Richard Dawkins' Brand of Atheism

Great Debates
441

[QUOTE=Anduril]
Which atheist has consistently posted that theists are “delusional” or “illogical”? And please provide a link. I’m not sure any atheist has ever posted outright that theists are delusional or illogical without some form of a caveat.
[/QUOTE]

You could start with post 440 below.
Then we have

[QUOTE=Trunk]

The problem is, there is no argument from the atheistic side. We’re not the one making fantastical claims
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Ghanima]

You aren’t going to see any atheists insisting on abolishing other people’s right to worship their own god. Some of us may think it’s stupid, illogical and ridiculous and go ahead and say so,
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]

Well, if we’re in a debate regarding the existence of god, why wouldn’t the opposing side ridicule that stance? Why do you feel the belief in god is above ridicule?
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=mstay]

Therefore, it would seem all due accordance must be shown to Islam, Scientology, Mithraism, Christianity, and a neo Mars cult.

Personally, I view all the above with similar skepticism. Is lunatic or nut job too severe? Maybe. How about “suffering from severe cognitive dissonance and somewhat delusional?”
Another idea is that it’s actually not too difficult at all to feel superior to those who believe some random messiah was crucified and then returned from the dead 2000 years ago.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Valteron]

and in your deepest being you realize that religious belief is unproven nonsense, however comforting it may be

It is interesting to note that if you use the common sense that you surely possess as a rational human being, you would grasp all of the above distinctions. But like so many people of religion, when it is pointed out to you that you are believing extraordinary propositions for which there is no rational proof, you choose to make necessity a virtue, and call it “faith”. You openly admit that your beliefs are unprovable, untestable and unsupported by evidence, and then you rejoice in your ability to believe them anyhow.

In so doing, you are giving the back of your hand to the most precious and enobling aspect of your humanity: your power to reason.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=catsix]

I have never seen a compelling argument for treating religion differently than any other irrational, illogical belief in myths and fairy tales.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=hotflungwok]

If someone chooses to believe that ice cream is good for computers and they should spoon it right in, I’m certainly not going to respect their belief. I don’t see why religious beliefs should be given a miss with this. They should be held to the same standards all other beliefs are held to in society
[/QUOTE]
.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]

Many religious people simply don’t believe in logic or rationality; they don’t have axioms, just faith. They just use logic and evidence as a weapon to convince people; if logic and evidence goes against them, they abandon it.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=drachillix]

Illogical and or poorly supported beliefs are often signs of poor decision making and critical thinking skills.

It hurts me when people like that run for mayor, get hired as my boss, become my accountant, babysit my children, perform surgical procedures on me, defend me in court, write my insurance policies, etc.
[/QUOTE]

I’ll be unimpressed if people pick nits and say ‘well in those quotes the word delusional wasn’t actually used’. Clearly the message from these posters and from many others is that theism=stupidity.

442

I count about two solid hits in that series of quotes wherein people themselves are being called stupid or delusional without enough caveats (though note that many of the seeming dead hits DO have caveats), and the rest all misses in which it is the beliefs which are being called so, which is hardly the same thing, and not what you promised to show.

443

[QUOTE=Apos]
I count about two solid hits in that series of quotes wherein people themselves are being called stupid or delusional without enough caveats (though note that many of the seeming dead hits DO have caveats), and the rest all misses in which it is the beliefs which are being called so, which is hardly the same thing, and not what you promised to show.
[/QUOTE]

‘Caveat’, eh? Tomayto tomahto. Looks more like finding ways to say ‘idiot’ without actually saying ‘idiot’.

444

Either you can prove your case, or you can’t. If you can’t, perhaps its because you didn’t include enough caveats in your original claim. And confusing calling beliefs delusional with calling people delusional is a pretty big distinction you would do well not to misrepresent, particularly if you want to have any legitimacy to complain about caveats.

445

[QUOTE=monavis]
How do you know it was God you experienced and not just your own inner need?What proof is there for an after life?

Religious experiences come from the inner person’s desires it can be self hypnosis or some other such as auto-suggestion.

Many people would swear that the sun spun around at Fatima, but Science can prove that it did not, nor did it come closer to earth.

Beliefs are based on what we desire,when we can know then it is no longer faith.

We can know there is a tree in our yard and that takes no faith.
Monavis
[/QUOTE]

You make some good points, and you deserve an answer, but the main problem is the scientific method. That is belief in the scientific method to give you all the answer of life.

When I was young science was highly respected, and dealt with material issues only. Things like rocks, trees, and the physical parts life. Most scientists were theists at that time and religious issues were never researched. It was assumed man had an eternal soul and would live after death.

This began to change in the '60s, psychology was being elevated to science standing and more was heard on evolution. I saw the first “God is Dead” bumper stickers about that time. Studies of the brain changed “I think” into the “brain thinks.” Former behaviour problems – depression, alcoholism, etc, became diseases or gene related. Slowly science produced theories of mind, and made it a material study. This in outline explains the conflict between science and religion going on today. One of the latest “hits” was the announcement that science had proved prayer to be useless. I thought this was very bold of science and was met with anger from the religious people. My thoughts on this were if science acknowledges the placebo effect, then it should acknowledge prayer, since both operate on the same principle.

Now that we are up to date, I should point out that the scientific method is not infallible, it can not measure beyond the physical. It can not measure spiritual events. So here science says they don’t exist. Sad, that you know only one side of the discussion. You can not learn from people who think like you do.

There is room in this world for religion and science, they are only facets of life, there are many others. I will discuss more about enlightenment if anyone wants to here. I can not answer all the posts, but will try to answer those interested.

446

[QUOTE=Apos]
Either you can prove your case, or you can’t. If you can’t, perhaps its because you didn’t include enough caveats in your original claim. And confusing calling beliefs delusional with calling people delusional is a pretty big distinction you would do well not to misrepresent, particularly if you want to have any legitimacy to complain about caveats.
[/QUOTE]

I posted cases where it is stated as well as implied. If you wish to be disingenuous, you can insist that unless it’s explicitly said in so many words then it wasn’t meant. On the other hand, if you wish to pick nits, go right ahead. But first convince me that

isn’t just a fancy way of saying ‘stupid’.

447

No: most of your cases involve calling beliefs delusional, which is not the same thing as dismissing people as such. In fact, you’ve done the exact same yourself: you aren’t exactly kind to the views of people who read the Bible literally, for instance (though, it must be pointed out that at least those people have read the Bible well enough to know what punishments God demands for things like sabbath breaking, apostasy, idol worshiping, and so forth).

As I already said, you have indeed noted one or two cases in which people did cross the line into outright dismissing religious people altogether. But you certainly haven’t made any sort of case that the majority of non-believers do this, that it is characteristic of non-believers, and so on. Yelling at me isn’t going to solve this lack.

448

[QUOTE=lekatt]
My thoughts on this were if science acknowledges the placebo effect, then it should acknowledge prayer, since both operate on the same principle.
[/quote]

Did you really say what I think you just said? Claimed effects of prayer are the placebo effect?

I’d be happy to learn IF you can actually establish that there are such things as spiritual events in the way you mean them: i.e. things that are more than just internal experiences, but which actually point to realities and facts that are non-material. Science does not say that things it can’t measure don’t exist. The other side of the coin though, is that science is one of the ways in which you can demonstrate that something exists in an objective, evidence-available-to-all sense. If you can’t use science, then it is contingent on you explaining some alternative method by which you can show that your claims have merit. So far, I don’t think any reasonable alternative method has been put forth.

449

[QUOTE=Apos]
Did you really say what I think you just said? Claimed effects of prayer are the placebo effect?

I’d be happy to learn IF you can actually establish that there are such things as spiritual events in the way you mean them: i.e. things that are more than just internal experiences, but which actually point to realities and facts that are non-material. Science does not say that things it can’t measure don’t exist. The other side of the coin though, is that science is one of the ways in which you can demonstrate that something exists in an objective, evidence-available-to-all sense. If you can’t use science, then it is contingent on you explaining some alternative method by which you can show that your claims have merit. So far, I don’t think any reasonable alternative method has been put forth.
[/QUOTE]

I said they operate on the same principle. That principle is “thought creates reality.” The patient believes in the placebo and gets well, or at least better. The person who prays believes in the power of prayer, and whatever gets better.
It is a well extablished spiritual principle.

There are numerous ways to show spiritual events are real. The University of Virginia psychology dept. collects veridical near death experiences. Those are experiences where the person dies clinically, no brain waves, no heart beat, for a period of time from a minute or two to an hour or two. When the person is revived, or some just come back on their own, they are able to tell the events that happened while they were clinically dead accurately. Not only events seeable from the table they died on, but events that happened in others rooms around the table. This information was verified by the doctors and technicians present. That’s why they are called veridical NDEs. There are numerous accounts of veridical NDEs. This prompted research and the same results were obtained. This is one way, there are others.

450

[QUOTE=lekatt]
I said they operate on the same principle. That principle is “thought creates reality.” The patient believes in the placebo and gets well, or at least better. The person who prays believes in the power of prayer, and whatever gets better.
It is a well extablished spiritual principle.
[/quote]

In both cases, though, there is no demonstrated spiritual principle at all: the placebo effect is not based on anything supernatural.

I don’t believe your characterization, mostly because I know enough about the brain to know that “brain waves” are not the only things of interest going on in the brain showing that it is still functioning in some fashion relevant to experiences. Brain waves are what is normal for the brain’s electrical activity. That’s not the same thing as saying that they are the only measure of its function.

If this were the case, then this would be science, not a spiritual alternative to science. However, most of these claims are heavily interpreted and on examination less than credible (especially those dealing with “mysterious knowledge in other rooms non-accessible to normal human senses”). And even if they weren’t, you still have the problem I raised above, which is that there is no particular reason to think that all brain processes cease just because the heart has stopped and brain waves cannot be measured.

451

The placebo effect is real. It is also an entirely human experience. That is, people’s expectations about what will happen influence what happens (to the degree that they involve things within the control of the person). I agree entirely that any effects of religion on a person’s experiences are placebo effects. As a result, such religious experiences are simply the creation of the person, secondary to the person’s expectations, and having nothing to do with any supernatural or superhuman force.

452

[QUOTE=lekatt]
There are numerous ways to show spiritual events are real. The University of Virginia psychology dept. collects veridical near death experiences. Those are experiences where the person dies clinically, no brain waves, no heart beat, for a period of time from a minute or two to an hour or two. When the person is revived, or some just come back on their own, they are able to tell the events that happened while they were clinically dead accurately.
[/QUOTE]
Even the University of Virginia can’t possibly know that a private experience of someone else was described accurately. And have you a cite on that no brain activity and no heart beat for an hour or two?

453

[QUOTE=Apos]
In both cases, though, there is no demonstrated spiritual principle at all: the placebo effect is not based on anything supernatural.

I don’t believe your characterization, mostly because I know enough about the brain to know that “brain waves” are not the only things of interest going on in the brain showing that it is still functioning in some fashion relevant to experiences. Brain waves are what is normal for the brain’s electrical activity. That’s not the same thing as saying that they are the only measure of its function.

If this were the case, then this would be science, not a spiritual alternative to science. However, most of these claims are heavily interpreted and on examination less than credible (especially those dealing with “mysterious knowledge in other rooms non-accessible to normal human senses”). And even if they weren’t, you still have the problem I raised above, which is that there is no particular reason to think that all brain processes cease just because the heart has stopped and brain waves cannot be measured.
[/QUOTE]

Would you agree all brain processes are stopped if there was no blood in the brain as was the case of Pam Reynolds’ more than one hour surgery. Your opinion that the brain can still be alive and working while there is no brain activity is not supported by any scientific study. It is pure speculation. We are not talking about a few cases by a few doctors, we are talking about over 30 years of research and thousands of accounts.

Here is a link for you to do some reading in the literature.
http://www.near-death.com/

I think you will read at some of the many articles if you are really interested.

454

[QUOTE=David Simmons]
Even the University of Virginia can’t possibly know that a private experience of someone else was described accurately. And have you a cite on that no brain activity and no heart beat for an hour or two?
[/QUOTE]

They collected them because they were verified by doctors and techs in attendance at the time.

455

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
The placebo effect is real. It is also an entirely human experience. That is, people’s expectations about what will happen influence what happens (to the degree that they involve things within the control of the person). I agree entirely that any effects of religion on a person’s experiences are placebo effects. As a result, such religious experiences are simply the creation of the person, secondary to the person’s expectations, and having nothing to do with any supernatural or superhuman force.
[/QUOTE]

The placebo effect is as I described it. Not as you described. Thoughts create reality. Does a person have control of their illnesses, if so why don’t they just get well without the sugar pill?

456

[QUOTE=lekatt]
They collected them because they were verified by doctors and techs in attendance at the time.
[/QUOTE]
:confused:

457

[QUOTE=lekatt]
The placebo effect is as I described it. Not as you described. Thoughts create reality. Does a person have control of their illnesses, if so why don’t they just get well without the sugar pill?
[/QUOTE]
People do get well without sugar pills. They also fail to get well when given sugar pills or when given all other manner of things that would invoke a response expectancy. People can’t control reality with their thoughts altogether. You don’t believe that they can, do you?

The placebo effect, or response expectancy, does work as I described it. I actually studied with someone who has contributed significantly to research on the topic.

Some of his research actually demonstrated that the placebo effect still exerts an influence even when people know it is a placebo.

Thoughts do not create reality. However, your expectations can influence your perceptions, and to some extent, how your body behaves. Obviously, there are severe limitations on how much your thoughts can influence. Reality is a bitch.

458

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Would you agree all brain processes are stopped if there was no blood in the brain as was the case of Pam Reynolds’ more than one hour surgery.
[/quote]

No. Brains are made up of cells, and most of those cells continue to live and function in any patient that has even the slightest chance of recovering from clinical death, let alone actually does. The best you can argue is that the metabolism of these cells was slowed, but you cannot possible argue that they were stopped or made to cease functioning.

Nonsense. How can any of these people have ever recovered if their brain tissues were no longer “alive”? Tissues that actually are completely dead do not recover. Recovery requires at least some living cells. You are the one that needs to prove the opposite: YOU need to prove that there is no actual brain function AT ALL that could leave impressions or experiences during clinical death.

Of course, that’s only part of the story. In the Pam Reynolds case, there are any number of more likely explanations, among them simply that she got a lot of simple credulous hits in describing her surgery the way that cold reading works, and this particular case was itself then cherry-picked precisely for that reason. What you generally never mention when you raise the Reynolds case is that nearly everything she recounts that was accurate happened before her brain temp was dropped. You also always fail to mention that the period during which her brain EEG was flatlined was only roughly 5 minutes at the midpoint of an hour-long surgery. In fact, her OBE and her supposedly amazing recounting of conversations began before she was even put in cardiac arrest, let alone flatlined.

Of course, even if no natural explanation sufficed, can you prove that what really happened was instead that Pam Reynolds unknowingly briefly gained the ability to read minds? I can think of any number of other explanations that go beyond what we know of material life that explain the event equally well but do not require there to be any sort of afterlife. And you can’t discount any of them.

I don’t find those account as credible evidence of spiritual existence, and you most certainly do not have science on your side here. There simply isn’t a well-established body of scientific evidence supporting the idea that spirits exist separate from the body.

We’ve been over this before. Many many people overly interpret these vivid experiences to make them sound more extreme and supposedly inexplicable by natural means than they already are. Furthermore you simply ignore or discount all the cases in which the reports of people having NDE do NOT recount things correctly: with that kind of cherry-picking, you can build any sort of case you want about anything.

None of these are particularly convincing as evidence of life after death.

459

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
People do get well without sugar pills. They also fail to get well when given sugar pills or when given all other manner of things that would invoke a response expectancy. People can’t control reality with their thoughts altogether. You don’t believe that they can, do you?

The placebo effect, or response expectancy, does work as I described it. I actually studied with someone who has contributed significantly to research on the topic.

Some of his research actually demonstrated that the placebo effect still exerts an influence even when people know it is a placebo.

Thoughts do not create reality. However, your expectations can influence your perceptions, and to some extent, how your body behaves. Obviously, there are severe limitations on how much your thoughts can influence. Reality is a bitch.
[/QUOTE]

Reality is what we make it to be. As Ab Lincoln said: “people are about as happy as they want to be.” Thoughts change reality, change your thoughts, change your reality.

Experiment:
Say to yourself every day, twice a day or more. “Everyday in everyway things are getting better and better.” This is known as the first affirmation used to change reality. It was given by a pharmacist, and it worked when the directions were followed.

460

[QUOTE=Apos]
No. Brains are made up of cells, and most of those cells continue to live and function in any patient that has even the slightest chance of recovering from clinical death, let alone actually does. The best you can argue is that the metabolism of these cells was slowed, but you cannot possible argue that they were stopped or made to cease functioning.

Nonsense. How can any of these people have ever recovered if their brain tissues were no longer “alive”? Tissues that actually are completely dead do not recover. Recovery requires at least some living cells. You are the one that needs to prove the opposite: YOU need to prove that there is no actual brain function AT ALL that could leave impressions or experiences during clinical death.

Of course, that’s only part of the story. In the Pam Reynolds case, there are any number of more likely explanations, among them simply that she got a lot of simple credulous hits in describing her surgery the way that cold reading works, and this particular case was itself then cherry-picked precisely for that reason. What you generally never mention when you raise the Reynolds case is that nearly everything she recounts that was accurate happened before her brain temp was dropped. You also always fail to mention that the period during which her brain EEG was flatlined was only roughly 5 minutes at the midpoint of an hour-long surgery. In fact, her OBE and her supposedly amazing recounting of conversations began before she was even put in cardiac arrest, let alone flatlined.

Of course, even if no natural explanation sufficed, can you prove that what really happened was instead that Pam Reynolds unknowingly briefly gained the ability to read minds? I can think of any number of other explanations that go beyond what we know of material life that explain the event equally well but do not require there to be any sort of afterlife. And you can’t discount any of them.

I don’t find those account as credible evidence of spiritual existence, and you most certainly do not have science on your side here. There simply isn’t a well-established body of scientific evidence supporting the idea that spirits exist separate from the body.

We’ve been over this before. Many many people overly interpret these vivid experiences to make them sound more extreme and supposedly inexplicable by natural means than they already are. Furthermore you simply ignore or discount all the cases in which the reports of people having NDE do NOT recount things correctly: with that kind of cherry-picking, you can build any sort of case you want about anything.

None of these are particularly convincing as evidence of life after death.
[/QUOTE]

I see you believe that the brain, as well as the eyes and ears, can continue to function while the body is in a state of clinical death and the blood removed from the brain for surgery purposes. Pam said she watched the operation from a position at the surgeons shoulder. So the brain, eyes, and ears would have to be mobile while the body was clinically dead if your conclusion is to be believed.

The doctors in attendance came to a different conclusion, as well as the dozens of medical doctors researching this phenomenon for the past 30 years. They came to the conclusion that our consciousness is separate from our bodies and can continue to live beyond the death of our bodies. This is not a new idea by any means, the greater majority of the human race has believed they will live after death as far back as recorded history goes, over the centuries into present time. I believe this research just validates that belief.

Now does this prove the existence of God, no it doesn’t, at least not yet.