The Atheist Conspriacy: A movement and it's Propaganda machine

I have gotten comments indicating a lot of readers have not seen this. Why are these people so desperately afraid of admitting they have moment? Look at the comment from the know nothing who attacked me on the post "Atheist Watch Method." He has to mock and ridicule all my ideas by reducing them form the subtle understanding of movements and propaganda to the stupid highly childish view that I think it's a conspiracy, which obviously I go great lengths to repudiate so there's no confusion, and the little guy is still confused. They just will do anything to avoid admitting they have a movement. Why? No shame in having a movement, what's the problem?

It's somehow a center of their brain washing that they have to take the party line and they can't move away form it. They have to pretend they don't have a movement. I was a communist, I a movement when I see one. The commenter "electric," you can just feel the anger. He's just seething with anger. It makes him so mad to hear that atheism is a movement. that's so irrational why such horror of being called a movement? He says they don'thave a dogma but then they all same the same things in exactly the same way. They are not fooling anyone but themselves. Why the anger. Why is it so angry making to hear that he's in a movement? All movements have propaganda and ideology. Every society has an ideology why should that make one so angry?


the Man from C.A.R.R.I.E.R

Central Atheist Research and Rhetoric
Institute for the Eradication of Religion.

Atheists are always harping about how they don't have a movement, its just the absence of a belief, they are all different. They will spend days and weeks vehemently declaring that there is no organization and not movement and they are all different, they have no agenda, no ideology. They have such an effective propaganda machine that they have pulled off a highly effective snow job in spreading this garbage. Of course it's all a huge lie. Of course now they are going to play the conspiracy buff card. If I think they are pulling the wool over our eye then I must think they are Thrush on the Man form UNCLE. They all have secret meetings under shopping centers and they are in contract with Aliens and tea party people. What I'm saying doesn't have to be even slightly in that direction to be real and obvious and a proble. We all know what a political machine is.

We don't have to be saying that they have a secret conspiracy to say that they have a political machine. When we see how far flung and fictive their organizing is, when understand how their brain washing works to socialize adherents over the internet we can see there is obvious problem. What's even more obvious when we look at the atheist movement in all its organized ferocity it becomes very plain that they are lying when they say there's no movement, nor organization and that it's not an ideology. I'm demonstrated the ideology. I've shown the psychological motive. I'm demonstrated that it's moving in like with the FBI profile of a hate group. There's a continuum from a mild organization aimed at getting people interested to an extreme fringe of hate group mentality. Not all all atheists are in the hate group end of it. The hate group end is not a plot it's not connected to the valid organizations but it's there and it's growing. When we see the obvious nature of a political machine then it should be clear the line about not being organized is bunk. Therefore, when we see them all thinking the same way and saying the same thing sit should be clear there's an ideology.

When we observe their success and we see the organizations working toward their goals it's pretty organized theya re organized. How could they not be organized and this this plethora of success and groups behind the success:

Freedom From Religion Foundation:

• Won the first federal lawsuit challenging direct funding by the government of a faith-based agency
• Overturned a state Good Friday holiday
• Won a lawsuit barring direct taxpayer subsidy of religious schools
• Removed Ten Commandments monuments from public lands
• Ended bible instruction in public schools after 51 year practice
• Halted prayer at public institutions
• Stopped direct subsidy to religious schools
• Ended commencement prayers at a Top Ten University after 122 years of practice
• Ended distribution of Gideon bibles in public schools.
• Brought nearly 30 First Amendment lawsuits since 1977, and keeps several Establishment law challenges in the courts at all times.

<http://www.ffrf.org/legal> (18 Feb. 2007).

Approach Used to Spread Agenda

• Files lawsuits!
• Publishes Freethought Today
• Sponsors annual high school and college atheist based essay competitions with cash awards
• Conducts, annual national conventions, honoring the "Freethinker of the Year" for state/church activism, a "Freethought Heroine" and student activists
• Bestows "The Emperor Has No Clothes" Award to public figures for their criticism of religion
• Promotes freedom from religion with educational products, bumperstickers, music CDs, winter solstice greeting cards and literature
• Publishes useful atheist books
• Provides speakers for events and debates
• Established a freethought book collection at the University of Wisconsin Memorial Library as well as a 2,000-volume office collection

OTHER SUCCESSES

- University Graduation Invocations Ended at Top Ten University
- Prayers Stopped at Public Institutions
- Public Sponsorship of Nativity Pageant Halted
- Crosses Downed from Public Land
- Abuse by Preacher Exposed
- City Sponsorship of Knights of Columbus Signs Ended
- Ethics Probe Called for Preaching Governor
- Proselytizing Crossing Guard Fired
- Post Office/Catholic Entanglement Ended
- De Facto Sports Chaplaincy Stopped
- School Boy Scout Subsidy Stopped
- Bible Proclamation Rescinded
- Illegal Public Help Halted for "Our Lady of the Rockies"
- Creationism Removed from City Zoo
- Discount for Catholics Ended
- Red Rocks Easter Service Subsidy Ended
- Nativity Scene Moved Off Government Land
- Ten Commandments Monuments Moved from Public Property
- Religion Removed at Playground

Who has time to work on this? All of these struggle take big money and big legal talent. These are not things pulled off by a diverse group who share nothing more than the lack of a belief. This is clearly a vast political organization it has to be.

Phony Scholarship Machine

They also have a propaganda net work that cranks out phony scholarship. Let's look at the work of Richard Carrier long time Secular Web member and history student. Carrier appears to be an academic who just shares an interest in certain issues and just happens to be an atheist. When we dig more deeply into some of the organizations he's involved with it looks like more to it than that.

Richard Carrier has a couple of articles on his blog about a big conference for the Jesus Project
held at Amherst last December. O it sounds very scholarly. It presents the image of a group of major scholars meeting to mull over the lattes scientific findings that proving that Jesus never existed. This creates the idea that there is a climiate of opinion in the acadmeic world to expose the lies about Jesus as fiction and show that he never existed. But if you follow the trail to see where his lie originated, and the trail is clearly marked, one can see clearly that there's nothing scholarly about it. It's nothing more than a put up job, but it's no accident that the Jesus Myth stupidity though expossed time after time as bancrupt lives on and continues to draw in a group suckers who are hood winked into believing that they are on the cutting edge of scientific search for truth.

The tail begins with the first major clue, the website of an organization called "The Jesus Project." Carrier links to this site on his blog: http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2008/12/jesus-project.html. The site preports to be focual point for cutting edge academic research which suppossedly takes up where the Jesus Seminar left off:

The Jesus Seminar, founded in 1985 by the late Robert Funk of the University of Montana, was famous for all the wrong reasons—its voting method (marbles), the grandstanding of some of its members, the public style of its meetings, even its openly defiant stance against the claims of miracles in the Gospels—including the resurrection of Jesus. Except for the marbles, none of this was new. The use of additional sources, such as Gnostic and apocryphal gospels, to create a fuller picture of the Jesus-tradition and the focus on context as though it provided content were at least innovative. But the Jesus who emerged from these scholarly travails was so diminished that—as I wrote in a FREE INQUIRY article in 1993—he could not exist apart from his makers: “The Jesus of the [Jesus Seminar] is a talking doll with a questionable repertoire of thirty-one sayings. Pull a string and he blesses the poor.”

What the Seminar had tacitly acknowledged without acknowledging the corollary is that over 80 percent of “Jesus” had been fictionalized by the Gospel writers. That is to say that, if we are to judge a man’s life by his sayings, the greater portion of the literary artifacts known as the Gospels is fictional. If we are to judge by actions, then what actions survived historical criticism? Not the virgin birth, or the Transfiguration, or the healing of the sick, or the purely magical feats such as Cana, or the multiplication of loaves and fishes. The Resurrection had quietly been sent to the attic by theologians in the nineteenth century. The deeds—except, perhaps, the attack on the Temple (Mark 11:15–19)—had preceded the words to the dustbin years before, yet scholars insisted the historical figure was untouched. Only faith could explain this invulnerability to harm....

...

Of course buying into this assumes that the Jesus seminar did it's work well, which almost no scholars outside of the Jesus seminar agree with. The Jesus Porject, of course, aims to do better. They are off to a smashing start wtih the selection of a highly original name. But find some telling things in the recounting of their mission:

....On a pleasant day in January 2007, at the University of California, Davis, the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion (CSER) asked the question that had been looking for a serious answer for over a hundred years: Did Jesus exist? The CSER fellows, invited guests, present and former members of the Jesus Seminar, and a wide variety of interested and engaged attendees applauded roundly after three days of lectures and discussions on the subject—appropriately—“Scripture and Skepticism.” The Jesus Project, as CSER has named the new effort, is the first methodologically agnostic approach to the question of Jesus’ historical existence. But we are not neutral, let alone willfully ambiguous, about the objectives of the project itself. We believe in assessing the quality of the evidence available for looking at this question before seeing what the evidence has to tell us. We do not believe the task is to produce a “plausible” portrait of Jesus prior to considering the motives and goals of the Gospel writers in telling his story. We think the history and culture of the times provide many significant clues about the character of figures similar to Jesus. We believe the mixing of theological motives and historical inquiry is impermissible. We regard previous attempts to rule the question out of court as vestiges of a time when the Church controlled the boundaries of permissible inquiry into its sacred books. More directly, we regard the question of the historical Jesus as a testable hypothesis, and we are committed to no prior conclusions about the outcome of our inquiry. This is a statement of our principles, and we intend to stick to them.

This sounds like a fair and scholary statment. But consider the words in blue. What that really says is "we support the Jesus myth theory." What tells me that, aside from everything coming out of their work that is (see Carrier's blog linked above). That they aim not to understand the Gospel writers as thoguh that would be some kind fo big error. Secondly, the line about "figures similar to Jesus," in other words, they are going to try to argue that they prove the dying/rising savior God bit. Mixing theology and history is inexcusable, but of course doing history as a cover for destruction of a religious belief they despize is fine and dandy. They are not biased they just have the answers before they ask the questions.

All of this is trivial, I'm getting to the point...

At the end of its lease, the Jesus Project will publish its findings. Those findings will not be construed as sensational or alarming; like all good history, the project is aiming at a probable reconstruction of the events that explain the beginning of Christianity—a man named Jesus from the province of Galilee whose life served as the basis for the beginning of a movement, or a sequence of events that led to the Jesus story being propagated throughout the Mediterranean. We find both conclusions worthy of contemplation, but as we live in the real world—of real causes and outcomes—only one can be true. Our aim, like Pilate’s (John 18:38), is to find the truth.

Who wants to bet his house against my assumption they they will find that Jesus didn't exist and that the Bible is totally wrong? Anyone willing to bet his house on that? Of course to be what they call "probable" they would have to conclude that the bible is a lie and Jesus never existed, because they are totally to religion and ideas connected with religion. One hint that this may be the case is who is publishing the results of the seminar:

In general the conference revealed some cutting edge stuff in the works. Later this year or the next, Prometheus Books will publish the conference papers (or rather, improved and lengthened versions of them, e.g. my chapter in that book will be rather different from my actual talk, which was largely off-the-cuff, but most of the content will be the same)

Prometheus books only does atheist books.




But none of this is the point. That just sets up a clear look at their true motives. They are not the least bit interested in scholarship. But what's really interesting is what it says at the top of the page on "introduction:" Jesus Project, "a product of Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion"

So now Jesus Project is a project of this Committee. Who are these committee people? what is this organization? Trying to answer that question led me to another website:CSER "center for Inquiry"

Here's what they say about themselves:

The Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion (CSER) is a research division of the Center for Inquiry. Since its 1983 founding in Washington, DC, the Committee has worked to encourage humanistic, critical and non-parochial approaches to the study of religious traditions and institutions and to develop programs that promote the public understanding of religion in an international context.
CSER is an international research and educational consultation comprised of members (appointed fellows) who are nominated by an executive board. The current chair of CSER is Dr. R. Joseph Hoffmann, who succeeded Dr. Gerald Larue in January 2004.

The Jesus Project i not the world of scholars who organized their project as a group of truth seeking academics doing scholarly research, they were recruited by an organiztion whose praimry purpose and goal is to destroy christianity. Their statement above says they just to contribute to understanding of religion. But to understand it in what way? We already see they are not satisfied with the 2000 years of scholarship on Jesus becasue they consider that dominated by the chruch. Does that mean their "schoalrship" will be free and unecumbared? yet they recruted as the special as the special project of this organization, does that seem real open and fair. Let's look further and see who else is inoloved in this group.



The Head quarters of the group is in Amherst where the conference was held. So the conference is not related to the university, just held in the town. The same town where the organization that sponsors the project is.

P.O. Box 741
Amherst, NY 14226

This is under the tab on the website marked "advocacy." A group that does advocacy is not a scholarly group. They are not interested in truth, they are interested in selling their idea of the way things are, they want to dominate thinking. This is why they put up a big web of deception to create an imporession of impartical scholarship and truth seeking when in reality what they have is a put up job the purpsoe of which is to destory bellief. How do I know this, because look at the other wings of their organization. First of all this is their mission:

The Center for Inquiry is an active agent for social and cultural change in the courts, in the U.S. capital, at the United Nations, and at the grassroots level. Its advocacy work centers on three broad areas.

Fringe science and extraordinary claims

Through its Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), Skeptical Inquirer magazine, and other initiatives, CFI advocates responsible, evidence-based treatment of extraordinary claims and fringe science, such as psychic phenomena, intelligent design creationism, and conspiracy theories. Council for Media Integrity presses for fair representation of naturalistic outlook in mass media.

In other words they are out to destroy faith and the concept of miracles. That means they are not going to allow scholars in the Jesus project who have any sort of religious belief. Its' going to be totally duobting, atheistic unbelieving and out to disprove any notion that gives religion even a slight benifit of the facts. Another wing of their group is dealing mental and medical health. Now does that include findings that religious belief is mental illness?

Medical and mental health

In age of alternative and complimentary medicine and New Age therapies, CFI advocates evidence-based medicine and mental health through its Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health Practice (CSMMH), publisher of the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine and the Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, as well as in Skeptical Inquirer and its “Healthy Skeptic” online column.




Do New Agers typically push mental health alternatives? We know form the past that KGB played with the idea of mental health. Dissenters in the USSR were seen as mentally ill. Will these people allow alternative views of medicine and mental health? Are they trying to frame administrative medical people as mentally ill?

The organization is totally committed to a world without religion and a world in which religion is no longer vital force of any kind:

Religion, ethics and society

CFI is a leader in the struggle for a more rational, secular world. CFI’s Council for Secular Humanism (CSH) and Free Inquiry magazine promotes secular perspectives on contemporary issues; African Americans for Humanism assists humanist groups in America and Africa; the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion stimulates critical scholarship; and the Institute of the Secularization of Islamic Society stands up for the right to apostacy and blasphemy and the separation of mosque and state.

They are so concerned about the right to blaspheme, do they give a damn about the vast majority of humanity that thinks they are nuts and believes in God? This is just a nother look gorup of tin pot dictators who are convienced they they are special and they need to lead the ignorant masses, like Stalin, Like Hitler, like Pol Pot. One example of their work is this:

Amicus Brief Submitted in Americans United for Separation of Church and State v. Prison Fellowship Ministries (U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit)
Question Presented: Whether a state-funded program that seeks to rehabilitate inmates through religious conversion violates the Establishment Clause and whether the organization that operates the program can be required to return to the state the funds that it has received.

So even though the most remarkable success in American history for prision rehab has been religious conversion (Quaker ran jails of the nineteenth century) they want to disallow it because it's somehow violating them even though they are not in prsion and it does not effect them. But they can't stand the idea that others are being saved and led to God. Now would they force a voluntary program to shut? Are people beign forced into prision ministry? I don't think so.


Here's therir example of safe guarding religious liberty:

Safeguarding Religious Liberty in Charitable Choice and Faith-Based Initiatives

The Obama administration recently announced an expansion of government funding for so-called "faith-based initiatives," in which taxpayer dollars are doled out to sectarian religious organizations for the performance of social service programs. This government funding raises legal and constitutional concerns that the administration has yet to address directly. In February, the Center for Inquiry produced a position paper that called for an end to government funding of faith-based programs. Because government funding is scheduled to continue, the Center for Inquiry further recommended the adoption and vigorous enforcement of specific minimum safeguards to protect church-state separation and religious liberty.
CFI performed a detailed historical study of federal funding for faith-based programs, extending from the rise of "charitable choice" legislation during the Clinton administration through the explosion of taxpayer funding for religious programs under George W. Bush's Faith Based and Community Initiative. The position paper that resulted from this study expresses deep misgivings about government funding of sectarian religious programs. CFI cited concerns that these programs may use taxpayer dollars to support or favor religious activities and beliefs; that government may give preference to particular religious organizations in doling out funds; and that under current standards, recipients of taxpayer funding for faith-based programs are allowed to engage in employment discrimination on the basis of religion.
CFI's position paper recommends that government funding of faith-based programs be eliminated entirely. CFI's paper endorses a limited exception for truly secular social services programs, such as Catholic Charities, that have some affiliation with a religious institution but are provided by independent 501(c)(3) charities. CFI maintains that such charities must conduct social service programs without religious content or materials and without engaging in religious discrimination. (Catholic Charities is a non-profit corporation separate and distinct from the Catholic Church.)

Their example of safeguarding religious liberty is to close it down because it's somehow hurting them that religious groups are allowed to help people.

O but let's back up and look at the frienge scinece bit. The organization that put up the Jesus Porject also sponsers Skeptical Inquirer magazine, as their special mission of "advocacy." It's clear what they are advocating is the destruction of Christianity. This means the secular web and all the major force of internet atheists are just their little army of brown shirts running around persecuting Christians.

Its' the crystal night.

I'm sure I'm being alarmist. I'm just building a conspiracy theory out of think air. Do you really foresee the Jesus project not coming out with findings about Jesus not existing and the Bible being untrue? They will hood wink people into thinking that this is a scholarly mission and that it's fair and honest scholarship when the results are pre determined because it's professional wrestling. This is the work of real scholarship like Firts Von Erich was really an athelete and not an entertainier.


Look at it honestly, the Jesus Project is sponsorded the same organization that runs the Skeptical Inquirer magazine

About Atehistwatch, method and madness

I know it seems like I'm just railing against individuals on CARM. They are not all on CARM. yet the problem is I can't conduct a study becuase I don't have money and I don't have the connections to a universe anymore. One can see thousands of examples of what what I'm discusing all over the net. I can't present a thousand examples in one post. I do the participant observer thing and show one example that typifies the many. Over time you see the accumulation and you see it builds up. I have now demonstrated (given the original version of the website that's gone and this one) several hundred examples: hateful, childish, silly, unthinking, unlearned little hate group member sounding off about things he knows not of. One can easily verify the view point by going to the net.

On every message board where atheists gather, every single day of the world we find silly stupid people echoing fallacious ideas and ignorant bigotry agaisnt a world view they dedicating to not learning about. They even encode their ignorance in an official justification for not learning called "the Courtier's reply" which is nothing more than excuse to not look into the facts and ignore the disproof of their fallacious position.

*Atheists use the Courtier's replay as a party line excuse to remain ignorant

*Many atheists as a party line sanctioning hate tactics and hate speech

*they demonstrate a huge amount of organization and money

*Some demonstrate a belief in the genetic superiority of atheists

*some have advocated forcing in forcing their position on the hatred target group of Christianity

*They a vast propaganda machine in the from of magazines, websites, academic projects

It's so obvious it's a movement only an ostrich could mistake it. It's clear that we need an Atheistwatch to keep the thinking community a prized of the movement and what it's doing to destroy the most important aspects of life.

Another Example of Athist thugism: Brent Rasmussen Sight

Brent Rasmussen is so brilliant he knows theology si stupid, so stupid he doesn't have to know anything about it to know that it's stupid. How does he know that? Because it's about stuff he doesn't like so it can't have anything going to for. It's too smart to to read nay of the great thinkers in the theology tradition becuase they believed stuff he doesn't like so they are stupid. He's much smarter than Newton or Descartes or any of the major thinkers throughout history. Because he can wear a straw a hat. That makes him cool. Being cool is much better than having a brain. He discovered my sight a couple of years go (Metacrock's Blog) and he said a bunch of bunch of stupid things about it. When I called him on it and prove that he was wrong, he became so angry he stamped his little fist and got his little illiterate friends to com come to his site and say "I don't like that guy because he says stuff what I don't know.
Here is his childish article.
Go look at the page and see how brainless their comments are. I can just imagine them getting drunk and saying little things like this while they talk about my blog and mind rape all the idea they have not the slightest idea about, mock and ridicule all things to good for them.
The Childish Theology Of J.L. Hinman

Submitted by Brent Rasmussen on August 12, 2008 - 4:57pm.
he looks like the guy on the old Hawaiian punch commericials who went around going "do you want a Hawaiian punch?"

I left a comment on J.L. Hinman's blog Metacrock a few days ago complementing him on his predictable use of The Courtier's Reply when responding to an atheist. I then went on about my life and promptly forgot all about it.

Well, I stumbled back onto his blog today and noticed that he replied to my comment.

Three times. In a row. Each time becoming more incoherent than the last.

Fun!

what makes it incoherent? Because I say stuff he doesn't undersatnd because he's an idiot. Anyone who is smarter than him is stupid because he's cool and it's more important to be cool than smart.

The so called "courtier's replay" is sheer stupidity. It's nothing more than a pseudo eloquent appeal to ignorance and censorship deigned to forbid the use of the intellect in the defense of Christianity. Anyone who can't see that is a true idiot.

The original post that I replied to is here. My original reply is a few comments down.

My latest reply to his nonsense is below the fold.

[J.L. Hinman] wrong sorry. you don't know anything about christianity. you only know about fundamentalism which is a small part of Christianity.

Ah, I see. So, it is your contention that only this "fundamentalism" has a magical god-thing?

This is Stupid thing no 1. dumbo figures that any belief in God regardless of how well thought out the evidence is, it is stupid because his atheist master based the self image they dictate to him on the idea that hating Christianity is the basis of worth.So he has to believe that any form of God Belief is automatically stupid because he's too dense to read theology and find out the differences. He therefore translates what I said from "I am not a fundametnalist and the fundamentalists are the stupid ones" into "only the fundies believe in God" becuase he's too shallow and stupid to the learn the difference. It's real clear that I made the point that fundies don' thave the sophistication of liberals. noly a fool would not understand that i said that.

That's why he said:

Because I am fairly positive that ALL Christian-flavored theology sees their god-thing as an invisible magical man who lives in the sky.

Meta: Process theology sees God as bipolar, consequent pole that changes with creation, a potential pole and is never chaning.

Nicely played. Complete and utter nonsense, of course, but nicely played all the same. When you are on defense from an accusation of The Courtier's Reply, always resort to an even stronger version of The Courtier's Reply, then completely fail to see the point.

Bravo!

Metacrock:Tillich saw God as Being itself.

Schweitzer saw God as the life force.

Augustine saw God as a mind that continaed the realm of the forms of Plato.

Christian mystics see God as indescribable mystery beyond our understanding.

That's just off the top of my head. There are many many more. My own view is a synthesis of Tillich and the mystics.

Stupid thing no 2: dumbo doesn't understand the unified nature of religious traditions. He is so unread in theology he thinks it's just a matter of personalities fighting each other rather than traditions that seek to understand the reality beyond or behind reality.

Dumbo says:

How very nice for you. Now, replace the word "God" with "Zeus" or "Mithra", and the names of the philosophers with "Goofy", "Dumbo", and "Binky The Magic Space Clown" - and you have the exact same semantic content as before.

That is to say, none.

[Brent Rasmussen] C'mon, c'mon - try and deny it. You can't. You may take issue with the names I have given to your sacred mythological concepts, but it is an accurate - if irreverent - representation of the core beliefs of most religions.

Metacrock your ignorance is showing.

I argued that there are other parts of the Christian theological tradition that don't see God as a big man in the sky, it's not just a matter of one big man in the sky vs. another. There' a single reality behind all religious traditions and plenty of thinkers and movements that back this up. I mention Tillich and process theology.

of cousre this is all way over this idiot's head. He's so dense he has no concept of ideas of God, intellectual life, the notion of thought, or the history of ideas, or what it means to have a religious tradition. That's all just junck to him he's a party boy. Give him a straw hat and a beer an tell him what a cool guy he is that's all he's capable of.

He's so stupid he thinks it's just a matter of saying a bunch of names. He's so dense what do you yu expect from an illiterate? he says:

Is it? I told you right up front that you would probably take issue with the names that I would assign to your silly religious concepts - and you did. Where then is my alleged "ignorance"?

Metacrock Ok put up your duke dumb dub. let's debate. I'll tear you apart. you are ignorant, unread unlearned foolish and unwilling to learn. you don't know anything about it.

It was a big mistake expecting him to fight fair. Gutter scum like this know only one thing, someone is in your way knock them out of the way. Lazy, indolent, stupid, scum who can't reason look for short cuts and thy steal ideas they refuse to learn when someone is in their way do whatever evil little garbage they can to get them out of the way. That is no battle for a scholar

It's why atheism is anti-intellectuals and has nothing to do with learning. Its no longer for learning people or thinking people it's gone form a club for intellectuals in the universe who want to be modern, to lumpen prolongation who want leach off the working class. They are brown shirts. They are getting rewarded for being the storm troopers for the atheist movement.

Ah. And here we finally encounter the reaction that most theists do so well - threats of violence. Great job there, sparky. Why don't you just start pounding your chest and flinging your feces at me as well?

Dumbo thinks I threatened him, why? Because he himself knows violence. That is all he is capable of knowing.

[J.L. Hinman] have you ever read a single page written by any major theologians?

Yes.

[J.L. Hinman] can you even name a theologian?

Yes.

[J.L. Hinman] you probably think Jerrry Fallwell is one right?

No. I do not think that Jerry Falwell is a theologian.

[J.L. Hinman] put up your dukes know it all! put your money where your ignorant mouth is. just tell me the name of one theologian you know about.

Here's three: Anselm of Canterbury, Hypatia, Pliny the Elder.

What do I win? Candy? Cool![J.L. Hinman] you need an iq transplant

Here we see the stupidity of this cretin;. He's so unread and dense he thinks these medieval figures are major theologians today. He's not read any modern (if he had he would have named them). Don't get me wrong. I don't for minute bleieve that this intellectual cripple has Anselm, if he did he wouldn't undersatnd it. He probably looked at it for a minute or two.

He actually says that I'm laying about process theology having an impersonal view of God. This is the kind of illiterate stupidity upon which the atheist rape of Western culture depends. The only they can appeal to the masses is to carter to the ignorant and create the lie that ignorance most of Western thought, which si God oriented.. They have to ignore the major parts of modern theological thinking because otherwise they could never convened anyone with a brain that belief in God is stupid. It's only by making the real Christian thought off limits and giving it such a negative rap that on one will think about it that they can succeed in chaining the greatest thinkers in human history into people stupider than they are.

Sir you have wounded me deeply with your brilliant debating tactic. I fear that I may not be able to go on.

[Brent Rasmussen] I respect your right to hold silly, irrational beliefs. However, that also means that I have the right to call them silly.

[J.L. Hinman] you do not.

Yes, yes I do. Here, I'll demonstrate:

this is his little mocking slander of real thinking. He says that I lie about process theology it doesn't posit an impersonal God, (becuase he's too stupid to read about it) then he goes on with the pissing contest. He actually thinks acting like a eight grader is cleaver.

Dumbo says:

Your beliefs are silly and irrational. You are a foolish child for believing in them without evidence. See how that works?

I see that you are too stupid to read anything so you don't know what my beliefs are. you have a straw man argument made for you by atheists and you are convinced that's what Christianity is and you get angry and think we are lying to you when we try to tell you that you misrepresent our views. You are refuse to think and you don't know anything to begin with so you are not really a judge of what stupid is. you are censure of stupid not a judge of it.See how that works?

You have no right to say that there' no evidence because I have 42 God arguments and you are stupid to understand one of htem. Notice he wont debate me becuase I knows I would fly him.

[J.L. Hinman] .don't be a phony.

I am most certainly not a "phony". I don't even pretend to know what you mean by that comment.

you are a phony, not only that but a dumb shit as well.

Dumbo:

Has anyone ever told you that you are very difficult to understand sometimes? Maybe it's the wild-eyed looks and the froth coming out of the side of your mouth. *shrug* In any case, you should probably slow down and take a deep breath and get a hold of yourself before attempting to reply this time.

O that's so brilliant isn't it? that makes dumbo so cleaver, he's the brilliant guy in the eighth grade. I bet he has a come back for the one about sticks and stones!

Oh, and lay off the sauce before typing. It makes spelling, punctuation, and spaces between sentences so much easier, trust me.

[J.L. Hinman] you don't respect a God damn thing. You obviously don't respect knowledge.

That really proves he's right because he accuse of being what he is. He thought of that becuase he' s drunk all the time himself.

I respect quite a few things - knowledge is one of them. However, I do not automatically respect every nutball's wacky religious proclamations just because he or she says so. My respect must be earned. You have not earned my respect at this point in time.

Get used to it.

[J.L. Hinman] You don't have the slighest ideas what theology is about. you are willing to judge it knwong absoltuely nothing about it..

He can punctuate his mindless drivel with little catch phrase like "get used to it" that really proves. He's probably so drunck now he's not even cognizant of what this was about. He can call names, he can say "he's a nutball" O that's so brilliant.

How can intelligent people like Hermit alley themselves with gutter scum like this? These are the shock troops that destroyed the reasoned discourse and cleared the way for tea party tactics against religion that brought hte drinking crowd into message broad apologetic.

I appeal to the few atheists with a brains left out there. how can none thinking person be part of a movement that employs such brown shirt tactics?

The "Dawkamentalist" Attitude at work

Not all atheists act this way of course, but what about the many many who do? We see this brown shirt attitude at work, it's being used against the body of scientific research that I spent three years collecting and wrote a book about. So they can't allow free speech or the presentation of evidence that refutes their view point without bringing out the mindless, unthinking, red neck attitude of obliteration of the enemy.

One of the major ways in which they deploy that attitude is against the pretension of empirical scientific evidence.

here is a list complied from two studies, Wuthnow and Nobel. They show the qualities that make up the concept of "transformation."

Note. atheists try to reduce transformation to "Happy." Look at how much more the real concept includes aside form "happy."


Long-Term Effects

Wuthnow:

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

Noble:

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

Short-Term Effects (usually people who did not previously know of these experiences)

*Experience temporarily disorienting, alarming, disruptive
*Likely changes in self and the world,
*space and time, emotional attitudes, cognitive styles, personalities, doubt sanity and reluctance to communicate, feel ordinary language is inadequate

*Some individuals report psychic capacities and visionary experience destabilizing relationships with family and friends Withdrawal, isolation, confusion, insecurity, self-doubt, depression, anxiety, panic, restlessness, grandiose religious delusions

Links to Maslow's Needs, Mental Health, and Peak Experiences When introducing entheogens to people, I find it's helpful to link them to other ideas people are familiar with. Here are three useful quotations. 1) Maslow - Beyond Self Actualization is Self Transcendence ``I should say that I consider Humanistic, Third Force Psychology to be transitional, a preparation for a still `higher' Fourth Psychology, transhuman, centered in the cosmos rather than in human needs and interest, going beyond humanness, identity, self actualization and the like.''



(poster on CARM)
Deist answers:

Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
here is a list complied from two studies, Wuthnow and Nobel. They show the qualities that make up the concept of "transformation."

Note. atheists try to reduce transformation to "Happy." Look at how much more the real concept includes aside form "happy."


Long-Term Effects

Wuthnow:

*Say their lives are more meaningful,

Deist:
SO THEY SAY

*think about meaning and purpose

Deist:
SO DO I

*Know what purpose of life is

Deist:
REALLY NOW. DID THEY SAY WHAT IT WAS? TO GLORIFY GOD? TO GET TO HEAVEN?

(capitalization is his)

Meditate more

THIS IS MEANINGFUL? DOI THEY MEDITATE ON THEIR NAVEL? DOES THIS HELP SOCIETY?

*Score higher on self-rated personal talents and capabilities

SELF RATED? ISN'T THAT CONVEEEEENEINT?

*Less likely to value material possessions, high pay, job security, fame, and having lots of friends

ARE THEY BUMS? MOST CHRISTIANS I KNOW LIVE VERY LARGE. NICE TO CONTEND YOU DON'T VALUE THOSE THINGS WHILE SIPPING A MAI TAI IN VEGAS

Do you get the Pattern here?the pattern here? He's not even thinking about what is being said, he's just taking whatever I say and making some extremely stupid little snide remark about it. I say they are made less materialistic by their experience he says "O they are bums." Yes he's being so thoughtful about it all. He's really talking time to consider it isn't he. Just consider the stupidity of doing this. It's abundantly clear this guy is not there to discuss anything.

*Greater value on work for social change, solving social problems, helping needy

ATHEISTS DO THIS JUST AS MUCH WITHOUT TRYING TO CONVERT PEOPLE TO ATHEISM

So what? does that make them better? No and you can't prove they do it. quote some statistics to show that they do it. I don't believe any atheists work of positive change, only trying to tear down things that make people good, that's what he refers to. Studies show atheists don't give and don't believe in love.

*Reflective, inner-directed, self-aware, self-confident life style

AND THIS SAYS WHAT? PURELY SUBJECTIVE, ANYWAY.

so we can just ignore it! Its' "subjective" (the evil horrible state that must be deneid) so it doesn't exist so there's no argument. How totally idiotic can you get? How can they have a movement based upon being stupid?

There's no such thing as being self aware because it's subjective. That's typical of people who poor self esteem.


Noble:

*Experience more productive of psychological health than illness

I BEG TO DIFFER. I CAN FIND LOTS OF WHACKED OUT CHRISTIANS

Then do it stupid! shwo some stats! these are studies quoting you delectable little cretin, show some counter studies dumb bud!

*Less authoritarian and dogmatic

GIVE ME A BRRRREEEAAAK HERE. CHRISTIANS WANT TO SHOVE THEIR PHILOSOPHY DOWN THE THROATS OF OTHERS. YOU BEING A PRIMNE EXAMPLE!

*More assertive, imaginative, self-sufficient
ASSERTIVE WITH FORCING THEIR RELIGION ON OTHERS.

*intelligent, relaxed
I HAVEN'T SEEN IT DEMONSTRATED HERE

*High ego strength,
I HAVE PLENTY OF THAT MYSELF. WHY DIDN'T THEY INTERVIEW ME?

*relationships, symbolization, values,
PSYCHO BABBLE

*integration, allocentrism,
PSYCHO BABBLE...NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING INPORTANT, ANYWAY
*psychological maturity,
YAEHHH, RIGGGGHHHT. LIKE BELIEVING IN ZOMBIES AND TALKING SNAKES.

*self-acceptance, self-worth,
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE QUESTIONS ASKED, THE DATA, AND PROOF AS MOST NON BELIEVERS HAVE A VERY HIGH REGARD OF THEMSELF AND HIGH SELF ESTEEM.

*autonomy, authenticity, need for solitude,
SO THEY PRAY A LOT TO A SKY GOD.

*increased love and compassion
I DOUBT IT, CAUSE YOU CAN'T QUANTIFY LOVE AND COMPASSION. IT'S LIKE SAYING A CHRISTIAN LOVES HIS DAUGHTER MORE THAN AN ATHEIST. THIS IS DRIVEL.

Short-Term Effects (usually people who did not previously know of these experiences)

*Experience temporarily disorienting, alarming, disruptive
I AGREE WITH THIS. SEEING PEOPLE RISING FROM GRAVES AND WALKING THE STREETS IS VERY ALARMING.

*Likely changes in self and the world,
IF I SAW A ZOMBIE, I'D CHANGE SOMETHING. BUT, TELL ME, META, WHAT DID CHRISTIANS DO TO CHANGE THE WORLD OTHER THAN THE RUTHLESS METHODS USED TO GAIN AND KEEP CONVERTS?

*space and time, emotional attitudes, cognitive styles, personalities, doubt sanity and reluctance to communicate, feel ordinary language is inadequate
LIKE TALKING IN TONGUES? WHO THE HECK CAME UP WITH THIS STUPID STUDY?

*Some individuals report psychic capacities and visionary experience destabilizing relationships with family and friends Withdrawal, isolation, confusion, insecurity, self-doubt, depression, anxiety, panic, restlessness, grandiose religious delusions
I AGREE WITH ALL OF THIS, AND IMAGINE THIS LAST SENTENCE WAS WHAT THE STUDY SHOULD HAVE CONCLUDED. I COULD HAVE TOLD THE RESEARCHERS AS MUCH.

Links to Maslow's Needs, Mental Health, and Peak Experiences When introducing entheogens to people, I find it's helpful to link them to other ideas people are familiar with. Here are three useful quotations. 1) Maslow - Beyond Self Actualization is Self Transcendence ``I should say that I consider Humanistic, Third Force Psychology to be transitional, a preparation for a still `higher' Fourth Psychology, transhuman, centered in the cosmos rather than in human needs and interest, going beyond humanness, identity, selfactualization and the like.''

He's capitalizing becuase he lacks basic computer skills and can't put it in a quote box, but the computer skills don't show up in his other other posts. he's just using this as an exuse to be nasty and shout.

Originally Posted by Deist View Post
My computer or something is not right, so I can't do the quotes, but bear with me, because I think answers to these bogus general studies are necessary, and I'll insert my comments in capital letters underneath each subjective evaluation
you did one quote, why you do more?

you have no right to call them bogus! you know nothing about them. They are every single one Peer reviewed, published in academic journals, done by qualified social scientists with good methodological procedures.

anyone calling these studies bogus either knows nothing about them nothing about social scinece or is just willfully dispensing BS.

Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
here is a list complied from two studies, Wuthnow and Nobel. They show the qualities that make up the concept of "transformation."

Note. atheists try to reduce transformation to "Happy." Look at how much more the real concept includes aside form "happy."


Long-Term Effects

Wuthnow:

*Say their lives are more meaningful,

SO THEY SAY

what a stunning answer. so they sa. gee that's so brilliant he merely denies what Is said (without really even knowing what it is). What intellectual acuity! wow who would ever think of that.

who else is going to know it? This is competent scinece, this is the way all social scinece research is done. It's silly to complain about asking people who they are don't becasue no one else can know. It's like if a shirk asks a guy "do you have any special powers" (which they do ask to determine if the guy is delusional) then you would say "O that's stupid how could he have powers." they have a reason for asking.

Its' silly to assume anytime you ask the respondent something it must be wrong. Studies that produce scientific data on observations about neurosis and psychosis and whatever are done the very same way!

*think about meaning and purpose

SO DO I


yes but they already have a average for how often people do taht. The compare the avaerage throug the control group to the experimental group and they see it goes way for the experince people.

*Know what purpose of life is

REALLY NOW. DID THEY SAY WHAT IT WAS? TO GLORIFY GOD? TO GET TO HEAVEN?

These guys are not necessary Christians and weren't necessarily when they had their expression. You are not reasoning very clearly or deeply you badly need to learn about social scinece research. you remarks are silly and childish.

the fact that these guys feel that they have new insight into meaning in life is what's important, not if they really do or not. They go from not having before the experience, to having it after the experience and that means the experienced has some something for them.

you are also compelled missing the point. the point was look how much more goes into transformation than just being happy! you are not listening!

Meditate more

THIS IS MEANINGFUL? DOI THEY MEDITATE ON THEIR NAVEL? DOES THIS HELP SOCIETY?

That's truly STUPID! You regard meditation as way out thing but scinece has proved it's valid and valuable. you are living in the world of 40 years ago. In fact most atheists on this baords have expressed positive about meditation.

doing doing mediation is taken as a sign of transformed life because it means less stress, more awareness, better emphasis on health.

*Score higher on self-rated personal talents and capabilities

SELF RATED? ISN'T THAT CONVEEEEENEINT?

No it's not convenient little nay sayer if you know anything about social scinece which you do not! self rated means they give them a list and they check it off and the scoring produce is pre set.

that's about as intelligent saying "answering questions on an IQ test, well isn't that contivnet they answer the questions themselves hu? how does tell how smart they are.

you wont some guy in a white labl caot to look at them and go "are you an atheist?" Ok you pass, yoku are mentally healthy." "are you an atheist, no? o you are insane."

*Less likely to value material possessions, high pay, job security, fame, and having lots of friends



do you ever think about anything you say? do you realize all you are doing is nay saying each and every quotability it's really dumb because the point how complex the concept not that they right about each and ever little feature.

what we really learn is
(1) you can't follow an argument
(2) you know nothing about scinece, especially social
(3) you are not able to analyze very well
(4) you don't listen.


*Greater value on work for social change, solving social problems, helping needy


Nope. atheists flap big stupid mouths about that doesn't mean they do it. most atheists don't do that much. that is really a childish response. you are looking at each one going"this person is a stupid idiotic fundamental i hate them, what degrading thing can I say about them?"

In addition to your other short comings you are not willing to even think fairly about. You have no dat to prove your silly childish little retort, the data shows the experience expedience people do it more. So you are wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

snip similar silly well poisoning clap trap.


*Likely changes in self and the world,

IF I SAW A ZOMBIE, I'D CHANGE SOMETHING. BUT, TELL ME, META, WHAT DID CHRISTIANS DO TO CHANGE THE WORLD OTHER THAN THE RUTHLESS METHODS USED TO GAIN AND KEEP CONVERTS?

obvious poisoning the well. you refuse to think about the contrary evidence hu? any evidence against your little ideology you can't even fair minded enough to think about it for five seconds. Every single one of these you said some stupid little derisive insightful bull ****.


So what does this prove? you are going to say it's just one little dysfunctional moron out there and this is the internet this is where they are. Yet it's clealry not this one guy. It's on every single message board where atheists post and argue with Christians. One can find this same attitude on every board all over the net every single day. There are thousands of little flies pestering people trying to really think with this kind of unthinking little stupidity. What are atheists learning form each other? When they never chide one another for this kind of stupidity that they learn "this is what I must do to be a good atheist." This si what atheists are, this is how you go about being one, you say assigned things that you do't think about and refuse to consider anything the enemy says, and be as snide and condescending as possible.

This is the basic brown shirt mentality. These guys are the brown shirts of the net. They are doing what the original Brown Shirts did, they combed out through the city looking for enemies of the Nazi party and beating the snot out of them and disrupting their ralleys. This is what atheists do they comb the net looking for opportunities to disrupt theistic thinking.

Take my challenge go on a message board and pretend to be a Christian (if you are atheists) and see how they treat you. Why do you think it is that in all the years I've been making the challenge no one has ever taken me up on it? Because atheists know how they treat Christians.

Atheists can't admit appeal to popularity is wrong

post 35 in answer to post 32

Originally Posted by The Datheist

I believe he's trying to say exactly the same thing you are, that appeal to popularity is wrong.

how can he posibly be saying that when he clearly said I can't be right because I'm in a mintory?

The guy he describes as trying to say the same thing I am, that argument from popularity is wroing, said (direct quote) to me: You can't be right because you are in a tiny minority

There's just no other way to take that but to think that it means truth = popularity. that's obviously the opposite of what I was trying to say.

I'll answer it. No, it isn't. Case in point: Theism. Billions believe it, doesn't mean its right.

thank you! I never said it did!

Actually, in this regard I think he's right. There are more atheists more than your kind of liberal Christianity.

That's true but guess what, that guy (Deist) tried to cliam all non Christians as atheists and then to argue that I'm in a tiny minority. Notice the atheist will appeal to popularity is wrong in relation to Christianity but he wont say it of atheism. Even in relation to the allocation of atheism outnumber (which it doesn't) even hypothetically he wont say its wrong then.

Absolute hog wash! totally ridiculous. He himself (Deist) calculated that it would be 10% of the world follow liberal theology of Christian liberalism. there are 3% atheists and that's a generous estimate. how could they possibly have more?

In fact, you may be completely unique in your brand of theology. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone with quite the same kind of thinking as you. I could be wrong, but even if I am, your position probably only accounts for something like .5% of the world's population.

It's stupid stupid stupid stupid to try dismiss and marginalize someone for having a expertise most don't' have. that's all you and hear doing you are turning the fact that I know more than most people into a liability: "that You can't be right because you know more than anyone."

that's' so stupid don't you see how stupid that is?

Einstein was wrong because he was the only one cloud think his level. he was in a tiny minority so he must be wrong.

you can't assign a membership in a group based upon person's knowledge and expertise that's just idiotic.

if we let you get away with that you can just close down all thinking you are saying it's wrong to know things.

That's not at all what he's saying. I'll explain below.

that is what he's saying. you can't rad. typical atheist totally dishonest totally without honer totally willing to sell your soul to score imaginary points against the evil hated Christian.

In response to my example of only five brain surgeons must be wrong because they are tiny minority he says:

What? There's only 5 brain surgeons in the world? I've met more than that!

O that's a real answer isn't it? Then Ok, we can do appeal to popularity becuase he's met more than five brain surgeons so they must be a really huge group so that proves appeal to popularity is good.

He's not saying "There are more atheists than your liberal Christians, therefore you are wrong."

that's exactly what he said. moreover, that the way people on my board see it and they are reading the thread too.

He's saying "You said something. You were, in fact, the opposite. Therefore you are wrong about that."

that is just pure hog wash. I never anything of the kind.
that is a fabrication on his part and others.

Maybe his wording was weird or something, but he wasn't saying that you are wrong about everything because you are a minority. He's saying you were wrong about that one assertion. End of story.

COVER UP FOR THE COMRADE. YOU ARE FULL OF IT BEANS

The Atheist Party Line, it's orangization and movment

It's so amusing! I tell atheists "you are in a movement." They react like I've said "you are child molesters." O we are not either no no no not a movement O ononononn! never!

they steadfast everyone every single time recite that party line, it's just the absence of a belief. It doesn't dawn on them:

(1) you are angry because I say it's a movement.

the anger is palpable. Why should it make them angry that I say they have a movement? I say I have a movement. I've been in movements all my life. i was in the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement (2 different wars--two different movements) and many others. I don't care. it doesn't make me angry to say I am in a movement. i don't even are if they say Christianity is a movement. I as in a movement and it had an ideology (communism) I was a commie!

I know what movements look like. I know what ideology looks like. I have trianed all my life to spo this. I've been in movements, been a communist, (the paradigm of all movements and father of all ideologies) and I'm a historian of ideas. I was also an atheist. I nkow a movment when I see one. I also know that' it's not normal for people to become angry when you say they are in a movement. Why would they ? Atheists ract as though I've said theya re drugs adicts or soemthing.


(2) they all give the same answer

they all answer in exactly the same way. they never very there's no individuality. Its' always "the absence of any god or gods." There's never any individualist variation as though they have all read the same thing and all been told to say this phrase. I know they have probalby been told to say the phrase, but somehow in the way they process the information when they convence themselves to follow this movement they just learn it by wrote like the phrase really matters.

I am still looking fo all this individuality they claim to have. I can't find it. I see them saying the same things and marching in lock step. last week I had a hesitation where atheists would not admit that appeal to popularity was wrong. some of them even warned to say it wasn't wrong unless was in favor of Christianity. One of them argued form populaity saying that I could not right becuase I'm a member of a tiny minority (the minority being people with my exact outlook thus confessing the idea of group membership with the opinion one holds).



Isn't a dead give away, think about it. They actually believe that if you hold single idea differently from the group you are in a different group. Then on what basis can they claim that atheist are all different and that they have individualist opinions? As if that isn't frighting enough, they would not bring themselves to dennounce argument from popularity, but then actualy tried to say that I had argued that! They tried to attribute their comrade's statement to me! Now is that for confused?

I've demonstrate that its' a movement and only an idiot could fail to see it. I've shown that they have a concerted effort for court cases involving 30 major law suits (which would cost millions, who is paying for it)? They have a vast propaganda machine. They work on the destruction of Christian academic credibility at the expense of academic learning. They have a vast propaganda organziation in the form of several publications, think tanks and a scam pretending to be a convocations of schoalrs who are actually just Jesus mythers with no real academic standing.


Freedom From Religion Foundation:

• Won the first federal lawsuit challenging direct funding by the government of a faith-based agency
• Overturned a state Good Friday holiday
• Won a lawsuit barring direct taxpayer subsidy of religious schools
• Removed Ten Commandments monuments from public lands
• Ended bible instruction in public schools after 51 year practice
• Halted prayer at public institutions
• Stopped direct subsidy to religious schools
• Ended commencement prayers at a Top Ten University after 122 years of practice
• Ended distribution of Gideon bibles in public schools.
• Brought nearly 30 First Amendment lawsuits since 1977, and keeps several Establishment law challenges in the courts at all times.

<http://www.ffrf.org/legal> (18 Feb. 2007).

Approach Used to Spread Agenda

• Files lawsuits!
• Publishes Freethought Today
• Sponsors annual high school and college atheist based essay competitions with cash awards
• Conducts, annual national conventions, honoring the "Freethinker of the Year" for state/church activism, a "Freethought Heroine" and student activists
• Bestows "The Emperor Has No Clothes" Award to public figures for their criticism of religion
• Promotes freedom from religion with educational products, bumperstickers, music CDs, winter solstice greeting cards and literature
• Publishes useful atheist books
• Provides speakers for events and debates
• Established a freethought book collection at the University of Wisconsin Memorial Library as well as a 2,000-volume office collection

OTHER SUCCESSES

- University Graduation Invocations Ended at Top Ten University
- Prayers Stopped at Public Institutions
- Public Sponsorship of Nativity Pageant Halted
- Crosses Downed from Public Land
- Abuse by Preacher Exposed
- City Sponsorship of Knights of Columbus Signs Ended
- Ethics Probe Called for Preaching Governor
- Proselytizing Crossing Guard Fired
- Post Office/Catholic Entanglement Ended
- De Facto Sports Chaplaincy Stopped
- School Boy Scout Subsidy Stopped
- Bible Proclamation Rescinded
- Illegal Public Help Halted for "Our Lady of the Rockies"
- Creationism Removed from City Zoo
- Discount for Catholics Ended
- Red Rocks Easter Service Subsidy Ended
- Nativity Scene Moved Off Government Land
- Ten Commandments Monuments Moved from Public Property
- Religion Removed at Playground

Who has time to work on this? All of these struggle take big money and big legal talent. These are not things pulled off by a diverse group who share nothing more than the lack of a belief. This is clearly a vast political organization it has to be.

Science disproves athiesm: The evidence I spoke about

this is supposed to be on Metacrock's blog. so just read it. I'll try to keep this from happening in the future.

Anonymous atheist made this comment to the last post on "Atheist Fear of Gardening."

Please provide links to your evidence that science disproves atheism. This is a truly incredible claim and I cannot wait to read about the God of the Gaps. Or do you have something better? Please share.

It's important to understand the context.He probalby thought I mean creationism. I am not a creationist. Anyone familiar with my blog or Doxa (my site) knows that I am not a creationist, I see no contradiction between belief in God and evolution. The scientific knowledge I have in mind is the disprove of the atheist BS about scinece is the only from of knowledge and only scientific things can be believed. Science itself disproves this becuase it opens up so many vistas of which we have no further knowledge. The silly easy little idea that atheists so often propound, we have the only factual view becuase we just reject everything ot proved by scinece and believe ever thing that is proved, is an ideology. All the while they are spouting that they are swearing "there is no atheist ideology." They are sitting there vehemently denying they have an ideology as part of the ideology they are obviously wailing.

Here is what I said in the Gardening thing, this is what he's referring to:

Atheists will try to mock and ridicule the notion of the inner life. This is because they mock and ridicule anything that doesn't stack up to their ideology about truncated reality. They must collapse reality to eliminate possibles, so one doesn't seek God.the way they do this is to prescribe only one aspect aspect of reality as real, that which is empirically derived from scientific observation. Now a good deal of empirical scientific data disproves atheism but of they can't allow that. Evidence which does not support their conclusions they reduce to their canon of prescribed reality by indicting it's scientific nature in all manner of bogus ways. They have to create the idea that only that which supports the ideology is valid. To do this they cling to the surface of reality. Things are only what can be gleaned form surface level facts of existence of physical objects and nothing else. There is no depth of being, they must create confusion about the very concept of being. They will call it abstraction and say it's pretend and so forth. Just as they label faith as "pretending" and what have you. Everything feeds back into the central thesis; reality is surface level only. That is the level of reality for them because that's what their knowledge controls. Anything deep requires thought, and thought is liberating. If one begins to think about reality and what depth means one begins to unravel the mythology that says only transcribe scientifically derived things can be in existence. To unravel that is to step onto the road to belief and they must avoid that at all costs.

This means that when I present the evidence you can expect them to deny that is matter, or that is scientific, or that is evidence. They are going to pull the ideolgoical line that it has to prove conclusively without ambiguous up front to such a degree that no sane person can argue with it. There is no such evidence anywhere on anything. Even the most solid scientific evidence can be argued about. All studies can be attacked. Everything can be doubted and their philosophy feeds on doubt. Science is not about proving things. Many philosophers of scinece agree with Karl Popper that scientific hypohtesis can only be disproved not proved. Since athism is essentually a philosphy of doubt, a lack of belief, a negative, its' ideology and it's postiive affirmations masquerade as the absence of something while functioning as the presence of something this is ideal for them, since they feed off of the denial aspect of argument anyway.

Two more observations before we get to the evidence. First of all, I did not say that God can be proved through scientific evidence. I said atheism can be proved wrong. What does that mean? It means that (1) the way scinece works disproves the assertions of the ideology that science is the only knowledge and that atheism is built upon a factual fortress. (2) it means that the basic assumptions under which the atheist ideology works can be contradicted with scientific evidence, that does not equal "God can be proved with science." Secondly, the idea of proving the existence of God is contrary to Christian theology. Not that Christianity is opposed to proving things, but long before modern scinece existed Christian mystics, thinkers,philosophers and religious authorities held to the noting God is beyond our understanding. God is not a thing alongside other things in creation. So what we aim for is rational warrant rather than proof. In other words, the demonstration that there is rational reason to believe a given hypothesis. That doesn't' mean that smaller supporting constructs can't be proved, or at least given Verisimilitude. The major tenets of faith such the reality of God need not be prove because they not amenable to proof, at least not empirical proof. they are not empirical matters. They must be resolved in other ways.

Disproof of the ideology atheists are always spouting, that their view is a big pile of "facts" that prove everything that is worth believing, self referential and self aggrandizing see my three part essay on the limitations of scinece.

Theoretical contradictions at the heart of atheism.

Theoretical contradictions of atheism two: reverse quantum argument.

Traces of God: answering reverse design argument

read all that and on Monday I'll deal with the issue of positive evidence for the reality of God.

Atheist can't even admit a fallacy is wrong

post 35 in answer to post 32

Originally Posted by The Datheist

I believe he's trying to say exactly the same thing you are, that appeal to popularity is wrong.

how can he posibly be saying that when he clearly said I can't be right because I'm in a mintory?

The guy he describes as trying to say the same thing I am, that argument from popularity is wroing, said (direct quote) to me: "You can't be right becasue you are in a tiny minority!"

There's just no other way to take that but to think that it means truth = popularity. that's obviously the opposite of what I was trying to say.

I'll answer it. No, it isn't. Case in point: Theism. Billions believe it, doesn't mean its right.

thank you! I never said it did!

Actually, in this regard I think he's right. There are more atheists more than your kind of liberal Christianity.

That's true but guess what, that guy (Deist) tried to cliam all non Christians as atheists and then to argue that I'm in a tiny minority. Notice the atheist will appeal to popularity is wrong in relation to Christianity but he wont say it of atheism. Even in relation to the allocation of atheism outnumber (which it doesn't) even hypothetically he wont say its wrong then.

Absolute hog wash! totally ridiculous. He himself (Deist) calculated that it would be 10% of the world follow liberal theology of Christian liberalism. there are 3% atheists and that's a generous estimate. how could they possibly have more?

In fact, you may be completely unique in your brand of theology. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone with quite the same kind of thinking as you. I could be wrong, but even if I am, your position probably only accounts for something like .5% of the world's population.

It's stupid stupid stupid stupid to try dismiss and marginalize someone for having a expertise most don't' have. that's all you and hear doing you are turning the fact that I know more than most people into a liability: "that You can't be right because you know more than anyone."

that's' so stupid don't you see how stupid that is?

Einstein was wrong because he was the only one cloud think his level. he was in a tiny minority so he must be wrong.

you can't assign a membership in a group based upon person's knowledge and expertise that's just idiotic.

if we let you get away with that you can just close down all thinking you are saying it's wrong to know things.

That's not at all what he's saying. I'll explain below.

that is what he's saying. you can't rad. typical atheist totally dishonest totally without honer totally willing to sell your soul to score imaginary points against the evil hated Christian.

In response to my example of only five brain surgeons must be wrong because they are tiny minority he says:

What? There's only 5 brain surgeons in the world? I've met more than that!

O that's a real answer isn't it? Then Ok, we can do appeal to popularity becuase he's met more than five brain surgeons so they must be a really huge group so that proves appeal to popularity is good.

He's not saying "There are more atheists than your liberal Christians, therefore you are wrong."

that's exactly what he said. moreover, that the way people on my board see it and they are reading the thread too.

He's saying "You said something. You were, in fact, the opposite. Therefore you are wrong about that."

that is just pure hog wash. I never anything of the kind.
that is a fabrication on his part and others.

Maybe his wording was weird or something, but he wasn't saying that you are wrong about everything because you are a minority. He's saying you were wrong about that one assertion. End of story.

COVER UP FOR THE COMRADE. YOU ARE FULL OF IT BEANS

Atheist React to Popularity Issue

follow up to previous post.

How did the atheists on carm respond to my request to show if popularity = being right?


I don't know how many times I've seen atheists say appeal to popularity is a fallacy. Did they flock to say that this time? No, only one said it. the others all redefined the guy's statements in such a way as to be able to agree with him!

as of today they are flocking to agree with him.! the redefined the issue so that

(1) they pretend that I bought up the idea tat Christians are right becasue we outnumber everyone. I said nothing about that.

(2) they brought the science issue in and made that the thread and forgot about appeal to popularity.

(3) they choose to take his statesmen as meaning hes right that everyone else outnumbers Christianity ignoring the issue of popularity = right.



here's a post "Bust Nak" who does a huge job of lying about my position and pretending that Deist didn't say populity makes you riht, while at the same time defending the appeal.

here's the quote from deist again:

"So, please, stop with "I'm right" BS because you are in a very, very, very tiny minority, and hardly hold mainstream views. Saying you believe in God doesn't allow you to contend majority belief. Good try, though meta. You are good at obsfucation."

do see the fallacy?

Originally Posted by Bust Nak

1) You claimed you are the majority.

No I said the largest group but not large than all others combined. I also said that has nothing to do with truth. he said truth is based upon popualrity. now stop doging the issue and answer:

Meta:
is truth determined by the number who believe it?


BN

2) Those who share your liberal Christians ideas are in fact a tiny minority.

more than atheist, more than deists.

Meta:
what difference dose it make? are you actually asserting that the number of people deterines the truth of an idea?

what about brain surgeons? the number of people in the world who bleieve in a certain approach to brain surgely is like five people, because those are the only experrts who undestand the procedure now you saying they have to be wrong?

BN

3) Therefore you are wrong.

Meta

why? because of popularity? are you kidding me? you are serous about that?

how many atheists are there in the world. none of your little pretend daft all the Hindus to be pretend atheists the real actual "there is no God of any kind" atheist?

why are you one since it's a tiny minority (less than the number of liberal theology people).

Now whether you should lump all theists as a single group or not is a matter of debate, but that's still not an appeal to popularity.

o that's a matter of debate, but equate with the number that believe it is not?

did you not see the three sources I quoted that say apparel to populist is wrong and that is equating the number who believe something with it's truth content?

Well it's no secret that atheist are more "hated" than Christians in many circle, that doesn't mean you should group Christians and non-Christians theists together.

you seem confused. I need to know here are you saying truth = popularity or not?


the Nizkor project says: "It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim."

I suppose it could be interpret that way, but since it was you who was claming you are the majority in the first place,

that is garbage! you twisted what was said. at no time did I argue that.

plus he explicitly denounced appeal to popularity. Seems to me your interpretation is wrong.

yes sure this is such a strong denouement:

So, please, stop with "I'm right" BS because you are in a very, very, very tiny minority, and hardly hold mainstream views.

so what part of that sentence contains the announcement? would the part that says "Because you are in a tiny minority" so you read that and you see "appeal to popularity is wrong?" you can't see the words the way they are spelled?

what part of "you can't be right because you are in a tiny minority" do you not get?