The Atheist and Anti-Pseudoscience Thread

For all other chat which isn't directly related to lucid dreaming and the world of sleep and dreams.
User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3639
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: The Atheist and Anti-Pseudoscience Thread

Postby Summerlander » 16 Oct 2014 16:33

There is no room for lying or bad science when teams of scientists all over the world compete at solving puzzles. Many want laureateships and Nobel prizes. Work is corroborated and peer-reviewed. Cannot be faked or you will be exposed like Andrew Wakefield, Duncan MacDougall, and Rupert Sheldrake. There is no room for conspiracy theories here, buildit. :D
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3639
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: The Atheist and Anti-Pseudoscience Thread

Postby Summerlander » 01 Nov 2014 23:05

I'm sorry but I just had to share this. This girl is hilarious! :D

https://richarddawkins.net/2014/10/god-created-everything/
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
deschainXIX
Posts: 922
Joined: 07 Aug 2013 18:18
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: The Atheist and Anti-Pseudoscience Thread

Postby deschainXIX » 02 Nov 2014 03:48

Haha. Thanks for sharing; that girl is awesome. It is truly remarkable how ignorant and myopic the religious can be when presented with ... well, anything at all, really.
Recently a friend of mine was telling me about how she is convinced that "everything in the universe happens for a reason." An example of the feel-good delusion. I could have easily pointed out to her all the flaws in her beliefs, but I thought what was the point. Inevitably it would only ruin our relationship. That's a question we atheists and rationalists have to grapple with within ourselves. Do we allow our grieving peers be comforted by denial and wishful-thinking that the deceased are in eternal bliss? Or do we give them a taste of lucidity? It is difficult question.

[ Post made via iPhone ] Image
Well said.

User avatar
buildit
Posts: 491
Joined: 23 Sep 2014 04:14
Location: USA

Re: The Atheist and Anti-Pseudoscience Thread

Postby buildit » 02 Nov 2014 05:54

Summerlander wrote: There is no room for conspiracy theories here, buildit. :D


http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science?language=en#t-4846

Figures don't lie but liars can figure.
Is Lucid Dreaming the brains preparation for the next step of human evolution when we can escape the corporeal bond of our bodies?

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3639
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: The Atheist and Anti-Pseudoscience Thread

Postby Summerlander » 02 Nov 2014 11:10

And they get found out, buildit! ^^^:-)

It's definitely not easy to confront them with facts and shatter their delusions. There are folk like us who just lost their faith. I think our type was already predisposed to examine the details and philosophise. Some people are just more inquisitive than others and only the truth will satisfy them. Look at my nom de guerre, deschainXIX, it is "Summerlander." I had an experience when I first started that made me believe I had visited the upper astral plane that in Theosophy they call Summerland. It had such an impact on me that, I tell you.

But I was disatisfied with the fact that my New Age friends just didn't have a leg to stand on against the sceptics. I felt that the sceptics had a point. Everything was in their favour and they were reasonable. I delved into the relevant subjects such as neuroscience, cognitive science, philosophy of mind etc. and eventually discovered Celia Green, Stephen LaBerge, Paul Tholey, Michael Raduga and stumbled upon Sam Harris in an issue of Newscientist.

These guys just highlight facts! That was it! Lucid dreaming is not evidence of an afterlife. Out-of-body experiences are hallucinations and the brain is still active during near-deaths. I don't think I ever properly believed in an afterlife. I always had a niggling doubt. God had already died long before this. I used to say that one does not have to believe in God in order to believe in an afterlife.

By the way, who is that dude who tries to make the pious lose their faith? Peter Bogossian or something. What do you think about him?

[ Post made via Android ] Image
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
deschainXIX
Posts: 922
Joined: 07 Aug 2013 18:18
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: The Atheist and Anti-Pseudoscience Thread

Postby deschainXIX » 02 Nov 2014 22:33

Sorry, what religion are you, buildit? I've always wondered that--you've probably talked about it before, but I must have missed it, since my participation on this site, I must admit, has been spotty to say the least. What affiliation would you identify most closely with, if any?

Summerlander wrote:It's definitely not easy to confront them with facts and shatter their delusions. There are folk like us who just lost their faith. I think our type was already predisposed to examine the details and philosophise. Some people are just more inquisitive than others and only the truth will satisfy them. Look at my nom de guerre, deschainXIX, it is "Summerlander." I had an experience when I first started that made me believe I had visited the upper astral plane that in Theosophy they call Summerland. It had such an impact on me that, I tell you.


Summerland. Hmm--it certainly sounds pleasant!

Indeed, and I think that people like us were also granted a predisposition for willingness to face the cold facts of reality, whereas many others will believe in an afterlife even if all the evidence in the universe denies it, simply because it makes them feel good. People have always accused me of being a cold, logical robot--even a cynic (although a more accurate word would be “realist”).
I’ve always found it remarkable how some people are just so painfully disinterested with the world they live in that they simply go about their daily lives without really thinking about anything. Never philosophizing to themselves, never considering the limits of human experience, never wondering if there is more to the world than what their personal lives have led them to.
I think I would have eventually quit religion, even if I had never come to this forum. Looking back at it now, I seem to have been programmed to search for the truth and think for myself.

Summerlander wrote:But I was disatisfied with the fact that my New Age friends just didn't have a leg to stand on against the sceptics. I felt that the sceptics had a point. Everything was in their favour and they were reasonable. I delved into the relevant subjects such as neuroscience, cognitive science, philosophy of mind etc. and eventually discovered Celia Green, Stephen LaBerge, Paul Tholey, Michael Raduga and stumbled upon Sam Harris in an issue of Newscientist.


One of the many reasons I'm so much more happier as a rationalist is that my house of argument is now built on bedrock. There are profoundly true philosophies and a plethora of evidence supporting my beliefs. I don't have to flounder to defend myself.

Summerlander wrote:These guys just highlight facts! That was it! Lucid dreaming is not evidence of an afterlife. Out-of-body experiences are hallucinations and the brain is still active during near-deaths. I don't think I ever properly believed in an afterlife. I always had a niggling doubt. God had already died long before this. I used to say that one does not have to believe in God in order to believe in an afterlife.

By the way, who is that dude who tries to make the pious lose their faith? Peter Bogossian or something. What do you think about him?


I think his is a noble cause. There’s nothing wrong with trying to elucidate as many people as possible. I’ve been considering feeding my parents rationalist ideals. It would be laughably easy, because I haven’t come out as an atheist to them, so they wouldn’t put up their ignorant firewalls if I started talking about subjects like free will and the existence of the soul. Indeed, I could probably write a simple six-page essay and totally change almost every aspect of their viewpoints. They’re not exactly great triumphs of the human mind.
Well said.

User avatar
deschainXIX
Posts: 922
Joined: 07 Aug 2013 18:18
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: The Atheist and Anti-Pseudoscience Thread

Postby deschainXIX » 02 Nov 2014 22:37

This is an absolutely beautiful video. All four "horsemen" around one small table full of drinks, having a discussion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7IHU28aR2E
I'm not asking anyone to watch the thing (it's rather long), but I thought I'd show it off because it's so awesome and I watch it every once in a while to restore my faith in humanity. :D
Well said.

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3639
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: The Atheist and Anti-Pseudoscience Thread

Postby Summerlander » 02 Nov 2014 23:22

One of the many reasons I'm so much more happier as a rationalist is that my house of argument is now built on bedrock. There are profoundly true philosophies and a plethora of evidence supporting my beliefs. I don't have to flounder to defend myself.


Same here. :)

I think his is a noble cause. There’s nothing wrong with trying to elucidate as many people as possible. I’ve been considering feeding my parents rationalist ideals. It would be laughably easy, because I haven’t come out as an atheist to them, so they wouldn’t put up their ignorant firewalls if I started talking about subjects like free will and the existence of the soul. Indeed, I could probably write a simple six-page essay and totally change almost every aspect of their viewpoints. They’re not exactly great triumphs of the human mind.


I think Sam Harris has a point when he says that perhaps it is wise to avoid identifying ourselves as "atheists" to the pious because it seems to immediately imply some kind of dogma to them (the irony!). This contrasts the "Brights movement" idea that Richard Dawkins once proposed in "The God Delusion." Although Dawkins met with Peter Boghossian later and seemed to give the green light to his subtle approach. Christopher Hitchens was just hilarious to watch! :lol:

This is an absolutely beautiful video. All four "horsemen" around one small table full of drinks, having a discussion.


I watched it some time ago. Hitchens is such a rascal when he says he does not wish religion to go away so that he can continue to hitchslap the pious (paraphrasing). :mrgreen:

I just wished that Sam and Dan had discussed free will there. I like Daniel Dennett and I am absolutely loving his book on consciousness. He talks about so many illusions and makes a great case for the view that consciousness is an illusion. Very commendable! But I do not agree with his compatibilism. I think he is trying to salvage the illusion of free will because he feels mankind is not ready for the truth. I am a hard determinist like Sam Harris. I think Harris is spot on and I agree that people should just get used to the truth: there is no free will.

Or, as Hitchens once quipped: "I think there is free will because we don't have a choice..." :D
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
deschainXIX
Posts: 922
Joined: 07 Aug 2013 18:18
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: The Atheist and Anti-Pseudoscience Thread

Postby deschainXIX » 03 Nov 2014 00:10

Summerlander wrote:I think Sam Harris has a point when he says that perhaps it is wise to avoid identifying ourselves as "atheists" to the pious because it seems to immediately imply some kind of dogma to them (the irony!). This contrasts the "Brights movement" idea that Richard Dawkins once proposed in "The God Delusion." Although Dawkins met with Peter Boghossian later and seemed to give the green light to his subtle approach. Christopher Hitchens was just hilarious to watch!


That's why Harris is so awesome. He has this calm wisdom to him as a result of his history of meditation and practical Buddhist practices.
Yeah, I agree with him about the term "atheist." There's such a negative connotation attached to it in our society. It's almost as if "atheist" is synonymous with "Satanist." It might as well be, to some.
It's only that I'm not entirely sure what to call myself in substitution. I'm aware of the whole argument "well, I don't need a term to refer to my disbelief in unicorns," but I feel like since the religious have names for themselves, we need a name for ourselves. I suppose "rationalist" works.

Summerlander wrote:I just wished that Sam and Dan had discussed free will there. I like Daniel Dennett and I am absolutely loving his book on consciousness. He talks about so many illusions and makes a great case for the view that consciousness is an illusion. Very commendable! But I do not agree with his compatibilism. I think he is trying to salvage the illusion of free will because he feels mankind is not ready for the truth. I am a hard determinist like Sam Harris. I think Harris is spot on and I agree that people should just get used to the truth: there is no free will.


Yeah, Sam is perfectly accurate in that regard.
Well said.

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3639
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: The Atheist and Anti-Pseudoscience Thread

Postby Summerlander » 03 Nov 2014 02:43

Yes, the four horsemen have always made it clear that no word is required to describe people who don't believe in mythical or folkloric beings such as Thor and fairies. But then again one could argue, as Dawkins and Hitchens did, that such disbelief does not have to fend off proselytisers. There is nobody knocking on our doors urging us to have faith and believe in elves or face eternal damnation. Presidents don't have to officially declare that they are Thorists in order to win the public. Atheists (we can safely use this term amongst ourselves), on the other hand, have had to fight for their disbelief in God - when they shouldn't because they have good scientific and reasonable grounds to suggest that God is very improbable. So this, in itself, appears to beg identification. Although Hitchens agreed with Dawkins on this point, he abhorred the Brights label. People would say it's arrogant. On the other hand the Hitch recommended that people shouldn't be afraid to come across as arrogant. Dawkins thought we should be as aggressive and blatant as the feminists and the gay movement.

But Sam Harris brings a fresh perspective and approach. One that disables the religious' ability to pigeonhole us as heretics, infidels or blasphemers. What if we focus more on ridiculing religious ideology than labelling ourselves? Or is it that the minute we point out religious fallacies we are automatically labelled as lost souls or devil-worshippers? Has it got that far? Is Sam's idea a little late?

Perhaps Peter Boghossian has truly devised a way to awaken more people than ever before. Obviously the Four Horsemen have enlightened many, but can Boghossian speed up the process in getting rid of religious belief.

I also admire Sam Harris for having written "The Moral Landscape." A C Grayling is another pioneer for human values and secular humanism that puts holy books to shame. We don't need religion. It is a bad meme.

Rationalist...hmmm...sounds good.

[ Post made via Android ] Image
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava


Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest