What are your thoughts on Richard Dawkins?

[Homeless Nutter]

[...]If you go to an exam and write nothing, it's a lot worse then having answers that are partially right and partially wrong.

That's an idiotic and false analogy. Obtaining knowledge about the Universe is nothing like an exam. An exam implies that someone actually knows the correct answers to the questions you're given and you're required to give answers, that were taught to you at some point beforehand.

To give you a better analogy - if you go to - say - a business, or a council meeting, the aim of which is to make decisions on various matters, that will affect many people, which is "a lot worse" - speaking up on every topic at hand, demanding equal say, regardless of how ignorant of it you are, how unevidenced your claims are and how much you're just making sh*t up to suit you, OR honestly admitting that you don't know certain things, shutting up and trying to learn something?

Wild guesses and wishful thinking of pious morons just tend to make things worse and get in the way of real knowledge. Those people should shut the f*ck up and read some books. There's plenty of information already available - nobody needs your made-up nonsense.

No religion is totally false in all it's entirety as far as I know. [...]

Exactly - "as far as you know". And since you don't know sh*t - it's very likely, that ALL religions are "false in all their entirety".

Atheism may not be false as simply non-belief, but it's a whole worse then partially wrong and right answers, hence it's even worse then total wrong answer.

Wrong answers given by your dumb religion blow up sh*t and kill people. I think it's clear to everyone, who's not a brainwashed, self-centred dim-wit, that it's worse than atheism.

At least people believing in fairy tales attempted to answer essential questions.

Attempted - and failed. Now it's time for them to f*ck off and let the adults work out sh*t.

[Edwardo Piet]

That doesn't mean it's pseudoscientific.  That means you don't see how it's possible. There's a difference.

No I'm saying that subjectivity can't be studied objectively so it can't be scientific.

Qualia is untouchable by science.

This is why I don't think you understand the process.  It's not about controlling the feelings, at all. It's about observing them objectively, and understanding that while our emotions are a part of us, we are not our emotions.

I already factored all that in when I said I know it's not about controlling things it's about accepting them and observing them. But then I then said if we have no control over our own accepting and observing those things then it's pointless trying to learn how to do something when we have no control over it.


Okay now I REALLY need to go to bed I'm getting obsessed. And I REALLY fucking hate it when I'm struggling to pull myself away and keep saying I will and not doing it yet... because that just stinks of EP.

Ni night. I'll try to stay calm this time.

[Thumpalumpacus]

That doesn't mean it's pseudoscientific.  That means you don't see how it's possible. There's a difference.

No I'm saying that subjectivity can't be studied objectively so it can't be scientific.

Qualia is untouchable by science.

... and that still doesn't doesn't make it pseudoscientific, because it doesn't pretend to be definitive across all people.

This is why I don't think you understand the process.  It's not about controlling the feelings, at all. It's about observing them objectively, and understanding that while our emotions are a part of us, we are not our emotions.

I already factored all that in when I said I know it's not about controlling things it's about accepting them and observing them. But then I then said if we have no control over our own accepting and observing those things then it's pointless trying to learn how to do something when we have no control over it.

... and that's the thing: we do have control over how we observe and accept things. Simply because you cannot do that doesn't mean it cannot be done. "We" is not encompassing; you cannot speak for those of us who use mindfulness to find balance.

[Isis]

I don't have much of an opinion on him.

He is certainly an intelligent man, and I enjoy reading his posts on Twitter but that is about it. I don't think I have ever sat down and properly watched any of his debates.

[Cecelia]

I don't think he's as intelligent as he thinks he is (that's not to say he's not smart.  He's highly intelligent I'm sure, but I think he thinks himself smarter than he is).  He comes across as very smug, and a bit sexist (I don't think he hates women, but I do think he thinks that's somehow an accomplishment).  He can be just as backwards as the religious people he berates.  He's an accomplished scientist, though his accomplishments aren't really something most people could probably name off hand (that goes for most scientists though with exceptions like Einstein and Tesla)  He's written a lot of books--though I've never read any of them.  (I'm sure they're good books and well thought out, but the bible is the only book you'll ever need to convince me god doesn't exist)

Honestly, he had zero influence on me becoming an atheist.  Actually, I might say the opposite is true.  I think because of him (not because of his arguments mind you) I stayed a theist longer than I might have otherwise.  I mean honestly I thought most atheists were just like him.  (He was the only atheist I could actually name).  I don't think I'd have ever listened to his arguments as a theist.  Actually I'd say my first really positive experience with other atheists other than with my husband and a couple of my close friends--was probably here on this forum. 

I'm sure he's done a lot for Atheism, and he should be applauded for it.  But I hope we get new voices for atheism to step forward and take us on the next step to showing a more empathetic atheism.

[Fake Messiah]

I'm an atheist which means that Dawkins is my pope: I have his picture on the wall, he tells me how to dress, what to eat on which days, how and with whom to boink, when to be happy and when to be sad, which music and books are forbidden and so on.

[Brian37]

I'm an atheist which means that Dawkins is my pope: I have his picture on the wall, he tells me how to dress, what to eat on which days, how and with whom to boink, when to be happy and when to be sad, which music and books are forbidden and so on.

BLASPHEMER, there is only one religion, the religion of ABBA and Agnetha and Frida are the only true goddesses. You worship a man who wont sign baseball caps. 

Faithful ABBA worshipers have Rock Free Friday (like fish on Friday instead of beef/pork). ABBA doesn't care whom you boink, so join us and Bjorn is an atheist too.

[Edwardo Piet]

... and that still doesn't doesn't make it pseudoscientific, because it doesn't pretend to be definitive across all people.

It can't be definitive across ANY people because mindfulness is first person and science is third person. Mindfulness is subjective and science is objective. Science is phenomenological and requires observers to collect data from the world they experience... but it can't collect data of experience itself.

---

... and that's the thing: we do have control over how we observe and accept things. Simply because you cannot do that doesn't mean it cannot be done. "We" is not encompassing; you cannot speak for those of us who use mindfulness to find balance.

But we don't have control over how we observe and accept things because we don't have control over out brain or motivation.

They think mindfulness helps them find balance but what they think isn't the same as what actually happens and as you know the placebo effect is well documented.

[Thumpalumpacus]

... and that still doesn't doesn't make it pseudoscientific, because it doesn't pretend to be definitive across all people.

It can't be definitive across ANY people because mindfulness is first person and science is third person. Mindfulness is subjective and science is objective. Science is phenomenological and requires observers to collect data from the world they experience... but it can't collect data of experience itself.

So how, exactly, is it pseudoscientific? It makes no pretense at being scientific. It is a method for individuals to address their own emotions, not a means of interrogating nature.

... and that's the thing: we do have control over how we observe and accept things. Simply because you cannot do that doesn't mean it cannot be done. "We" is not encompassing; you cannot speak for those of us who use mindfulness to find balance.

But we don't have control over how we observe and accept things because we don't have control over out brain or motivation.

... says you. You really need to stop using that word "we". It's arrogant. You cannot speak to anyone else's subjective experiences. I certainly can control how I accept things. I sometimes fail my own ideals for this or that reason, but the changes that have occurred inside me as a result of being able to separate myself from my immediate emotional impulses have prompted many people to comment ... people who have known me all my life like my mother, or who like my ex- spent years putting up with my old self, thoughtless and mindless. It's not a perfect path and I do still fall back into old patterns of behavior, but the only thing you're doing here is answering my question ("why is it pseudoscientific") with unsupported assertions about the subjective experiences of people you don't know.

I can steer -- not control -- my feelings by understanding that my own observations aren't the only ones which matter, and by understanding the difference between things I can change and things I cannot change. I can control my motivation by assigning priorities to those things I determine are important, and ignoring those which aren't. In so doing, I can exert some control over my thought processes, which obviously includes emotionalism.

I understand that you have issues which I don't have to deal with, and no doubt they impact the way you approach things like emotions. I feel for you, I really do, because I know that when I'm caught in the whirlpool of emotions I generally display my worst and not my better sides. But I reckon that for that reason alone, you can only speak for yourself and your own subjective experience, rendering your statements above overbroad.

[Edwardo Piet]

So how, exactly, is it pseudoscientific? It makes no pretense at being scientific. It is a method for individuals to address their own emotions, not a means of interrogating nature.

Well if it's not scientific then how does it even have any evidence supporting it and how is it any more non-worthless than homeopathy or things that definitely are pseudo-scientific?

... says you.  You really need to stop using that word "we".  It's arrogant.

But we're both doing that not just me and I don't see how it makes either of us arrogant.

You cannot speak to anyone else's subjective experiences.

That's kind of my whole point.

I certainly can control how I accept things.

Well we can accept things but I don't personally see how we can control things. It certainly seems that way to you and certainly doesn't seem that way to me.

I understand that you have issues which I don't have to deal with, and no doubt they impact the way you approach things like emotions. I feel for you, I really do, because I know that when I'm caught in the whirlpool of emotions I generally display my worst and not my better sides. But I reckon that for that reason alone, you can only speak for yourself and your own subjective experience, rendering your statements above overbroad.

We can all speak for ourselves more than we can speak for anyone else but... far from being arrogant I'm saying we can't even speak for ourselves as much as we think we can... because we can certainly experience what seems to us but 'what seems to us' is all we can experience and the fact we seem to be able to control things--or at least it seems that way to most people--is not the same as us actually being able to control them.

I'm saying not only do we have zero authority on how others experience things but we actually have less authority over our own experience than most of us think we do, IMO.

"I seem to be able to control this" may indeed seem to be at least weak evidence that we can control it... but when we ask ourselves "how would things seem to me if I COULDN'T control this?" and we realize the answer is "exactly the same way" I think we will realize that we have zero evidence that we control anything at all and considering we're akin to biological robots it makes more sense that we're sophisticated beings that have agency but we have no control we can actually take control of because whatever level of control we happen to be engaging in at any moment... we have no control over.

It's kind of like a... to choose our own thoughts we'd have to think something before we think it, kind of thing, and I'm saying feelings and actions and anything else we do is exactly the same way. Choices are something that are on the outside but not in the inside, ultimately, IMO.

---

I understand that you have issues which I don't have to deal with, and no doubt they impact the way you approach things like emotions. I feel for you, I really do, because I know that when I'm caught in the whirlpool of emotions I generally display my worst and not my better sides.

I really appreciate that

But I reckon that for that reason alone, you can only speak for yourself and your own subjective experience, rendering your statements above overbroad.

I think we all only speak for ourselves and our own subjective experiences because it's all we can know. I think that's because it's all we have access to and all we can expereince by definition.

I'm just saying that I think most people think that their conscious experience itself and their intelligent agency leads them to reasonably conclude that they have control over it when IMO I think it doesn't. I think such a conclusion is unreasonable because the alternative possibility of them not having control would be an identical experience... and so I'm not sure what it would even mean to have control besides 'happen to be less impulsive'.

---

I can steer -- not control -- my feelings by understanding that my own observations aren't the only ones which matter, and by understanding the difference between things I can change and things I cannot change. I can control my motivation by assigning priorities to those things I determine are important, and ignoring those which aren't. In so doing, I can exert some control over my thought processes, which obviously includes emotionalism.

Well... it depends what you mean by 'I' in these statements. If all that you mean is your brain can happen to gain energy and motivation and happen to resist more and be less impulsive for reasons that you ultimately don't know... and it can also be highly influenced by changes of life circumstances or being at the right place at the right time or coming into contact with the right people or happening to have the right thoughts or right emotions that lead to more right thoughts and right emotions a positive snowball effect... then I agree with you.

But my question would be what would things look like if it was all down to pure luck and circumstance and your own happening to steer things that way better than previously when you had less luck and were more impulsive and had more fails of willpower?

You may have explanations for why your willpower fails less now but then what led you to the things that led you to that? What would reality look like if it's ultimately down to luck and at the end of the day it's all a snowball effect and you ultimately don't know why things started to go right for you even if you think you do? I think reality would look exactly the same and what often seems to us is just seeming and that seeming is not indication of control.

And like I said... I really do struggle at explaining this stuff.