Mind-Bending Esoterica

 Open Letter to Spiritual Person Regarding Belief in Supernatural

based on several posts on Facebook to my Wall. 

First,  this subject matter does not lend itself to a sound-byte. That's why science is often wrongly interpreted as unable to respond to wild claims from believers in the supernatural. Complicated things require complicated explanations. 

Second, this content is not directed at you, CMorte, exclusively. I will be speaking both toward your comments, and toward the spiritual community at large.

Third, yes I was a little harsh.  I will try to keep my anger at bay long enough to explain why I react that way....this is where Political Correctness and progress intersect (if not with a simple fender-bender, then certainly with an eardrum-splitting crash). Political Correctness has discouraged us, as a society, from speaking the truth, for fear it might damage someone's fragile sensibilities.  Progress should never be impeded by a need to coddle adults who respond to the world as children. 

This leads to other things, the least of which is redefining the meaning of words, so that no one can communicate clearly anymore. 

I am working on my own book as well, (Supernatural Hypocrisy: The Cognitive Dissonance of a God Cosmology) and the more I have researched and learned THE FACTS, the more I have moved toward a certain intensity about how damaging and ridiculous this subject is. So yes, I get intense, because this type of worldview has caused and is causing great suffering and peril and death to us all. It's causing a great number of otherwise intelligent people to cling to a collection of atavistic concepts that have not, and never will serve humanity in any ultimately beneficial way. Any benefits that spirituality ostensibly provides to its adherents, can be found equally in the  worldview of philosophy and ethics, communities of other kinds, and so on. It's a myth that the only morality, hope, purpose and comfort to be found, resides only in the supernatural. And this supernatural belief paradigm endangers ME and those I love, and humanity in general. 

So yes, I take it personally, though not so long ago, I didn't. I thought "live and let live"--as long as it didn't infringe on my pursuit of happiness or my rights or my freedoms or my safety. Now, I take it personally, because it has been personalized and all those privately individual aspects are under siege. Now it DOES infringe on my pursuit of happiness, my freedoms and rights, and my safety. Now, we are seeing the results of people believing in the supernatural, and WANTING or NEEDING to believe in it, coupled with a technological society that allows them to act on it in a global way. It leads to the corruption of scientific principals, the twisting of facts to suit a more comfortable set of ideas in the believer. And that affects us ALL. 

But I guess Christians are the only ones allowed righteous anger; because they are the bedrock of belief in this country. All other beliefs seem to just spring from there. How often in the last decade, have Christians backed off the dogma and simply adopted the tenets that they liked best, dropping the rest? How often do we hear "I'm spiritual, but not religious"? This indicates not only that morality and goodness is inherent in people regardless of the presence of religion, but also the often lethargic evolution of a realization; a concept no longer making sense. It's  a rare individual who denies a prevailing and sanctioned lie with the severity of a guillotine. Mostly, the denial comes in incremental steps away from the doctrine, when a human brain is niggled constantly by cognitive dissonance. Thus, "spirituality" is one of those steps. It's still a belief in supernatural, just without the main supernatural component of a supreme deity at the helm.

 You said,

i am at a stand-still in my research because I am convinced now that we have the power within our minds to recreate a haunting based on our beliefs. i refuse to say that nothing or everything can be debunked but that if we believe we are being haunted evidence will back it up simply because the power of our minds is so powerful it can manifest our beliefs on film."

Yes i do have a strong mind. Not the point here. I asked for proof. You don't seem to have any. You just have assertions.

"the proof lies in the research of Dr. Bohm and his colleuges. they believed so strongly in the holographic universe theory that it seems to explain alot of our mind's capabilities"

If you're referring to Dr. David Bohm, the physicist--he interpreted quantum mechanics in his own way, but his theory of holographic universe was overall rejected, since his premises required connections that are subliminal and which violate the principles of special relativity. There is no real evidence of his theory, nor of the subquantum forces he includes in his postulate. If there ever is any evidence to support his claims, then science will find it, test it and it will then be accepted if proven to a high degree of certainty. Until then, it is not to be considered "proof" in the true definiation of the word.

But notice that Bohm was well known to be gullible and to entertain esoteric ideas with no basis in fact. Bohm carried a key around with him he believed Uri Geller bent, as if it were a holy relic. We now know exactly how this key-bending was done. Michael Shermer even demonstrated it on a video. So while Bohm might have been a brilliant mind, it didn't preclude him having some erroneous, illogical, and delusional ideas about other things, which again, were never proven to have any veracity whatsoever.

CMorte: "Paranormal is anything that can not be explained by science. parapsychology is anything that our minds have created that can not be cured by medication - my definitions"

Jae Baeli:"I am aware of the definitions of these words."

There are many things that haven't yet been explained by science, but they do not fall into the category of paranormal. Also, to say "anything our minds have created" is to give the subject a wide field. There are also many things our minds create that aren't explained fully, yet don't require medication. This type of vagueness is also a component of the communication problem between rationalists and spiritualists.

CMorte: "I was being a smart ass bout meds. In this realm nobody is an expert. As far as im concerned nobody knows anything"

Jae Baeli: "there are quite a few people who know quite a few things. I find that statement absurd....especially since you seem to be so convinced of your own beliefs...so which is it? you believe in everything? nothing? only in what YOU believe, but not in anything else? the tooth fairy? Leprechauns?"

CMorte: "scientifically none of that is proven but i like to lend credit to the believers. when some people believe so hard in something it is true to them. miracles happen or whatever that motivate them to believe harder. i think (and i'm not telling anybody else what to think) anything is possible...by nobody knows anything i was talking about the paranormal. i figured as a skeptic you would agree. i just got off work and was catching up and saw all this. i am sorry really i am. i didn't expect you to take it so personally. i just posted it on your wall because i didn't want to send it in a message."

Why do you "like to lend credit to the believers?" Why is that your goal? What purpose does that serve in your estimation? What you describe is a manifestation of delusion, created in the minds of those who are susceptible to magical ideas. The end result is that they "believe harder" and I contend this is a negative, not a positive, because it entrenches them even more deeply into delusion and denial, and perpetuates the deification of falsehood, and the dismissal of truth.

As a skeptic, I don't accept as fact things unproven--that much is true. That doesn't mean I don't believe in anything. I believe in quite a few things. Like education, honesty, self-awareness, truth, self-responsibility, friendship, love, learning, ethics, separation of church and state, etc....These beliefs don't affect my ability to recognize facts and truth. And they do not reportedly determine the fate of my soul, or exist under threat of suffering if i don't choose to embrace them. They are concepts that inform the quality of my daily life and my interactions with others. I have imposed a subjective value on these things, for those reasons. This is nothing like the tenets of faith and belief in supernatural, as these ideas are attached to the concepts of guilt, fear, suffering and death, springing, as they did, from monotheistic belief systems. So it follows that supernatural belief systems are insidious in their ability to usurp the thinking mind, and instead draw on the primitive reactions of the amygdala, where reason cannot get a foothold.

So when you say you are a skeptic, CMorte,  I have to point out that the data seems to indicate otherwise. You say you "don't believe in anything"--but that's not any truer for you than it is for me, as I pointed out above. This statement is contradicted by the things you write. And you are even writing a monstrous book about guiding people on "the other side"!! That implicitly states a belief in souls, afterlife, and all things supernatural (it also assumes facts not in evidence, which is YOUR BELIEF in something). When you speak of demons and goddesses and anything else supernatural, and you frame it in a context of having experienced phenomena like this, then you BELIEVE IT. The fact that you have labeled these things, means you think you know what the experiences actually were, and thus, they are real to you. This, while admitting to drug use during at least some of those experiences. It's easy to see why you would count those experiences as "real"--you were under the influence of something as strong as your own wishes and needs, namely, a drug. 

The significance of this becomes clear. It's not Astrophysics. We know that the drug katamine can induce a Near Death Experience in the brain, too. We also know that electrical impulses in the brain, when pinpointed and excited manually by a surgeon, can also produce other experiences of that sort. That doesn't mean it "happened" objectively, it only happened subjectively. This is not, however, indicative of truth. When people say "It's true because i saw it" or "It's real because I felt it" or "I know it in my heart"--they are misusing the terminology of true/real/know. True and meaningful are not the same in this context; nor is Knowing and believing. But the spiritual folks among us continue to try to blur the line, and combine belief with fact. It can't be done, unless you change the defintions.

Additionally, when you announce you have no beliefs, I wonder why that seems a badge of honor to you?  "no belief" would include love, honesty, ethics, conservation, charity, alternative fuels, voting, kindness, equal rights, etc--the word "anything" in this context is all inclusive, just like the word "nothing" which is "no thing." Believing "in nothing" doesn't make you an atheist. NOT believing in supernatural beings and realms is what makes you an atheist. You are not, by definition, an atheist. Semantics is an important issue, here. I can say that I believe in UFO's and

this would be a true statement because I know that UFO is an abbreviation for Unidentified Flying Object, and yes, there have been instances when an object was flying and it could not be identified. That doesn't mean I believe that they are spaceships, piloted by extraterrestrials. And it doesn't speak to my opinion on whether or not that might be possible. These are more examples of logical fallacy, and the variables inside these arguments are the catalyst for misunderstanding. Thus, you must understand what you are saying, and you must use the same dictionary everyone else has agreed to use. That's what a standardized dictionary is for.

Additionally, saying that you don't believe in anything means you can't make a logical decision based on facts; and that ought not be referenced as a source of pride, in my opinion. Then, in a heel-spin of contradiction, you speak of things as if they are true, when they are not. So perhaps you're not communicating yourself accurately. Is that it?  Or do you merely deceive yourself by saying you don't believe in anything? I contend that you do believe in many things (as all humans do), and it comes through repeatedly in everything you talk about. I'm not sure what compels you to deny participation in the act of owning what you believe. It requires no courage to stand aside and say you don't believe in anything. That's not being open-minded, that's refusing to take responsibility for your own ability to make decisions. I find that stance intellectually dishonest.

My issue with it is that belief should be predicated on truth. So I don't use it in the same context as it is used colloquially and theologically. And yes I do get intense about it, because it's high time the logical and rational among us stop allowing Believers to make all the rules and get all the free passes, while systematically destroying everything that would save us, the planet and honor our own evolution as sentient beings. It's no longer innocuous to be spiritual or religious. It now bleeds over into the lives of EVERYONE. Unfounded beliefs keep children from learning the science that will allow them to understand how life and the universe really operates; unfounded beliefs map young minds into knots of hatred, superstition and fear rather than in acceptance, discernment and clarity; unfounded beliefs cause people to neglect proven medical care for themselves or their children; unfounded beliefs cause people to kill each other, start wars, commit acts of torture, genocide, infanticide, hate crimes, cause oppression, starvation,  child abuse, rape; unfounded beliefs incite groups to intend and plan

takeovers of our secular government; unfounded beliefs cause someone in power to put their finger on a red button that will annihilate life as we know it. 

Damn right I get intense. 

I have a right to live, and THEY don't have the right to take it from me. 

Now you might think you are not in this category, but I contend you are only a step away, because all it takes is the willingness to accept ideas without proof, which you have already demonstrated repeatedly. So I'm sorry if my intensity offends you. But I'm pretty weary of biting my lip about it. As Frantz Fanon said, "There comes a time when silence becomes dishonesty." I have no desire to be guilty of either.

You said, "i am not trying to be offensive. i am not trying to argue."  This is the way spiritual people weasel out of the fray. They deny any malice, and say they don't want to argue. The reason is, if they engage in a rational argument, their beliefs and postulates will be shown false and even sometimes absurd, and this is not something they are open to. 

Now, I have been accused of being single-minded in my recent full conversion to atheism. And further, been accused of hypocrisy on some level, because I cannot be persuaded to believe again. But the point to be had here, is that I WAS A BELIEVER. I  said all those same things, clung to all those same ideas, and defended them to others, just as believers do now to me. So I have been on the "other side" in that regard (pun intended) and made a logical decision to deny its veracity, based on the development of my intelligence, and the evidence and clarity of thought and reason. So implications of my stubborn single-mindedness are unfounded. I came to conclusions based on facts, and now honor my conclusions, since there have been no other facts or evidence to change them.

You said,

"in fact, I was posting something personal to me that was mainly just some ideas. wasn't trying to get everyone riled up. i was just speaking to you as a friend not as a scientist or an expert."

So, if you speak casually, in a friend-kind-of-way, this excludes the necessity for truth? or rational thinking? or clarity of belief? If you are merely ruminating innocently, why work so hard on a book that is quite copious and detailed regarding supernatural forces and conditions in a plane of existence no one has proof for, and even you yourself haven't experienced in reality? I think what you are really doing is back-peddling in the face of a rational argument.

"in this realm evidence is anything that happens consistantly and with documented evidence. alot of this eye/camera/orb stuff can only be based on the ghost documentary shows i saw on tv. not saying it is real but it is "believeable" to me. i can't physically show you or else it wouldn't be paranormal. some things are consistant with the research tho and that is electromagnetic energy that when charged from a source lights up. and seems to be consistant with a haunting and the frequency of our chakras. that is all i have as far as evidence. sorry to have let you down today."

You mention "evidence" so glibly, it's clear you  don't understand the meaning of the word as I mean it, which is as science sees it. When I  speak of evidence, I refer to empirical, not anecdotal. I refer to the use of scientific method with falsifiability and double-blind procedures at play; not a photograph that "seems" to indicate something magical or out of the ordinary. You mention the "Frequency of chakras"--yet, again, you use another unprovable item to prove your other unprovable item. Chakras are an IDEA that became a cultural meme, but have no basis in fact.  Adherents imbue the idea with some supposed authority beyond the realm of science, but this also places it beyond the realm of fact and thus, of truth. But try to get a believer to understand this, and you'll be at it for eons. The irony with this sort of thought-paradigm is that if you don't know how to think things through properly and logically, you are unaware that you don't know how to think things through properly and logically. That's why the arguments go on between the rational and the irrational--between atheists and spiritual/religious individuals. The problem can only be solved by educating as many people as possible in the skills of rational thought.

At the risk of this eons-long head-butting, I will point out that you have repeatedly utilized logical fallacy, and in fact, used almost all of the most common ones:

• Tautology, or circular reasoning (A=B because A=B).
• Special Pleading, AKA ad hoc reasoning, (arbitrarily adding new elements in an effort to repair their lack of validity)
• Non-sequiter, (implying a logical connection where none exists)
• Moving the Goalpost (A method of denial that moves the criteria out of range of the evidence)
• post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for after this, therefore because of this; assuming a cause and effect relationship of things simply because one thing came before another), 
• Inconsistency --Applying criteria or rules to one belief, claim, argument, or position but not to others).
• God of the Gaps (which is merely explaining something mysterious by plugging in a supernatural explanation);  
• Confusing association with causation, (similar to post-hoc, except it's when two things happen in proximity of time or location, and are assumed to be related).
• Argument from Personal Incredulity, (lack of personal understanding is interpreted to mean it cannot be true)
• Argument from Authority, (stating a claim is true because a person or group perceived as an authority says so)
• Argument from Ignorance (a statement must be true because we don't know it isn't true)

Understand that in all the 200,000 years that humans have been on the earth, not once has there been empirical evidence of supernatural claims. Never. Not even enough to serve in a court of law under the "beyond a reasonable doubt" edict. This fact must give us pause. If something were indeed true, in all those millennia, wouldn't we have some shred of proof for it?

But humans are relentless in their need to depend on the supernatural to find their value in this life. Matthew Alper, author of The God Part of the Brain: A Scientific Interpretation of Human Spirituality and God, approaches this subject head-on, in what seems to be an emerging understanding among scientific circles about why humans are so staunchly attached to the ideas of the supernatural:

"Essentially, what I'm suggesting is that humans are innately "hard-wired" to perceive a spiritual reality. We are "hard-wired" to believe in forces that transcend the limitations of this, our physical reality. Most controversial of all, if what I'm suggesting is true, it would imply that God is not necessarily something that exists "out there," beyond and independent of us, but rather as the product of an inherited perception, the manifestation of an evolutionary adaptation that exists within the human brain. And why would our species have evolved such a seemingly abstract trait? -In order to enable us to deal with our species' unique and otherwise debilitating awareness of death.

With the dawn of human intelligence, for the first time in the history of terrestrial life, an organism could point its powers of perception back upon its own being; it could recognize its own self as an object. For the first time, when an animal kneeled down to drink from the watering hole, it recognized its own reflection. Only humans possess the advanced capacity for self-awareness. Though, in many ways, this capacity has helped to make our species the most versatile and powerful creature on earth, it also represents the source of our greatest affliction. This is because once we became aware of the fact that we exist, we became equally aware of not just the possibility that one day we might not, but the certainty that one day we will not. With the advent of our species, with the emergence of self-conscious awareness, a life form became cognizant of the fact that it is going to die. All we had to do was to look around us to see that death was inevitable and inescapable. More terrifying yet, death could befall us at anytime. Any moment can be our last.

All life is "hard-wired" to avoid those things that represent a threat to its existence. When an animal gets too close to fire, for example, it reflexively pulls away. It is this negative stimulus, this experience we call pain, that prompts all forms of life to avoid such potential life threats. Pain, therefore, acts as nature's electric prod that incites us to avoid those things which may jeopardize our existence.

In the "higher" animals, most particularly among the mammals, threatening circumstances elicit a particular type of pain we refer to as anxiety. Anxiety constitutes a type of pain meant to prompt these "higher" order animals to avoid potentially hazardous circumstances. For example, a rabbit is cornered by a mountain lion. In such a situation, the rabbit is pumped with adrenaline, charged with the painful symptoms of anxiety, all meant to incite the rabbit to most effectively escape from the source of its discomfort, in this case the mountain lion. In its healthiest form, anxiety is meant to prompt an animal to avoid or escape a potentially hazardous experience. In humans, however, once we became aware of the fact that death was not only inescapable but that it could come at any moment, we were left in a state of constant mortal peril, a state of unceasing anxiety - much like rabbits perpetually cornered by a mountain lion from which there is no escape. With the emergence of self-awareness, humans became the dysfunctional animal, rendered helpless by an inherent and unceasing anxiety disorder. Unless nature could somehow relieve us of this debilitating awareness of death, it's possible our species might have soon become extinct. It was suddenly critical that our animal be modified in some way that would allow us to maintain self-conscious awareness, while enabling us to deal with our unique awareness of our own mortalities, of death.

Here lies the origin of humankind's spiritual function, an evolutionary adaptation that compels our species to believe that though our physical bodies will one day perish, our "spirits" or "souls" will persist for all eternity. Only once our species was instilled with this inherent (mis)perception that there is something more "out there," that we are immortal beings, were we able to survive our debilitating awareness of death."

And that is a compelling argument about why people believe in the supernatural, and why logic and reason seem so out of reach for those who desperately need something outside of themselves to give them courage or purpose or hope. It is my fervent desire, to see the swelling of ranks in those who find these things inside themselves, instead.

Mind-Bending Esoterica

Satan believes in God, therefore God exists

From Mothrust.com, the following delightful exchange.

Apparently I do believe in God, I just won't admit to it. One cocky seventeen year old fellow, Micah Sonatra, (Deven Hoffpauir, with his truly kitschy myspace) who I thought was a middle-aged lady, said that it was obvious God existed because even Lucifer believes in God - that was the crux of his argument. What the..! Stating that one imaginary character exists because another imaginary character believes it exists is like saying, "Of course Santa Clause is real, heck... even the tooth fairy knows that".
-------
---
-
Sonatra: You see, you have no case. This is your case and still you think you have a case. This isn't about wheter or not God exists. You know God exists.

Umm... no, but I think it absolutely amazing that you think you can tell people what they believe. No, I don't believe there is a god and you telling me that I do isn't going to change that. I don't believe there's a bogeyman under my bed.

Sonatra: The God you guys apparently don't believe in, yet still feel the need to mock - a God you believe doesn't exist

I can't speak for everybody else, but I think I'm mocking your beliefs and possibly you personally, not the imaginary friend you play with.

Sonatra: To see that no matter how much I care about monsters, I can't save them.

Ahhh, such a flatterer... you could love your enemies, or simply call them names.

Sonatra: and I will now take my leave. Take heed, for punishment draws near, wheter you belive in it or not. Just because you don't believe in a sword, doesn't mean it isn't there.

Are you really gonna leave? 'cause you said something like that about 12 posts ago when you said you aren't to throw your pearls to swine. My invisible pink unicorn keeps me safe from invisible swords, so I'll be fine I think. It really is cringey when Christians start talking in Ye Olde English.

Sonatra: Goodbye, I have said all that is required of me to say.

If any of those other little voices in your head tell you to do anything involving swords, knives or weaponry again, could you do your neighbours a favour and drive out into the desert immediately.



_______________________
from http://www.mothrust.com/2007/04/satan-believes-in-god-therefore-god.html

Satan believes in God, therefore God exists

The A.I. of Theists:

(Or, “Who’s the Pinhead, Now, O’Reilly?”)

[Excerpt from my book, Supernatural Hypocrisy: The Cognitive Dissonance of God Cosmology]

THE ARGUMENTS GIVEN BY many theists, especially those of the fundamentalist variety, can be referred to quite accurately as A.I.--Artificial Intelligence, AKA Arrogant Ignorance.

Poster boy for this concept? Bill O’ Reilly.

On a segment of his show, O’Reilly had Richard Dawkins as a guest, but Dawkins was not treated as such. In his usual, haughty, overbearing, arrogant manner, O’Bully made sure that Dawkins never had a fair opportunity to respond, and it was blatantly apparent that Bill-O had absolutely zero respect for Dawkins, and wanted everyone to know it by railroading him through the interview that was merely a chance for O’Bully to spew his own ignorant and fallacious dogma.

B.O.--> “I think it takes more faith to be, like you, an atheist, than like me, a believer, and it's because of nature. You know I just don't think we could have lucked out to have tides go in tides go out, sun go up, sun go down; don't think it coulda happened."

Witness Logical Fallacy #1: Argument from Personal Incredulity. "I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true."

R.D.--> "We have a full understanding of why the tides go in and out, why the continents drift about, why life is there. Science is ever more piling on the evidence, piling on the understanding--"

B.O.--> "But it had to get there, I understand that, you know, the uh, physiology of it, if you will, but it had to come from somewhere, that is the leap of faith that you guys make, that it just happened."

O'Reilly could not possibly understand the physiology of the subject matter, because if he did, he would not say "it had to come from somewhere" as if science had not already clearly explained the origins of most things.

R.D.--> "Well a leap of faith--you don’t actually need a leap of faith; you're the one who actually needs a leap of faith, because you are actually...the onus is on you to say why you believe in something. There are infinite number of gods you could believe in, but I take it that you don't believe in Zeus, or Apollo or Thor, you believe in presumably the Christian god--"

B.O.--> "Jesus. Jesus was a real guy, I can see it. You know, I know what he did.

Logical Fallacy #2- This is Petitio principii or Question Begging. He assumes because he can imagine Jesus, and because he believes there's a book that tells him about Jesus, that Jesus therefore exists. This can also be an Argument from authority: Stating that a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it is true. Of course in this case, the authority is O'Reilly himself, as he has an over-inflated view of his own authority.

...You know, I’m not positive that Jesus is God, but I’m throwin’ in with Jesus, rather than throwin’ in with you guys, because you guys can't tell me how it all got here, you guys don’t know."

This is an example of the Logical Fallacy known as Ad hominem. An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter another's claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself.

R.D.--> "We're working on it, it’s--"

B.O.--> (laughing derisively) "When you get it, then maybe I'll listen."

This is the Straw Man argument, another Logical Fallacy. It imposes a misrepresentation of the other person's stance; namely, that science pretends or claims to explain everything.

R.D.--> "Well now, if you look at the history of science over the centuries the amount of knowledge that was gained is just stupendous. We don’t know everything, we have to be humble, we have to say in humility, that there's a lot we still don't know--"

B.O.--> (collusively, sarcastically) "And you know, being humble is a Christian virtue--so there ya go..."

Watch any episode of O'Reilly's show, including this one, where he arrogantly makes statements about history and people and events that he is clueless about, pompously derides and dismisses anyone who disagrees with him, and one can see clearly that humility is most assuredly not something O'Reilly understands or practices.

R.D.--> "Well, I suppose it is, but--"
B.O.--> (dismissively) "So, when you guys figure it out, then you come back here and tell me, because until that time, I’m stickin' with Judeo-Christian philosophy and my religion of Roman-Catholicism, because it helps me as a person.”

R.D.--> “Ah that's different. If it helps you, that—“

B.O.--> (not allowing him to complete the statement) "Absolutely."

R.D.--> "If it helps you, that doesn’t mean it's true--"

B.O.--> "Well it's true for me. See, I believe it.”

This is a Logical Fallacy called Non-Sequitur. In Latin this term translates to "doesn't follow". This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists. To say "it's true for me (because) I believe it" is to say two things with the same meaning, neither of which provides a logical explanation of why one believes.

R.D.--> "You mean true for you, is different from true for everybody else; how can you say--

B.O.--> (talking over him) "Absolutely, because I came through--"

R.D.--> "It either is true or not—“

B.O.--> (talking over him) “I can’t, no, no, I can't prove that Jesus is God; that truth is mine and mine alone, but you can't prove to me that Jesus is NOT

This is the Logical Fallacy known as ad ignorantiam. The argument from ignorance. It basically states that a specific belief is true because we don't know that it isn't true.

B.O. (cont) so you have to stay in YOUR little belief system, and—“

Another ad hominem argument (personal attack).

R.D.--> "You can't prove that Zeus is not. You can't prove that Apollo is not--"

B.O.--> (sarcastically)"I saw Apollo, man, he was down there, man, he's not lookin’ good. Now. We also differ in that you believe that religion has been a bane, B-A-N-E,

This is a fallacious homonym attack (I made that one up) meaning, it's a suggestion that there is a homonym for "bane." The only one is bain, which is a type of bath, and I'm sure viewers didn't confuse the two.

B.O. (cont) to civilization and think that atheism has, and I will point to the worst mass murderers in uh, modern times: Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot

Pol Pot believed in an altered form of communism derived somewhat from Buddhism. Hitler was Roman Catholic, and as previously cited, said in a speech that he killed Jews for GOD; the others were not atheists in the modern sense, and their actions and decisions had nothing to do with their atheism, but with their communist and Marxist views.

B.O. (cont)...all confirmed atheists, all people who wanted to wipe out religion. Now I know you can point to the Crusades, and you can point to Al-Qaeda right now, I mean it's there, there's no question, but I’m sayin’, I’m throwin' in with the Founding Fathers

Now, when he says Founding Fathers, does he mean the 57 who signed the Declaration of Independence? Or the 39 Convention Delegates who signed? Does he include the 18 OTHER Founding Fathers in these numbers?

B.O. (cont) of the United States which [sic] saw religion and spirituality as a moderating influence as a good thing if people embraced the true tenets.

Which "true tenets" does he refer to? The Founding Fathers were of many differing beliefs.

B.O. (Cont) Go ahead."

R.D.--> (finally given permission to speak) "The Founding Fathers of the United States were secularists above all, some of them were religious and some of them were not but they were above all secularists who believed in keeping the church and state separate--

B.O.--> (interrupting) "They had to, because of the oppression in Europe.”

R.D.--> “That’s what they were...precisely, but--"

B.O.--> “Almost all of them, they all said a prayer before their deliberations,

Not true. In Albert Henry Smyth's 1906 edition of The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, Franklin preceded the actual motion for prayer before deliberations with a page and a half of explanation supporting the idea. After the motion, there is a footnote by the editor that reads: "Note by Franklin.--'The convention, except for three or four persons, thought prayers unnecessary.'" (vol. IX, page 601).

B.O. (cont) in their letters and I have almost all their letters,

This is highly unlikely, as "almost all" of their letters are not yet available to the public. The 70,000 documents of this kind, from 900 different locations, including foreign repositories, are compiled and published by Princeton University. Jefferson's represents the largest number of these. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 34, from 1 May to 31 July 1801, is 816 pages, and sells for around $100. This represents only 3 months of Jefferson's letters. It's improbable that B.O. is telling the truth, here.

B.O. (cont) they all referenced the deity, our Declaration of Independence referenced heavily

Referenced Heavily? Out of the 1,319 words comprising the Declaration of Independence, there were only 2 mentions of a deity, comprising 3 words, "Creator" and "Divine Providence." Hardly an example of "referenced heavily." And it might be noted that The Founding Fathers were a mixture of all kinds of belief, including deists, non-believers and agnostics. The phrasing was careful to be inclusive, but not overtly Christian, nor even mildly religious.

B.O. (cont) but, they saw it as a moderating influence, because the federal government at that point couldn't control the country and they said you know if people follow Jesus, the country is gonna be better—“

R.D.--> "It may well be a moderating influence, as for Hitler and Stalin and of course--Hitler was a Roman Catholic—“

B.O.--> "No, he never was, He was raised in that home, he rejected it early on--"

Hitler was a Roman Catholic, just like Bill O'Reilly. Perhaps that's why he was so quick to deny Hitler's religion-he did not want to be aligned with him. This doesn't, however, make the denial accurate.

R.D.--> "Well we can...we can dispute that. Um, Stalin was an atheist, no question, but Stalin did the bad things he did not BECAUSE he was an atheist, I mean, Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches but we don’t say it was their mustaches that made them evil—“

B.O.--> (laughing derisively) I don’t think they had any moral foundation, any of those guys...

Again missing the point. As if there is any question that there was a lack of moral foundation. This statement is a type of throw-away, underhanded comment used as a rhetorical device that clouds the subject matter. Atheists don’t think Hitler and Stalin, et al, were moral or ethical. They acknowledge they were despicable human beings. But Christians will never let an atheist explain that fact. That’s why so many of us have to write books. So we can get a word in edge-wise, and state the case without arrogant interruptions.

B.O.--> (talking over him) I will say that your book is fascinating, you know congratulations on your success and thank you for coming on here."

R.D.--> "Thank you very much indeed."

Now, while Dawkins was being every bit the gentleman, and endeavored to use the usual conventions of intelligent debate, O’Bully continued to run over him, dismiss him, deride him, make light of him, and generally show his hypocritical, Fundie ass.

First, to elaborate on the footnotes, regarding B.O.’s statements about the Founding Fathers, and his pompous mention that he owns so many of their private letters, and this is how he knows they were Christians (which is the obvious implication)—while some were, others were not, and in no way was the Declaration of Independence founded on the precepts of Christianity. Never are the words Jesus Christ, God, Christianity, or the Bible mentioned. Nor are they mentioned in the Constitution of the United States. Furthermore, the 1796 Treaty with Tripoli begins, “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion…”

In reality, the Founding Fathers’ beliefs were a potpourri of religions and non-religions. Among them were Protestants, Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans, Congregationalists, Dutch Reformed, and anti-clerical, which meant, in modern terms, deists, though some of their writings suggest several of them could have been agnostics and/or atheists.

Regardless, religion was never the reason for any of those documents and the ideas they represented. As Deists, many of them believed the world was created and then left to it’s own devices; that there was no personal God watching over things and listening to prayers; nor penning holy tomes for our edification. The Founding Fathers were also staunchly for the separation of church and state.

Consider the following quotes from these exact letters that B.O. mentions:

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition, Christianity, one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology.”(Thomas Jefferson).

"... Some books against Deism fell into my hands...It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was in-tended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist" (Benjamin Franklin).

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half of the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind” (Thomas Paine).

"I have generally been denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious I am no Christian, except mere infant baptism makes me one; and as to being a Deist, I know not strictly speaking, whether I am one or not" (Ethan Allen).

“Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus” (Thomas Jefferson).

“What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.” (James Madison).

And from Paine’s Age of Reason:

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief and for my own part, I disbelieve them all” (Thomas Paine).

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites to support roguery and error all over the earth” (Thomas Jefferson).

O’Reilly’s additional assertion that Hitler was an atheist and though born into a Catholic home, “rejected that early on” can be addressed quite simply by going to the source. Let us examine what Hitler really believed by using his own words, first in a speech, and then set down for posterity in the infamous book Mein Kampf.

In a speech that Adolf Hitler gave in April, 1922, and then published in "My New Order", he proclaimed:

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who--God's truth!--was greatest, not as a sufferer, but as a fighter."

"In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison.

"Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross."

"As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery.

When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited."

Volume I of Mein Kampf was published in 1925, and Volume II in 1926. It is a political treatise mixed with biographical features. Note that Hitler was 36 years old when the first volume was published. This does not indicate to me, as it did to O’Reilly, that Hitler rejected his Catholicism and turned atheist “early on.” Since Hitler committed suicide on April 30, 1945, at the age of 56, and his stance on his religious beliefs had not appreciably changed in relation to what he had written in Mein Kampf, as relayed by Richard Steigmann-Gall in The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity:

“Hitler often praised Christian heritage, Ger-man Christian culture, and professed a belief in Jesus Christ. Hitler, despite his native Catholicism, favored aspects of Protestantism if they were more amenable to his own objectives. At the same time, he adopted some elements of the Catholic Church's hierarchical organization, liturgy and phraseology in his politics.”

Hitler’s belief system touted a "Positive Christianity", which could be divorced from the traditional Christian tenets he found objectionable, and which reframed Jesus as a hater of Jews.

To illustrate the beliefs that Hitler held, one need only read these portions of Mein Kampf:

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

(Volume One: A Reckoning. Chapter II: Years of Study and Suffering in Vienna): Once again the songs of the fatherland roared to the heavens along the endless marching columns, and for the last time the Lord's grace smiled on His ungrateful children.

(Volume One: A Reckoning. Chapter VII: The Revolution): Therefore, the stature of the theoretician must not be measured by the fulfillment of his aims, but by their soundness and the influence they have had on the development of humanity. If this were not so, the founders of religion could not be counted among the greatest men of this earth, since the fulfillment of their ethical purposes will never be even approximately complete.

(Volume One: A Reckoning. Chapter VIII: The Beginning of My Political Activity): The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude. The various substitutes have not proved so successful from the standpoint of results that they could be regarded as a useful replacement for previous religious creeds. But if religious doctrine and faith are really to embrace the broad masses, the unconditional authority of the content of this faith is the foundation of all efficacy.

(Volume One: A Reckoning. Chapter X: Causes of the Collapse): …the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took to the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties--and this against their own nation.

Seems to me, his opinion of atheists, was the same as his opinion of the Jews.

“Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe. The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.”

(Volume Two: The National Socialist Movement. Chapter I: Philosophy and Party): A folkish state must therefore begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race, and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape.

(Volume Two: The National Socialist Movement. Chapter II: The State): How boundlessly unideal and ignoble is this whole system! People no longer bother to breed the best for posterity, but let things slide along as best they can. If our churches also sin against the image of the Lord, whose importance they still so highly emphasize, it is entirely because of the line of their present activity which speaks always of the spirit and lets its bearer, the man, degenerate into a depraved proletarian. Afterwards, of course, they make foolish faces and are full of amazement at the small effect of the Christian faith in their own country, at the terrible 'godlessness,' at this physically botched and hence spiritually degenerate rabble, and try with the Church's Blessing, to make up for it by success with the Hottentots and Zulu Kaffirs. While our European peoples, thank the Lord, fall into a condition of physical and moral leprosy, the pious missionary wanders off to Central Africa and sets up Negro missions until there, too, our 'higher culture' turns healthy, though primitive and inferior, human beings into a rotten brood of bastards.

(Volume Two: The National Socialist Movement Chapter II: The State): It would be more in keeping with the intention of the noblest man in this world if our two Christian churches, instead of annoying Negroes with missions which they neither desire nor understand, would kindly, but in all seriousness, teach our European humanity that where parents are not healthy it is a deed pleasing to God to take pity on a poor little healthy orphan child and give him father and mother, than themselves to give birth to a sick child who will only bring unhappiness and suffering on himself and the rest of the world.

(Volume Two: The National Socialist Movement. Chapter II: The State): Here, too, we can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice, and in part quite superfluously, comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas. It has recognized quite correctly that its power of resistance does not lie in its lesser or greater adaptation to the scientific findings of the moment, which in reality are always fluctuating, but rather in rigidly holding to dogmas once established, for it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of a faith. And so today it stands more firmly than ever. It can be prophesied that in exactly the same measure in which appearances evade us, it will gain more and more blind support as a static pole amid the flight of appearances.

(Volume Two: The National Socialist Movement. Chapter V: Philosophy and Organization):…only because, thank the Lord, they have become thoroughly convinced by now of the ineffectualness of their own speechmaking.

(Volume Two: The National Socialist Movement. Chapter VI: The Struggle of the Early Period): …the Significance of the Spoken Word...But since, thank the Lord, this cannot be done…

(Volume Two: The National Socialist Movement. Chapter VII: The Struggle with the Red Front): In this the Catholic Church can be regarded as a model example. The celibacy of its priests is a force compelling it to draw the future generation again and again from the masses of the broad people instead of from their own ranks.

(Volume Two: The National Socialist Movement, Chapter II: The State): [White girls are] given to the earth by God's grace…of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the di-vine will. Lord, protect them…on God's earth…

(Volume Two: The National Socialist Movement. Chapter X: Federalism as a Mask): And God does not follow the principle of granting freedom to a nation of cowards…

(Volume Two: The National Socialist Move-ment. Chapter XIII: The German Post-War Policy of Alliances): And this action is the only one which, before God and our German posterity, would make any sacrifice of blood seem justified: before God, since we have been put on this earth

(Volume Two: The National Socialist Movement. Chapter XIV: Eastern Orientation or Eastern Policy): God help us if victory does not reward our arms on the very first day.

I think it’s quite clear, amid his rantings about the superiority of the Aryan race, that he feels justified in his actions and beliefs because he feels he is doing God’s Work. Hitler saw himself as a soldier of Christ. And evidently, the Catholic church agreed. The Pope called Hitler's opposition to Russia a "high-minded gallantry in defense of the foundation of Christian culture." So—Bill O’Reilly, unsurprisingly, was wrong on every point in this interview with Dawkins.

On richardawkins.net, a poster named maton100 said on April 19, 2007, “O'Reilly called Dawkins a ‘pinhead.’ On the other hand, if O'Reilly's brain was even close to the size of a pin, you'd still have enough room left over to write The Epic of Gilgamesh on it.”

Well done, maton.

The A.I. of Theists: