Texas Shooter: "Church-goers are stupid"

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

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

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

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

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

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

looksee wrote: »

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

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

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

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

pone2012 wrote: »

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

Theres some nice reading in that....

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

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

Paragraphs 1 through 4

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

Paragraphs 5 through 15

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

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

Paragraphs 16 through 19

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

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

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

Paragraphs 20 through 30

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

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

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

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

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

Paragraphs 31

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

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

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

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

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

Paragraphs 31 through 46

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

Paragraphs 47 through 56

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

Paragraphs 57 through 61

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

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

Paragraphs 62 through 66

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hardly convincing stuff is it????

Paragraphs 67 through 77

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

Alas religion has a history of doing that!!!

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

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

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

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

Paragraphs 78 onwards

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

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

Summary

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

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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

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

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

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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

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

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Are you attempting to say there's not?

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

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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

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

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

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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

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

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

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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

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

Try it sometime.

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

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

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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

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

Paragraphs 1 through 4

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

Paragraphs 5 through 15

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

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

Paragraphs 16 through 19

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

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

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

Paragraphs 20 through 30

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

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

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

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

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

Paragraphs 31

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

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

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

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

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

Paragraphs 31 through 46

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

Paragraphs 47 through 56

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

Paragraphs 57 through 61

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

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

Paragraphs 62 through 66

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hardly convincing stuff is it????

Paragraphs 67 through 77

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

Alas religion has a history of doing that!!!

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

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

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

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

Paragraphs 78 onwards

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

pone2012 wrote: »

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

There are many controls on using vehicles.

pone2012 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

pone2012 wrote: »

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

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

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

pone2012 wrote: »

Are you attempting to say there's not?

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

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

pone2012 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Simples. See how that works?

pone2012 wrote: »

I understand scientific principles quite well

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

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

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

pone2012 wrote: »

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

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

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

pone2012 wrote: »

Genuinely I would love to hear your explanation for this

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

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

pone2012 wrote: »

This is the one that comes to mind...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

pone2012 wrote: »

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

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

pone2012 wrote: »

(after all, much of said evidence is circumstantial)

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

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

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

pone2012 wrote: »

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

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

pone2012 wrote: »

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

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

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

pone2012 wrote: »

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

pone2012 wrote: »

Your heuristics are not effective in this case however..

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

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

pone2012 wrote: »

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

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

pone2012 wrote: »

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

pone2012 wrote: »

So where exactly is this appeal to authority im presenting?

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

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

pone2012 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which has nothing to do with atheism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mellor wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mellor wrote: »

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

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

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

Mellor wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Mellor wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Mellor wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mellor wrote: »

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

Mellor wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mellor wrote: »

But people were disputing co-relation.

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

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

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

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


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

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.

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 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.

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.