How Many Atheists Love Evil?

On CARM I'm dealing with a bunch of people who think "how od we know good is good and bad is bad? The asked questions like "how do you know God is good and not evil?"

when you say "the sources that I accept as authoritative tel me this" they go "o that's circular reasoning." ond of them even thought It' immoral to forgive people. Immoral to forgive!

Man our culture is doomed. We have no concept anymore of the basics.

Atheism and Animal Farm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Pepper View Post
And exactly what do you have to indicate any of what you think is true? Something besides some philosopher with "feelings" pontificating?
They are in such a habit of making stuff up from their arm chair about the universe that they no longer even question whether or not there is actual evidence to support it.

It must really make then think science is so silly spending all those resources and all that time actually looking for supporting evidence BEFORE they propose a theory

Atheists used to call themselves "free thinkers." But since the internet they have become increasingly afraid of any kind of thought. They hate logic. of cousre when I say that they go "O I love lgoic sure." But who uses logic? Philosophers use logic. So they say "Philosophers are stupid,they just use logic they don't have any facts." But what happened to loving logic? O they love it until it disproves their crap then it's no good.

several of them have told me that I jut mak up answers. NOw this is insane.

(1) either they mean by that that they think I made up the Platonic notion of esence an the athinasian creed and all that or

(2) they just any time you apply ideas through logic to answer an argument then your nimble wind, your wit, you creativity, and application of logic to some problem is "making stuff up."

either way this does not bode well for atheism. what is atheism but tireld narrow minded incompetent ignorant people who are outraged by things they don't know.

Intelligent peoel love to discuss ideas. what kind of people are afraid of ideas?

to be a theologian you have to know the history of ideas in the west, you have to know the great thinkers you have to understand the conversation of Western thought and letters.


ATheists are outraged by ideas they don't understand or agree with. They are in short, intolerant, narrow minded Is that what free thinker means?

why are you hypocrites so anti-free thought? just like Animal form where word come to meant the opposite of what they did mean.

You can't understand why I say its' an ideology? Brain washed animal farm animals came to thin the opposite of the slogans that started them out. Now we see the same thing in atheism. The so called "free thinkers" have so narrowed the defition of free thoguth that it comes to mean only people who agree with bigotted prejudiced and hatred are free thinkers. People who think and who search for ideas and thruths are just silly stupid unscientific theists who can't "reason." But then when expossed to reason wel if it's not backed by atheistic science (not that science is atheits but you have that association too) unless it's backed by science reason is evil.

It's animal farm all over again, the chickens come home to roust.


here's their brilliant answer that proves they are really free thinkers:

#2
JRT
Forum Member


Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ontario Canada --- near London
Posts: 476
Reputation: 83
JRT 76-100 points

some people appear afraid of spelling and grammar too.

OOoo wow what a thinker!

Sorry Loren

I wipped out your posts on this and Metacorck's blog by mistake.

I am sorry about that. post again?

What Do Atheists Think?

This guy on CARM who s defending the argument about complexity. The argument says we know that complexity is not the result of God, so we know that things can be produced which are not produced by God. I said how can we know that complexity is not the result of God? If you knew that you would have to know there is no God becasue theists beileve that all things are the result of God. If you already knew that you wouldn't need an argument. In other words you are begging the question.

This guy says:

Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
that just makes it an assumption. the onlky way youk can know it is if you know complexity is not produced by God.

Mollholinder:

My god; it's profound. I gave you seven commodities that weren't created by god and are complex. In fact, I know they weren't created by god because I can watch them being created by machines operated by tired factory workers and other machines.

He labels his own stupidity "profound." Why does he think he knows it's not made by God? Because he doesn't see God there fashioning things which we can observe being formed. Now why is stupid? Because no theists thinks that God is actually right there hovering around an ant hill helping the ant make their home, or formulating the cells of trees or soemthing. It's all the result of processes that God put in to operation long ago through some master plan. How totally idiotic!

If God is involved directly it would be at some level we can't observe like the strong force or something. I can't believe how idiotic that is. I just don't want to beileve that most atheists see things that way.

Multiplicy of Comments

Loren posted several comments, unfortunately I deleted them. That was a mistake. But the gist of at least one was that if one doesn't like being mocked for a disability then it's just making excuses for "short comings." She also quotes the "official reason" for by being banned at IIB.

Some atheits are constantly insulting to everything involved with religion.t hey do not think they do not argue, they do nothing but crank out hatred morning noon and night. If you fight back, you are being insulting. Like most little selfish whining atheists they never consider their own actions. Its' all coming in on them, they never think what they do to other people. That's why it's a hate group. It's just a bunch of selfish little pigs who can't think, trying to bully they way to hegemony over people who think.

Why does she believe The "official statement?" Like that really proves they weren't unfair. Like would really "officially" we are banning you because we are unfair bastards!

As for the initial assertion that dyslexia is just whining about short comings, as though spelling errors are "shortcoming." she still can't get it that I don't see the words they way do.

This is surely proof that these little Dawkamentailsts are just idiots. To not be able to comprehend that I can't see the words the right way, it's just stupid.


On carm in response to my thing on brain chemistry, which they clearly didn't read, becasue everyone of them has assumed I was saying that brain chemistry doesn't exist. If they read it they would see that I say nothing about brain chemistry not being involved in the way we perceive reality.

then one genius comes up with this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by CACTUSJACKmanki View Post
Probably because mystical experiences arent actually mystical. there is ZERO evidence that people are experience anything genuinely supernatural.

hey John Nance Garner! good to see you. Roosevelt's first vice President.


No there's a ton of evidence that ti's supernatural. The problem is you don't know what supernatural means. Since you have the wrong idea about what that is (as do moth atheists and even most Christians) you can't understand that iti s supernatural a prori, that's what supernatural means, it means mystical experience.


the nature of mystical experice in and of itself is the basis of the concept of supernatural.

Quote, Cactus Jack:
Keep in mind that annecdotes are not evidence as they are totally subjective and do not occur within controlled conditions. I do not doubt that people have strange experiences, i doubt their explanation of the cause and nature of those experiences. Mystical experiences dont prove mystical reality any more than loch ness monster experiences prove the loch ness monster or alien abduction tales prove ET species have interacted with humans.

350 studies is not anecdotal. A measurement devise, the M scale, excepted as vaild by a whole discipline in psychology is not anecdotal.

By definition that's the opposite of anecdotal.


when will you people start listening?

here's why I hate atheists

things are going ok at carm. they haven't started in yet so I haven't insluted anyon yet, then I post this:



Someone linked to an article:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...34&ft=1&f=1012

the point of the article is to destroy faith in religion by reducing religious experinces to brain chemistry. They link up the sensations and the activities of the brain when one is thinking about God. That is exactly the evdience I sue when I talk about the structure in the brain that gives us the idea of God. That general argument holds no terror for one who believes in religious experince. It doesn't disprove RE and it doesn't provide an alternative that reduces to naturalistic origins either. Here's why:

(1) they can't prove they are studying real mystical experience.


Most of the researchers who do the God part of the brain studies, who try to match up parts of the brain with religious experience, this goes for the guy with the helmet, Ramerchandrin, Newberg and all of them, none or them are able to show that their subjective are having real mystical experiences.

The one way to do that scientifically, those guys don't even know about. The way is the "M scale." You have me speak fo this before. It was invented Ralph Hood, it measures the extent to which one has had 'peak' experience or mystical experience. The reseravchers in that artile do not use the M scale at all. That means they are just assuming that any thought about God is as good as any ohter thought, that' is not the case.

Since they aren't measuring religious experiences they can't claim that religious experience reduces to brain chemistry. These reductionists are pulling a bait and switch. They switching real religious experince for any thoughts about God, or strange experinces in which something about God is mentioned. This came out in John Hick's book about New Frontier of Religion and Science.


(2) Lining up chemical with God imagery proves nothing.

All these researchers are doing is trying to line up the presence of some tranquilizing chemical such as serotonin and some form of thought which includes religious imagery. That doesn't prove anything becasue they can never show that the serotonin is the actual cause of the transformation effets that occur long term over the life span of the subject many years subsequent.

(a) is the cheical present becasue the tranquil effect of God's presence causes the release?

(b) did God release the chemical to calm them down?

(c) Does the presence of the chemical even have anything to do with the transformation effects?

None of those have been answered.

(3) Opening receptors to the divine.


We are sentient flesh and blood beings. If God created us, he created us that way. If we are the product of evolution only, evolution has made that way. That's the way we are. We think by having our thoughts transmitted by neural receptors in teh brain, those are chemicals. Just like having ears. We hear by picking up vibrations on the ear drum.

God could not speak audibly to us without using your ears. By the same token, if God wants to give us thoughts and sensations, he has to paly with the chemicals. The fact that a trigger mechanism can open the receptors so that we are more included to these experiences than otherwise is no more a disprove of God being involved in the process than Moses having ears to hear God speak disproves God's voice.

Reductionists will make much of the fact that several studies in which psilocybin mushrooms were used produced a valid mystical experience. That is ture in several studies, the major two being Good Friday by Pahnke, (early 60s) the follow up in the 80s (forget who did that) and a recent one by Grifiths (Johns Hopkins).

I actually discussed the latter study with Hood, the inventor of the M scale. he's impressed with the study but doesn't find it challenging his work or his conclusions at all. Far from seeing it as any kind of disproof of God he takes the study as a whole as proof of all of his ideas about God about religious experince. Most researchers in that field do. None of them actually try to use that kind of study as disproof most of them use it as proof of the validity of religious experince, mushrooms and all. But this is a very different set of researchers and a different kind of research from the Ramerchandrin God finder helmet and God part of the brain.

The Good Friday study and its follow up is even less of an argument for reductionism and more proof for the open receptor theory that the pro mystical core faction argue (the idea that God is doing it). The reason is becasue the follow up shows that the mystical experinces induced by the mushrooms produced profound changes in teh subjects that radically transformed their lives and stuck with them through out life. Many of them said that was the most crucial moment in their lives.

Now it is true that the meditation group, the control group that did not take mushrooms only did mediation did not have those profound changes. But the thing is almost all the mushroom takers were mystical anyway before they tried the mushrooms. They were chosen from among a group of seminarians. Most of them had had religious experinces in their childhoods and were headed for the ministry. They were mystics long before they were mushroom takers. Most of them had already had these experiences. So the what this is proves is not tha the very same experiences with the very same outcome can be induced by naturalistic means, but that the triggers (including drugs) open the receptors which are partly opened anyway and experiences already being had become greater.

This is obvious because otherwise they would have to have the same experince as the control group since the argument is that those experinces can be induced naturally. But the fact they were already having them disrupts that argument because this was not something induced upon people who had no relationship with the divine.

(4) Doesn't explain outcomes


The outcome for most is that they find their lives transformed by mystical experiences. This has been demonstrated over and over with 350 studies over a four decade period. Those transformation effects have not duplicated by any other means. The immediate sensation of the religious experince may be had by inducing some drug, but the long term positive effects have not been so duplicated. The point is not the immediate sensation but the effects long term.


There is no other example of such effects being induced by anything. The only example that comes close is the Good Friday follow up, but since that experimental group were mystics anyway, there is no control that would separate the two effects; making the open receptor idea much more plausible.

Most atheist seem to think the point is that God is doing this by magic. Andrew Newberg in Why God Wont Go Away rights about the realization of a neural dimension to the spiritual, without fear of reduction to the naturalistic. Its' not magic and it doesn't have to be. God can work through naturalistic means. The one difference that we can look at and say "this is God" rather just "this is serotonin" is the long term effects and their relation to promotion of a way of life that works.

Atheists also seem to think that reductionism is beating up on the Spirit if it doesn't find some mysterious element or source of energy or some kind of energy that can't be explained. None of that, not a strange energy, or magic, or an element we don't know is necessary. We do not have to find something in the process of the experience that can't be accounted for in the natural, because it is a natural process. The thing that stands out and makes it different and tags it as the trace of God is the divine in the content of the experince, and the long term effects which can't be produced by anything else.
__________________
Metacrock



serious. I put a lot of time in on it. I clealry want a serius response and here's what I get.


the first, I can't copy it because it's on ignore but when I looked at it it just says something like "you are stupid, you do't understand any of this." that's all.

I say "you a re childish go away." so the next one says "irnony meter" he qutoes my signature line saying something about stupid people.

so we are off to the races now. why? Because they can't handle thought, they are stupid little childish pieces of shit who are not serious about anything. O that's just the internet.

Now it's not just the internet. they don't do that on the garden party board.

its' atheists.


Axehandle says:"The irony just gets richer and richer with each post!"


then this happens:


the point of the article is to destroy faith in religion by reducing religious experinces to brain chemistry. They link up the sensations and the activities of the brain when one is thinking about God. That is exactly the evdience I sue when I talk about the structure in the brain that gives us the idea of God. That general argument holds no terror for one who believes in religious experince. It doesn't disprove RE and it doesn't provide an alternative that reduces to naturalistic origins either. Here's why:

(1) they can't prove they are studying real mystical experience.


Most of the researchers who do the God part of the brain studies, who try to match up parts of the brain with religious experience, this goes for the guy with the helmet, Ramerchandrin, Newberg and all of them, none or them are able to show that their subjective are having real mystical experiences.

The one way to do that scientifically, those guys don't even know about. The way is the "M scale." You have me speak fo this before. It was invented Ralph Hood, it measures the extent to which one has had 'peak' experience or mystical experience. The reseravchers in that artile do not use the M scale at all. That means they are just assuming that any thought about God is as good as any ohter thought, that' is not the case.

Since they aren't measuring religious experiences they can't claim that religious experience reduces to brain chemistry. These reductionists are pulling a bait and switch. They switching real religious experince for any thoughts about God, or strange experinces in which something about God is mentioned. This came out in John Hick's book about New Frontier of Religion and Science.[/qutoe]
Then let someone with experience with the 'M Scale' evaluate the claims in the article.
It should be pretty simple...

Quote:
do do boy: They can if serotonin produces the same affects when artificially administered.

I just got through showing why they can't. I showed you that they have not done so nor can they and I told why. They can't show any exmaples of that drug causing the same effects in others contexts.



Quote:
Then we can't say that its not any thing other than chemical processes.

that's' right and that means you can't prove your arugment.



Quote:
So what's the difference between a biochemical process in which the subject experiences a spiritual event or a spiritual event that causes the subject to experience a biochemical change?


the one involving content about God changes lives, the one tha doesn't have that doesn't change lives. so we can assume that experince of God changes lives. thus we can asset it's of God. becasue we should expect that becasue that's the function of religion.




Quote:
The problem here is that the two events are connected and cannot be differentiated as isolated events. We know that we can induce equivalent experiences by manipulating the biochemical processes in the brain. If the 'evidence' can be explained by natural processes, why would we conclude that something supernatural is interfering with natural processes?
no I just showed you why we don't know that we can. Because the only study where they tried to they didn't have any way of establishing mystical experiences. So they weren't dealing with what I am talking about.

I also said they are asserting that any talk of God is the same as any other. It's not. they didn't use the M scale.

see that would be like not having a control group. Do you not understand how bad that would be?


Quote:
Reductionists will make much of the fact that several studies in which psilocybin mushrooms were used produced a valid mystical experience. That is ture in several studies, the major two being Good Friday by Pahnke, (early 60s) the follow up in the 80s (forget who did that) and a recent one by Grifiths (Johns Hopkins).

I actually discussed the latter study with Hood, the inventor of the M scale. he's impressed with the study but doesn't find it challenging his work or his conclusions at all. Far from seeing it as any kind of disproof of God he takes the study as a whole as proof of all of his ideas about God about religious experince. Most researchers in that field do. None of them actually try to use that kind of study as disproof most of them use it as proof of the validity of religious experince, mushrooms and all. But this is a very different set of researchers and a different kind of research from the Ramerchandrin God finder helmet and God part of the brain.

The Good Friday study and its follow up is even less of an argument for reductionism and more proof for the open receptor theory that the pro mystical core faction argue (the idea that God is doing it). The reason is becasue the follow up shows that the mystical experinces induced by the mushrooms produced profound changes in teh subjects that radically transformed their lives and stuck with them through out life. Many of them said that was the most crucial moment in their lives.

Now it is true that the meditation group, the control group that did not take mushrooms only did mediation did not have those profound changes. But the thing is almost all the mushroom takers were mystical anyway before they tried the mushrooms. They were chosen from among a group of seminarians. Most of them had had religious experinces in their childhoods and were headed for the ministry. They were mystics long before they were mushroom takers. Most of them had already had these experiences. So the what this is proves is not tha the very same experiences with the very same outcome can be induced by naturalistic means, but that the triggers (including drugs) open the receptors which are partly opened anyway and experiences already being had become greater.

This is obvious because otherwise they would have to have the same experince as the control group since the argument is that those experinces can be induced naturally. But the fact they were already having them disrupts that argument because this was not something induced upon people who had no relationship with the divine.

The long term effect could have been implemented by the subjects based on the belief that they had a supernatural encounter. -It still does not prove that their experience wasn't a biochemically based event.




Quote:
you: The thing is Meta, you are trying very desperately to confirm your beliefs but are ignoring other possibilities. This is not good scientific methodology.
you are trying desperately to assert the validity of reductionism even though I've disproved it's validity. You are not answering the arguments, you just mouthing bs according to your world view.


you think it's good methodology that they didn't use the major method of detemining religious experince which is universally accepted byt he whole field of psychology fo religion? who are you to talk about good scientific method, you can't even understand the criticisms of the studies.

you don't seem even understand the seriousness of not having a control.



Quote:
People make long term changes all the time, its part of being human and does not necessitate a supernatural experience or being.
No, that argument dosn't wash.

(1) no documentation you are asserting anecdotal truism.

(2) since you have no studies you can't compare and say that those changes you speak of as as deep or as dramatic.

(3) you can't show any analogous context where tweaking brain chemistry wihout a religious context produces the same things.



Quote:
Fine, then there is no reason to posit a 'god'.


that's certianly an irrational conclusion. the reason is self evident.

Quote:
The long term effect could easily be caused by the subject.
then why can't you show me millions of people changing their lives at will? why dont' heroine adcist stop being addicts? why don't alcoholics just hit the wagon? why don't people just clean up their lives and end all social problems?


youk can't prove that and you know you can't.


Quote:
Until you can isolate and control for the subject's involvement of their own experience, you cannot say that it points to a god.

I just did. most of the studies do. why don't you try the words next time.


you don't have a single study the reason is there are none. you are too lazy to look up the one's I talk about.


the truth is science has proved the validity of religion and atheists aer too full of hate and self aggrandizement to accept the truth. you don't know anything about study methods and you know you don't.
__________________
Metacrock

Still a Lot of Stupid Atheists Out There

I wound up posting on CARM again, I wont go inot the details. The moron I encoutnered last summer caled "Sofa King" is still stupid after all these months. here's waht he ays:

Here we have a case of complete lack of immunity to the mind virus otherwise known as liberal Christianity... you know... the made up version of the completely made up religion.

This is a relatively new strain that survives because it adapts effortlessly to the whims of the host. If the host isn't comfortable with a literal reading of some story in the Bible, this particular stain allows the host to pick and chose what he wants to take literally. In this way this new strain is more adaptable to the host than the more primitive strains, and thus less likely to be rejected. But, lurking underneath, is still the same old bronze-age myths.

So the view he doesn't like is a virus, it's a sickness. How amazingly surprising that he would try to destroy the enemy idea by reducing it to to the level of a germ. The problem is with all the studies that show the value of religious experince then it seems obvious that atheism msut be the germ. In any case how does one go about setting a stand by which to decide which is the virus and which is the anti-body?


Virus from an anti-body? How do we know the Swine flew isn't good for us and that the bugs that fight the swine flew aren't what make us sick?

You might say our anti-bodies are part of us so they are in sink with our normal sense of wellness. The flu is debilitating so it represents some sort of degradation form our normal state.

So let's see,w hat is good for us is probably nature and part of the design that nature intended, so to speak, and what makes us sick is bad for us.

how do we establish a base line to compare and determine which is which?


Sofa King says religion is a virus. But science proves that there is a structure in the brain that gives us the idea of God, it's part of who we are. Religious experinces have been demonstrated over and over again to be really good for us.

since RE makes one less depressed, and helps us get over depression is used in healing mental illness, but atheism leads to more depression (proven in studies) and does not produce the long term positive effects that RE does, which would be the natural way and which the disease?
__________________

Answering "Humble Athiest" in Respond to Introduction to Atheist Watch

I put up a post on my other blog (Metacrock's blog), well to tell the truth it was a bit of taunt. I do say some things that might be just a tad provocative, such as calling atheists a loose collection of misfits. So even today (the original was published back in December 8, 2007 (this was for the original version of atheist watch--which was meant to be insulting and a place to vent my rage). I am going to edit it so that it's less provocative because I'm still getting hate comments on it. Here's the original version so you can see it one last time:

Atheist Watch Is my new Blog where I will chart the progress of the New Atheism in critical terms. Part of the mission of Atheist Watch is to keep track of the New Atheism as it transits from a lose collection of angry misfits to an actual hate group. I will also present arguments about major atheist ideas and others things pertaining to events connected with the atheist movement. I will use this blog for positive things. Here is where I will put God arguments and analyze ideas and constructs. But Atheist Watch will be used much as old Blog Fundie Watch was used. I hope Atheist Watch gets more traffic. Almost no one ever looked at Fundie Watch. I'm not sure why. but both groups need to be keep kept in view. Both New Atheism and fundies are a threat to society.

I can't get too angry since that post is rather egging them on. But today's first rant was by an "anonymous" (another one).

If you look back in history and study it with an open-mind (which unfortunately you cannot do coz your god doesn't allow it) you would see that humanity is moving towards less religion, more science ALL the time. It is an evolutionary process, no-one can stop it.

keep fighting your lost battle, humanity of tomorrow will flush books like bible down the toilet, not as a gesture of disrespect, but solely for the purpose of ridding itself of redundant objects.

The the first paragraph is a very old fashioned view of science and certainly an outdated understanding of the relation between science and religion. Its' least one hundred years old if not two hundred. The second is an absurdity since atheists still make only 3% of world population. After two centuries of the clap trap that science is so modern and disproves and God Religious belief is irrational, all of which is totally out of date and has been easily disproved a thousand times, there is only still 3% of the population of the world that buy it!

At this point it's pretty clear it wont work. I pointed out the 3% thing then this second one came in. If the same guy or a friend I don't know.

Blogger The Humble Atheist said...

Just because there is a low percentage of atheists in the world does not mean that we are wrong. I mean let's face it, there is no way to tell if either of us is correct (whether there is or isn't a god). Personally I think it is a shot in the dark to say there is a god and in a way a bit self-centered. You're basically saying "Hey look at me, I'm so perfect and beautiful that my BIG daddy in the sky is going to make everything peachy for me" So naive!!! All those who have actually searched the meaning of their existence have come to the conclusion that the only truth they can come up with is the fabrications of their subjective viewpoint.. nothing more!
Therefore anyone who is trying to convince others of the reality of a god is trying to convince those people to share their complex fantasy. You're a pretty angry guy it seems for someone who thinks that they have the support of a god with them at all times.. what's your angle?? Why do YOU believe in God???

Let's answer step by step:

Just because there is a low percentage of atheists in the world does not mean that we are wrong.

I did not say it meant that. I was responding to someone who making triumphalist assertions that atheism is beating up religion and implies that religion is in decline.

I mean let's face it, there is no way to tell if either of us is correct (whether there is or isn't a god).

Of cousre there is. We can determine which of us as the more rational, well read, studied and learned out look (that would be me of cousre). There is no way to prove to your satisfaction that God exists because you will always demand more no matter how reasonable the proof. If there is the tiniest margin for a leap of faith you will always demand that there is no proof and all and no reason to believe. No matter the evdience shows you will always assert a lock of proof not matter how irrational or improbable denying the obvious gets. That is not the same as saying no way to know which one is right. We can know which has the more intellectual, rational, better documented, better argued case. But of course you can always deny that that means anything.

Personally I think it is a shot in the dark to say there is a god and in a way a bit self-centered.

But it doesn't matter because you would not accept the most well reasoned proof.

You're basically saying "Hey look at me, I'm so perfect and beautiful that my BIG daddy in the sky is going to make everything peachy for me" So naive!!!

This is a statement of absolute ignorance.It shows that you have not bothered to read my blog or anything I've written because I habitually make the statement "God is not a big sky daddy." I say that constantly. But you have idea what my view of God is because you have not bothered to learn anything about my view.s you assume I must be so very stupid because all religious people are stupid. You buy into the typical hate group assumptions of hate group Dawkamentlaism.If you knew anything about Christan views you would not see salvation as arrogance but as just what the same says, we are sinful people who don't deserve mercy being saved by the source of love because the source of all love cares about people.

Apparently you have not herd of the concept of grace have you?

All those who have actually searched the meaning of their existence have come to the conclusion that the only truth they can come up with is the fabrications of their subjective viewpoint.. nothing more!

this is childishly simplistic statement. "All those who have thought about their existence." What a stupid ass thing to say!" you don't all those who have thought about it, but this shows how terrible unread you are. I was thinking about the meaning of my existence when you were a gleam in the milk man's eye. I was an atheist and existential before you were born (1973).?? I don't know how old you are but I imagine maybe like 17?

I am willing to bet I was reading Sartre and Camus before you existed. There are also a host of thinkers who have are far more deeply involved in thinking about the meaning of their existence who don't come to the puerile conclusion that there's no God, which is nothing more than an excuse to screw.

Act of Hate: Atheist group offers porn for Bibles.

In my view this is an act of hate. It illustrates the continuing movement of hateful sentiments and actions reverberating throughout the atheist community.

from Boingboing

Atheist Agenda, an atheist group at U Texas San Antonio, staged a "Porno for Bibles" event, where they gave free pornography to people who traded in religious scripture. Link (via

An atheist group called "Think Atheist" is willing to face the difficulties of being wrong:

Well, what if we are wrong? How are we going to spend eternity in hell? Think realistically (if you can) about what awaits us. Let us discuss the darker side of the monotheistic culture.

something inherently perverse there. The site shows graphics of Heroshimius Bosch's painting of hell.

Another page labels Christians "Jesusphiles" as though it's a dirty word. It's a dirty thing to love Jesus.It's evil, you are pervert if you are a Christian.

There is a reason why Jesusphiles hate and fear atheists: it has to do with resentment. Atheists do not believe in gods, therefore they are not, in a non-theocracy, subject to the dictates of the priestly elite (aka money donations) who pretend to speak for their gods. Extortion threats of "Hell" and "damnation" thus do not work against atheists, and this cuts into the elite priests' funds--- for every person born who remains an atheist, that is one less person giving money to the priestly elite in exhange for "peace of mind."

this is an extremely hateful mentality. they all it mapped like a political philosophy, compete with derogatory names of the target of their hatred, and a "them and us" view of the world with a philosophy based upon being the persecuted target of the hated one's they target with their own hatred.

Their fantasy constructs are structured to paint a picture of the world very similar o the racists in the old south. They imagine themselves to be happier and more productive than Christians because they assume Chrsitians are useless idiots.

That is not the only reason why Jesusphiles hate and fear atheists. Atheists are happy, productive, ethical, caring, compassionate, charitable, liberal, decent, kind, moral, and good citizens. The Jesusphile has been told to believe that only belief in the gods of their priestly masters can yield these positive traits. In other words, the priestly elite has lied to them: every time a Jesusphile sees a good, humane atheist, that lie is rubbed in their faces. This generates resentment against the priestly elite, but the Jesusphile, believing that their masters speak for their gods, makes the atheist the target of their resentment instead

Of course this is exactly contrary to the studies which show that religious belief is the no 1 factor in well being, and that people who have Religious experinces do much better across the board than those who don't.

"Doctrors find Power of faith hard to ignore
By Usha Lee McFarling
Knight Ridder News Service (Dec. 23, 1998) Http://www.tennessean.com/health/stories/98/trends1223.htm Quote:


"Some suspect that the benefits of faith and churchgoing largely boil down to having social support � a factor that, by itself, has been shown to improve health. But the health effects of religion can't wholly be explained by social support. If, for example, you compare people who aren't religious with people who gather regularly for more secular reasons, the religious group is healthier. In Israel, studies comparing religious with secular kibbutzim showed the religious communes were healthier."Is this all a social effect you could get from going to the bridge club? It doesn't seem that way," said Koenig, who directs Duke's Center for the Study of Religion/Spirituality and Health .Another popular explanation for the link between religion and health is sin avoidance."

"The religious might be healthier because they are less likely to smoke, drink and engage in risky sex and more likely to wear seat belts.But when studies control for those factors, say by comparing religious nonsmokers with nonreligious nonsmokers, the religious factors still stand out. Compare smokers who are religious with those who are not and the churchgoing smokers have blood pressure as low as nonsmokers. "If you're a smoker, make sure you get your butt in church," said Larson, who conducted the smoking study."

350 studies back up that conclusions. Here are the findings of two major studies Wuthnow and Nobel. These are qualities they show that people who have religious experinces possess to a significantly greater extent than those who don't.

Wuthnow:

*Say their lives are more meaningful,
*think about meaning and purpose
*Know what purpose of life is
Meditate more
*Score higher on self-rated personal talents and capabilities
*Less likely to value material possessions, high pay, job security, fame, and having lots of friends
*Greater value on work for social change, solving social problems, helping needy
*Reflective, inner-directed, self-aware, self-confident life style

Noble:

*Experience more productive of psychological health than illness
*Less authoritarian and dogmatic
*More assertive, imaginative, self-sufficient
*intelligent, relaxed
*High ego strength,
*relationships, symbolization, values,
*integration, allocentrism,
*psychological maturity,
*self-acceptance, self-worth,
*autonomy, authenticity, need for solitude,
*increased love and compassion

notice the Jesusphile site does not offer any study evdience in favor or their assertions.

The sites ends their orgiastic hatred by quoting many many comments from "alleged Christians" cursing at them. But I'm sure they made up most of them.

Who is the real hate monger?

Hermit is upset because I link to some sites are uncomfortable for him. Some of them are pretty dumb and I link to them for different reasons. One makes the idiotic assertion that teaching evolution is responsible for Hitler. I link to it because it shows the number of dead that communists killed. While I am not a rabid anti-communist I think it's important to always keep that in mind, lest atheists get on their high horses. They do tend to try and link 9/11 to religion. Is' the Muslim connection. They seem to just forget the poetical connection completely, so ignorant. So that's why that is there. Hermit is outragged. he can't believe I would link to that. But you know look at many atheists all over the net are in there every day saying that 9/11 proves religion is evil. or that the crusades prove Christianity will make you murder people.

I would think a socially conscious guy like Hermit would be more inclined to understand the desire to sound the cry of a social problem such as the hate group sector of atheism. But apparently when it comes to that social ill he wants to sweep it under the rug.

I found a site wailing on atheist Nexus. Atheist nexus is a pile of crap ran bu adolescent jerks. One of the cartoon that I find extremely distasteful, juvenile and offensive shows Jesus actually excreting eater eggs into a basket held by a Bishop. The "offensive" person warning us of the hateful content of this cartoon is doing us a service by showing that there is this vicious group of hateful people. Of course, Hermit acts like the person warning is is the villain, almost on a par with White supremacy.

I'm beginning to wonder is he really upset by it (he seems hysterical). Or is he just trying to manipulate me. I don't find the person doing the warning all that offensive. I see someone who may be real conservative and easily offended who is warning society about this hateful group. When is Hermit going to demand that Atheist Nexus take down the offensive cartoon? So you think for a moment they would?


here is what this person says, I would like to know if it's really all that hateful.

[Click the star to watch this topic]
[Click the envelope to receive email updates]

flag
Messages 1 - 25 of 41 - Collapse all - Translate all to Translated (View all originals) Newer >
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
Cancel


Send Discard


From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:

Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:

Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
Send Discard



fasgnadh
View profile
(2 users) More options Apr 8, 8:50 pm
Newsgroups: alt.atheism, alt.religion, aus.religion, alt.philosophy, alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.republicans, aus.politics, alt.politics.communism
From: fasgnadh
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 01:50:46 GMT
Local: Wed, Apr 8 2009 8:50 pm
Subject: Examining Irrational Atheist Culture - Hate Filled Venom at Easter
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

There is something cold and repulsive at the heart of atheist
culture, the sort of humour that is based on pulling the
chair out from under someone sitting down, puling the wings
of butterflies.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_kDyMtZ_dJwQ/SRFIJBheq_I/AAAAAAAAAb0/Ay8c7EH...

Not satisfied with their own unhappiness,
they seek to inflict it on others. They have chosen
the most trivial subset of empty Nihilism to believe in,
and thus have nothing positive to offer, but their spiritual
vacuum is not passive, but increasingly overt and aggressive..
like a black hole, sucking meaning and pleasure from life,
and they sense their sad state and so have to try and
rationalise their unhappiness;

http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17456?context=latest

Atheist Dogma serves to Rationalise their own misery and despair

First, as in any fact based, rational analysis, let us look
at some examples.. not the criticisms of theists, but the
cultural artifacts of atheists themselves;

It is Passover for Jews and Easter for Christians
and while I am neither Christian or Jew, I can observe that
the modern neo-Nazis are more constrained in their overt
anti-semitism (afraid they will get their arses kicked again,
as when the 1000 Year Retch was a pile of smouldering rubble in
less than a decade) the hate-filled propaganda directed at
Christians proceeds unabated;

http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/happyeasteregg-1

Now most of us know the story of Jesus, and the various
interpretations of it's meaning, but have you ever seen
a more tasteless and peurile representation than the
adolescent nonsense which amuses atheists?

It is just plain Gibberish, wrong in so many ways.

First, Christ has nothing to do with Chocolate eggs,
which the commercial interests he turned out of the
Jewish Temple, promote months before Easter.

The Golden Calf has always competed with genuine religion,
but, unlike the ignorant atheists, most Christians seem quite
able to seperate the important message of Easter from a bit
of chocolate for the Kids, and the associated multi-million
dollar industry, diabetes and obesity.

I prefer Ramadan and Lent. In a consumer culture, a short respite
from consumerism is beneficial. Ultimately the best preventative
for the diseases of excess is some self control, and quiet reflection
on how we are driven by, or control, our wants and needs is as
essential pr-condition for mental and physical health.

While Christians, who are not as dogmatic and doctrinaire
as these atheist propagandists, are generally quite tolerant
and do not try and ban Chocolate Bunnies and Eggs, the
dog-in-the manger atheists are quite happy to produce images
which offend not only Christians, but other decent folk, and
even children, who continue to be the objects of forced atheist
indoctrination, though not on the scale of the USSR and Mao's
China;

http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:1652?context=latest

Most shocking is the attempt by atheists to re-crucify Christ.

He represented a threat to bigots 2000 years ago and they
invented a lie, trumped up charges, to kill him.
Now atheists, revealing their incoherent rage that Jesus
still exerts incredible influence which thay can never achieve,
attempt to once again crucify him with a Big LIE!

Such bitter and savage fabrication is a measure of the desperate,
hysterical hate which consumes atheists.

But this cartoon is also a classic case of how little atheists
have to offer, even in their intended aim of social critique.
They not only misrepresent the relationship between Jesus and
the Chocolate industry, they portray the priesthood as the greedy
beneficiaries, not the multinational Corporations who actually
drive the profit making Idol, distracting from the True Message.

What we have in this dishonest atheist artifact is nothing but crude,
hate filled propaganda of distortion and deceit.

Times have not changed much for atheists since Pravda polemics.

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin

http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8297?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/photo/search?q=che
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo?page=9#
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo?page=8
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo?page=467
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest

Athei-commo's are typically adolescent wankers

http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8296?context=latest

Atheist Holocaust deniers still celebrate mass murdering atheist tyrants;

http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8294?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8293?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8292?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8291?context=latest

Jung was right

--

"Among all my patients in the second half of life, that is, over
thirty-five, there has not been one whose problem in the last
resort was not that of finding a religious outlook on life.
It is safe to say that every one of them fell ill because
he had lost that which the living religions of every age
have given their followers, and none of them has really
been healed who did not regain his religious outlook."

-Carl G. Jung Modern Man in Search of a Soul

Contradiction at the Heart of Atheism

On the one hand you tell me that laws of phsyics are just descriptive and they don't determine anything. On the other hand you say that there is natural world that extends beyond our space/time, presumably to anything physical? So you see the dichotomy of nature/spirit as physical, tangleable, visible vs "in" and "un" and "non" versions of these, intangible, invisable, non phsyical.

But how can it be that "nature" extends all over existence beyond the realm of all we know to all other realms anywhere and yet there are no prescriptive physical laws? It seems to be that to be able say that you would have to have a set of laws that delimit what can happen. Otherwise how can you possibly know there is not a universe in which all existence is immaterial?



Here are some quotes about Big bang cosmology. They are from major physicists and some obscure physics and the major upshot of them is we have no physics to explain the big bang.


No Physics to explain something from nothing.


John Mather, NASA's principal investigator of the cosmic background radiation's spectral curve with the COBE satellite, stated: "We have equations that describe the transformation of one thing into another, but we have no equations whatever for creating space and time. And the concept doesn't even make sense, in English. So I don't think we have words or concepts to even think about creating something from nothing. And I certainly don't know of any work that seriously would explain it when it can't even state the concept."[John Mather, interview with Fred Heeren on May 11, 1994, cited in his book Show Me God (1998), Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 119-120.]

That is describing the excepted theory, that the universe seems to pop up from nothing, yet physicists just accept it and assume that its possible even with no physics to explain it. That is a total paradigm shift.

*Multiverse is unscientific metaphysics.

Sten Odenwald, Gaddard, Nasa: http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11215.html

"yes there could be other universes out there, but they would be unobservable no matter how old our universe became...even infinitely old!! So, such universes have no meaning to science because there is no experiment we can perform to detect them."

John Mather, NASA's principal investigator of the cosmic background radiation's spectral curve with the COBE satellite, stated: "We have equations that describe the transformation of one thing into another, but we have no equations whatever for creating space and time. And the concept doesn't even make sense, in English. So I don't think we have words or concepts to even think about creating something from nothing. And I certainly don't know of any work that seriously would explain it when it can't even state the concept."[John Mather, interview with Fred Heeren on May 11, 1994, cited in his book Show Me God (1998), Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 119-120.]That is describing the excepted theory, that the universe seems to pop up from nothing, yet physicists just accept it and assume that its possible even with no physics to explain it. That is a total paradigm shift. "yes there could be other universes out there, but they would be unobservable no matter how old our universe became...even infinitely old!! So, such universes have no meaning to science because there is no experiment we can perform to detect them."
Some physicists, such as Oldenwald, are aware of this, but that doesn't stop the the materialists from continuing the assumption. So if it is religious metaphysics its bad, but if its metaphysics the materialist can use it's "ok."



We have no phsyics to explain the bb and yet you want to argue that know what it is and how works and that is material. dilemma

(1) if physical laws are not prescriptive then you must expalin how everything can be the same all over all existence

(2) if psychical laws are not prescriptive

.....(a) beileve in miracles there no barrier to them

.....(b) it could be that some worlds are supernatrual. It's only if you have a delimiting set of laws that you can clearly define natural from supernatural (if you go by the degraded concept most of you try to defend)

Second dilemma

(1) if there is a physics to expalin bb then it's seems physical laws are prescriptive

(2) if there is no physics to explain it then it doesn't operate by natural law we can well think of the bb as supernatural. Or even magic.

spell check is not writing

spelling is not intelligence, it is not writing. it is not grammar.

if you can't see the words the way other people do, how can you check them? hmmm? little genius know nothings will you please tell me that? If my mind doesn't put the line under the right word how am I gonna know how to re spell it, see?

a lot of times I can't see the line.

I have never refutted any atheist arguments?

Refutation

This dumb guys keeps sending comments in. One of them said "nothing you have said on any of your sites has ever refuted anything an atheist as argued." How idiotic can you get? That is so childish. On the thing about IQ scores between atheists and theists. I show that the atheist site claiming atheists score higher, put four studies in the wrong categories. That is when you look at the actual study it says the opposite of what the person arguing thought it said. Now how could anything be more soundly refuted? It's obviously, factually, refuted. There's no question there. I have 17 studies backing my position, all of them 20 years newer than the atheist studies, which are only six, and he lied about four. How anything be more clearly refuted?

1. (#5) Vernon Jones, 1938

Tested 381 students, concluding "a slight tendency for intelligence and liberal attitudes to go together." [This doesn't say anything about religious belief or lack thereof. He's equating "liberal" with non-religious.]

2. (#6) A. R. Gilliland, 1940
At variance with all other studies, found "little or no relationship between intelligence and attitude toward god."[Obviously its not really at variance with "all" others since I just listed several others that don’t make those findings, and little or no relationship counts as negative evidence.]

3.(#10) Jeffrey Hadden, 1963
Found no correlation between intelligence and grades. This was an anomalous finding, since GPA corresponds closely with intelligence. Other factors may have influenced the results at the University of Wisconsin. [counts against his assumption that grades = intelligence so he can't measure intelligence through the studies that make that assumption. Also, what does he site in the face of this one to prove that graces indicate intelligence? And what about motivations?] (I suggest a sentence such as [This study discounts his assumption…)
4.(#12) James Trent, 1967
Polled 1400 college seniors. Found little difference, but high-ability students in his sample group were over-represented.[so they polled them? What did they use as a measure of intelligence? Doesn't say. But it does say they found no relation, or little, and virtually admit the sample is worthless so this counts as negative or at best as inconclusive.]

5. (#15) Hastings and Hoge, 1967, 1974
Polled 200 college students and found no significant correlations.[negative correlation is clearly negative evidence, there is no relation] Notice: the Francis study lists Hoge under the category of those that show no correlation between intelligence and religion, but that website lists it as positive to their thesis.
6. (#17) Wiebe and Fleck, 1980
Studied 158 male and female Canadian university students. They reported "nonreligious S's tended to be strongly intelligent" and "more intelligent than religious S's."[dosen't hint at how this was determined]

But the little know nothing just plods ahead, "O you must be wrong because I don't want you to be right." People, on both sides, are constantly mistaking emotional for logic. This is pandemic this is not something atheists do or theists do, it's all people. Most people cannot argue. It is empirically proved that i'm a good debater. I won 70% of my debates in college over a four period. While I never won anything pretentious like NDT I did beat good teams. I once beat the 14th seed team in the country. That is an objective empirical fact. Most think logic doesn't rules. I once saw an atheist on CARM say "logic is not a little language of its own with its own set of rules." Yes, that's exactly what it is! Anther atheist who had actually studied some logic cam along and set him straight, but then he was saying the same thing again the next week.

People do not think, they don't study or learn. All they is assume that what makes feel good is right. They feel uncomfortable because big mean sky Daddy is mad at them, so they feel bad becasue they can't screw with impunity. So they spend a lot of time working up hatred and anger and feeling powerful. They want to crush belief in God so they will feel superior. When you take away their supiriority they get really upset.

Take another example of absolute refutation: No evidence. In the fine tuning argument know nothing cited not one single source. He had no evdience at all. But he asserts "I am a Ph.D. student and when I say that no major scientists agrees with you that's authoritative." I had three major scientists that used by back my claims so that's automatically refuted by the facts, and one of those was an atheist.

The obvious problem is the guy doesn't know what "refutation" is. He probably things that just denying a claim is refuting it. They really out require that people take a course in logic before they are allowed o argue about important ideas on the net. Atheists must have a great deal invested in this rush of superiority that they get from mocking theists. Because they are so blind even basic nature of refutation they can't even judge something refuted when the facts are clearly documented in front of their faces, but then they think have refuted something when they just "is not!"

The situation is really quite the opposite. Very few atheists have ever successfully refuted anything I've said. That's because most of them time, 90%, I'm backing up what I say with published material and they don't do that. I'm usually the only one on a message board who even bothers to research anything. That means that most of the time I refute them and they don't refute me. But then these people who have not debated and don't the know the rules of logic and don't know what refutation is just get into the act with their emotional insistence "I must Superior, I want to screw I must be Superior.

Big mean sky Daddy wants to make them feel guilty about everything, so they are filled with hate toward any believer. Know noting whines "I don't hate you." No you aer only spending all your time lying about truth and refuting to learn anything because it makes you feel good to mock the designated target that the hate group that brain washed you tells you to hate.

The most hilarious example of non refutation of my arguments is the vast array of social science studies I present that backs up the validity of religious experience. Here the atheist onslaught has been nothing short of comical.

I present 350 studies to their 0. Then they will still say things like "you have no evidence." 350 studies to O and I have no evidence!?? They assert that religious experince is mental illness, it's emotional hysteria, it' bad for you, produces guilt, I have 350 studies that all of htat is bunk. They have 0 yet they still say they refuted my studies by asserting that they aren't true and they assert that their popular pinon outweighs the studies. So when I mention the studies on carm they think all they need to do is say "those have been refuted."

What is the major source of their refutation? they attack a bibliography compiled by one of the authors! *they think that if the Bibliography contains a source they don't like (of course they have read none of the sources, they are going entirely by the titles) then they have actually refuted the studies because they are on a bad bibliography. That is laughable enough to make a Monty Python skit.

This is so laughable and so ridiculous. The case for the valid nature of religious expedience is totally proved. It is not, of cousre, proved that God exists, but the beneficial nature of religious experience is beyond doubt. Nothing makes atheists more angry than proving a point that backs the validity of religion.**

I have two pages that talk about the findings of the studies.

*The Bib they attack is Gacenback, they have not attacked the Mohan bib which is linked above.

** this article assumes all the standard caveats about "some atheists and not all of them."