Texas Shooter: "Church-goers are stupid"

Pintman Paddy Losty

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4851812/texas-church-shooting-boy-family-murdered-devin-kelley-26/

It appears the shooter in the awful Texas church massacre was a dedicated atheist who hated religion. Apparently he used to rant online about religion and preached his atheism on Facebook.

Atheist groups have distanced themselves from him in the aftermath and condemned his actions but I wonder was this a case of militant atheism going too far and causing someone with mental health problems to become radicalized.

The media generally has no issue in linking Muslim terrorists to radical Islam however there appears to be a reticence to link this attack to radical atheism.

Sometimes the scorn and derision that is heaped on believers can be a bit much. Maybe this is the result when that type of attitude festers and the wrong person is brainwashed.

magicbastarder

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

I wonder was this a case of militant atheism going too far and causing someone with mental health problems to become radicalized.

i think you have it the wrong way round there. the mental health problems led to him 'going too far', not the converse.

i guess the acid test would be if he had not been an atheist, would he have never murdered anyone, but that's something we can just guess at. my guess is he'd have found his reasons to do it anyway.

silverharp

he had family connections to people in the church so that muddies the argument too. Ive yet to hear about a strand of atheism that suggests using terrorism to kill Christians?

NIMAN

People are allowed to be stupid, doesn't mean they deserve to die.

It's no-ones right to decide what others should believe.

branie2

He shouldn't have called them stupid

smacl

branie2 wrote: »

He shouldn't have called them stupid

True, but hardly significant when compared to shooting them. The problem in the states clearly seems to be gun control.

MrPudding

branie2 wrote: »

He shouldn't have called them stupid

So is he (or anyone) not entitled to their opinion? Atheist are called a lot worse by the religious. Two wrongs don't make a right, but if the religious are entitled to call me names for my not believing in gods then I should be entitled (should I wish to do so) to call them stupid for believing in obvious nonsense.

MrP

branie2

It's name calling, not opinion

nozzferrahhtoo

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

The media generally has no issue in linking Muslim terrorists to radical Islam however there appears to be a reticence to link this attack to radical atheism.

The difference there is you can not so easily create a causal narrative between the two, beyond the correlation. If the guy hated believers then that was an attribute of him, not his atheism.

There is nothing I can see about the phrase "I see no reason to suspect there is a god" that links to "Therefore I must go and shoot up a room full of theists".

However linking the doctrines of many religions to actions of violence and more is much easier to do. One can argue they have interpreted the documents wrong of course, but usually not while being unable to see how and why they interpreted it as they did.

There is nothing in "I see no reason to believe there are gods" that can motivate, or retrospectively be used to justify, such actions. However there are many actions performed by the religious that were motivated by, or retrospectively justified by, reference to their religion or holy texts.

This is no small difference.

Saruhashi

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4851812/texas-church-shooting-boy-family-murdered-devin-kelley-26/

It appears the shooter in the awful Texas church massacre was a dedicated atheist who hated religion. Apparently he used to rant online about religion and preached his atheism on Facebook.

Atheist groups have distanced themselves from him in the aftermath and condemned his actions but I wonder was this a case of militant atheism going too far and causing someone with mental health problems to become radicalized.

The media generally has no issue in linking Muslim terrorists to radical Islam however there appears to be a reticence to link this attack to radical atheism.

Sometimes the scorn and derision that is heaped on believers can be a bit much. Maybe this is the result when that type of attitude festers and the wrong person is brainwashed.

I'm not sure there are any atheist groups who could be capable of "radicalizing" people to this degree.

I'd be more concerned about this guys ability to access a gun rather than his ability to access atheist content online.

jigglypuffstuff

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The difference there is you can not so easily create a causal narrative between the two, beyond the correlation. If the guy hated believers then that was an attribute of him, not his atheism.

There is nothing I can see about the phrase "I see no reason to suspect there is a god" that links to "Therefore I must go and shoot up a room full of theists".

However linking the doctrines of many religions to actions of violence and more is much easier to do. One can argue they have interpreted the documents wrong of course, but usually not while being unable to see how and why they interpreted it as they did.

There is nothing in "I see no reason to believe there are gods" that can motivate, or retrospectively be used to justify, such actions. However there are many actions performed by the religious that were motivated by, or retrospectively justified by, reference to their religion or holy texts.

This is no small difference.

Its nonsense to state that a religious person is driven by their beliefs, yet an atheist person is not...that makes zero sense

Actually the though process is very simple in this case

I see no reason to believe there is a god, therefore I CAN go and shoot up a room full of theists..Then ill kill myself or get killed and there will be no such consequence (In other words, unanswerable to anyone)

In case you didn't realise....he went into a church and attacked a bunch of religious people. Its absolutely clear what he did and why he did it. Ive said it before that extreme anything is bad...I still hold that same viewpoint..this just reinforces it

If he went into a supermarket and started randomly attacking people, you may have a case in point...but its very easy to link his crime to his militant atheist beliefs (Worldview)

If the atheism "goggles" come off that is...

jigglypuffstuff

smacl wrote: »

True, but hardly significant when compared to shooting them. The problem in the states clearly seems to be gun control.

and if he went in there hacking people up with a chainsaw...would it be DIY control?

The problem lies in extreme world views imo

Look at all the terrorist attacks with trucks at the moment....would you suggest vehicle control as a measure

looksee

pone2012 wrote: »

Its nonsense to state that a religious person is driven by their beliefs, yet an atheist person is not...that makes zero sense

It makes perfect sense, a religious person has beliefs to be driven by, an atheist does not.

Actually the though process is very simple in this case

I see no reason to believe there is a god, therefore I CAN go and shoot up a room full of theists..Then ill kill myself or get killed and there will be no such consequence (In other words, unanswerable to anyone)

So why does it not happen more often? Indeed, at all?

In case you didn't realise....he went into a church and attacked a bunch of religious people. Its absolutely clear what he did and why he did it. Ive said it before that extreme anything is bad...I still hold that same viewpoint..this just reinforces it

And it is just co-incidence that the people he went to shoot were his family, whom he had already been violent towards, including his mother-in-law whom he had very recently contacted/threatened? I think he can be described as mentally sick as well as violent and bad tempered, but the religious aspect was not the prime reason for the attack

Edit, I will agree with you that 'extreme anything' is bad, and I do not dispute that he had extreme atheist views, but otherwise you are really searching for an argument.

smacl

pone2012 wrote: »

and if he went in there hacking people up with a chainsaw...would it be DIY control?

The problem lies in extreme world views imo

Look at all the terrorist attacks with trucks at the moment....would you suggest vehicle control as a measure

Nope. You get extreme views everywhere, even in our very own community of boards.ie. People don't tend to die or get maimed as a result. Pissed off, no doubt. Carded or banned, yep. Brutally murdered or maimed, no so much.
Have a quick look at deaths by terrorist attack versus gun deaths in the US.



To suggest easy access to guns is a lesser problem than extreme views in the states is utter nonsense.

magicbastarder

pone2012 wrote: »

and if he went in there hacking people up with a chainsaw...would it be DIY control?

well, yes. if 30,000+ people died in chainsaw related incidents every year in the states, you can be damn well sure there would be a crackdown on them.

jigglypuffstuff

looksee wrote: »

It makes perfect sense, a religious person has beliefs to be driven by, an atheist does not.

Sorry but I dont buy that cop-out..Its blatantly obvious that athesim can be, and often is used as a belief system. The minute someone goes into stating that they know something absolute about the existence of god...they are making an a statement founded on assumptions (or beliefs, if you would)...And as they believe something...we know thoughts precede action....So im sure you get where im going here?

So why does it not happen more often? Indeed, at all?

But it has happened historically....and ive seen it mentioned numerous times on this forum...As to why it isnt as common contemporarilty...I would argue athesim has not diffused as much as religion (If you do a survey, and maybe theres already been one...the gap on a global scale is huge). But make no mistake...extremist anything will produce bad results

And it is just co-incidence that the people he went to shoot were his family, whom he had already been violent towards, including his mother-in-law whom he had very recently contacted/threatened? I think he can be described as mentally sick as well as violent and bad tempered, but the religious aspect was not the prime reason for the attack

Edit, I will agree with you that 'extreme anything' is bad, and I do not dispute that he had extreme atheist views, but otherwise you are really searching for an argument.

Actually im in agreement with you to some extent...Ive exhausted the argument that a lot of the extremist attacks are not primarily religious based....

People are evil...regardless of what beliefs they claim...the belief systems take too much heat imo...But to specifically attack a church and 26 people tells me there was more to this than a family fued..at least in my opinion

If you give an evil, killer a gun...they dont need a belief system to tell them too...but it helps to point the finger at it when things go awry

Pherekydes

pone2012 wrote: »

Sorry but I dont buy that cop-out..Its blatantly obvious that athesim can be, and often is used as a belief system. The minute someone goes into stating that they know something absolute about the existence of god...

That isn't the meaning of atheism.

jigglypuffstuff

Pherekydes wrote: »

That isn't the meaning of atheism.

Perhaps not "your" version...bu to many blatantly claiming no existence of a god, is the very foundation of atheism

looksee

pone2012 wrote: »

Perhaps not "your" version...bu to many blatantly claiming no existence of a god, is the very foundation of atheism

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat that atheism is a belief system, it will not make it so.

'blatantly claiming no existence of a god is the very foundation of atheism' - that is not what you argued the first time, you have changed your tack. Not sure why you are using the words 'blatantly' and 'claiming', but atheists would not argue with you that atheism is essentially a lack of belief in a god or gods. They are not making any 'claims', religious people are the ones making claims.

Pherekydes

pone2012 wrote: »

Perhaps not "your" version...bu to many blatantly claiming no existence of a god, is the very foundation of atheism

That's not the meaning of atheism.

Atheism claims nothing. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods.

Stop misrepresenting atheists.

Edited to add: if I went into the Christianity forum and claimed something that was anathema to that forum's regulars I would be shown the door.

jigglypuffstuff

Pherekydes wrote: »

That's not the meaning of atheism.

Atheism claims nothing. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods.

Stop misrepresenting atheists.

Edited to add: if I went into the Christianity forum and claimed something that was anathema to that forum's regulars I would be shown the door.

Oh dear.....

Source : Cambridge Dictionary

Athesim : Noun

the belief that God does not exist

Source Oxford

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Source : Merriam - Webster

Definition of atheism

1 a :a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b :a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

Honestly, I think it is you who should stop misrepresenting atheists....As you might have missed, there are weak and strong positions...as illustrated above....because you appear to occupy the weak position (or at least claim it as exclusively atheist). It would be like me claiming only Catholics are Christians..the rest are not

In reality you've misrepresented them...by excluding a large subset

jigglypuffstuff

looksee wrote: »

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat that atheism is a belief system, it will not make it so.

'blatantly claiming no existence of a god is the very foundation of atheism' - that is not what you argued the first time, you have changed your tack. Not sure why you are using the words 'blatantly' and 'claiming', but atheists would not argue with you that atheism is essentially a lack of belief in a god or gods. They are not making any 'claims', religious people are the ones making claims.

Please dont misrepresent me...what I said was..to many ...I did not say to all

Clearly I made a distinction between some....and all...I am well aware of weak/strong positions....ie we were discussing athesim in an extreme form (that is at its strongest)...Im also aware of the weak position...ie what you seem to collectively refer to as " lack of belief"

Are you suggesting that a strong disbelief in a diety...that is to claim there is none...is not a position in athesim? Because as illustrated...It most certainly can be

Pherekydes

pone2012 wrote: »

Oh dear.....

Source : Cambridge Dictionary

Athesim : Noun



Source Oxford



Source : Merriam - Webster




Honestly, I think it is you who should stop misrepresenting atheists....As you might have missed, there are weak and strong positions...as illustrated above....because you appear to occupy the weak position (or at least claim it as exclusively atheist). It would be like me claiming only Catholics are Christians..the rest are not

In reality you've misrepresented them...by excluding a large subset

So nothing in any of those about claims. Well done. We are finally on the same page.

magicbastarder

classic A&A; a thread about a mass shooting turns into a debate about what 'atheism' means.

looksee

If you looked back over the posts in A&A you would find that Pherekydes' definition is the one accepted here. Those definitions are carelessly constructed and need to be addressed. Even then, with the definitions given, it is still a long way from being a belief system.

looksee

magicbastarder wrote: »

classic A&A; a thread about a mass shooting turns into a debate about what 'atheism' means.

But this is A&A where the thread was not opened to discuss a mass shooting - which is being dealt with elsewhere - it was to try and make it a 'belief based' shooting. Which it wasn't, so now we are just rambling around semantics.

Cian_ok

smacl wrote: »

Have a quick look at deaths by terrorist attack versus gun deaths in the US.



To suggest easy access to guns is a lesser problem than extreme views in the states is utter nonsense.

Careful. Between 55% and 66% of gun deaths in the USA are suicide. The numbers above include suicide.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

looksee

Cian_ok wrote: »

Careful. Between 55% and 66% of gun deaths in the USA are suicide. The numbers above include these.

Yes, as it clearly states at the top of the chart.

Cian_ok

looksee wrote: »

Yes, as it clearly states at the top of the chart.

True. But not the extent of suicides

smacl

Cian_ok wrote: »

Careful. Between 55% and 66% of gun deaths in the USA are suicide. The numbers above include suicide.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

Still hardly comparable to terrorist related death nor an argument for easy access to firearms. You enable easy access to tools designed to kill people and people get killed. Not exactly news.

robindch

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

[...] I wonder was this a case of militant atheism going too far and causing someone with mental health problems to become radicalized.

You need wonder no longer - mainly because atheists don't do "radicalization". Yes, atheists might laugh at religious people from time to time, but realistically, this is more likely to result in atheists showing up at a religious service in a clown suit with a honker, rather than fatigues and a semi-automatic rifle.

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

The media generally has no issue in linking Muslim terrorists to radical Islam however there appears to be a reticence to link this attack to radical atheism.

I think you mean to say that trash media outlets are much happier linking islam with terrorist acts carried out by believers in islam, than they are linking - for example - white supremacy with terrorist acts carried out by white supremacists.

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Sometimes the scorn and derision that is heaped on believers can be a bit much.

Years ago in western countries, non-believers in the local state religion were asset-stripped, then executed and religious believers remained generally silent. Now that religious believers are no longer able to get the state to kill non-believers, they're upset that their beliefs are being laughed at? Honestly! :rolleyes:

nozzferrahhtoo

pone2012 wrote: »

Its nonsense to state that a religious person is driven by their beliefs, yet an atheist person is not...that makes zero sense

Then rather than simply declare that, prove it by testing out the challange you are rubbishing. Describe a causal link between things like "I see no reason to think there is a god" and "I must go shoot up a room full of people".

Because for every time you FAIL to do that (and oh you will fail) I will be able to adumbrate causal links between the heinous actions of the religious, and their religious beliefs.

Take for example the parents who watch their own children die, sometimes slowly and painfully, of medical conditions that are relatively easy to manage, solely because they believe that the medical intervention required is an affront to god.

See I can do it. I can adumbrate causal links between religious beliefs and questionable and horrific actions. Can you do it with atheism? So far not, but by all means try sometime.

pone2012 wrote: »

I see no reason to believe there is a god, therefore I CAN go and shoot up a room full of theists..

That is a double fail because not only have you failed the challenge, you have failed to understand it.

Rather than find a causal connection between X and Y, you have instead gone off and described a lack of preventative causation between X and Y. That is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THING. What a fail.

What actually makes it a TRIPLE fail is that the reverse appears to be true throughout the world, and throughout history. Take the Canadian riots in the past for example. Are you going to tell me, that when the police went on strike and the people pillaged and rioted and committed multiple acts of violence....... that it was all atheists doing that? Good luck with that if you do because it would be a complete nonsense move of sheer desperation.

Why are theists over represented proportionally in prisons? Why is crime lower, education higher, and charity better per capita in secular countries compared to religious ones or theocracies?

So not only have you not met the challenge, and not only have you failed to understand it by answering a different one, but the fantasy narrative you have erected here does not even hold up in reality. Three fails in one attempt, well done there lad.

So you can imagine all the "googles" you want, but until you take your own off, you will be convinced it is everyone else wearing them.

pone2012 wrote: »

Look at all the terrorist attacks with trucks at the moment....would you suggest vehicle control as a measure

As someone else said when the same fail of a point you just made was trotted out on twitter one time:

"Can you imagine that? Registering trucks? Requiring insurance for injury they caused? Licensing and testing drivers?"

Wake up to reality son, we already HAVE vehicle control. Had you just managed not to notice?

pone2012 wrote: »

The minute someone goes into stating that they know something absolute about the existence of god...

Yet you will find few people actually doing that. So it is not clear exactly what group you are attacking here. The majority of people on here, and off line that I have met, who do not buy into religious claims are of the "I see no reason to think there is a god at this time, so I do not think there is a god at this time" bent.

I know it bothers you to acknowledge reality a lot of the time, but the simple reality is this: There are no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer at this time (least of all by you) to suggest our universe, or life within it, was created by a non-human intelligent and intentional agent.

Sorry if that reality bothers you (no i am not actually) but it is what it is.

pone2012 wrote: »

Oh dear.....

Oh dear indeed because you somehow failed to notice that you pasted two definitions (cherry picked from many out there) that are in fact entirely different. And a third definition that cites BOTH of the other two.

So you have actually made the other users' points for them, while comically adding to your list of fails by accusing THEM of being the ones misrepresenting people. You really are a string of comedy gold today.

But my advice, were it to be sought, would be to let atheists tell YOU what their positions are, rather than you waving dictionaries at them in an attempt to screech at them to tell them what they think.

But by all means POINT at this "sub set". Name the names on boards.ie. Cite the statistics out in the world. You will find that there is a much larger diversity, and a much smaller clumping around YOUR personal definitions, than you appear to think.

pone2012 wrote: »

Are you suggesting that a strong disbelief in a diety...that is to claim there is none...

Your "that is" here is simply false. Strong disbelief != claim there is none. I for one have what I call a strong disbelief in the claim there is a god, but I have never ONCE claimed there is no god.

A weak disbelief for me is that I have been shown SOME substantiation for a claim but it is not enough to trigger my "belief threshold" (a phrase used by a Christian in a talk at Skepticon actually).

A strong disbelief for me is that I have been shown not just little, but NO substantiation for a claim. And the claim there is a god and/or an after life is an example of a claim that is ENTIRELY devoid of substantiation.

nozzferrahhtoo

I have a little more time to deal with a little more of the OPs post today.

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

It appears the shooter in the awful Texas church massacre was a dedicated atheist who hated religion.

Yet there is nothing about atheism (which is a position on belief in a god) that implies, suggests, motivates, engenders or requires a hatred of religion.

Further there is nothing about hating religion that requires one hate THE RELIGIOUS. They are two massively different things too.

So the problem here, it's root and it's start lies with this guys own personal hatred. Nothing to do with atheism, and nothing in atheism (unlike how religious doctrine is often used) can be used to justify or argue for his hatred, or the actions he performed in it's name.

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Atheist groups have distanced themselves from him in the aftermath and condemned his actions

I think what "atheist groups" have done is distance atheism from any causal links to what this man did. Not so many of them are distancing themselves from the PERSON however.

He was an atheist. They are atheists. One of their own was sick, suffering, full of hatred and fury......... and we can all have sympathy for that. And we as a community, whether we identify using the word atheist personally or not (I do not) can pull together on this and watch people in our community all the closer to see signs of mental illness and depression. Just like we do in all our other communities, social circles, and work places.

Distancing oneself from an ACTION and from a PERSON are different things. I am more than capable of laying out my position on the former, without any harm to the latter.

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

The media generally has no issue in linking Muslim terrorists to radical Islam

Now hang on there for a moment. It is not the media doing this. It is many of the terrorists THEMSELVES telling us this. And when terrorists tell me why they are doing their deeds, I tend to take them seriously.

But I strongly recommend you read Dabiq 15.... specifically the article "Why we hate you & why we fight you" before suggesting that the link between Islam and Muslim Terrorism is a media perpetuated narrative.

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Sometimes the scorn and derision that is heaped on believers can be a bit much.

By who? I think you will find that the scorn and derision people (such as myself) pour out is directed at the BELIEFS, not at the holders of those beliefs.

I am capable of separating a claim, from the people making or believing that claim. Are you not?

"Respect people, do not respect ideas" is one of my few core axioms in life.

If people choose to become offended vicariously on behalf of their beliefs that is their right and their problem, not mine, and I will certainly not be motivated to pander to it.

jigglypuffstuff

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then rather than simply declare that, prove it by testing out the challange you are rubbishing. Describe a causal link between things like "I see no reason to think there is a god" and "I must go shoot up a room full of people".

Because for every time you FAIL to do that (and oh you will fail) I will be able to adumbrate causal links between the heinous actions of the religious, and their religious beliefs.

Take for example the parents who watch their own children die, sometimes slowly and painfully, of medical conditions that are relatively easy to manage, solely because they believe that the medical intervention required is an affront to god.

See I can do it. I can adumbrate causal links between religious beliefs and questionable and horrific actions. Can you do it with atheism? So far not, but by all means try sometime.



That is a double fail because not only have you failed the challenge, you have failed to understand it.

Rather than find a causal connection between X and Y, you have instead gone off and described a lack of preventative causation between X and Y. That is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THING. What a fail.

What actually makes it a TRIPLE fail is that the reverse appears to be true throughout the world, and throughout history. Take the Canadian riots in the past for example. Are you going to tell me, that when the police went on strike and the people pillaged and rioted and committed multiple acts of violence....... that it was all atheists doing that? Good luck with that if you do because it would be a complete nonsense move of sheer desperation.

Why are theists over represented proportionally in prisons? Why is crime lower, education higher, and charity better per capita in secular countries compared to religious ones or theocracies?

So not only have you not met the challenge, and not only have you failed to understand it by answering a different one, but the fantasy narrative you have erected here does not even hold up in reality. Three fails in one attempt, well done there lad.

So you can imagine all the "googles" you want, but until you take your own off, you will be convinced it is everyone else wearing them.



As someone else said when the same fail of a point you just made was trotted out on twitter one time:

"Can you imagine that? Registering trucks? Requiring insurance for injury they caused? Licensing and testing drivers?"

Wake up to reality son, we already HAVE vehicle control. Had you just managed not to notice?



Yet you will find few people actually doing that. So it is not clear exactly what group you are attacking here. The majority of people on here, and off line that I have met, who do not buy into religious claims are of the "I see no reason to think there is a god at this time, so I do not think there is a god at this time" bent.

I know it bothers you to acknowledge reality a lot of the time, but the simple reality is this: There are no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer at this time (least of all by you) to suggest our universe, or life within it, was created by a non-human intelligent and intentional agent.

Sorry if that reality bothers you (no i am not actually) but it is what it is.



Oh dear indeed because you somehow failed to notice that you pasted two definitions (cherry picked from many out there) that are in fact entirely different. And a third definition that cites BOTH of the other two.

So you have actually made the other users' points for them, while comically adding to your list of fails by accusing THEM of being the ones misrepresenting people. You really are a string of comedy gold today.

But my advice, were it to be sought, would be to let atheists tell YOU what their positions are, rather than you waving dictionaries at them in an attempt to screech at them to tell them what they think.

But by all means POINT at this "sub set". Name the names on boards.ie. Cite the statistics out in the world. You will find that there is a much larger diversity, and a much smaller clumping around YOUR personal definitions, than you appear to think.



Your "that is" here is simply false. Strong disbelief != claim there is none. I for one have what I call a strong disbelief in the claim there is a god, but I have never ONCE claimed there is no god.

A weak disbelief for me is that I have been shown SOME substantiation for a claim but it is not enough to trigger my "belief threshold" (a phrase used by a Christian in a talk at Skepticon actually).

A strong disbelief for me is that I have been shown not just little, but NO substantiation for a claim. And the claim there is a god and/or an after life is an example of a claim that is ENTIRELY devoid of substantiation.

Firstly no....the example you've provided is null and void in that not every religious person will behave in the way you state....if they did then you would have a point..but they dont....so you dont

Dont pair peoples stupidity with peoples beliefs...because they are not related...let alone casual....Thats not religion...thats stupidity. They can point the finger at religion and so can you.....but the fact is thats not the case and we both know it...So dont waste my time or yours on such nonsense

Why are secular states better?? I dont know...why dont you ask North Korea?? See, I can take small niches of samples and use them to illustrate my point just like you did. But let me take a stab at it

Less inequality
Better Education Systems
Better Political Regimes

You'll note none of the above are related to religious beliefs of people..of course you may try to establish links...but id doubt you'll be making them any time soon

Yes lets wake up to reality....look how many attacks there have been on people...look how many innocents die...actually lets go further and look at the countless innocent people who die based on idiots drinking whilst driving, speeding, and texting or talking on the phone.

Yes....vehicle control indeed....

Your logic is flawed "son" . Guns dont kill people...PEOPLE kill people..and if wont be with a gun, it will be with a truck, knife, sword, hammer, chainsaw, and anything else people deem appropriate....People are the root cause of the issue not guns...Do guns help?? absolutely not....but their availability wont change peoples agendas and motives....Perhaps their methods yes...but the former will remain

But when did I say there wasn't a diversity? No actually it is others who are claiming that the extreme atheists who do regularly claim such things are not atheists...Are you suggesting that?

Did you not just get involved in one such militant atheists thread in AH not too long ago...forgive my recall (or lack of) but I am most certain you are entirely aware of the discussion around faith etc (I see you comment in almost every thread) and as such...have seen viewpoints...When did I say there was a majority who were so extreme in their views to make claims like the ones mentioned prior?

FYI, it is entirely unsubstantiated according to a materialistic, objective viewpoint specific to the scientific paradigm...which you of all people should know is one open to change, revision and redundancy...So ill take that like I do with all science...that is, with a pinch of salt

But you should also be aware that the scientific paradigm is only one viewpoint held by the 7.6 billion people on this planet...I've heard plenty and read plenty more..Id be more inclined to believe that there is more to the ancient philosophies than merely " They made it up". What that something is I do not know...But id find it mighty hard to believe everything was fabricated out of thin air (and im not suggesting you said that).

Because something is currently undetectable by the 5 senses does not mean it is not there...it means we cannot perceive it (At present at least). Dark matter and Dark Energy are concepts worth considering in this respect. We are perceiving some effect of it...but the actual Dark Matter or Energy No...

Lets take an example of a so called Demonic Possession...We never see the apparent "Demon" but we do see the effect...Sometimes science explains certian things other times it cannot. Try to scientifically explain people crawling up walls or speaking in Sumerian or Latin without prior knowledge of it with is quite difficult...but if you can do it...I'm all ears

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/04/health/exorcism-doctor/index.html

Theres some nice reading in that....

jigglypuffstuff

looksee wrote: »

If you looked back over the posts in A&A you would find that Pherekydes' definition is the one accepted here. Those definitions are carelessly constructed and need to be addressed. Even then, with the definitions given, it is still a long way from being a belief system.

Thank you for pointing out that it is the one accepted here, which I am all to well aware of. But here is not the only place atheists exist...and there are others who fall outside of that category im sure you'd agree.

I cannot say they are careless...In my opinion they are broad in order to facilitate the spectrum of people who fall into the category of atheist. Considering they do not conform to the consensus, or general belief of what exactly atheist means around here, does not make them incorrect.

As regards a belief system...that depends on what stance you take....Are you suggesting atheism can never be a belief system? I'm curious

nozzferrahhtoo

pone2012 wrote: »

Firstly no....the example you've provided is null and void in that not every religious person will behave in the way you state....

Since my point is not predicated on EVERY religious person doing it then no, you can not void it on that basis. The point, which you appear to have missed, is again this:

I am capable of looking at the actions of such a person and DIRECTLY showing a causal link between their actions, and the beliefs and doctrines behind it.

YOU however can not do the same by showing someone shooting up some theists and finding a causal link to atheism. The best floundering failure of an effort you could provide was simply that nothing about atheism STOPPED him from doing it.

So really you not understanding the point I made, does not mean I do not have a point. Do try harder.

pone2012 wrote: »

Dont pair peoples stupidity with peoples beliefs...

I didn't. Anywhere. So it is not clear who or what you think you are replying to here. Could you stick to replying to the things I did say rather than something going on in your own head maybe?

The point I DID make, rather than this new one you are making up on my behalf, is related to how such actions can be linked directly back to the doctrines those people believe in.

Where in any of that did I mention, or link to, stupidity?

pone2012 wrote: »

Why are secular states better?? I dont know...why dont you ask North Korea??

Why would I ask a state that is clearly not secular about secular states are you contriving at this point not to make any sense.

In fact NK is claimed by some to be run by an ETERNAL father figure who rules through his son who is a partial reincarnation of himself. Do I need to draw pictures to show the parallels with Christian Mythology there?

The very country is run on a state religion, the exact OPPOSITE of secularism.

pone2012 wrote: »

Yes....vehicle control indeed....

I think the goal posts were fine where they were thanks, you do not need to move them. I was talking about the EXISTENCE of vehicle control, which actually does exist despite your pretense to the contrary.

Now you have shifted the goal posts to discussing the EFFICACY of such controls. A completely different thing entirely. You would find I entirely agree with SOME of the issues you have with the efficacy of how vehicle control is currently maintained and implemented and policed.

But my point was not ever about that. My point was about pointing out that we already HAVE vehicle control. We have a system where people have to apply for permission to own one, they must register it if they get that permission, they must insure themselves against damage by and to that vehicle, and they are answerable to any crimes they commit while using it.

pone2012 wrote: »

Your logic is flawed "son" . Guns dont kill people...PEOPLE kill people..

You are, again, attacking the "logic" of a point I never actually made. I am not sure who or what you THINK you are replying to but it is not anything I wrote in my post. The ONLY point I made was in response to your comment about "vehicle control" to show that we already HAVE vehicle control.

The rest of the "points" and "logic" you think you are replying to......... came from you not me. It just looks like you have a "pro guns" record you want to play, even if no one actually took an anti guns stance.

pone2012 wrote: »

No actually it is others who are claiming that the extreme atheists who do regularly claim such things are not atheists...Are you suggesting that?

Can you find me suggesting that? This string of points that I did not make, which you are taking issue with, is getting quite long. What I AM saying is that the quantity of people making such claims does not appear to be as significant as you appear to want to make it appear. In fact I am struggling to name ONE such person on boards.ie for example.

And if I go down the list of household atheist names that many people have heard of.... Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, Shermer, Barker and so forth........ none of them are making those claims either.

So the question is WHO and WHERE are these people you are railing against specifically?

pone2012 wrote: »

FYI, it is entirely unsubstantiated according to

You can add the "according to" list you want of course, but I did not limit it or filter it through any such list. My comment was stand alone. There is no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer (least of all from you) to suggest our universe or life within it was created by a non-human intelligent and intentional agent.

That is simply the facts of the matter. Any filters YOU want to add to MY comment is not MY problem, now is it?

pone2012 wrote: »

So ill take that like I do with all science...that is, with a pinch of salt

Unfortunately, and I am happy to provide links to any users who ask for it, discussions with you on the topic of science have shown you know very little about the topic. So I can imagine the wealth of seasoning you are required to take to get by with any of it.

But as I said my comment was stand alone. YOU brought science into my comment. I did not. It is your filter, so your problem. My comment does not mention it.

pone2012 wrote: »

Id be more inclined to believe that there is more to the ancient philosophies than merely " They made it up".

As am I. Like many things such philosophies merely take what is good and useful and build up a packaging of pure nonsense around it. But there is, therefore, always "more to them".

And this is not just limited to philosophy. It happens in MANY areas. Take the Cayenne Pepper Diet for example. The nonsense those people spew about the effects of one single spice is egregious.

But they build the nonsense diet up AROUND a core of sensible things. Taking on a bit more water, eating fresher foods self prepared as opposed to processed things, spacing out meals and meal content, and much more. So while the surface thinking of the diet is palpable nonsense, much of the core has "more to it".

The same is true of many religions and philosophies, as you will learn when you get past mere lay man on the subject of studying religion and philosophy. The permises, like gods giving birth to themselves through underage virgins, or illiterates hiding in caves writing texts..... are nonsense. But the core ideas and ethics and morality they assimilate into that nonsense has "more to it".

The question is, and I trust you will fail as spectacularly at this as you did with the previous challenge, whether there is anything actually USEFUL or BENEFICIAL in any given religion (Christianity, Islam, whatever) that you can find there that actually requires one to subscribe to on insufficient evidence in order to use?

I do not think there is. I think you can distil away the unsubstantiated nonsense and find a core of utility and sense, while doing away with the harmful and dangerous ignorance and nonsense.

Try it sometime.

But the unsubstantiated packaging..... I would by more than happy to let you put your words in my mouth this time. It does appear it was fabricated out of thin air. Usually built on mythologies that came before it (there are parallels, for example, between the Jesus narrative and previous myths. Including birth by virgin, execution between thieves, and much in between).

pone2012 wrote: »

Because something is currently undetectable by the 5 senses does not mean it is not there...

Again WHO are you replying to here? Did someone on the thread suggest anything of this sort? I used the sentence "any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning" for example. Is there anything in that that limits it to the "5" senses?

There is not just 5 senses by the way. There are many more. More lay man scientific error I guess. But current science numbers them into 2 digits.

pone2012 wrote: »

Lets take an example of a so called Demonic Possession...We never see the apparent "Demon" but we do see the effect...Sometimes science explains certian things other times it cannot.

I am not aware of many cases of "cannot". Are you? The FEW cases I am aware of that are classed as "cannot" are usually because the case is based on a single piece of photo or video footage and the Scientists being asked to "explain it" have no independent access to the patient at all.

That is hardly a "cannot" really now is it. I am certainly not aware of any actual cases of "cannot".

But even with the video evidence cases, there is not much to be explained. There is a semi well known "ghost hunter" in the US for example who spent some time with Derren Brown. He of course trotted out a single video for Derren showing a "demonic possession incident".

So Derren simply took it to a trained expert in ceasures, epilepsy and so forth who quickly pointed out that pretty much every about the video was classic 101 ceasure stuff and he recommended that this person seek immediate medical advice, not the ministrations of a priest and a paranomal fetishist with a video camera.

So no, I am not thinking there is even REMOTELY as much unexplained cases of such things as you might want to pretend for us.

pone2012 wrote: »

Try to scientifically explain people crawling up walls or speaking in Sumerian or Latin without prior knowledge of it with is quite difficult...but if you can do it...I'm all ears

We have a user on the forum who touted that kind of nonsense before too, but he basically ran away from the forum in shame pretty soon after being called on it.

He was big into reincarnation as a belief system. So I asked him to trot out his BEST example of this for evidence and explanation. So he trotted out a girl who suddenly out of nowhere appear to acquire a language and speak it "fluently" and this was his evidence of reincarnation. Especially given the language was a dead and unused one.

After a MINIMUM of reading up on the cases however (let alone later when I did a much more in depth reading of it) it turns out that people who knew the language did not identify her as being REMOTELY fluent.

But then the real punch line..... about how she acquired it......... well it turns out her father's career was studying the history of that dead culture and.... you guessed it....... their language.

So which is more likely true here? That the daugther is indeed the reincarnated soul of a dead culture.... despite NOTHING (not just little but NOTHING) in science suggesting any such thing is possible.........

Or a child with average or above average intelligence merely did what nearly all children do....... and sponged up information and learning from her DIRECT environment?

I know which I suspect. But by all means trot out YOUR best cases of such things for examination rather than just fling out a general formless challenge on the matter.

More than happy to provide links to the above conversation if requested too by the way.

pone2012

pone2012 wrote: »

Try to scientifically explain people crawling up walls.

Video of this?
That would be some pretty compelling evidence and surely you must have seen such a thing and confirmed its veracity yourself.

Could you link to this video? Or case report that was independently confirmed and verified?

MrPudding

King Mob wrote: »

Video of this?
That would be some pretty compelling evidence and surely you must have seen such a thing and confirmed its veracity yourself.

Could you link to this video? Or case report that was independently confirmed and verified?

Here you go:

MrP

nozzferrahhtoo

pone2012 wrote: »

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/04/health/exorcism-doctor/index.html

Theres some nice reading in that....

Is there now. Well let us look at that then. The first thing that strikes me is this is not a paper, a study, a work of inquiry, but an opinion piece article on a US media site.

But rather than simply dismiss the content on that basis let us examine it for a moment. I will not cite the entire thing due to copyright laws, but I will work systematically through it.

Paragraphs 1 through 4

So here we just have a picture built of a woman shouting madly. Ok I have seen lots of women shouting madly in my life, usually on occonnel street and usually dancing. Am I meant to think it something special, or is it only special when your narrative WANTS it to be?

Paragraphs 5 through 15

Now we simply introduce a psychiatrist who asserts..... that is it simply asserts..... a narrative of possession. No basis, no explanations, no evidence, just his assertion that it is all "real".

Still waiting for the nice reading you promised. So far we just have a string of wanton assertion. Maybe it gets better?

Paragraphs 16 through 19

More narrative. As a pertend nod towards being egalitarian and open on the issue there is MENTION that some people think he is deluded (some? I wonder) and cite the lack of ANY evidence for his claims.

But there is a quick switch then. A "forget the lack of evidence" move in paragraph 17 and 18 into "But let us look at his history instead".

Slick 101 charlatan move there. MENTION evidence, but then quickly move away from any discussion of it. Then feel we at least looked at "both sides". Or at least feel the reader has been deluded into feeling that.

Paragraphs 20 through 30

So now we just introduce the story of an unnamed woman.... who for all we know never even existed..... who just happens to believe she is beset by demons..... hardly surprising given she is also a member of a satanic cult.

This woman, assuming she exists, which I don't because no evidence she actually does was offered in any form, had a set of delusions.

So what? A deluded woman convinced a poor psychiatrist? Is that meant to convince me or even give me any pause whatsoever?

Although not one of the things listed here are verifiable in any way, they are not uncommon. The whole "she knew details about my life" narrative for example is remarkably common. Look up and educate yourself on the subject of Cold Reading.

The rest of the narrative are all things achievable with cheap parlor tricks. I myself am very good at the "books flying off shelves" trick. It is remarkably easy to do. Seriously easy in fact. If I am ever back in Dublin at the same time as you, I would be happy to demonstrate.

Paragraphs 31

"He also insists that he's on the side of science."

You ever meet one of those people who seems to have to TELL You over and over he is a "nice guy"?

I have, including the manager of a well known sweet factory, and invariably they turn out NOT to be nice guys. Which is why they feel they have to compensate by trying to directly TELL you they are.

When someone INSISTS they are a man of science, without actually doing or offering any science (and there is a wealth of disagreement too on whether psychiatry is a science)................. has the same effect on me.

INSIST you are one all you like, but when the clouds of your protests settle I will still be standing there waiting for you to do some actual science.

Paragraphs 31 through 46

So his narrative is established now. He believes this stuff. No evidence to believe it, he just believes it. And he pretends without citation that "quite a few psychiatrists and mental health professionals " believe it too. Again no evidence.

Paragraphs 47 through 56

So they trot out a mere TWO examples of this anecdotally. Both also psychologists. Described as "friends" of the original guy. And both with the same narrative..... they were once freaked out by something, so they decided it was all true.

Paragraphs 57 through 61

And here we have a story showing someone DIED due to the ignorance and unsubstantiated narratives we are discussing here. And this is "some nice reading" for you is it? You have a rather disgusting idea of "nice" in your reading material I must say.

But at least some good news. The perpetrators of ignorance and nonsense were found "guilty of negligent homicide" and jailed. Too right. Here here. There have been too many cases of people, even parents, getting away with this stuff. So at least THAT part is "nice reading" if not the rest.

Paragraphs 62 through 66

At least now the article is mentioning someone talking sense. They mention cold reading as I did above (I am writing this post AS I read the article, hence I did not know it was coming) for example. Cold reading is powerful stuff.

I would add to something said here though. They said the person talking latin might just be citing something they memorized.

Possible but not the only possibility. Some people learn latin in their early years and forget it all. But periods of duress, like epilepsy, brings it back.

But there is another one that is also possible in many cases, especially cases where the incident was not recorded or filmed. WAS IT LATIN? The people there might think it was and claim "She was suddenly spewing latin".

I met someone myself who described such an experience and when I interviewed them she told me:

Her: "And she just suddenly started talking latin at us, perfect latin!"
Me: "Oh wow, and you speak latin do you?"
Her: "No none at all"
Me: "Oh ok, then how did you know it was perfect, or even that it was latin?"
Her: "Errrm.... well..... it just sounded very like latin sounds you know???"

Hardly convincing stuff is it????

Paragraphs 67 through 77

At least here they further detail the harms and horrors that feeding into their patients delusions can cause. Not only is the main character of this article spreading unsubstantiated nonsense, he is talking actions that other psychiatrists recognize to be potentially very harmful to the patient.

Alas religion has a history of doing that!!!

Take people who hear voices urging them to commit violent acts. Why only in the Bible itself do we have a man who hears voices telling him to murder his own son. And his willingness to do so, right up to being stopped at the killing blow, is painted as making him a RIGHTEOUS MAN OF GOD.

Now consider someone in modern times hearing voices symptomatic of an actual psychotic break. And there, ready made for him, is a local religion validating and even ELEVATING his symptoms to the level of divine import.

Yeah because THAT is a healthy and wise thing to do. Make mentally deluded people think themselves righteous and angelic men in the armies of some god. What could go wrong???

THAT is the pay off of perpetuated unsubstantiated nonsense, and some drops of the blood such people spill are on the hands of people like yourself perpetuating it. For. Shame.

Paragraphs 78 onwards

Ah the inevitable excuse making. I knew it would appear somewhere in the article. INVARIABLY these articles trot out some excuses for why there is no evidence. "Oh the devils do not like cameras".

And of course there is no evidence because the devils thrive on doubt! The old "The greatest trick Satan played on mankind was convincing people he does not exist" move we know so well.

Summary

The whole article is an "appeal to authority" exercise in anecdote. There is absolutely nothing of substance, let alone anything independently checkable of verifiable, within it's confines. Do try harder, really.

Jayop

pone2012 wrote: »

and if he went in there hacking people up with a chainsaw...would it be DIY control?

The problem lies in extreme world views imo

Look at all the terrorist attacks with trucks at the moment....would you suggest vehicle control as a measure

Like having to do a test to prove your competency before being allowed to take control of one? Licencing with a national database? Ownership with a national database? Insurance in the event that you cause harm to others?

If you have even some of those control measures for weapons in the US you would have a vast reduction in the amount of gun deaths, but those as you know are pre-existing vehicle controls in place in most countries.

jigglypuffstuff

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

In fact NK is claimed by some to be run by an ETERNAL father figure who rules through his son who is a partial reincarnation of himself. Do I need to draw pictures to show the parallels with Christian Mythology there?

The very country is run on a state religion, the exact OPPOSITE of secularism. [/QUOTE]

That statement is untrue..North Korea is a secular state...people are punished there for engaging in religious activity...I'm not even going to entertain your subjective parallel to religion....It is a secular state, there's plenty of evidence to suggest so...and ZERO to suggest it is non secular.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The rest of the "points" and "logic" you think you are replying to......... came from you not me. It just looks like you have a "pro guns" record you want to play, even if no one actually took an anti guns stance.

I have no such pro guns stance...I just don't blame objects for peoples actions simply put

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Can you find me suggesting that? This string of points that I did not make, which you are taking issue with, is getting quite long. What I AM saying is that the quantity of people making such claims does not appear to be as significant as you appear to want to make it appear. In fact I am struggling to name ONE such person on boards.ie for example.

And if I go down the list of household atheist names that many people have heard of.... Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, Shermer, Barker and so forth........ none of them are making those claims either.

So the question is WHO and WHERE are these people you are railing against specifically?

There are plenty....and I am not railing against anyone...I am pointing out that there are plenty of people who fall under the category I have mentioned.

Are you attempting to say there's not?

A quick punch of militant atheist into the search bar will help you in your quest to seek out those you claim not to have ever encountered (id be willing to hazard a guess you have participated in some threads where you've passively witnessed those viewpoints expressed even)

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You can add the "according to" list you want of course, but I did not limit it or filter it through any such list. My comment was stand alone. There is no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer (least of all from you) to suggest our universe or life within it was created by a non-human intelligent and intentional agent.

That is simply the facts of the matter. Any filters YOU want to add to MY comment is not MY problem, now is it?

Oh joy, again with this...OK then ill tell you what..ill bite...define exactly
what YOU are labeling evidence...is it direct or circumstantial? or both? because the former cannot be given FOR or AGAINST that viewpoint....See how that works?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Unfortunately, and I am happy to provide links to any users who ask for it, discussions with you on the topic of science have shown you know very little about the topic. So I can imagine the wealth of seasoning you are required to take to get by with any of it.

But as I said my comment was stand alone. YOU brought science into my comment. I did not. It is your filter, so your problem. My comment does not mention it.

I understand scientific principles quite well, I also understand the current limitations of science and the fact that it open to revolution...I do not engage in hard sciences as a profession..but take passive interest..That's enough for me not to profusely reduce everything to a materialistic viewpoint

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The question is, and I trust you will fail as spectacularly at this as you did with the previous challenge, whether there is anything actually USEFUL or BENEFICIAL in any given religion (Christianity, Islam, whatever) that you can find there that actually requires one to subscribe to on insufficient evidence in order to use?

I do not think there is. I think you can distil away the unsubstantiated nonsense and find a core of utility and sense, while doing away with the harmful and dangerous ignorance and nonsense.

Try it sometime.

But the unsubstantiated packaging..... I would by more than happy to let you put your words in my mouth this time. It does appear it was fabricated out of thin air. Usually built on mythologies that came before it (there are parallels, for example, between the Jesus narrative and previous myths. Including birth by virgin, execution between thieves, and much in between).

Well, you may be of the opinion that it fabricated out of thin air...Im quite happy to hear you explain why you think that?? How did all these concepts transcend distance, language and share such stark contrasts...Genuinely I would love to hear your explanation for this

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not aware of many cases of "cannot". Are you? The FEW cases I am aware of that are classed as "cannot" are usually because the case is based on a single piece of photo or video footage and the Scientists being asked to "explain it" have no independent access to the patient at all.

That is hardly a "cannot" really now is it. I am certainly not aware of any actual cases of "cannot".

So no, I am not thinking there is even REMOTELY as much unexplained cases of such things as you might want to pretend for us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdYM0vNufwc&feature=youtu.be

This is the one that comes to mind...whats specifically interesting is your criteria are met here...they did have independent access to the participant and there was more than one scientist present......Now Ive seen every attempt to try and explain this....none are representative of the scientists experiences while in the presence of this man

So you can feel free to attempt a go at explaining what happens to said scientists...but i hazard a guess if they cannot explain it both then and now...you too will not be able to (Plus they are contactable if you'd like to try)

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We have a user on the forum who touted that kind of nonsense before too, but he basically ran away from the forum in shame pretty soon after being called on it.

He was big into reincarnation as a belief system. So I asked him to trot out his BEST example of this for evidence and explanation. So he trotted out a girl who suddenly out of nowhere appear to acquire a language and speak it "fluently" and this was his evidence of reincarnation. Especially given the language was a dead and unused one.

After a MINIMUM of reading up on the cases however (let alone later when I did a much more in depth reading of it) it turns out that people who knew the language did not identify her as being REMOTELY fluent.

But then the real punch line..... about how she acquired it......... well it turns out her father's career was studying the history of that dead culture and.... you guessed it....... their language.

So which is more likely true here? That the daugther is indeed the reincarnated soul of a dead culture.... despite NOTHING (not just little but NOTHING) in science suggesting any such thing is possible.........

Or a child with average or above average intelligence merely did what nearly all children do....... and sponged up information and learning from her DIRECT environment?

I know which I suspect. But by all means trot out YOUR best cases of such things for examination rather than just fling out a general formless challenge on the matter.

More than happy to provide links to the above conversation if requested too by the way.

I don't doubt that people do come along with stories such as the one mentioned.

I look at what practitioners in their field have to say on phenomena, and I don't buy into it wholeheartedly ...Rather I hold it with an open mind (after all, much of said evidence is circumstantial) but equally I don't dismiss it as for the same reason...circumstantial evidence is, as im sure you know open to interpretation

There is nothing circumstantial about the video posted above...patients, students, anthropologists and scientists all witness the similar strange phenomena...It is direct experience of a phenomena that is unexplained at present ( and spare me the videos of skeptics trying and failing to debunk it, ive seen them all and they are not on par with the evidence presented). Even the Wim Hof stuff which is contributing to the scientific body of knowledge is not (yet) close to what is presented in the video

Now perhaps you are well up on the likes of taoism, esoteric practices, internal alchemy and the likes....in which case we can discuss further...however i would be cautious in that they might fall under what you classify as "nonsensical?" Most likely so..but you may surprise me yet

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Is there now. Well let us look at that then. The first thing that strikes me is this is not a paper, a study, a work of inquiry, but an opinion piece article on a US media site.

But rather than simply dismiss the content on that basis let us examine it for a moment. I will not cite the entire thing due to copyright laws, but I will work systematically through it.

Paragraphs 1 through 4

So here we just have a picture built of a woman shouting madly. Ok I have seen lots of women shouting madly in my life, usually on occonnel street and usually dancing. Am I meant to think it something special, or is it only special when your narrative WANTS it to be?

Paragraphs 5 through 15

Now we simply introduce a psychiatrist who asserts..... that is it simply asserts..... a narrative of possession. No basis, no explanations, no evidence, just his assertion that it is all "real".

Still waiting for the nice reading you promised. So far we just have a string of wanton assertion. Maybe it gets better?

Paragraphs 16 through 19

More narrative. As a pertend nod towards being egalitarian and open on the issue there is MENTION that some people think he is deluded (some? I wonder) and cite the lack of ANY evidence for his claims.

But there is a quick switch then. A "forget the lack of evidence" move in paragraph 17 and 18 into "But let us look at his history instead".

Slick 101 charlatan move there. MENTION evidence, but then quickly move away from any discussion of it. Then feel we at least looked at "both sides". Or at least feel the reader has been deluded into feeling that.

Paragraphs 20 through 30

So now we just introduce the story of an unnamed woman.... who for all we know never even existed..... who just happens to believe she is beset by demons..... hardly surprising given she is also a member of a satanic cult.

This woman, assuming she exists, which I don't because no evidence she actually does was offered in any form, had a set of delusions.

So what? A deluded woman convinced a poor psychiatrist? Is that meant to convince me or even give me any pause whatsoever?

Although not one of the things listed here are verifiable in any way, they are not uncommon. The whole "she knew details about my life" narrative for example is remarkably common. Look up and educate yourself on the subject of Cold Reading.

The rest of the narrative are all things achievable with cheap parlor tricks. I myself am very good at the "books flying off shelves" trick. It is remarkably easy to do. Seriously easy in fact. If I am ever back in Dublin at the same time as you, I would be happy to demonstrate.

Paragraphs 31

"He also insists that he's on the side of science."

You ever meet one of those people who seems to have to TELL You over and over he is a "nice guy"?

I have, including the manager of a well known sweet factory, and invariably they turn out NOT to be nice guys. Which is why they feel they have to compensate by trying to directly TELL you they are.

When someone INSISTS they are a man of science, without actually doing or offering any science (and there is a wealth of disagreement too on whether psychiatry is a science)................. has the same effect on me.

INSIST you are one all you like, but when the clouds of your protests settle I will still be standing there waiting for you to do some actual science.

Paragraphs 31 through 46

So his narrative is established now. He believes this stuff. No evidence to believe it, he just believes it. And he pretends without citation that "quite a few psychiatrists and mental health professionals " believe it too. Again no evidence.

Paragraphs 47 through 56

So they trot out a mere TWO examples of this anecdotally. Both also psychologists. Described as "friends" of the original guy. And both with the same narrative..... they were once freaked out by something, so they decided it was all true.

Paragraphs 57 through 61

And here we have a story showing someone DIED due to the ignorance and unsubstantiated narratives we are discussing here. And this is "some nice reading" for you is it? You have a rather disgusting idea of "nice" in your reading material I must say.

But at least some good news. The perpetrators of ignorance and nonsense were found "guilty of negligent homicide" and jailed. Too right. Here here. There have been too many cases of people, even parents, getting away with this stuff. So at least THAT part is "nice reading" if not the rest.

Paragraphs 62 through 66

At least now the article is mentioning someone talking sense. They mention cold reading as I did above (I am writing this post AS I read the article, hence I did not know it was coming) for example. Cold reading is powerful stuff.

I would add to something said here though. They said the person talking latin might just be citing something they memorized.

Possible but not the only possibility. Some people learn latin in their early years and forget it all. But periods of duress, like epilepsy, brings it back.

But there is another one that is also possible in many cases, especially cases where the incident was not recorded or filmed. WAS IT LATIN? The people there might think it was and claim "She was suddenly spewing latin".

I met someone myself who described such an experience and when I interviewed them she told me:

Her: "And she just suddenly started talking latin at us, perfect latin!"
Me: "Oh wow, and you speak latin do you?"
Her: "No none at all"
Me: "Oh ok, then how did you know it was perfect, or even that it was latin?"
Her: "Errrm.... well..... it just sounded very like latin sounds you know???"

Hardly convincing stuff is it????

Paragraphs 67 through 77

At least here they further detail the harms and horrors that feeding into their patients delusions can cause. Not only is the main character of this article spreading unsubstantiated nonsense, he is talking actions that other psychiatrists recognize to be potentially very harmful to the patient.

Alas religion has a history of doing that!!!

Take people who hear voices urging them to commit violent acts. Why only in the Bible itself do we have a man who hears voices telling him to murder his own son. And his willingness to do so, right up to being stopped at the killing blow, is painted as making him a RIGHTEOUS MAN OF GOD.

Now consider someone in modern times hearing voices symptomatic of an actual psychotic break. And there, ready made for him, is a local religion validating and even ELEVATING his symptoms to the level of divine import.

Yeah because THAT is a healthy and wise thing to do. Make mentally deluded people think themselves righteous and angelic men in the armies of some god. What could go wrong???

THAT is the pay off of perpetuated unsubstantiated nonsense, and some drops of the blood such people spill are on the hands of people like yourself perpetuating it. For. Shame.

Paragraphs 78 onwards

Ah the inevitable excuse making. I knew it would appear somewhere in the article. INVARIABLY these articles trot out some excuses for why there is no evidence. "Oh the devils do not like cameras".

And of course there is no evidence because the devils thrive on doubt! The old "The greatest trick Satan played on mankind was convincing people he does not exist" move we know so well.

Summary

The whole article is an "appeal to authority" exercise in anecdote. There is absolutely nothing of substance, let alone anything independently checkable of verifiable, within it's confines. Do try harder, really.

This is quite humourous really....I'm always happy to see your one eye opened one eye closed skeptic lens.

I get that you are a hardcore skeptic ( nobody else would care to attempt to deconstruct an article in the manner you did). But anyway lets take a look.

You've made some big assumptions there.....but there is as much evidence available for said assumptions..as what the gentleman in question has said

You appear to have formed some very specific opinions based on the limited set of data available to you. Well done...you've proven you are like us all...that is human and open to placing the same subjective imperfect lens over data. Your heuristics are not effective in this case however..so excuse me if i don't immediately buy into your " analysis"

You'll note its no appeal to authority...As i never made any claims to the content of that article....I referred to it as nice reading....I hold that viewpoint based on the content which sparks intellectual curiosity...Im sure you understand the difference between interest and claim?

I read what practitioners in their field have encountered, documented (granted, poorly) and expressed through it. You can place the skeptic lens over everything you see and read...but without accurate data, its just as useless as what you claim the article itself to be..perhaps even more so because you had to spend time writing that drawn out post..

So where exactly is this appeal to authority im presenting? I don't see it...also im very aware of cold reading...No need to explain it to me

Mellor

magicbastarder wrote: »

i guess the acid test would be if he had not been an atheist, would he have never murdered anyone, but that's something we can just guess at. my guess is he'd have found his reasons to do it anyway.

Probably not tbh. It appears that his hatred of religion was the driving force of the attack rather than merely being a vehicle for his psychopathic tenancies.

silverharp wrote: »

he had family connections to people in the church so that muddies the argument too. Ive yet to hear about a strand of atheism that suggests using terrorism to kill Christians?

I don't think he need to be part of a organised group to qualify as an atheist terrorist. He can act alone and still be a terrorist.

looksee wrote: »

It makes perfect sense, a religious person has beliefs to be driven by, an atheist does not.

That's not really true. Not in the context discussed at least. You are taking an particular meaning of the word to try and push a false narrative.

Pherekydes wrote: »

That's not the meaning of atheism.

Atheism claims nothing. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods.

Stop misrepresenting atheists.

Pherekydes wrote: »

So nothing in any of those about claims. Well done. We are finally on the same page.

Isn't every opinion of god or a lack of god a claim due to there begin no proof? What has "claiming" got to do with anything anyway? It seems that whole discussion got sidetracked on an irrelevant point tbh.

Is there a difference between;

• The lack of belief in god, and
• The belief there is no god

The difference is grammatical at best. Even if the top line is the more accepted phrasing.
It's just insane to try and twist that into "proof" that an atheists can't be motivated by their atheism. Surely you don't actually believe that. Beliefs was simply a poor choice of word, but I think we all understand what was being said.

looksee wrote: »

But this is A&A where the thread was not opened to discuss a mass shooting - which is being dealt with elsewhere - it was to try and make it a 'belief based' shooting. Which it wasn't, so now we are just rambling around semantics.

Suggesting that it can't be belief based because an atheist has no beliefs is a logical fallacy. It's equivocation. If you change it to "ideology based" it falls apart.

Victor

pone2012 wrote: »

Look at all the terrorist attacks with trucks at the moment....would you suggest vehicle control as a measure

There are many controls on using vehicles.

spacecoyote

im just curious if anyone has a definitive true story on this guy.

I was reading an article (can't cite, sorry, thinking it was bbc) that Google have come out to state that a number of fake articles & tweets appeared on top of their searches about the guy.

to me it sounds like someone with mental problems, who had a girlfriend who's family were very religious. she broke up with him, so he lost it and blamed "religious people". im entirely open to correction here, but it does feel more like a mental illness problem rather than a religious/philosophically motivated action?

nozzferrahhtoo

pone2012 wrote: »

That statement is untrue..North Korea is a secular state...

Well at least you were honest at the start that your statement was untrue. The country is a STATE RELIGION. People are not punished for "engaging in religious activity" they are punished for practicing a religion OTHER than the state religion.

Plus your OWN WORDS are the very opposite of secularism. Secularism means the state stays out of religion, and the religion stays out of the state. So if the state is punishing people for their religious practices, as you just claimed, then that is NOT a secular state. So you are shooting yourself in the foot with every nonsense you post really.

So while you claim there is "zero evidence" it is not a secular state, you are GIVING that evidence yourself. As I said, you really are comedy gold. Prove yourself wrong much???

pone2012 wrote: »

I have no such pro guns stance...I just don't blame objects for peoples actions simply put

Nor did I, which is why you playing the usual pro gun trope is so comical (especially if you are not pro gun yourself, that just makes it funnier).

As I said, it was YOUR comment about "vehicle control" and I simply pointed out that we ALREADY HAVE vehicle control. But then you went off on some mad irrelevant tangent while trotting out common tropes of the pro gun lobby.

pone2012 wrote: »

Are you attempting to say there's not?

I am pointing out that you are pretty much incapable of naming ANY of this "plenty" you are talking about. No one here, least of all me, is saying there are no such people. But I am showing you there are so few of them that you can not name ONE, let alone "plenty".

Amazing is it not that there could be so many of them, that you can not even find any on boards.ie or pretty much anywhere really.

pone2012 wrote: »

OK then ill tell you what..ill bite...define exactly what YOU are labeling evidence...

Do keep up. I just explained to you in that post that I am NOT putting definitions or limits or filters on it. YOU were. The only person who should be defining that they think is evidence for a claim, is the person MAKING the claim.

If YOU think (if) that our universe was created by an intelligent and intentional agent then YOU can offer the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning you think support that claim. It is not my job.

BUT if it helps you, I can tell you I see evidence as a process not a thing. And the process is a simple one:

1) Define EXACTLY and CLEARLY what your claims is.
2) Define EXACTLY and CLEARLY the things you think support that claim.
3) Explain clearly why you feel the things named in 2, support the claim made in 1.

Simples. See how that works?

pone2012 wrote: »

I understand scientific principles quite well

Not that I have seen, no. You have demonstrated quite a lot of lack of understanding of the methodology of science in face in our previous conversations. I have had to school you on some real 101 basics in the past and you have shown no evidence of having studied or learned much about science.

Anyone who needs evidence of this can go look at our interactions on the "Origin of Specious Nonsense" thread which you started ignoring everything you could not rebut, before you then eventually ran away from the thread entirely.

Though my post is still there waiting for your reply if you ever learn enough to reply to it.

pone2012 wrote: »

Well, you may be of the opinion that it fabricated out of thin air...

Well thank you for giving me your permission that I may, but that is not exactly the position I hold. So I would rather "may" hold the position I actually hold. Which is not that it IS fabricated out of thin air, but the COMPLETE lack of evidence for it makes it strongly APPEAR to be fabricated out of thin air.

Seeing the difference yet? If not then here is a hint: One is a claim of certainty, the other is a claim of what the data set strongly indicates. See how that works?

pone2012 wrote: »

Genuinely I would love to hear your explanation for this

Gladly! But your question is very vague. Could you be more specific about what you are asking. Which concepts exactly are you referring to? Also was "contrasts" the right word you intended to use? Because you are talking about them transcending distance, but having contrasts which suggests they did NOT transcend it.

So really really not clear what you mean at all. Not avoiding or dodging your question at all, before you pretend I am, but I need clarification before I proceed.

pone2012 wrote: »

This is the one that comes to mind...

Well this is odd. We were talking about demonic possession specifically. Your exact words were "Lets take an example of a so called Demonic Possession...We never see the apparent "Demon" but we do see the effect...Sometimes science explains certain things other times it cannot."

So I said there are not many examples of such "possession" where people "cannot" explain it. So now you have given me a video of something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. Nothing about demonic possession at all. Not even remotely similar.

So you are kinda making my point for me. I put out a challenge and your BEST video offering (only offering) is not even relevant to the challenge set out. You do like running around the field with the goal posts dont you???

Also you say "was more than one scientist present". Which ones? Lets look at the first section of the video for example.

At the start I see the guy on the bed, and the guy doing the "magic". And his helper at the end of the bed. After that they pan out and involve the sound engineer.... would you be calling her a scientist now?

So who were the scientists in the room, and what were their fields, and what aspect of the scientific method did they employ in this case?

What really torpedoes the credibility of the video however is that after the "Chi" tricks the guy goes on to set fire to a news paper with his hands. This is not only massively unimpressive, it is a magic trick I DO MYSELF AT PARTIES.

Why, if this guy has such wonderful magical powers, does he have to impress people with cheap and easy parlor tricks? Does it not make you question AT ALL his intention, his honesty, and his abilities if he has to augment them with mere sleight of hand and trickery from 101 magic books? ESPECIALLY given he is claiming those abilities are connected?

SERIOUSLY are you that easily impressed, that easily duped, and that quick to buy into things that fit your narrative just because they come with bells and whistles and a little bit of charisma from the charlatan involved???? You are making a real mockery of yourself and your credibility here. Man. Comedy. Gold. Seriously.

And you think this can not be explained by science?? LOL!!!!! It is our knowledge of science, chemistry specifically, that let us do that magic trick. Science can not explain it? Science GAVE it to us!!! You seriously are one funny funny dude. Alas in the more laugh AT type than laugh WITH type.

If you want me to explain how the trick is done, simply ask. Or, next time I am in Dublin and going to a party, I will invite you to witness me do it.

pone2012 wrote: »

I don't doubt that people do come along with stories such as the one mentioned.

Sure which is why I ALSO asked YOU to trot out YOUR best examples. Quelle surprise, you did not do so. I knew you would not to be honest. Maybe I have magical powers to see the future? Or maybe I just have observed the paucity of evidence you generally bring to the table in EVERY discussion, and made a well educated guess?

pone2012 wrote: »

(after all, much of said evidence is circumstantial)

When it comes to such things, like reincarnation and people speaking weird languages and the like, the "evidence" is not EVEN circumstantial. It is not evidence at all. Rather it is an appeal to our ignorance.

What I mean by that, is the "evidence" invariably takes the form of "Person X has knowledge or ability Y, and YOU do not know how that person came to have that knowledge or ability".

That is not evidence. It is pointing to an area of LACK of evidence, and acting like that IS evidence. This is a very poor approach but, as with the user who ran away from the whole forum in shame, it is the main approach purveyors of this nonsense use. Especially with reincarnation and speaking weird languages.

pone2012 wrote: »

This is quite humourous really....I'm always happy to see your one eye opened one eye closed skeptic lens.

Ah this is one of those fling spaghetti at the wall and hope it sticks linguistic moves. You merely DECLARE some attribute about me personally (this one eye open one closed nonsense) but then do not explain what you think that means, and upon what basis you think it applies. It is a way of "replying" to me, without actually replying to a single thing I said. It is not, as you can guess, an honest move in my eyes.

pone2012 wrote: »

I get that you are a hardcore skeptic ( nobody else would care to attempt to deconstruct an article in the manner you did).

Yeah I LONG ago noticed that it is a tactic on forums to post links and stuff in the hope/knowledge no one is actually going to bother reading what is in the link. So people feel they "win" debates because they had a link.

So I merely adopted the practice of actually reading the stuff people cite as evidence for their claim. This is, for people like yourself, terribly inconvenient it seems as often the links turn out to hold nothing of any actual merit. As is what happened here.

pone2012 wrote: »

You've made some big assumptions there.....

pone2012 wrote: »

Your heuristics are not effective in this case however..

Another spag at the wall move. Declaring I have made assumptions but not actually saying what ones, or where. Again saying I have not been effective, but not actually saying how or where.

Again a "reply" that does not ACTUALLY reply. And again.... not an honest move.

pone2012 wrote: »

You appear to have formed some very specific opinions based on the limited set of data available to you.

Huh? Should I be forming my opinions based on data NOT available to me? Are you even trying to make sense? I leave that kind of move to the theists. The only opinions I will, or can, form will be ones based on the data available to me and nothing more.

pone2012 wrote: »

You'll note its no appeal to authority...As i never made any claims to the content of that article....

pone2012 wrote: »

So where exactly is this appeal to authority im presenting?

Again do keep up. I did not say YOU were making an appeal to authority. I was saying the ENTIRE ARTICLE is one itself. The article is basically one long appeal to authority. The entire post was a SEPARATE post about the article, not about you. That is literally why I separated it into two posts. To make ONE post a reply to you and ONE post a reply to the article.

The separation appears to have gone over your head however, and you are taking my reply to the article as a reply to you.

pone2012 wrote: »

I read what practitioners in their field have encountered, documented (granted, poorly) and expressed through it.

And all that has been documented in your link is that some people, with qualifications in psychiatry, believe in demonic possession. That is literally the ENTIRE article summarized in one sentence.

So what do you think is useful or interesting about that in particular? I am not seeing it. In a world full of people who believe in unsubstantiated nonsense, they have merely written an article about 3 or 4 of them. That is literally it.

If you think I am missing something more that the article has to offer, than rather than empty shotgun claims about my heuristics and assumptions, maybe you can actually move to lay out clearly what it is I have not noticed.

nozzferrahhtoo

Mellor wrote: »

It appears that his hatred of religion was the driving force of the attack

Which has nothing to do with atheism.

Firstly because hating religion is not an attributes, a requirement, a pre-requisite, or a result of atheism.

Secondly because it is perfectly possible to hate religion and actually be a believer in god. In fact hating religions, and people of other religions, is not unheard of in the theist community as a whole. And even the 10 commandments themselves do not mention non-belief at all, but very specifically mention false belief.

Mellor wrote: »

It's just insane to try and twist that into "proof" that an atheists can't be motivated by their atheism.

The problem there being that the challenge has been put out on the thread already to make a causal link between a statement like "I see no reason to think there is a god" and one like "I should go into that room and kill all the people there with a gun".

And no one has managed to do it. Though we did get one very comical flapping fail of an attempt from one user who came out with the claim that.... well you know his atheism did not STOP him doing it. Which was seriously comedy gold.

So not only is there no sign of motivation there, there is no sign it was even required. So who needs to create "proofs" for you, when the base claim of a causal motivational link is itself entirely unsubstantiated?

Mellor wrote: »

Suggesting that it can't be belief based because an atheist has no beliefs is a logical fallacy.

Who is presenting such a logical fallacy though? I am not seeing ANYONE claim that "an atheist has no beliefs". I am sure pretty much every atheist on the planet is full of beliefs. The word atheism merely points out there is ONE PARTICULAR belief they do not have. That is all.

What this guys OTHER beliefs and issues were, that led to and motivated his heinous crimes is anyone's guess. In fact if there is any truth to what spacecoyote said above then it seems that his hatred of the religious was not at all motivated by his atheism but by his having been slighted by someone of a religious bent.

But so far all attempts to link his actions to his apparent atheism have been flapping and spectacularly funny failures.

Mellor

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which has nothing to do with atheism.

Firstly because hating religion is not an attributes, a requirement, a pre-requisite, or a result of atheism.

And killing non-muslims has nothing to do with islam...yet what keeps happening all over the world. Are you also that islamic terrorists not are motivated by religion because hating non-muslims is not a requirement of islam?

Just because it is not a factor in what atheism actually is about. I think it's burying your head in the sand to say that to two can't be related.

I should point out, because of the dismissive condescending tone you get in these threads. I'm an atheist. And also, co-relation is not causation.

Secondly because it is perfectly possible to hate religion and actually be a believer in god. In fact hating religions, and people of other religions, is not unheard of in the theist community as a whole.

Of course, people of X religion, hate Y. Not sure how that's relevant though. I'm not trying to make a argument religion is better than atheism because this guy killed a load of people - in case that's what you were getting at.

And even the 10 commandments themselves do not mention non-belief at all, but very specifically mention false belief.

The 10 commandments are make believe. They aren't real. I feel silly having to point this on on the A&A forum.

The problem there being that the challenge has been put out on the thread already to make a causal link between a statement like "I see no reason to think there is a god" and one like "I should go into that room and kill all the people there with a gun".

The problem with that line of thought is that there is no logical or rational reasons to kill a load of people in cold blood. None. But you can't use the lack of a rationally link to disprove the motivation for somebody who was behaving irrationally. That's not how it works.
Historically, people - who suffer breakdowns - have had all sorts of irrational motivations driving them.

So not only is there no sign of motivation there, there is no sign it was even required. So who needs to create "proofs" for you, when the base claim of a causal motivational link is itself entirely unsubstantiated?

No sign of motivation? I don't think you close enough to the evidence to state that. How could you possibly know there was no motivation here - atheism or otherwise. A killing of this nature with zero motivations would be extremely rare.

Maybe it's unrelated entirely. But I don't know how you can be sure of that.
It could be as simple as a belief that theist are so inferior, that they don't deserve to live.

Who is presenting such a logical fallacy though? I am not seeing ANYONE claim that "an atheist has no beliefs". I am sure pretty much every atheist on the planet is full of beliefs. The word atheism merely points out there is ONE PARTICULAR belief they do not have. That is all.

Then you should look closer. I quoted the post, which said

a religious person has beliefs to be driven by, an atheist does not.

Ridiculous im sure you'll agree. Swap belief for ideology or opinion and the fallacy just becomes plain wrong.

What this guys OTHER beliefs and issues were, that led to and motivated his heinous crimes is anyone's guess.

Exactly, any of his beliefs and issues, could have been twisted in his unwell mind, to see him arrive at that irrational action. ANY of them. Include his athist ideology. Nothing you've said proves that's not possible. The whole "has no beliefs" argument is just silly.

In fact if there is any truth to what spacecoyote said above then it seems that his hatred of the religious was not at all motivated by his atheism but by his having been slighted by someone of a religious bent.

Maybe. As I said, I don't know nearly enough of the finer details to state one way or the other. I'd certainly not arrogantly suggestion I know that it was the case. I'm saying that it could have been, and that stating that it would be impossible is a strange defensive viewpoint imo

smacl

Mellor wrote: »

Just because it is not a factor in what atheism actually is about. I think it's burying your head in the sand to say that to two can't be related.

I should point out, because of the dismissive condescending tone you get in these threads. I'm an atheist. And also, co-relation is not causation.

We're talking about a sample size of one here. A single incident. We don't even have correlation on that basis. To suggest that atheism was a factor on that basis is unfounded. If the guy had been wearing a blue t-shirt, you might as well say that was a factor. To correlate two variables you need a statistically significant sample, and even when you have established correlation as you correctly point out, that is not causation.

Saying something could be a factor tells us almost nothing. For more weight you need to progress from possible to probable and on to provable.

nozzferrahhtoo

You will forgive me I hope, given that most of what I write below addresses the entirety of your post, if I do so in a manner that has not got quite as much QUOTE /Quote sections as you used. Nothing in your post has not been replied to below, even if I did not include the specific parts of it in mine.

Mellor wrote: »

And killing non-muslims has nothing to do with islam...yet what keeps happening all over the world.

That is not so easy to say. We could of course argue that people are misinterpreting the doctrines by YOUR lights, and that Islam admonishes no such thing on it's followers.

But that would just be YOUR interpretation of the text. To claim there is no way at all to interpret the texts that leads to the actions in questions...... would be a much harder claim to make.

A similarly difficult problem does not exist with atheism however. There is only so many ways to interpret "I see no reason to think there is a god" and not one of them I can think of admonishes anyone to shoot up a room full of people.

Another problem with religion is not just the text which could be read as motivating hatred of "the other"..... but also the things unsaid. If a religion suggests that false religions and so forth could lead you to hell, or some other detriment to your ETERNAL soul..... then people of other faiths and no faith at all genuinely do become a threat to you and your loved ones.

Further it is not just people like me, or the media, linking Islam with a variety of heinous crimes. The terrorists THEMSELVES do so. And I am liable to take their word for it when they take the time to tell me what their motivations are. And in the Dabiq article "Why we hate you and why we fight you" they openly link their actions to their Islamic Religion. With near impossible to misinterpret sentences like "We hate you, first and foremost, because you
are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah"

So do not go around telling ME that their killing of non-muslims has nothing to do with Islam. Tell THEM. Preferably in a way that does not get you killed or beheaded if you can.

Mellor wrote: »

Just because it is not a factor in what atheism actually is about. I think it's burying your head in the sand to say that to two can't be related.

You can think it by all means, but thinking it and asserting it are not tools that will make it true. To make it true I simply suggest the challenge I have already referred you to. That of linking in a causal, not merely correlative, manner a sentence like "I see no reason to believe there is a god" and "I should go into that room and shoot everyone".

The flappingly failed attempts to do this so far are certainly suggestive that ONE of us has a head in the sand and of the possibility set, it is not me.

Mellor wrote: »

The 10 commandments are make believe. They aren't real. I feel silly having to point this on on the A&A forum.

You should feel silly for saying something patently false. The 10 commandments are entirely real. They exist. They are there for all to read and see.

The only thing that is apparently make believe is the authority upon which the commandments are based. The commandments themselves are entirely real however.

But the reality of them was not the point I was making here. The point was that there is doctrine existing in religion, unlike atheism, that specifically refers to "the other" in ways that can inculcate in group out group mentalities that can lead to distrust, hatred and even violence between them.

Mellor wrote: »

The problem with that line of thought is that there is no logical or rational reasons to kill a load of people in cold blood.

Who limited this to rational reasons? I certainly did not. I was pointing out that you can not causally link the two things at all. Yet we often can with religion.

Let us take the cases of parents, usually in the US, who watch their children die of slow and painful conditions that are actually relatively easy to manage medically. They do this solely because their religious doctrines inform them that the medical interventions required are an affront to god.

Now it seems crazy to people not of that religion. But I would not say they were being irrational. In fact GIVEN WHAT THEY BELIEVE about the nature of the universe, and it's creator, their actions to allow their child to die in this manner are in fact perfectly rational. I would, if I shared their belief in that god, bring all my rationality to bear and would also watch my child die because of those beliefs. Nothing irrational about it.

So we CAN link the heinous actions of such people to their religion. I can say "They let their child die painfully..... and here are the causal reasons in their religion that led them to do that". No one, least of all you or Pone or anyone on this thread, can do the same with atheism. You simply can not link "I see no reason to think there are gods" with "I must go into that room and kill everyone in it".

Mellor wrote: »

No sign of motivation? I don't think you close enough to the evidence to state that. How could you possibly know there was no motivation here - atheism or otherwise. How could you possibly know there was no motivation here - atheism or otherwise.

I was specifically talking about motivation from atheism, as you well know. So stop pretending otherwise. Further you have changed "no sign of motivation" to "there was no motivation". Interesting that, in one paragraph, you modified my words like that. I guess the latter is easier to decry than what I actually said huh?? Not an honest move.

Let me summarize my two main positions on this thread thus far:

There is no sign at this time that his motivations were based in atheism. And no one here on this thread has managed to adumbrate a plausible or coherent causal link between a mere lack of belief in a god, and the idea one must kill a room full of people.

That is all I am saying, have said, and likely will continue to say for the foreseeable. Reply to THAT if you can, but not what you invented on my behalf.

But suffice to say no one, least of all me, is saying there was zero motivation of any kind. And also least of all me is saying any motivation is "impossible".

So please do not take single sentences from me out of the context of the whole post to make it look like I am saying things I am not. It is not big. It is not clever. It is not honest.

Mellor

smacl wrote: »

We're talking about a sample size of one here.

Not really. Saying it's impossible for it to ever be related is broader than the single incident.
As I said, I don't have enough fine details to say it's definitely is or isn't. And if it turns out that it isn't, that doesn't necessarily make my point incorrect.

We don't even have correlation on that basis. To suggest that atheism was a factor on that basis is unfounded.

You've said it's unfounded? You havent actually said why?

To correlate two variables you need a statistically significant sample,

The driving force is the driving force regardless of sample size.
Say man kills his wife and her lover because he caught them in bed. Sample size of one, motivation is obvious. Yet your logic claims that we can't state his motivation unless we've a significant sample. that's evidently not true.

You only need a statistically significant sample is you are trying to draw conclusions about atheists as a whole. We aren't. It's a case of one person, as you pointed out.

and even when you have established correlation as you correctly point out, that is not causation.

But people were disputing co-relation.
Whether or not it was the primary cause is irrelevant. FWIW the cause it most likely some sort of mental rooted issue.

Saying something could be a factor tells us almost nothing. For more weight you need to progress from possible to probable and on to provable.

I only need to progress to probably and provable if my position was that it definitely was a factor. But it isn't (as I've said).
I'm disputing claims that it could never, ever, in any scenario, be a factor. If we agree that, it could be a factor (even if we'll never know for sure). Then that refutes those claims.

nozzferrahhtoo

Mellor wrote: »

Not really. Saying it's impossible for it to ever be related is broader than the single incident.

Mellor wrote: »

I'm disputing claims that it could never, ever, in any scenario, be a factor.

I am not clear WHO is saying that though, and I do not really want to re-read the thread. Perhaps you can remind me who is saying it? I read post #42, your first contribution, and none of the people you quote there are saying it.

I know what I am saying, even if I can not remember what everyone else has said, and it is NOT that it is impossible for there ever be a link, but that no one I have seen yet has managed to show or suggest one.

The challenge is still there for anyone who wants it. Link the sentence causally between "I see no reason to think there is a god" and "I must go into that room and kill everyone in it".

I am not seeing a link, and no one else here has offered one. That does NOT say it is not possible for there to be one. I am just not seeing how there can be one is all.

It would appear at this point that this discussion is similar to the one about what atheism means.

The latter being a discussion of the difference between "I see no reason to believe there is a god, so I do not believe it" and "I actively believe there is no god".

Where here we have people, like me, saying that there is nothing on offer here to suggest any causal relationship between the two and you are turning that maybe into them saying there could not ever be such a link.

But if it is possible to link them, then let's do it. Link for me, or adumbrate pathways between "I do not think there is a god" and..... well any heinous action. How do you see a link being possible at all?

Mellor wrote: »

But people were disputing co-relation.

Who? The CORRELATION is clear here. He was an atheist. He killed some people.

What is not clear is why that correlation should be considered any more substantive or relevant or interesting than "He was wearing a t-shirt" and "he killed some people" or "He read The Daily Mail that morning" and "HE killed some people".

The correlation of him being atheist, and his going on a murder run, is one I have not seen anyone dispute however.

So to be honest, I genuinely have lost sight of who or what it is you are arguing with. I need a little help picking up the threads again if anyone can assist?


If we agree that, it could be a factor (even if we'll never know for sure). Then that refutes those claims.[/QUOTE]