Friday, March 6, 2015

Sharyl Atkisson On Vaccines

My opinion: Atkisson is the USA's only reporter. Period. She is the only one who adheres to the pursuit of facts without ideological corruption.

Now to vaccines:
Fact Check: Anne Schuchat’s Claim That Vaccines Can’t Cause Brain Damage

"At the hearing, Dr. Schuchat debunked Dr. Paul’s premise without qualifiers.

“Is there any scientific evidence that vaccines cause profound mental disorders?” Sen. Warren asked.

“No,” replied Dr. Schuchat."
This is the point where the Leftist media machine would halt; the narrative has been stated, authority asserted, full stop.

Not Atkisson:
"But is that accurate?

'Vaccines are extraordinarily safe,' says a medical doctor who has served as a government vaccine safety advisor on Institute of Medicine panels. But he says the risk of vaccine-induced brain disease is “not completely zero.” He asked not to be identified because vaccine safety is such an incendiary topic.

“It’s extremely rare but, yes, it happens,” said the safety expert. “We think it happens.”

Indeed, the DTP (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis) vaccine was phased out of use and replaced by today’s version, believed to be safer, after the Institute of Medicine concluded it rarely caused neurological damage and death.

So has all risk of brain injury from vaccines evaporated?

The government’s own archives show the idea of vaccines inducing brain inflammation—sometimes called acute encephalopathy or encephalitis–and permanent brain damage have long been accepted in the mainstream medical community. A small sampling of the evidence follows:

1. The CDC lists brain injuries such as “permanent brain damage” as possible vaccine side effects.

The CDC states that reports of brain injury after vaccination are so rare “experts cannot tell whether they are caused by the vaccine or not.” But it clearly acknowledges that a link is possible.

Specifically, CDC vaccine literature states that “long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness” and “permanent brain damage” are very rarely possible from DTaP, MMR and MMRV vaccines. Additionally, CDC literature states that “severe brain reactions” are very rarely possible from Varicella (chickenpox) vaccine.

2. The government compensates for some neurological complications of vaccination, including permanent brain injuries.

The concept of vaccine-induced brain damage is accepted in a special government program that compensates vaccine injury victims. In fact, there is such consensus that if a child’s post-vaccine brain injury meets certain conditions, financial compensation is automatically awarded without dispute.

According to the federal agency that administers compensation, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), the presumed vaccine-brain injury link applies to an array of widely-used childhood vaccines containing tetanus toxoid (e.g., DTaP, DTP, DT, Td, or TT); whole cell pertussis bacteria, extracted or partial cell pertussis bacteria, or specific pertussis antigen(s) (e.g., DTP, DTaP, P, DTP-Hib); and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine or any of its components (e.g., MMR, MR, M, R).

From Oct. 1, 1988 to March 4, 2008, the government compensated 1,322 cases of encephalitis, encephalopathy and seizures after vaccination—all brain-related injuries.

3. The CDC acknowledges vaccine links to brain injury in its “who should not vaccinate” recommendations.

For example, CDC recommends “any child who suffered a brain or nervous system disease within 7 days after a dose of DTaP should not get another dose.”

For tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, CDC states those who had “a coma, or long or multiple seizures within seven days after a childhood dose of DTP or DTaP…should not get Tdap, unless a cause other than the vaccine was found [emphasis added].”

4. The Institute of Medicine lists an additional rare, causal link between vaccines and brain injury.

The Institute of Medicine states there is convincing scientific evidence strongly supporting a causal relationship between MMR vaccine and a brain illness called Measles Inclusion Body Encephalitis (MIBE). MIBE can, in very rare cases, affect people whose immune system is compromised.
'Seizures and altered level of consciousness are the most common initial manifestations,' say medical experts, 'typically followed by rapid clinical deterioration marked by worsening seizures, development of epilepsia partialis continua, deepening coma, and death in the majority of cases.'"
Finally, the overtly politicization of vaccination:
"Government and medical officials often express the desire to strictly control the flow of factual information regarding vaccines because they fear if the public hears information that makes them become wary of vaccines, vaccination rates would decline and preventable diseases would re-emerge in epidemic proportions.

A crisis of that sort threatened the nation’s vaccine program in the 1980′s when vaccine manufacturers began to pull out of the DPT vaccine market due to a spike in lawsuits over DPT vaccine brain damage. As a result, Congress created a special program that protects vaccine companies from civil product liability for injuries caused by federally recommended vaccines. Vaccine injury claims are required to go through a special vaccine court created in 1988, and damages to victims are funded by a fee charged to patients on each dose of vaccine."
In other words, it is worth the health and brains of a few children in order to keep measles "under control", and actual damage due to vaccine has a special blocking from normal recourse procedures.

I had measles. I'd rather have measles than brain damage. And I'd rather make that decision for my child, myself, based on the truth about the probabilities. It is a property of Leftist consequentialist totalitarian mentality that they should make the decision for everyone (and demean those who do make their own decisions). Not to mention placing legal blocks on normal recourse rights.

Please give Atkisson a hit at the link.

In a separate article, Atkisson writes this:
"Vaccines have saved untold millions of lives, and the vast majority of people who get them suffer no major problems.

But there’s a trade-off: occasionally, vaccines cause injury or death. Very rarely, patients are left with what’s known as “encephalopathy”, the medical term for brain damage.

In fact, CBS News has found nearly 1,300 cases in which vaccine-related brain damage has been compensated in court over the past 20 years.

The debate over any links between vaccines and autism – a behavior problem triggered by brain damage – couldn’t be more contentious. The great majority of medical opinion holds that vaccines don’t cause autism. However, many of the same experts don’t dispute that vaccines can, in rare instances, cause brain damage."

21 comments:

Hugo said...

Hey Stan, long time no see, very long... I already rarely come here anymore, but I think I will stop completely now. You probably don't care obviously but I thought I would explain why... just in case...

Your blog is interesting because it gives me an alternative point of view. You represent the American conservative religious right, which I never interact with, especially not more fundamentalist individuals like you who have such strong opinions. But the problem is that what you write is so negative, almost all the time. It's as if we were living in a country literally at war, at one of the worst time in all of human history, and with lots of crazy maniacs surrounding us... anyway, something really bad!

But that's not the world I see. I love the access we have to knowledge and entertainment through the Internet, I am thrilled to visit new places, or old favorites, be it around home in gorgeous California, the rest of the USA, or the world. There are such wonders everywhere, fascinating people to meet and talk to, or food to taste and music to hear. Ideas vary from places to places and there's such so much to learn about! I am very lucky to be able to enjoy all that, not everyone can, but it's also up to each of us to decide what we focus on, what to enjoy, fight for, talk about, and how to spread our opinions, if we want to.

However, for some reason, you never talk about any of the good things you personally enjoy. Occasionally there is a funny image, but usually to mock someone. And there's never anything really Christian either, ironically. Usually I love that about Christians. So many like to talk about how great God is, for what happens around them. How could we have such a wonderful world without Him! But you Stan, have been complaining about that same world for years. Obviously it's not God's fault... God is love, justice, righteousness; God should make us happy ultimately, even through tough times. So I guess there are just too many crappy humans! But why not try to like more of these humans instead of reminding your readers about how horrible they are?

And I didn't choose this post randomly, because I thought for once I would agree with you so I decided to read the article in full. You know the Left is really divided on this? In the liberal SF Bay area, people are more anti-mandatory-vaccination than the average. So I thought you would fall on the scientific side, complaining how anti-science the leftist anti-vax movement is, but no, you blame leftists for forcefully imposing vaccines through government (*sigh*) I disagree because I don't think a few thousand cases of complications over 20 years and millions of doses justify doubts, nor should we risk letting people decide and sacrifice herd protection. For measles maybe, you made a good point, but it's not that always that simple.

Hugo said...

Anyway, my goal was not to debate the issue... So the point is more that, even if I disagree, I don't think your position on that issue is ridiculous or extreme. You didn’t claim vaccines are literally ineffective, you just think that some diseases are not worth the risk. So that's the other reason this post is meaningful, it shows how it's always possible to put things in perspective. When I read you, I always try to understand your point of view, but I never ever feel like this is the approach you are taking. You just bash opinions you disagree with and ascribe evil intentions to everybody who holds them. Why? In this case for example, I just pointed out how I get it; your point is not literally anti-science or dogmatic because you simply think that the information should be more available and people should be free to choose. Two principles I completely agree with, and I appreciate the good values you support. But from your point of view... I don't know? You certainly don't see your opposition as simply trying to do their best to save lives... all you mention are vague labels of "consequentialist totalitarian mentality".

So, in short, if you get only 1 thing from this long comment it's that I truly hope your real life is super awesome, and not as dark as your blog sounds. I am optimistic and think that it must be the case, so I hope you might adapt your blog a bit and show how your faith has a positive impact on your life, and for the lives of people around you, which should contrast with Atheists who don't share these beliefs and must be missing something. Because after all, this blog is supposed to be 'Atheism Analyzed'... but it's easy to forget.

Cheers and take care,
Hugo

p.s. I also think that it made sense to comment on an older post for 1 more reason: this is not for sensationalism or attention seeking. Nobody will see that it was posted there, except you I hope of course. So it's an honest message to you Stan, nothing else.

Stan said...

Hugo,
I see you haven't changed.

But you sincerely think that I should change, and you are sincerely concerned for my dark view of your (and others’) view of how my life should be.

Now you are concerned about how awesome my life is, and I’ll get to that in a bit, but first we need to take a look at this, because it is an example which is pertinent:

At one point you deny any right to decide for myself whether to vaccinate (herd protection after all), and at another point you claim that it is everyone's right to decide.

That sort of internal contradiction, along with the glad-handing concern for my personal life is exactly the sort of external interference that I find objectionable.

You are inherently unable to see the contradictions in your approach, and that approach is now the common feature of a society which claims the freedom (even the elitist Right) to interfere in the freedoms of others.

You actually see no problem in that, and that in itself is the accumulated, acculturated worldview which infests the west, and which will ultimately bring your own freedom to ruination (and mine in the process).

See, you fail to comprehend that I don't want to have to live the life you pick out as awesome enough to suit your standards. You are convinced that anyone who wants to be left out of your plan for others cannot be living a proper life.

And you don't understand that those decisions are not yours to make for me or anyone else.

The only reason I care about your life and worldview is where you make it interfere with mine, either actually, or potentially. Whether your life is awesome for you is your issue, not mine… and vice versa.

Stan said...

These days, there are many more like yourself who wish to tell me how to live, because they know better than I do how to conduct my affairs in order to reach their community goals. It even has a name: Social Justice. And they do it for me, they declare.

But their community goals, with just the slightest whiff, become dictated as my necessary behaviors under their oversight. That’s how it goes with knowing better than others how their lives should go.

When there are millions like yourself, that's when Class Wars become vicious, to the point of the warriors eating their own along with the unwary. I think you are merely unwary, or in denial maybe.

I find immense satisfaction in my tiny contribution to the fight against the Class Warriors, those who want me to be just like them, or at least to obey their directives for leading a better life for their New Social Order.

So yes, when you say things like "herd protection" in one breath and "personal freedom" two breaths down, I know which you actually believe in, and which I have to fight against. Do I smile while doing so? On the inside, absolutely.

Finally, analyzing Atheism does not require either theism or Christianity. It merely requires using the known and accepted principles of Aristotelian logic as applied to Atheist claims - nothing more. So if people want Christian happy talk or kitten videos, this is not the place – on purpose.

And: I don’t hide comments from other readers, even by posting them to old articles. I will notify others of this comment.

Phoenix said...

Hugo says:God should make us happy ultimately, even through tough times. So I guess there are just too many crappy humans! But why not try to like more of these humans instead of reminding your readers about how horrible they are?

There are so many things wrong with your understanding of God but let's look at the most important ones:
-Firstly,Why should God force us to be happy,even during tough times?Imposing his will on us,would be to violate his very nature,which is freedom.And yes,it is possible to be at peace,to find joy and spread joy and to experience gratitude during harsh times.It's actually one of the primary spiritual teachings.
-And have Atheists ever considered why the world and God should be the way they insist it to be? If God is going to play favorites and create the world a playground for Atheists,shouldn't he then have favored theists or at least deists and agnostics above Atheists?Each of the more than 7 billion individuals each have their own ideas of how they would like the world to be.Since God does not play favorites,it is fitting he should create a world for each of us or at least for different umbrella groups.
I hope you can see that when Atheists demand that God should have made the world THEIR way,they are being as irrational as a spoilt child throwing tantrums.
-On the charge of bad news.Yes,Stan's blog does contain current news articles,which tend to be bad news.But I don't see how this is relevant to Atheism.Unless of course,Atheist sites are somehow different and focuses on good news,where theists are portrayed in the best possible light.
-Atheism is by nature a very hopeless and pessimistic worldview which embraces all the bad aspects of human behavior as natural.

yonose said...

Hello Everyone!

Unfortunately with Hugo so many things are quite evident.

Do you notice the projective nature of his behavior behind his words?

It looks pretty much like when people become brain-washed --the correct term is strongly indoctrinated and socialized-- after joining any sort of cult for so much time, which gives as a result such a double-speak.

Stan,

There are some things which I disagree with you, as I dislike to mess up with politics (whether left or right, I believe is a useless war), but I appreciate your insight in some important aspects in life.

Younger people like me sometimes need some good advice.

Kind Regards.

Hugo said...

Phoenix said:
"There are so many things wrong with your understanding of God but..."
Nope, you just misinterpreted the sentence... it meant:
Think about God, a belief in God, being close to God, etc... should make us happy ultimately, even through tough times. What I've heard from some believers is that God gives them strength, hope and happiness. I believe they experience that, but I don't believe their God literally exists.

Let me address what came after the 'but' anyway to show you why everything else ends up being wrong as well.

"...And yes,it is possible to be at peace,to find joy and spread joy and to experience gratitude during harsh times.It's actually one of the primary spiritual teachings."
That's the only part that was relevant, yes, as I explained above and probably now understand. So I agree with you on that.

"-And have Atheists ever considered why the world and God should be the way they insist it to be? [...]"
I don't know what a God-world would look like. The world I see around me certainly does not show much sign of a God... Your point makes no sense with respect to my worldview. You heard other things from other Atheists I supposed; and I also suppose that in most cases you misinterpreted and they meant nothing more than 'it's kind of inconsistent that a loving God would make event X happen'.

" I hope you can see that when Atheists demand that God should have made the world THEIR way,they are being as irrational as a spoilt child throwing tantrums."
Of course, anyone who says what you said would be as irrational as a spoilt child throwing tantrums. Cute image :-)

"-On the charge of bad news.Yes,Stan's blog does contain current news articles,which tend to be bad news.But I don't see how this is relevant to Atheism.Unless of course,Atheist sites are somehow different and focuses on good news,where theists are portrayed in the best possible light."
I don't care about Atheist sites. I care about reality, science, news from any source, etc... and I thus decided that I will spot reading this blog, as soon as Stan ends the conversation. I simply don't like his blog anymore and will do the right thing: focus on what I really care about.

"-Atheism is by nature a very hopeless and pessimistic worldview which embraces all the bad aspects of human behavior as natural."
You're fat! No, you're fat! Seriously... this is just labelling my position. I am an Atheist and is very hopeful, optimistic and don't even know what a natural vs non-natural behavior is. Humans are natural, so everything they do is natural when you look at them. Only religion can label certain behavior as non-natural; they add a layer to reality that I don't find necessary. I still appreciate it and live fine with it, but I don't get it. I am thrilled by reality and nature alone! I even got a tattoo recently of a supernova explosion on my right arm, because it represents the most astonishing fact in the universe: we are made of star dust.
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=603323646435244

Hugo said...

Hi Stan,

Thank you so much for taking the time to reply. I thought you might just ignore and move on, but you actually mentioned that there was a conversation going on here, so I will accept the invitation to participate for some time. Unless that was not your intention...

There would be a lot of things to address but I will first try to stick to what matters most in any conversation: clarifying each other's position so that we don't talk passed each other.

1) You think I would like you to change.
It is not the case. I actually specified that I am optimistic and assume that you are probably much more positive in real life than what your blog shows. So I don't think you should change, I am merely suggesting that your express these things you already like, are already positive about. It's not at all something I think you should change about 'you'. And don't forget it was in the context of 'why' I am not interested in reading your blog. So it's more about curiosity really. As a reader, I would be more interested in that.

But obviously, you don't care if I read it or not, and neither should you. So you have no reason to change anything; I am simply expressing a view point about how your blog appears to the outside world, or at least part of it, the part you chose to "analyze"... Since you mention at the very end that you find immense satisfaction in your contribution, I just thought you might actually care about what people think of your writings, since you cannot possible be as efficient in influencing others, if you antagonize those who might otherwise listen to your view points and learn from them.

2) You think I am contradicting myself regarding the vaccines issue.
I don't have any internal contradictions about vaccines. There are 3 categories: mandatory, opt-out, out-in. I trust bodies of governmental and private medical professionals for sorting vaccines in each appropriate category. Therefore, if they recommend that certain vaccines be given by default, I would never choose to opt-out, but would let other opt-out if they wish to. In more extreme cases, I would also agree with their recommendations that certain vaccines be mandatory. I don't think we should let parents decide in these specific and limited cases, which professionals advise.

What it does contradict is the important value of personal freedom, which dictates that individuals should be given the choice to decide what medical treatment they receive or not, or their legal guardian in the case of children. But we have conflicting values all the time in life! What about patriotism; isn't it a good value to believe in? What aspect of being a patriot is that you are willing to risk your own life to help your country and fellow citizen. Well, it seems to me that getting vaccinated and taking a tiny fraction of the risk is patriotic; it helps the already sick or vulnerable people to not get infected themselves without having to take a vaccine. Herd protection.

And there are so many other examples like that where we have to pick between 2 values that we hold dear and compromise. We let people be free of going wherever they go, another aspect of freedom, but there are speed limits on roads, security checkpoints before boarding a plane, and no, nobody has a choice. We don't let people travel on the highway at 100 mph; this is a limitation of freedom in order to protect everyone. Or what about war, where defending the country and helping oppressed nations clash with horrible human sacrifices, scarifying the value of human lives? Or what about choosing the person you want to marry? Or what about forcing a person to use her body to support the life of another human? Don't you sacrifice the right to choose in favor of the greater good by opposing some people to make certain choices?

Hugo said...

3) You think I would like to guide your life, tell you how to live.
You said:
"See, you fail to comprehend that I don't want to have to live the life you pick out [...] And you don't understand that those decisions are not yours to make for me or anyone else."
This is completely false. And you cannot argue with this because you are trying to read my mind. So I am telling you Stan, no, you are wrong. I do not think 1 word of what you wrote here. I could not care less what you do. But I do agree with you when you say:
"The only reason I care about your life and worldview is where you make it interfere with mine, either actually, or potentially. Whether your life is awesome for you is your issue, not mine… and vice versa."
It's exactly the same from my point of view. So when it comes to something like vaccines, to use the same example again, you are interfering with my worldview by promoting what I believe to be a dangerous idea, in some cases. It can affect people around me and even my immediate family. I am thus perfectly justified in wanting to interfere with yours, indirectly by support mandatory vaccination. Pushing that specific idea can affect the lives of others, actually, or potentially, so by your own principles, I agree, that's when we should care.

4) You did not get my point regarding Christianity
By saying the following: "analyzing Atheism does not require either theism or Christianity. [...] So if people want Christian happy talk or kitten videos, this is not the place – on purpose."
You actually proved my point. Unless you have another blog where you spent evern more time than this one, you are putting your fight against the evil forces of the Atheo-Left in ahead of your love of God. Christianity is second, if not further, on your list of priorities and things to spend time on. By your own admission, when attacking Atheism, you are not promoting Christianity, its values nor its principles. I find it odd.

And what's worse is that if someone, who is on the fence, runs into your blog; they will surely fall back to Atheism. Therefore, when you say "I find immense satisfaction in my tiny contribution [...] Do I smile while doing so? On the inside, absolutely" I don't think you realize how badly you damage your own cause, or whatever you are smiling about. I am not even sure... you like humiliating others by showing how wrong they are? I guess the actual question would be: what are you trying to accomplish exactly with this blog?

"5) You thought I wanted to hide the comments"
Really not sure about this one, so sorry if that's not what you implied, but just to be on the same page, I did not mind to have this thread visible or anything like that. I just thought it was valuable to point out that I did not mean my comments to be put in the face of people who visit this, in order to defame you or something like that. It's really more like a message to you, to explain a few things.

P.S. I had to rush to finish and did not have time to review this long thing. My apology for any typos/incoherent sentences, or too rough statements ;) I try to remove any usually.

Cheers.

Phoenix said...

Hugo
Nope, you just misinterpreted the sentence... it meant:
Think about God, a belief in God, being close to God, etc... should make us happy ultimately, even through tough times. What I've heard from some believers is that God gives them strength, hope and happiness. I believe they experience that, but I don't believe their God literally exists
.

And of course by "literally exist" you mean physically exist.No,God is not a physical entity.
===
I don't know what a God-world would look like. The world I see around me certainly does not show much sign of a God... Your point makes no sense with respect to my worldview. You heard other things from other Atheists I supposed; and I also suppose that in most cases you misinterpreted and they meant nothing more than 'it's kind of inconsistent that a loving God would make event X happen'
You are finally seeing Atheist arguments from the theist perspective,and it's not looking too pretty.Atheist constantly object to God's existence because if he existed then the world should have been created differently.And Atheists don't shy away from sharing,nay, imposing their demands on what a world with God should have looked like.So tell us why?Why must the world be your way Hugo,if God existed?
===
Of course, anyone who says what you said would be as irrational as a spoilt child throwing tantrums. Cute image :-)

You made the demand,not me.I pointed it out.And your response to my charge is a tu quoque.
===
I don't care about Atheist sites. I care about reality, science, news from any source, etc... and I thus decided that I will spot reading this blog, as soon as Stan ends the conversation. I simply don't like his blog anymore and will do the right thing: focus on what I really care about.
===
I don't care about Atheist sites. I care about reality, science, news from any source, etc... and I thus decided that I will spot reading this blog, as soon as Stan ends the conversation. I simply don't like his blog anymore and will do the right thing: focus on what I really care about
Glad we can agree,Atheist sites are not about reality and science.
===
You're fat! No, you're fat! Seriously... this is just labelling my position. I am an Atheist and is very hopeful, optimistic and don't even know what a natural vs non-natural behavior is. Humans are natural, so everything they do is natural when you look at them.

You should have thought this through 1.Hugo before hitting that publish button.I'm not interested in Hugosim (your personal views) but on Materialism/Atheism.So your optimism does nothing to refute the meaningless and reductionism espoused by Materialism.
2.Non-natural behavior would be altruism,acts based on the golden rule and any behavior intended on accessing mental and spiritual states such as meditation and prayer.
3.Really Hugo?Everything we do is natural?Oh come on!!!
Worshipping God is natural?Praying is a natural act because I can do it.Theists should have won debates with Atheists a long time ago if they should just have said that.
===
Only religion can label certain behavior as non-natural; they add a layer to reality that I don't find necessary. I still appreciate it and live fine with it, but I don't get it. I am thrilled by reality and nature alone! I even got a tattoo recently of a supernova explosion on my right arm, because it represents the most astonishing fact in the universe: we are made of star dust.
If you're made of stardust then you should behave like a supernova.Is that the logic we're going with?

Stan said...

Hugo said,
” I am simply expressing a view point about how your blog appears to the outside world, or at least part of it, the part you chose to "analyze"...”

I am well aware that Atheists don’t like what they read here. That will not change. The intent of the blog is to apply actual logic to the propositions and behaviors of those who claim to be the sole possessors of evidence, logic, and rational thought. Of course they don’t like being shown that their worldview is false and leads to erroneous assumptions about virtually everything in life.

” Since you mention at the very end that you find immense satisfaction in your contribution, I just thought you might actually care about what people think of your writings, since you cannot possible be as efficient in influencing others, if you antagonize those who might otherwise listen to your view points and learn from them.”

There is no possible way (probability = zero) that this blog will ever appeal to Atheists. Only blind Atheism appeals to Atheists; critical analysis never will. It is not a goal: I do not intend to be appealing to Atheists. I don’t even care if no Atheists ever read this blog, because Atheists are completely mentally shut down by their emotional needs. Atheists that have come here do so only to argue their religion by deprecating the Other, which they believe with the proselytizing fervor of those who think they know the answer to the deepest questions of the universe and beyond. All based on mere radical skepticism and emotional denialism – and never having the ability to present an argument based in deductive logic or supportive empirical evidence – and all the while claiming their superiority in intellect, morality, worldview, love for science, love for mankind, etc. ad nauseum. And all demonstrably false.

I do not write for Atheists. They already know everything. Including how I should live my life and write this blog. I write this for those people who are open to logic and will follow the proper deductions to their necessary conclusions – and then not reject the conclusion just because they are superior to it.

And that’s what it boils down to. Atheists are superior. It is their decision to make whether an argument is logical or not, based on whether their desired conclusion is reached; if it is not, then the logic is rejected, not for any logical reason. No. The logic is rejected because the Atheist is superior to the logic, superior to Aristotle and 3,000 years of logicians. The Atheist is right because he must be right, or he must admit that he (and his worldview) are intellectually diametrically opposed to universal truth. He cannot, will not, ever, admit such a thing. Nor will he actually honestly investigate the disciplines necessary to find actual truth. The Atheist merely declares truth and then declares others to have inferior worldviews. For the Atheist, his superiority is what matters, not the rationality of his position. The New Atheists have done the world a favor by revealing this trait as their basic premise.

I write bluntly and plainly for seekers and for those who care to actually study logic and be logical. Not for Atheists. I do not write because I need friends or sycophants. I write based on cold, hard, unyielding logic.

I stop here. There is no point in going forward from this point with you. If you came back here because I answered your comment, then I hereby free you to go. There is no point in discussion between us. If that is too blunt, so be it.

Hugo said...

Hi Stan, I knew nothing would change and that would be the end of this conversation already, without you addressing any of my actual point but instead continue attacking strawmen and throwing illogical labels. You cannot appreciate anything I say since you ascribe the worst intentions, beliefs, ideas and end goals to myself, and millions of others who share some of my views. You don't see us as people with any values, you don't try to understand what we care about. On the other hand, I try to understand yours, appreciate, and share the values you fight for; from personal freedom to capitalism, passing by the importance of logical reasoning and family values. Even if we disagree on the implementation. And to prove the point, I wrote this right after posting the comments, before seeing any reply from you... because I have not changed, true, except for 1 thing at least: I dont waste time with useless online conversation.

All the best to you.

Regards,
Hugo

Phoenix said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Phoenix said...

I apologize for the typos in my previous post,I wrote my comments in a hurry.Hopefully Hugo can understand most of it.
===

Stan said:I write bluntly and plainly for seekers and for those who care to actually study logic and be logical.

That's true.I came here to learn logic and how to apply them to Atheist arguments.I was one of those theists who would run away anytime an Atheist would show up on a forum and simply say"Oh,you believe in God do you,where's the verifiable scientific evidence?" and I'd be like "Wow,this guy sounds smart,no way will I challenge someone who uses big words like verifiable".After becoming a student of logic (albeit an autodidact),I now realize the arrogance disguised as confidence is a scare tactic.Underneath that Atheist bravado is a disturbed soul who cannot think independently and a coward who cannot practice his philosophy of determinism and the survival of the fittest concept.Instead the Atheist still clings to theist concepts of morality.How hypocritical!
If you believe you're a beast with no purpose but to propagate your genes,then behave accordingly.It shouldn't be that hard,after all it's natural behavior.

Phoenix said...

Hugo says:You don't see us as people with any values, you don't try to understand what we care about. On the other hand, I try to understand yours, appreciate, and share the values you fight for; from personal freedom to capitalism, passing by the importance of logical reasoning and family values.

This is pure sheepshit Hugo.Atheists are fond of saying "we're human too,we cry and we believe torturing babies is wrong"
It's a logical fallacy known as an appeal to emotion.There is nothing in metaphysical naturalism which dictates that one should appreciate others and value freedom.Nothing!

Hugo said...

Hi Phoenix, as mentioned earlier, I simply wanted to share my personal opinion on why this blog is not appealing to me anymore. I did not expect anyone to care but I thought that I might be proven wrong. I have been seriously interested in religion for over 10 years and decided to stop spending so much time on the topic; in good part because my (religious) wife finds it annoying that I discuss it too often... she prefers when I tell her about some cool thing I read on NewScientist.

I am afraid a comment box will not give justice to the complexity of the points you raised, especially since we are talking about such different things and using such different approach. I will try to address some now, as a courtesy, but I will not comment further. I hope you appreciate the input even if you disagree.

You said:
"And of course by "literally exist" you mean physically exist.No,God is not a physical entity."
The 'literally' marks the difference between the fact that the "idea" of God exists and people act on it, regardless of it being true or not, versus the fact that it does not mean that this "idea" points to something that exists. Even assuming that you, Phoenix, are right about God; there are other people who are not, for sure, since their definition would contradict yours. Therefore, when I look at claims by either of you, I see 2 people who sincerely believe and are changed by that belief. I just don't believe that either of you has been influenced by an existing God, but rather by your "idea" of God. And you have to agree with me for the other person...

"So tell us why?Why must the world be your way Hugo,if God existed?"
I said the exact opposite... I don't know what a God-world would look like. What I believe is that the world we live in is explained very well without the God explanation. The unknowns could still be God's product; so I am not claiming God certainly does not exist.

"I'm not interested in Hugosim (your personal views) but on Materialism/Atheism.So your optimism does nothing to refute the meaningless and reductionism espoused by Materialism."
But then you are doing a category error. Atheism/Materialism are not 'hopeful' or 'not hopeful'; people are. Moreover, the problem is clearly that you think I espoused these views as if they were guiding principles, or something like that. But I have never seen Atheism as a worldview... it's a conclusion of my worldview, which you are not interested in.

Btw, you know what's hilarious. In all these years of discussing with people online, only 1 other person ever mentioned 'Hugoism', and it was Stan, here on this blog. You sound a lot like him, like really really similar... you fit right in :)

"2.Non-natural behavior would be altruism,acts based on the golden rule and any behavior intended on accessing mental and spiritual states such as meditation and prayer.
3.Really Hugo?Everything we do is natural?Oh come on!!!
Worshipping God is natural?Praying is a natural act because I can do it.
"
What part of all that is non-natural? From my point of view, I look at you, a human being with a body and I see you do a bunch of things. You claim that some are non-natural but have not demonstrated why it has to be. You have a body and express your ideas using that body. The only "non-natural" part is your mind, but I use quotes because it's just a shortcut we use to talk about minds and their inaccessible content from outside. But for that content to interact with the outside, it has to be through the natural world. And afaik, without your natural brain functioning, not much happens... So no, I don't see anything non-natural, anywhere, ever. Praying is just thinking, like secular meditation, until you can demonstrate otherwise.

Hugo said...

"If you're made of stardust then you should behave like a supernova.Is that the logic we're going with?"
This is not the logic at all no, and honestly it's so wrong I am not sure why you are thinking about... You do understand that we are all made of the same atoms, right? All organic material has the same carbon in it. So a vegetable, a dog and a human are all made of the same atoms, yet they behave completely differently. But it does not stop there. The iron in your blood is also the same kind of iron that you find in rocks. The atoms are identical.

And these atoms were forged in stars. This is not a religious statement; it's a scientific fact. We understand very well where out atoms come from. They were forged in the core of stars that went supernova and scattered the material through space. It has nothing to do with being an atheist; since scientifically minded theists recognize that scientific knowledge. Do some research in how atoms are formed if this makes no sense to you...

"Underneath that Atheist bravado is a disturbed soul who cannot think independently "
This is ironice because when someone believes in God, there is generally an implication that God can listen to all of your thoughts. Therefore, you can at best be as independent of a thinker as I am, if you ignore the fact that your God is listening and think about whatever you want, or, you are not as independent, since you need to be careful about what you think, in case God disapproves. In my opinion, you cannot be both a God believer and a free thinking who think independently. You have to concede that God either does not care or cannot listen to your thoughts to be a free thinker.

"a coward who cannot practice his philosophy of determinism and the survival of the fittest concept.Instead the Atheist still clings to theist concepts of morality.How hypocritical!"
Determinism is complicated because we don't have all the answers to how we can be thinking human beings based on solely natural processes. Adding a God to the equation does not explain anything however... It does not say how God would have built us to be like that, it does not explain how a non-natural soul would work in synch with the natural body without leaving any trace. It also does not explain morality since humans keep adapting their views to the situation. I believe there is always a morally acceptable choice in all situations, just like there is always something true and objective, but we, humans, need to work together to figure out what it is. No one has special access to what's true or moral.

"If you believe you're a beast with no purpose but to propagate your genes,then behave accordingly.It shouldn't be that hard,after all it's natural behavior."
But we are not. We are humans who care about themselves and each other. We build our own purpose.

"This is pure sheepshit Hugo.Atheists are fond of saying "we're human too,we cry and we believe torturing babies is wrong"
It's a logical fallacy known as an appeal to emotion.There is nothing in metaphysical naturalism which dictates that one should appreciate others and value freedom.Nothing!
"
Sheepshit? Your use of words betray your own emotional reactions to these topics... but you missed the point anyway. What I was trying to tell Stan is that we are all people who hold values, who have core principles we are fighting for. This has nothing to do with emotions. And you are correct, it has nothing to do with metaphysical naturalism because it does NOT dicatate anything. Again, you clearly did not know that but to me it's a consequence of my worldview; not a source nor a base.

I am more than happy to answer any specific questions you may have, but if not, that will be it for me. I am not going to chase you down any claims you make, regardless of what I think of it.

Hope this helps, and thanks for your time.

Cheers,
Hugo

Phoenix said...

Hugo
The 'literally' marks the difference between the fact that the "idea" of God exists and people act on it, regardless of it being true or not, versus the fact that it does not mean that this "idea" points to something that exists. Even assuming that you, Phoenix, are right about God; there are other people who are not, for sure, since their definition would contradict yours. Therefore, when I look at claims by either of you, I see 2 people who sincerely believe and are changed by that belief. I just don't believe that either of you has been influenced by an existing God, but rather by your "idea" of God. And you have to agree with me for the other person...

Firstly,I think your objection is still fatal to Materialism.You admit people believe God has made a positive impact in their lives,although you argue it is based on an illusion.God has now been reduced to a placebo effect,where a subjective belief is causally efficaious on the body/material.So crediting God or the believers mind is not consistent with Atheism.Any evidence for the causality of consciousness (or God) is fatal to Materialism.Regarding the definition of God,I think it's false to say there are others,(while subtly implying all) who have contradictory defintions of God.Most theists share the fundamental concepts of God,albeit with some trivial cultural idosyncracies.
===
I said the exact opposite... I don't know what a God-world would look like. What I believe is that the world we live in is explained very well without the God explanation. The unknowns could still be God's product; so I am not claiming God certainly does not exist.
I'm sorry,I thought you wanted to know why God does not ease sufferings,stop tornados or make a cheese burger on your desk appear (yes,atheists have said that too!).And no,it's not that simple to claim the world is fine without God.To reject God is to reject objective moral values,free will,understanding of the role of mind/consciousness,purpose in life,etc.
===
But then you are doing a category error. Atheism/Materialism are not 'hopeful' or 'not hopeful'; people are. Moreover, the problem is clearly that you think I espoused these views as if they were guiding principles, or something like that. But I have never seen Atheism as a worldview... it's a conclusion of my worldview, which you are not interested in.
So you concede there's nothing in Atheism/Materialism that could inspire hope.It's an impotent worldview,that have caused others even more grief,to paraphrase Sam Harris.
===
Btw, you know what's hilarious. In all these years of discussing with people online, only 1 other person ever mentioned 'Hugoism', and it was Stan, here on this blog. You sound a lot like him, like really really similar... you fit right in :)
Yeah,I think I got it from him.He used it in a free will debate with Max (Maxism).
===
What part of all that is non-natural? From my point of view, I look at you, a human being with a body and I see you do a bunch of things. You claim that some are non-natural but have not demonstrated why it has to be. You have a body and express your ideas using that body. The only "non-natural" part is your mind, but I use quotes because it's just a shortcut we use to talk about minds and their inaccessible content from outside.
That's interesting,I've never come across an Atheist conceding a non-natural mind.I guess your views are not entirely Materialistic then.

But for that content to interact with the outside, it has to be through the natural world. And afaik, without your natural brain functioning, not much happens... So no, I don't see anything non-natural, anywhere, ever. Praying is just thinking, like secular meditation, until you can demonstrate otherwise.
Labeling it secular meditation does not make it anymore Atheistic.The whole purpose of the mental excercise contradicts determinism.

Phoenix said...

AVE

...It has nothing to do with being an atheist; since scientifically minded theists recognize that scientific knowledge. Do some research in how atoms are formed if this makes no sense to you...

I'm interested in the moral obligations of Materialists and acquisition of truths that Materialism may provide.If you say we're made of stardust,which conforms to physical laws,you are then implying that we are also restricted to matter and its laws.But that could easily be dismissed on a charge of fallacy of composition.Just because a brick weighs 5 pounds does not mean the house made of bricks also weighs 5 pounds.What's true of the part does not necessarily extend to the whole.
===
This is ironice because when someone believes in God, there is generally an implication that God can listen to all of your thoughts. Therefore, you can at best be as independent of a thinker as I am, if you ignore the fact that your God is listening and think about whatever you want, or, you are not as independent, since you need to be careful about what you think, in case God disapproves. In my opinion, you cannot be both a God believer and a free thinking who think independently. You have to concede that God either does not care or cannot listen to your thoughts to be a free thinker.

Your logic is ill.Firstly,your response is a tu quoque.Secondly,There is no relationship between shared thoughts and thinking independently.To know what someone is thinking does not imply coercion or constraint.Your conclusion is false because it is based on premises that conflates different concepts.
===
-Determinism is complicated because we don't have all the answers to how we can be thinking human beings based on solely natural processes.
Perhaps the answer lies outside nature.

-Adding a God to the equation does not explain anything however... It does not say how God would have built us to be like that, it does not explain how a non-natural soul would work in synch with the natural body without leaving any trace
That's what spiritual teachings are there for - to explain how to harmonize mind/body and soul.Dualism can account for data which Materialism can only deny exists.
===
I believe there is always a morally acceptable choice in all situations, just like there is always something true and objective, but we, humans, need to work together to figure out what it is. No one has special access to what's true or moral.
You see,when you say things like "I believe" then it will seem personal when I attack that view.That's why I'm interested in Atheism/Materialism/Physicalism dogma.On Atheism there is no objective moral truths.There is only what is preferable at that particular moment in time,which does not extend to all other moments and situations.
===
But we are not. We are humans who care about themselves and each other. We build our own purpose.
You said before your conclusion is Atheism but this is clearly false.You accept certain key premises of Materialist dogma,such as determinism and survival of the fittest but you cannot accept its logical conclusion or implications because you know it's impossible to execute without violating theist moral codes which you have co-opted.

VALE

Hugo said...

Hey Phoenix, I don't see any questions so I won't have anything to add, even if you misrepresented or misunderstood a few things I said... I am just curious though, how long have you been following this blog, and the topic of atheism in general? Cheers.

Stan said...

This conversation has been moved here:

http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2015/03/free-thought-and-hugo.html