God is Imaginary site is a good exampe of atheist brain washing

 Atheist Brain washing


Atheism is a hate group and a cult, they definitely brain wash. They can't brain wash the way they Moonies do because they can't kid nap people or take them to the farm or whatever. The reason atheist brain washing works is because it's voluntary, they are not forcing people into a process of socialization, they are finding people who want to be socialized then giving it to them. Why do I say "socialization?" Because I once studied in a class with a professor on the sociology of religion. The professor is a world famous sociologist in the field. His theory is that there is no such thing as barin washing per se, it's really a means of socialization.

Like the Moonies atheists cruse the net looking for lonely outcast types who want to belong to a group and feel alienated from mainstream. At that rate the brain washing is really just a process of socializing, teaching the new requite the right way to maintain his own set of verbal ques that will initiate acceptance in the group, and that's really all the brain washing one needs. We can see this process working in the website "God is imaginary--50 simple arguments (50 idiotic arguemnts).

What we are about to see is the author of that site imitating newbies into thinking like atheist, and keeping the attitude long enough to be accepted. When the new one is accepted he get's positive strokes form the group and he learns, "mocking religion = acceptance." If I say this I'll be accepted.

The is obvious becuase the process is not a set of arguments designed to encourage a person to think about the truth but a step by step process destined to set up expectations,show they are not fulfilled  by religion, then supply positive reinforcement when the recruit learns to mock.

this is from the God is imaginary site:

It is easy to prove to yourself that God is imaginary. The evidence is all around you. Here are 50 simple proofs:

Watch the video

1. Try praying
2. Statistically analyze prayer
3. Look at all historical gods
4. Think about science
5. Read the Bible

Look at the little sign on the left, proving the Bible is repulsive. it's not just wrong it's "repulsive." Of course that's hate. only a moron would be unable to see that it's hate, or someone who has been through the process and learned to turn off his critical faculties because mocking and ridicule have come to be seen as normal to him.

Look at the steps. Try praying. Why? Because we are going to look at what they say about that is "set up some expectations, see that God doesn't fulfill them, (of course they are going to be really stupid things that of cousre God do like "give me a million follows materialized out of thin air right now). So that will set up the sense that prayer doesn't work, but roe importantly i am reconfigured for saying it doesn't work. So this is not an analytical discussion about the possibility of prayer working it's a rank stupid insistence to have one's impulsive desires met so that when they are not met one will have a sense of "yes, God isn't real because he didn't do that."

his page on "try praying"

What would happen if we get down on our knees and pray to God in this way:

Dear God, almighty, all-powerful, all-loving creator of the universe, we pray to you to cure every case of cancer on this planet tonight. We pray in faith, knowing you will bless us as you describe in Matthew 7:7, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Matthew 18:19 and James 5:15-16. In Jesus' name we pray, Amen.

We pray sincerely, knowing that when God answers this completely heartfelt, unselfish, non-materialistic prayer, it will glorify God and help millions of people in remarkable ways. Will anything happen? No. Of course not.

Here he did exactly what I said he would do. He set up a ridiculous expectation that anyone should know God wont do--and Christians have discussed plenty of times why this is not valid-- the real point is not that he really thinks someone is going to be convince. The point is two fold. (1) it leavens in the mind of the imitate a very slight sense that "yes he's right God didn't come through, it builds doubt with the idea "why don't God fix everything?" But the more important one (2) When they go to be with other atheists and they say "I did this and it didn't work of cousre" then they will be given positive reinforcement because they tried it. That will make them feel like part of the group and what they have learned from it is not only the socialization process "I am accepted for my doubt" but also the sense that mocking and ridicule is the natural way to deal with religion because it leads to acceptance by the group.

For an answer on why this method of interpretation scripture is simple minded and this is not a good representation of prayer see my essay. See also my essay on Metacrock's Blog "why doesn't God heal Stupidity?" The answer to why God doesn't heal all problems at once is the theodicy problem. That is a major issue. While I don't blame anyone for find it hard to have faith in the face of pain in life, that was one of my major reasons for being an atheist, there are good answers if you look for them.

Of course the issue prayer is totally misrepresented here. There is a lot that can be said on the atrocious exegesis, but for empirical studies about prayer that suggest it is effective see my orphan pages. There are about 14 studies that show prayer works. Also there are many more kinds of empirical evidence that prove God works miracles.

Of cousre the bottom line is prayer usually doesn't get us what we want exactly, when we want it and we are usually not patient enough to see the difference between our immediate desires and our true long terms desires. This simple minded approach capitalizes upon and prays upon the simplistic need to have what we want when we want it and psychological depends of the alienated upon accepted by the group. The I examine atheism the more I find this is the case, Atheism plays upon simple minded fallacy and immediate desires.

Atheism is redundant: Amputees Guy Striks again (exposing the site "God is Imaginary--50 simple proofs")

I don't know if this is done by the same guy or not but it must be. The simple minded mentality and cheap tricks behind the amputees site stands behind the site "God is Imaginary."


This site features "50 simple proofs" (50 simple minded lies) that God is not real. Of course they get most of those by repeating the same ones.

Proof #11 - Notice that there is no scientific evidence

There is no scientific evidence indicating that God exists. We all know that. For example:

• God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth.
• None of Jesus' "miracles" left any physical evidence either. (see this page)
• God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone.
• The resurrected Jesus has never appeared to anyone. (see this page)
• The Bible we have is provably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God. (see this page)
• When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no evidence that God is "answering prayers." (see this page)
• Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust and AIDS occur without any response from God.
• And so on…

Let's agree that there is no empirical evidence showing that God exists. If you think about it as a rational person, this lack of evidence is startling. There is not one bit of empirical evidence indicating that today's "God", nor any other contemporary god, nor any god of the past, exists. In addition we know that:

1. If we had scientific proof of God's existence, we would talk about the "science of God" rather than "faith in God".
2. If we had scientific proof of God's existence, the study of God would be a scientific endeavor rather than a theological one.
3. If we had scientific proof of God's existence, all religious people would be aligning on the God that had been scientifically proven to exist. Instead there are thousands of gods and religions.

The reason for this lack of evidence is easy for any unbiased observer to see. The reason why there is no empirical evidence for God is because God is imaginary.

Notice three things:


(1) This is not proof there's not scientific proof. it's only "proof" if even that, that the things pointed out are not scientific proofs.


(2) He's just asserting "we all know that" without providing any actual evidence. If We all know it why do we need a website about it?


(3) Lack of scientific evidence is not a disproof.

• God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth. 

 the earth and the tomb and the parts of the brain that contain  the concept of God are all physical proof.

• None of Jesus' "miracles" left any physical evidence either. (see this page) 

 the empty tomb bozo. Jesus miracles were 2000 years ago you really expect those guys to still be hanging around waiting for the press?

• God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone. 

 Science hasn't done that either. why is that "scientific" evdience? He might as well say "God has not pulled off a big publicity stunt recently. That's all he's arguing.

• The resurrected Jesus has never appeared to anyone. (see this page) 

 Of course that is nothing more an stupid assertion based upon facts in not in evidence. What he really means is "I don't bleieve Jesus did this." He's trying to couch it in terms that make i seem real and true and trust worthy when it's nothing more than his refusal to believe. This is a good example of what I have called "the atheist argument from incredulity." I refuse to believe that's all there is to it, that proves it. It only proves that you are stupid.This the kind of illogical drivel that atheism has come to mean on the internet.

The Bible we have is provably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God. (see this page)

 That's a simplistic generalization. He must show that what he is referring to as "untrue" is truly a claim made by the bible and not a straw man, and then in which sense it's not true.

• When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no evidence that God is "answering prayers." (see this page) 

Bull. there are at least 14 good studies that prayers are answered. not we need such studies. in addition to that there's a ton of good empirical evidence of miracles.  This is a bait and switch because even without answered prayer and miracle that in itself does not disprove the existence of God.

Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust and AIDS occur without any response from God

 More assertion without evidence. How does he know there was no response from God? There was no great publicity stunt, that doesn't prove no response. Perhaps the allies winning the war and the foundation of Israel were responses.

• And so on… 

O and so on! wow why didn't you say now. that really conveniences me! what does he mean by "and so on?" What he means is "let me teach you how to be an thinking knee jerk reactionary who hates God.
Now you see the pattern you got the hand of it, make up your lying bs, and so on!

Let's agree that there is no empirical evidence showing that God exists.

 why should we agree on that? I have a vast array of empirical evidence that demonstrates rational reasons to believe in God. half of my 42 arguments are empirically oriented.

If you think about it as a rational person, this lack of evidence is startling. There is not one bit of empirical evidence indicating that today's "God", nor any other contemporary god, nor any god of the past, exists. In addition we know that: 

 Unless of course you think about it intelligently and in an educated manner and recall that God is beyond our understanding and is not given in sense data. There actually no reason to construe lack of scientific with non existence. After all many physicists take string theory seriously and there is no proof of string theory. Moreover, since God is not given in sense data that means we must use other means, such as philosophy and religious experience rather than direct scientific evidence. But then that's actually a lie since the 200 empirical studies of religious experience are scientific evidence for God. Its not direct evidence like a finger print, but it's powerful ind erect evidence.


This points up another problem with this guys hateful paladin. He never gives a criterion for evidence. He doesn't' establish what kind of evidence we should look for. this veg "scientific evidence' doesn't cut it, and he doesn't tell us what to search for or why we should accept his criteria if he has any.

1. If we had scientific proof of God's existence, we would talk about the "science of God" rather than "faith in God". 

 We do talk about that genius, it's called "theology" (the word means "the systematic study of God"). "Ology" does not mean "useless haphazard study. Internet atheist illiteracy strikes agai

If we had scientific proof of God's existence, the study of God would be a scientific endeavor rather than a theological o

If we had scientific proof of God's existence, all religious people would be aligning on the God that had been scientifically proven to exist. Instead there are thousands of gods and religions.

It is. It's called "textual criticism" its' a science.

The reason for this lack of evidence is easy for any unbiased observer to see. The reason why there is no empirical evidence for God is because God is imaginary.

Of course it might also be because you are illiterate and you don't understand epistemology. This is such a horribly idiotic, based an uninformed pack of lies one shudders at the prospect of even dealing with it. The illiteracy level this pitch is aimed at is scary. Now let's look some of those links he sticks in to back his unfounded assertions.


He shows his true stupidity in linking to a page for Jesus miracles didn't leave any physical evidence, and this page is nothing more than recursion of the kind of ignorant unthinking bigotry he exhibits in the original page of lies.

If someone were to come to you today and say, "I am God!", what would you do? Yes, you would immediately ask for proof. Of course you would. And you would not want goofy proof.You would want real, solid, tangible proof.
No normal person, and I mean no one, would accept anything less than rock solid proof from a person who claims to be God.

But to "disprove" the "rock solid" ntture of Jesus miracles me makes two idiotic assertiosn:


(1) people back then would think about faith healers the way we do today.

1. Everyone has seen all sorts of "faith healers" who can "heal" the sick. And we all know that this sort of "healing" is quackery. If it were true, then we would not need doctors, hospitals or prescription medicines.
2. Turning water into wine... Doesn't that sound like something that a B-grade David-Copperfield-wannabe magician would do in a nightclub act? There are a dozen ways that you could stage things to make it look like water is turning into wine. There is no reason why a normal person would accept a magic trick as proof that someone is God.
3. Neither of these miracles can be scientifically tested today. Not one of Jesus' miracles left any tangible evidence for scientists to study.

this was 2000 years ago! where's is he going to get a scientific lab to test the wine back then? Why assume that the lack presence of the miracle today is proof they didn't happen 2000 years ago?
This is absurdly stupid. Without offering any sort of proof that Jesus miracles didn't happen, he assumes that his empty headed argument from incredulity is some kind of proof for today. But he never actually gives any evidence that the miracles didn't happen, the people 2000 yars ago would have seen the people they knew were lame and blind running around healed they would have seen Jesus having died o the cross walking through the town and they wouldn't believed, so have historical evidence we can't measure it's truth content by atheist incredulity.


All of his backing nonsense is the same kind of garbage. This site is a perfect proof for my arguments about atheism. We feel the hate, we know it's organized hate group palaver, it's stupid, it's clearly designed to incite emotions rather than analysis and it's clearly aiming at working up unthinking anger. This is proof of my theory that Dawkins is paying intern crowd for suckers and trying to build an army of angry illiterate atheist fundies because he thinks that's the success of Christianity.


No movement has ever succeeded for long by basing is support on the stupidest level of society. No hate group has succeeded over a long period of time either. Some day thanks to guys like this the phrase "stupid as an internet atheist" will be common place.

atheist Stupidity example no. 187,999: literal thinking about heaven

On CARM there's a thread where someone asked where heaven is. This is followed by a really childish exchange where Christians say things like "it's up" and atheist say "how far?"
"way far"
"where?"
Of course the implication is "why can't we see it?" If we can't see something then it must not exist. I put out the speculation that doesn't have to be a place at all, it can be a non spatial reality like the platonic forms, but of course they didn't even comment (what they  know the Platonic forms could be writ large on the bum of a fly).

One of them named "drugstar" (I guess that's a rock star without the music) says:

"And he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length, and the breadth, and the height of it are equal" (\reference{Revelation 21:16}{Revelation 21:16}). Twelve thousand furlongs, 7,920,000 feet which being cubed, 496,793,088,000,000,000,000 cubic feet. Half of this we will reserve for the throne of God and the court of heaven, and half of the balance for streets, leaving a remainder of 124,198,272,000,000,000,000 cubic feet. Divide this by 4,096, the cubical feet in a room sixteen feet square, and there will be 30,321,843,750,000,000 rooms. We will now suppose that the world always did and always will contain 990,000,000,000,000 inhabitants, an that a generation lasts for 331/3 years, making in all 2,970,000,000 every century, and that the world will stand 100,000 years or 1,000 centuries, making in all 2,910,000,000,000 inhabitants. Then suppose there were one hundred worlds equal to this in number of inhabitants and duration of years, making a total of 297,000,000,000,000 persons, and there would be more than a hundred rooms sixteen feet square for each person.
By William Moses Tidwell, "Effective Illustrations."

He's trying to say there's this passage in the bible that measures heaven so it must be a literal place. But of cousre this is again their ignorance. The Jews had a lot of mystical writings that used extremely complex metaphors and all of those measurements have symbolic meaning.

since no one bothethered to comment on my post. I'll ask the atheits a question. why does heaven have to be in a physical place? If after life is spiritual or it if it's mental (sprit = mind) why does it have to located in a given spactial sector? why can't it be a mental reality like the realm of the platonic fomrs?

come to that why can't it just be in an other dimension like any parallel universe in the multiverse?

another question

why do you have to think so literally that you have to have it in a speicific place, and telescopes can't see it then it must not exist. cant' you see how silly, childish, regessive, that is?

Atheist Hysteria Distorts Their Ability to Judge Rationally

The other day I came across an atheist blog that was hysterically over-reacting to a defense of the doctrine of God's just retribution. In "answering" this rational argument the demonstrate their totally inability to think in any rational way about basic humanity. It's railing against a member of the CADRE called "BK."

The blog is called "Hallq."

BK’s defense of damnation for non-believers

January 11, 2010 by Chris Hallquist   |

Leave a comment

BK starts off by saying that atheists never make the list of non-Christians who don’t deserve to go to hell. I should point out that there’s a sense in which that isn’t true–Hitler’s victims are usually mentioned in these discussions (though BK avoids doing so)–and the Nazis didn’t care about actual religious beliefs, I’m guessing that’s hundreds of thousands of atheists implicitly mentioned in the usual discussions.
But never mind the whole thing about God doing worse things to Hitler’s victims than Hitler did. A few people who’ve commented on this have made things a bit more personal. Here’s Charles Darwin:

The Hitler answers shows real inability to understand the issue. The fact that they aren't singled out as "atheists" indicates their atheism is not excusable. They just happen to be hiding in the masses of innocent victims. Of course being atheists doesn't mean that they deserved to be killed by Hitler so there's no reason to single them out on the basis that some of his victims "might" have been atheists. But we reall have no way of knowing anyway, so why make a category of which we cannot be sure?


He quotes BK himself:

I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all of my friends, will be everlasting punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.

 His answer:

I could list, among others, my girlfriend, a couple of previous girlfriends, two of my three roommates, the aunt and uncle I just spent the last weekend with, and myself. A great deal of fundie rhetoric around Hell plays on normal people being to modest to say they don’t deserve to go there, but no one should be afraid to say this any more than they should be afraid to tell a fundie “I don’t deserve to be shot for not following your religion.” But for the incurably modest, I recommend Darwin’s strategy the next time you have to discuss Hell with a fundie. 

 Like most atheists he totally misses the point. He's so busy fearing hell that he can't even think rationally. The point BK made was that Christians are not trying to get some kind of leverage over people they are genuinely reacting to something that they believe to be a problem, they are trying to help the people they care about. All the little atheist can think about is how to dump more crap on Christian's heads.He tuns it into people being too modest to say they don't deserve hell but the original issue is not that, it's about people who believe in hell trying to respond to what they perceive is something those they love genuinely need to be saved from. The concept of really caring about people being saved totally alludes the atheist.

BK’s entire response to this problem is to whine about an “entitlement mentality”–among the examples of which BK mentions the fact that people think we are entitled to freedom of speech. BK responds that, no, these things have to be paid for, people have worked and fought for free speech. What this fails to see is that right and wrong exist even when nobody can defend them. People have a right to free speech, and this means that if a tyrannical government is shooting dissidents, this is wrong even if there’s no George Washington to lead a revolution against the government.

He proves BK right in his inability to think fairly about the issue. BK points out the atheist's sense of entitlement which says "I want what I want the laws of the good be banned. I deserve my desires because I hold them, not because I earned them but because I have them, and no amount of God being right deserves to get in my way." It's an attitude of totally selfishness, me first, screw what is right and good. Calling him on his selfishness is "whining." Then he tries to put it in terms of right and wrong, but is the "right" for which he struggles?  His right to ignore what is true and good, his right to flip the bird at God and go his own way. No one is questioning the right of Americans to fee speech so did that get in there?


It's really in terms of the commenter that they demonstrate their true loss proportion.

Fist one I noticed, our old buddy Hermit who has often times graced the pages of this blog with his own inimitable brand of nagging:

A Hermit on Mon, 11th Jan 2010 4:19 pm 

I’m having a discussion with BK’s friend Metacrock over at his blog where he presents a different point of view. According to Metacrock there is no Hell; it’s just a metaphor for the suffering we experience if we don’t seek God. The natural consequence of this failure to seek God, he says, is the destruction of our otherwise everlasting soul after physical death.
This is supposed to be a more loving, humane version of Christian doctrine but it seems to me to be every bit as reprehensible as BK’s more fundamentalist version.
I came to comment here after finding a link to you on the Freedom Blog. Apparently Metacrock is a fan of theirs, and linked approvingly to their post about you on his atheistwatch blog. Thought you’d like you know…;-)

That is true irrationality. To think that winding up with the fate that atheists choose to  accept when they shuck belief and chase off after a life style based upon non-belief, is just as "inhumane" as burning on fire every minute for eternity with no break and no chance of ever getting off, how can that possibly compare? What a loony tune idea  is that to put those two things on the same level!??

Of course it's because his brain has been so shrunken by atheism that he can longer comprehend the idea that he makes God his enemy why should he be rewarded for that when the friends of God are being murdered. I'm not saying that God is really setting it up that way. But just consider for a minute the two ideas in comparison. His choice as an atheist is a choice that says "I will some day cease to exist for all eternity" and that's go to be ok enough with him that he's willing to live with that as opposed to seeking out another belief that offers a different hope.

when he thinks God set it up that way suddenly it becomes really bad and evil. why? He chose it anyway what's the difference?


Stevie Carr, long time idiot who has bothered the posting community for years with his lack of insight:

Do you think Jesus should be in Heaven?
Of course Hitler should be in Heaven. He is a better person than your Jesus, who is going to have Jews in Hell forever.
If you think what Hitler did to the Jews is bad, just wait until Jesus gets through with them.

First of all, here's true proof that his judgment is impaired. He says Hitler should be in heaven. Not that he is less evil than a God who sends people to hell, but that he should be in heaven! why? what makes Hitler worthy of heaven? He still murdered millions of innocent people. For no better reason than that he's being judged by God who Stevie hates becuase Stevie doesn't want give up his little pet sins, that makes Jesus more evil than Hitler and it makes Hitler worthy of heaven! What could be a more distorted view of reality?


Secondly, he assumes that Jews are going to hell automatically becasue they are Jews. Nothing like that is ever said in the New Testament it's a lame assertion. The qualification must at least be made by the most conservative fundamentalist to limit it to the Jews who lived in Jesus day and after. All the Jews who came before were judged under the law. But Paul says Jews are judged under the law (Romans 1-2). So that applied to the Christian era and beyond. If Jews live under the law they qualify for the entreaties of the law just as though Jesus never came. Jesus never says he's going to send people to hell just because the are Jews! Stevie distorts the phrase "if these miracles had been done in tyre (these real sinful places) they would have repented. Hes not saying "you are going to hell" he's saying "you don't recognize your own guy." If hell is not the literal place with fire and brimstone then obviously they are not going there anyway. Even taking that passage head on as a conservative fundie it does not say that!

Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.”

Jesus is worse than Hitler because he would send little Stevie into the pit for nothing worse than the fact that little Stevie spends most of his waking hours trying to convince people to choose hell too. But it's Jesus who must pay for wanting people to be good! How messed up can one get? What sense of equilibrium would but God's righteousness on a level with Hitler merely one's own selfishness leads him to choose oblivion over truth? These guys have serious problems in distorted proportion. The just fact that Hitler wanted to kill all Jews and Jesus wanted to save all Jews, regardless of what result came from rejecting his help should make Jesus better than Hitler even one denies his deity. But the wacked out equilibrium of the atheist, demented form years of selfishness is too screwed up to place real problems along side those they create for themselves.

I want mine! I want mine now! I want mine cause I want it! I don't care what's true or right. They are willing slughter the turth they are willing to lie about anything. No lie is too great, to hurt placed upon the enemy (sweet loving people who care) is too evil to hold back in the serive of my holy wants and desires which must outweigh all that is good.

But of cousre we are up against the self righteous moralizing of the PC crowd who like to pretend that they on the side of the good more so than Christians. Evil old Christians don't go to fund raisers for the local peace group, and most of them tend to be politically conservative so they are evil. I'm so into peace it would be a real sin to send me to hell, of course they have to put their own little judgment above that of the center of right and truth and the good, because they have little self saving PC crap to pat themselves on the back about.

Hermit is right that I don't believe in hell. I don't think God would cause people burn for eternity for any reason. It's not a just settlement.  But is the alternative really total cessation of existence for anyone not "saved?" Or are all saved? I don't know. If they are saved automatically it's because of what Jesus did for them, but they will never be grateful because they believe they are supposed to be rewarded for being God's enemies and despising him. It never dawns on them how they put themselves agaisnt God and the truth everyday on message boards, but their abilities to weigh truths and consequences are so screwed from selfishness they have no sense of proportion anymore.

Of course Hermit is only half way quoting what I've said, I have said the cessation thing is the way I see it. But that's only tentative, my views are always in transition as I learn more things, I'm not fully committed to that ideas. What I am committed to is the idea that there's a truth apart from the desires of these precious little denizens of the hate group and they can't  see it and they don't care.

Atheism, the pack of duderheads.

It's really getting worse. I've been off carm for a few weeks now, in looking over the pages today i'm horrified. They've gotten to a point where they are not even pretending of have discussions. they are ganging on their own stupidity. This know nothing ignorance, the pride in ignorance of God talk that Dawkins started has festered from infection to a point that they can't even hold a decent discussion.

One guy can't stand talk about "the heart." he confuses the notion of "heart" with the cordio-pulmonary pump in the chest and pretends that he cant' think clearly or extrapolate enough to understand the concept of "heart" as  a center of consciousness involving volition, will and desire. This makes for a real communication problem when he's confronted by people who either are stuck in strand Christian cloches or who think that such phrases really communicate deeply and powerfully to the emotions (which they probably did at one time--before society was dubbed down). So they just wind up mocking and ridiculing Christians because of their phenomenology rather tan actually conditioning what they say.

As long as Christians are willing to go on message boards and allow themselves to be mocked and ridiculed this is going to happen. These vermin have not the slightest idea of a rational discussion. They are like the foolish prices of shit on those exaggerated troll board that occasionally drop by here, such as "read it" their only aim is to feel big by making others feel small. They don't care any more about serious ideas than the man in the moon. The hate group atheism that's taken over message boards is no more about disusing the existence of God than George of the jungle was about Tarzan. Their one and only aim si to mock and ridicule and that's what really gives them a charge and they just don't care about anything else.

Western Soceity has really hit the skids

Things are worse than I thought. we are so far down people can't even communicate in the ordinary way anymore. Someone who chimmed in on the rout of Argy Lacedom, the guy in the last two posts.

this guy starts by pulling together stuff I said to make a defintion of my terms:

Definitions:


Ground of being: (aka "being itself") The basic aspect of being that is not contingent are particular to any temporal or temporary or contingent aspect of beings or a being, but is eternal, ontologically necessary, and upon which the individual beings are predicted.

Now he's going to demonstrate the he doesn' know what time is, he doesn't know what it means to be an individual and he's not sure of his own existence:

I think there are two assumptions in this definition:

1  Time is a word that has meaning, or is an idea of something that is real.  Science tells us that our idea of time is relative, so what are you basing your ideas of this word on?  How do you define time?

He thinks time being relative means that it's unreal. Now he's going to show that hey know if he exists or if he is an individual:

2.    That there are more than one individual beings that exist, if there are any at all.  What do you mean when you say individual beings are predicted?  How do you know that there isn't only one thing that exists?.  

 Of course we don't know for sure, we could argue that it's all one thing, that might be a coherent idea but he seems to be unaware of the notion that it's not the case, which should be the intuitive response of anyone on earth.

Ontology and metaphysics is a complex and much contested subject of Philosophy.  The only thing we are pretty sure exists is the stuff our universe is made of.  The stuff that  reason and science explains.  What else is there and how do we know it is real?

The stuff reason and scinece explains? But reason and science doesn't' say it's all one thing, if they did "being" would be certainly in the running for what that one thing is. He seems unaware that people are capable or allowed to think for themselves about philosophical ideas.

Western civilization has crashed!

atheists poison the well

There's a tactic called "poisoning the well" that means one is so hyped and psyched on how bad his opponent is as  person that whatever the opponent says has to be wrong. We see atheists poison the wall all the time. I've seen atheists just starkly refuse to accept any evidence by religious person regardless of how authoritative or erudite or acclaimed as an expert in the field that religious person is. It's just a matter of saying "religion is stupid and religious people are not trustworthy so it doesn't matter how acclaimed  scholar might be if he's religious just ignore him complete."

this is a rather blunt and unsubtle form of poisoning the well. I've actually seen atheists do it that bluntly too. In we have seen Argy do this twice, once when I started the thread and another time when I backed up my arguments with more evidence. He refused to read the documentation saying "I quite paying attention." The second one he said "you must have taken all of this out of context," of course since he has never read any evdience of mine on that same ground, then he doesn't have any way of knowing he's assuming so becuase I'm religious so i must be wrong. This is poisoning the well!

Meta:In other words,it's not claimed to definitively prove that God exists but only that belief in God based upon rational concepts, ideas, and logically derived from the premises and inferences as a justifiable conclusion.

AL:I sort of stopped reading right there.  It is possible to draw any conclusion you want if you select the opening premise properly.  Like all philosophical arguments at gets down to GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).  If you can test your underlying premises and your conclusions then your argument might have something going for it; otherwise it remains in the realm of speculation.
quote found here:

Firslty, the link you gave me is a mish-mash of unrelated quotations probably lifted out of context so I haven't paid any attention to it.  Besides, its creator seems to be ignorant of a fundamental fact of modern physics.(Ibid, p3)

Poisoning the well is dumb move because it means that nothing can ever count against your position. This is not the case because the position is so well proved but becuase you just wont accept anything that counts against it, on the  assumption it has to be wrong becuase it counts against it. In fact this is actually a form of circular reasoning or begging the question. It's a very destructive version because it shuts down discussion before it can ever get started.


Atheists do this because their position is so weak, it can't stand up against real documentation or measure up in discussion.


take for example the evidence I offered on the argument that the universe is contingent, that space/time is contingent.

Karl Popper:

"Empirical facts are facts which might not have been. Everything that belongs to space time is a contingent truth because it could have been otherwise, it is dependent upon the existence of something else for its' existence going all the way back to the Big Bang, which is itself contingent upon something."(Antony Flew, Philosophical Dictionary, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1979, 242.)

(2)Universe is not a Necessary Outcome


Paul Davies:

"You might be tempted to suppose that any old rag-bag of laws would produce a complex universe of some sort, with attendant inhabitants convinced of their own specialness. Not so. It turns out that randomly selected laws lead almost inevitably either to unrelieved chaos or boring and uneventful simplicity. Our own universe is poised exquisitely between these unpalatable alternatives, offering a potent mix of freedom and discipline, a sort of restrained creativity. The laws do not tie down physical systems so rigidly that they can accomplish little, but neither are they a recipe for cosmic anarchy. Instead, they encourage matter and energy to develop along pathways of evolution that lead to novel variety-what Freeman Dyson has called the principle of maximum diversity: that in some sense we live in the most interesting possible universe."


"Some scientists have tried to argue that if only we knew enough about the laws of physics, if we were to discover a final theory that united all the fundamental forces and particles of nature into a single mathematical scheme, then we would find that this superlaw, or theory of everything, would describe the only logically consistent world. In other words, the nature of the physical world would be entirely a consequence of logical and mathematical necessity. There would be no choice about it. I think this is demonstrably wrong. There is not a shred of evidence that the universe is logically necessary. Indeed, as a theoretical physicist I find it rather easy to imagine alternative universes that are logically consistent, and therefore equal contenders for reality." First Things: Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address (1999)




(3)Space and Time constituet parts of space-time.

Dr. Sen Odenwald,Astronomer Nasa

Astronomy Cafe

ibid What is the relationship between space and time?

"Mathematically, and in accordance with relativity, they are in some sense interchangeable, but we do know that they form co-equal parts of a larger 'thing' called space-time, and it is only within space-time that the most complete understanding of the motion and properties of natural objects and phenomena can be rigorously understood by physicists. Space and time are to space-time what arms and legs are to humans. In some sense they are interchangeable, but you cannot understand 10,000 years of human history without including both arms and legs as part of the basic human condition.



This means that the one reality designated as "space/time" the four coordinate system, is the prior condition under which we find space and time. that means that both space and time are contingent upon space/time.


(4) Space and Time contigent upon "field"


Odenwald

Q:Which came first, matter or physical laws?

"We do not know, but matter is derivative from energy, and energy is derivative from 'field' so in some sense, the physical laws that determine the quantum dynamics of fields must have been primary, with matter as we know it coming much later."


"field" is syonimous with space/time

Dr.Sten Odenwald,NASA


This is a very complicated question to answer...and frankly we do not yet fully understand how to answer it. According to Einstein's theory of General Relativity, which is our premier way of explaining how gravity works, there is no formal distinction between the description of what a gravitational field is, and what space-time is. Essentially, space is what we refer to as 3 of the 4 dimensions to a more comprehensive entity called the space-time continuum, and this continuum is itself just another name for the gravitational field of the universe. If you take away this gravitational field...space-time itself vanishes! To ask where space comes from is the same as asking, according to general relativity, where this gravitational field came from originally, and that gets us to asking what were the circumstances that caused the Big Bang itself. We don't really know.
Odenwald

Can space exist by itself without matter or energy around?

No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.




(5) No meaningful concepts of space/time at the point of expansion and beyond event horizon.


Odenwald, NASA

"As I have mentioned in a previous question, we do not know what the state of the universe was like at the Big Bang and beyond. Our best guess at this time suggest that time and space as we know these concepts will become rather meaningless as the universe enters a purely quantum mechanical state of indeterminacy. Cosmologists such as Stephen Hawking suggest that the dimension of time is transformed via quantum fluctuations in the so-called "signature of the spacetime metric", into a space-like coordinate so that instead of 3-space and 1-time dimension, space-time becomes a 4-dimensional space devoid of any time-like features. What this state is imagined to be is anyone's guess because as humans trained to think in terms of processes evolving in time, our next question would then be, What came before the Hawking space-like state? There is no possible answer to this question because there is no time in which the concept of 'before' can be said to have a meaning. The question itself becomes the wrong question to ask.

He ignored all of that on the basis that I quoted so it must be wrong. That's nothing more than a refusal to take part in real debate. In most cases logicians recognize this behavior as symptomatic of knowing one can't win an argument. It's a good sign one knows his position is weak.

Positive Atheists take on the Question of Hate Groups

The blog Positive Atheist Forum Deals with the Question "Are Atheist Groups Rightly Seen as Hate Groups?" This was the original question ask by this blog (Atheist watch), and its' original mission, to make know to the public the dangers of Hate group atheism. Apparently the question was bothersome enough that some atheist have felt compelled to answer it or deal with it in some way.

Positive Atheist Forum deals with it first by distancing themselves from right wing racist group World Church of the Creator:


From their blog:

* Reference: Our Identity As Atheist Organizations by Cliff Walker
* Perspective: Letter Submitted To US News
* Perspective: Letter Submitted To The New York Times

In researching the piece "Our Identity As Atheist Organizations," I wrote to Matthew Hale, leader of the World Church of the Creator, and asked him if they call themselves an "atheist group." The response from his office was a resounding no.

From: Positive Atheism
To: Matthew Hale
Subject: Atheists?
Date: Wednesday, July 14, 1999 4:00 PM

Much discussion has ensued since The Washington Post called The World Church of the Creator "an atheist group." The other major journals we've consulted (New York Times; US News) fall short of using that word. Our question is, would you use the word "atheist" to describe the World Church of the Creator?

the other way they deal with it is to have atheist write in and say "we are not a hate group." But this proves nothing. I don't think there is an actual hate group that can be labeled as "the atheist hate group" and I have said from day one of this blog that I a not claiming that all atheists are like this. There is a fundamentalist end of the atheist spectrum that fits the profile of a hate group (see the post on this blog). That is segment is growing and is probably fueled by the internet.


here's an example of the sort of denial:

From: "Many Paths"
To: "Positive Atheism"
Subject: Are_Atheist_Groups_Rightly_Seen_As_Hate_Groups
Date: May 15, 2002 2:28 AM

Are atheist groups rightly seen as "hate groups?"

The term "hate group" as I see it refers to particularly vicious organizations such as; the KKK, neo-Nazis, skinheads, Fred Phelps and the like. Some of the factors that these groups have in common are; authoritarianism, dogmatism, and generally a narrow view point. Atheist organizations on the other hand encourage independence of thought, to search for truth rather than insist that we know everything and are always right. To lump atheists in with these other groups is absurd.

I have never heard of a religious person being violently attacked by a group of atheists (it may have happened once or twice, but I've never heard of it.) The cases of vandalism of churches seem to be done by other religious groups, racist groups, or stupid drunk teenagers -- not atheists. Atheists do not picket funerals of dead religious leaders, they do not have Bible bon-fires, or consider any particular type of person to be unworthy of joining.

But the reason there is no violent attack as yet is because we are only at stage four on the FBI model. violence hasn't occurred yet, although there was one case where an atheist or a group of them were caught planning to burn a church but were unable to. Violence my be coming, it hasn't happened yet because we are not far enough along on the evolutionary process of hate group development. It may even be that even though message boards galvanize the haters and work them up they may also function as a safety valve.


here is stage four through six of the model:

Stage 4: The Hate Group Taunts the Target

Hate, by its nature, changes incrementally. Time cools the fire of hate, thus forcing the hater to look inward. To avoid introspection, haters use ever-increasing degrees of rhetoric and violence to maintain high levels of agitation. Taunts and offensive gestures serve this purpose. In this stage, skinheads typically shout racial slurs from moving cars or from afar. Nazi salutes and other hand signals often accompany racial epithets. Racist graffiti also begins to appear in areas where skinheads loiter. Most skinhead groups claim turf proximate to the neighborhoods in which they live. One study indicated that a majority of hate crimes occur when the hate target migrates through the hate group's turf.15


Stage 5: The Hate Group Attacks the Target Without Weapons

This stage is critical because it differentiates vocally abusive haters from physically abusive ones. In this stage, hate groups become more aggressive, prowling their turf seeking vulnerable targets. Violence coalesces hate groups and further isolates them from mainstream society. Skinheads, almost without exception, attack in groups and target single victims. Research has shown that bias crimes are twice as likely to cause injury and four times as likely to result in hospitalization as compared to nonbias crimes.16

In addition to physical violence, the element of thrill seeking is introduced in Stage 5. Two experts found that 60 percent of hate offenders were "thrill seekers."17 The adrenaline "high" intoxicates the attackers. The initial adrenaline surge lasts for several minutes; however, the effects of adrenaline keep the body in a state of heightened alert for up to several days.18 Each successive anger- provoking thought or action builds on residual adrenaline and triggers a more violent response than the one that originally initiated the sequence.19 Anger builds on anger. The adrenaline high combined with hate becomes a deadly combination. Hard-core skinheads keep themselves at a level where the slightest provocation triggers aggression.

Stage 6: The Hate Group Attacks the Target with Weapons

Several studies confirm that a large number of bias attacks involve weapons.20 Some attackers use firearms to commit hate crimes, but skinheads prefer weapons, such as broken bottles, baseball bats, blunt objects, screwdrivers, and belt buckles. These types of weapons require the attacker to be close to the victim, which further demonstrates the depth of personal anger. Attackers can discharge firearms at a distance, thus precluding personal contact. Close-in onslaughts require the assailants to see their victims eye-to-eye and to become bloodied during the assault. Hands- on violence allows skinheads to express their hate in a way a gun cannot. Personal contact empowers and fulfills a deep-seated need to have dominance over others.

It may be that we are not far enough along in the process to have open attacks yet. Maybe that will never come. But one thing that can be seen by anyone at any time is the depth of hatred that exists out there for Christianity on the net and message boards. No atheist has of yet taken up my challenge to go on a message and pretending to be a Chrsitain. Of course the right kind of message board such as Atheist.net, Infidel guy, the Secular Web.

The Games Atheists Play

The games atheist play. I knew some atheists once who loved to play monopoly. They loved it so much they decided that atheism monopolizes science. I've also known many an atheist who loved doge ball. But then who doesn't sometimes? Hide and seek? No, atheists don't like seeking. They definitely do not like things being hidden. They like scrabble, where things are spelled out clearly and they control the vocabulary.

There are two things I find atheists doing on message boards that drive me up the wall.

(1) Assume no givens of any kind

(2) Confuse real logic with personal taste


The first one, assume no givens, I should say allow no givens. I've seen this in many forms. It's basically the idea that everything has to be totally proven. This tendency to demand that everything be proven is an outgrowth of their epistemology, which through going empiricism, and empiricism in a inductive, scientific sense. True empiricism in the old philosophical sense is not good enough. They demand total absolute proof of any assumption made. This is so extreme I find atheists asking me to prove the assumption that God is love. They will not accept the idea that this comes with the package of a Christian belief system or that it is empirically experienced my own sense of the presence of God.

But the ultimate example of this kind of thinking gone wild was seen a board the other dad (AARM--or RE-AARM) there was a thread called "why would God?" Meaning why would God allow pain and evil. So I began discussion on my soeteriolgoical drama idea, which begins by saying "here are the assumptions I make for this argument." This guy puts my word "assumption" in big blue font and says "you are just assuming!" Yes, chicken pie I know, that's what I said I was doing. Of the idea that all studies, arguments, treatuses, essays and any other sort of heuristic device employs assumptions, is foreign to this guy. Then he really took the cake, he says "This is circular reasoning, because you are assuming God!"

Now, friends, the name of the thread was "why would God?" So the thread assumes God from the get go, and to answer the thread is to assume God. Moreover, the question was about the belief system of Christianity. If you as a Christian believe that God is good, how can you explain that God allows pain, ect ect. The very nature of the question demands that anyone attempting to answer assume God in the answer. But this guy wants to argue that it's circular reasoning just to have a belief a prori. So not only will they not allow any sort of belief things must be proven form the outset, but they confuse this with logic to begin with. I was not making an argument to prove he existence of God. I was explicating my belief system. thus it should perfectly fair and understood that to explain beliefs I have to assume my belief.

But this response of the atheist also highlights the second problem, not understanding logic. How many times have I heard atheists say "your ideas are not logical," only to find that they have no clear idea of any logical rule violated. To them logic just "I like this" and illogical means "I don't like this." When accused of circular reasoning I always ask them to tell me what makes something circular reasoning. Nine times out of ten it turns out they confusing circular reasoning with saying something unproven. In direct response to this question (what is circular reasoning in my argument) the will say things like "we don't know what came before the big bang." This means my argument is circular because I'm making an assumption not based upon absolute evidence but speculation. When I point out that circular reasoning means the premise rests upon the conclusion of an argument, and none of my arguments do this, they just poo poo it like "O how can I be expected to keep track of all those rules." This makes the charge of "circular reasoning" pretty meaningless.

The idea that we know God exists because they Bible says so, and the Bible is the word of God so we can believe it, is a prefect example of circular reasoning. This is entirely because the premise (God exists) rests slap dabe upon the conclusion (God's existence is proven by the bible). The authority of the Bible comes from the thing in question, God. This is akin to begging the question. Circular reasoning is a lot like and is a form of question begging. The proof is based upon the thing in question, and the thing in question is proven by the proof that rests upon it.

None of my arguments have this quality. But what really gets me is these guys are not even assuming that unproven arguments are resting a premise upon a conclusion they are just using the term "circular reasoning" because they've heard it before and its sounds like a logical buzz to employ for the idea "I don't like this idea."

We have heard from Rex again.

I am going to try and avoid CARM and avoid going on message boards to argue with atheists. It's such a waste of time. This does not apply to my boards nor to this blog, or Metacrock's blog. Of cosure I continue the policy here and on  Doxa forum that  I don't allow posts that attack people personally.
Rex respond to my call for boycott of atheist boards:

Aaaahhhhh the good old days, the golden days of superstition on Earth, when you could just burn atheists at the stake for asking rational questions about irrational dogma!

This is typical of atheist ignorance. The minds that refuse to learn or probe the facts always ground their understanding in nonsense and inadequacy. Was religion the source of superstition? No it was the counter to superstition. The first steps man took in the direction of understanding the world through logic and reason were religious steps. See  my  article on Metacrok's blog about how Toynbe demonstrated that Christianity was an advance over what came before it in that it's broke the ancient connection the eternal return and progress in history possible. Once again we have the reality that atheists are un-scholarly, anti-learning and can't change. How many times have I demonstrated the social liberation aspects of the faith only to find Loren, Rex, and the other atheist regulars saying the same old innateness unhistorical crap? They just cannot learn. What's the point in having a dialogue with anyone who refuses to listen to what you say, and refuses to read the facts and can't learn?

The only response that allows one to cling to concepts that are losing in the marketplace of ideas is to close the discussion to the people who ask such inconvenient questions.

 Concepts losing in the market place! You mean like the way atheism is stuck at 3% of the population and 90% believe in God. In other other words the way atheism is losing in the market place?

If your concepts are so great and strong, then convince us! Oh, sorry, I forgot, you can't!

It's such a shame it's rather a catch 22. He's not just smart enough to understand the proof which he's constantly calling for and yet, when we give it him, he wont listen he wont learn, he is not capable of understanding the answers. I am not the guy to take the answer to people of this ilk. I will pray that the Lord will send an amiable simple minded person to lead Rex into the truth.

The real issue is the way the educational system has let us down. It was the school system that decided schools were not about learning but about job training (barely). So they just cut off Rex's generation from knowledge and the ability to acquire it so that when he calls for proof he hasn't the slightest concept of what he's asking for. He has no choice but to fall back upon what he's been taught; what you see is what you get. If you don't see it in front of your face it ant there.

Christians, boycott atheists

I urge all Christians do not talk to atheists. Don't go on message boards, don't let them comment on your blogs, don't accommodate them. The number of atheists who are willing or able to have a decent discussion is minuscule. They are not willing to discuss, they do not have good will. All they will do is twist your words, display their ignorance like a badge, and wave their stupidity around. They think it makes them insightful that they have never read anything. It's a nightmare the stupid people haven taken over.

They are like roving bands of illiterate gangsters roving about looking for intelligent people to persecute and art to destroy. They destroy everything beautiful. They hate love, the hate goodness, they are longing to kill Christians. They are not capable of understanding concept. the more beautiful the concept, such as redemption, they more the despise it.

Atheists thrive emotionally upon hurting religious people. They need to bully you and mock you so they can feel valid. Don't give them opportunity. Do not talk to them. Eventually they will realize they have to change if they want to even talk to religious people. If any of you saw the old Dr. who (Tom Baker) the last Tom Backer episode the idea of the Melcher that's a lot like an atheist. This was an evil being who both craves to be near a good person and who also craves to destroy the good person. The Melcher and the good person develop a symbiotic relationship in that the good person to be good has to try to persuade the Melcher to turn his back on evil. At the same time the evil one is seeking to harm the one trying to help him, even as he wants to be near this person because something in him is crying out to be good. I think they happened that after a Christian witnessing to an atheist.

If you seek conversation with them you are just asking to drain your enerities. They can't be good, they wont they refuse they just want to drain you and mock and d deride you.

see this article

r/Atheism and The Mob Mentality

March 16, 2009 | Atheism

“Such a fine line between institutional crazy and culturally-sanctioned crazy.” ~ Reddit User ReverendDizzle
While hearing voices from God and dancing in the mud might not classify you as normal (or even sane), it does apparently classify you as fodder for members of the /r/Atheism group on Reddit.

In what can only be described as an Internet-flash-mob, a group of Reddit members found and attacked a MySpace user who had posted a blog over three years ago, in which she stated she heard voices from God. And while this Skewism article could definitely go after her, I’ve chosen the /r/Atheism group instead, for one major reason: They claim to be the rational ones.
From her grammar to her weight, the users of Reddit bombarded her blog with negative and hateful comments (4chan style). It was only after dozens of negative comments were posted that a few /r/Atheism members came in and apologized for their behavior. In fact, a lot of members who did state their disapproval were quickly downmodded.
In short, I realize that Reddit has grown a lot in the three years since I joined, but I’d think a group of people who claim to be more rational than their religious counterparts would want to walk the walk… On the other hand, this is the Internet.

those readit clowns have dumbed a lot their bull shit over this blog too. they are just proof that the thesis of atheist watch is true, atheism is a hate group.

The Atheist Pride of Ignorance Disproves the Validity of Atheism.

I really have trouble seeing how so many people are fooled by atheism when they are clearly not thinkers, they actually run from thinking. look at this guy, he's actually trying to use his own refusal to think and learn as proof of his position somehow.

that just makes it so clear that atheism is about something else not realted to facts, thinking, learning, ideas, or truth.'

here's the argument I made		[-]
I should own this place! Posts: 405 (08/03/2010 03:35 PM) Hey, I like this place! Reply Quote Edit More My Recent Posts	Tags [Edit]: None First, I am not going to present an argument in a formal way. It's more important to explain why the argument is logical. I did not criticize atheists for not making formal arguments, I criticized them for not dealing with the logic of the argument. Secondly, this is not a modal argument. It's argued from the basis of a rational warrant. In other words,it's not claimed to definitively prove that God exists but only that belief in God based upon rational concepts, ideas, and logically derived from the premises and inferences as a justifiable conclusion. That doesn't mean I'm claiming that it's the only logical conclusion. Thirdly, I expect people to read each line carefully and think about it's implications. I don't think of them as just looking the first line and saying "I don't like that" or quibbling some definition and dismissing the whole because they don't like one small thing. that is not logic that's not how one deals logically with an argument. you aer suppose to read each line and think about what it means what is implied if that line is true. The next line should be based upon that very thing, what would it mean if the previous line is true? maybe this is not formal logic but its' the way I do it and it's not irrational. Definitions: Sense of the numinous: intuitive sense that some special quality or attribute obtains to some aspect of reality such that it points to a larger all embracing truth, some realm of the divine, or some divine aspect of reality. (numinous means "spiritual" form the Greek Penuma). Ground of being: (aka "being itself") The basic aspect of being that is not contingent are particular to any temporal or temporary or contingent aspect of beings or a being, but is eternal, ontologically necessary, and upon which the individual beings are predicted. religious: Human tendency to identify the set of problems related to the nature of being human, the way in which humans define the nature of their own existence and that of other humans with respect to meaning or purpose on an ontological level, and the attempt to mediate an ultimate transfomrative experience through ritual or other means such that the sense of problematic is resolved in the transformative power. Religious Devotion: Personal commitment ot a form of medication (see above). Basic assumptions: all arguments are based upon assumption, even in scientific studies. This is not an argument it's just the background to the argument based upon things I generally assume about the sources of our knowledge at the most basic level. (1) The argument assumes that all human understanding of the nature of reality begins with the phenomenological level. That is to say the categories of thought suggested to us by our sense data. (2) Phenomenological level is predicated upon the five senses in addition to some insinuative senses that humans believe obtain from the nature of being human. (note: this is not necessarily esp or psychic power, just the regular sense of intuition). I include the intuitive because I'm talking about the most basic epistemology. Included with intuition is tacit knowing. It's a psychological function. I'm not saying that our knowledge of the world rests upon this, but it is part of the mix of sources that goes into our understanding of what's real. (3) Even our basic trust of "official" or "proven" or "empirical" "facts" are based upon, in the final analysis, the extent to which the regular nature of our perceptions have led us to trust such things. For example mathematics is trusted by mathematics because they study it. It may not be trusted by fish mongers or pig iron collectors becuase they have no experiential basis for placing trust in mathematics. They have not studied it. (4) The extent to which the trust that which we place our confidence in is related to the extent to which such sources meet the criteria: (a) regular (b) consistent (c) shared (inter-subjective) (d) promotes navigation in the world and in life. By "navigation in the world and in life" I mean we can use the perceptions to get by, either in physically understanding the world, or emotionally coping with the world. In this way we form trust about perceptions if, and only if, they work, they help us in the process of coping and understanding. (5) If we can logically place confidence in a proposition, and that confidence is born out in some way (vis the criteria just outlined) then are justified in our confidence and the proposition in which we place confidence is rationally warranted. Argument: premise: (1) Sense of the Numinous evokes religious devotion Premise: (2) The sense of the numinous is the sense of the special nature of being Inferense (3) Thus: Therefore being itself, the ground of being, is the object of religious devotion inferense (4) whatever is the fit object of religious devotion (the thing that evokes it at the core in the first place) is defined as "God." conclusion (5) since we have properly basic reason to assume this special sense of being exists as the outcome of our perceptions, since it meets the criteria of epistemic judgment, we are rationally warranted in placing confidence in the hypothesis that "the sense of the numinous" and it's relation to the eternal necessary aspects of being are indications of the divine at the basis of reality. Now let's go over again and I'll explain why I draw these conclusions: premise: (1) Sense of the Numinous evokes religious devotion this is a statement based upon empirical observations made by anthropologists, historians of religion and other social social scientist. The idea of a sense of numinous is old and is well documented in may areas: the works of Marcea Eliade, Karl karene and studies by Ralph Hood, W.E. Stace, William James and others. All of this body of work from scholars and historians link the sense of the numinous to the orignis of religion. The old 19th century sociological approach was to assume that religion was about explaining nature. That's becasue they were structural functionalists and they were trying justify their theory that things exist in social structure because they serve a function to the tribe; they did not understand the sense of the numinous as a serving a function, because they didn't have it and they shaped early man in their own images. Social scientists don't make those assumptions now. Now we look for the real reasons people think things, by listening to them on their own terms. Premise: (2) The sense of the numinous is the sense of the special nature of being There is a link from the concept of sense of the numinous to the concept of eternal necessary being (being itself). That is through the perception of the juxtaposition between infinite and finite. In other words, we sense our limitations as temporal creatures, vs the endless nature of the entire universe, we sense our smallness against the backdrop of the vast universe, in making these perceptions the sense of the numinous is evoked and we connect that psychologically to a sense of the nature of what it means to be (that is demonstrated through the studies on mystical experience--one of the major aspects of mystical experience is that juxtaposition between infinite and finite. So by contrasting between of being as a whole vs our own limited nature, we link the sense of the numinous to being because its evoked by contemplation of being. Inferense (3) Thus: Therefore being itself, the ground of being, is the object of religious devotion. what that sentence means is what I just said above. We draw certain conclusions psychologically form the experience of this juxtaposition that creates a link between being and the numinous, that link tells us that this special nature of the numinous is based in the eternal necessary nature of being itself. In other words the eternal necessary aspects of being (the vast universe for example) as opposed to any one particular being that is merely temporal and quickly vanishing (my own finite existence) grounds the sense of the numinous in the concepts of eternal necessary being. In other words we derive from these experiences of nature, such as the starry sky over the night time desert, the sense that the eternal and necessary aspects of being are where the divine aspects of reality are located. inferense (4) whatever is the fit object of religious devotion (the thing that evokes it at the core in the first place) is defined as "God." This sentence is logically derived from the information given previously and it just says that when we think about the nature of religion (apart form hating it) whatever evokes the psychological sense of the numinous is a valid object of worship, why? Because that's what worship is, it's commitment and devotion to the special nature of reality perceived in this thing called "sense of the numinous." Since that's the center and origin of religion anyway it's the final orbiter as to what is sacred. the sense of the numinous itself is a sense of the sacred. we can put this into a syllogism *whatever evokes the sacred is a fit object of worship *the eternal and necessary aspects of being evoke the sacred *therefore the eternal necessary aspects of being are fit objects of worship. now we come to the conclusion. conclusion (5) since we have properly basic reason to assume this special sense of being exists as the outcome of our perceptions, since it meets the criteria of epistemic judgment, we are rationally warranted in placing confidence in the hypothesis that "the sense of the numinous" and it's relation to the eternal necessary aspects of being are indications of the divine at the basis of reality. In other words it's just the logical outcome of what's said above. the eternal necessary nature of being (or our perceptions of same) motivate the basis of religious devotion and connect them to these aspects of being which are designated as 'ground of being.' Therefore, we are justified or rationally warranted in assuming that or in placing confidence in the proposition we are actually sensing some divine aspect to reality. this divine aspect of reality is what the term "God" stands for. We can make a syllogistic argument: *whatever evokes the sacred is a fit object of worship *the eternal and necessary aspects of being evoke the sacred *therefore the eternal necessary aspects of being are fit objects of worship. *"God" is the designation for the fit object of worship *Ground of being is a fit object of worship (from above) *therefore we are rationally warranted in thinking of ground of being as "God." Premise *whatever is the ground of being has an actual existence according to the definition above as "eternal" and "necessary" aspects of being *We are justified in thinking of the ground of Being as "God" since it evokes the numinous and is a fit object of worship; the term "God" designates a fit object of worship *therefore, we are rationally warranted in thinking that God has a real an actual existence as the ground of being. We could go further and argue that in experiencing this realization we find the epistemic criteria are met and thus it works as a means of navigation in the world, and that is the ground for epistemic judgment, in other words for deciding that it's real. the overall conclusion: we are rationally warranted for concluding that reality contains as it's basis that which we call "God." MetacrockSense of the Numinous.
Argy Lacedom		#1	[-]
I should own this place! Posts: 441 (08/03/2010 07:47 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Blocking Ignore User's Posts	In other words,it's not claimed to definitively prove that God exists but only that belief in God based upon rational concepts, ideas, and logically derived from the premises and inferences as a justifiable conclusion. I sort of stopped reading right there.  It is possible to draw any conclusion you want if you select the opening premise properly.  Like all philosophical arguments at gets down to GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).  If you can test your underlying premises and your conclusions then your argument might have something going for it; otherwise it remains in the realm of speculation. Your very definitions beg multiple questions and are probably based on untestable propositions.  [PS: I do like your definition of religious devotion; "personal commitment to a form of medication" sums it up nicely! ] If the universe is "everything that exists" then God is part of it. If the universe needs a creator so does God.
Metacrock		#2	[-]
I should own this place! Posts: 406 (08/03/2010 08:17 PM) Hey, I like this place! Reply Quote Edit More My Recent Posts	Argy Lacedom wrote: In other words,it's not claimed to definitively prove that God exists but only that belief in God based upon rational concepts, ideas, and logically derived from the premises and inferences as a justifiable conclusion. I sort of stopped reading right there.  It is possible to draw any conclusion you want if you select the opening premise properly.  Like all philosophical arguments at gets down to GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).  If you can test your underlying premises and your conclusions then your argument might have something going for it; otherwise it remains in the realm of speculation. Your very definitions beg multiple questions and are probably based on untestable propositions.  [PS: I do like your definition of religious devotion; "personal commitment to a form of medication" sums it up nicely! ] can you say poison  the well? if you take the tact that any time any argument opposes you it's just manipulating logic and so you don't brother to even read it becuase it can't possibly be anything to say, then all you are doing is proving what I always thought that atheists are farid to think, are bigoted and biased and too dense to examine the facts. Don't you realize that to prove your own view you have take the risk that something could count against your view? If you are not willing to that that risk then you prove automatically that your views are just hot air. thanks for helping me demonstrate the cowardice and bankruptcy of atheism.