Are There Any Atheists Who Believe in Rushes?

[Alex-db]

I think there are some faulty definitions of Atheism here.

There is no theoretical problem with being an atheist but have a feeling some pyschic phenomon may be real.

Perhaps I think the God hypethesese I have heard are clearly junk but some scientific brainwaves theory of psychic communcation may be true based on my weighting of the evidence (not may opinion, and no comment on the actual likelihood btw).

You could of course believe in rushes without believing in a God, unless you question was changed to "could they believe in God-given rushes?"

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter if you never heard of a green light. We do the damndest things at the oddest times, 1000's of them a day. Some other unexpected event has to occur with some of them or we'd be living in a very strange universe with weird non-happenings.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're kidding, right?

I'm fully aware of the concept you're citing, have been for many many years, was when the incident happened. It simply doesn't apply. No how matter how hard you want it to.

Please, . . .

[drunkencowboy]

Even better question: Is God an atheist?

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
Even better question: Is God an atheist?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. But I'm pretty sure he's an optimist.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter if you never heard of a green light. We do the damndest things at the oddest times, 1000's of them a day. Some other unexpected event has to occur with some of them or we'd be living in a very strange universe with weird non-happenings.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're kidding, right?

I'm fully aware of the concept you're citing, have been for many many years, was when the incident happened. It simply doesn't apply. No how matter how hard you want it to.

Please, . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I take a very rare action, perhaps one I've never done before and may never do again.
2. a common event but unexpected occurs at approximently the same time.

why that doesn't apply - if I stop at a green light with some visibility issues for the 1st time in my life (rare) and a guy goes thru the red ( common).

What bars that from happening?

luckyme

[The Scientist]

Sorry to say the question must be asked differently, and the simple reason of defining the term "rush."

The term rush is essentially a series of hands which are winning hands - and that can be anything from HIGH CARDS - to deuce/deuce (2/2)...but then the next sequence is the sequence of the flop, turn and river...that being the case - now the postulate - is a Reverse Rush - no matter how good your hand is - someone else beats it - option 2 - a continual series of bad cards. - but bad cards can be played and won - hence the term rush.

Add the component of God to the question - or even more so - (since the word God was not really used in the question - but the person who believes in a diety or deities...) therefore - a person who is Pagan, Buddhist, Muslim and so on - is the added factor in the equation - and hence -

Need I say more...I said more than enough - sounds to me like some is having a case of the Mondays - HAHAHAHAHAHA!

[seemorenuts]

One could also vastly simplify this question to, "Are there any Atheists who are Irrational?"

The answer is yes, enough of the time to matter.

I have a personal and close experience with an atheist filled with hatred towards religion--but anecdotal evidence is just for your entertainment.

I'm not sure if DS is so correct in believing in the infallibility of logic is whether or not there's complete or sufficient information available.

Just think of scientific and engineering solutions that have turned into disasters. Messing up the Florida Everglades, introduction of 'alien' species to solve a problem are just minor examples.

I don't know enough about history to rebut the Jesuits who point out the French Revolution and the Communist revolution as further counterexamples. Can anyone elaborate and set DS on the right track?

Then there's Kline on Mathematics and perhaps Chaitin (I dunno). Apparently faith is more important and prevalent then the neophyte first thinks.

Scientists rely on faith, just not the kind that we're most familiar with.

DS needs to grow if he's to be interesting. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[seemorenuts]

I'm assuming reasons for creating this thread are related to David's following beliefs (correct me if I'm wrong):

a) why I'd be among 5 million satisfactory US Presidents and/or world rulers, if only you'd let me;

b) why atheists tend to be smarter than religious people;

c) why I'd love to weed out the dumb and disabled via eugenics but I won't quite come out and admit it.

Have a look at this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Starfish-Spider-Un...6453&sr=8-1

There is a summary available online if you google it--it's an 8 page summary of the book which includes the description of the Spaniards' failure to conquer the Aztecs (which, BTW DS would say are primitive and hence less adaptable).

Have a look at
Bottom-Up Distributed Intelligence and Earth Intelligence Network

Steele presents ideas based on his 40 years experience in the intelligence field in his book, Information Operations: All Information, All Languages, All the Time

Note in the images Steele offers within the Amazon site, he accommmodates the lessons and input of history and religions respectively:

New Craft of Intelligence

Seven Views of Reality

Seemingly, on the other hand:

Second Chance... by Zbigniew Brzezinski presents a current crisis. The author presents the foreign policy mistakes and accomplishments of the last three U.S. Presidents in great detail, (albeit any religiosity may seem to support David's position)... I don't think Bush I and Clinton were unduly religious; as for Bush II, google Chris Rock's comments... which came first, the aptitude or the religion?

Nonetheless, I am convinced that there is no shortage of competent people throughout the chain of command somewhere that meet David's standards. Failure stemmed from structure or process (spider vs starfish). This should quell DS' ambitions.

What's scary about Brzezinski's book was voiced at the end of his interview with Jon Stewart last week on the Daily Show (paraphrased):

"If we fail to address the problems in Iraq in a timely manner, the conflict could spread to ALL of Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan--and we would (surely) lose U.S. supremacy completely."

He didn't even have to mention Syria! This point is also missing from the readers' reviews of the book.

David, should we elevate the discussion to match the complexity of our world? or are you still dissatisfied with how we handle 'the fundamentals?'

I believe a diverse community maximizes creativity and the necessary input for decision making. It is oversimplistic to take the Manichean stance.


A random example of a contribution from a source DS would usually belittle based on overgeneralized labelling:

Negreanu's neglected and correct observation that Asians don't get any respect in the poker world (in proportion to their achievements--see his blog archives).

Who else in a million years would bother to step up and make this obvious and relevant statement? He demonstrates many leadership qualities by doing so.

Wisdom comes from all sorts of places, and no one should be expected to meet your misguided standards. DUCYODIODI?

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
There was a study analyzing the 76'ers and how field goal percents changed based on whether previous shots were made or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it was this year's sixers that doesn't surprise me. Of course, they haven't made enough field goals to have a statistically significant sample [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[seemorenuts]

There is evidence that atheists have a sense of humor:

-- In 1998, a newsletter titled New Mexicans for Science and Reason carried an article that the state of Alabama had voted to change the value of pi from 3.14159 to the "Biblical value" of 3.0.

http://fe4.news.re3.yahoo.com/s/afp/2007...wprsb.cLYKek3QF