PZ Myers had no idea he was stepping into a controversy

[FattyCatty]

A "preponderance?" Depending on how you count it, less than half.

The flyer for the conference implies otherwise.

Well, no.

If you mean "no, that's not how they sound to you," then I don't think you have any basis for saying it. I gave my opinion.

I remember being in 4th grade in a Christian school, hearing that same sneering dismissal of atheism -- "they're just as religious as we are, but they just don't realize it." I thought it was a really good point...when I was, like, 10.

I don't share your experience of hearing this. And in our house, we didn't discuss religion, either to advocate or deprecate. Atheism and agnosticism were just more religious beliefs, the business only of the believer. I still consider atheism and agnosticism religious beliefs; they are beliefs that deal with a religious subject - belief (or not) in god.

There's a difference between being passionate about religion -- based on being born into it, and cultural prejudice against other religions, and magical thinking, and peer pressure, and other logical fallacies -- and being passionate about atheism because long, painstaking consideration and research has led you to believe that it is the most rational conclusion.

I disagree. Passion about an idea is passion about an idea, no matter how you get there.

And some of those people, over time, might begin realize that their feathers were ruffled not because the "attitudes" were so terrible, but because challenging religion is such a major taboo. They might then begin to reconsider things, and eventually make their way back.

I don't think it's the fact of challenging religion, I think it's the way it's done that is offensive. I don't see it as a taboo. I do think there is a disagreement on what is provable and not; as I said in my reply to Skeptic Ginger,

Not everyone agrees on what is and is not outside the realm of systematic, empirical testing/knowledge. Telling someone they are not skeptical because they came to a different conclusion is not challenging.

For those who really just pack up their toys and go home and won't play with us anymore...well, why do we need them around anyway?

Maybe to keep you from becoming complacent by being surrounded only by those who agree with you?

That's really kinda funny. You say you were not raised religious. So apparently you are not aware of the contempt that your closest church will have towards atheists? The attitudes of religious people towards atheists can be much more insulting than most of what you see here, without anyone blinking an eye.

That's the special place religion holds. For skeptics to discuss atheism -- in a part of the country where the topic is terribly relevent to anyone who dares question religion -- is seen as so terribly obnoxious. Anyone who feels strongly about the topic is a meanie. But religious people are free to denigrate atheists and we're supposed to be respectful because it's their religion.

You are right that I was not aware of the contempt for atheists exhibited by some religious people. All I know about it is what I've read on this forum. Again, I think the way people discuss religion has something to do with the discussion being considered obnoxious. It certainly seems to affect how the atheists here feel about disagreements with their belief. I don't know that you are "supposed to be respectful because it's their religion" so much as rational people should discuss opinions in a way respectful of each other's point of view. That doesn't mean don't challenge each other based on evidence or how you reach your conclusion; it means don't think name-calling and plugging your ears going nyah nyah constitutes discussion (this applies to both sides).

So if all claims of God's actions fall apart upon examination, what does that leave? Why is there any further reason to speculate about the existence of a God who apparently has nothing to do with the universe as we know it?

As I said in my response to Skeptic Ginger, because I wonder. Did a "god" set up a basic starter system then step away? Is there a "god" that observes but doesn't interfere? I don't know.

No, you can not say with 100% certainty that you are positive there is no such thing as any kind of God, and that you could never be proved wrong. But you can decide that enough of the evidence is in to form a verdict.

That's what people do. The verdicts vary; some variations include:

• no god
• no possibility of god
• don't know don't care
• don't know
• don't know think maybe there is
• believe there is.

It's not controversial to say that you're firmly convinced, based on the evidence, that there is no Big Foot. Or ghosts. But, again, try to say that about God and you get this reaction of "What a bad attitude! You can't prove a negative!"

I don't think it's controversial to say you're firmly convinced there is no god. I think it's a problem when you say I must reach the same conclusion based on evidence when I consider the existence/nonexistence of god "outside the realm of systematic, empirical testing/knowledge."

Of course those things can be proved to exist. There's ample evidence for all of them. (Except the pun thing, which is just a matter of opinion.)

How do you prove they exist? What is the evidence?

You are correct that my belief that puns are funny is a subjective judgment. For the first five concepts, I don’t know if observing how we display or react to an emotion/feeling proves it exists. I’m not saying this right, but we’re not observing the actual emotion/feeling, merely an outward display. The emotions/feelings are common to humanity; the ways they are displayed vary. And people lie, so how can we use these observations as proof of existence? Yet (almost?) everyone will agree that these emotions/feelings exist. I find this belief without proof similar to belief without proof in a god.

No. I think PZ is just a blowhard who tends not to communicate his points correctly. I'm not a psychic but I will try and interpret it in a manner that isn't actually dependent on atheism. Incorrect interpretation is not an antithesis to being skeptical. It just means you interpreted information incorrectly which is quite common. The response to being corrected and challenged is what makes you a skeptic. Everyone is human. We are not these superpowers gods of critical thinking that a disturbing amount of the atheist contingent thinks is possible. So by running away you aren't acting skeptically. I can see what he is saying but on the other hand calling people delusional in a skeptical conference is a bit stupid.

You may be right that I misinterpreted him. I am not familiar with his writing and style.

I agree with what you said in the highlighted area. I don't know if it running away when someone just doesn't want to deal with the aggro.

ETA: Sorry, I misunderstood and didn't realize you were referring to someone else.

Actually a lot of those questions that you asked are perfect examples of how the skeptical community can come to conclusions lacking all of the information they need.

I'm not sure which questions and conclusions you mean, but I'm happy you found something interesting (?) in what I wrote.

 

[TraneWreck]

Generally most skeptics only superficially scratch the surface of what is wrong with homeopathy.

Every time it's rigorously tested, it's shown not to work.

What else does one need to know?

It should at least have some "black box" efficacy before we need to waste time with "Water Memory" and other mumbo-jumbo.

(I'm hoping the truther bit either has some meaning that escapes me or goes away fast)

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Generally most skeptics only superficially scratch the surface of what is wrong with homeopathy.

You mean the fact that it doesn't work? How much deeper do we need to go?

 

[AdMan]

We are not these superpowers gods of critical thinking that a disturbing amount of the atheist contingent thinks is possible.

Who are these atheists who think we are "superpower gods of critical thinking"? Or is that another one of your exaggerations/straw man arguments?

 

[technoextreme]

I'd say we have plenty of information to come to a conclusion on this old bottle of snake-oil. Now, if it suddenly starts working in strong, measurable ways, we'll have to turn everything we know about physics, biology, and medicine upside down to figure out why this is working when everything we know about the world says it shouldn't.

Fine then tell me the actually names of the water structures that are commonly accepted in science and tell me why the theory of water memory should have never actually been published.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Fine then tell me the actually names of the water structures that are commonly accepted in science and tell me why the theory of water memory should have never actually been published.

I don't think you get how this works.

If you think water memory shows homeopathy works, then its on you to demonstrate it.

I say the idea that water can somehow remember a specific ingredient placed inside it and only that specific ingredient placed inside and then transfer a beneficial effect from the memory of that ingredient to a patient, as something implausible on it's face.

And of course you ignored all the other problems regarding homeopathy I listed to focus on this one tangential area that you haven't completely dismissed yet.

It's rather similar to the religion argument. The skeptic can list dozens of reasons why religions shouldn't be treated as factually accurate: tracing historical mythologies, demonstrable contradictions, impossibilities, and inaccuracies in the holy books, logical contradictions in the concepts of deities, and above all a complete lack of evidence that any of it is true. Then the religious will try to argue some obscure point about prime-movers beyond the big bang or non-interventionist deities outside of time and space, and try to shift the conversation into murky and semantically uncertain grounds.

And whether we're talking about homeopathy sugar pills remembering the ingredient that was in the pre-diluted mix, or a deist god, the fact remains that there's no reason to believe that either is true.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Generally most skeptics only superficially scratch the surface of what is wrong with homeopathy. Same thing I noticed with the 9/11 truth movement in some regards.

Are you suggesting we need to have a thorough background in chemistry to understand a totally made up claim as simple as homeopathy?


With 9/11 not everyone cares about the finer points on the engineering principles but I think if one knows how to vet a source of information, one can still be quite knowledgeable on the gist of the CT.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm still composing my reply to your post, Catty. I don't want you to think I am ignoring it. I appreciate that you took the time to reply to mine.

 

[Beth]

It's amazing how many intelligent people can miss such a simple point.

Good: "These phenomena often attributed to God can also be explained in this non-supernatural way, and here is the evidence."

Bad: "If you attribute things to God, you're [an idiot/not a skeptic/unworthy/some other insult]"

One of these (admittedly oversimplified) approaches leads to conversation. One leads to nonproductive defensiveness. It's all about goals.

But hey, drawing the Venn diagram is important too, I guess.

Perhaps that is what is intended by the behavior? I generally hate the 'if you're not with us, then you're against us' attitude. But it's not an uncommon one with people who want to see change in their society. I suspect that, to some extent, it is true. Generally, societal change takes at least a few generations in order for the old thinking to literally die out.

Well, no. I remember being in 4th grade in a Christian school, hearing that same sneering dismissal of atheism -- "they're just as religious as we are, but they just don't realize it." I thought it was a really good point...when I was, like, 10.

I heard plenty of that sort of thing in the church I was raised it. But I find the dismissive attitude of atheists who use terms like 'delusion' to describe Christianity to be it's equal.

For those who really just pack up their toys and go home and won't play with us anymore...well, why do we need them around anyway?

FattyCatty's answer to this was great, but I wanted to point out that for people who are interested in effecting social change - you know, things like changing the attitudes of the working class individual in America - having the attitude of 'who needs you' is counterproductive. People don't just pack up their toys and go home, they may well go home feeling bitter and hateful towards the treatment they received from skeptics. This makes them less receptive towards folks like Jeff Wagg who has such a goal. I can understand his concern, though I don't know that I agree with him about this particular incident.

The attitudes of religious people towards atheists can be much more insulting than most of what you see here, without anyone blinking an eye.

I am sad to say that this is true in a great many churches. But not all of them.

But religious people are free to denigrate atheists and we're supposed to be respectful because it's their religion.

No. You're supposed to stand up for yourself when they denigrate you. That others have treated you badly is not an excuse for denigrating others who merely share some traits with them. That's why you are supposed to be respectful of others. That's basic adult behavior.

No, you can not say with 100% certainty that you are positive there is no such thing as any kind of God, and that you could never be proved wrong. But you can decide that enough of the evidence is in to form a verdict.

That's what people do. The verdicts vary; some variations include:

• no god
• no possibility of god
• don't know don't care
• don't know
• don't know think maybe there is
• believe there is.

I don't think it's controversial to say you're firmly convinced there is no god. I think it's a problem when you say I must reach the same conclusion based on evidence when I consider the existence/nonexistence of god "outside the realm of systematic, empirical testing/knowledge."

I just wanted to say that I have agreed with nearly everything you've written on this thread. And you've expressed things very nicely. Thanks.

Some other things I thought were very good points you brought up:

Passion about an idea is passion about an idea, no matter how you get there.

Maybe to keep you from becoming complacent by being surrounded only by those who agree with you?

You are right that I was not aware of the contempt for atheists exhibited by some religious people.

Sadly, it was quite common in many churches a few decades ago. I have no idea how common it is these days. Universal Unitarians and other liberal churches are not just tolerant of atheism but welcome atheists into their congregations.

As I said in my response to Skeptic Ginger, because I wonder. Did a "god" set up a basic starter system then step away? Is there a "god" that observes but doesn't interfere? I don't know.

I agree. It's essentially the same as the 'are we a simulation' question, which comes up in a lot of consciousness threads.

 

[AdMan]

Well, no. I remember being in 4th grade in a Christian school, hearing that same sneering dismissal of atheism -- "they're just as religious as we are, but they just don't realize it." I thought it was a really good point...when I was, like, 10.

I heard plenty of that sort of thing in the church I was raised it. But I find the dismissive attitude of atheists who use terms like 'delusion' to describe Christianity to be it's equal.

I'm guessing you're referring to the "Are Christians Delusional?" talk given by Richard Carrier at Skepticon III. If so, I don't agree with your assessment of it being dismissive.

First of all, it's the title of an hour-long talk and a question (though, not surprisingly, the conclusion that Christians are in fact delusional was reached). As I've pointed out, Carrier's talk was a discussion of the book The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails (to which he was a contributor) and a defense of some of its conclusions, it wasn't simply a dismissive claim without any support.

To give you a flavor of what Carrier's talk was about, here's his discussion of the book on his blog. Here's a short quote from that article:

Most of all, taken together, its fifteen chapters are sufficient to establish that Christianity is a delusion. The Christian religion is so manifestly contrary to the facts, belief in it can only be held with the most delusional gerrymandering imaginable. That's a bold statement. I wouldn't have made it myself before reading this book, but now that I have seen it all in one place, I am forced to agree. Richard Dawkins was often criticized for dismissing "The God Delusion" on shallow arguments that didn't address common Christian "rebuttals." The Christian Delusion was specifically constructed to leave no such excuse.

Once again, none of the speakers at Skepticon was attacking the idea of a deistic god that created the universe and afterwards stopped intervening. They were questioning and attacking ideas that in my view can in fact be tested skeptically.

 

[Beth]

I'm guessing you're referring to the "Are Christians Delusional?" talk given by Richard Carrier at Skepticon III. If so, I don't agree with your assessment of it being dismissive.

First of all, it's the title of an hour-long talk and a question (though, not surprisingly, the conclusion that Christians are in fact delusional was reached).

I'm referring to all atheists who use such derisive terms to describe Christianity. And yes, I do think the use of such terms is dismissive. I understand that you disagree because people like Richard Carrier and Richard Dawkins have provided substantial argument for their dismissal of the religion as delusional. I think we'll just have to disagree on that point.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

This is sorta off topic, but if I remember correctly back in the day the Queensland Government at the time was going to bring in Creationism science into Queensland schools. From what I know of the people who fought against it, it was made up of all sections of the community including people of faith.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I'm referring to all atheists who use such derisive terms to describe Christianity. And yes, I do think the use of such terms is dismissive. I understand that you disagree because people like Richard Carrier and Richard Dawkins have provided substantial argument for their dismissal of the religion as delusional. I think we'll just have to disagree on that point.

You just shifted the goalposts from claiming the attitudes of the skeptics were dismissive to claiming the use of the term is dismissive.

A dismissive term is used because of the attitude of consideration given to the topic.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm referring to all atheists who use such derisive terms to describe Christianity. And yes, I do think the use of such terms is dismissive. I understand that you disagree because people like Richard Carrier and Richard Dawkins have provided substantial argument for their dismissal of the religion as delusional. I think we'll just have to disagree on that point.

There's just no way to win in this matter. If one truly believes the evidence is that god beliefs do have an element of delusion in them, saying so is deemed offensive.

Theists demand a double standard: "Don't challenge our beliefs, but if you do challenge our beliefs, be sure to couch the conclusions you are convinced are valid in apologetic language."

At least one definition of delusion is "a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason". I'm not being purposefully or gratuitously rude because I think that definition applies to dogmatic god beliefs.

"Don't call it a skeptical blind spot. Even if you are convinced that 'faith based beliefs' is a contrived apology and does not differ from non-evidence based beliefs."

A skeptical blind spot, in my opinion, is some aspect of a skeptic's beliefs that the skeptic exempts from skeptical thinking.

"Don't say there is no evidence for gods. Instead you must accept evidence for god beliefs you would not accept for any other belief."

We've had this discussion before so you know what I am referring to. Because someone believes homeopathy works, is not evidence homeopathy works. So why should I accept the fact someone believes they can feel evidence of the presence of gods as actual evidence for gods existing? Either it is valid evidence or it is not evidence.

Saying there is no evidence is all well and good if I am debating the validity of homeopathy. We don't hear some argument from the skeptic homeopathy users that they feel offended that the JREF is an anti-homeopathy organization. Why is that? Is there more evidence for gods than there is evidence for homeopathy?


Why do evidence lacking god beliefs rate special status that other evidence lacking beliefs do not rate? How are atheists supposed to deal with this demand for special status if the atheist doesn't buy the separation of theism and science?

 

[Beth]

There's just no way to win in this matter.

What do you mean by win? What are you trying to accomplish?

If one truly believes the evidence is that god beliefs do have an element of delusion in them, saying so is deemed offensive.

Yes. If you truly belief the evidence is that no such thing as psi exists, calling people who believe in psi delusional would also be offensive. Calling people who believe in a losing football team delusional would also be offensive. Generally, calling large groups of people delusional on the basis of a single common belief is offensive.

Theists demand a double standard: "Don't challenge our beliefs, but if you do challenge our beliefs, be sure to couch the conclusions you are convinced are valid in apologetic language."

I haven’t seen any theists say this. What are you referring to?

At least one definition of delusion is "a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason". I'm not being purposefully or gratuitously rude because I think that definition applies to dogmatic god beliefs.

Right. Rudeness isn’t about what you think or believe, but how you behave.

"Don't call it a skeptical blind spot. Even if you are convinced that 'faith based beliefs' is a contrived apology and does not differ from non-evidence based beliefs."

Who are you quoting here?

"Don't say there is no evidence for gods. Instead you must accept evidence for god beliefs you would not accept for any other belief."

Who are you quoting here?

We've had this discussion before so you know what I am referring to. Because someone believes homeopathy works, is not evidence homeopathy works. So why should I accept the fact someone believes they can feel evidence of the presence of gods as actual evidence for gods existing? Either it is valid evidence or it is not evidence.

What is valid evidence or not is a matter of subjective opinion. Yes, we have had this discussion before.

Saying there is no evidence is all well and good if I am debating the validity of homeopathy. We don't hear some argument from the skeptic homeopathy users that they feel offended that the JREF is an anti-homeopathy organization. Why is that? Is there more evidence for gods than there is evidence for homeopathy?

I’ve read a few homeopathy threads here. Not often, it’s not an area of interest for me. But I would say they definitely feel offended by the responses they receive. Which include being called delusional.

Why do evidence lacking god beliefs rate special status that other evidence lacking beliefs do not rate? How are atheists supposed to deal with this demand for special status if the atheist doesn't buy the separation of theism and science?

How about with sensitivity to the feelings of the people you are speaking to? And I personally am not advocating for special treatment of theists over anti-vaxers, psychics, or anyone else. I advocate civility to all regardless of their particular ‘blind spot’.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What do you mean by win? What are you trying to accomplish?

Discuss issues related to theism and atheism honestly without pissing theists off.


I'll get to the rest later, got to get some cooking started.

 

[godless dave]

So there's no way they could have applied their skepticism to religion and come to a different conclusion than you?

Not without access to evidence I don't have.

 

[godless dave]

I disagree. A lack of evidence for something does not equate to being evidence against it. It means we don’t know yet. To quote Carl Sagan, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

But in the absence of evidence, there is no reason to believe the unevidenced thing exists, and it is irrational to do so. In the case of the gods of human religions, all except the god of deism are said to intervene in the universe. Such intervention would leave evidence. In that case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

 

[Beth]

Discuss issues related to theism and atheism honestly without pissing theists off.

Interesting. I don't find it difficult at all. But I don't consider religious believers delusional either.

I'll get to the rest later, got to get some cooking started.

I understand. I just got the turkey in and am taking a break before I get started peeling potatoes.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Interesting. I don't find it difficult at all. But I don't consider religious believers delusional either. ...

I don't tend to use the word, delusional for theists. I would reserve it for people like the 9/11 terrorists or Dr Tiller's murderer. Falwell with his 'the Rapture is coming and humans are incapable of destroying God's creation' reached the level of delusion, in my opinion.

But I wouldn't assume a talk asking if god believers were delusional to be gratuitously insulting without hearing what was in the talk. You've noted that you find any discussion of delusion related to theism to be inaccurate on its face.

Yes. If you truly belief the evidence is that no such thing as psi exists, calling people who believe in psi delusional would also be offensive. Calling people who believe in a losing football team delusional would also be offensive. Generally, calling large groups of people delusional on the basis of a single common belief is offensive.

Some people who believe esp or clairvoyance exists are also deluded and believe they have such powers. If I were to discuss delusional esp believers, chances are people who merely conclude there is evidence for esp would not be offended.

Again, I did not hear the talk in question. Perhaps leaving "Some" out of the title was in error. Perhaps the speaker made the case for all god beliefs to be delusional. I don't know. I do know that in the case of people who believe in ESP, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that if one doesn't have good critical thinking skills or if one doesn't look at the evidence in more detail, one might conclude there is evidence for the phenom.

With god beliefs, the vast majority of the evidence is internally generated. So one could argue that is the placebo effect manifest a different way: I think God makes me happy, I am happy, God must exist and must have made me happy. Some theists most certainly believe there is evidence for gods when one prays and the thing one prays for happens. Those errors in evidence observation and assessment would not be delusions. They would be errors.

And I don't know where indoctrination as the reason to believe in gods fits on the delusion scale.

But delusion does apply to some god beliefs. We had some evolution deniers present their case to our local skeptics group. The one person who did the most talking had had some kind of religious revelation he could not stop 'witnessing' to us. Their evidence against evolution was the usual decades old stuff and they were unable to hear any newer evidence which discredited their totally out of date beliefs.

This man's religious conversion was delusional, IMO.

Again, it would appear that if I make that assessment honestly, theists might be offended. So either I have to censor my conclusion or refrain fron discussing the merits of it. If I discussed the guy who believed he could see the future or read people's thoughts as delusional, people who believe clairvoyance or esp exist would not necessarily think I was referring to all people who believed there was evidence of clairvoyance.

Even if I said, all people who believe they can see the future are delusional, chances are it wouldn't offend everyone who believes such a power exists. And if you were the person who did believe you could see the future, you might be offended, but the rest of the skeptic community would not likely say we need to avoid this discussion because we don't want to offend our skeptic members who believe in clairvoyance.

Who are you quoting here?

The quotes I gave as examples were not specific statements of theists, the quotes were intended to describe the reality of the situation. Do you not think theist skeptics expect their god beliefs to be off limits or outside the realm of scientific inquiry?

Yes, we can discuss Zeus, and the negative consequences of religion. We can discuss the fact theism is not the source of morality, and the latest face of Jesus or Mary on a tortilla is paradelia.

But discussing the conclusion theists believe in gods without any evidence has different implications for a skeptic. It is not a matter of drawing a different conclusion from the evidence. It has a different impact on theist skeptics than a debate about what the evidence supports. You challenge a belief on the basis of skeptical process, not on the basis of evidence.

I’ve read a few homeopathy threads here. Not often, it’s not an area of interest for me. But I would say they definitely feel offended by the responses they receive. Which include being called delusional.

How about with sensitivity to the feelings of the people you are speaking to? And I personally am not advocating for special treatment of theists over anti-vaxers, psychics, or anyone else. I advocate civility to all regardless of their particular ‘blind spot’.

I agree with you on the gratuitous insults of woo believers on the forum. Where we differ here is assuming delusional never applies or is never allowed on the discussion table.

As for the special treatment of god beliefs, one example is the concept of faith based beliefs being separate from 'standard' evidence based beliefs. Am I wrong to think that when you consider the personal experiences you believe are evidence for gods (to the theist) you draw a different conclusion about the personal experience evidence for homeopathy the homeopathy believer bases their belief on? In other words, are you giving your theist friends a pass you would not give to someone else who drew their conclusion based on a temporal association the believer interpreted as a causal relationship?