The thread was closed before I could weigh in so here it goes again :-)

I don't personally know the man but since we were speaking hypothetically, I would think that he couldn't care less about the beliefs of the people he meets in his personal life. He simply would not be able to function, given the amount of people who believe in "something".

As a public spokesman for the advancement of science and reason, however, he's bound to clash with those who advance the cause of ignorance and superstition a.k.a. religion.

Dawkins takes a confrontational approach. That's a very effective way to get people to talk about science and religion, about knowing and pretending to know - or worse, not wanting to know.

People will take offense. Are they naive? I don't know. At the very least, they want to give ignorance and superstition a bit of leeway, presumably because it makes people feel good.

I applaud anyone who fights that. Dawkins has written a handful of science books but none are as effective at stirring the debate about science and religion as his God Delusion (though I personally don't think very much of it). He has made a couple of documentaries about science but none are as effective as an ill-informed tweet here and there (though I personally wish he would put a sock in it every now and then).

Does that get your panties in a twist? Good, that means he's doing his job well. Does it piss you off? Excellent, that means he's reaching you.

The rest is up to you.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2014 04:08PM by rt.

I doubt anyone else cares very much, either. I don't choose my beliefs to suit other people.

Dawkins has a lot of evidence to back his criticism of religion. However, he has no more proof of the lack of an afterlife than those who claim that there is.

Nearly all of the 6 billion people on Earth believe in some form of afterlife. It is quite arrogant to call them all fools.

Claiming that people should adhere to scientific fact and reason is one thing. To go off the rails and declare that those who don't agree with his conclusions that go beyond scientific evidence and reason makes him no better than the theocrats he criticizes.

axeldc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dawkins has a lot of evidence to back his
> criticism of religion. However, he has no more
> proof of the lack of an afterlife than those who
> claim that there is.

It's the positive claim that has the burden of proof; with no evidence there IS an "afterlife," there's no reason to assume there's any such thing.


> Nearly all of the 6 billion people on Earth
> believe in some form of afterlife. It is quite
> arrogant to call them all fools.

Nearly all of the people on the earth for most of human history believed the sun went around the earth. They were all wrong, and their belief was based on ignorance. Once we had *facts* and evidence showing what was really the case, those who still believed otherwise were indeed fools. We have facts and evidence now showing most claimed "afterlife" beliefs are worthless claims; to still "believe" them is indeed foolish, and there's nothing "arrogant" about saying so.


> Claiming that people should adhere to scientific
> fact and reason is one thing. To go off the rails
> and declare that those who don't agree with his
> conclusions that go beyond scientific evidence and
> reason makes him no better than the theocrats he
> criticizes.

You know, I've read lots of things he's written -- never once seen him make the sort of claim you (poorly, missing the conclusion) stated. Perhaps you could supply an example?

Look, the guy is what he is. I'm with the OP in that the main thing he tries to do is stir the pot, and he does it well. Clearly he got to you :)

No.

6 billion wrong-headed people do not reality make- fools every single believing one. In the age of information it is inexcuseable.

People who claim what is real with no quality evidence are living embodiments of foolisness.

Folks who advocate for reality & science are better than any theocrats.

He can afford to....
How is anyone gonna defend her/his Supernatural Fantasies against the facts Dawkins pimps?
Plain & Simple; He hurts gullibles & naives by wrecking their afterlife dreams....

I think it is sad that 90+% of people want to know the truth but do not want to search for it. They want to rely on someone else ------ therefore, Religion/atheism for the masses!

Prayer works! Does God answer them or other people in the after life or our fantastic brain. I believe in a God/or at least a God force that started this whole thing and a pre and afterlife (eternal life but will not explain here) ----- again through experience. Could I be wrong ----- sure but I am going with interpreting my experiences the best I can not Dawkins non experiences or anyone else's.

That is not to say I do not study about other people with similar experiences and see if I can relate them to mine ----- I do. I have studied a number of people's books that have had similar experiences to myself and fortunately we all interpret them very similarly but unfortunately not the same. The differences just pushes me to have more experiences to try to be firm on any differences with people with similar experiences. So I am still searching but am actually searching and experiencing things not just reading books by people who believe their logic and non experiences prove anything!

Really, prayer works.
-just as well as the liahona.

Did my prayer work or did I do it the wrong way?

Prayer is as effective as talking to the sun.

How did you determine prayer doesn't work ------ by reading Dawkins? I have proved prayer works for me ------ numerous times! My motto is if it works ----- use it. If it doesn't get rid of it. I am sorry prayer doesn't/hasn't worked for you. That doesn't mean I am Mormon or Christian ---- in fact I am neither. Good luck with your beliefs maybe there is more out there!

I agree with axeldc.

Most of us know that religion is all BS but why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Why not investigate conciseness surviving death of the physical body? Why would that be such a bad thing? Who ever said that this has anything whatsoever to do with mythology?

Why are some so threatened by this? I've posted many many times that the tired old debate between atheists and fundamental Christians is getting VERY OLD.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2014 07:50PM by rgg.

rgg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree with axeldc.
>
> Most of us know that religion is all BS but why
> throw the baby out with the bathwater? Why not
> investigate conciseness surviving death of the
> physical body? Why would that be such a bad thing?
> Who ever said that this has anything whatsoever
> to do with mythology?
>
> Why are some so threatened by this? I've posted
> many many times that the tired old debate between
> atheists and fundamental Christians is getting
> VERY OLD.

It *has* been investigated, and still IS being investigated. To date there is NO evidence of any kind there's any such thing, no known mechanism by which such a thing could work, and no way to actually "study" it. That makes it a dead end.

Does that mean there isn't survival of consciousness after death? No. It just means claims there IS such a thing are worthless and unsupportable. Come up with a testable hypothesis on the issue, and you'll be the talk of the scientific world...good luck with that.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> rgg Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I agree with axeldc.
> >
> > Most of us know that religion is all BS but why
> > throw the baby out with the bathwater? Why not
> > investigate conciseness surviving death of the
> > physical body? Why would that be such a bad
> thing?
> > Who ever said that this has anything
> whatsoever
> > to do with mythology?
> >
> > Why are some so threatened by this? I've
> posted
> > many many times that the tired old debate
> between
> > atheists and fundamental Christians is getting
> > VERY OLD.
>
> It *has* been investigated, and still IS being
> investigated. To date there is NO evidence of any
> kind there's any such thing, no known mechanism by
> which such a thing could work, and no way to
> actually "study" it. That makes it a dead end.
>
> Does that mean there isn't survival of
> consciousness after death? No. It just means
> claims there IS such a thing are worthless and
> unsupportable. Come up with a testable hypothesis
> on the issue, and you'll be the talk of the
> scientific world...good luck with that.

Please post the links to the peer reviews where science has proven that they know where conciseness comes from. I'd like to see that!

And please no one reply with sarcastic responses re dogma because I think all religion is BS...

The first step is to find a universally accepted, precise definition of consciousness. Not sure we are there yet



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/01/2014 09:27PM by ladell.

ladell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The first step is to find a universally accepted,
> precise definition of consciousness. Not sure we
> are there yet

Until we know exactly where consciousness comes from I will believe that I am most likely not a biological robot and that I do have free will. This DOES NOT mean I believe in dogma, santa clause or religion.

rgg Wrote:

> Please post the links to the peer reviews where
> science has proven that they know where
> conciseness comes from. I'd like to see that!

Quite a lot is known about consciousness, actually. Personally, I find most of it rather tedious reading but if you're interested, terms to google are consciousness, memory, cognition, AI, neuroscience, etc. Plenty of peer-reviewed papers and books available on the subject - a whole lot more than on the possibility of "consciousness surviving death of the physical body".

I have no doubt he does, I don't have that luxury as I have known people much brighter than me who believe deeply in the supernatural

There are "bright" people that believe in Mormonism, too...

yup

ificouldhietokolob - you're nailing it on the head with everything you say. I'll just add a +1 and call it good.

exldsdudeinslc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ificouldhietokolob - you're nailing it on the head
> with everything you say. I'll just add a +1 and
> call it good.

:) Lots of experience pointing out the poor arguments of the religious, starting with my exit from mormonism. I was lied to by the morg for 21+ years, I was assaulted with these same fallacies trying to get me to ignore facts and evidence and "just believe." I have a real aversion to such tactics.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> exldsdudeinslc Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ificouldhietokolob - you're nailing it on the
> head
> > with everything you say. I'll just add a +1 and
> > call it good.
>
> :) Lots of experience pointing out the poor
> arguments of the religious, starting with my exit
> from mormonism. I was lied to by the morg for 21+
> years, I was assaulted with these same fallacies
> trying to get me to ignore facts and evidence and
> "just believe." I have a real aversion to such
> tactics.

I actually thought the argument was rather weak. However I can understand why many on this site are so militant re atheism, perhaps its due to the lie of Mormonism so people go the opposite direction. I've also known that many TBMs love to debate their religion because they feel so much passion about it so when they leave, they still have that "fight" in them so to speak. No disrespect for anyone, we are all on this journey called life.

For me, I never believed in Mormonism to begin with. My parents did and I was forced to go to church as a kid but never once thought it true.

you mean consciousness of course

whoever has a cogent response i would love to hear it

ephemeral vs empirical even

c'mon all you rocket scientists

is consciousness some kinda dark matter or what?

All evidence of claims of things "Supernatural" when examined are either bogus or found to be "Natural"

The more of the supernatural we examine the smaller God gets. Every single thing attributed to God can be shown to be within nature and nothing super about it.

Many of us who are recovering from mormonism find it critical to only hold beliefs that are based on evidence and reason.

Some leave mormonism and fall right back into believing things on faith, the age-old excuse for believing things without evidence or reason.

We can still get along.

Dawkins is only one person. Listen to him, glean something from him, or not, he is just one voice.

I'm convinced that we as humans are going to do what we always do, find some ideas that make our lives make sense. That is most often some kind of religious belief by faith.

I took the approach, leaving the LDS Church that I just changed my mind about my beliefs. I could do that. I was not bound by someone else's ideas to conform to what they said.
Nothing to "recovery" from in my case. Just change my thinking. And I did it with humor and fun.
No anger, bitterness, negativity. All a positive approach to changing what I wanted to accept as valid for my life.

And then what? I have lost close relatives lately and I really would love to have a conversation -- so.... what do you say now about your religious or non religious ideas and beliefs?
What was it for anyhow? Does it apply to your existence now as what we could call: energy, vibration and frequency that always exists?

I say: live your life like you want. Like Mormonism, it's your culture, it's your choice? OK. Fine with me. I have no problem with every single person living their beliefs as they choose as it's their right, just as it is mine.

I don't care what others do with their lives. Why would I?
I am not in control or in charge of anyone else. Just me.

I have simplified everything down to the core: love, gratitude, kindness, appreciation, humor. Live, laugh, love.
What more is there? I don't think there is anything else that I need to be concerned about.

It's your life. Live it with fun and no fear!

I don't think so to the least; what part of his presentation is confrontational? Truth/Reality parts? That is Evolution, at its worst scenario which replicated itself tens of thousands of times through Human/Animal existence.
Now that we created a civilized world & expect it to fit to our norms.
It is not going to happen anytime soon.

rgg wrote:
"I actually thought the argument was rather weak. However I can understand why many on this site are so militant re atheism..."

What part of "claims without evidence should be given no merit" did you find "weak?" And how is rejecting outrageous, publicly-made claims with no supporting evidence and a great deal of contrary evidence "militant atheism?"

Someone already gave you good search terms for learning what we know about consciousness. If you'll follow up, you'll find that all the evidence we have shows consciousness to be an emergent property of a functioning physical brain. And that no evidence shows it can exist without the brain that produces it. You'll find literally tens of thousands of examples of damage to or removal of particular brain parts that result in the loss of functions (specific ones, including memory) of consciousness. Why should that be the case if consciousness was independent, in any way, of a physical brain?

Many humans *want* consciousness to exist beyond their brains functioning. They pin their hopes that this is so not on evidence, but on wishful thinking, and desperately hope the gaps in our knowledge will somehow, someday, show this is so. In the meantime, they "believe" without evidence.

I find that to be rather silly. Claims without supporting evidence are worthless. If someday evidence for a consciousness apart from a physical brain is available, and it's verifiable and repeatable, I'll accept it. There is no such evidence now, so no reason to accept the claims about it.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> rgg wrote:
> "I actually thought the argument was rather weak.
> However I can understand why many on this site are
> so militant re atheism..."
>
> What part of "claims without evidence should be
> given no merit" did you find "weak?" And how is
> rejecting outrageous, publicly-made claims with no
> supporting evidence and a great deal of contrary
> evidence "militant atheism?"
>
> Someone already gave you good search terms for
> learning what we know about consciousness. If
> you'll follow up, you'll find that all the
> evidence we have shows consciousness to be an
> emergent property of a functioning physical brain.
> And that no evidence shows it can exist without
> the brain that produces it. You'll find literally
> tens of thousands of examples of damage to or
> removal of particular brain parts that result in
> the loss of functions (specific ones, including
> memory) of consciousness. Why should that be the
> case if consciousness was independent, in any way,
> of a physical brain?
>
> Many humans *want* consciousness to exist beyond
> their brains functioning. They pin their hopes
> that this is so not on evidence, but on wishful
> thinking, and desperately hope the gaps in our
> knowledge will somehow, someday, show this is so.
> In the meantime, they "believe" without evidence.
>
> I find that to be rather silly. Claims without
> supporting evidence are worthless. If someday
> evidence for a consciousness apart from a physical
> brain is available, and it's verifiable and
> repeatable, I'll accept it. There is no such
> evidence now, so no reason to accept the claims
> about it.

I asked for links to peer reviews and your response was a brush of generalities and opinions. I am NOT talking about religion or dogma.

And who is "they" you keep referring to. Please share your sources.

rgg Wrote:

> I asked for links to peer reviews and your
> response was a brush of generalities and opinions.
> I am NOT talking about religion or dogma.
>
> And who is "they" you keep referring to. Please
> share your sources.

What you asked for was this:

"Please post the links to the peer reviews where science has proven that they know where conciseness comes from. I'd like to see that!"

I never made a claim that "they [science] know where conciseness [consciousness] comes from." What I said was that there's no evidence there's anything supernatural about it, and that all the evidence we do have shows it's produced by a brain.
You were given topics to look up, which will lead you to the (literally) hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed papers in various sciences with evidence that consciousness is produced by a functioning phyiscal brain. There isn't "one" paper that "proves" it, and no one link that "proves" it either. If you're too lazy to go read all the papers showing evidence, that's your issue, not mine.
If you want a decent summary, I'd suggest this one:

http://www.amazon.com/Phantoms-Brain-Probing-Mysteries-Human/dp/0688172172

Though there has been a lot of new work/evidence since he wrote it.

You used "they" referring to "science" -- then castigated me for doing the same with regard to "believers." In case there was any question, ONE of the "they" I was referring to was you.

He doesn't think differently about religion than most atheists do. The difference is that he doesn't walk on eggs around religious people. Most of us simply patronize the religious so they don't cause a scene with their histrionic reactions.