Wednesday, May 20, 2009

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

9 comments:

RealitysSnitch said...

The huble telescope has taken thousands of pictures. Not one of them have found a picture of a guy floating on a cloud. But please, relax with your religious ideology. Your brain is responsible for balancing its chemistry. The idea of having a god watch over everything is ridiculous. Religion in this world is the only thing that stymies production. Reference- Medieval ages, where the only inventions that werent deemed heresy could be made. The thing is, it says in the bible that no man shall call themselves a god/prophet but jesus, (assuming your christian) and yet a man still had the final say in what was 'holy' i guess. And don't jump all over me because i said holy, i could care less what the actual word is. Alright, moving on, within the 10 commandments it says that you should love thy neighbour and turn the other cheak, but you seem to be able to keep a firm grudge on those who oppose your ideology. For Gods sake Jesus himself opposed the ruling ideology of his time, was still wrong, but he did. and 'Athiestwatch' is a ridiculous name for atheists really need not be watched. Those who do not feel religion typically don't spend there time going door to door trying to convert people, Unlike religion. Also, you should really understanding that being mad about this post is not, dare i say, christian?

Metacrock said...

you are being misled by our handlers. it's the whitewater straw God that is a big man in the sky.

that's why the discourage you from reading theology. they bad mouth it and try o lead to believe it's so stupid you have to read it. All the while you had you would how perfectly idiotic your steaminess are.

God si not a man on a cluo no reaosn why should see God in a telescope. that is really really stupid.

only an idiot would think these are cogent criticism. what do you say about someone who criticize things he knows nothing of? that's basically what you are doing.

RealitysSnitch said...

Its amazing how a religion that promotes such passion and empathy towards people can be so hostile in return. I did not insult you once. Also, calling me an 'idiot' then typing a sentance like this; God si not a man on a cluo no reaosn.. pretty much proves my point

Metacrock said...

sorry man. I have this spell check thing that re-writes my posts. Sometimes I forget to edit to make sure it didn't change things in a radical and nonsensical way. It does sometimes change rational sentences to crazy ones.

I also type faster when I get angry and that makes form some nonsense.

take this line:

"All the while you had you would how perfectly idiotic your steaminess are."

that is a cray meaningless sentence and it's not what I actually thought I was saying.

It should have said something like All in all you should know how ignorant your responses are.

I didn't mean to call you "idiotic" i think I really meant ignorant.

sorry I keep trying to remember to edit better.

RealitysSnitch said...

Alright, but once again you have proved my point. This idea of combating my anti religous views with such fury is not christian. I am trying not to make you angry, but refute the idea that there is a god. I have remained calm throughout this entire back and forth we've been having, if you would like your opinion to hold justifiable meaning, you would be able to tell me in confidense. Also, what makes me ignorant? My demonstratable beliefs in science? The fact that the things I think are real can be proven, no matter how many times they are attempted? I would like to believe that people have this internal moral compass that guides the way we act. I do not kill, steal or commit adultery, why? Because it is written in a book that originates from 2000 years ago? No, beecause it is the right thing to do. Look, maybe back when civilizations were getting started and becoming bigger, these were good guidelines to live your life by. But by todays standards, they're out dated. Also, I will give you credit on keeping my comments up, many religious people don't like contradiction.

RealitysSnitch said...

I do not believe my responses are ignorant. Ignorance in definition is a verb that decribes that someone has yet to learn something. Calling me ignorant because I do not believe in a God who is said to have created the world within a week is assanine. I would like to believe that people are naturally caring, w/o the need for an all powerful moderator.

Also, the fact that you are getting mad about this is contradictory to what the bible teachs. I was raised protestant, and we believed in turning the other cheak, letting people go about and believe what they want. But this isn't necessarily a 'christian' view. It is what it is. I could refute all day till I'm blue in the face but I'm probably not going to change your mind. I am, however, trying to raise awareness that the literal meaning of the bible is childish dare I say? For example, if I hear someone mention to me that God is real, I let it pass, its harmless. But in my mind I can't help but think maybe they believe in Santa too. Both cases hold the same argument.

And there are hundreds of religions, which one is correct? Maybe christians are wrong, maybe the Koran is truly written by a God. What If its the Jews? My point is I would not jump on an ideology that has so many differing variations of the same point.

Metacrock said...

"I do not believe my responses are ignorant. Ignorance in definition is a verb that decribes that someone has yet to learn something."

I didn't call you ignorant becasue you don't believe in God. I called you ignorant because you think like this:

Science = proof of atheism
Christianity = stupidity.

atheists have self esteem problems. people with self esteem problems hate God. I have studies to prove this they have been discussed on the blog. atheism is not backed by science.



"Calling me ignorant because I do not believe in a God who is said to have created the world within a week is assanine."

you just proved to me you are ignorant because you don't understand the religion bewteen religion and science, nor do you understand Christianity.



"I would like to believe that people are naturally caring, w/o the need for an all powerful moderator."

why should we even be conscious. the basic idea of being conscious is not accounted for by nature, scinece or evolution. there's no natural reason to care. It's put i us to care by God.

"Also, the fact that you are getting mad about this is contradictory to what the bible teachs."

I'm not mad. If one of us appears angry it's more likely to be you.


"I was raised protestant, and we believed in turning the other cheak, letting people go about and believe what they want. But this isn't necessarily a 'christian' view."

I have proved, and I've quoted atheist saying it, that atheists are not willing to allow free thought or belief. they use bulling and ridicule to force people to believe what they want them to. I will re post some of that today so you can see it.


"It is what it is. I could refute all day till I'm blue in the face but I'm probably not going to change your mind. I am, however, trying to raise awareness that the literal meaning of the bible is childish dare I say?"

(1) what does a "literal meaning" have to do with anything?

(2)which passages do you think are literal and which are not?




"For example, if I hear someone mention to me that God is real, I let it pass, its harmless. But in my mind I can't help but think maybe they believe in Santa too. Both cases hold the same argument."

that's why you are ignorant. you equate understanding reliability with belief in Santa clause.

God is reality. there's no reason on earth to think otherwise. if you do that in itself doesn't make you ignorant but thinking that belief in God is some kind silly ides is extremely ignorant. It's a contradiction;n to free thinking. so called "free Thinkers" are not willing together to be free.




"And there are hundreds of religions, which one is correct?"

mine of course. it's an irrelevant comment. if there must be a "one true one" how does that disprove that that one is really true? Why must there be one true religion? why can't the same reality be behind all of them and most of their adherents just don't see that?



"Maybe christians are wrong, maybe the Koran is truly written by a God. What If its the Jews?"

Maybe, so what? that doesn't make atheism right.



"My point is I would not jump on an ideology that has so many differing variations of the same point."

so admit atheism is an ideology?

Metacrock said...

Reality snithc you have not offered one single fact that disproves God. there are not such facts. there is no disproof of God. I have 42 ratinoal warrants for belief you can't answer any of them.

You don't understand scinece because you think it's a disproof of religion.science can't disprove religion becuase they in two different domains of magisteria.

religion is not a scientific issue. Its' not science's place to disprove it.

ANONYMOUS-X said...

Agree with metarock !