[Closed] Why are you atheists so angry?

This used to be a great thread, lots of good points made. Then Fred the attention seeker showed up and started spewing the usual look-at-me-garbage. Pitiful.

Funny, cos the only one I see spouting 'garbage' right now, is you. 🙄

Most other folk have bin pretty good-humoured about stuff on here. You and one or two others seem to be particularly angry.

Why not have a read through my posts, have a think about things and appreciate that it's my right to have my own opinion, wether you agree with what I say or not. Feel free to challenge me on any point you like.

Oh, and thanks for the attention. My ego is most grateful. 😉

And Islam has actually encouraged scientific exploration, medicine, mathematics, astronomy and chemistry. So far from 'backward'.

I think we are a long way from its Golden Age

(I really shouldn't get into this so I won't hang around.)

I've not bothered to read the thread (obviously!) but, in answer to the question in the thread title, I just get fed-up that we can't outgrow these childish superstitions. Despite all our advances, future generations will look back and s**** at how backward we still were - that gets my goat.

Also some, but not all, religious people demand respect for their beliefs but won't, for example, respect my belief that there's an invisible lion in every bus stop so they should give them a wide berth. As far as I can gather, the evidence is equal either way.

I'm not sure about that second paragraph by the way.

Elfin - your post on the last page about religion changing. I agree that it has to do so to survive but surely if it's the word of God then it's not up for negotiation. Changing it is tacit admission that it's all just invented nonsense in the first place.

(I hope there's another interesting thread so I can hang out there and avoid this one now.)

I'm not angry

I genuinely think we are further from Christianity's golden age than Islam's.

I've not bothered to read the thread

The same goes for any latecomers.

Elf, I know you've had a go at the "shouty atheists" and mentioned them not being open minded, but have you thought about what they're saying?

Maybe not what they're saying but why? Why are they "shouty"?

Let me give you an example.

I met this bloke, shellsuit, perm, 'tache. Anyway he told me about this thing called "Liverpool Football Club". Only the true Scousers understood it. You had to be from Liverpool to support it. No compromise.

Well, I aint avin this I thought, so I told him he was wrong. I had [b]observed evidence[/b] that there were blokes from places as far away as London that supported the 'Pool too. Hard fact, versus his belief.

But he wouldn't listen, kept going on about "plastics, la".

My tolerance went, so I glassed him with my Chelsea tankard. True story.

Amyway, you get what I'm saying innit? He was convinced he was right, even when I'd showed him fact. His faith versus my scientific theory.

Basically what I'm saying is be thankful Woppit aint cut ya with his laminated copy of "The God Delusion".

so if everybody agrees that the "perversion of religion" and killing in the name of <insert deity here> and all the other crap that goes with badmen+religion is A Bad Thing, can't we just remove anyone of religion from positions of power? First stipulation of polictics (and sovereignity) no religious types of any sort, you sort out the eternal (or not) souls of your followers let those members of society with a more earth bound/mortal world frame of mind run the place, they've got more of an incentive to get it right.

<edit> I'm not saying the above plan would instantly lead to world peace and harmony but atleast it that would be one less (all too easy to grasp) rod to beat all the non-atheists with. Plus I'd appreciate a little more honesty from war mongerers and evil villains. "I'm blowing up innocent men women and children for giggles coz I'm a sick twisted individual" is much better than "god told me to" IMO

It's important to draw a line between modern religion and some of the more "undecidable" things such as the beginning of the universe: religion provides some people with an "answer" and if they're happy with that, well, it's none of my - or anyone else's business.

Here's the line:
___________________________________________________________

Consider my previous post about atrocities committed in the name of religion. These are the result of personal viewpoints and ARE my business.

The idea that god (yes, lower case "g") is watching over you and loves you is so incredibly far-fetched as to be laughable. That you wouldn't be a moral person without the threat of god punishing you, or the idea that god instilled your moral compass is reprehensible. That you even think you matter at all in a world with seven billion people in a universe 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles wide is arrogant in the extreme.

Don't you feel slightly sick that you're expected to spend your life worshipping something? That you're asked to call him (always a him...) your "Lord"? To bow down in front of him? Doesn't that sound wrong to you?

Richard Dawkins proposed that we have a sort of genetic "belief chip" in our brains that serves to make us pre-disposed to following orders and not questioning authority. I think your chip is either off or on, and if it's on, no amount of counter-arguments will swing the case. No doubt even the religious on here will (without the slightest hint of irony) have attempted to argue against someone who believes in crystal healing or psychic reading, and hit the same brick wall.

You're actually fighting against millions of years of evolution, a conclusion I quite like... 🙂

DONK
Have a serious look at the history of the last hundred years.
In most of the wars the agressor has been motivated by the capture of resources, or the strategic capture of land to allow further capture of resources.
Usually the invaded peoples will rally around the strongest link between themselves: be it common ancestry, nationality, political or religous beliefs.

In this country, there is a legitimate way to remove people you do not agree with from power. Vote.
And there is a saying, "In every democracy , the people get the government they deserve." (Tocqueville)

We may be safer if we worried more about the production and sale of weapons by the arms manufacturors than imaginary beating rods for use during civilised debate.

LOL @this thread.

No doubt even the religious on here will (without the slightest hint of irony) have attempted to argue against someone who believes in crystal healing or psychic reading, and hit the same brick wall.

Often the crystal healing folks will argue a scientific basis for their beliefs, religious folks don't claim the same and accept that it is a 'belief'.

Of course the other irony is that folks who claim to only to only believe in things for which there is evidence will only engage with the evidence which is aligned with their beliefs anyway. Hence those who claim they would believe in god if there was evidence also refuse to believe in psychic reading/ESP/telepathy, call it what you will.

Often the crystal healing folks will argue a scientific basis for their beliefs,

Actually, they'll argue a [i]pseudo-scientific[/i] basis for their beliefs. Not actual science...

We may be safer if we worried more about the production and sale of weapons by the arms manufacturors...

<edit> and nobody I ever voted for got in so don't be blaming me 🙂

Actually, they'll argue a pseudo-scientific basis for their beliefs. Not actual science.

close enough, but they don't accept that it is based on faith and belief

Often the crystal healing folks will argue a scientific basis for their beliefs, religious folks don't claim the same and accept that it is a 'belief'.

Sadly not all of them do.

Going back to the FSM/Kansas Creationism debate: Kathy Martin, board member on the Kansas Board of Education, said [url= http://reason.com/archives/2005/05/25/unintelligent-design ]"Evolution has been proven false. ID (Intelligent Design) is science-based and strong in facts"[/url]. 😯

those who claim they would believe in god if there was evidence also refuse to believe in psychic reading/ESP/telepathy, call it what you will.

Might that be because the credible "evidence" for psychic reading/ESP/telepathy is likewise non-existent and practitioners of these "abilities" refuse to take part in any true scientific trial?

Hence those who claim they would believe in god if there was evidence also refuse to believe in psychic reading/ESP/telepathy,

Evidence isn't a binary condition. Just because people come to a different conclusion to yourself doesn't mean they are not coming to an evidence based conclusion.

Might that be because the credible "evidence" for psychic reading/ESP/telepathy is likewise non-existent and practitioners of these "abilities" refuse to take part in any true scientific trial

Nevertheless, if there were credible evidence from a credible source, you would be unlikely to listen to it and would still refuse to believe it, preferring to stay with your own pre-conceived notions

Evidence isn't a binary condition. Just because people come to a different conclusion to yourself doesn't mean they are not coming to an evidence based conclusion

I agree with you but i'm not sure what your point is.

Nevertheless, if there were credible evidence from a credible, you would be unlikely to listen to it and would still refuse to believe it, preferring to stay with your own pre-conceived notions

Except I started off as a Christian, with Christian parents, it was the total lack of any evidence that made me start asking questions for myself. That was when I was eight.

Nevertheless, if there were credible evidence from a credible source, you would be unlikely to listen to it and would still refuse to believe it, preferring to stay with your own pre-conceived notions

Nonsense! If [u]credible peer-reviewed repeatable independently verifiable evidence[/u] was produced of psychics, ESP, telepathy (or of the gods, spirits, faeries or wizards) then I would be very interested and my world view would be drastically altered.

But so far such evidence is strangely absent.

The idea that god (yes, lower case "g") is watching over you and loves you is so incredibly far-fetched as to be laughable.

Just interested, other than not having a belief in God, why is that more laughable and far-fetched than any other Christian belief?

That you even think you matter at all in a world with seven billion people in a universe 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles wide is arrogant in the extreme.

Again, the whole Christian faith is based around the fact that to be perfectly honest I don't matter any more to God than the 30 other people in my office, or the millions of people in the UK or the billions of people in the world. God doesn't need us, but shows His love to each person anyway.

That you wouldn't be a moral person without the threat of god punishing you, or the idea that god instilled your moral compass is reprehensible.

This is one of the more difficult points and I'll say now that I probably won't give a very good explanation of my thoughts - but will try anyway...

The beliefs of those who are not part of a religion (again, will focus on Christianity here) is that humans evolved in the same way as any other creature on earth. Looking into the animal kingdom, you see lots of 'human traits' although in different ways - for example animals build shelters, they use tools, they communicate, they show emotion etc. OK, humans have taken these to a more advanced level, but they are still there.

One thing that you do not find in the animal kingdom is any form of knowledge or reaction to 'good and evil'. Animals do not have morals. To quote Eddie Izzard, there is no such thing as an Evil Giraffe. In the animal world it is kill or be killed. There is murder (see dolphins attacking porpoises for no reason at all), there is genocide, there is theft etc but no other animal will really care about that.

So apparently humans have evolved in exactly the same way as other animals, albeit to maybe a more advanced level, but in the billions of years of evolution not ONE single other species has evolved to develop morals? To be honest as a scientific type I find that far harder to believe than I do to believe in God.

can't we just remove anyone of religion from positions of power? First stipulation of polictics (and sovereignity) no religious types of any sort

create a big easy to read them/us divide, paint the valid targets and get the go ahead for atrocities

Its already happening.

no other animal will really care about that

You watch different nature documentaries to me then!

You watch different nature documentaries to me then!

OK, poorly worded by me again. What I meant was that, take for example the cases where Dolphins have been found to chase and kill Porpoises for basically no other reason than the fun of it, you won't find one of the Dolphin pack (school? shoal?...whatever the collective noun for dolphins is!) trying to stop the other Dolphins from attacking the Porpoise because they think it is wrong.

Or you won't have a couple of Lions staging a protest at the inhumane treatment of Gazelles. Or a group of penguins holding a trial for one of their group who stole some nest material from another penguin (notice on Frozen Planet when that happened there were other penguins there watching but none intervened).

Ok, they may be some extreme examples, but hopefully that makes my point a wee bit clearer....possibly...

speed12: okay, animal protest groups are pretty thin on the ground and you don't see many vegetarian lions, but these are the kinds of "morals" that show up when you have the luxury of choice.

Plus you have to be careful with anthropomorphism and expecting recognisably human displays of emotion/morals in animals.
Just because you can't see a dolphin cry doesn't mean it isn't "sad".

That said, plenty of animals, particularly higher level mammals, do show what appear to be human-like emotions, such as humour or grief, which extend beyond the requirements of basic survival. Are those not the basis of morals?

Here's a nice news story about an orangutan rescuing a drowning bird:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8569564/Orangutan-saves-drowning-chick.html

There may not be Evil Giraffes, but are there Good Apes?

That argument is bull.

Millions of athiests/humanists try and live decent lives without the need for god.

Millions of christians try and live decent lives partly because they are good people and partly because their book tells them to fear god.

Who is being moral here?

There may not be Evil Giraffes

...yet, but give it a few million more years of evolution and who knows 😈

As an interesting note (well, I think it is anyway 🙂 ) :

According to The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2011 5,711,411,650 people in the world are part of one of the worlds major religions.

That leaves about 1.3 billion who I assume are atheist/agnostic/undecided/other - that's about 19%

So either 81% of us are utterly wasting our time and energy by having faith/belief in a god, or the other 19% are ignoring something very significant

Is it reasonable to suggest that 81% of people are wrong in believing there is something more to life than just muddling along for 80 years with no real purpose, and that death is the end?

If faith/religion is based on nothing, would it really have survived and kept on growing for thousands of generations?

If there was no such thing as god, then why does faith/religion even exist?

It has always intrigued me when I read stories of when newly discovered Amazonian tribes with no previuous contact with the outside world were discovered to have a belief system or gods that they revere.

Could it be that the human spirit has an inate knowledge that there is a god?

Just some thoughts, without getting all preachy about my Christian faith...

i'm quite curious to know whether you theists research other religions, you obviously believe in god so do you have a look about to see what the best way of worshipping him is. my experience of christians has always been a blinkered view, they worship in a certain way, their parents worship ina certain way, nothing more necesary. and yes i know there will be examples that this doesn't apply to, but i think the standard applies.

Is it reasonable to suggest that 81% of people are wrong in believing there is something more to life than just muddling along for 80 years with no real purpose, and that death is the end?

No, it's not really reasonable at all. Not having belief in god does not equate to thinking life has no real purpose.

but in the billions of years of evolution not ONE single other species has evolved to develop morals?

Of course they don't 'have' morals. The idea of morals is a human construct so can only be had by something we give it too, this doesn't mean they can not or do not act morally.

Is it reasonable to suggest that 81% of people are wrong in believing there is something more to life than just muddling along for 80 years with no real purpose, and that death is the end?

Of those 81% how many believe in the same god?

It may be perfectly logical to believe there is a god, yet those 81% could still have it wrong (i.e. the wrong god).

That argument is bull.

Millions of athiests/humanists try and live decent lives without the need for god.

Millions of christians try and live decent lives partly because they are good people and partly because their book tells them to fear god.

Who is being moral here?

Nope, absolutely correct and I apologise if my wording made it sound like I was saying only Christians etc were moral. I know plenty of non-Christians who are absolutely amazing in what they give to society, how they treat others etc and who eclipse me and a lot of Christians I know by quite a long way. As mentioned in a previous post, Christianity is not in itself about doing 'good things' or trying to be better than anyone else. It is actually almost the complete opposite where the basis of the Christian faith is that there is NOTHING we can do to make ourselves better in Gods eyes.

What I meant by my post just above was that humans in general have morals whereas animals do not. And GrahamS, your points totally make sense and your correct I am putting human displays of morals into animals - they could well have but personally I have yet to see any evidence. Thanks for that link though, will have a read of it.

Is it reasonable to suggest that 81% of people are wrong in believing there is something more to life than just muddling along for 80 years with no real purpose, and that death is the end?

No, it's not really reasonable at all. Not having belief in god does not equate to thinking life has no real purpose.

I meant that we have (are given) a specific purpose and reason for living by god, not that we create/find our own purpose simply because we've evolved so therefore may as well make the best of it whilst we're alive.

And to my mind, if there's a purpose in life then there must be a purpose in/after death, otherwise all those years of purpose are for what?

If there was no such thing as god, then why does faith/religion even exist?

As an instrument of control, of course. If you want to have power, you have to make yourself unchallenged. So you take all the basic laws of civilised society (don't kill each other, don't steal each other's food etc) and you call it God's Word. You point out that you've been appointed by God, and that therefore you're the absolute source of power on earth.

Well done. You've just created a new religion.

Forget about Keyser Soze; the greatest trick that the ruling class ever pulled was convincing the world that God existed.

What I meant by my post just above was that humans in general have morals whereas animals do not. And GrahamS, your points totally make sense and your correct I am putting human displays of morals into animals - they could well have but personally I have yet to see any evidence

For example my dog knows when you are sad and will try and cheer you up, often she comes and rest her head on your knee. This is a basic form of empathy, no? It is surely from this that morals have come to be.

There have been several studies that have shown chimps acting on behalf of others, so this is the next stage of empathy being turned into morals. There is a very good New Scientist article on this - dont have it too hand so here is one from the [url= http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=all ]nytimes[/url]

Sorry joao3v16 but yes, it is quite reasonable to expect that 81% are wrong.

And yes, of course belief in gods is pretty natural. Trying to understand cause and effect is a fundamental life skill.

Every mundane earthly experience has a fairly obvious cause. So when we see something less mundane / more spectacular then it is only natural to wonder on the cause.

Great rumblings and something in the sky casting down fiery electric bolts [i]must[/i] mean that something huge that lives in the sky is angry at us.

Mountain opening up and destroying everything with fire, acid and burning rock [i]must[/i] mean that something evil lives below us.

That doesn't mean it is true.

we have (are given) a specific purpose and reason for living by god

And that is what exactly? What is your specific purpose for being? Not having a dig, I'm genuinely curious.

if there's a purpose in life then there must be a purpose in/after death, otherwise all those years of purpose are for what?

Again, I really don't see the reasoning behind this statement/question. What is wrong with things coming to an end? It doesn't make what precedes that end any less relevant or without purpose. This is the bit I really REALLY struggle to understand.

there is something more to life than just muddling along for 80 years with no real purpose, and that death is the end

As I said ooooh about 800 posts ago: [i]"atheism is actually a very lonely and difficult path. You are always one step from the depressing pit of existential nihilism."[/i]

Dying is a bit of a bummer. That doesn't mean I should believe we don't really die just to make myself feel better.

Contemplating that your life and probably your entire planet is essentially meaningless in the context of the universe can likewise be a bit of a bummer. But that doesn't mean I need to invent a meaning.

[i]Nevertheless, if there were credible evidence from a credible source, you would be unlikely to listen to it and would still refuse to believe it, preferring to stay with your own pre-conceived notions[/i]

Nonsense! If credible peer-reviewed repeatable independently verifiable evidence was produced of psychics, ESP, telepathy (or of the gods, spirits, faeries or wizards) then I would be very interested and my world view would be drastically altered.

But so far such evidence is strangely absent.

I'm glad you said that....

Read this
http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html

or watch this

http://videolectures.net/icots2010_utts_awab/

Jessica Utts is a statistics professor at the University of California, Irvine

nudge

"Why are you atheists so angry?"
Perhaps it would be more pertinent to ask "Why is this thread still going?". The bottom line is nobody can prove that God does or doesnt exist. You can use whatever statistics or theological arguments to prove or disprove the likelihood or otherwise of it, but it all comes down, at the end of the day, to what you choose to believe. Threads such as this seem to be more about winning an argument, about one side wanting to impose their views on the other. How about this for a less abstract concept - go out and ride bikes / have sex with your partners / treat one another excellently and generally get on with your lives - you never know, you might actually enjoy it.

jessica utts does not fall into these categories

credible peer-reviewed repeatable independently verifiable evidence

mitch, you're posting on a thread you're not interested in. what does that mean, are you trying to save us?

"Why is this thread still going?".

Because the atheists are so angry

jessica utts does not fall into these categories

credible peer-reviewed repeatable independently verifiable evidence

Seriously? I mean really? Why not?

Chair, Committee of Presidents of Statistical Societies (COPSS)
Past Chair, Section on Statistical Education, American Statistical Association

Member, Board of Directors, Parapsychological Association
Chair of the Board, Consortium for the Advancement of Undergraduate Statistics Education (CAUSE)

Vice-Chair of the Board, National Institute of Statistical Sciences (NISS)

These are pretty reputable palmares

chutney - it's not that I'm not interested, just not eleven hundred posts of interested. And you're beyond saving, you terrible man. 😀

i'm quite curious to know whether you theists research other religions, you obviously believe in god so do you have a look about to see what the best way of worshipping him is. my experience of christians has always been a blinkered view, they worship in a certain way, their parents worship ina certain way, nothing more necesary. and yes i know there will be examples that this doesn't apply to, but i think the standard applies.

I think this is very important actually. The whole aspect of having a belief is that you have weighed up the evidence and information around you and have chosen to believe in what, to you, seems the most likely choice. I won't claim to have an in depth knowledge of other religions but I have certainly learnt the core beliefs of the major religions to see how they weigh up to Christianity. Taking the example of children following how there parents worship, I think this is where it is most important. For example, I grew up in a Christian family and considered myself to be a Christian. Then I went to Uni and became detached from the church/Christianity. Near the end of my time at Uni when I gave my life back to Christ it was then coming from a place where I had seen a different way of living and realised that, for me, having a life embedded in Christ was the way forward.

This is why healthy discussion (which for the last few pages this has been very good I think) between religions (and including Atheism in this) and real knowledge of what each other believe is very important - just going on blind faith is a little stupid in my estimation.

Okay Charlie, lovely stuff. And here is some peer review to Professor Utts paper:

"Professor Jessica Utts and I were given the task of evaluating the program on "Anomalous Mental Phenomena" carried out at SRI...

Professor Utts concludes that "psychic functioning has been well established." She bases this conclusion on three other claims...

...in this report, I will raise questions about her major conclusion and the three supporting claims...

Obviously, I do not believe that the contemporary findings of parapsychology, including those from the SRI/SAIC program, justify concluding that anomalous mental phenomena have been proven. Professor Utts and some parapsychologists believe otherwise."

-- [url= http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/hyman.html ]Evaluation of Program on Anomalous Mental Phenomena, Ray Hyman[/url]

Clearly still plenty to be done in that field before you can say there is evidence that meets the criteria I stated.

you haven't watched it or read it have you?

http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/943

Two-thirds of young people and half of the population as a whole do not belong to any particular religion, and the steady decline in religiosity in the UK is set to continue, the 28th report of the British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey has found.

appeared on my newsfeed just now...

Ah mr consequence ... I dont want to appear judgemental, but you're against God, against nature, and you will burn. HTH. 😆

erm, peer review, where?
independent verification, where?
i mean really, where??? Seriously.

what does Hyman have to say about jessica utts?

Hyman's report stated that Utts' conclusion that ESP had been proven to exist, "especially precognition, is premature and that present findings have yet to be independently replicated".

he's not necesary right, but it is a directly opposing view, are you going to offer evidence of why she is more right than him, Stargate didn't think so, hence no more funding.

This is why healthy discussion (which for the last few pages this has been very good I think) between religions (and including Atheism in this) and real knowledge of what each other believe is very important - just going on blind faith is a little stupid in my estimation.

liking speed12's work

Could it be that the human spirit has an inate knowledge that there is a god?

81% of the population wrong, can quite easily happen, see Grahams maths thread.

Clearly still plenty to be done in that field before you can say there is evidence that meets the criteria I stated.

I'm not saying there is proof, there never is, but there is credible evidence from a credible source, and you are refusing to engage with it.

Thanks

what does Hyman have to say about jessica utts?

What does Utts say about Hyman?

Not looked because you don't want to engage?

but there is credible evidence from a credible source, and you are refusing to engage with it.

What do you mean by engage with? That you personally find this evidence credible or compelling is not sufficient reason for anyone else to come to the same conclusion.

erm, peer review, where?

at ICOTS-8, at least.

independent verification, where?

i mean really, where??? Seriously

No, you're not really serious are you.

why are you inserting the word credible? it does not belong there. evidence doesn't have to be credible. can atheists blaspheme?

and can there never be proof? ever?

just because the study was presented at icot-s does not mean it is verified. vicars state god exists in all sorts of buildings, and guess what, i don't believe them.

you haven't watched it or read it have you?

I read enough of both papers to see that it clearly failed my requirement for consensus through peer review.

You're quite correct that I didn't get into verifying the maths or methodology or following the citations.

I realise you will use this to say I'm closed-minded, but honestly I do have my own work to do 😀

but there is credible evidence from a credible source, and you are refusing to engage with it.

[i]What do you mean by engage with? That you personally find this evidence credible or compelling is not sufficient reason for anyone else to come to the same conclusion.[/i]

Not just me, the board and the delegates of the International Conference on the Teaching of Statistics. But I'm sure you think you are better placed to judege.

By engage with it I mean look further instead of dismissing it.

I read enough of both papers to see that it clearly failed my requirement for consensus through peer review.

You're quite correct that I didn't get into verifying the maths or methodology or following the citations.

I realise you will use this to say I'm closed-minded, but honestly I do have my own work to do

Thus proving my point.

I read enough of both papers to see that it clearly failed my requirement for consensus through peer review.

You're quite correct that I didn't get into verifying the maths or methodology or following the citations.

I realise you will use this to say I'm closed-minded, but honestly I do have my own work to do

Thus proving my point.

loum - Member
>can't we just remove anyone of religion from positions of power? First stipulation of polictics (and sovereignity) no religious types of any sort

Its already happening.

sorry i forgot to use the word seriously or engage.

so "seriously, engage":

she says hyman's incorrect too, what's your point? we're after peer review not he said that, she said this.

Not just me, the board and the delegates of the International Conference on the Teaching of Statistics. But I'm sure you think you are better placed to judege.

By engage with it I mean look further instead of dismissing it.

What do you mean by look further? You have already decided that I'm not competent to assess the validity of the statistics, so what further examination do you suggest?

Are you suggesting that anyone who "engages" with this research and doesn't conclude that ESP exists is closed minded, because that seems an absurd view to take.

Thus proving my point.

I said I would be interested in "credible peer-reviewed repeatable independently verifiable evidence".

You have shown me evidence that doesn't meet that criteria then criticised me for "not engaging with it".

I am unsure how your point is proved. 😕

By engage with it I mean look further instead of dismissing it.

Sadly I am not a professor of statistics, or psychology, or a clinical trial specialist or an expert on parapsychology.

And I don't have the time to become those things so I can perform my own independent review. I am reliant on others to do this. That is the nature of peer review.

The best I can do in a limited time is look at the peer review and see if there is any consensus.

I assume by your tone that you [i]have[/i] "engaged" with this research and you have objectively examined the trial data, confirmed the statistical analysis, read the citations (and their citations), done the same for all the peer reviews and then concluded that Prof Utts is correct?

IF so, well done, and did you get your paper published?

Not just me, the board and the delegates of the International Conference on the Teaching of Statistics. But I'm sure you think you are better placed to judege.

I skimmed through her ICOTS8 presentation.

Two things:

Firstly, the thrust of her presentation is NOT to prove ESP, it is to show that beliefs can effect how statistical evidence is received. (turns out people are skeptical of things that contradict previously held beliefs. Who'da thunkit?)

Secondly, I must have missed the bit where the delegates of ICOTS said [i]"Well done, we've looked at your evidence and we're all completely convinced that ESP/remote viewing is real."[/i] - so I'm not sure how you can cite them as a peer review?

cameron CoE
obama christian
berlosconi catholic
merkel protestant
pretty sure our own queen and the head of vatican city state have some religious views too.

Firstly, the thrust of her presentation is NOT to prove ESP, it is to show that beliefs can effect how statistical evidence is received. (turns out people are skeptical of things that contradict previously held beliefs. Who'da thunkit?)

Secondly, I must have missed the bit where the delegates of ICOTS said "Well done, we've looked at your evidence and we're all completely convinced that ESP/remote viewing is real."

No, but that's not what was asked for, she presented a paper with evidence, through a meta study, at a peer-reviewed conference

So, yes it was peer-reviwed

I said I would be interested in "credible peer-reviewed repeatable independently verifiable evidence".

You have shown me evidence that doesn't meet that criteria then criticised me for "not engaging with it".

I am unsure how your point is proved

Because it is peer-reviwed, it is credible. It is a meta-study so, independently verifiable is more difficult, but then again the same could be applied to just about all of the social sciences. So in terms of scientific rigour, it's about as good as it gets.

incidentally, when you say you read both papers, which two do you mean?

Furthermore the original paper was published in the same journal as the Hyman piece and so was peer-reviewed there.

My point is proved by the way you keep looking for reasons to dismiss the research rather then looking a bit further to see if it has any substance.

They're not the sort of people most would refer to as "religious types" though (apart from the bloke at the Vatican, but any power he wields is nothing to do with being a head of state). Do you really think Cameron or Berlosconi base their policies and actions on being a Christian?

And I don't have the time to become those things so I can perform my own independent review. I am reliant on others to do this. That is the nature of peer review.

That's fine but the paper has passed peer-review, in a few versions a number of times

The best I can do in a limited time is look at the peer review and see if there is any consensus.

I assume by your tone that you have "engaged" with this research and you have objectively examined the trial data, confirmed the statistical analysis

, read the citations (and their citations), done the same for all the peer reviews and then concluded that Prof Utts is correct?

No, I have concluded that she has some quite compelling evidence, such that it is not to be dismissed

IF so, well done, and did you get your paper published?

You can't get published just by saying someone else is right!

The point was that in spite of evidence to support ESP, folks still choose to stick to their beliefs

The more general point was that it attempted to measure how peoples existing beliefs could influence their ability to objectively interpret data.

I'm quite happy with that part.

No, but that's not what was asked for, she presented a paper with evidence, through a meta study, at a peer-reviewed conference

So, yes it was peer-reviwed

Okay now you're just being silly.

When I say I want a "peer-reviewed paper" I mean I want one where peers have reviewed it by examining its contents, critiquing the methodology, data, references etc then produced their own papers/reports in support of it, ideally by repeating or expanding on the data, analysis or experiments.

Simply presenting a paper at conference is not peer-review.

Making a presentation about a [i]completely different topic[/i] at a conference and just using your paper to illustrate it, is [u]definitely[/u] not peer-review.

Because it is peer-reviwed, it is credible.

So far I have seen one peer-review, Prof Hyman's, and it is highly critical of the credibility.

she says hyman's incorrect too, what's your point? we're after peer review not he said that, she said this.

Why do you not accept that the fact of publication and presentation shows that it was peer-reviewed?

> you have objectively examined the trial data, confirmed the statistical analysis

Yes I have

Aaah but her own presentation says that you can't possibly objectively examine the trial data and stats because of your existing beliefs 😀

Do you really think Cameron or Berlosconi base their policies and actions on being a Christian?

You just don't know by looking at them do you?

"Because it is peer-reviwed, it is credible...about as good as it gets"

SERIOUSLY???? 😆

sorry just noticed your next post, it was published and presented so it must be true. you're funny.