It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
No one does. That's the agnostic part of "agnostic atheist". The atheist part is the "lack of belief" or the "belief that there isn't".
We sure don't.
But we can argue anyway if you'd like.
It'll be fun.
Approaching a branch of science should start with the college textbook, imo. Have you read the parapsychology textbook?
Let's say for the sake of argument that psi is real. Connecting the dots between psi and religion is an easy task. This sheds a whole new light on mysticism, which then sheds a whole new light on religion, which in turn sheds a whole new light on atheism.
II. The Chimpanzees are doing something arbitrary that has no purpose for evolution. Therefore they must have free will.
III. The definition I made of a soul (because I am not relating it to anything religious) is that it is the originator of free will.
originally posted by: CB328
This thread has the most holes I've ever seen in a post before. Where to start?
Atheists don't believe there's no free will.
Other animals decorate themselves in order to appeal to mates (bowerbirds), which kind of supports evolution.
Developing a new level of thinking is indicative of evolution, not creationism.
Most Christians don't believe animals have souls, invalidating your whole thesis.
originally posted by: zackli
The meanings aren't separated. If you're an agnostic atheist, you don't claim absolute knowledge but you don't find the evidence for deities compelling to justify either a positive or negative belief.
The Penrose–Lucas argument about the implications of Gödel's incompleteness theorem for computational theories of human intelligence has been widely criticized by mathematicians, computer scientists, and philosophers, and the consensus among experts in these fields is that the argument fails, with different authors choosing different aspects of the argument to attack.
Hameroff's theory is criticized at every level, and considered to be a poor model of brain physiology. Primarily, Hameroff requires tubulin electrons to form either a Bose–Einstein or Frohlich condensate, both of which have been experimentally disproven.
Several other criticisms regarding biology have come to the fore over the years. Papers by Georgiev, D. point to a number of problems with Hameroff's proposals, including a lack of explanation for the probabilistic firing of axonal synapses, an error in the calculated number of the tubulin dimers per cortical neuron. Nevertheless Hameroff insisted on a 2013 interview that those falsifications are invalid, including the assertions made by this Wikipedia article.
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. This article lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. (January 2012) The lead section of this article may need to be rewritten. (March 2012) This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. (June 2014)
1) Research on parapsychological phenomena (psi) is being carried out in various accredited universities and research centers throughout the world by academics in different disciplines trained in the scientific method (e.g., circa 80 Ph.D.s have been awarded in psi-related topics in the UK in recent years). This research has continued for over a century despite the taboo against investigating the topic, almost complete lack of funding, and professional and personal attacks. The Parapsychological Association has been an affiliate of the AAAS since 1969, and more than 20 Nobel prizewinners and many other eminent scientists have supported the study of psi or even conducted research themselves.
2) Despite a negative attitude by some editors and reviewers, results supporting the validity of psi phenomena continue to be published in peer-reviewed, academic journals in relevant fields, from psychology to neuroscience to physics.
3) Increased experimental controls have not eliminated or even decreased significant support for the existence of psi phenomena, as suggested by various recent meta-analyses.
4) These meta-analyses and other studies17 suggest that data supportive of psi phenomena cannot reasonably be accounted for by chance or by a “file drawer” effect. Indeed, contrary to most disciplines, parapsychology journals have for decades encouraged publication of null results and of papers critical of a psi explanation. A psi trial registry has been established to improve research practice.
5) The effect sizes reported in most meta-analyses are relatively small and the phenomena cannot be produced on demand, but this also characterizes various phenomena found in other disciplines that focus on complex human behavior and performance such as psychology and medicine.
6) Although more conclusive explanations for psi phenomena await further theoretical and research development, they do not prima facie violate known laws of nature given modern theories in physics that transcend classical restrictions of time and space, combined with growing evidence for quantum effects in biological systems.
originally posted by: BlueMule
a reply to: grainofsand
Spoken like a true pseudo-skeptic debunker. :/
originally posted by: BlueMule
a reply to: AfterInfinity
Discussion, you say? Might this be an example of your discussion skills?
If that's your idea of discussion, I'll pass. Thanks anyway. I find your attitude offensive.
As for grainofsand, I gave him a chance and he decided it would be more fun to be snide and dismissive. I find his attitude offensive too.
Neither you nor he are worthy conversation partners.
Nope, I merely asked for links to source references regarding claims of 'psi'. You continued to refrain from providing such links until the quoted letter in your previous post as found on journal.frontiersin.org...
originally posted by: BlueMuleAs for grainofsand, I gave him a chance and he decided it would be more fun to be snide and dismissive.
That all seems reasonable, and certainly much less emotionally charged than this, as quoted from your good self:
Our approach does not assume that psi exists, but treats the existence of psi as a hypothesis that can and should be tested scientifically.
Pseudo-skeptical anti-psi activists/debunkers are going to have to start getting up earlier in the morning if they want to continue suppressing the truth. It's coming out, whether they like it or not.
the authors found that D. J. Bem and C. Honorton were mistaken in describing the original effect as being statistically significant. The authors conclude that the ganzfeld technique does not at present offer a replicable method for producing ESP in the laboratory.