the envelope, I would have to have a reason to open it. I'd forgotten what was in there. I never opened it. I lost it. Now, I just post something, a page or two mentioning all kinds of things that pop into my head, from a fire to a baseball bat to a celebrity's name, and boom! It posts with the date and everything. I can easily go back and say, "Look, two days before this person dies, I put his name in my blog". It is fun!

If you think I'm a troll, no: Jesus saves Green Stamps.

I am searching through books for the usages regarding psychic power. Authors do it since they are courageous. You could be afraid of what people might think, which is that you're crazy. However, if you go ahead, you get a lot of words: prognostication, foretelling, foreseeing, hypnosis, etc., and, there are noncontroversial ways to talk about it. We all like the odd coincidence.

Views: 270

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Thank heavens this is the only thread you are polluting!
What is, "A Kneejerk Reaction to Suggestions of ESP"?

Continuing with the name "Mary Wood", which begat "Rose Mary Woods", the next appearance of a new one of those is some 12 hours later, on today's broadcast of Good Morning America, with, "Rose Marie", no last name, close confidant of JFK, Jr. breaking her silence this morning. Now this is a thread!

Her company is called RMT PR Management, and according to the announcer, those are her initials. The GMA show is being broadcast as I write, Monday, July 27, 2009, 8:30 A.M. PST. But, it may be over now.

The superior brain cells to the neurons used in a chain of recall always accompany certain memories with associated memories. Thus, shows can be tailor-made to a certain audience. Use of "JFK, Jr." reminds us of "JFK", and then "Lincoln". No one is going to recall Rose Mary Woods without recalling Mary Todd Lincoln. No one is going to recall a presidential secretary without recalling others. The internet now has more debunking on what I had thought, which was Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy who warned him against going to the theater, and Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln who warned him not to go to Dallas. They now say it did not happen, so I did not put it in my post. I only put down what I have to sometimes. There was a 911 call that warned the police about Denise Lee's killer. What's the 911 system?

Denise Lee, JFK, JFK Jr., A. Lincoln.

Who are some people whose rescue operation rapidly became a recovery operation?


What are my initials?

@ Carlos: You do not debunk, if that is what you think you are doing. You are a fan of debunking. Let the professionals handle it. ESP should be debunked.

(The fourth Rose Marie is a comedienne-actress on The Dick Van Dyke Show).

The first Mary often appears as a statue inexplicably crying real tears. Not the first one here, the real first one all these girls are named after, Mary Prime.
Good luck, Dentroman. He hasn't listened to anybody else.
I know that the logic involves debate and argumentation. I know that a personal attack never advances a person's argument, yet I have suffered an unending stream of these. Alas, this has affected the linguistic quality of my responses. If there were any responses, they would be that I used a confirmation bias, and that I indulged in postdiction; that is noted.

Ambrose Bierce and H.L. Mencken are two authors who offer us some perspective on why logic may fail to win arguments. Bierce's book is called, The Devil's Dictionary. discussion, a method by which two people are able to confirm one another in their errors. And, logic is the science that tells us that if it takes one man sixty minutes to dig a post hole, it will take sixty men one minute to dig the same post hole.

I have generally estimated and pitched my writing skill at the disambiguity removal only. My point is that although atheism is fine, you are preaching to the choir. Now how about challenging your self not to pick up another party line equivalent to the religious and not to think that doing what somebody else tells you to do on faith will win you any points. You have placed some of the best here, Dentroman. There are no quote marks. However, you have invited a long defense by calling me a troll.

I do have an interest in rhetoric, but only as a word. I have a list of similar words, and vocabulary and spelling are also a way to establish intelligence. Rhetoric and writing skills (I must comment here: there is no such a thing as "skills". It comes from skill. And, you have left off the word creative), are something acting on a person's behalf who expects a large remuneration for writing some form of propaganda. My list has ras, rubric, I forgot what allegory means, and I need to know why computer memory forked from ROM to RAM, why there's no Write-Only Memory, WOM, why bits are binary, what if they were trinary; could they work in the sense of a Cantor set, stuff like that. In general, the provenance of patentable ideas like these is certainly in doubt if you just blab it on the internet. You were just told troll, you weren't asking people in 1989 whether trolling could have a meaning in computers. When it has been fifty years, . . .no. Fifty years for you would not have Sputnik at the start of it.

The concept you are looking for in screaming troll and whining for the moderators is called a gatekeeper. You can safely say? Without fear of contradiction, I suppose? What is conversational intolerance?

The scientific method dates from Roger Bacon in Twelve something. Merely because someone saw fit to post her lecture notes on it does not mean my worstest grasp is of that. I believe this thread said ESP. That should be metaphysics, and make the scientific method irrelevant. Omenology says that future events cast their shadow. That sounds pretty good. Bacon was imprisoned and finally recanted his scientific beliefs, and I think he was a monk and was using his free time while on a church payroll to spread his heresy. Dentroman, you just are so unlikely to ever know how lonely and gut-wrenching it is to sit there in jail for your beliefs and claim that iron bars do not a prison make that it's like trying to tell a stranger about rock 'n roll.

My grasp of factoring a unitary polynomial over a finite field, and understanding why transfinite cardinals are needed in the incompleteness theorem are currently poor. I got the former from the 3D animated cartoon movie, G-Force.

Can you say, i. what caused Einstein to feel that the full theory was the General Theory, and, ii. why did they give him the Nobel prize for something else?
Well, SEB, I'm certainly down with "the logic", so I can see that you are very successful at one thing: removing disambiguity. Keep up the good work, Ace. We're all pulling for you.

What I can't figure out is how you managed to come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist, considering you claim that the scientific method is irrelevant in metaphysics. What possible criteria could you have for accepting some metaphysical concepts and rejecting others? Sure as shootin' ain't "the logic", because you don't ever seem to apply any.
Sure I do. I make it a practice to use the word many, when formerly I might have said most.

Metaphysics means beyond physics. Whatever you prove in physics says not a whisper in metaphysics.

If all people have heads, and some people have hats on, then 'all people have hats on' is incorrect, and then 'some people choose to use their head for something besides a hatrack', is correct.

If/then statements are syllogisms, I believe. A dilemma I looked up once, but its exact description I can't give you. My knowledge of chemistry is eccentric.

The statement that there is no God is freshman-level. After that, you move to sophomore, so, do you think that means 'wise', Spicer?

I am a little suspicious about your use of 'criteria'. You have preloaded the question by discounting any singular reason. The question is prejudiced. I do not need the weight of evidence. I am not required to survive the shotgun approach. Where I come from we use the one part of data. Care to speculate on a dash of what else goes in there?

Carl Sagan says he has a dragon in his garage only he can see. He says it breathes fire only he can see. The floor is open. Disprove it.
SEB wrote: "@ Carlos: You do not debunk, if that is what you think you are doing. You are a fan of debunking. Let the professionals handle it. ESP should be debunked.

Naw, Steven, I'm just pulling your leg; funny, looks as though it came away in my hand. Anyway, sorry to interrupt you again, I'll let you get back to your fantasies. Bye!
Oh thank goodness I'm not the only one. I've tried to read the posts and thought that either some sort of level of discussion wwwaaayyy over my head was taking place or some sort of joke was going on. I'm a complete newbie to this site...are there moderators who clean out the trolls etc?
The flamers on the internet are fond of saying back and forth to one another that each is so "fail", rather than, "you have failed". Let us examine failure.

The Fermi Paradox raises the possibility that once intelligent life reaches the stage that we find ourselves at now, it goes extinct. There are just no signs out there, and we can see pretty far.

I also want to see what the Liar's Paradox is. I am posting for myself, Adrian. Hmm, nice name. I think I will change my name to Augie Chacon.

Many modern myths of a sociopolitical nature center around failure, deception, or accountability. I am not saying that science falls into the trap that religion does, but it is not immune from every trap. In particular, we have reason to be concerned with diminishing returns, the psychology of previous investment, and unintended consequences. How can otherwise intelligent persons not perceive grave threats, and all of these persons in a big group? No matter which one you ask they say the same thing, sometimes using the same words. On the upside, they are easily found. There's one on every street corner. For example, why would you believe that technology, for instance, substitutes for energy? Energy is put into gas tanks in the form of liquid hydrocarbon fuels. If you run out of some, now technology will find a way? I question that. Collapse of civilizations have happened, and that is a plausible explanation for what we are seeing. This puts science in a new light. Have we been believing scientists as a new priesthood? Is science too concerned with a kneejerk reaction to religion? All of its efforts are still put into a diametrical opposition to religion? Because, they sure were at the outset.

Failure to provide a livelihood for their family is becoming a stark new reality for millions of households in the United States, and that was not due to any personal failure, see? Generally, the myths would have it that the person has insufficient knowledge of how the world works to survive, or has fallen prey to some proclivity towards excess, such as drinking too much. That is no longer necessary. You do not have to do anything wrong. You just have to be in transportation, construction, or real estate. Your mistake was in believing you had money in a 401K, or that Wall Street could run the economy.

Is there anybody here who believes that the world oil production peak occurred in 2005? If not, do you believe that the earth had a one-time endowment of petroleum? If not, do you believe that no new discoveries of supergiant oil fields have been made in about thirty years? If not, do you believe that the largest oil field in the world cannot increase production? If not, do you believe that the average age of an oil field from start to finish is about fifty years? If not, do you believe that enhanced oil recovery means that the oil present will run out faster? If not, do you believe that matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed, but merely change form?

I believe that capitalism is predicated upon growth, otherwise investors would not invest capital expecting a higher rate of return. I believe that civilization as currently configured is exploiting a one-time energy and raw material feedstock and that upon exhaustion of that fortuitous circumstance will contract. Everything is on the table; the world doesn't owe you a living. I believe populations exploded because of cheap oil. I believe that the intelligent management of population is to prevent birth, and not let mass death be the mechanism.

Before the industrial revolution is going to happen soon, when ecologists tell us the carrying capacity of England was between one and five million souls. Thanks to the plowman it rose to the latter figure in the Medieval warming period. This Third Millenium we are in has seen the rise of secular humanism. I think I saw a humanitarian crocodile yesterday.
quote/unquote, Dentroman:
Sir, what are you babbling about? This is beyond stupidity. You can't even keep your tenses straight! Please make an effort to keep your posts on topic, and the people here will be able to have a pleasant discussion here.

Correct, and yeah, I know that, and yeah, I didn't mean 'worstest', I meant 'worster'.

Do you know what it's like to get up in the morning and check my E-mail and have it say, "Dentroman replied", etc., and "Carlos Guerra replied", and "Jason Spicer replied". Do you, huh? Well, it is not very pleasant, I can assure you.

I slipped the tenses intentionally to establish "before the Industrial Revolution" as a mode of life rather than a point on a timeline.

We often say that we are going to nuke your country back to the stone age.

The phrase "bomb them back into the Stone Age", was made by then Chief of Staff, US Air Force General Curtis E. Lemay, when in 1965, he made the statement towards the North Vietnamese, during the Vietnam War; "They've got to draw in their horns and stop their aggression, or we're going to bomb them back into the stone age." The gist of that statement implied a fierce aerial attack that would have utterly destroyed its target's infrastructure, forcing its survivors to revert to primitive technology in order to survive.

The global oil production peak will take us back to a condition similar to the one which existed prior to the industrial revolution, is perhaps what I should have said.

I like to mix the tenses. I am psychic; time means nothing to me. I see right through it. I see dead people. When it becomes so out of whack that what people have every common sense reason to know, but choose to turn a blind eye towards, it is time for us to mix up our reasoning process as well. I refer to how 30 people for 30 years can claim not to know Michael Jackson is gonna die from a drug overdose does not stand the test of ordinary knowledge. And what is their denial mechanism? "I saw no evidence of drug use". Was that before or after you tripped over his dead body?
SEB, if you don't like rationalists complaining about your posts, you're free to start making sense any time you want. If you insult the intelligence of others, don't be surprised when they return the favor.
I did not keep any words out of your grasp, Dentro, by, for example, spelling them backwards. I used an idiom common to children, since your photo looks like that of someone in youth, facetiously suggesting that I had to "get down to your level", for you to understand. I do not detect the light of understanding in your replies. Perhaps I needed to try a second language? The point remains, you have the book smarts. You don't know how to make it out on the streets. How could you claim that I do not have a grasp of the scientific method? It isn't what you believe. It is what the evidence shows. What experiments did you expect me to perform here on the internet, hmm?

I have performed a few perfunctory ones, and , in attempting to establish a time line for events, my results now show that this website posts in Central Standard Time. That is all that is needed in order to know when I am posting, and that's been proved to you. Maybe you use a menu or go into the settings. I did an experiment. I made a post consisting of the time on my clock when I posted. After an elapsed time of one day, the post time as registered by A|N was visible side-by-side with the post time as input by me. This gave a constant of minus two hours for me to apply to the A|N website post time and giving a definitive time that I post in San Diego, applicable to all posts on this website. It is important to some not to claim to predict something which has already happened.

More than that, the users of A|N are not scientists, they're ordinary. They believe that if "God" is the spelling used by Christians, they are getting somewhere by spelling it "god", or you, with "esp". That's pitiful. That's not even pseudointellectual, speaking of bullshit. It's a crime. You have to run right along with the reader in some kind of realm to be rationalist, like any writer, like Stephen King, without refusing to use the word, "hell", or else a rationalist will be taken as a person not independent of Christians, rather, someone who just has a new set of curse words they substituted for the usual ones. We are not disproving the existence of God here. God, hell, etc. are ordinary things for establishing stuff like what I did was wrong, what side I am on, i.e. if I say, "bad guys", that's the people on the other side.

You had two thousand years to disprove the existence of God; you didn't do it. Check your calendar if I'm wrong. See? The spellchecker makes me capitalize xhristian christian Christian. Now it doesn't. I had acknowledgement - it still identifies the correct spelling of acknowledgement as wrong.

Set for your self the task of discovering the spelling acceptable to the computer and you may begin to appreciate that it is less obvious than whipping out the dictionary, and thus you can move on to how any person lands at your location with a differing set of beliefs. Instead, you seem to value whatever the great mass of people believe.

I insisted upon vulgarizing 'worst' to allow a dialog to develop. I wrote it, you called me on it, I attempted to demonstrate again, you called it again, now we'll go on to the point: There is where you are from and there is a standardized language. If you use the standardized language, there is no telling where you're from. If readers are familiar with the vernacular through the ages, you can write as if you are from this place many years ago. This dimensional mobility allows the level of discourse to permit the unspoken presence of prejudices available to us, which are known, which is fun.

I get that from an interview I heard in which the teenage abductee of a serial murderer responded, "I likeded him". The policeman reacted so violently to the use of that simple slur that I thought certainly if you can drop a word and get a reaction which is a ten on a scale of one-to-ten, have it; hold it; use it.

"You likeded him!?" I could see that soon genocide against every last redneck would break out. Don't be poor white trash. Don't live in a trailer park. God hates them and always hits them with tornadoes.

You apparently did not get my point about evidence. I am asking how, in a society with strongly-proscripted behavior like drug use, millions can suffer imprisonment while at the same time a public figure can conduct himself in such a way as to use opioids for thirty years and be surrounded by thirty well-qualified employees none of whom saw any reason to suspect drug use. I know about drug use because I used. My eye can tell a junkie at 100 paces. You'd get robbed.


"What'd that one yell at you?"


"That I'm supposed to blame the Al Qaeda. The Al Qaeda didn't make a decision to send my son to Iraq. Ignorance we deal with with everyday people, 'cause they don't know. They think they know but they don't know. I thought I knew but I didn't know. (cries) I need my son."

We bus up.


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service