The Richard Dawkins Foundation (and skeptics)

Posted April 13, 2011 by marcusantonio91 in Open

Anonymous Icon

commented on Feb. 3, 2012



I'm fairly sure that people here will have seen the Richard Dawkins forum and how, for a clear thinking Oasis, it is fairly muddied; a few quotes here will highlight its inherent bias and close mindedness, including his mention of Sam Harris' interest in PSI and reincarnation: "I still cringe at the way Harris opened himself to manipulations by the freaks. Hopefully, one day he will acknowledge that there is nothing left to look into." Real friendly, huh? Another one accused Ian Stevenson of 'going senile.' "Harris was fascinated by studies which are deeply flawed and by a couple of books, one by a guy who went senile and left on a tangent. Which is nothing wrong, given that at the time he was young and not yet a scientist. Now he should know better, though. Secondly, those phenomena have been thoroughly investigated, it isn't the beginning of the last century any more. All the data point at statistical noise and flaws (e.g., non double-blind protocols)."

Dawkins clearly hasn't read into the studies; a lot of Stevenson's work has been praised by scientists and criticized by others. The point of this forum seems to sneer at the human condition and any idea that there could be the existence of certain phenomena. That's just my opinion, but I wonder if anyone else has encountered these problems. Here, again, is the link to his site

  • Anonymous Icon

    BECHAMEL Feb 03, 2012

    Pardon my lack of savvy, but did this party pen a book? If not mistaken, we may actually own a book by that author or, the book, depending upon if this is the only one authored. It was mistakenly stored in conditions considered unwelcome if one is a book. Will have to go unearth it to find out if any of it is still in readable format. Going on some of the remarks here, will expect some controversial leanings. Probably best not to stir up controversey, but the criticism has piqued curiosity. Mark me up there with the cats curiosity has claimed over time, I am going in.

  • KYRANI Jan 26, 2012

    Yeah a reincarnation of Charles Darwin who was the reincarnation of the last great ape!

  • Anonymous Icon

    Thedeafening Jan 25, 2012

    Is it possible for this guy to be the reincarnation of the late Sir Charles Darwin ?

  • Anonymous Icon

    Intergel Jan 17, 2012

    Long before I had heard of IONS, I asked Dawkins to comment on the exciting speculations and investigation into the subject of the Holographic brain that seemed to me to be at least a partial bridge between science and spirituality. When my post did not appear, I repeated it several times in different ways until I began to get the idea that this was a subject that he would rather avoid. Thankfully, IONS is now at my fingertips, like Christmas presents I can open, new, any day I want. Thank you, to them.

  • KYRANI Jan 16, 2012

    I am not talking about faith healing. I am talking about toxic relationship and maltreatment of an individual by a mob, done underhandedly as to cause the person to react and develop cancer and other diseases, depends on the foul play. Read my posts here http://www.noetic.org/noetic/issue-seventeen-december/unexpected-remission/
    and you will see that I am not treating the matter lightly. I also have a blog at http://kyrani99.wordpress.com/ where I have begun to describe the way the foul game play is done in order to raise awareness. You can overcome almost every serious medical condition IF you know how it comes about. Then you know what you need to do to get your body to do the job of reversing and/or repairing or what ever needs to be done. The body is better than the best team of specialists money can buy!

  • KYRANI Jan 06, 2012

    What cell groupings # whatever are you talking about?
    As for cancer, it's a paper tiger. I am totally unafraid of it. It can be reversed even more easily than counting 1,2,3! I don't like diets. I eat plenty of gluten and all the other things without restriction on my diet. And you know what.. neither cancer or heart disease or strokes or diabetes or anything else is worth worrying about. It is all conquerable I am living proof of that and without drugs and medical procedures.. WITHOUT THE NEED OF DOCTORS. LMAO! Sorry if that sounds crude.

  • KYRANI Dec 03, 2011

    They have restored my comment (#55 ANI) but they have barred me from there forever! Check out their attitude if you wish it is revealing.

  • KYRANI Dec 01, 2011

    Part 2: In later times (2005 Nov-2006 Jan - bowel cancer, many more types of cancer through to 2009 bone cancer )I began to realize what was going on and I developed and use mental prescriptions, which are formulations of ideas that can give instruction to my body and body cells to effect changes. It has nothing to do with spontaneous as in “out of the blue”. In spontaneous remission the changes occur because the problem has been removed and the immune response is no longer necessary. “The tumor” is not some out of control situation at all. It is there for a purpose and when the person resolves the problems they face the tumor goes away as is seen in many cases in medicine. I have discovered what to do to reverse the process and not even to develop tumors in the first place. I am telling you what I know from my own firsthand experience, not one or twice but a few dozen times in the last ten or so years."

  • KYRANI Dec 01, 2011

    Here is the post..
    Part1: "If there is someone off beam, it most certainly is not me. Cancer cells are not "mutants" in any way shape or form. They are puposefully brought into being. And there is no failure of apoptosis. Indeed the immune system protects them. They are functional in an attempted defense strategy that is misguided, but deliberate. Cells do not function on some "automatic pilot". They are made of very precise and elaborate machines and conduct their business in methodical and orderly fashion and for the requirements of life and living. The immune system cells deliberately create antigens to fight new sorts of microorganisms as may be found to be pathogenic. How does one change their genetic structure? This is a very important question. At the very heart of the matter is ideas. Ideas have no magical qualities or properties. Ideas are simply information. They indicate issues or actions that need to take place. It is through these means that the stem cells are prompted into action. I have observed through insightful meditative means that the stem cells undergo cell division but before that process proceeds to the stage where specialized cells form they terminate the division process. These cells are denser than the highly specialized cells and are used as a barrier. In converting them back to normal cells again ideas play a part. One can instruct one's body cells, given that they are coming from a position of knowledge, to revert these cells back to normal cells. The cells in question then proceed to complete the process that would have taken place prior to the last stages of cell division. They become fully functional, fully specialized cells. Then one can further instruct the body (immune system) to remove any excess masses by apoptosis. I have done this many times. And where it took me weeks to revert back a lump the size of a golf ball I can now revert the earliest size, like the grain of rice or smaller within hours and within a 24-hour period the lump is gone. There is no spontaneous reverting back for no reason. In spontaneous remission, which happen in the first two cases of my cancers (ovarian cancer that had spread to the bowel and lungs) and then oesophageal cancer, I had taken action to remove the problem in my life without fully understanding the reasons I did what I did. I just followed a gut feeling.

  • KYRANI Dec 01, 2011

    I made the following post today and the moderators removed it almost immediately, and I have not been allowed to post anything since. It's as if they saw red! They have attacked everything I said but have given me no way of defending it. What's the deal? Is it that offensive?
    and as you can see if you go to this link http://richarddawkins.net/videos/643953-disproving-intelligent-design-with-a-mouse-trap/comments?page=2#comment_894663 they have attacked me about it.
    I have not written anything that is not the truth. I have conquered cancer many times over without doctors and medicines and medical procedures and I believe I am duty bound to tell others how to do the same.

  • Anonymous Icon

    workinprogress Nov 14, 2011

    While I was somehow disappointed by Hawkins closed minded approach, I wondered why we have given his opinion so much power? Is it because he AMAZED us that someone living in such a disabled state had a functioning brain? or that his disability and his scientific mind seems so at odds with our biased way of looking at, and our shallow vaules re: the physical attributes of our scientists? ( would we be so enamored of Einstein if he had a slicked back hairdoo and stylish clothes?) I'm afraid that we romanticize these guys and expect too much of them.

  • slowlygetnthar Apr 28, 2011

    Doom and gloom change nothing. So, no Eeyore-ing, p-uh-lease!

    Lotsa folks think the end of the world is coming in 2012. This fatalist perspective excuses us from being sufficiently motivated to change anything NOW.

    You are like a stone, sending ripples out into the water around you. What you think and share matters. So, share your wonderfully open mind. Wonder is contagious. It will create those who wander... outside the box...further...

  • marcusantonio91 Apr 24, 2011

    I know there's nothing you can do to change their mind, but seeing as people like Dawkins, Peter Atkins and Richard Wiseman hold high positions in the public phsyche, any hope of changing the mind of the populace is doomed

  • charliet Apr 22, 2011

    One should always begin as a skeptic and end with the truth. It could be factual truth, logistical truth, etc. As long as one is willing to accept the truth or a trusted reasoning.

    Pity the skeptic who has a closed mind, do not waste time on them, listen to what they say, but be skeptical, until they are proven right.

    Always wonder and dream, never become sour or negative, live, laugh , love. Never loose the child inside.

  • marcusantonio91 Apr 22, 2011

    talking of skeptics there is a blog called "kill the afterlife" he says there is no evidence and wishful thinking. I wonder if I were to send him evidence from Ian Stevenson, or Julie Bieschel or Bruce greyson, how would he react. My guess is he would make up some excuse and try to shoot it down

  • cprize Apr 19, 2011

    Science caught up with spirituality when the Periodic Table of Elements was created, the benzine ring, the double helix of DNA, the Theory of Relativity, the Unified Field Theory and the Theory of Evolution to name a few. Those were all created by modern prophets, people who used their dreams for their creativity, not their doubts and disbelief. Dickie lacks that insight. He cannot see the forest for the stumps his mind creates. His mind has been infected by the absurdity of intentional ignorance. The best we thinkers can offer him for his pathetic limitations is to say, 'sorry you took the exceptional value of belief in, and use of, the Creator's ongoing communication (dreams and visions) and muddled it with the ignorant opinions and dogmas of religion'. Don't expect him to ever admit he missed the Source of Creativity that inspired so many others. He'd sooner sink with his holey diseased mind... the creutzfeldt-jakob disease lame-brain work alike he absurdly claims is atheism. In reality his disbelief is simply ignorance, it's not even doubt or skepticism because doubters and skeptics can change their minds on realizing information exists which supports a better more credible reality.

  • PonsAnimus Apr 18, 2011

    Personally I like the ideas of Richard Dawkins. Especially the theory about "the selfish gene".> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene <
    I like the idea that our body in parts is controlled by bacteria/replicators and can not see why this would lead spritual thoughts ad absurdum. Even more it reveals that we definitely carry a memory that is several 100thousands of years old. Why not also the memory of other lifes within us ? - It is known that bacteria directly hand over informations and store it.
    It offers a new angle to look at the word 'subconsciousness'. That our body is looked at as kinda bio-machine is not really new. Almost all spiritual people look at the body as kinda "container" for the soul.
    To draw a conclusion that Bacteria or "replicators" might be the basic of consciousness or even the whole evolution to argue that there is no "divine force" beyond the curtain, is the true blindness and ignorance here. The thought that this theory alone will bring us "out of the box" is to be doubted. The latter is the typical mistake done by people who look at themselves as the born wisdom itself. ;)
    That bacteria ARE able to control a complete "higher" organism is already shown and no longer only a theory, but more a matter of fact.

  • Fallensoul Apr 17, 2011

    Hi Marcus

    I apologize for the misunderstanding. I value your personal choice and certainly wasnt trying to attack that, but what I was commenting on is the idea that being "most spiritual" means to be inactive or "peaceful" -- which is what I understood you to say: "I choose number 3, because in the end it is the most peaceful and "spiritual" approach....The only way to really "know" the truth of the great spiritual teaching is through quietness and peace" And what I was presenting was that option 1 is equally or more a spiritual choice than option 3.

    I agree with you that debating with extremists is a waste of time, but the idea is not that we get them to budge an inch from their convictions -- that is unlikely to ever happen -- nor would they expect us to do the same -- but we must try our best to present the truth with equal vigor as they do, so that society is not misguided. There is scientific evidence and research, personal experience and spiritual knowledge proving that life comes from life, that there is life after death...and so we should present that and not ignore propaganda that opposes that. IONS, it seems to me, takes it as a duty to respond to that.

    The debating head on doesnt mean we want the skeptics to admit they are incorrect, but people in general should be able to look at the full picture and make their choice. The full picture means our presentation of reality should be there. If we let it be then, like just see the result. Most people in our secular world, keep a very skeptical outlook on life, which is so unfortunate because this life is so short. They will miss the chance in this rare human life to make the spiritual realization needed to actually become peaceful. Why? Because our society is so influenced by skeptical propaganda, And the result is that everyone is suffering due to lack of higher knowledge -- which is a sort of violence.

    "In the end, the greatest contribution I feel I can make is to align my consciousness with deep peace and presence. There is a genuine though invisible effect in doing that, even though few people will ever be able to consciously see it." So the point I'm making is that by not responding to skeptics we are actually committing violence, rather than becoming peaceful. If peace is what you want, it can be had on an individual level by taking option 3, but if we want peace for society as a whole, option 3 is an important necessity to upload the Absolute Truth. Therefore option 1, I would say, is more spiritual, although it requires more courage to be a front-line solider and I agree that not everyone can do it -- as I said before, there is nothing wrong with option 3 -- but i wouldn't really say its the most spiritual or peaceful option, considering the fact that it takes so much more selfless energy for someone choosing option 1.

    I hope this clears things up.

  • MarcusTAnthony Apr 17, 2011

    Fallen soul, it's up to you how you want to live your life, so I wouldn't dare try to tell you waht you should do. I'm simply pointing out the different outcomes that will occur from different approaches. Personally, as someone who has explored the intellectual world (I have a PhD and written many books and articles) and various aspects of human spirituality, my experience has led to suspect that the essential dilemma of the proponents vs skeptics fight cannot be resolved at the level of intellect. After all, Richard Dawkins has been to be wrong or at least ignorant on numerous occasions, but he hasn't shifted his opinion one iota. There are states of spiritual experience where the intellect becomes irrelevant. What is, is what is. There is no need to fight people in most situations most of the time. Skeptics like Dawkins are extremists. They are not amenable to intellectual debate, despite appearances that may suggest the contrary. In the end, the greatest contribution I feel I can make is to align my consciousness with deep peace and presence. There is a genuine though invisible effect in doing that, even though few people will ever be able to consciously see it. People like Dawkins are not as dangerous as you think, and it is with genuine (critical but open minded) skeptics that you should turn your attention, not extreme skeptics. Progress in this kind of science will not involve Dawkins and his buddies, that is certain, so I simply suggest ignoring them. Peace is simply too valuable a contribution to make to humanity to be wasted on those who don't value it. I do note that some parapsychologists still manage to maintain what I'd call a fairly positive energy despite their engagement with extreme skeptics. Rupert Sheldrake is one. Marilyn Shiltz is another.

  • marcusantonio91 Apr 16, 2011

    don't get me wrong I'm a skeptic to a certain degree, but the RDF skeptics seem to be 'ideologically motivated' by materialism. They are mostly secular humanist materialist atheists. What worries them that evidence for PSI/telepathy/NDE/reincarnation brings God back into the picture for them; which I personally think shouldn't necessarily be the case

  • PonsAnimus Apr 16, 2011

    I concider myself as a skeptic, an open minded one tho ;). I think dogmata are the death of all kind of evolution, while being skeptical will raise questions which might be impossible to answer at one point, but with an open minded will for research, they might find an answer sooner or later.
    Life taught me that to laugh about someone's idea just because he/she might be no "certified expert", may it sound rediculous for my ears at first sight or not, is the worst way to bring me forward.
    Look at history, at one point it was said that earth is a flat disk...nowerdays it is said that is not, because the we changed the point of view. But will our current "image", of how the universe is like, be the ultimate one ??? I doubt it.
    So the best way for me is to do it like mentioned unter point 3 by @Marcus TAnthony: "Let it be". I just take it that way and put even more effort in a project to bring up answers and repeatable positive/negative proof. Listening,thinking, dreaming, feeling,find junctions ---> draw a conclusion and test it. Does not work...try again ! :)

  • Fallensoul Apr 16, 2011

    Slowlygenthar well said!
    MarcusTAnthony: Suppose a group of thugs approach your loved ones with violent and destructive intentions, would you allow it and move away? Would that be the most peaceful and spiritual approach to allow others to be violent towards those that are near and dear to you. Would fighting them back mean that you're caught up in a false ego trip or feeling guilty about getting dragged into this mess. Those, like IONS, who consider upholding the truth to be very important, would certainly object, out of natural compassion, to those energies which attack the truth with false ideas. They are fighting this battle with full force. Does it mean they are less spiritual?

    Although its ironic that the skeptic themselves, being fully convinced that they are standing up for the truth, present their arguments in the name of protecting innocent people from falling victim to false ideas and illusions, they at least apply (albeit to opposite effect) the principle of standing up for what they feel is the truth. The skeptics and athiests are misdirecting the world into thinking that this life is the only life we have and that there is no conscious higher intelligence or design behind the world. This sort of perverted propaganda is most destructive and violent towards truth and so one would naturally wish to oppose these wrong ideas. When the kingdom is under attack, which king would go to the forest to meditate? Which person who is dear to the desires of the king would go to the forest?

    Ofcourse, it is granted many people, understanding their capacity, would prefer not to fight in a war out of their free will -- theres nothing wrong with that choice -- but to say that this option is more spiritual, seems to be a misunderstanding of "the only way of knowing true great spiritual teachings".

    Spirituality means everything can be used in the service of establishing the truth. It certainly doesn't mean that we must become inactive. Spirituality is full of action, but directed correctly, for the benefit of others - thats transforming the same activity into positive energy. Which is what IONS is doing. Otherwise if everyone chose option 3, there would be no need for IONS. A knife used in the hands of a killer is negative violence, but a the same knife used in the hands of a surgeon is positive violence. The knife itself is neither positive or negative. So sometimes violence is required for protecting oneself, for protecting the truth. That is proper use of violence. Therefore the proper use of peace is to uphold the truth, not run away from those who attack it.

  • MarcusTAnthony Apr 15, 2011

    There's are several approaches you can try to this problem.

    1) Become well versed in the literature and debate/fight the skeptics head on. This would include actually becoming a scientist or parapsychologist and conducting your own experiments.

    2) Read the skeptics web sites and get angry and bothered about it, maybe fight them and call them names.

    3) Let it be.

    I choose number 3, because in the end it is the most peaceful and "spiritual" approach. It called "allowing". In allowing others to be what they are you actually align yourself with something great and wonderful. I call it "light", but you can call it what you want. The only way to really "know" the truth of the great spiritual teaching is through quietness and peace, and to do this you have to allow others to be what they are. As soon as you judge them, or fight them you are back into the wold of the mind and ego. In the end, I have come to see that the skeptics vs proponents fight is all a mad projection of the egos of those involved. Even if you are on the "proponents" side you are still in the insanity of ego. In theory it would be possible to be a proponent and not get dragged into the fights, the control and power of the ego. In practice it is almost impossible. This is because whatever you focus upon tends to expand, and become reflected within yourself. If you sit by the ocean and allow the vast silence of the waters to fill your perception, the vast stillness becomes you. You find that within yourself. If you stare into the mad projections of ego, you will find the same within yourself very quickly. You get dragged into the muck. I know from personal experience that skeptics are wrong about many things, and I can see the psycho-spiritual "issues" that underpin the entire skeptical mind. I can see also when they are right in criticizing certain beliefs and philosophies. But in the end, it is not whether they are right or wrong in any given case which is most significant for me. It is the "energy' which they project. It is not a positive energy, but a violent and destructive one. I prefer to allow it and move away.

  • slowlygetnthar Apr 13, 2011

    I love the science, but am eternally confounded at the arrogance of the scientific community. Anything that cannot be easily measured, replicated, verified or pigeon-holed is often dismissed. As in other controversies, such as UFO's and Bigfoot, the public is told by reputable scientists that these things do not exist, instead of being told that SCIENCE HAS NOT EVOLVED ENOUGH TO MEASURE THE THINGS WE CANNOT EXPLAIN.

    That said, I applaud the researchers who put themselves and their careers out on limbs, investigating what has not been previously explored and explained: the late John Mack comes to mind here. Also, in many fields, such as paranormal investigation, ordinary people are trying different things to see what tools they can find to guage electromagnetic energy and infrared fields, for example, associated with hauntings. I believe legitimate sciences are springing from these modest persistent efforts. Isn't this how sciences evolve, anyway?

    Science may never catch up with spirituality. It does not mean whole worlds don't exist just because the scientific community can't even begin to hypothesize them...Lack of empirical validation does not invalidate experience. As a society, we need to stop thinking that it does.

Stay in touch with IONS