Are There Any Atheists Who Believe in Rushes?

[AWoodside]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm more agnostic than atheist, but I've personally have had experiences with precognition.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL confimation bias FTW .

[goofball]

Assuming by "believe in" you mean probable right now as opposed to possible at some point then of course not.

[SNOWBALL]

Yes there are. I have more than one atheist friend who believes in ghosts, and psychics. Talking to them about this stuff is not a good time at all, to say the least.

I used to think Bayes theorum was the simplest thing in the world until I talked to these people. Now I realize that a lot of people cannot or will not understand it or apply it.

[Spence]

I guess that's why I'm an agnostic and not an atheist. I believe human's just need to advance and elevate their awareness of the energy around them. Gd, I sound like such a hippy, but I believe it, so eh. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
or Astrology, or Scientology, or Precognition, or Psychics?

[/ QUOTE ]

There may be some, but I am not one of them.

[Richas]

For me astrology, scientology, precognition and psychics are fairly clearly created by scamsters.

A rush though? I think it depends on the definition. Over the short term the quality of cards dealt is variable. I believe in "card death" and "getting a few nice hands on the bounce". I have seen it myself so I know this exists. I am not sure if this is a "rush" though I suspect a couple of other factors help rushes - the behavior of those involved. The player hitting hands starts to be a bit more aggressive, the confidence of a stack. The opponents play a bit weaker through fear of the now higher stack and (subconsciously?) remembering the strong hand(s) just laid down.

[ahnuld]

Meh, in my head I dont believe in it, but you still cant help yourself sometimes when you are playing poker and hitting every hand, playing craps and never throwing a seven. I mean, you realise it is all random luck but empirical evidence is so strong that you find yourself trying to not "think" seven, despite how dumb that sounds.

[seemorenuts]

All of them, DUCY?

Optimal belief systems are probability clouds--they best accommodate input.

This is why labels don't apply at least to the superintelligent.

David, have you had your cloud checked today?


OT:

For future reference, could you please define 'high-falootin' or provide a link to your definition?

It would help.

[-moe-]

As for David's original question, that's 5x "no" for me.

Anyone who could give credible evidence for any tiny little piece of the things he mentioned would be showered with accolades, and be the most unambigious winner of a Nobel Prize (in Physics, most likely) ever.

So if it was likely that any of these things had any truth to them, scientists would be falling all over themselves trying to grab that honor. Very, very, very few -- extremely few -- seem to do so. And the few who do have a nasty tendency to turn out to be full-blown cranks.

This is not the only reason I don't believe in those things, but I find it quite telling.

[ QUOTE ]
Spence: I do believe that human's are yet to find a higher realm of perception and thought, that will allow the brain to tap in to the knowledge of the energy all around us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

[RobNottsUk]

Yes, I believe Rushes exist, in hindsight!