Saturday, October 24, 2009

Atheist concept of learning

I was having what I thought was a pleasant discussion with an atheist who wanted to know about my views on inspiration. But he really just wanted to mock them becuase when I recommended a book and offered a link to my page on Doxa so he would get more information here's how it went.

Originally posted by Metacrock
read the book "Models of Revelation" by Avery Dulles. He pushes a view called "dialectical retrieval" where by he set's out the Barthian notion of a dialectical relationship between the text and the reader. The truth is uncovered in that dialectic rather than being encoded word for word.

please read my page on my website which is largely based upon Dulles, whose view I share. This will explain more than I can here


I’m not going to read his book and I’m not going to read your stupid “blog”. I started and it’s too long-winded and boring. Just tell me plainly what you mean when you take the position that the Bible is the “inspired” word of God. What does that mean to you?

Originally posted by Metacrock
why would you find it more problematic to have a realistic view of the way communication really works than to have the idiotic and ridiculous literalism of fundamentalism?

I don’t have a problem with that and it’s less problematic, I agree. Why are you responding to things I haven’t said? Please read more carefully.

he did say something that pertained to it

Originally posted by Metacrock
The original events happened in relation to God's orchestration of those events, and people can say things that are based upon ideas given by their contact with the divine. That's why I quoted the guys saying that oral tradition can get it right and keep it straight.

But one of them got it wrong as you can see from my contradiction regarding Mary Magdalene. Their “experience with God” that contributed to them telling the resurrection story failed to keep them from error.

Of course I never said it should be free of error

Originally posted by Metacrock
you are going to be as hung up on literalism as the most literalistic fundie?

That’s why I specifically said that I wasn’t referring to word for word inspiration. Please, Meta, try to respond to what I’ve actually said, not your erroneous inferences.

that was exactly what he said. he just turned on a dime merely because I gave him a link.

Friday, October 16, 2009

Bogus Atheist Social Sciencs Major Fabrication

One attempt at this bogus atheist social sciences is a site by Boyd Swift. Swift, thought he would be a wrote the bureaus of prisons for stats, but unfortunately he doesn't know how to read a table.

On Swift's table there is no mention of atheist in the first five and atheist is listed fifth from the bottom. In that table atheist is 0.209%. Now here is the table sent by the Bureau of prisons to Rice, first five:,br>

In this table Atheist/unknown/none is third form top and has 19%! Fifth from the bottom on this version is not atheist but "Hindu." So the version sent by the Bureau of Prisons is significantly different than the version put up by Swift.

It seems Swift misrepresented the data.

So in other words, the actual number of atheists is about a quarter as high as the Christians. It's not this tiny 0.something percent, it's actually pretty high.
It's pretty clear he fabricated the data. These mistakes are too far off to be merely mistakes in recording.

I can't show the tables here but I have them on the same page (on doxa) to compare.

Swift goes on to explain how the disproportionate number of atheists in prison from the general population means they are so far better behaved than Christians.

The comparison reveals clearly that the data has been fabricated. does a whole page showing how lame Boyd's assertions are. Here's part of what it has to say:

One atheist web page ( presented statistics stating that 0.209% of federal prisoners (in 1997) stated "atheist" as their religious preference. This site said that this is far less than the 8 to 16% of the American population that are atheists.

The atheist site, however, provided no source for the notion that "8 to 16%" of Americans are atheists. This statistic is completely without support from the available data. Gallup polls which include questions about religion have consistently shown that between 93 and 96% of Americans say that they believe in God. Presumably atheist writers would not suggest that up to half of their claimed "atheists" believe in God. The actual proportion of atheists in the United States is about 0.5% (half of one percent). This is the figure obtained from the largest survey of religious preference ever conducted: the National Survey of Religious Identification (Kosmin, 1990), which polled 113,000 people. The religious preference questions were part of questioning completely unrelated to religious preference (consumer preferences, entertainment, etc.), so the frequent retort of atheists that their numbers don't like to admit to atheism, and hence are undercounted, is unlikely.

I do a couple more pages on my site where I show 400 studies that totally disprove the lame thesis that being a Christian makes you turn to crime. Of course atheist try to defend this by saying he's not really saying it makes you turn to crime, but he says Christians are 60x more likely! that's ridiculous. obviously he's saying something about being a Christian that makes you commit crime. when I've argue with atheists about this they usually go back and forth and I don't really know what they think. But there are 400 studies say it's a lie.

Atheist Watch is having a good effect

Back in 2007 when I first did Atheist watch 1, I found thousands of websites where atheists used the notion of burning churches and wished hey could burn churches and talked about it and so on. Now I find none. I did an article about it and mentioned it several times and now it's gone.

Since I began talking about atheism as a hate group I've seen many sites where atheists explore that question. Never have the admitted it but I have seen them try to deny plenty. I have seen a rise in anti-atheist sties, which you see linked in the side bar. I see more and more people waking up to how atheists have been and saying "we have had enough."

I think atheist watch is doing a valuable thing and that it is having a good effect. It's making atheists think about their attitudes. Even though they are still in denial I think it has caused a few of them to think about how they act.

It has also caused me to search myself and reflect upon my inability to forgive. We should be learning from each other. we should value each other as dialogue partners and try to help each other explore life rather than indulging in ranker and belittling. No one should ever be belittled regardless of that persons outlook.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Temendous Post by an Agnostic: "Atheists I'm Calling You Out!"

This was posted on T Web by an Agnostic calling himself "Anon."

I hope he doesn't mind my quoting it.

To most folks, this is going to be a bit of an awkward post. Why is an agnostic calling out skeptics? Why is Anon going around countering atheists and fellow agnostics just as much, if not more, than he is the Christian side? Is he being postmodern with defending a religion at times that he doesn't believe in? Is he really just a Christian hiding and lying about his religious status so he can try to "convert" others by eventually apostatizing from apostasy? Is he just a troll that likes to stir up the pot no matter who is on the menu for his soup-of-the-day?

The answer is none of these: after being like you for so long, I decided to go after the truth at all costs. Yes, even if that means I return to Christianity (gasp!) or back to atheism or even becoming a Deist or Muslim or whatever - wherever I find truth is where I will call home.

Last week, I heard Dan Barker debate James White over the Jesus Myth hypothesis. An issue arose within that debate, and James White told Dan after the debate: "you're still a fundamentalist in your thinking." I think this applies to far too many atheists - even more so than those "stupid" Christians.

Many of you were raised in the Church, just as I was. Many of you did not grow up with apologetics; you grew up with excuses like, "faith picks up where reason leaves off!", terrible popular arguments advanced by the likes of mass market "apologist" leaflet-passers like Jack Chick, and preachers that were more interested in what was in the town's library than in theology (my old preacher, I just discovered, had been ripping off Calvin's works almost word-for-word in his "deep" sermons). When you grew up, this was hammered in you. You were instructed not to question, and punished when you did. It's this mode of thinking that stuck with you: my view is right, and yours is wrong. This is fundamentalist thinking. And most of you are still fundamentalists, because just like your folks and your "friends" at the local gossip-center you called church, you're more interested in being right than searching for truth.

Yes, some Christians are like that. But they aren't the ones I've seen recently here on the Web and emerging out of the shadows that the ignorance of "pop" preachers cast upon them. William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, Norm Geisler, Paul Copan, my personal friend Mary Jo Sharp, Ben Witherington III, the unnecessarily maligned Lee Strobel, and so on - do you know, really, what they are saying? Have you read Bill Craig's full Kalam presentation in writing complete with defenses of his most erudite critics, or have you just read Barker's refutation of it and called it a victory for atheism? Were you won over by Hitchens' attacks on the ethics in the Bible, without bothering to understand the culture and the fact that most of those attacks are straw men in the face of what their understandings of the text would have been? Have you bothered to come up with any kind of deep thought beyond an appeal to metaphysical naturalism for Gary Habermas' Resurrection defense?

Have you guys even read the New Testament, for that matter, in a mindset of neutral study rather than picking through it to find verses to laugh at?

Yes, I've read through all of this and much, much more, and yes, I'm still an agnostic (I used to be an ardent atheist just like you, however). Yes, that means I remain unconvinced by the arguments, even though I'm honest enough to admit that even with the time I've spent on them I haven't analyzed all of them with the thoroughness the question of God deserves.

Do you understand what a necessary being is, and what the three omni-properties mean? Or do you say that God is just like a teapot and cry out that "goddidit" is not an explanation, ignorant of the fact that saying those things begs the question? (Do you even know what begging the question means?)

Do you know the Gospels are substantiated historical documents, or do you think that the Bible is just some big ol' bound up old book some conspirators put together like Zeitgeist told you? The source, Acharya S, is thoroughly discredited even by knowledgeable skeptics, by the way.

Are you familiar at all with any kind of theology in Christianity, or do you think it's no deeper than "when you believed in Santa as a kid"?

Do you think that science is omniscient, that we learn everything by empirical experimentation and the scientific method, and then call people "stupid" who point out that the question of the uniformity of nature completely defeats your position and puts science in the rightful place Stephen Jay Gould said it was?

Trust me - I know there are Christians out there who probably deserve this kind of temperament. I've met them. And the more I learn about Christianity - guess what? The more I learn that they are not really believers. The Christians who really do think out their position are much more confident, much less violent, and much more friendly (definitely moreso even than you guys have been lately). Don't misdirect your fire. If you're going to mess around with their beliefs, at least listen to what they have to say with that open mind you always claim to have.

If you want to care about religion, do the homework. Read some theology; at the very least you can get a deeper understanding of the other side and of humanity in general, above and beyond the richer knowledge of the history and cultures behind the belief. Read the arguments for God's existence, read the refutations, and read the refutations of the refutations. Learn that faith, for the REAL apologist, does not go "where reason takes off" - it works in tandem with reason. Most of all, quit presupposing naturalism without arguments to do so, and start your scales with the open-minded balance for which to examine the arguments. That's what people who care about truth do - they follow where the arguments lead, even if it means giving up long-held truths (and BELIEVE ME, those who know me personally know that atheism used to be just a part of who I was).

I'm out here for truth, and I'm going to keep investigating truth where I see it and calling anyone out - skeptic or Christian - who thinks like a fundamentalist. I gave that up last year and I'm searching with a rational mind. I will go where the evidence leads, whether I end up a total naturalist or a Calvinist Christian.

Quit pretending you have the monopoly on reason - after over a year of deep analysis starting out as a fervent atheist, I've now realized that we're the ones losing this battle. And not necessarily because the other side has the truth (obviously, as an agnostic, I don't know who does just yet), but because you started this whole thing with the presumption that you do when the fact is that most of you have no clue what you're talking about.

I'm finding the truth. If you want on, get on. If you want out, get out. I know I've probably shocked a lot of my friends and family with this turnaround, and that I've likely ticked quite a few of you off, but I don't care anymore. The fundies always will act like that when someone actually tries to search for truth.

In response to this an atheist actually argued "I don't have to read theology I know ti's stupid so I don't need to know what it says." You know that's exactly waht fundiese said when I was a kid that made me become an atheist!

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Debate with Loren on God arguments: Religious Instinct


Loren is one of the faithful opposition, the friendly enemies who post regular. I am glad for her participation as it keeps me having to answer good objections to my ranting. Now we are arguing (from comments further down) about the innate sense of God.

I we are going to debate I might as well give her the full argument. This is from my Argument for religious instinct which No 5 on the list.

The full list of reasons for the argument includes more than just the God part f the brain:

The argument actually says that the fact of a religious species is far too coincidental to be merely the product of random chance. Why why would it be that we are fit to be religious, that it is our isitinct and our way of life? That would indicate that an object of religious devotion desinged religiosity into humans. In summation the following factors indicate that religiosity is part of human nature:

a) Historical Tendency:

The vast Majority of Humans have been religious as far back as we have evidence of humanity (50,000 years) [see above A. 3]

b) Believers have always been vast numerical majority

That is not appeal to popularity, it's an argument about behavior which indicates an innate condition. Almost 90% currently of world population are religious believers in some sense.

c) Trans cultural

When anthropologists see a behavior that transcends culture they assume it is innate. There has never been a culture that was atheistic. Every culture we have ever seen or found traces of on earth going back as far as we can has been religious in some way.

d) Even in cultures such as China where the government attempted irradiation of religious belief there are still 51% religious and many more undecided but not "anti-"religious

e) Physical fitness for religion

Our bodies work better when we are religious, it is the major factor in health and far more of a motivator than any other trigger of the Placibo effect [see above C.3]

f) Archetypes Universal

Archetypes are natural part of the human psyche (see the next argument). Also see Jesus Christ and Mythology page II. Archetypes are psychological symbols which point to transcendent ideal beyond the material realm. Studies show that they are natural to all people and emerge under a broad variety of psychological techniques.Maslow says that they are found among all people using ever technqiue of psychoanalysis. [above B.3]

g) Psychologically fit for religion

Psychological factors, religious believers have far less depression and incidence of mental illness so the human mind works best when religious. [above C]

h) Transformative power

IF the appeal of the argument were merely popularity, it would not turn on things other than popularity. Obviously these reasons I'm giving here are not popularity. But, the transformative power of religious expeirnce is another aspect of the argument which proves that it' not merely an appeal to popularity. Religious expernce trasnforms lives, it gives people life affirming experinces which makes them better as people and makes life worth living. Not all psychological factors are capable of doing that. We are so contituted as a speices that we respond to these experiences in such a way that they do transform our lives. That proves that we are fit to be religious, and that is not an appeal to popularity.[see also point C above on psychological normality and self actualization]

i) brain wave patterns

Brain wave patterns are changed by religious experience. We go from Alpha waves to Beta and to other levels of Brain wave patterns when we have these experinces.

j) "God pod" (God moduel in the brain)

Scientists have identified a cluster of neurons in the brian which, when stemulated, produce feelings of extacy and thoughts about God and the trasncendent. This is too great a coincidence that nature would just produce this by random chance, expecially when taken together with all the other ways in which we are fit to be religious. It's an evidence of design, we are made to be a religious sepcies.

k) Sense of the Numenous universal

Lorens comments form the comment section to a previous post, concerning "God pod" or aka "God part of the Brain."

We know now that we are born with innate concepts of God. Scietnific fact. see Newberg, see Ramachandrin


Is this Vilayanur Ramachandran that you are talking about? He seems to think that mystical experiences are a kind of hallucination, rather than a perception of some supposed superbeing that rules the Universe.

That's his theory to explain the data, becuase he can't accept the explanation about God being real. But the data clearly shows that God is real, he does present the data. The data shows that every one has some sense in which their brains react positively to God talk more so than to any other form of speech. The way he explains it doesn't hold water, and Newberg explains that. Newberg does actually lean to the idea that it proves God.


Not believing in God is a pathological state.

No more than disbelieving in the efficacy of sorcery is. Aren't you afraid that someone will cast a hex on you?

Yes actually more than that. You are only saying that as a personal opinion, the fact which you cannot deny is that the data indites innate idea in our minds, innate ideas impossible so moer than evolution put it there.

It contradicts the basic human experience of the vast majority of people. you don't get to privilege your position based upon nothing but a snide a attitude.

Metacrock, I have some bad news for you. The large majority of people have not believed in your god. Instead, they've believed in "big man in the sky" sorts of gods, and often more than one of them.

Again you make this mistake very singel time you post here. When will you actually start to remember my answers to thinks. I correct you on this every single time I talk to you. Write it down!

There is no such thing as "My God." I have proven that the attributes of God are mutually exclusive. So anything that has those attributes is uniquely God. If that's the Muslim concept of God then so be it. If it's Zeus, (which it's not) so be it. Whatever has those is God. And all people are experiencing God at some level. God is at work in all religions. God is beyond our understanding we experience him at a subliminal level, so we can't oppose one tradition to another and say "this is right." Jesus is the common denominator because he was a concrete guy in hsitory, so we can follow his example as the revelation. But as far as ideas of God go all religious traditions stand the same equal chance of understanding God, which is that we don't.

It is therefore foolish to speak of "your God." There is only each traditions misconceptions of God. The various concepts of each religion that represent god are just metaphors that point to the one reality behind all traditions.

(What evidence do you have that a deity or God exists?)

42 arguments I've been working on for 10 years.

Metacrock, it's really hard for me to keep score. Are those proofs or warrants for belief in a god whose existence cannot be proved?

Follow the link an see what it says about that. One of the lies that brain washed atheists tell about me is that I switch back and forth from "proof" to "rational warrant." But I've explained that on carm numerous times, just lie what I said above it's one of those really simile explanations that atheists can't bother themselves to remember. When I say it's not proof I mean it's not actual absolute proof like empirical observation. When I say it is proof I mean in a practical sense as in "close enough for government work," its enough to justify belief.

And would you want me to link you to refutations of those arguments?

They are all crap. There's not a one that I have not answered and beaten. If you mean the joke kpage where he answers like 300 stupid jokes and includes mine, I've seen those. If you mean real serious attempts to answer my arguments, sure, I'll have more fodder for my blog. But if they are the jokes don't bother. Of course they are all jokes but if they the intentional jokes, don't bother.

because God created consciousness so we could know him. He wants to us to know him.

That alleged entity is not trying very hard with me, and you are implying that that alleged entity is something like a big man in the sky.

Of course you are doing so much to give him a chance aren't you? That's why you mock and ridicule religious people and label yourself in opposition to him and run around thinking pessimistically, nursing your anger and so on. Yea you are so open! Have you ever read the Bible when you weren't looking for examples to mock and ridicule?


Because what you are really saying is that you don't have to live by God's rules.

How did you figure that out? I find no such implication.
If the shoe fits

What I"m saying is love is universal and God loves us and cares about us. You spit in his face and despise him for loving you.

Do you hate Zeus or Odin or Brahma or all the other gods you don't believe in?

No I don't hate them. I also don't mock and ridicule them, I don't hang out on message boards getting a rush form mocking and ridiculing people who follow them. They are contingent so they can't really be God, but they are metaphors that point to the reality behind all religious traditions. The Greeks had the sense of the numinous that is a sense of the true God. Paul on Mars Hills even said they worshiped the true God they just didn't know his name.

there is no evidence of an alternative to God. There is no proof the universe popped out of nothing,

Why do you think that the only possible alternatives are (1) your god and (2) popping out of nothing?

That's a totally unfair way to frame the question. I've explained that I'm a Christian universalist. I believe that God is working in all cultures, that we can't understand God we can only experience him. But the one concrete example of God's character we do have is Jesus. That doesn't change the fact, as Paul tells us (Rom 2:6-15/Acts 17:21-29) God is working in all cultures and in all hearts. All people have an innate sense of God. So farming he question of my God vs everything else is clearly unfair and unwarranted.

The only rational choices that do exist are these:

(1) some version of God

(2) something form nothing

(3) infinite string of causal Regression (ICR)

Since the 2 and 3 can be disproved as irrational and unwarranted 1 is the only one left. So you show me an alternative. I just honestly can't think of a foruth one.

I can think of oodles of alternatives, like our Universe being a lab experiment in a super-Universe, our Universe being eternal, and our Universe being a bubble in some multiverse.
But isn't that first one just the atheist idea of God? Is it very likely as a possibility? Why shouldn't probability be part of the equation?

Our universe being eternal is disproved.

(1) it's not a theory regarded by any major scientist. odenwald once said energy is created in the big ban and that's why most scientists believe.

(2) Universe is a closed sysetm, it will burn off it's finite order in heat death and can't re-coup.

(3) Given infinite chances it would have done this long ago. Thus there is no way it could be eternal Because if it were eternal it could not cease to be.

Bubble in multiverse does not solve any of these problems. All that option does is to move the problem back one step. But where did the mutliverse come from? That's an invitation to ICR and I have disproved ICR.


this is self defense. you little brainwashed thugs are attacking us, we have to begin to take care of ourselves. no more little nice Christian door mat.

Jesus Christ taught that we ought to love our enemies, not hate them.

Are you ignoring what I said in my previous post, or don't remember, or didn't read it? I said I choose not to hate them.

Just because I"m cataloging their faults and pointing out the dangers of their own hatred doesn't mean I hate them. I pity rather than hate.

Sunday, October 11, 2009

I use spell check every signle time

I get email like every day saying "use spell check" I say this all the time I use spell check ever single time! I have fire fox. you have to use it it's in the text box. don't you get that?

at the end of the last post I said "this has been spell checked." there are no mistakes in it.

Now here are the first two paragraphs of the last post:

This (not underlined)
blog (not underlined)
has (not underlined
hit (not underlined)
the (not underlined
big (not underlined)
time (not Underlined)
again, (not underlined)
by (Not underlined)
being (not Underlined)
put (not Underlined)
on (not underlined)
the (not underlined)
reddit (not Underlined)
com (not underlined)
list (not underlined
where (not underlined)
mindless (not Underlined
trolls (not underlined
will (not underlined)
say (not underlined)
stupid (not underlined
things (not Underlined)

do I need to show you ever single word like this?

having read the blog and having never read a single book on any subject. The amazing thing is this whole attack came about becuase I called the atheists on their little game of first demanding proof, then refusing to discuss the proofs. "There's no proof for your God." "here's a proof" "no that's not proof, there's no proof" then refusing to argue about the argument but going straight into attacking the person making it. I call them on this and they go ballistic.

O I"m insulting them, right. "you are mean, no good, you are not on the side of right because you are insulting us." But those very same people who said that on this blog came over here from message boards where just got through mocking and ridiculing Christians. So when you give them their own medicine they can't stand it. I am not even treating them as badly as they treat me. I hasn't done have the mocking and ridiculing of those people that is done to me on carm every single time I go there. But they want to be privileged. They don't want to have to prove anything to be taken as proved. They want to be free to mock, ridicule and deride others with impunity and when you treat them the way they treat other o it's a major crime against humanity, it's terrible, O it makes you a terrible person!

None of those words are under either. Underline meaning they are being tagged by the spell checker. Do you want me to show you every single word like that?

Saturday, October 10, 2009

How do I hate atheists, let me count the ways...

This blog has hit the big time again, by being put o the list where mindless trolls will say stupid things having read the blog and having never read a single book on any subject. The amazing thing is this whole attack came about becuase I called the atheists on their little game of first demanding proof, then refusing to discuss the proofs. "There's no proof for your God." "here's a proof" "no that's not proof, there's no proof" then refusing to argue about the argument but going straight into attacking the person making it. I call them on this and they go ballistic.

O I"m insulting them, right. "you are mean, no good, you are not on the side of right because you are insulting us." But those very same people who said that on this blog came over here from message boards where just got through mocking and ridiculing Christians. So when you give them their own medicine they can't stand it. I am not even treating them as badly as they treat me. I hasn't done have the mocking and ridiculing of those people that is done to me on carm every single time I go there. But they want to be privileged. They don't want to have to prove anything to be taken as proved. They want to be free to mock, ridicule and deride others with impunity and when you treat them the way they treat other o it's a major crime against humanity, it's terrible, O it makes you a terrible person!

If you point out their hypocrisy they start attacking spelling, writing style, accusing one of having never been in graduate school and all sorts of slandering lies. So do I hate them? Are they the most evil people on earth? No, I don't hate them. Why not? Because I choose not to. They are filled with hate, but returning hate for hate is not going to help. I have treated them the way they treated me just to show them what they do to others. Of cousre they are so blind the refuse to see. They will never accept responsibility for the things they say to hurt religious people,t hey because they just a such a rush from doing it. Their mockery of others is what keeps them going. But I choose not to hate them for it.

Hate is a self destructive force. Studies have shown that atheists don't like the concept love. When you have you become the thing you hate. The lesson on that is seen in this very blog. To talk about the abuses of this horrible brain washed cult I have to say the very same kinds of things to and about they say to and about me and before long I'm doing it to them. Before I get to that point, atheists can't forgive, they can't understand the concept. I have to try and forgive them. But that's what they are counting on. They are counting on the idea that what they see as weak kneed religious people will cave and forgive them, but they can go on hating and they don't have to face what they do. They are already trying their little manipulation tactics. "O you are a hypocrite becuase you showing clearly what we do to hurt people, you should be pliant and submissive and accept our ridicule without complaint because that's love."

Since they don't know love they think it's weakness. I will not stop showing what they do to hurt people. Because I give them tastes of their own medicine that doesn't mean I hate them. I choose not to hate them. Thus they also have no power over me since I don't hate them because I don't waste my time thinking of them and I don't care what they say. But I don't wish them harm and I don't hate them. I am working on forgiving. Forgiving does not mean being a door mat. I will continue to hold the mirror before their faces.

this blog was spell checked by firefox, there are not underlines except on the word "carm." So there are no spelling errors in this post.

Friday, October 9, 2009

A note to comenters

Here's a tip about putting comments on this blog.

I am not going to tolerate any personal attack on anyone, least of all myself. I don't need to hear your assign drivel about what you (who usualy have sucking writign styles) think of my writing. you can put it where the sun doesn't shine.

I also will not tolerate any sort of insulting words dealing with belief. It's perfectly intellectually defenseless to believe in God. in fact it's down right idiotic no to believe. So if you can't be polite about people's faith you will not get your comments read here.

Atheism is a little cult that has no cultural capital. It doesn't deserve any. You are 3% of the populartion, we are 90%. It's stupid and totally arrogant to think that you are some elite intelligence when most of you have never read a book in your lives, and abhor thinking are scared to death of ideas and have no idea what religions talk about.

If you want to comment here you must:

(1) politely recognize differnce in views and not make insulting comments about God being imaginary.

(2) Not make personal attacks on anyone, least of all me

(3) say something interesting and intelligent not just some crap like "you can't write and or spell"

I do not publish atheist hate mail

Atheists Have Changed on God Arguemnts


I see a real change in the atheist attitude toward arguments fo God. It's ironic because apologists say to each other in private all the time that they never seem to really notice how often we prove the case for an argument, that it seems to make no dent in their thinking that we always win the arguments, they go right on insisting that we never do and that there is no evidence. It' clear that most God arguments are usually defended well, except in cases where the apologist didn't do his homework, which happens a lot. But in any argument where the apologist knows his stuff, the arguments almost always holds up and danceable. But atheists never seem to notice.

Despite their denials I think atheists do no notice. That conclusion is mad pretty obvious by the changes I see taking place in their attitudes. Years ago (1999) when I started doing this most atheists had a much more open attitude toward discussion of God arguments. There were some hot head thugs like Cygnus who was a cutting edge hate zombie, but for the most part atheists such Dan the Atheist on CARM seemed open and ready to discuss any argument. They didn't poison the well or beg the question that much. Their main strategy in those days was to just insist that we don't have direct evidence so it's not "proof."

Over these past eleven years or so there have been a lot of water under bridge. Atheists went through an extreme radicalization beginning in 2004, where they all began to sound like Cygnus (I honestly can't remember if he spelled that with a Y or not). In that period they got much more radical about God arguments, charging "there's no proof for your God." They always said that but they got more adamant about it. Now they have come to the point where they basically just refuse to argue.

That's the new attitudes I see. Whereas in the past all one had to do was put up a God argument and he would get 20 or so answers, even if they weren't very good. Now I put one up on carm I get no answers. There are a few little comments but they just amount to badmouthing. The new attitude seems to be one of just shut down the discussion. There can't be any proof for God no matter what the apologist says it just isn't possible so don't even bother thinking about it. Don't try to examine their arguments, just ignore them up front.

It's a dead give away what's going on once one becomes aware of the new discoveries made in anti-atheist studies. That awareness can be summed up:

(1) Atheism is a hate group

(2) Its' a cult

(3) it's brain washing

(4) it's an ideology one is socialized (brain washed) into

(5) their real motivation and the reason they come to message boards is the emotional charge they get from mocking and ridiculing those who disagree with the ideology; this makes them feel superior and that's what they really want. It has nothing to do with intellectualism or thinking.

In this light God arguments are just a barrier to be gotten around,not significant questions to be answered. The way they deal with a God argument is merely to compare it to their one and only standard of true knowledge "does it stack up to the atheist ideology of scientisim" Of course not. so therefore it can't be true so just don't bother with it.

But this attitude tells me that they know they can't answer God arguments. They know the arguments have bee proved and there's nothing they can do. So they had to change the strategy and stop arguing the arguments and start ridiculing them but in such a way that their brain washed lackeys will not go to the trouble to actually learn about them.

That effectively takes away the effectiveness of all apologetic. At the same time however if you understand it it's a frank admission that we are right. The refusal to participate in arguments for God is a frank admission that they really know there is evidence for God that they can't answer.

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Atheists run form truth

On Tweb this atheists refused to look at the link I put out on the grounds that its' on a Christian site so it has to be a lie. Then when I said it was from authoritative sources, he said "you want me to just assume your site is authoritative." No not my site stupid, my source! Don't you know what a source is?

This reaction reminds me of a time when I tried to actual witness to Moonies. They were terrified and refused to hear anything I had to say. This is the way people in cults act when they are confronted with factual info that contradiction their brain washing. the little voices in their heads are saying "you better not listen to that its' against the brain washing."

Atheists are starting to really react to this site. Of course it's all negative. I'm so stupid and I can't think and I never went to school. I'm finally seeing the full picture of atheism and ugly it is. I'm starting to advocate that we get tough with them. we call them on their games, we don't try to smooth it over or treat them little delicate little hurt children but dish it out to them they way they do to us.

They are vicious hate monger and brainwashed minions of a hate group. We can't afford to underestimate the lengths they will go to to destroy us.

The Atheist Scam

We theists have to start getting tough with these guys. This garbage has gone on long enough. Their little games are getting really sick. They are a self deluded bunch of scam artists who are themselves brain washed by other who pulled the scam on them. I don't mean just having problems believing is a scam. There are clearly well meaning people who just don't see it, but when they get together in groups on the net and start frequenting the same websites all the time they pick up bad habits.

Atheism is a scam on the net in the websites such infidels and so forth. you can see this from their habits of argumentation. Here are some of the games they play:

there's no proof for your God

they will chant this mantra until they die. They will never never never never never never admit that anything not anything at all might even potentially qualify as evidence. for years I wondered why are they so hard headed? I mean even the most ludicrous ideas have some evidence for them. Such as Bigfoot, if you really study it the skeptical case against Bigfoot is pathetic and it's based upon ignoring most of the claims of evidence that Bigfoot "believers" bring forth.

I don't necessary believe in Bigfoot, I have big huge doubts that it could exist. When skeptics say things things "if they are there why don't people see them?" Then I go to a data base and see thousands of claims that people see them, you have to wonder, what's with such a skeptic?

Atheists are the same way. There are tons of good arguemnts for God but no atheist will ever admit not just there's evidence, they don't even admit anything could potentially prove it. I used to wonder why do they do that? Finally when I began to realized that atheism is basically brain washing and a scam I began to realize why do they do it. They are not evaluating evidence, they are comparing the one claim God exists" to their standard of atheist propaganda. They say "does this God argument stack up to what the atheist ideology tells me I must believe?"

Of course it doesn't because it contradicts. So they just dismiss it, it's not evidence because it can't be, nothing can ever be evidence unless it's in line with the brainwashing, which is the atheist ideology.

That's just subjective

Here's another favorite game atheists love to play. They can dismiss all the arguments given on the grounds that religion is experiential based and that makes it subjective and subjective is always wrong. One can see how idiotic this is just asking one simple question, Is it theoretically possible that some subjective evidence could be good evidence? Well when we consider how many things about reality are experiential based you have to figure that it can be good evidence at times. So their total blanket dismissive of "subjective" is largely jut crap.

The problem of other minds, it's resolution in the assumption of other minds, one's own existence, the trust that the sun will rise tomorrow, the idea of life as worth living all of these things re subjective or they resolve with subjective assumptions. Basically, humans are incapable of being objective. That renders the atheist dismissal of subjectivity pretty silly. It means that the charge "that's subjective" is just a meaningless slogan of their propaganda.

your reasoning is poor

This is another slogan that has nothing to do with reasoning. Most of these guys don't even know that logic as specific rules and it's own specialized language or that it's an academic specialty. In general when most people say "that's not logical" what they mean is "I don't like that. Atheists thrive on feeling superior. That's why they mock and ridicule all the time, because they need to feel that they are smarter than religious people. So they use phrases about logic and imply that they are considering the rules of logic and you are not, but in reality most of them don't even know that logic has rules, or at least they know no more about the rules than the next guy.

this happens all the time, I'll be pasting them in an argument they will just resort to "you are not using logic." But that's exactly what I am using and they are not. Just on this board in the last few days one atheist insisting that "irreducibility" must be a creationist concept as though no real science would ever say that. That's based upon the ID guys using the phrase so therefore the phrase must be wrong. That's not logical, it's also not well read, but that's their use of logic becuase they are not, using logic that is. Or in the argument on the God is not imaginary, I have 300 studies and they guy say "you haven't given any evidence." I put up links to several pages of evidence on my site and I posted 50 source right in the thread and he still, though he has not one single source of his own, has the audacity to say "you have no evidence." Why? Because they don't use reason. they don't use logic. "Logic" for them is just a slogan like saying "Yeah" or "boo that." "you don't use logic" means "boo that."

Orwellian use of language.

Like in the novels of George Orwell the ideological regime uses language bent to it's own purpose to control things. Atheists use language this way all the time. One good example is the use of the term "imaginary." God is just imaginary. they say that just means not proved.but obviously it carries consolations or stupid, childish irresponsible, baseless no good reason for it. they are trying to have it both ways. On the one hand they want to deny these insulting qualities but hey want to keep using it.

The kicker is they wont allow it to be used of their stuff. try to use it in the same way of scientific theories such as string theory they will not have it. They say "but that's a scientific theory so it deserves better" but they just go through saying it's no insult to call it "imaginary." Obviously it is and hey know it and they are fulfilling a fast one. they wont use if of their own stuff even if it's not proved. So that shows us it's a scam. Atheism is a scam. ti' snot about thinking it's about anger and resentment.

Here's a new one:

Provide me with your explanation here, and then supplement with a reference preferably through a filter of or a respectable site written by experts and I'll happily oblige. You are constantly using stereotypes in your descriptions of atheists.

in other words this person is saying no evidence quoted by a non atheist can be true. Only atheist propaganda counts as evidence.

Monday, October 5, 2009

Hate Group Atheism Makes Personal Attack on Metacrock

I can't post on this guy's site because I'm not signed up or something. But he attacks me and my blog. He calls his blog "Paganitician" the article "the cowardly custard who cannot reason."

Cowardly Custard is a C.S. Lewis Phrase. I challenge this idiot to a debate. He can't reason. He's a fool a prori because he's given up the greatest thing in the universe to flaunt is own stupidity.

His attack:

urrent Mood:

A little while ago, I mentioned a few blogs that I read solely for the purposes of schadenfreude. The title of this post is a literal one-sentence quote from one of those blogs, namely Atheistwatch. Atheistwatch is a blog run by Metacrock.

Metacrock is a very...interesting character, and is difficult to adequately describe in a few paragraphs. He has spent years evangelizing atheists, and yet claims not to be a fundamentalist. However, what is even stranger is that he is, in fact, not a fundamentalist Christian: his idea of Christianity involves a) no hell and b) the idea that all gods are really the same. Jesus, Zeus, Bast, Thoth, Hermes, Loki, and Freya? They're really all the same thing (or, as he'd weasel-word it, they're all the same cultural To him, the Christian god (and, by extension, all gods...I guess) is "the ground of Being" (yes, because it's Very Important to Capitalize certain Words so that You Look all Scholarly and Shit). He has never given a particularly coherent explanation of what that means, but from what I've gathered, it's along the lines of "that which allows everything else to exist." Well, then, Mr. Christian, welcome to Deism...dumbass!

He has a Master's degree in theology and was a PhD candidate at Perkins Perkins Theological Seminary, where he studied the ever popular nebulous field of "History of Ideas." His education is a humongous part of his ego, and the slightest perceived hint that he might not know something makes him froth at the mouth. He claims to have written over forty "proofs" of the existence of the Christian god, but upon closer examination, he cops out by stating that they're only "warrants for belief."

One of his favorite arguments for the existence of the Christian god is the "argument" from religious experience. He claims to have compiled a list of a certain number of studies--the number seems to change from 300 to 200 to 350 to 2000 and then back to 350 again--that show BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT that religious people are happier than those mean, hateful ol' atheists. Never mind that he hasn't released this mystery list of studies (although he promises to release that in his book that'll be'll see, and then you'll be sorry!!1eleventyones!) and has yet to present a single one of these studies in full (once in awhile, he'll give a half-dozen or so summaries). And never mind that even if religious people are happier than atheists, that wouldn't in and of itself prove that a single god exists. For if you point any of those things out, you're being hateful and are part of a hate group and the FBI ought to keep a watch on atheists because they're hateful, and atheists have shut down conversation, and....and...and...etc. The self-inflicted pain provides for delicious schadenfreude.

What's hilariously ironic about his pet "argument" is that despite his claiming that religious people are HAPPIER, DAMMIT than atheists, Metacrock is one of the most caustically hateful people I have encountered on--or off--the internet.

And finally, if you have taken a glance at any of Metacrock's writings at this point, you'll immediately notice his glaring lack of aptitude with basic spelling and grammar. He blames all of this on his dyslexia--fair enough--but refuses to use even the most basic of spellcheckers. While reading his writing, I often find--and I doubt I'm alone in this--that I use an internal voice that...well...shall we say belongs to someone who's a bit "speshul." If you brave reading his ramblings, let me know if you find your internal monologue sounding different.

My answer:

I did my Ph.D. work at UT Dallas not Perkins. I got my Masters at Perkins. So my Ph.D. stuff was sin a secular program.

this stupider than shit puissant thinks that what I'm saying is deism because he's too fucking stupid to look the meaning of deism or to know anything about theology today so he doesn't have any idea what modern theologians believe. He calls me a dumass but the truth of it is he's an ignorant unread little pimple faced idiot who is probably in junior high.

I don't say Zeus is the same as Jesus. Jesus is the actual one concrete difference that can be used to sort out religious traditions, becuase he was a real guy. The gods of various traditions are concepts that hint at the real reality behind them all, which is beyond our understanding. But Jesus is a concrete historical case and that offers us a revealed understanding of God's character.

I am not concerned with evangelizing atheists. If there is a hell, which you are right I don't believe in, I hope atheists go there becuase they deserve to. I don't care to lead them to Jesus because they hate Jesus so they can burn for all I care.

Belief in ultimate transformation power (salvation) hardly makes me a fundie, since all religious people have some notion of that concept.

I don't get upset when people say that I don't know something. I admit all the time that there are many things I don't know. I get upset because ignorant atheist scum lie adn say that I didn't go to graduate school and other unfair absurd things and lies about me. What upsets me is the hate group aspect of the Orwellian atheist movement. Not to mention the Orwellian features.

Just the act of having to make me the issues show they are not willing to play fair.

the list of studies changes because I find new ones that makes it go up. Lately I have began arguing for a lower number as a concession because I can't find all the studies show I narrowed it to the one's I'm sure about.

It doesn't' matter because no atheist as ever bothered to look even one of them up. Being lazy and stupid they don't care how many studies say what. they are not really concerned with scinece, science is just an excuse for you.

atheism represents the destruction of western civilization because ti's attack on Christianity is really an attack upon learning and thinking.

You have said many inaccurate things and you could just as easily have gotten them right if you were concerned with truth, which obviously you are not.

Then we have the repetition of one of their most cherished lies about me:

And finally, if you have taken a glance at any of Metacrock's writings at this point, you'll immediately notice his glaring lack of aptitude with basic spelling and grammar. He blames all of this on his dyslexia--fair enough--but refuses to use even the most basic of spellcheckers

The truth is I use a spell check every time I write anything, because I have firefox. Sot he spell check is automatically there in the text every single time. I use it every single time. Most of my things are not spelled badly. Once in a while a word goes through wrong, or a name that the spell checker doesn't know will get through. But these imbecilic vermin who know nothing (ie atheists) are born liars, they are mentions Satan so they are possessed with spirits of lie, and they just love to lie about the hated target group who they despise and long to kill. So they say these things all the time. they just get in the habit, "o Metacorck, he doesn't use spell check and all his stuff is spelled wrong all the time." it's a mantra. They don't even bother to look to see if it's true.

they are lying scum. what do you expect from vermin.

Now little coward vermin I challenge you formally stupid. debate me or prove your cowardice you little fool.

Orwellian Atheism marks a new trend in counter-atheist studies

Now that we understand that the hate group has evolved from mere hate group to Orwellian nightmare we can analyze it more effectively. So far here are the indications:

Use of terms:these are all found in past posts on this blog so you can just go down the page and find them.

Imaginary: indicating the status of belief in God

Delusion: Also used of alleged fictional status of God belief.

Cult: used as synonym for all religious groups even the most popular

Description of the making of God arguments:

Trying to usurp science and reality to stick in your deity is dangerous.

superstition: used defined as Christianity and other religious belief.

Definition of Superstition

Brainy Quote Definition of Superstition

  1. An excessive reverence for, or fear of, that which is unknown or mysterious.
  2. An ignorant or irrational worship of the Supreme Deity; excessive exactness or rigor in religious opinions or practice; extreme and unnecessary scruples in the observance of religious rites not commanded, or of points of minor importance; also, a rite or practice proceeding from excess of sculptures in religion.
  3. The worship of a false god or gods; false religion; religious veneration for objects.
  4. Belief in the direct agency of superior powers in certain extraordinary or singular events, or in magic, omens, prognostics, or the like.
  5. Excessive nicety; scrupulous exactness.
 look at number 2, worshiping God is defined as superstition.

an atheist on a message board said:
I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature ... - 14k - Cached - Similar pages -

My response:

The same kind of recursive and circular statement I just got through exposing. What makes it superstitious? Because it's religion. What makes religion superstition? Because it' superstition.

Defining "Fre Thinkers" As those who agree with atheist ideology:

True free thinkers are those that can speak and think with accuracy and honesty. As a scientist, I pride myself on being able to read and understand the natural world and everything it has to offer. Not all of it is 100% right, but I consider the 95% to be good enough.

Defining opposition to Atheist control as "anti-free thinking."

Freedom becomes slavery and slavery becomes freedom. Now that we know this is the true nature of atheism, reductionism and all the other isms such as scientism that go hand in hand with the hate group, we can understand the danger is no just to Christianity, not just to religions, but to all people who want to think for themselves.

Atheism constitutes a clear and present danger.

Sunday, October 4, 2009

Another example of Orwellian atheism

This time from T WEb. An atheist makes the statement that God is "only imaginary." I put up a great argument that belief in God is rationally warranted and that is certainly strong enough to be thought of as more than "Imaginary." The he tries to soft peddle the insulting implications, which I find is an Orwellian use of language.\

Me: that's more than imaginary, remember the title of the thread?"

him: Only if there happens to actually be a God.

My argument is that we have strong reasons to bleieve there's a God. He wants to be able to continue the insulting connoations while deying that he means them. But when I claim that string tehory is imaginary too what does he say?

Im Lriginally posted by JimL
Neutrino's are detectable and are known to exist, there is nothing imaginary about them,


atheists just really have a problem with understanding what is said don't you? Go is real and can be detected. What the person I was responding to said about the meaning of imaginary would apply to anything that is not directly and unarguably proved. Neutrinos are not directly oversexed. they are not directly observed. You can detect them but only by their effect upon other particles. There still remains no direct picture of one. They cannot be directly observed.

We can detect God by his effects upon people, that's what RE is. It's God's effect, the trace of God.

Jim L

and string theory is just that, a theory, based on the physics of the natural world, whereas God is merely an unscientific concept that gives to us an imaginary explanation as to the meaning of it all.

Again, Science is not the only form of knowledge. Understand? science is not the only form of knowledge. that means it doesn't have to be science to be true. That means bad mouthing God by saying "that's not scinece is not an argument! understand now? that's not a point in your favor. it's meaningless.

it does not make God imaginary. Just because something is not science doesn't mean it's imaginary. Logic is not science, logic is not imaginary. Phenomenology is not science, phenomenology is not imaginary. Understand now?

You are trying to privilege your position with words.


you are special pleading. You are trying to say that science is the only form of knowledge so therefore anything that is scientific is automatically redeemed from not having direct proof. But an idea that is not a scientific idea, if not proved directly must be imaginary. That's crap.

You do not have the right to privilege our position such that anything you say is exempt form direct proof but anything I say direct proof is automatically required.

Neutrinos and string theory cannot be proved directly no one thinks that makes them imaginary. God can be known by his effects and by one's understanding of being, so God is not imaginary.


Yes I sure and I have.(verify SN) See the threads I put down on how atheists have the wrong idea of the supernatural. The religious experience studies and the effects of navigation in the world are supernatural, a prori. they fit exactly what the original concept was about.Its' a Christian theological concept atheists do not have the right to define it!

Jim L

and so you are left with nothing but the imagination with which to construe an ultimate reality or God. Whether God exists or not you can only imagine.

you are not doing it again, give me some proof that anything that is not science is imaginary? why do you think you get to pronounce that? Science doesn't say that. Show me the scientific data that proves that?

Moreover, My argument is based upon 300 scientific studies and you don't have any. I can verify the SN by science because the first argument is the supernatural. Supernatural refers to God's power to transform lives, taht's exactly how the word was first. That's what it means that's what these 300 studies prove. you don't have any studies. you have no studies.

score, 300 to 0.

Theists = 300 studies proving our position

ahteist= 0 studies proving your position.

MEtaI am left with 300 empirical studies which show that the experiences that led to the creation of religion are real, they are experiences of something, they fit the criteria we use to determine reality so we have every right to think of them the effects of something real; they are about god we should assume God is that "something" that is real.

Jim L
not direct proof but more than imagination!

they don't have to be direct proof. you have offered no data or any sort of argument to prove that these are the only choices, either imaginary or totally proved directly. That's a silly idea. That's not science and it's not logical it's stupid. do you hear me its' stupid. got it? it's a dumb idea.

you are making extremely statements and you can't back them up.

I have studies showing an innate concept of God in the mind of humans. That means God had to put it there because evolution can't.

[not direct proof but more than imagination!

did you read the op? do you ever read anything? The point in the op is it doesn't have to be direct proof because it rationally warranted. do you understand that phrase?

I said in the first post that my point is not that God is directly proved but that it's rational to believe. So you come along and say "not direct proof" so what does that do to the argument? It agrees with it so it must no effect it at all do you see that?

I never defined imaginary thus. It merely means the construction of concepts in the mind with no definite reality.

So now it comes out that you don't understand what is meant by "connotations?" Atheists are indeed ignorant. It's a connotation of ignorance and stupidty and childishness if not why are you not willing to say that string theory is imaginary?

Hawkings numbers are imganiary how does that make you feel?

You can't prove it directly because whether true or not for you, like it or not, God is only a concept in your own mind.

what did I say about proving things directly? when are you going to start addressing the arguments?