A commenter at Uncommon Descent wrote
Keith, I am not convinced that you are an atheist. I believe that you are angry at God and suffer from cognitive dissonance. And to say that the evidence supports your materialist belief system is completely absurd!
I’ve seen versions of this “angry at God” accusation levelled at non-believers quite often and I wonder why those that use it think it makes sense.
The indomitable KeithS responds later in the same UD thread:
Okay, here’s some psychologizing for you guys:
You realize that atheists have good reasons for disbelieving in God and that they make good arguments to which you have no intelligent response. This makes you very anxious. In a vain attempt to lessen the anxiety, you try to convince yourselves that the atheist isn’t really an atheist, he’s just angry at God. That way you don’t have to take his arguments seriously. It’s much easier to write them off rather than acknowledge the painful truth: you cannot answer them, and your faith is irrational.
I’m not sure I agree with Keith on “…atheists have good reasons for disbelieving in God” and I would say myself that I have never had an inclination, need or desire to believe in “God” and thus never needed to convince myself that disbelief is a better option. I have never been a smoker. As a kid I tried to emulate others and puffed away but I couldn’t get past the point where addiction presumably kicks in. I have great respect for those who, having succumbed to addiction to nicotine, have been able later to kick the habit. Similarly, I can admire an ex-believer who has decided to quit. It must involve a great effort of will but at the same time I just can’t grasp the appeal of believing in the first place.
I’m sorry if the analogy regarding addiction is somewhat pejorative to people with religious convictions but I do find great difficulty in understanding the whole concept of “virtuoso believing“. I’m sure it involves emotion much more than reason. So while I’m puzzled that anyone could categorize an atheist as “angry at God” I can see why there is mutual incomprehension between believers and non-believers. Also being a non-smoker makes me less of a campaigner against smoking. As long as people don’t insist in blowing smoke in my face or that I should try this new/old brand of cigar, then I claim no right to stop other people from enjoying a quiet smoke.
I think there are one or two non-believers here. Is anyone angry at God?
I think everyone agrees that Wikipedia is not a source for determining truth. Where I live, Wiki is not allowed as a reference in student papers, although it is not discouraged as a source for finding primary references.
What does this have to do with the fact that remote viewing is bullshit, and Targ is a charlatan?
By the way, there’s a guy living near me who swindled AT&T and Cisco out of millions of dollars for research into a data compression algorithm. He had a very slick demo, and he played major companies against each other in a bidding war.
It’s not uncommon for hucksters to fool intelligent people, at least for a while.
This is almost certainly false. It is true of some political groups (not endorsed by Wikipedia). I think you made this up. Any evidence for this claim? If not, then why do you believe it?
I don’t think you understand what a skeptic is.
Here is the page for Wikiproject Skepticism.
They’re are also Wikiprojects for religion and Christianity.
Despite its flaws, Wikipedia compares favourably for accuracy to the Encyclopedia Britannica, especially on science and mathematical articles.
If, by conspire, you mean discuss, I would say yes. I’ve seen discussions by people about correcting Wiki articles. I have to say that most of the discussions I’ve seen are by people I suspect of being closer to Phoodoo politically.
The thing to do at this site is to take particular wiki fact and discuss why it is right or wrong.
If remote viewing is to be the poster child for wiki bias, then I’m all for bias.
The Grand Skeptoatheistic cabal of neo-Darwinazis is out to get you. Quick, turn off the lights and pull the curtains.
Like that’ll do any good, what with the remote viewing capabilities of the black helicopter division.
There’s no escaping the Darwinist takeover!
Glen Davidson
Just remember, some of us are just pretending to be skeptics. Actually, we can see everything you do, phoo.
I’ve consistently referred to myself as a pragmatist, and not a skeptic. But that’s largely because ‘skepticism’ refers, in academic philosophical contexts, to a whole host of metaphysical and epistemological problems that I don’t take altogether seriously. But within pragmatism, I am closer to Peirce’s “The Fixation of Belief” than to James’s “The Will to Believe.”
[Very brieflY: Peirce thought that the superiority of science consisted entirely in the fact that scientific methods are reliable means of resolving disagreements, because in science our assumptions are systematically and intentionally tested against reality. James, with a looser conception of what counts as ‘pragmatic,’ thought that religious faith was pragmatically acceptable.]
I think that James had some valuable insights, but was not sufficiently attentive to the distinction between what is existentially significant to oneself and what allows an assertion to count as a move in the public space of reasons.
Our own William Murray asserted that the truth of a belief was irrelevant if it improved one’s life.
Says the person who won’t admit if they believe remote viewing is real or not.
Yep. My disagreements with Murray were basically a replay of Peirce vs. James. But James had a more subtle view that Murray. James did say that “the true is the expedient in belief”, but he immediately pointed out that experience has a way of “bubbling over” our conceptions of it, and forcing us to devise new and better conceptions. My objections to Murray were that he seemed to deny the role of experience in belief-revision; he seemed to think that could retain any view he wanted, come what may, no matter what objections were raised against it, and still be counted as epistemically virtuous. Whereas in my mind, being dogmatic is pretty much the hallmark of epistemic vices (though there are others).
In that sense, I describe myself as utilitarian. I do not think utility demonstrates truth. I don’t think there is any test for truth, other than semantic self-consistency.
There are, however, hierarchies of utility, some of which qualify as provisional truths.
phoodoo,
Stop whining phoodoo. Wikipedia is not edited by ‘Wikipedia’, but by anyone with internet access. Are you saying that the ‘materialist public’ is more powerful than the non-materialist public? If you think Sheldrake should be described as a scientist, fucking change it.
http://www.scotbastian.com/do-ya-think-blog/rational-hero-of-the-week-susan-gerbic-wikipedia-guerrilla-skepticism-and-couple-of-noisy-quacks
I’ve done the pet experiment. My cat doesn’t give a shit when I come home. He does get a bit antsy If I’m gone for several days. I have formulated several hypotheses to explain this.
We best be careful, or Phoodoo will sic Deepak Chopra on us, and we’ll be doomed.
Like science.
Imagine how huge this conspiration behind Wikipedia is that they got to force Darwin to make drastic changes on his original book “On the intelligently designed origin of the species”.
And what’s exactly that worldview?
Allan Miller,
Change it? Who do you think decides which edit stays?
You don’t like science Allan.
Do you think Oswald killed Kennedy alone?
Great point. You tell Alla what he likes and you tell Allan what he thinks.
I hope there somenoe around here to tell us what YOU think and to defend YOUR claims.
By the way, blaming wikipedia is a very obvious way to hide the fact that you have no arguments. If you had, instead of talking SO MUCH about wikipedia you would be praising any other “non biased, truth telling” web site. But you are not.
phoodoo,
The next editor. Do you actually know how Wikipedia works? The organisation itself simply does not have the resources to censor content wholesale. And why would anyone give a particular shit about Sheldrake? What do you think I might be afraid of, as a fairly typical ‘materialist’ (spit!), if the field of morphic resonance were to take off?
I knew a guy at university who claimed he could levitate. He started a bit of a cult; they all wore orange. I asked him to demonstrate. He said he couldn’t just do it; it would blow my mind. Yeah sure. Like the time I ran screaming from the radio when voices came out of it, or the demo of a maglev train that had me in therapy. I can’t cope with observable phenomena. It’s a worldview thing. 🙂
Anyway, about those 50 ID papers … ? Here is your chance to publish unhindered, and actually back up one of your many unsupported factual claims on censorship.
Allan Miller,
You really don’t know how Wikipedia works do you? Or are you just playing dumb? Its not the next editor who makes a change. That’s not what happens at all.
And the bad propaganda doesn’t just stop with Sheldrake Allan.
So what do you think, do you believe Oswald acted alone?
Why don’t you do an OP on this question? If you do so, be sure to present your theory of who else was involved, complete with supporting evidence.
Do you, or do you not, believe that remote viewing is a real thing?
socle,
The question is to Allan. If he wishes to dodge it, so be it. The bystanders can make their own conclusions if so.
Castro did it via telekinesis.
Glen Davidson
As I was saying, I have yet to see anything bad in all of phoodoo’s whining about his own lack of skepticism.
What’s next, guerilla-credulity? Let’s pretend everyting has the same strength and rigour of evidence behind it? There’s nothing people like phoodoo won’t convince themselves of when it suits their preconceptions.
Exactly so. Do you think that remote viewing is a real thing?
phoodoo,
So when I click ‘edit’, then change the page and save it, and I see my changes on the page and my name in the edit history … that’s not actually happening?
My point is, it doesn’t even start with Sheldrake. Here’s an extended excerpt. After giving his credentials (the thing you said people were banned for doing):
“Morphic resonance is not accepted by the scientific community as a real phenomenon and Sheldrake’s proposals relating to it have been characterized as pseudoscience. Critics cite a lack of evidence for morphic resonance and an inconsistency of the idea with data from genetics and embryology, and also express concern that popular attention from Sheldrake’s books and public appearances undermines the public’s understanding of science.[a]
Despite the negative reception Sheldrake’s ideas have received from the scientific community, they have found support in the New Age movement,[26] such as from Deepak Chopra.[27][28] Sheldrake argues that science should incorporate alternative medicine, psychic phenomena, and a greater focus on holistic thinking.[29]
What’s up with that? Or perhaps you could point directly to the parts elsewhere that are ‘bad propaganda’.
I really have no idea. What the heck does that have to do with evolution, atheism or ‘materialism’ anyway? Go on, lemme guess, you remote-viewed the whole thing. Tell us about 9/11, and the moon landings, and HAARP.
Also, 50 ID papers, when you have a moment.
Queen of Diamonds.
FWIW, had an “ESP moment” over the weekend during a viewing of Grand Budapest Hotel. There’s a segment in which a group of hotel concierges, in order to help out the Ralph Fiennes character, serially stop doing whatever they are doing and call one of their peers. (It’s kind of like the midnight barking in 101 Dalmations.) Anyhow, these characters are mostly played by fairly famous actors doing cameos. E.g., Bill Murray plays one of them, Owen Wilson another. Anyhow, I’m watching this and suddenly it comes to me: Bob Balaban would be a great choice to do one of these! Three seconds later, in the very next scene, KaBLAM! there’s Balaban!! I almost fell off the couch.
That, I take it, would for some be seen as a lead pipe proof of the existence of precognition.
W
Way back in the days of mechanical phones, I picked up the phone to call a friend, and he was already on the line. I had picked up the phone in the moment between the connection being made, and the first ring.
Therefore Jesus.
walto,
I was headed home from a Tift Merritt concert in Manchester late one night. I’d bought a cd off her and was playing it, then halfway through I decided to stick the radio on. I thought I must have not pressed the button firmly enough, since the music didn’t change … turns out that exact song was playing on late-night radio, synced almost to the bar. Concidence? Well … yes.
Great movie!!
That would be nice…
I’d settle for any ID paper that isn’t a rehash of Paley’s 1803 Natural Theology.
Wow, there’s a ton of ESP talent at this site.
Especially me.
(I mean, Bob freaking Balaban!)
Allan Miller,
The first point, if you think that you can simply make an edit of impartiality to a topic where Wikipedia has a preconceived worldview, and it will stay, you are out of your mind. Try correcting Sheldrakes first paragraph to state that he is a scientist from Cambridge University (pretty uncontroversial) and see if it will stay. It won’t. And that is just the beginning.
What does the phrase “rejected by the scientific community” mean? Is Stephen Meyer rejected by the scientific community? Is Michael Behe?
They are the scientific community. Are there polls taken from every scientist (what is a scientist) to determine who is accepted and who is rejected? Is it a popularity contest? A majority wins rule? Its complete bullshit, and you know it.
Over 50% of the population doubts Darwin evolution. Can we put that caveat, along with the statement that “more and more biologist have begun to question the whole premise of Darwinian evolution” (because its true!) on every biologists who believes in evolution’s home page, along with lengthy criticisms of their work from creationists webpages?
And here poor Adapa is whining about being censored on UD? Why isn’t he whining about the completely unfair treatment given to Stephen Meyer on Wikipedia? Can I change Meyers homepage so that a bias skeptics website isn’t allowed to add besmirching critiques to his page that are totally unwarranted?
You ignore ALL evidence of bias, when I have shown to you very clearly it exists. Why is Dawkins a scientist in the first paragraph, whereas Sheldrake and Radin aren’t? Can I correct this little oversight? If even this small point can’t be fixed, how can we ever expect to see fairness on broader issues? Impossible. Its not accidental Allan. Its a website policy of abuse!
Did Oswald act alone? Well, of course he did! Just read Wikipedia to find out! They will tell you in very clear terms (thanks to skeptics) exactly why the case is so cut and dry that he did it. Is it complete bullshit? Of course. Can it be changed to reflect a more impartial reading of the facts? Of course not! They will quote books which favor their viewpoint, and ignore the hundreds upon hundreds of books which show another side.
They lie. They will distort. And that seems just fine with you. I find that reprehensible.
Shouldn’t you read Wikipedia before claiming it says something (it doesn’t say)?
“They lie. They will distort.”
So? What’s the point? Evolution is wrong because wikipedia lies? ID is right because wikipedia lies? UD debates are fair because wikipedia lies? Besides wasting our time and stopping any reasonable discussion, what’s your point?
phoowoo, you said: “The question is to Allan. If he wishes to dodge it, so be it. The bystanders can make their own conclusions if so.”
Up to now I’ve been a bystander in regard to this thread, and after reading the comments I’ve come to the conclusion that your behavior is that of a woo pushing crybaby troll who asks irrelevant questions and dodges relevant questions.
Since you like to whine so much about Wikipedia and bias and lots of other stuff, why don’t you start your own Woo-and-Whine-ipedia site and there you can be in complete control and point out all of the problems at Wikipedia and everything else that bothers you. Just think, when you reveal the conspiratorial, biased, evil agenda against the truth as you imagine it, you will be famous and the popularity and credibility of your site will surely FAR exceed the popularity and credibility of Wikipedia. Millions of people are anxiously awaiting your profound revelations about Wikipedia and all of the other stuff that you like or don’t like, so get busy on Woo-and-Whine-ipedia.
Creodont2,
Well, you write so eloquently, its amazing that you chose to be silent for so long.
Do you think Oswald acted alone?
phoodoo,
I really don’t know what you are on about phoodoo. Sheldrake’s Wiki page says:
“Alfred Rupert Sheldrake is an English author,[3] public speaker,[4] and researcher in the field of parapsychology,[5] known for his “morphic resonance” concept.[6] He worked as a biochemist and cell biologist at Cambridge University from 1967 to 1973[3] and as principal plant physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics until 1978.[7]
Conceived during Sheldrake’s time at Cambridge, […] “
He went to Cambridge, doesn’t any more, used to work in the sciences but doesn’t any more. I too used to be a scientist, I’m not any more. I wouldn’t feel discredited if this was stated. I know you bleat incessantly about this, and I see from the Talk page that many others do, but the paragraph is factually correct. And Morphic Resonance becomes no more true if you choose to call him a current scientist. Science doesn’t just involve making factual claims about the organisation of the universe.
As to “who is editing” – how many people do you think actually work for Wikipedia? How much time do you think they really have to suppress your perceived Truths? I’m beginning to think you’re a fantasist.
phoodoo,
In America, perhaps. Not everybody lives in America.
phoodoo,
Again, who is ‘they’? You seem to see Wikipedia as a vast organisation, very well funded, with nothing better to do than suppress conspiracy theories, because … well, that’s what people do with conspiracy theories. It’s all part of the conspiracy.
Meh. It’s reprehensible that I don’t buy your conspiracy-laden bullshit. I can live with your contempt. But as to lying and distortion … are there really hundreds upon hundreds of books demonstrating Oswald had help? Can you name a book that is not on Wikipedia?
Darwin was the second shooter and Wallace held the window open.
So you are saying UD is as prone to those mean practices as wikipedia? That’s your point?
Is it possible Adapa is not complaining about wikipedia because YOU CAN’T complain about everything that is wrong in the world all the time? Is it possible that whenever you make a complaint there is ANOTHER complaint you COULD HAVE MADE? So, is it possible that “there is another thing you could have complained about” is kind of the most childish argument ever?
Hah! I always suspected! And Dawkins’ father was in Texas at the time, I understand… Why? What was Dawkins’ father doing in Texas?! I don’t think anyone has ever explained that very cogently.
“Can you remember where you were when Kennedy was shot?”
“Why … what have you heard?”
Allan Miller,
You are right Allan, Oswald acted completely alone. He got the job at the book depository that is along the Presidential route completely alone. He was allowed to return from defecting to the Soviet Union complete alone. James Jesus Angleton didn’t work for the CIA. Carolyn Arnold never saw Oswald on the second floor lunchroom at 12:15 like she said. Guy Banister was never head of the Chicago FBI and never met Oswald. Lee Bowers never saw a shot fired from the grassy knoll. Richard Carr never saw a man with a brown sportcoat on the sixth floor of the depository building, who then ran from the rear of the building into a waiting car. He never had his car bombed. Jesse Curry never radioed in that he heard a shot from the overpass. Goerge Morenshildt was not a CIA operative and close friend of Oswald. David Ferrie never knew Oswald. Dr. Piere Finck never testified to the Warren Commission that the pristine magic bullet could not possibly have caused the wounds to Connally.
Gerry Patrick Hemming also never worked for the CIA and didn’t know Oswald. SM Holland never saw the shot from the grassy knoll that he said he did. James Hosty of the FBI never knew Oswald. Carlos Marcello was not a mafia mob boss who employed Oswalds uncle. John Martino also was never a mobster and never met with Oswald and told others that Kennedy was going to be shot before it happened. Robert Case Nagell was not a CIA double agent who worked with Oswald in Japan, he never warned Oswald about a plot that would make him a patsy for the assassination of JFK, and he was never arrested in El Paso with Oswalds ID card just before the shooting. Silvia Odio never existed. Michael Paine, the wealthy descendant of the Forbes family, and Bell Helicopter contractor never allowed Oswald to live in his house, and never helped him get a job, and his mother really wasn’t the mistress of the head of the CIA, Allen Dulles. Ruth Paine had no contacts with the CIA. She was never a spy in Central America.
Dr. Malcolm Perry never said three times in a press conference that the wounds to Kennedy throat were from an entry wound. David Atlee Phillips never knew Oswald. Clay Shaw never met Oswald, and he never worked for the CIA. The building at 544 camp street in New Orleans never existed and was not the office Oswald used on the pro-Castro fliers he handed out. James Tague was never wounded in Dealey Plaza.
And one perfectly preserved bullet one bullet hit Kennedy in the back, came out of his throat, into Connally’s back, out of his chest, through his wrist, into his thigh, and lay on his hospital gurney bed.
Why should anyone ever believe any differently Allan. Just bury your head in the sand, and play dumb. Those crazy conspiracy theorists.
There are no books anywhere that ever discuss this Allan. Its all just lies Allan.
And this all is related to “Angry at God?” because…?