Pope says atheists can go to heaven...

[sharkman]

Yes, I agree with your analogy. In some special cases poison is preferable to the alternative. Religion is like a chemotherapy drug, toxic and harmful, to be administered only to patients who truly need it to avoid even grimmer consequences. Unfortunately, this particular drug is forced upon the majority of the world's children from as soon as they can understand spoken words.

How naive. It is man that is harmful, and some use religion as a weapon or a tool. It is neither. Man also uses hatred, fear, power and many other things to get what he lusts after. True faith has as its force love of God and others, not lust of power or whatever else man chases after.

[cybercoma]

Depends how you define religion. If it's simply faith-based belief, then that alone is certainly dangerous.

[TimG]

Depends how you define religion. If it's simply faith-based belief, then that alone is certainly dangerous.

You have not been following the thread. No one has provided a credible argument that faith based belief is harmful on its own (most seem to simply assert its truth without explanation). OTOH, it can be shown that in some cases theism is even helpful to people (from the AA example). Edited February 4, 2014 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

Belief without evidence is gullibility or even delusion. Like ignorance they are traits best reduced in a population.

AA's god based approach has a poor success rate, with no efficacy advantage over secular programs or even over those that do not seek treatment at all. There is no evidence to warrant belief in gods and there is not even any evidence to support their use as a crutch.

[TimG]

AA's god based approach has a poor success rate

Read your own article:

“Does A.A. or some other mutual-help group work for people who seek it voluntarily?” she said. “Obviously, a randomized trial cannot address that question. But observational data can.”

It is unlikely that substance abuse experts will widely reject A.A. on the basis of these findings.

“A.A. has helped a lot of people,” Dr. Nunes said. “There are a lot of satisfied customers. On the basis of that, we have to take it seriously.”

No one is arguing that AA is the only way to treat addictions. The argument being made is that AA works for some people and the belief in a higher power is an essential part of that process.

The other advantage that AA has over other programs is it is free so even if it is just as effective as other approaches it is still a preferred approach from a public policy perspective.

Edited February 4, 2014 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

No one is arguing that AA is the only way to treat addictions. The argument being made is that AA works for some people and the belief in a higher power is an essential part of that process.

AA has a dismal success rate, with no advantage over other programs. The success rate may even be worse than those who do not seek treatment at all. The argument I'm making is that this track record does not support the assertion that unsupported beliefs are beneficial. Furthermore the evidence suggests that the appeals to a higher power, prescribed by a man with hallucination issues over 75 years ago, do not increase the efficacy of the program and thus are not an essential part of the process.

[TimG]

The argument I'm making is that this track record does not support the assertion that unsupported beliefs are beneficial.

Fact: addiction is hard to treat and no method works very well. Fact: people benefit from AA. Fact: AA has a belief in a higher power at its core. Fact: people who actually interact with recovering addicts can see how the belief in a higher power provides tools that help with recovery. Therefore: a belief higher power can be a good thing.

None of your arguments refute the above.

Your opinion does not mean much until you actually talk to recovering addicts in AA and understand how the high power fits into their recovery process. You take the higher power away and there would be no recovery for these people. I had assumed that would be obvious but I have not encountered this level of anti-theist bigotry before.

Edited February 4, 2014 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

I was just reading an interview with Neil DeGrasse Tyson and this quote highlights the importance of avoiding unsupported belief, especially the religious variety.

“It was an odd kind of—I may have been the closest scientist to that event (9/11 WTC attacks). And when I sent out an email that evening to my colleagues and family, I just sort of described what I saw analytically. Now, how did I feel? What I know is, when you have a cosmic perspective, when you know how large the universe is and how small we are within it—what Earth looks like from space, how tiny it is in a cosmic void—it’s impossible for you to say, ‘I so don’t like how you think that I’m going to kill you for it.’ You will never find scientists leading armies into battle. You just won’t. Especially not astrophysicists—we see the biggest picture there is. We understand how small we are in the cosmos. We understand how fragile and temporary our existence is here on Earth. We understand there are bigger problems we need to solve as a species than what God you pray to.

“Any time scientists disagree, it’s because we have insufficient data. Then we can agree on what kind of data to get; we get the data; and the data solves the problem. Either I’m right or you’re right or we’re both wrong. And we move on. That kind of conflict resolution does not exist in politics or religion. It does not exist in so much of what we do as human beings on this Earth that it’s almost tragic.

http://parade.condenast.com/250603/lynnsherr/neil-degrasse-tyson-why-you-will-never-find-scientists-leading-armies-into-battle/

[The_Squid]

I was just reading an interview with Neil DeGrasse Tyson and this quote highlights the importance of avoiding unsupported belief, especially the religious variety.

http://parade.condenast.com/250603/lynnsherr/neil-degrasse-tyson-why-you-will-never-find-scientists-leading-armies-into-battle/

Brilliant... If a little bit of an exaggeration.... there are scientists out there right now trying to perfect the perfect way to kill people, whether it be with a virus, chemicals or nukes.

Edited February 4, 2014 by The_Squid

[Mighty AC]

Fact: people benefit from AA. Fact: AA has a belief in a higher power at its core. Fact: people who actually interact with recovering addicts can see how the belief in a higher power provides tools that help with recovery. Therefore: a belief higher power can be a good thing.

None of your arguments refute the above.

You are acting like a close minded bigot.

Ray Bourque was a top notch NHL blueliner who happened to change his skate laces before every game and between each period. Ray was inducted into the hall of fame in 2004. Using your logic, extremely fresh laces get some people into the hall of fame, thus, superstition is justified.

Just because AA includes appeals to a higher power does not mean doing so plays a role in recovery. The fact that similar programs without appeals to a higher power yield the same results even suggest otherwise.

[TimG]

Just because AA includes appeals to a higher power does not mean doing so plays a role in recovery. The fact that similar programs without appeals to a higher power yield the same results even suggest otherwise.

Read my updated post:

Your opinion does not mean much until you actually talk to recovering addicts in AA and understand how the high power fits into their recovery process. You take the higher power away and there would be no recovery for these people. I had assumed that would be obvious but I have not encountered this level of anti-theist bigotry before.

Also I am not claiming a magical effect from the belief - I am arguing that the belief has a real psychological effect on the way the addict thinks and this helps with the addiction. Therefore your analogy to good luck charms is ridiculous.

The bottom line is it works for some people and you have no rational basis to reject it as an option for people that choose it.

Edited February 4, 2014 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

Bourque will tell you that changing his laces 3 times per game was necessary to play at such a high level. That does not make it true or make a case for the benefits of superstition.

Some people may be positive that belief in a higher power worked for them whether or not said belief actually played a role. There is no evidence to support your claim that removing the higher power would have negated the chance at recovery. Now if AA was outperforming other 12 step programs and the only difference was the inclusion of a higher power, then the data would be on your side. Unfortunately, the data suggests that belief in a higher power makes no difference in beating an alcohol addiction.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Mighty AC

[TimG]

There is no evidence to support your claim that removing the higher power would have negated the chance at recovery.

Getting the evidence requires that one actually have a conversation with people who have recovered in AA and understand how the belief fits into their recovery program. Once you understand the interconnection between the belief in a higher power and their trigger and stress management strategies you would see that the link is pretty indisputable. If you have not done that then you can't say there is no evidence.

Unfortunately, the data suggests that belief in a higher power makes no difference in beating an alcohol addiction.

The data also says that nothing really works when compared to no treatment so the argument is really moot. People dealing with addictions need to find a path that works for them. For some people simply being told their liver is giving out is enough - for others they need something else. For some developing a belief in a higher power is the means to a recovery. There is absolutely no justification for excluding it as an option. Edited February 4, 2014 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

Getting the evidence requires that one actually have a conversation with people who have recovered in AA and understand how the belief fits into their recovery program. Once you understand the interconnection between the belief in a higher power and their trigger and stress management strategies you would see that the link is pretty indisputable. If you have not done that then you can't say there is no evidence.

I think that AC is trying to say that anecdotal evidence is insufficient for him to support your claim and that statical evidence is preferable.

[TimG]

I think that AC is trying to say that anecdotal evidence is insufficient for him to support your claim and that statistical evidence is preferable.

If I was arguing that AA is a universally applicable treatment then he would have a point. I am not arguing that. I am arguing that many of the people who get sober with AA get sober by adopting a belief in a higher power. To prove my point all I need to do is show that there are many people who have sincerely incorporated a belief in a higher power into their stress management strategies and that removing the higher power from those stress management strategies would leave them much worse off. This is not hard to do if one spends any time actually talking to people in recovery.

One of the biggest problems with academics that approach addiction treatment like a drug trial is there is no one size fits all approach. Everyone is different and needs a different approach. Sometimes failing with one will help the addict succeed with another For example, it is not uncommon to see someone try AA and fail, try therapy and fail, try inpatient treatment center and fail, try AA again and succeed. This is not because anything changed about AA between the initial failure and the success but because the addict got desperate enough to start listening. This is why studies like what AC keeps quoting are not that helpful in judging the usefulness of addiction treatment programs.

Here is a private treatment center on Vancouver Island that tried to measure their own success:

This study indicates 70% of patients completing their programs stayed clean and sober, two years after leaving treatment, and regardless of drug of choice or additional complications such as concurrent disorders

http://www.edgewood.ca/assets/uploads/2733.pdf

They are honest about the difficulties collecting these stats but 70% is pretty good and the AA 12 steps are at the core. People who go there are actively encouraged to find a higher power and many do make a higher power a central part of their stress management strategies.

The bottom line is anyone who actually works with addicts knows AC is spouting nonsense. A belief in a higher power does not help everyone but it helps enough that it is an indispensable part of the treatment toolbox.

Edited February 5, 2014 by TimG

[carepov]

There is no reasonable belief that extraterrestrial life is a certainty, just a strong probability that life of some sort exists elsewhere in the universe. This probability is based on the fact that the life harbouring conditions that exist on earth are repeated many, many times.

Sure, that's reasonable. But lets say that there are scientists that work for the SETI program that believe that extraterrestrial intelligent life certainly exists. Now should these people be lumped in with others that believe that aliens have directly influenced past civilizations, and even that alien anal probes are a daily occurrence?

IMO, this is what you are doing by stereotyping all religious people together.

Granted, there are good people with all sorts of unreasonable or delusional beliefs. However, when a baseless idea negatively impacts the lives of billions of people, in ways that range from simply unfair to down right evil, something has to be done. Hopefully, by challenging beliefs and shedding light on the evils and inequities, the good believers you speak of, will stop (unwittingly) lending their support to the organizations responsible for the problems.

I somewhat agree but the your range is off by a factor of two. The ideas that "God exists", and other related religious beliefs, impact the lives of billions of people in ways that range from positively uplifting to down right evil, with a whole lot of insignificant in between. Absolutely, when the impacts are negative the beliefs must be challenged.

What are some examples of today's organizations that you feel are "responsible for the problems"?

[The_Squid]

But lets say that there are scientists that work for the SETI program that believe that extraterrestrial intelligent life certainly exists. Now should these people be lumped in with others that believe that aliens have directly influenced past civilizations, and even that alien anal probes are a daily occurrence?

Yes. If they are certain, then they are not a scientist and are a nutbar of some sort. There is absolutely no "certainty" that aliens exist and anyone who claims this needs to provide evidence.

[bush_cheney2004]

There is even less mathematical certainty that anthropogenic forcing causes global warming, yet far more accept it as fact.

[eyeball]

Sure, that's reasonable. But lets say that there are scientists that work for the SETI program that believe that extraterrestrial intelligent life certainly exists. Now should these people be lumped in with others that believe that aliens have directly influenced past civilizations, and even that alien anal probes are a daily occurrence?

IMO, this is what you are doing by stereotyping all religious people together.

The difference is that religious beliefs have no basis in reality whatsoever whereas the alien scenario you posit, however absurd, does. In terms of probability the latter is entirely possible where the former isn't.

It would be more appropriate to group people who've reported being anally probed together with mildly delusional psychiatric patients.

[TimG]

In terms of probability the latter is entirely possible where the former isn't.

We don't know everything about the universe (e.g. dark matter/dark energy). A creator cannot be excluded from the realm of possibility. The biggest problem with creationism is the tendency to dismiss things that are not currently understood as 'acts of god' instead trying to find mundane explanations for them. That is why 'intelligent design' is not a scientific theory. Edited February 12, 2014 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

We don't know everything about the universe (e.g. dark matter/dark energy). A creator cannot be excluded from the realm of possibility. The biggest problem with creationism is the tendency to dismiss things that are not currently understood as 'acts of god' instead trying to find mundane explanations for them. That is why 'intelligent design' is not a scientific theory.

Agreed. Creationist rationale is also backwards. Rather using evidence to lead to a conclusion, they start with a conclusion and ignore any evidence that doesn't fit. Creationists start with the assumption that the bible is absolutely correct and then ignore geological records, dating methods, speciation events, cosmological observations, etc.

[Mighty AC]

Sure, that's reasonable. But lets say that there are scientists that work for the SETI program that believe that extraterrestrial intelligent life certainly exists. Now should these people be lumped in with others that believe that aliens have directly influenced past civilizations, and even that alien anal probes are a daily occurrence?

IMO, this is what you are doing by stereotyping all religious people together.

A person claiming that aliens absolutely exist would be equivalent to an atheist that claims gods absolutely do not exist. Both are belief without evidence, a practice worthy of criticism. All belief without evidence, including the religious variety, is worthy of criticism but not in equal amounts.

[WestCoastRunner]

The American Atheists group were supposed to have a booth at the Conservative Political Action Conference, however they made a comment "The Christian right should be threatened by us.” and they were banned from the conference. I guess the christian right really did feel threatened.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2014/02/25/big-mouth-gets-atheists-booted-from-cpac-booth