Are There Any Atheists Who Believe in Rushes?

[David Sklansky]

or Astrology, or Scientology, or Precognition, or Psychics?

[Spence]

I believe in rushes simply because of the dynamic of your opponents playing weaker against you, and having the confidence to play to your utmost potential, probably different than what you'd consider a rush though.

Astrology, Scientology, Precognition no.

Psychics...I do not believe there are psychics (I'd have to meet one) right now. However, 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.

I am also an agnostic, not an atheist.

[-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?

[Spence]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that we barely use 10% of our brain coupled with the fact that energy is all around is in all different forms. It's interesting to me that in death the energy that was used in brain function and all other functions of the body do not simply dissipate (being physically impossible to do so), but most likely changes form. I'm not saying its possible now, but I would NOT be surprised to run in to somebody (or at least witness) somebody who is very aware of everything around him, even things which he could not realistically perceive.

[Insp. Clue!So?]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that we barely use 10% of our brain coupled with the fact that energy is all around is in all different forms. It's interesting to me that in death the energy that was used in brain function and all other functions of the body do not simply dissipate (being physically impossible to do so), but most likely changes form. I'm not saying its possible now, but I would NOT be surprised to run in to somebody (or at least witness) somebody who is very aware of everything around him, even things which he could not realistically perceive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fact?

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm

[ChipFerFree]

[ QUOTE ]

Fact?

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice ref -- thank you!

[Spence]

If that is indeed true, then please omit the 10% figure from my post. I have just recently in the last few months started to question what I would usually just accept. The main reason I joined these forums was not to discuss poker, but the many other subjects you have going on at any given time. You will see my flounder around a bit, and make some obvious errors, but I assure you I will research any mistakes that are pointed out to me, and try to learn as much as I can. I have recently been reading and talking with some extremely smart people, and my view of thing's has changed completely since where I began. There is one area where I wish to tackle more than any other, and that is Quantum mechanics. An idea that all time is present is very interesting to me.

[-moe-]

[ QUOTE ]
Spence: It's interesting to me that in death the energy that was used in brain function and all other functions of the body do not simply dissipate (being physically impossible to do so), but most likely changes form.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem a bit confused on this matter. The fact is that the energy does dissipate.

That is, as heat from the dead body to the surroundings.

(As the molecules making up the body slowly transfer their kinetic energy to whatever external molecules is in contact with the body (air molecules, usuallly) at the time after death, until the body is at the same temperature as its surroundings.)

I fail to see how that could in any way be a basis for believing in Deepak Chopra-style Lala-land ideas. What do you find so mystical about this process?

Could your view be colored by not really understanding the concept of "energy"? You seem to use it more like silly middle-aged women in brightly colored clothes do, than like physicists does.

[Spence]

sorry, I'm absolutely retarded.

I did not mean to use dissipate, thats exactly what it does, I instead meant dissapear or get destroyed. The energy in the body surely dissipates. I really have to be more careful about what I write. I'm just showing that the energy that WAS used in somebody elses thought process and memory is indeed all around us, but more than likely in a different form, or more likely a different frequency.

[AWoodside]

I have no doubt in my mind that you could find people who claimed to be Atheists, while at the same time claiming to be psychic, precognitive, etc. I'm inclined to say that in some sense these people aren't 'true' atheists, but it doesn't seem to amount to much more than a quibbling over definitions.

I suppose even someone who adopted a hardline atheist position could claim to be psychic and be internally consistent... depending on how he justified his belief. He might claim that there are laws of physics which have not yet been discovered which will show a clear connection between human thought processes and information about the future, using a type of anthropic principle to justify the necessary existence of said laws (he's a psychic, so the laws of physics must be such to allow this). You could certainly make a strong case that the atheist/psychic in question is an extremely poor scientist, but claiming he was not a 'true' atheist may be much more difficult.

If he thought he was a psychic because pink fairies visited him every night and told him the future it would be a different story.