How Are Atheists or Secularists Harming You, Your Kids or Your Country?

[Nails]

To a non-believer like me, this just sounds like an extra-ordinary explanation for the very common, universal experience of human intuition and expertise.

In short, a misattribution.

It is universal human experience, but with God too.

 

[icehorse]

If an extraordinary explanation makes you happy, go for it. But this is hardly a convincing argument that us atheists are somehow without morals. I'd say we just have more parsimonious explanations for ours.

 

[McBell]

That's exactly my point. Thanks again. Also, Objective morals are true for everyone, regardless of your agreement or acceptance of them.

Seems you have a rather unique definition of the word "morals".

now are you going to present an objective moral or are you content with your credibility sinking even lower?

 

[McBell]

I'd be interested to discuss how you are wrong but this probably isn't the thread?

You may be willing to discuss how you disagree, perhaps even the mental gymnastics to justify your beliefs,but we both know you will not be able to show I am wrong

 

[icehorse]

Mestemia - I'm messing around with Sam Harris's idea of the "well being of conscious creatures" (WBCC), as an approach to a science of morality (and/or values), got any thoughts about that? A science of morality wouldn't claim any more objectivity than any other science and about the same degree of objectivity as many.

 

[George-ananda]

Skeptics are hurting me and society by having taken too much control of Wikipedia articles on many paranormal subjects by editing articles that were balanced to articles clearly slanted to their side. Many academics are aware of this and have denounced it. Wikipedia is presented to be an impartial source of information. Look up a paranormal figure and it is slanted against him. Look up a skeptic like James Randi and you will find no criticisms. It's sadly obvious to me and many; the articles have been changed.

 

[Bunyip]

Skeptics are hurting me and society by having taken too much control of Wikipedia articles on many paranormal subjects by editing articles that were balanced to articles clearly slanted to their side. Many academics are aware of this and have denounced it.

Would you identify an example of such an academic please?

Wikipedia is presented to be an impartial source of information. Look up a paranormal figure and it is slanted against him. Look up a skeptic like James Randi and you will find no criticisms. It's sadly obvious to me and many; the articles have been changed.

Randi was a famous magician, he tends to expose paranormal claims largely by replicating them. He has offered a million dollar prize to any person who can demonstrate any kind of paranormal ability - I beleive that prize has remained unclaimed for 30 years. Magicians like Randi tend to attack paranormal claims and miraculous evidence because they know how the trick is done.

 

[George-ananda]

Would you identify an example of such an academic please? Randi was a famous magician, he tends to expose paranormal claims largely by replicating them. He has offered a million dollar prize to any person who can demonstrate any kind of paranormal ability - I beleive that prize has remained uncaimed for 30 years.

Like, there he is heavily criticized too. A fair article covers all.

 

[Bunyip]

Like, there he is heavily criticized too. A fair article covers all.

The point is that there is a very, very good reason why paranormal claims are criticised - nobody has ever demonstrated any paranormal ability to science.

 

[Sapiens]

Like, there he is heavily criticized too. A fair article covers all.

You are making the assumption that it is unfair to criticize paranormal advocates whilst not criticizing their critics. But ... if paranormal is BS, then that is the right thing to do.

 

[George-ananda]

You are making the assumption that it is unfair to criticize paranormal advocates whilst not criticizing their critics. But ... if paranormal is BS, then that is the right thing to do.

The point is that there is a very, very good reason why paranormal claims are criticised - nobody has ever demonstrated any paranormal ability to science.

My point gentlemen, is that an encyclopedia should not be written by strong partisans of a side on any controversial issue be it religion, politics, global warming or the paranormal or whatever. I don't think you or many people are aware of this particular controversy on Wikipedia but there is one raging now.

 

[Bunyip]

My point gentlemen, is that an encyclopedia should not be written by strong partisans of a side on any controversial issue be it religion, politics, global warming or the paranormal or whatever. I don't think you or many people are aware of this particular controversy on Wikipedia but there is one raging now.

Can you direct me towards this controversy please - I am not aware of any academics suggesting that paranormal claims are being unfairly criticised.

 

[George-ananda]

Can you direct me towards this controversy please - I am not aware of any academics suggesting that paranormal claims are being unfairly criticised.

Do you remember the last I acquiesced to providing links, youtubes, etc. upon Bunyip's request. and you came back with a comment so comically wrong that showed you could not possibly have actually watched the video. I'm not interested this time.

 

[Bunyip]

Do you remember the last I acquiesced to providing links, youtubes, etc. upon Bunyip's request. and you came back with a comment so comically wrong that showed you could not possibly have actually watched the video. I'm not interested this time.

There is no need for false accusations George. You claimed to have evidence of miracles that wpuld be an intellectual challenge to aheism - and when pressed to give an example eventually posted some fourth rate magic tricks. I could make a milk producing statue for you if you like, it is hardly evidence of a miracle.
The point is that you claimed to have evidence of miracles that wpuld be an intellectal challenge to atheists - as it turns out that was not the case.
In this instance you claim that many academics are protesting that paranormal claims are being unfairly criticised - asking for an example is perfectly reasonable on the basis that you often can not back the clams you make.

Asking you to back your claims is a perfectly appropriate response on a debate forum.

 

[Sapiens]

My point gentlemen, is that an encyclopedia should not be written by strong partisans of a side on any controversial issue be it religion, politics, global warming or the paranormal or whatever. I don't think you or many people are aware of this particular controversy on Wikipedia but there is one raging now.

When there are actually two sides to an issue I agree with you. When there is one side and a lot of "nothing here" on the other, well, I don't see that "balance" is called for. I am hard pressed to find any competent support of paranormalcy outside of the comic books. A mention in passing is sufficient. Wiki is written by consensus and controversial subjects are treated with great care.

 

[George-ananda]

. I could make a milk producing statue for you if you like, it is hardly evidence of a miracle.

OMG, Bunyip. You're saying that again. They were talking about milk consuming statues, not milk producing statues. It is quite clear that you still don't even know what the Hindu Milk Miracle is after I complied with your request and provided information that you didn't read or watch. I am sorry but I will pay less notice to your requests for more information in the future.

 

[Koldo]

All this is not to say that morality, ethics and mores are not also learned from parents and others,etc, but still where do these sorts of concepts ultimately come from if not a supernatural source?

From our social interactions and empathy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Can you give me an example please? I must admit that I find all of this dishonest demonising of Dawkins to be quite disgusting.

Richard Dawkins attacks 'irrelevant' religion in Rowan Williams debate - Telegraph
Speaking at the Cambridge Union debating society, Prof Dawkins argued that religion hindered scientific endeavour by ''peddling false explanations''.

Peter Higgs criticises Richard Dawkins over anti-religious 'fundamentalism' | Science | The Guardian
Higgs has chosen to cap his remarkable 2012 with another bang by criticising the "fundamentalist" approach taken by Dawkins in dealing with religious believers.
"What Dawkins does too often is to concentrate his attack on fundamentalists. But there are many believers who are just not fundamentalists," Higgs said in an interview with the Spanish newspaper El Mundo. "Fundamentalism is another problem. I mean, Dawkins in a way is almost a fundamentalist himself, of another kind."
I'm not the only one who finds his approach counter productive.

 

[Bunyip]

OMG, Bunyip. You're saying that again. They were talking about milk consuming statues, not milk producing statues. It is quite clear that you still don't even know what the Hindu Milk Miracle is after I complied with your request and provided information that you didn't read or watch. I am sorry but I will pay less notice to your requests for more information in the future.

It makes no difference George, it is still the sort of street magic common in Europe for centuries. I don't mean offense George, but such things are not going to impress Westerners - I have seen David Blain make an aircraft vanish - a statue absorbing milk is hardly going to rock my world. I have a tea towel at home that drinks milk as well.

 

[Bunyip]

Richard Dawkins attacks 'irrelevant' religion in Rowan Williams debate - Telegraph
Speaking at the Cambridge Union debating society, Prof Dawkins argued that religion hindered scientific endeavour by ''peddling false explanations''.

Peter Higgs criticises Richard Dawkins over anti-religious 'fundamentalism' | Science | The Guardian
Higgs has chosen to cap his remarkable 2012 with another bang by criticising the "fundamentalist" approach taken by Dawkins in dealing with religious believers.
"What Dawkins does too often is to concentrate his attack on fundamentalists. But there are many believers who are just not fundamentalists," Higgs said in an interview with the Spanish newspaper El Mundo. "Fundamentalism is another problem. I mean, Dawkins in a way is almost a fundamentalist himself, of another kind."
I'm not the only one who finds his approach counter productive.

I'm sorry, but what point are you making here?