Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Atheist Ideology and the Socializied Solider

 I started atheist watch with the idea in mind of showing that a segment of the atheist community is moving in the direction of becoming a hate group. I've proved that in spades. But what's really come out of this site is that my understanding of the atheist psychology has mushroomed. I not only understand a bit about the psychology of the hateful loudmouth insulting kind of atheist but also I can see a whole range of issues that mark out atheism as a form of brain washing and ideology. When I say "a form of brain washing" I'm not that's distinct from being ideology. I think  ideology is a form of brain washing. I had a sociology of religion professor named Anson Shoupe in my days as an undergraduate. He became famous for the idea that there is no such thing as brain washing per se, "Brain washing is actually a form of socialization. Atheists find this socialization on message boards and in clubs. They are drawn to it for reasons that escape me but I supposed it has to do with the people who feel inferior because of their lack of education and they need to compare themselves so some hated group which they then demonstrate is intellectually inferior. Being unintellectual themselves most of hem don't have the slightest idea how to do that so they take the "easy way" they assume clinging to science makes them smart and rejecting evolution makes fudnies stupid, so if they hate fundies and cling to evolution then they are smart.

One can' easily see that atheism is an ideology. All you have is compare the way atheists act on message board with the way ideologues act. One thing Ideologues do is they don't argue rationally. Everything they hear something that contradicts their brain washing they have to make srue they call it names ridicule it and put it down and threaten it.This is what 90% of carm atheists every single time they hear anything that doesn't stack up to their views. All theistic  posts must be met with mocking and denunciation.

I say "I believe in God" they have to "that's just a fantasy." like no Bondy knows they think that. as though I've never been here before, what kind of board is this? It must be mouthed back immediately less someone out there think "well aybe there could be A god" the choral begins to scream no there could not no sire there never be no no o non ! THERE COULD NEVER BE A GOD SO DON'T EVEN THINK THAT WAY!!!!!


Here's one I hear all the time. they go Metarocks your ideas are so silly and so fallacious. no one believes what you say your ideas are stupid you cant' think.That's indicative of brain washing, Not thinking, it's not an argument, intellectuals don't do that. That's the way thugs, bully, brown shirts, school yard bullies and brain washed, skin heads people like that conduct themselves. When I tell the same ideas to professors (even athist professors) form graduate school they say "nothing wrong with that it's perfectly logical."

on the other baord BT says "there's no God he doesn't exist."

I say "what's your proof"

he says' "he doesn't exist."

that's not circular at all is it? then he turns right around and says that I'm into circular reasoning and he's an analytical thinker.

this kind of thing goes on all the time. I can name a dozen atheists on this board who act this way every day.

It's an ideology. it's not free thinking, it's not any kind of thinking.


Originally Posted by bigthinker View Post
You assert that God exists, right? Prove it.

 I challenge him to prove his assertion becuase he stated bluntly that God is imaginary. Of cousre he said knee jerk in response to me disclosing about my faith. So just like an old fashioned catholic hearing something bad has to cross himself to get a blessing and keep evil away, the ideologue must respond knee jerk "there is not God." Like the guy on Star Trek "there are witches!"
Meta
My evidence is that God perfectly fits the description of imaginary beings: he is invisible,
He's not invisible. he's off scale. he's not an objective thing so he's not something we can see but he' snot "invisible." the concept of invisible is bending light rays not being imaginary. the invisible man is not the imaginary man.

Obviously God can effect things in reality, such as the lives of people who experience him and that's the whole point of the 200 studies. they show concrete results form feeling God's presence.
Big Thinker


doesn't have a body
Meta

what makes that imaginary? how do you know he doesn't have a body?
BT


does not impact the world outside of the human mind, 
 Meta
then how do people feel his presence and how it is that those who do have their lives so improved and are so much less likely to be depressed and mentally ill? How does he word miracles? that's obviously a contradiction to your nonsense.

how could an imaginary thing create a universe? IF the universe is proved to nee a creator (cosmological argument you can't beat it--you are afraid to debate me) then obviously God must create the universe and thus clearly has an effect on it.
BT
is not detectable, 
 Meta
I can feel his presence. the M scale proves that those who have this experience have experienced something real that changes their lives, therefore that prove they are really experiencing something that's not just some imaginary thing.

if imaginary things could change your life that way everyone would have a changed life.


your argument are asserting the naive position that to be real something has be detectable. But they have not as yet detected strings, dark matter, or bozons yet believes these to be real.

O great big thinker, please coordinate! Calling all bozons.
BT
leaves no measurable trace
 Meta
,
(1) the M scale makes mystical experience measurable.

(2) show me the measurable trace of dark matter?


BT

does not exist outside of the human mind etc etc.
Meta
this is he kind of circular argument taht I said not to make! I knew you coldn't do it. you can't give me a legitimate reason.
notice how he includes "doesn't exist outside of the human mind" as thought it's a proved fact that both sides accept and it's listed among the attributes he takes to be beyond question. So one of his arguments that God doesn't exist is that God doesn't exist.






here you are just using as a reason the thing trying to prove.

what are you trying to prove? That God is not real.

what's your argument? that God is not real.

these are the same thing! that's circular reasoning!




BT:
So , if God's essence shares the same characteristics as other imaginary beings, and does not have any characteristics that imaginary beings do not have, God must be imaginary.
Meta
imaginary like

dark matter
string
membranes
bozons
sh-leptons
neutrinos
gravitons
multiverse
singularity
big bang

like that? this is not a valid reason because it would eliminate everything in scinece that's been discovered since 1936.


Quote Originally Posted by bigthinker View Post
That's exactly correct.
So what other non-objective, invisible things exist outside of the mind? Can you name one or two?

Meta
I already did. can't you read? try dark matter, do you not know what that is? no you don't no one dose you have heard of it right? it's invisible it's outside the midn it's a mystery it's not solid. you can't touch it. Also try bozons.

BT

Invisible means can't be seen... Visible=seen/able to be seen. The prefix "in" means "not" or "without". When put in front of the word "visible" it modifies the meaning of "visible" to mean notvisible.

 Meta
no that's silly. that's not the word we use when things are off scale. we don't say we can't see beyond space/time because it's invisible. God is not an object standing in front of you, he's a mind thinking your existence. So obviously you can't see but that doesn't mean he's invisible. If you were a germ living on a dog the dog would not be seen, you would think hide was forest floor but he wouldn't be invisible.


I compared the idea of God to the invisible man in order to say he's not like that. To which this self appointed brilliant analytical mind says:

Really? Why, are there invisible men around? The invisible man is a figment of imagination, Meta...


Meta:

Yea, I said he's NOT LIKE THAT can't you read1?? you really can't read can you?

BT

Obviously? In what way is it obvious?

 Meta
it's undeniable and perceptible.

And what is the nature of this experience? Is it measurable?
No it's extremely nice.

BT


Is it detectable?

 Meta
yes, Newberg detected it.

BT


When a person has such an experience is it obvious to a third party observer?
 Meta

sometimes, Newberg can because it makes a certain part of the brain become more active than others.
BT

Theoretical. because they serve as hypothetical explanations. They are parts of different models which explain and describe certain natural processes.
Meta
so? they still not immediately perceptible to the sense. you are mixing in ideology. you are saying "I can lambaste your deal because it doesn't d x,y,z, but my stuff that I accept wholeheartedly doesn't do x,y,z but that's ok that's different." this is called "special pleading."


BT

You are certainly one of the most vocal of the gullible, non-critical thinkers here at CARM. The M Scale is meaningful ONLY to those who BELIEVE in it.

Now he feels the need to begin person ridicule. He's starting to feel a big awkward about spouting all the bilge and he's got to remind himself the ideology says "I am superior to all religious people I can feel good about myself as long as I hate Christians."

Meta

ahahhaah that's brilliant. your little ideology of hatred tells you that your enemy is inferior to you intellectually. Because you need to feel that you believe it. But because you ar inferior intellectually you don't know when when you are addressing your better and when you are not.

here's the guy who says "God doesn't exist, and my proof is, well he doesn't!"

but I'm the non analytical thinker? I['m the one talking about studies and modal logic he's over here begging the question never makes an argument cant' say anything other than "I refuse to bleieve therefore that proves it' not ture if it was true I could believe."

I'm the non analytical one. listen man if that's analytical then forget I'd rather be non analytical.
BT

I did not bring up dark matter....
 what he means by that I have no idea. I know I brought it up, so what?

BT
But if you would like to say that your god is only as real as dark matter, go for it! But it seems like a pretty stupid argument to me.

apparently this guy is dumb enough to think that dark matter is not real. Scientists think it's real, probalby he's never heard of it. He probalby thinks it's a religious idea.

Meta

I doubt that you even know what dark matter is. OF cousre go ahead and claim you do that puts you ahead of all physicists because no one knows.somehow mysteriously you seem to know that it's not like God. how? because you don't want it to be. we don't know what it is but you know what it's not like.

Of course in your great analytical insight you miss the obvious point, that real science and real analytical people accept the existence of things that fit the criteria you give form Imaginary. but that's ok because if you can argue in circles you can special plead. I've never seen you make an intelligent argument.

you rarely understand my point, you don't have a very broad knowledge base. Its' obvious you are not well read in anything. I can see why you need an ideology to tell you "you are superior to the evil Christians."


BT

You need to learn about circular arguments, Meta.
I've been learning from you, you are the expert.

he's the one saying God exists becasue he doesn't' exist but I'm doing the circular reasoning! ??
Meta

You're good at making them but very poor at pointing them out. My argument is that God is imaginary because he fits the description of other imaginary beings.
Yea so do all the major scientific discoveries I named.



subatomic particle
dark matter
string membranes
ect ect.


but that's ok because you just special plead and the inconsistency goes away.

this analytical thinking you supposedly do is a most wondrous thing. you can transform circular argument into cogent analysis just demanding that you can.

you can special plead all you want. wow. genius.


BT

My argument is also that God exists only in the mind. God is conceptual, does not impact the natural world (in a measurable, detectable, predictable, repeatable way). And so on and so forth.
 Meta
I've already shown that he does. you didn't have any proof. you did special pleading to make up for the fact that your criteria eliminates most major scientific discoveries of the last 50 years.

you still haven't given a reason. just reiterating what you believe is not proof.


Do you think that all of these things exist? In what way? The big bang is/was an event. It is also an idea that refers to events at the beginning of our universe. Scientists use the big bang idea as a model because it is the result of other data and fits the model.

 Meta
Scientist believe it's real sonny boy. they don't just make up a model for fun, that would like something you do. they have real reasons, its' the accepted model because it has empirical data, you know like the stuff you can't provide to back your views?


he's incredibly unread.

BT

The idea as such is certainly incomplete (at the very least) and may turn out to be altogether incorrect. However, at present, it works within the scope of models used by scientists.
 Meta
that doesn't change the fact that your criteria clerestories modern science. its' a silly criteria and you didn't forge a real argument anyway. It's some guy who don't know much spiting a bunch of bigoted nonsense because he hates some group and it makes him feel tough and powerful to say things like "I refuse to believe!"

what's so hilarious genius that a great analytical thinker who special pleads and argues in circles can' t provide one single example of any kind of cogent idea agaisnt the thing he hates so much.

I clean your clock every time we do this. you have not never produced a decent argument. and you must know you can't because you are afraid to debate me.

 then he began to tell me that I argue in a circle. It's not just carm it's on every atheists board. I literally cannot find one where it's not like that. Of course many people try to explain it way and just attributed it to the internet. they are just torlls a lot of trolls around. But he trolls act like skin heads and brown shirts, they act like people brain washed who can't stand to hear ideas not of their group in which they have been indoctrinated.

2 comments:

A Hermit said...

"When I say "a form of brain washing" I'm not that's distinct from being ideology. I think ideology is a form of brain washing."

I washed my brain last night and now I can't do a thing with it...

"One can' easily see that atheism is an ideology. All you have is compare the way atheists act on message board with the way ideologues act."

Atheists on message boards act the same way everyone else on message boards does; some of them are nice and polite and thoughtful, some of them are assholes.

I wish you wouldn't generalize like this.

Metacrock said...

Atheists on message boards act the same way everyone else on message boards does; some of them are nice and polite and thoughtful, some of them are assholes.

bull shit! I do not act that way. I respond to it.

anyone with any kind of brains can see the techniques they use. you can chart in on a graph.

I can predict to the our when exactly they will attack my spelling.