Texas Shooter: "Church-goers are stupid"

smacl

Mellor wrote: »

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.

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

The domain of things that are possible is infinite. For example, it is possible that God exists, or Kali, or the tooth fairy. I don't believe any of those possibilities worth considering as potentially true as there is no evidence that merits the consideration. That the killer in this case was an atheist only becomes significant if we see a similar pattern elsewhere. My first reaction was that this tragedy was related to easy access to guns, where we have tons of evidence to correlate violent death with proliferation of firearms. We also see the killer had family issues, also plenty of correlation between random acts of violence with family issues. We then note they guy was an atheist, yet there is no correlation between atheism and random acts of violence. To suggest differently is unfounded until you can provide supporting evidence.

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.

We do have a significant sample though, many other people have killed their wives in similar circumstances where jealousy was established as the motivation. We draw our conclusion based on a body of previous observations.
Without doing a point by point on the rest of your post, you can suggest any two things are related. That in itself does not mean they are related until such time as you provide a modicum of supporting evidence.

Mellor

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

I'm on my phone at the minute. I'm relying to a few select paragraphs. But I read the whole post, and considering the whole post I'm my reply.
Also I do appreciate the long thought out post. But the condescending attitude is a bit much. Honestly, it's one of the reasons why I post very little on A&A.

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.

It's quite easy to say. People say it all the time. Religious figures declare it all the time.
Putting Islam aside for a minute. Killing people is clearly fundamentally against Christian beliefs. Yet people have been kill in the name of Christianity.

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.

Exactly. These people are taking an interpretation that's seen as "wrong" in the eyes of the church, and killing people. My point was never that it doesn't happen, but rather the opposite. That the "correct" interpretation is irrelevant.

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.

In a rational person, no I can't imagine it would happen. But we aren't dealing with a rational person.

A mentally unwell person might make all sort of odds connections to arrive that endgame. As I mentioned above, he coukd simply feel then inferior and undeserving of life.

So do not go around telling ME that their killing of non-muslims has nothing to do with Islam.

You appear to have missed the point. I was using the claim that people frequently make to highlight the flaw in your claim.

Just because something is not fundamentally sound. Doesn't stop people doing it.

Mellor wrote: »

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...

Wait a sec. "...not merely correlative..."
You literally said in the previous sentence that it wasn't co-related. So why have you suddenly shifted to requiring causative link. Goalpost moved a fair bit there. A mere co-relative link was all that I claimed. The fact you are now trying to exclude them contracticts you statements that they don't exists. Oh dear.

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.

Nice try. But this claim of a failed attempt only exists when you've moved the goal posts. Now, I wonder why you had to do that.

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.

And Santa Claus is real, I've seen him in loads of movies and books too.

The point was that using them as an authoritive statmentbon the world is idiotic when their authority is made up.

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.

I've never disputed that their are competing factors in religious doctrine that leads to distrust between them. So I'm not sure why you felt the need to make this point. Unless the rather obvious strawman was your goal. Really?

Mellor wrote: »

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.

Again proving it happens with religion doesn't mean it cannot happen with atheism. I find it odd that you think it does.
But that's how it goes around here, instead of making a valid point, people get defensive and attack religion.

...would also watch my child die because of those beliefs. Nothing irrational about it.

And you think that because that aren't being irrational. That nobody else in the works can behave irrationally. That's odds.

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".

I can, and I have. But you "conviently" ignored it. And instead tried (and failed) to move the goalposts, and posted strawman arguments, and mostly irrelevant paragraphs about religion makes people do dumb thing - which was never in dispute.

Mellor wrote: »

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.

Come down off your high horse there champ. I quoted multiple posters in my posts. I was paraphrasing what multiple posters said. I wasn't singling out you specifically

There is no sign at this time that his motivations were based in atheism...

As I said above I'm disputing the idea that an atheist could never do something as like kill due to his beliefs because he has none. The specifics of this case are actually not the debate. (Of course this case could prove me right if it turns out to be the case).

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.

The cause was a mental issue, as I said. My point was that it was related not causal.

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".

Your not the only person to have posted in the thread. If I misquoted you in a quote box, I'm honestly sorry. But I don't think I did.
If I'm paraphrasing multiple posters, in my own words. It's not going to be a direct quote.

Mellor

smacl wrote: »

[

The domain of things that are possible is infinite. For example, it is possible that God exists, or Kali, or the tooth fairy.

Well, I personally don't believe in infinite possibilities. But if you insist there are, that's fine. Thank you, you just proves I'm right - and the poster (not you nozzferrahhtoo :rolleyes) who insists it's impossible was wrong.

We do have a significant sample though, many other people have killed their wives in similar circumstances where jealousy was established as the motivation.

Yes we do in that example, but we dont need to use statical evidence where it's obvious from the stand alone case.

We draw our conclusion based on a body of previous observations.

Not always. If that were the case, then no unique motivations could exists. Which is obviously not true. If somebody is motivated by something. That's their motivation. They don't need others to stare that motivation to validate it. Which is what you've basically claimed.

That in itself does not mean they are related until such time as you provide a modicum of supporting evidence.

Of course. As I said I wasn't talking about this specific case, as We just don't know yet. I'm talking about the idea that it's impossible to be the case. I mean, anyone could kill in the name of anything if they do wished.

nozzferrahhtoo

Again you will forgive me if I compress your over dissected post into less sections. Though probably not a LOT less given the sheer number you have decided to employ. Just to make it more readable for other users. Especially as you have put quotes from me in your post as if they were quotes from you.

The "condescending attitude" however is entirely of your own subjective invention and I will not be addressing it further. My approach to discourse, as you will see with your "oh dear" and "champ" nonsense below, is merely to reflect another persons tone back at them. If you find that condescending, then merely reevaluate your own rhetoric and you will find I do so in turn.

Mellor wrote: »

It's quite easy to say.

Mellor wrote: »

Killing people is clearly fundamentally against Christian beliefs.

Mellor wrote: »

That the "correct" interpretation is irrelevant.

Mellor wrote: »

These people are taking an interpretation that's seen as "wrong" in the eyes of the church, and killing people.

The move from Islam to Christianity kind of goes around the goal posts and ignores your point which I rebutted.

The claim I was addressing was YOU saying that "killing non-muslims has nothing to do with islam" and I am pointing out that that claim is hard to substantiate (probably why you have not done so beyond simply assertion of it).

In fact many of these killers THEMSELVES are DIRECTLY linking Islam to their actions. I heartily recommend you read that article "Why we hate you and why we fight you" if you doubt me on this.

There very much are passages in the holy texts of these religions that can lead to these things. Not so with "I do not believe in any gods". That is the distinction that is being pointed out to you here which you do not seem to like, but do not seem able to rebut.

Mellor wrote: »

But we aren't dealing with a rational person.

Mellor wrote: »

he coukd simply feel then inferior and undeserving of life.

So basically all you can do to create any kind of causal link between atheism and murder is to parse atheism through an entirely irrational person in order to twist it into something it is not, and THEN blame atheism for the actions? That is..... pretty weak as a causal link really.

You could link a recipe for guacamole dip to murder if you are going to take THAT approach. A mentally unwell person might make all sort of odd connections to arrive that endgame." for all we know!

To call your link tenuous would be to praise it, it is that bad. But suffice to say that if his thinking was inferior people to him do not deserve to live, then that is a world view we could link to murder, but not to atheism. So in order to link any of this to his atheism, you have to import entirely unrelated parts of his world view. Clutch straws much?

Mellor wrote: »

You appear to have missed the point.

Mellor wrote: »

So why have you suddenly shifted to requiring causative link.

Mellor wrote: »

Nice try. But this claim of a failed attempt only exists when you've moved the goal posts.

Oh dear. There has been no shift outside our imagination I am afraid, and oh dear suffice to say that me not agreeing with your points is not at all the same as me having missed those points. A difference worth learning, I assure you. Oh dear.

But oh dear no, I have been talking about the DISTINCTION between linking them in correlation and linking them causally since my very first post on this thread, and in pretty much every post since. Oh dear.

So there has been no "sudden shift" at all here other than, perhaps, in your understanding of my post. Oh dear.

That is a common error on forums, so let us not hold it against you! Quite often person X's understanding of person Y's point changes.... and person X is left with the erroneous impression person Y must have modified something.

The goalposts are where they have always been, you have just spotted them for the first time is all. Oh dear.

But oh dear, the challenge and it's intent still remain unassailable once again. Which is that ANYONE linking this persons atheism with their murderous acts other than the very mere correlation of them having existed in the same person (which no one, to my knowledge, has disputed) has a lot of work ahead of them to do so. Oh dear.

The simple fact is that you are unlikely to adumbrate any kind of coherent and relevant link between a position of not believing in a god, and a position of thinking you need to go into a room and murder everyone there. Oh. Dear. Indeed.

Mellor wrote: »

And Santa Claus is real, I've seen him in loads of movies and books too. The point was that using them as an authoritive statmentbon the world is idiotic when their authority is made up.

Mellor wrote: »

So I'm not sure why you felt the need to make this point. Unless the rather obvious strawman was your goal.

You have seen representations of Santa claus in movies and books, that does not make Santa claus himself real. The 10 commandments THEMSELVES exist in print however. There is a massive difference between the existence of representations of an idea, and existence of the actual idea.

But the point you are ducking and dodging is not predicated on the very real existence of the commandments which you so comically attempted to dispute, but in the point that there IS doctrine there which can build an ingroup outgroup mentality. Not so in the statement "I see no reason to think there are gods".

So there is no strawman as you pretend, but a salient point on the distinction between how religion CAN motivate and be causally linked to such actions in a way that atheism simply has not been. Least of all by you. Screaming buzz words like "strawman" at that point, is not likely to make the point disappear, or allow it to be dodged or ignored.

Mellor wrote: »

Again proving it happens with religion doesn't mean it cannot happen with atheism. I find it odd that you think it does.

Likely not as odd as I find it that you keep thinking I have said things I have not, especially AFTER I have explained I have not.

There is nothing in my posts saying such a thing can not, does not, has not, or will not happen. What I am saying is that IF it can, does, has or will...... no one has shown that. Least of all here on this thread.

You can tell the difference between saying it can not or does not happen........ and saying there has been no sign of it having happened right?

Because if not then that is a tangential conversation we should have BEFORE any further conversation on this issue between us, as it is no small difference and parsing my post through the former, not the latter, as you appear to be is only going to have us going in circles of me removing a lot of YOUR words from MY mouth.

To repeat the point being made here however. I CAN describe heinous actions by religious people. And I CAN (and often THEY do it themselves) not just correlate this with their religious beliefs, but show direct causation and motivation between them.

If all your point comes down to on the thread is "Well no one can say 100% for sure that something similar could never happen with atheism" then fine. I never say anything 100% for sure anyway, so you will get no argument from me.

But having acknowledged that pedantry piece of mundane obviousness the fact simply remains that whether or not we can be 100% sure it is impossible..... no one here has shown A) a case of it happening or adumbrated a coherent causal pathway by which it might.

Mellor wrote: »

But that's how it goes around here, instead of making a valid point, people get defensive and attack religion.

Not sure what you mean, given you have not shown any single one of my points so far to not be valid. Perhaps you are lashing out at some people you have had discussions with previously, in which case you have my sympathies. But I would request you take it up with them, not me.

If any of MY points is invalid however, by all means show me which, how and where.

Mellor wrote: »

And you think that because that aren't being irrational. That nobody else in the works can behave irrationally. That's odds.

What is "odds" is that you keep thinking I think things I have not once said. It might be wise if.... well.... you stop doing that. No, I was just pointing out that when you make appeals to whether they are being irrational or rational...... that it is very often not a safe assumption that they are irrational at all. The parents watching their children die for example, are being perfectly rational GIVEN their world view about their god.

But the core point AGAIN (happy to repeat it as many times as you want infact) is that I can sit down and link their heinous crimes DIRECTLY with their religious belief. I can build a causal pathway between the two quite concisely and coherently.

No one is doing that with atheism and any particular actions, let alone the ones this thread is actually about. Seeing the difference yet?

Mellor wrote: »

I can, and I have. But you "conviently" ignored it.

One can not "ignore" what is not there, and no you simply have not done it. The goalposts moving is just your imagination to explain away how you have not actually done it.

But rather than claim you have done it (falsely) and claim (again falsely) it has been ignored, point me to it again. Help me out here. Link for me "I see no reason to think there are gods" with "I must go into that room and kill everyone in it". Show me how one leads to the other. I am agog.

Mellor wrote: »

Come down off your high horse there champ. I quoted multiple posters in my posts. I was paraphrasing what multiple posters said. I wasn't singling out you specifically

Then the high horse is yours "chamep", and mine exists only in your head "champ". Because it seems "champ" that by "paraphrasing" you actually mean you are taking what they all said, and summarizing it into something none of them have actually said. Which is not a wise move "champ" or an honest one.

Clearly you and I are operating under a VERY different concept of what it means to "paraphrase" someone. For me it means to express the SAME thing with DIFFERENT words. It certainly does not mean changing the meaning of what was said, into something else. Champ.

Mellor wrote: »

As I said above I'm disputing the idea that an atheist could never do something as like kill due to his beliefs because he has none.

Mellor wrote: »

If I misquoted you in a quote box, I'm honestly sorry. But I don't think I did.

Mellor wrote: »

If I'm paraphrasing multiple posters, in my own words.

AGAIN however who is claiming "he has none"? You are disputing ideas no one has actually espoused. Which is a weird move to make. You are not just moving the goal posts (while falsely pretending others have) but in fact you are on the same pitch playing an entirely different game, with a ball of your own..... and then wondering why the score board does not register your goal.

An atheist has lots of beliefs. And some of them might (and in this case clearly did) lead them to murder. But what has that got to do with atheism, or specifically his atheism?

But misquoting / misrepresenting me you indeed are, but apology accepted. But suffice to repeat: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".

I am sure it is "possible" that an atheist can be motivated by atheism to kill. Just like it is "possible" I might develop the ability to levitate things with my mind tomorrow.

But no case of it has been shown, and no causal pathway has plausibly been constructed to make it seem likely. So while no one here is saying it IS "impossible", it certainly does not look even remotely credible, likely or coherent.

nozzferrahhtoo

Mellor wrote: »

Thank you, you just proves I'm right - and the poster (not you nozzferrahhtoo :rolleyes) who insists it's impossible was wrong.

Rather than snidely point out who the poster was NOT.... would it not be more helpful to point out who it WAS? Then we can all go back, read the posts in question, and proceed on the same page. Because thus far the only people who have said it are those you have "paraphrased" into saying things they seemingly actually never did.

But I am not getting why you are so invested in the pedantic non-point of merely declaring it to be "possible". Because other than being pedantically correct, it adds nothing to the conversation.

For example if we were discussing functions of the brain and you strolled in declaring it "possible" that people could send message psychically to each other..... then yes sure pedantically we would admit of the "possibility".

But admitting of the possibility does not change the fact that everything we know about it at this time suggests no such thing is credible or plausible at all.

The same is true here.

That a person might pedantically want to declare it "possible" atheism might motivate someone to murder does not change the fact that nothing at all is being offered to credibly or plausibly suggest the possibility exists outside the plain of talking in sheer pedantic absolutes.

Put another way, it is like we are using the word two ways and we should capitalize one of them: "Possible" and "possible". While I am sure what you are talking about is Possible, I am seeing nothing being offered (least of all by you and pone) to suggest it is possible.

Just like being psychic is Possible but seemingly not at all possible.

smacl

Mellor wrote: »

Well, I personally don't believe in infinite possibilities.

Really? Pick a number, any number. How many possible options do you have?

As for the rest of it, for something to be obvious it must be the only reasonable conclusion that most people would arrive at given the same information. As often as not they will arrive at this information based on knowledge of previous similar events, beliefs or prejudices. There are relatively few unique events, and there causes are typically less than obvious.

jigglypuffstuff

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

North Korea is not only secular, it is an atheist state.

Juche is not a religion, it an ideology....based on Marxist/Leninist concepts....Its no religion, stop pretending it is one to suit your argumenT

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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".

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Absolutely, I have no problem to

1) I never made any claim
2) See above
3) Have you gotten the picture yet?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Let me be totally honest with you...I gave up going back and forward with you because, it seems you cannot have a discussion without writing a book....I do not have all the time in the world to respond...therefore I have to be selective in what I reply too....its usually the main focal points of discussion I try to stick to...

But hold on a second...schooled me? the last interaction you and i had was where I told you the scientific method is limited in that it cannot currently explain the 95 odd percent of the non-observable universe...

You then proceeded to ask a postgraduate student to improve it..in some attempt to distract from the main point, despite that what I stated is true. So your response to my statement was to try and see if I could come up with a better method...Yes thats totally relevant isnt it?

After that you pretended to act surprised that I wasn't aware of this whole 6000 year creationist thing (that ive still not come across), which a different poster had to clarify as he/she could clearly see you and i were not on the same page..

Then I had a brief interaction with you in another thread, where outlined what type of agenda based activity you've engaged in with religious people..and I said id rather not engage with you based on the fact that your agenda was clearly observable from your actions...you even outlined it yourself (remember the wafers and the bible readings with people?)

So no, I didnt run away....I am not inclined to do so, I just couldn't be bothered trying to engage in unbiased, discussion with you based on what you said...that is all.

Arguing that N Korea is not secular and athiest is a given example of that bias...because its common knowledge that it is

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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?

Yet you've labelled these things myths....so are they myths? Or are you saying it really looks like they are, but im not 100% certain...Now its you who needs to be clear

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Concepts of Gods, Creation, Religions etc....you see that there are plenty of similarities I assume?...I think the contrasts are due to cultural variation, whereas i believe it was some of the core pillars of that transcended...Wasn't it you who said that earlier in the thread ??

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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?

Two scientists : One in experimental psychology (From princeton), the other in physics (albert einsten new york)...CEO of Mind science foundation also present (not a scientist)...as are some of his students (one of which is an engineer I believe)

they attempted to measure what he was doing, and account for suspicious activity, and they couldnt account for any. And the measurement certainly proves interesting

Also. Lawrence Blair is an Anthropologist (PhD), thats the guy shooting the film in all cases ( section of that video are years apart)

The fact that you didnt know any of that tells me you didnt watch it (which I expected)

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

We can all crumple up paper with chemicals and do it...its simple...but can you prove he did that??? I dont think you can...plus we have testimony of several people to suggest there is no trickery involved.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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?

I dont think he was trying....hes on record saying both videos were strictly for scientific purpose...he had no idea they were going to be commercialized, and was angry when informed...Plus you have to factor in the haunting he got from the western world afterwards...he was plagued with requests from people travelling to Java to be his students....This man was wealthy, never charged for healings or training his students

Again lets see your proof of sleight of hand and trickery?? We have video where there is no evidence of either, we also have testimony from several sources that confirm that neither are the case.....and what exactly do you have??

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And you think this can not be explained by science??

Well, there were scientists present....they could not explain it...I can pass you contact details if you wish??? they arent hard to find

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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"

Actually we do know some of how he got that knowledge and ability...one of his western students leaked some information regarding some of the training, and there's two books with some information on them (tangenital however) but the fact remains, theres explanations there...whether you want to consider them or not is YOUR issue

FYI, It shares some parallels with Wim Hof methods....which is well under scientific scrutiny and showing quite interesting results..,,,do some research, you might find something interesting, especially considering it works within your favourite paradigm, science

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

The only thing I think you are missing is the ability to interpret something without the skeptic hat you seem to wear....that article is about a professional's experiences and opinions...Have you experience of said phenomena regularly ? are you a psychiatrist? What is your basis to speak intelligibly around the topic as to pretty much write it off so quick?

you require data......if I was to undertake a qualitative study this mans very words would be data (im sure you know that), yet you appear to write such data off as nonsense because its not substantiated.

Im not saying the data is accurate whatsoever... Im saying its not proven to be false....you agree im sure that you cannot prove that the mans points are all nonsense?

So let me ask you now...what data to you require to substantiate a claim?? I am curious as to what exactly ticks the boxes

Mellor

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Especially as you have put quotes from me in your post as if they were quotes from you.

The quote function on the mobile site is terrible and does that sometime. I agree it looks weird, Im sure we could all follow.

The "condescending attitude" however is entirely of your own subjective invention and I will not be addressing it further. My approach to discourse, as you will see with your "oh dear" and "champ" nonsense below, is merely to reflect another persons tone back at them. If you find that condescending, then merely reevaluate your own rhetoric and you will find I do so in turn.

I put those comments in as a response to your own posts. I only had those comments in my most recent.

The move from Islam to Christianity kind of goes around the goal posts and ignores your point which I rebutted.


The claim I was addressing was YOU saying that "killing non-muslims has nothing to do with islam" and I am pointing out that that claim is hard to substantiate (probably why you have not done so beyond simply assertion of it).

Rebutted? You are still missing the point.
I wasn't asserting that Islam is a religion of peace. I don;t don't actually hold that opinion. I was using the fact that people used the "correct" values of the religion is claim it is, when the reality is the terrorist will that justification all the time. I was rhetorical, I wasn't actually asking if you believed it, I was doing so to point out whether or not it's a pre-requisite of atheism is irrelevant.

In fact many of these killers THEMSELVES are DIRECTLY linking Islam to their actions. I heartily recommend you read that article "Why we hate you and why we fight you" if you doubt me on this.

There very much are passages in the holy texts of these religions that can lead to these things. Not so with "I do not believe in any gods". That is the distinction that is being pointed out to you here which you do not seem to like, but do not seem able to rebut.

I haven't rebuted it because I agree with it. As I've stated in my last post. THis is the strawman that you are denying, you are setting out to prove islam (and religion makes people do heinous stuff - when the opposite is never my position.

Again, it was an effigy, to highlight the flaw in your point.

So basically all you can do to create any kind of causal link between atheism and murder is to parse atheism through an entirely irrational person in order to twist it into something it is not, and THEN blame atheism for the actions? That is..... pretty weak as a causal link really.

A few issues here.
Firstly I was have never blamed atheist for this incident. It would be very odd for me to do as, as an atheist.
Secondly, I never said it I was showing a casual link. I already stated this repeatedly, the fact you are ignoring it only cements my point.

To call your link tenuous would be to praise it, it is that bad. But suffice to say that if his thinking was inferior people to him do not deserve to live, then that is a world view we could link to murder, but not to atheism. So in order to link any of this to his atheism, you have to import entirely unrelated parts of his world view. Clutch straws much?

How is that a strawman? I don't think it means what you thing it means.

But oh dear no, I have been talking about the DISTINCTION between linking them in correlation and linking them causally since my very first post on this thread, and in pretty much every post since. Oh dear.

You do relize that my first post on the thread, that you disputed, made no reference to any of your posts. I was quoting entirely different people, making entirely different points.
If the above was your position, I don't disagree with it, and it's not what I disagreed with above. You replied to me. So the topic what the points I raised - whatever you said previously to pone was irrelevant.

But the point you are ducking and dodging is not predicated on the very real existence of the commandments hich you so comically attempted to dispute,

I disputed that they are real, in that they are not the word of a god or god like being.
I think you understood that, feel to keep up the charade though.

You can tell the difference between saying it can not or does not happen........ and saying there has been no sign of it having happened right?

Of course. And you understand that I was quoting posters who were saying the former, and not the latter. If you don't, then there a whole set of issues opened up/

If all your point comes down to on the thread is "Well no one can say 100% for sure that something similar could never happen with atheism" then fine. I never say anything 100% for sure anyway, so you will get no argument from me.

Yet, all I got is arguments from you for making that point to others.
Maybe you mixed me up with Pone, or thought I was trying to add my point to his. Not the case.
I think at this stage it's clear we are making two different points. You aren't disputing mine, and I am not disputing yours.

An atheist has lots of beliefs. And some of them might (and in this case clearly did) lead them to murder. But what has that got to do with atheism, or specifically his atheism?

Exactly, an atheist has beliefs. Including his atheist ideology. This completely makes up what I said to the poster who disputed that.
Whichever of his beliefs led him to murder, I can't say.

But misquoting / misrepresenting me you indeed are, but apology accepted. But suffice to repeat: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".

You said "So not only is there no sign of motivation there". I took that to mean you were implying, that "no sign of motivation = no motivation". If I was mistaken, I apologise.

Mellor

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Rather than snidely point out who the poster was NOT.... would it not be more helpful to point out who it WAS? Then we can all go back, read the posts in question, and proceed on the same page. Because thus far the only people who have said it are those you have "paraphrased" into saying things they seemingly actually never did.

It was quoted in my post. The post that didn't actually quote you, yet to appear to think it was referring to your post.

For example if we were discussing functions of the brain and you strolled in declaring it "possible" that people could send message psychically to each other..... then yes sure pedantically we would admit of the "possibility".

I'd be of the opinion that is not possible, but I'd love to hear your reasons why it is.

But admitting of the possibility does not change the fact that everything we know about it at this time suggests no such thing is credible or plausible at all.

The same is true here.

That a person might pedantically want to declare it "possible" atheism might motivate someone to murder does not change the fact that nothing at all is being offered to credibly or plausibly suggest the possibility exists outside the plain of talking in sheer pedantic absolutes.

I could go out today, kill a priest, a rabbi and a Imam. I could claim to be doing so in the name of atheism to rid the world of religion and the pain it has caused. I could state, exactly as the terrorist do, what my motivations are.

Now, I'm not going to do that. But it's significantly more possible that telepathic communication.

smacl wrote: »

Really? Pick a number, any number. How many possible options do you have?

Yes, an infinite number of numbers can be chosen. But Infinite means without limit, an endless set of numbers. But it's doesn't, as some people think, include EVERY possible eventuality.
If I decided to rattle off numbers infinitely there is no number that I could chose then would cause the tooth fairy to exist.

As for the rest of it, for something to be obvious it must be the only reasonable conclusion that most people would arrive at given the same information. As often as not they will arrive at this information based on knowledge of previous similar events, beliefs or prejudices. There are relatively few unique events, and there causes are typically less than obvious.

That's often what happens. But it's not always what happens - a significant example of similar cases is not required to state something is the case. Which is what you actually said.
For something to be a unique case and the cause or motivation obvious, we would need some sort of primary evidence. Such as a video, a statement, diary, etc.

Hotblack Desiato

spacecoyote wrote: »

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?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/texas-church-gunman-was-involved-in-domestic-with-mother-in-law-1.3281452

Speaking at the scene of the attack, Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas said that the suspect had attended the First Baptist Church on occasion. "This depraved madman had worshiped at this church before," he said, asking how someone "can worship God, can pray with people and then come back and murder those same people".

Now, if Ted Cruz told me the sun was going to rise in the morning I'd be looking for corroboration. But has it even been established that this guy was an atheist - and shouldn't we be looking to his prior history of violence, mental instability, and relationship/family animosity as far more likely causal factors for this incident than his belief or non-belief in a god? His in-laws went to this church, he had some sort of disagreement with them. If you want to shoot someone and you know they worship in a particular place at a particular time on a Sunday you don't need to be a criminal mastermind to be able to figure out where you stand a good chance of tracking them down.

Mellor

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

But has it even been established that this guy was an atheist

I don't think it actually has. The source for that appears to be two former classmates who said he "preached his atheism" on facebook.

On the other hand an article on the Friendly Atheist blog claimed his LinkedIn profile (since removed) said he taught kids Bible School at a (different) Baptist church in 2013.
Everything is very murky and I doubt any impartial report will ever come out.


I get that the 2nd amendment is important beans for Texans. So I'm not surprised the local who turned up with his own assault rifle was lauded a hero. But I was surpised the guy was actually refused a gun license.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott told CNN that the shooter had requested a Texas licence but was refused.

So the Texas Department of Public Safety, determined that this guy was unfit to own a gun - Texas said he wasn't trusted to own a gun! Yet...

Despite this, he was able to buy four firearms — one each year between 2014 and 2017 — including the assault rifle he used in the church massacre, and two handguns found in his car.

smacl

Working in Indiana for a bit some years ago, every man cave of the guys I worked with seemed to have an armoury including the ubiquitous AK47. It seemed very much the thing to do on going to a persons house, meet the wife and kids, grab a beer and go down to the basement to get shown the toys. While it may not be a problem for most people, you're going to get a certain number of violent nutters in every large population. Similarly people who are under a lot of duress or stress and may have been poorly treated, e.g. think of those losing their homes to vulture funds for example. If you give that section of the population AK47s, many gun deaths are inevitable. Bottom line is that society is not well served by allowing private citizens own this kind of hardware.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

the ubiquitous AK47.

AK47 would not be very popular in the USA, the AR15 is. Are you sure this wasn't Afghanistan you were visiting?
Automatic weapons (machine guns, if you like) are generally illegal in the USA, but semiautomatic are not (one shot at a time).
If guns were unavailable, and a guy wanted to wipe out a church congregation, he could just drive a HGV through it. They are mostly flimsy wooden buildings in the US.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

AK47 would not be very popular in the USA, the AR15 is. Are you sure this wasn't Afghanistan you were visiting?
Automatic weapons (machine guns, if you like) are generally illegal in the USA, but semiautomatic are not (one shot at a time).

That's what the owners told me, though I know squat about guns so couldn't be sure. That said, one of the guys also instructed at a rifle range at the weekend so I'd expect he knew his weapons.

nozzferrahhtoo

pone2012 wrote: »

North Korea is not only secular, it is an atheist state.

Repeating your assertion without new arguments does not add to the assertion. You still remain wrong. Let me show you how to make a claim AND back it up with an argument:

Let me repeat this for you once again: A secular state is one where there is a SEPARATION of state and religion. Focus on the word separation there, it is important for the next part.

If the state is persecuting, prosecuting, or even murdering people for their religious beliefs then automatically there is NO SEPERATION of religion and state. The state is DIRECTLY putting it's hands into the religious practices and affairs of it's people. And how!

Therefore simply by definition it is not, can not, be a secular state. You could not be more wrong, simply put.

As for it being a religion, it is a state religion much like we say in communist Russia and no one is "pretending" otherwise except you. You are projecting your pretense onto others here. The concept that there is an ETERNAL leader ruling on in part through a semi reincarnation into his own son is not a secular concept for sure, much less an atheist one.

Your petty haughty little response to my definition of evidence for you does not warrant a reply so we can skip that....

pone2012 wrote: »

Let me be totally honest with you...I gave up going back and forward with you because, it seems you cannot have a discussion without writing a book....

Now that is clearly a cop out canard given the length of your own responses. You are, much like myself, more than capable of holding your attention span on a full conversation. You just pretend otherwise when it basically suits your need to dodge and run away.

The simple fact is you ran away from that thread, you could not rebut ANYTHING I said, let alone most of it, and you had to be schooled on what for actual scientists like myself are basic 101 scientific concepts. Yet you go around decreeing by fiat that you understand science and it's methodologies to people who are in a position to clearly identify you as a basic lay man to the subject.

I think you know a bit about football. Imagine someone came into a room claiming to know LOADS about sport, and they declare David Beckham to be the best Cricket Player in the world. No matter how much they CLAIM to be a sports expert, your knowledge of the subject will be enough to tell you they are a complete bluff merchant. Right?

THAT is what you are doing however time you claim to know basic science, but with just about everything you say about it you demonstrate the opposite. People actually in the subject and in the area and in the know can spot a bluffer a mile away. Just like the day on boards when someone claiming to have a PHD in Physics declared to me on boards that the only reason we have gravity on earth is because the earth, like space stations, is spinning. A mistake that the average 14 year old in Junior Cycle Science would spot.

pone2012 wrote: »

You then proceeded to ask a postgraduate student to improve it

That was one PART of a complete investigation into your understanding of those limitations, what they are, what form they take, and what improvement TYPES (not specifics, just a general adumbration of where the improvements may lie) you could suggest. You could not answer ANY of that. The best you can do is screech "Limitations" without entering into ANY depth of conversation on them.

So no the goal was not, and never was, to get you to come up with a better method but to offer you a NUMBER of ways to enter into that conversation in any level of depth. Rather than do that however you chose to flee. Which is, of course, your right. But pretending you fled because of some imaginary agenda on my part is, just comedy really.

pone2012 wrote: »

Yet you've labelled these things myths....so are they myths? Or are you saying it really looks like they are, but im not 100% certain...Now its you who needs to be clear

You are entirely unclear on what you need me to be clear on. But let me offer you a basic dictionary interaction here which might help you along when it comes to the doctrines of many religions, including the "big" ones we experience most in Ireland.

Myth: a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

Let us break that down for you point by point:

1) "A traditional story" - Check.
2) "especially concerning the history of a people" - Check.
3) "Explaining a natural or social phenomenon" - Check.
4) "Typically involving supernatural beings or events" - Check.

So no, it is not ME that needs to be clear here. If YOU have an issue with the word "Myth" then the clarity needs to come from YOU as to why that might be. Because I, shoot me if you have to, tend to use words in a way that fits their actual meaning. Shocking huh?????

pone2012 wrote: »

Concepts of Gods, Creation, Religions etc....you see that there are plenty of similarities I assume?

Absolutely! And thank you for being.... well a little clearer.... as to what you are asking. That was all I wanted.

Yes there are a lot of similarities through time and space in cultural myths on such things. And I do not find that surprising at all.

I think it was Terry Pratchett who suggested that anthropologists messed up calling us "Homo sapiens" (meaning wise man). He suggested we should have been called "Pan narrans" (meaning storytelling chimpanzee). Because that is exactly what we appear to be. An evolution of the chimpanzee line that is very much narrative based in our approach to reality.

So that our species regardless of time and place has come up with creation myths is not surprising. That is just what our brains do. We NEED stories that narrate our reality and our place in that reality.

Further we have evolved what some have called "The intentional stance" and "Hyper active Agency detection". What this basically means, for the lay man, is that we tend to see intention and agency where none actually exists. The evolutionary reason for this is clear: If you see no agency where there is some, you end up dead. If you see some where there is none, you just look a little silly. So over centuries of selection we evolved into a species that sees agency and intention where there is none. We also evolved something called a "theory of mind" which is where we can see, represent, and invent the minds of others almost like a "virtual sever" in our own brains.

I trust I do not need to explain the simple step from THOSE two things to seeing intention and agency in reality itself and.... thus..... the invention through the theory of mind the concepts of gods or a god? It is not a large leap at all. But a simple natural progression.

So as you can see, if you want to enter into a discussion on the similarities in creation and god narratives across our species..... which forgive me if I am wrong but I think that is what you are bringing up here..... I am both capable and willing to have that conversation with you. Here or, I suggest, another new thread?

pone2012 wrote: »

SNIP

As I am trying to reduce, not increase, the number of sections in each of our replies for the benefit of the other readers, I will address all your sections on the "posession video" in one section here.

Firstly since I referred to parts of the video directly, your outright lie that I did not watch the video is pretty blatant. Subtle lies are one thing, but being that blatant about it is rather sick.

No, rather what I am doing is seeing how YOU evaluate not just who the scientists were but what methodologies they actually employed. That was the point of my asking. And you stepped right into the trap.

As expected (yea sorry but I predicted your exact response which is why I laid the trap) you did little more than name some names and qualifications. You did not AT ALL address the science itself. You did not summarize the science that was done, the methodologies used, or anything. Nothing. At. All.

Your nonsense about "Can I prove he used chemicals" just shows your bias and lack of understanding of the methodology of science. I can not climb into the video and do the requisite tests. But the requisite tests were NOT done in this video.

What needs to be done, to bypass your simply appeal to ignorance effort at "evidence" is to have him do this "trick" and JUST before doing it you need to have a chemist walk over, swab his hands a few times, and then have him do his trick. Simple as that.

Did a SINGLE "scientist" in your video perform any such test? Hell no they did not. If they tried they probably would not even have been let do the video, let alone release it to the public.

But no, YOU are impressed solely by essentially saying nothing more than "Oh look, someone with QUALIFICATIONS was in the room! So there!" and you act like you know what science is? Comedy. Sheer. Comedy. Gold.

But the fact you and I can set fire to paper, or light light bulbs with our hands (both entirely easy to do) means the onus of evidence lies on YOU to show something magical is going on here, not on ME to show there is not. There is nothing more impressive in this video that Uri Geller bending spoons, or Yanagi Ryuken knocking people over in fights with his "chi".

You say you have contact details. Ask them why none of them thought to apply swabs to his hands before and after like any moderately capable scientist would.

pone2012 wrote: »

The only thing I think you are missing is the ability to interpret something without the skeptic hat you seem to wear....

The level of derision you pour on skepticism is weird to be honest. What alternative do you suggest? To accept without question anything and everyone someone offers me as true?

I am no more skeptical than you about claims YOU have heard and also do not believe. Whatever they may be. You operate EXACTLY like I do and likely feel EXACTLY like I do on the claims that YOU do not believe. Whether that be the people who saw elvis still alive, or the people who think Obama is an alien lizard in human disguise, or the people who claim they were abducted and anally probed (always anally for some reason with these people) by aliens.

Perhaps you are pretending (perhaps, I am not putting words in your mouth, just speculating) that being skeptical means "Deciding what not to believe and not beleiving it no matter how much evidence is presented". Because that WOULD be something worthy of derision.

"Skepticism" for me means not what I do, but who and what I am. I am simply someone who can not CHOOSE to believe or disbelieve something. Rather I am simply incapable of believing something unless adequate substantiation is offered for me to do so. I am similarly incapable of DISBELEVING something once that has been done. No matter how much I might dislike the claim or it's implications.

Further there is no bias on my part here. No need for this stuff NOT to be true. The world is a fabulous and exciting place. It would be even MORE fabulous and exciting again if it was full of exciting powers and the human body and/or brain was capable of fantastical feats of this sort.

But when you show me a video full of things I can already do myself, and then comically demand that I somehow prove the guy is doing the same things I can do..... then you simply have the onus of evidence reversed through a complete lack of understanding of methodologies like science that you are lay to.

AGAIN, when someone does a trick that 1000s of other people can do, and you want to claim that in this ONE case, rather than the other 1000s, something magical or different or special is going on.... then the onus of evidence for that claims lies squarely at your feet, not mine.

And I have offered you ways to do that already, since your post closed by asking me for some! And they are not complex things to do at all. AGAIN I ask, where were the chemists in the video swabbing the mans hands before and after he set fire to the paper? Where is the discussion of how they tested those swabs, and what they were tested for? Where is the discussion on a differential analysis to detect any differences between the before and after swabs, let alone the swabs in isolation, to detect if any changes had occured?

NONE of that happened yet that would be the absolute 101 BASICS that any credible scientist would have demanded. I would demand more than that, but the fact the absolute BASIC approach to testing this mans "abilities" was simply and entirely overlooked tells me MUCH more about the "scientists" in the room than your mere petty reference to what qualifications you believe they hold.

Qualifications tell us NOTHING. You seem to fall over in awe at them. But what a person says and does is what is important, not what letters they claim to have on either side of their name while doing or saying it. Your appeal to qualifications, your appeal to authority, is a fallacy of inordinate egrigiousness that along with lots of other things just highlights you are a complete non-scientist yourself despite claims to have some level of knowledge of the area.

nozzferrahhtoo

Again I trust you will understand if I attempt to reply to everything in your post(s) but with less sections. I do this not for my sake or yours (though I do only have 10 minutes to write this so I have to push my already impressive typing skills to the limit), but the readers of the thread.

Mellor wrote: »

Rebutted? You are still missing the point.

Again I have to point you towards the difference and distinction between missing a point, and disagreeing with it. You appear to want to pretend instances of the latter are instances of the former.

We were discussing how murder has nothing to do with atheism and YOU brought up how murder has nothing to do with Islam. I am showing you how this is a poor claim/analogy because:

a) There are doctrines that we can point to in the beliefs of Muslims that CAN (not do, can) lead to such actions. You can not do the same with atheism and

b) the link between Islam and murder is done by the murders themselves, they are literally TELLING us directly they are killing us in the name of their religious beliefs.

Remember I am not just talking to you, but I am talking to you in the context and topic of this thread. Which is kinda the rules of this site, not to derail threads. And the OP post, the context here, stated "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."

And the context of my replies is to show to him and you that there is genuine good reason for that. I am discussing with THE THREAD (my proxy with you directly) about that topic.

Mellor wrote: »

Firstly I was have never blamed atheist for this incident. It would be very odd for me to do as, as an atheist.

Alas what you ARE claiming is a lot less clear than you think what you are NOT claiming is. You will notice than in a lot of my posts I sometimes have to clarify what I am NOT claiming, due to words being put in my mouth.

But it is a rhetorical rule of mine when doing that to re-state, usually if I can with new words and new structure and new form, what it is I AM claiming. Because I think simply saying "that is not what I am claiming" is unhelpful in the extreme.

I wonder if I could invite you to do the same. Because I have simply lost sight entirely of what it is you ARE claiming here, rather than what it is you are NOT. It SEEMS, as I said, that your claims boil down to nothing more than "Well no one can show it is IMPOSSIBLE for atheism to motivate people to kill". But weirdly I am not seeing anyone, least of all me, rebutting that position.

So you can keep pretending, entirely falsely and maliciously in my view, that I am "straw manning" or "ignoring" or "goal post moving" when I am doing none of these things. Or you can step back and think "Ok maybe what I AM claiming has been lost here, and people might benefit from me restating myself.... maybe in a new and clearer way......"

If that level of decorum too much to request do you think, or am I maybe well within the bounds of ethical propriety to suggest it, and you see the reasons for it and the benefit of it? Because so far your level of capability at discourse highlights you as someone I think MORE than capable in this regard and worth of further and deeper discourse.

Mellor wrote: »

You do relize that my first post on the thread, that you disputed, made no reference to any of your posts.

You do realize that I RESPONDED to your post and not every response is automatically a dispute or an affront. My first response to you, if you care to go back, has three sections. Check the FIRST section for example. Nothing there is disputing you. It was BUILDING ON what you said. If you choose, on a forum, to see every post to you as a rebuttal or dispute..... then that is your right but not something I need to pander to of course, right?

But the main talking point with your first post, and much of what you have written since, lies around the ideas of "an atheist CANT be motivated by their atheism and "an atheist has no beliefs". Those statements bring up worthy discussions, regardless of how representative of your own position they are.

An atheist, aside from some handful of nihilists I guess, are as full of beliefs as anyone else and they can be motivated by them but there is no sign they can or have been motivated by atheism itself. That is not saying it is 100% not possible, no one here appears to be THAT close minded but also there is no reason to be THAT pedantic.

The simple fact is we can not seem to find, I can not and you sure as hell can not so far, any thing about "I see no reason to believe there are gods, so I simply do not believe there are gods" and being motivated to do anything at all on that basis. EVERY time someone tries to show some action was motivated by atheism, they instantly have to start importing other things. And that is quite telling.

Mellor wrote: »

Exactly, an atheist has beliefs. Including his atheist ideology.

What is an "atheist ideology" exactly? Adumbrate it's form and content for us. Although I do not use the word atheist when describing myself, other people are quite valid in doing so, and I am not aware of holding anything in that regard that can be described as an ideology. I am, quite simply, someone who has never been convinced to even remotely suspect that god(s) exist. How is that an "ideology" exactly?

Rather what I am is someone who was born entirely and completely incapable of believing claims that are made without ANY substantiation. I can not "choose" my beliefs. They are something that happen to me. So "atheism" is not who I am, but a result of who I am. It is not my world view, but a consequence of my world view. It is no more based on an ideology than my inability to flap my arms and fly is based on a fear of heights.

Mellor wrote: »

I could go out today, kill a priest, a rabbi and a Imam. I could claim to be doing so in the name of atheism to rid the world of religion and the pain it has caused.

You could. But that would not yet be as coherent as an article like "Why we hate you and why we fight you". They go into some length about the religious motivations they have. They do not merely assert that motivation, they discuss it at some length, its foundations, it's roots, and more. I am sure you could make the assertion you describe, but I doubt you could do it with any level of coherence or explanation.

Even then the assertion is not based on atheism at all, even if you assert it to be. What you describe would be based on a form of social eugenics based around the idea human progress or well being would be improved by the removal of formal religion. That has nothing to do with atheism, and one would not even have to be atheist to espouse such a position. One could be very strongly deist and even theist and do so.

So yes, I would merely distinguish between someone asserting a link between X and atheism/theism and one coherently explaining the causal links and their foundation. This, your assertion above, would not at all do.

Mellor

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

An atheist, aside from some handful of nihilists I guess, are as full of beliefs as anyone else and they can be motivated by them but there is no sign they can or have been motivated by atheism itself.

The initial post that I replied to, stated that an atheist has no beliefs, and therefore can't be motivated by any beliefs.
The motivation is up for debate, but the saying they are devoid of beliefs is silly imo.

What is an "atheist ideology" exactly?

Are you asked what is atheism or what I mean by an ideology. They are independent.

Rather what I am is someone who was born entirely and completely incapable of believing claims that are made without ANY substantiation.

To believe something you need to see some sort of evidence of proof and can't accept anything "just because". That's a perfectly reasonable. So because you've seen no evidence that God exists, you can't believe he exists. A fairly straightforward set of ideas. Not dissimilar from my own view.

Mellor wrote: »

Even then the assertion is not based on atheism at all, even if you assert it to be. What you describe would be based on a form of social eugenics based around the idea human progress or well being would be improved by the removal of formal religion.

Eugenics based on the belief that atheism is superior for social progress, or even necessary. And I think it's wrong to say that this hypothetical person (not me to be clear) has no beliefs. And that they can't be motivated by beliefs or by atheism.

That has nothing to do with atheism, and one would not even have to be atheist to espouse such a position. One could be very strongly deist and even theist and do so.

Deist I can agree with, obvious application. Theist, not so much. Unless you mean a situation where somebody rejects their own belief - I'm not sure what that makes them.

nozzferrahhtoo

Less sections in your post but I am going to still further try to compress my reply as you again included quotes from me as quotes from you and other weirdness. Again.... only doing this to help our other readers. No slight on you!

We are wholesale agreed on the notion being silly of atheists having "no beliefs". I have often heard theists claim "Atheists believe in nothing". It is a nonsense.

As I said my discussion of that point, off the back of your first post, appears to have been taken by you as a challenge or rebuttal when it was more that MY initial first post to you was more an extension to yours than a reply to it. It happens. No one's fault.

I am not asking you what atheism is though. Or what an ideology is. I was asking you to adumbrate the form and content of an "atheist ideology" specifically. Which is why I put it in quotes together, rather than separately. I am not aware of having one myself, or aware of anyone who identifies as "atheist" as having told me they do either. So I am genuinely agog to learn of it's form and content from you here today.

Mellor wrote: »

Eugenics based on the belief that atheism is superior for social progress, or even necessary.

Exactly! Which is itself NOT a tenet of atheism itself. Nor a requirement. A pre-requisite. Or a natural progression. It is an ENTIRELY independent conclusion, with it's own sources. So the motivation would be based not on atheism, but based on the persons beliefs around social progress and it's requirements.

NOTHING about atheism in and of itself suggests it is "better" or "worse" for social progress. To repeat the word I used earlier, you have to "import" other things to get there. And that has been my point all along, and you demonstrate it so well for me here so I thank you.

But a motivation from atheism you still have not shown.

Also interesting is that people like Micheal Nugent and Atheist Ireland REPEATEDLY say on the media that they would be as opposed to a state or curriculum or media that promotes atheism as they are to those that promote religion. Showing they too recognize that it being best for "social progress" is not a tenet of what they are espousing. What they/I seem to believe is that a state entirely neutral on religion and atheism is the social progress of choice.

Mellor wrote: »

Deist I can agree with, obvious application. Theist, not so much. Unless you mean a situation where somebody rejects their own belief - I'm not sure what that makes them.

For fear that we will move from a debate about what "atheist" means to a new one about what "theist" means...... I mean theist in the sense of a person who believes in an interventionist god. Rather than deist in the sense of a person who believes some deity created us, but is otherwise unconcerned (or perhaps even entirely unaware!!) of our existence.

There is nothing to stop such a theist hating religion(s), or the business empires (churches) built up around them. So no I do not think theists would be precluded from such things at all. In fact I have LONG lost count of the type of theist who says "I am religious but of no religion" or "I believe in god but not in any religion".

I THINK (at the risk of putting ideas in your mouth) you suspected I mean "theist" as in a member of some religion. While not impossible, it is less common for someone to be both invested in (a) religion and hate religion at the same time. At least their own one. Being well into a religion and hating OTHER religions (and members of it) is certainly more common.

looksee

Mod: Folks, you have a good discussion going there, but there is a bit of a tendency for personal digs, side swipes and a bit of aggression creeping in. They are not necessary and would be better avoided. Thanks for your attention.

smacl

Mellor wrote: »

Exactly, an atheist has beliefs. Including his atheist ideology.

I think that misunderstands the meaning of the word atheist, and it seems to be a common misunderstanding. While an atheist may have an ideology I would dispute the notion there is such a thing as an 'atheist ideology', i.e. an ideology that is formed solely around atheism. If you investigate what people refer to when they talk about an atheist ideology, what you typically see are secularist ideals, with a dash of scepticism and often a sprinkling of humanism. None of these things are atheist, as none of these things relate to a belief or lack thereof in a god or gods.

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There is nothing more impressive in this video that Uri Geller bending spoons, or Yanagi Ryuken knocking people over in fights with his "chi".

As you say, these things are fine until put to the test, as the above chi master found out rather bluntly Truly astounding the nonsense that some people believe. :pac:

nozzferrahhtoo

Ah see you over shot to early on me there I was waiting for pone to come back and tell me I can not prove the "master" did not have chi magic and that what was going on in the video was not magic.....

I was expecting him to do that because that is EXACTLY what he has done with the paper going on fire video. It is a trick I, and many 1000s of other people, can do and often do at parties and things. But still he said I can not prove that in THIS video that that is what is going on.

So on the off chance he was going to try the same nonsense with THAT video, I was holding the evidence of his first first real fight in reserve to show what happens when someone with magical chi combat powers comes up against an actual fighter.

jigglypuffstuff

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As for it being a religion, it is a state religion much like we say in communist Russia and no one is "pretending" otherwise except you. You are projecting your pretense onto others here. The concept that there is an ETERNAL leader ruling on in part through a semi reincarnation into his own son is not a secular concept for sure, much less an atheist one

These are neither examples of state religions...No matter how much you wish them to be

Juche is a political ideology...not a religion....Its a pity you cannot tell the difference

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

THAT is what you are doing however time you claim to know basic science, but with just about everything you say about it you demonstrate the opposite. People actually in the subject and in the area and in the know can spot a bluffer a mile away. Just like the day on boards when someone claiming to have a PHD in Physics declared to me on boards that the only reason we have gravity on earth is because the earth, like space stations, is spinning. A mistake that the average 14 year old in Junior Cycle Science would spot

But I am not "in the subject" . Do i understand the basics of science?
Yes

Am I curious about things that it cannot explain?
Yes

Do I attempt to deconstruct everything under a strictly scientific lens?
No

So ill take my understanding of science and what it can explain and be satisfied...there's absolutely no bluff on my behalf..I have no PhD (not yet anyway), I am not a researcher...Im a student.

The things that science cannot give a satisfactory explanation for, ill wait to see what happens...What i wont try to do is attempt to recreate something and pretend that explains it without having

A: Being present in the occurrence of said phenomena directly..or have direct access to same in future
B: A proper knowledge of whats going on
C: Fall victim to confirmation bias, or anything else that would blur truth

Simple enough to understand I hope

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That was one PART of a complete investigation into your understanding of those limitations, what they are, what form they take, and what improvement TYPES (not specifics, just a general adumbration of where the improvements may lie) you could suggest. You could not answer ANY of that. The best you can do is screech "Limitations" without entering into ANY depth of conversation on them.

Well, that's different that what you originally said

My only discussion was around the limitations in that it is only able to directly examine the observable universe....the unobservable is currently not directly examinable...and as such, given that it accounts for 95% of the universe..tells me that we know very little (in the greater scheme of things at least)

I would not argue that the method itself is strong, it is rather insider the observation and gathering of data that I personally think the weaknesses lie...In that we cannot make the observations we need to explain at present to examine the phenomena, and as such, the data we need to gather cannot be gathered...hence the lack of an explanation

What depth you want me to discuss this to im unsure?? [/QUOTE]

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Absolutely! And thank you for being.... well a little clearer.... as to what you are asking. That was all I wanted.

Yes there are a lot of similarities through time and space in cultural myths on such things. And I do not find that surprising at all.

I think it was Terry Pratchett who suggested that anthropologists messed up calling us "Homo sapiens" (meaning wise man). He suggested we should have been called "Pan narrans" (meaning storytelling chimpanzee). Because that is exactly what we appear to be. An evolution of the chimpanzee line that is very much narrative based in our approach to reality.

So that our species regardless of time and place has come up with creation myths is not surprising. That is just what our brains do. We NEED stories that narrate our reality and our place in that reality.

Further we have evolved what some have called "The intentional stance" and "Hyper active Agency detection". What this basically means, for the lay man, is that we tend to see intention and agency where none actually exists. The evolutionary reason for this is clear: If you see no agency where there is some, you end up dead. If you see some where there is none, you just look a little silly. So over centuries of selection we evolved into a species that sees agency and intention where there is none. We also evolved something called a "theory of mind" which is where we can see, represent, and invent the minds of others almost like a "virtual sever" in our own brains.

I trust I do not need to explain the simple step from THOSE two things to seeing intention and agency in reality itself and.... thus..... the invention through the theory of mind the concepts of gods or a god? It is not a large leap at all. But a simple natural progression.

So as you can see, if you want to enter into a discussion on the similarities in creation and god narratives across our species..... which forgive me if I am wrong but I think that is what you are bringing up here..... I am both capable and willing to have that conversation with you. Here or, I suggest, another new thread?

I dont think there is a need to go deep on this topic. Im aware you are of the opinion that you have a strong disbelief in all such things...and I would prefer to avoid such topics...because i have made no claims regarding them. There are certainly some interesting parallels between some sections of said narratives....Lets bypass the discussion between them and get to the point

Do you not see any commonalities between any creation myths (diety present or absent) and the scientific explanation for the universe? I am curious....

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Did a SINGLE "scientist" in your video perform any such test? Hell no they did not. If they tried they probably would not even have been let do the video, let alone release it to the public.

But no, YOU are impressed solely by essentially saying nothing more than "Oh look, someone with QUALIFICATIONS was in the room! So there!" and you act like you know what science is? Comedy. Sheer. Comedy. Gold.

But the fact you and I can set fire to paper, or light light bulbs with our hands (both entirely easy to do) means the onus of evidence lies on YOU to show something magical is going on here, not on ME to show there is not. There is nothing more impressive in this video that Uri Geller bending spoons, or Yanagi Ryuken knocking people over in fights with his "chi".

You say you have contact details. Ask them why none of them thought to apply swabs to his hands before and after like any moderately capable scientist would.

But I am not curious as to what he did to inanimate objects...while not accounted for, only replicated with the use of additional material which we do not see in the video (Therefore you cannot be sure) you cannot confirm what he did...it is a subjective choice

What I am curious as to what he did to the people (Scientists included), and why when they tried to measure whatever energy he emitted, they could not? Are you implying that these people acted? are you questioning their ability to account for bias

I do not need to have the answers you require..ive read heavily into that man in question (and seen correspondence from his students) is enough for me to speculate as to what is going on and not chalk it down to trickery...Perhaps you dont share the same sentiment for human experiences?? i dont have to agree....I can simply keep an open mind until i see enough of an explanation to quell said curiosity

and i dont have contacts...i just know they are available on linkedin....easy enough to reach if you wish...and ask that question that you've posed to me... if you wish

[/QUOTE]

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ah see you over shot to early on me there I was waiting for pone to come back and tell me I can not prove the "master" did not have chi magic and that what was going on in the video was not magic.....

I was expecting him to do that because that is EXACTLY what he has done with the paper going on fire video. It is a trick I, and many 1000s of other people, can do and often do at parties and things. But still he said I can not prove that in THIS video that that is what is going on.

So on the off chance he was going to try the same nonsense with THAT video, I was holding the evidence of his first first real fight in reserve to show what happens when someone with magical chi combat powers comes up against an actual fighter.

Interesting, i dont believe said "master" was a fighter at all....nice jump though

Yes, I am aware of your charitable, skeptic account of whats going on in that video....I just dont accept it on the basis that the person had no apparent motivation to perform trickery of any sort.....


Also note, i never once said I bought the explanation...I merely find it interesting......particularly given the context and explanations given.....regardless...skeptics are rarely convinced...so forgive me if the replies regards the above become thinner and nonexistent from here on in





whats more interesting to me...is how said discussion erupted from a persons atheism being a possible driver for mass murder....so when we are finished with the sidetrack...perhaps lets continue with that....and save the scientific, supernatural, metaphysical for another time...

King Mob

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ah see you over shot to early on me there I was waiting for pone to come back and tell me I can not prove the "master" did not have chi magic and that what was going on in the video was not magic.....

I was expecting him to do that because that is EXACTLY what he has done with the paper going on fire video. It is a trick I, and many 1000s of other people, can do and often do at parties and things. But still he said I can not prove that in THIS video that that is what is going on.

So on the off chance he was going to try the same nonsense with THAT video, I was holding the evidence of his first first real fight in reserve to show what happens when someone with magical chi combat powers comes up against an actual fighter.

I'm also still waiting for him to substantiate the claim that possessed people can climb walls Spider-man style.

I can only assume that they've seen a verifiable, clear video and that they aren't just regurgitating a factoid they swallowed without actually trying to confirm it.

pauldla

King Mob wrote: »

I'm also still waiting for him to substantiate the claim that possessed people can climb walls Spider-man style.

I can only assume that they've seen a verifiable, clear video and that they aren't just regurgitating a factoid they swallowed without actually trying to confirm it.

Can they? Climb walls Spider-man style? That'd be pretty cool actually, especially with the Christmas coming and a house full of decorations to put up. Other religions should follow suit with such abilities, it'd get them no end of followers and would help counter all that 'burden-of-proof' nonsense as well.

uck51js9zml2yt

looksee wrote: »

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

What absolute rubbish!
An atheist is not a mindless Moran( some may disagree).
Everyone has beliefs. Everyone has a worldview.

Manic Moran

Vienna Screeching Matchbox wrote: »

What absolute rubbish!
An atheist is not a mindless Moran( some may disagree).
Everyone has beliefs. Everyone has a worldview.

I'm not mindless.... Just manic

AK47 would not be very popular in the USA, the AR15 is. Are you sure this wasn't Afghanistan you were visiting?

AKs are not uncommon, they are generally substantially cheaper than an AR. Not quite as modular, not quite as accurate, but reliable as all heck. I've one myself (A 74, not a 47), I do not own an AR. Granted, the Army lets me shoot ARs, so I see no reason to own one myself as a collector.

The Bishop Basher

looksee wrote: »

If you looked back over the posts in A&A you would find that Pherekydes' definition is the one accepted here.

I believe this statement reveals far more about the true nature of this forum then was actually intended.

Perhaps Pherekydes should inform the Cambridge, Oxford and Webster dictionaries that their definitions of atheism are incorrect..

According to A&A doctrine of course

smacl

Vienna Screeching Matchbox wrote: »

What absolute rubbish!
An atheist is not a mindless Moran( some may disagree).
Everyone has beliefs. Everyone has a worldview.

So perhaps you'd then be able to describe for us what an 'atheist worldview' entails exactly. Similarly, other than a disbelief in god, describe an 'atheist belief'.

smacl

Swanner wrote: »

I believe this statement reveals far more about the true nature of this forum then was actually intended.

Perhaps Pherekydes should inform the Cambridge, Oxford and Webster dictionaries that their definitions of atheism are incorrect..

According to A&A doctrine of course

Pherekyde's definition is largely consistent with the dictionary definition though. 'A lack of belief in a god or gods' as opposed to 'a lack of belief or disbelief in a god or gods' it was in response to Pone1s statement that atheism is a blatant disbelief in gods which is less consistent with the dictionaries.

Posts such as yours above do more to label you as a troll than say anything about this forum

GritBiscuit

Swanner wrote: »

I believe this statement reveals far more about the true nature of this forum then was actually intended.

Perhaps Pherekydes should inform the Cambridge, Oxford and Webster dictionaries that their definitions of atheism are incorrect..

According to A&A doctrine of course

Most people are theists and historically atheists have been seen as some jumped up pretentious naysayers rejecting someone's precious beliefs/religion - that effects the common definitions of language - which are ever evolving. Not all dictionaries agree on the definition of atheism and some fail to take into account odd fish like me who never developed any kind of belief or faith in the first place. I maintain my human-default of zero belief in god/gods.

It's not something obvious and tangible that I simply refuse to believe in, it's not something I used to believe in that I have since rejected, it's not some club I have chosen to join because I follow some shared agenda or social system, atheism is the label I am automatically assigned by virtue of having never embraced theism. The definition in A&A already takes into account people like me...consider them ahead of their time.

Akrasia

There are atheists, there are anti-theists, and there are people who really hate a specific religion.

There are lots of christians who hate muslims and might go on a shooting spree against muslims but not in the name of their religion, but it's because they hate muslims.

There are also lots of ex christians who have grown to hate the religion they were brought up in. Maybe they were abused, maybe they just resent being controlled and lied to for their entire childhood. Maybe they hate their family and the religious practices that seem to define them.

There are atheists who have looked at the ideas behind religion and came to realise that there is probably no god and all religions are wrong.

Where does this guy fit in?

Well, he was a man who was prone to violence, and that violence cost him everything, his career, his family and he was living in an RV without much prospects.

If he truly was an atheist, then he knows that going on a shooting rampage will result in either him dying with no afterlife, or he would spend the rest of his life in jail, so what is the motivation for him killing all those people. He knows death is the end, so it's hardly for his own reputation, to be a 'martyr'.

What I think, is that this guy was suicidal, angry, resentful and already prone to violence, so he just figured f*ck it, he wanted to die and take out as many of those people that he hated with him as he could.


When a religious person does a suicide attack, I think suicide is probably the main driver for the attack, but rather than do the decent thing and just kill themselves, they are conflicted with the religious bans on suicide and worried that if they die that way, the afterlife will be even worse than the life they are unhappy in now.

So, they find a way to turn their suicide into an act of worship, so that they can die as a martyr and be venerated by at least some people in this world, and leave open the door to not burning in hell.

So while atheists are perfectly capable of committing atrocities in acts of suicide, the religious who are suicidal are conflicted within themselves and some of them will be driven to find a 'honourable death' or a different way out of the world that doesn't involve themselves deliberately killing themselves. Whether that's joining the military, or a militia and fighting for their religion, or becoming a suicide bomber or some other 'death by misadventure'.

The Bishop Basher

smacl wrote: »

Posts such as yours above do more to label you as a troll than say anything about this forum

The irony of this appears to be lost on you so we'll just leave it there.

GritBiscuit wrote: »

Not all dictionaries agree on the definition of atheism

3 of the leading dictionaries were quoted here and all broadly agree on the wording..

Only the good people of A&A believe they know better :rolleyes:

This has to be the least tolerant and inclusive forum on boards.

Maybe it should be renamed the Militant Atheist forum.

Then we could set up another forum for agnostics and non militant atheists where we could all actually have a voice without being patronised and preached at. Who knows, maybe even different views could be tolerated..

Just an idea..

But this place has long become an echo chamber for a small group of people and as happens with any clique, everyone else has drifted or been chased away..

On that note..

GritBiscuit

"Broadly agreeing" isn't agreeing, particularly on something as precise as a dictionary definition...the differences are in the nuances, in the semantics - you don't have agreement on that across the board then they are effectively different definitions...and of course that still doesn't acknowledge definitions change.

looksee

Vienna Screeching Matchbox wrote: »

What absolute rubbish!
An atheist is not a mindless Moran( some may disagree).
Everyone has beliefs. Everyone has a worldview.

How on earth did you come to this conclusion? Ok, I will rephrase it:

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

This was in response to

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

Yes it is true that an atheist could be driven by their belief that, say sexism or racism is wrong, but we were discussing religious beliefs, no other beliefs had come into the discussion at that stage, it was reasonable to continue to use the word 'belief' to mean religious beliefs.

...and its moron, unless you want to gratuitously insult all Morans.

smacl

Swanner wrote: »

This has to be the least tolerant and inclusive forum on boards.

Maybe it should be renamed the Militant Atheist forum.

Then we could set up another forum for agnostics and non militant atheists where we could all actually have a voice without being patronised and preached at. Who knows, maybe even different views could be tolerated..

Just an idea..

But this place has long become an echo chamber for a small group of people and as happens with any clique, everyone else has drifted or been chased away..

On that note..

Says the poster who drops by with nothing more to add than a patronising comment. Perhaps you could contribute such a well thought through contrary opinion rather than a patronising insult next time you deign to grace us with your presence. :rolleyes:

nozzferrahhtoo

pone2012 wrote: »

These are neither examples of state religions...No matter how much you wish them to be Juche is a political ideology...not a religion....Its a pity you cannot tell the difference

Yet the only one failing to see the difference is you. I explained to you already what secularism means. It is a separation of church and state.

A state that is persecuting, prosecuting, or even murdering it's citizens based on their religious practices is violating that separation and is therefore not secular.

The failure to tell the difference between separation, and violation of that separation, is yours and not mine. North Korea is NOT secular by definition.

pone2012 wrote: »

Do i understand the basics of science? Yes
<SNIP>
The things that science cannot give a satisfactory explanation for, ill wait to see what happens...What i wont try to do is attempt to recreate something and pretend that explains it

Then I can only urge you to keep up the studies. Because despite claiming over and over you understand the basics, you have not actually demonstrated that understanding at all yet.

But the above is a good example of how you do not understand the basics. Specifically the onus of proof and evidence. IF you want to claim some act in the video was in any way different to the 1000s of other people doing the same tricks, then the onus of evidence is on you.

By all means present that evidence. In the interim however all I see in a video of someone setting fire to paper with their hands, is a trick both I, an 1000s of other people, know well how to do.

pone2012 wrote: »

Well, that's different that what you originally said

Nope. It really is not. Anyone can go back to your discussion on the limitations of science and show you were entirely unable then, as now, to discuss those limitations in any coherent detail.

The thread is still there for anyone who want to go back to it. Including a number of posts you simply did not bother addressing at the time.

The only "limitations" you were able to offer was to list things not yet explained. That is not a limitation of science, that is the current status of it. As I explained to you then, there is a difference between what science has not YET explained and what it CAN NOT explain.

Yet here you are in this thread essentially saying the same thing again.

pone2012 wrote: »

I dont think there is a need to go deep on this topic

YOU asked me to go into it, and when when I respond to do so you simple dodge and dismiss it with a "No need to go into it" response? At least you were honest in what you said next, that you are bypassing the discussion. Because that is EXACTLY what this is.

pone2012 wrote: »

Do you not see any commonalities between any creation myths

Well sure, I just listed some in the "discussion" that you just "bypassed" while also explaining not just those commonalities, but the basis I believe there is for why they exist.

I am not sure what you think you are playing at here, but asking me to go into it, then claiming not to want to go into it, but then asking questions that were DIRECTLY answered in the stuff you just ignored...... is pretty insipid.

So rather than leading questions that were already addressed, perhaps you can stop playing games and simply go wherever you are going with this and come out with it.

pone2012 wrote: »

are you questioning their ability to account for bias

I am questioning their credentials in totality yes. NOTHING about what was shown in those videos showed a scientific methodology or approach or controls. NOTHING about what was shown in the video showed they brought to bear any of the actual tools of the methodologies of science. NOTHING about what was shown in that video, aside from listing credentials at the camera suggested they were in any way scientists.

There were egregious methodological failures, to the trained eye, leaping out of the video one after the other. I would, as someone ACTUALLY cognizant of the methodologies, have gone in with an entirely different approach to all of it. They are, from a scientific viewpoint, an embarrassment to themselves and the methodologies they claim to be trained in.

pone2012 wrote: »

Interesting, i dont believe said "master" was a fighter at all....nice jump though

Nor did I say you did. What I am saying was I laid it out as another example of a video someone could jump on to say "well you can not prove he was NOT doing something out of the ordinary here".

It is an example the EXACT same tosh you are pedaling at us. In that had that been the only video available, you could waltz in and say that without independent access no one could prove the negative on that one either. There would be no more (or less) reason to takes the feats of magic in THAT video any less seriously that what is going on in YOURS.

That was the point being made, not the one you invented here. But invariably, like EVERY TIME, when someone who actually does have the capability to test the claims in question, they fall as flat on their face as the sad charlatan of an old man did in the follow up video.

Again however, to explain one of the most basic tenets of the scientific method that you so often claim to understand..... when we observe something that we have observed 1000s of times before..... that has a mundane and known explanation...... then if YOU want to pretend ONE single example of that something is special then the onus of evidence to prove it is is on YOU. No one else. Just. You.

That you pretend I need to go and falsify your fantasies about that video is just a huge waving flag that tells us the scientific methodologies are not actually understood by you at all.

nozzferrahhtoo

Vienna Screeching Matchbox wrote: »

What absolute rubbish!
An atheist is not a mindless Moran( some may disagree).
Everyone has beliefs. Everyone has a worldview.

Amazing how little sense another persons post makes if you contrive to entirely ignore the context in which they have posted it. You have chosen to ignore that context, it would seem, in order to call something rubbish by pretending it was different to what was actually said.

Replace the context however and what the poster is saying with "a religious person has beliefs to be driven by, an atheist does not" is a reference to beliefs they have by virtue of their being theist/atheist.

There is seemingly nothing about being an atheist, in other words, that gives one beliefs to be driven by.

Micheal Nugent, for one, disagrees with that I believe. But his disagreement seems to be more of a linguistic consensus thing, than a "beliefs leading from atheism" thing. In that there is a limited amount of things that can fill the vacuum of a lack of theism, and hence most atheists seem to reach consensus on those things.... such as humanism and the like.

nozzferrahhtoo

Swanner wrote: »

Perhaps Pherekydes should inform the Cambridge, Oxford and Webster dictionaries that their definitions of atheism are incorrect..

Well sure, it always pays to remember that dictionaries do not give meanings to words or define them. They are not the arbiter of what words mean. They are, rather, a reflection of the currant usage of words in a society.

Even the word agnostic, for example, is defined in dictionaries.... and used in common speech, in a way that is VERY different from how Thomas Huxley defined it when he coined it. As the usage of a word changes over time, the dictionaries should (though they are often slow to) change with it.

I have, in my social life, my public debating career, my blogging life, my forum life (I post heavily on 5 and moderately on at least 20 more), my work with Atheist Ireland, Atheist Alliance International, and two atheist groups in Germany, and in my reading of books written by atheists.......... met and glimpsed into the minds of many many atheists.

And in my experience at least the VAST (near totality) majority of people who identify with the term atheist would identify with simply being someone who does not have a belief in any gods.

So IF that is the common and consensus usage outside of just my own anecdotal experience then sure, the dictionaries do indeed need to be informed to update themselves to reflect that. Because that is.... you know.... their purpose.

I actually think the word itself is etymologically the wrong one anyway. A means without. A-theism is without a theism. What are deists? They have no theism either. For me the word should always have been adeist, not atheist. Which is one of the MANY reasons I never actually identify myself using the word atheist when I can otherwise help it.

smacl

pauldla wrote: »

Can they? Climb walls Spider-man style? That'd be pretty cool actually, especially with the Christmas coming and a house full of decorations to put up. Other religions should follow suit with such abilities, it'd get them no end of followers and would help counter all that 'burden-of-proof' nonsense as well.

You thinking of planning a rescue mission for the drone and cat stuck in Mr Puddings tree? Maybe Spidey could just hang upside down artistically from one of the branches to add to the whole ensemble.

The Bishop Basher

smacl wrote: »

Perhaps you could contribute such a well thought through contrary opinion

As is customary on discussion fora, I gave an opinion to which you responded. You decided to follow that up however by labeling me as a troll which kind of backed up my point. And not for the first time on this thread, the irony of that appears to be lost on you.

smacl wrote: »

rather than a patronising insult next time you deign to grace us with your presence. :rolleyes:

I didn't set out to patronise or insult any individual directly and don't believe I did. You appear to be taking my comments about the forum personally. They are directed at the forum in general. They are not a personal attack on you, nor are they about you..

There was a thread sometime ago discussing no go areas on boards and A&A got more mentions then most.

Here's a couple of random examples plucked from the first few pages..

cursai wrote: »

Atheism or 'other' Religious forums. Very bigoted people in both.

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

A&A.

I'm an atheist and I think half of the lads in there are as mental as religious nuts. Constantly looking for something to whinge about and something to oppress them. It's like some threw a load of third wave feminists, twitter activists and religious fundi's in a pot and that forum was the result.

Rumpy Pumpy wrote: »

The atheist forum. Real bang of self-satisfied overweight neckbeard about the place.

`

MadDog76 wrote: »

The Atheist Forum .......... that lot are best left to wallow in their own self-induced purgatory.

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

The agnostics and atheists forum is a good place to go if you want to lose faith in humanity. The irony is that some of them are as intolerant and narrow-minded as the religious people they despise.

Judging by the number of likes these got, i'm far from alone in my views but of course it's much easier to just brand me a troll and wish me away..

Thing is I wouldn't give a sh1t only it's a subject i'm really interested in and it's a shame there isn't a place where those of us with more moderate views could discuss agnosticism without having this arrogant and militant A&A Dogma rammed down our throats at every turn..

I find the Christianity forum a lot more tolerant but as i'm neither religious nor Christian it's not really the right place for these discussions and even if it was, the same militant atheists tend to take over, derail and attempt to ram their message down everyone's throats there too.

Is what it is I suppose and there's no point getting worked up about it so I tend to just stay away.. It's a shame though that the majority of us with more moderate and tolerant views don't have a place to discuss and debate them here on boards.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And in my experience at least the VAST (near totality) majority of people who identify with the term atheist would identify with simply being someone who does not have a belief in any gods.

Ok so that's your anecdotal position.. And we know that the A&A group think has also decided on an anecdotal definition.. You are all free to canvass the Cambridge, Webster and Oxford dictionaries to change theirs.

Until such time, as is the norm in any other forum on boards or in any other sphere of debate, the definition provided by the leading dictionaries is the one I accept as correct.

smacl

Swanner wrote: »

As is customary on discussion fora, I gave an opinion to which you responded.

Getting off topic, so I've posted a reply in the A&A feedback thread here.

jigglypuffstuff

smacl wrote: »

Pherekyde's definition is largely consistent with the dictionary definition though. 'A lack of belief in a god or gods' as opposed to 'a lack of belief or disbelief in a god or gods' it was in response to Pone1s statement that atheism is a blatant disbelief in gods which is less consistent with the dictionaries.

Posts such as yours above do more to label you as a troll than say anything about this forum

Except I never said it IS a blatant disbelief

I said it CAN be a blatant disbelief..... as much as it CAN be what the forum consensus appears to be...and im sure that IT differentiates among people and groups

Are we on the same page?

King Mob wrote: »

I'm also still waiting for him to substantiate the claim that possessed people can climb walls Spider-man style.

I can only assume that they've seen a verifiable, clear video and that they aren't just regurgitating a factoid they swallowed without actually trying to confirm it.

Oh, you think that it isnt possible? Interesting...I can show you a person who is anything but possessed, and climbing things is a "spider -man" esque way

No demon necessary...its not entirely hard to believe IF something supernatural was at play (Note the word IF), that a person MIGHT be capable of such things as claimed

pauldla wrote: »

Can they? Climb walls Spider-man style? That'd be pretty cool actually, especially with the Christmas coming and a house full of decorations to put up. Other religions should follow suit with such abilities, it'd get them no end of followers and would help counter all that 'burden-of-proof' nonsense as well.

See above

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yet the only one failing to see the difference is you. I explained to you already what secularism means. It is a separation of church and state.

A state that is persecuting, prosecuting, or even murdering it's citizens based on their religious practices is violating that separation and is therefore not secular.

The failure to tell the difference between separation, and violation of that separation, is yours and not mine. North Korea is NOT secular by definition.

That would be fine IF there was a Church of Juche....Except there isnt

Officialy NK is secular....and freedom of religion is the policy....the very fact that some nutcase refuses to abide by the policies.. does not a make it a religious state

Secularism is essentialy where the church stays out of public/political affairs...not the other way around...because the state still has some governance over churches...so again you are wrong

Do continue though

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then I can only urge you to keep up the studies. Because despite claiming over and over you understand the basics, you have not actually demonstrated that understanding at all yet.

But the above is a good example of how you do not understand the basics. Specifically the onus of proof and evidence. IF you want to claim some act in the video was in any way different to the 1000s of other people doing the same tricks, then the onus of evidence is on you.

By all means present that evidence. In the interim however all I see in a video of someone setting fire to paper with their hands, is a trick both I, an 1000s of other people, know well how to do.

But I have not claimed there is...rather it was you who likened it to a "trick " YOU can perform....the very fact that you assume "your trick" and that video are the same performance...then the onus of evidence actually falls on you to prove your assumption correct...Glad we cleared that up

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The only "limitations" you were able to offer was to list things not yet explained. That is not a limitation of science, that is the current status of it. As I explained to you then, there is a difference between what science has not YET explained and what it CAN NOT explain.

Yet here you are in this thread essentially saying the same thing again

But where did I state it would never explain it?? No no, i said it cannot currently explain it...not that it never could

allow me to re-quote myself

the above post shows that our current methods only allow us to try to form an understanding of 5% of the universe

if you think the scientific method totally based upon the physical context is going to explain the complete nature, origins and purpose of this universe, I dont see it happening

So I do think current methods have limitations....I do think I labelled the issues a few posts back as follows

it is rather insider the observation and gathering of data that I personally think the weaknesses lie...In that we cannot make the observations we need to explain at present to examine the phenomena, and as such, the data we need to gather cannot be gathered...hence the lack of an explanation

I hope this make it clear for you....if my explanations weren't clear before...I would hope they are now....and if you want to enter into a discussion about it...im happy too

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not sure what you think you are playing at here, but asking me to go into it, then claiming not to want to go into it, but then asking questions that were DIRECTLY answered in the stuff you just ignored...... is pretty insipid.

So rather than leading questions that were already addressed, perhaps you can stop playing games and simply go wherever you are going with this and come out with it.

I said lets skip the commonalities between religion and religion and go straight into the commonalities between creation stories and science....It was to save some time more than anything else...rather to bypass and get to the point

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am questioning their credentials in totality yes. NOTHING about what was shown in those videos showed a scientific methodology or approach or controls. NOTHING about what was shown in the video showed they brought to bear any of the actual tools of the methodologies of science. NOTHING about what was shown in that video, aside from listing credentials at the camera suggested they were in any way scientists.

There were egregious methodological failures, to the trained eye, leaping out of the video one after the other. I would, as someone ACTUALLY cognizant of the methodologies, have gone in with an entirely different approach to all of it. They are, from a scientific viewpoint, an embarrassment to themselves and the methodologies they claim to be trained in.

But this is You questioning their credentials...not me..you. It is you questioning their methods, what they experienced, seen and felt....Then I can only suggest that you may contact then via Linkedin to ask some questions to either confirm your assertions, or have them proven wronG

Im quite happy with the explanation that they cannot explain what happened...I also noticed nobody tried to explain the shocks people kept getting...although ill assume you put that down to something invisible or acting or something else that will allow you to think you have a rational explanation for it

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That you pretend I need to go and falsify your fantasies about that video.

There's no pretending here, because I am not making any claim..nor have I fabricated any fantasies...it is you who is...like I said.... need contact said people and attempt to prove YOUR assertions correct...I made no such assertions, therefore have no requirement to substantiate them

looksee

Mod: Swanner, you are completely off topic in posting here to offer a critique of the forum and dragging in threads from elsewhere to do it. You may well be frustrated by the arguments offered here, but please stay on topic.

To the locals, could you try and be a little less tetchy in your responses. To the droppers in, I have not attempted to follow the logic of all the arguments, mainly because links to logic and rational argument are a little tenuous in a lot of the posts.

If (all of) you really cannot cope with the posts you can just walk away, you are not obliged, on either side, to keep hammering your head against a wall.

This thread seems (to me) to have collapsed into a heap of nit-picking pedantry but so long as you are willing to keep discussing - in a civil manner - I will leave it open.

pauldla

pone2012 wrote: »

Oh, you think that it isnt possible? Interesting...I can show you a person who is anything but possessed, and climbing things is a "spider -man" esque way

No demon necessary...its not entirely hard to believe IF something supernatural was at play (Note the word IF), that a person MIGHT be capable of such things as claimed




See above

Who said it wasn't possible to climb walls?

Just to be clear, in order to challenge critics of the 'demonically possessed can climb walls like Spider-man' school of thought (didn't think I'd be writing those words today), you post a video of people who are not demonically possessed, climbing walls like Jackie Chan or one of his stuntmen.

Did I get that right?

pauldla

Incidentally, interesting article in the Economist about Juche as a religion. You can read the full article here.

smacl

pone2012 wrote: »

I said it CAN be a blatant disbelief..... as much as it CAN be what the forum consensus appears to be...and im sure that IT differentiates among people and groups

What you're talking about is often referred to as gnostic atheism, though I yet to meet anyone who self-identifies as such. Many atheists do consider the probability of any gods existing to be insignificant, though disregarding unsupported and seemingly preposterous notions is hardly equivalent to holding a hard belief.

No demon necessary...its not entirely hard to believe IF something supernatural was at play (Note the word IF), that a person MIGHT be capable of such things as claimed

Words like 'if' and 'might' tend to accompany belief in the supernatural on a regular basis to avoid having to make any positive statement. Hence the likes of the Randi prize for anyone being able demonstrate a single instance of such a thing actually happening. For the very many attempts to do so, none have ever succeeded, which means that your 'if' and 'might' applied to the supernatural fall into the same category as god or gods in terms of significance. Belief in the use of magic to realise superhuman powers has been going on from time immemorial. For example the followers of 'the fists of righteous harmony' held their rituals would make the bulletproof. Needless to say it didn't pan out so well for them. There is no doubt that people who dedicate a lifetime to training can achieve feats that appear super human, and are well beyond the abilities of anyone who has not done such training, but what you're seeing there are those pushing the upper bounds of what is humanly possible. By definition, it is not super-human.

nozzferrahhtoo

Swanner wrote: »

Ok so that's your anecdotal position..

Not just mine though. People are lining up on the thread to say the same. And atheist authors from Dawkins through to Barker and most in between are saying the same in their books too. So yes, the dictionaries are just being slow to catch up on this one.

But if you are entering into a discussion with atheists at any point, then it pays to listen to them tell you how and what they identify as, rather than wave the dictionary around secure that you know what they must mean.

To go back to the subject of this thread therefore.... it pays to remember that if someone thinks there is no reason to believe in a god..... there is nothing about that which can be causally linked to a murder. There is no causal link between "I see no reason to think there is a god" and "I must go into that room and kill everyone in it.

nozzferrahhtoo

Due the sheer length of your post, and the mod requests about the thread, I will compress my response into relevant topic headings, but will still reply to everything you wrote.

pone2012 wrote: »

North Korea

You can not simply make up your own definitions of secularism to prove people wrong. There is no separation of church and state if the state is directly controlling (especially to the point of persecuting, prosecuting or even murdering) it's people based on their religious beliefs.

And no, the state should have no more (or less) "governance" over churches in a truly secular state than they do over the local fishing club. In a secular state religion should be treated as (as it pretty much actually is) no more than peoples hobby, and churches their club houses.

So you are wrong even BEFORE we point out the religious nature of worship of it's leaders and more than also break the wall of separation that an actually secular state would require.

pone2012 wrote: »

Tricks in videos

So then we are agreed. You have done nothing more on this thread than post a video of some tricks many other people can do. So nothing interesting, nothing special, nothing different, and nothing requiring any explanation.

So what you think the utility or use of the video actually is is not clear any more. You posted it, so you have some purpose for doing so. But do not appear willing to explain what that purpose is.

The moment the video is claimed to be anything more than a mundane trick performed that many other people can also perform however, the onus of evidence appears and falls on the person making that claim.

The questioning of the credentials of the people in that video however I am more than capable of doing. And it is still up to them at this point, not me, to proceed further. They tried some pretty poor tests and came up with nothing. No surprise there. They need to learn better tests and try new ones.

As I said, even on my FIRST watching I came up with a string of tests that could, and should, have been performed. They did NONE of them.

Rather they had a "When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail" brain fail. They went in with the mindset / instruments to test what narrative told them to test for, rather than stepping back and taking a general "What is/could be going on here".

They are, methodologically speaking, simply very poor scientists based on that video.

pone2012 wrote: »

Limitations in science

Again you appear not to understand the difference between limitations in science and the limits of what we have yet done with science. There are indeed things we have not yet explained. That is OUR limitation. Whether science can, or will, ever explain them we simply do not know yet.

If I have not yet gotten around to hammering in the last nail on a job yet, then that is MY limitation on using the hammer. It is not indicative of limitations of the hammer. That is the difference.

If you want to go into the "commonalities between creation stories and science...." then by all means proceed though. Bring some of them up, rather than waiting for me to do so. I am not aware of many (any?) so you need to explain what you mean.

What I DO see however is a one way conversation between science and religion. In that there are things that were ONCE explained using religion, but we now have scientific explanations for. There is nothing I can think of where we ONCE had a science based explanation and religion has stepped in with a better one.

So the conversation is going one direction only between science and religion, and it is a direct erosion of the playground of ignorance of the latter by the former.

The Bishop Basher

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not just mine though. People are lining up on the thread to say the same. And atheist authors from Dawkins through to Barker and most in between are saying the same in their books too. So yes, the dictionaries are just being slow to catch up on this one.

Unfortunately I can't reply.

Seems it's fine for the regulars to post off topic but not ok for me so I need to bow out lest I upset anyone's sensitivities any further..