Saturday, November 12, 2011

Stupid Monkey Responds

atheist reasoning is circular: like
a dog chasing it's tial

He starts out by saying "you are dense" to me. It turns out he's saying it because he doesn't know what circular reasoning is, so he's just saying that since I don't cow tow to a bunch of badly understood atheist slogans such as "the believer has the burden of proof" which had nothign to do with the circular reasoning issue. Now he comes back demonstrates even more ignorance about the major points of contention for Atheistwatch.

Stupid Monkey
Another comment that you made that I must address is that atheism is an ideology. Although you have (or claim to have) a PHD in theology, I see things still have to be defined for you.
An ideology is a set of aims and ideas, especially in politics. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare Weltanschauung), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society below) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society.
Ideology is more than aims and beliefs. I have actually quoted other sources in defining it.

Wiki defeines it as:


  1. A system of ideas and ideals, esp. one that forms the basis of economic or political policy: "the ideology of republicanism".
  2. The ideas and manner of thinking of a group, social class, or individual: "a critique of bourgeois ideology".
That's hardly the most authoritative. I did say nothing that would contradict the idea that ideology is a set of ideas and aims. He's actually to criticize my understanding of it knowing about my understanding of it.

Webster's online:

Definition of IDEOLOGY

: visionary theorizing
a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture c : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program
ide·ol·o·gist \-jist\ noun

This is a far cry from his assertion that atheism is just the absence of a belief. Take his definition of ideology asw ideas and aims, that's more than just the absence of a belief. So when I say that atheism is an ideology am I contradicting his definition? No, nor is his definition an argument agaisnt my assertion that atheism is an ideology. they have a set of ideas and aims that they are working to enact, the destruction of religion, and the totalitarian control of ideas and thinking in relation to reality.

this whole website is proof that atheism is an ideology. All one need do is read the site to see that I've proved over and over again.

Atheism is simply a nonbelief in a deity.

that's bull shit. I've disproved it over and over again. Go the ideology page on my site "on the Barricades" where I list the greatest hits of Atheistwatch.

Ideology of the New Atheist Movement
Marxist writer for the Guardian points out the
New Atheist Ideology.

Clear and Present Danger
atheist attitudes toward mocking and ridicule of opponents
cross references on "Atheist hate and bullying."

Orwellian Atheism
several articles on how atheist propaganda uses
language and it's similarity to George Orwell's

Atheists Use Mocking and Ridicule as Brian Washing
This is how they brain wash on message board, through the use of
mocking and ridicule.
see more on mocking and ridicule as brain washing under organized
hate and bullying.

That's it, plain and simple. What sir, I ask you, does this make you believe atheism falls into this category?

I have proved that it does. read the articles. read the website. The several hundred spots on this blog from a gain patchwork that proves it.

Please don't make the common mistake that most do. Do not combine things like Secularism, humanism and Naturalism to atheism. Can atheist be those things; yes. Are they mutually exclusive to one another? The fact that you think they are shows your ignorance no matter what level of education you claim to have.
That's just part of the propaganda of atheism to deny their complicity. Obviously those are all the same. Who are naturalists? they are atheist. what philosophy do atheists share? naturism. Most of they are humanists although there are anti- humanitist atheist. There is no orgaized clearr cut philosophy of naturalism in America. So that' just a catch all phrase and mos of the people it would apply to are atheists.

The rest of your comment is nothing but blathering ranting about social atheistic agendas with nothing to back it up. Small minded insults from a small mind.
You have such a great track record of ignoring ideas and not getting the point, when you say this it's a sure sign you don't understand. you are just erasing the evidence fo my view probably.
You can't deal with something that's over your head so like a child you call it stupid and tell it to get a life, that way you don't have to read about it.

Now on to your original blog post. Yes you have a point; circular reasoning and burden of proof are NOT the same thing. Yeah, duh! The contrived example you give of atheistic circular reason is set up specifically to put one point of argument in a light that favors your point of view and is not a real representation of an argument. The argument would go more like,
well Duh that's the point I was making! That was the issue I was dealing with. It's pretty wide spread since it covers the whole naturalistic rejection of miracles, SN and anything not naturalistic and not in their ideology.

you come on with that stupid atheist all purpose attack "you have the burden of proof." which is misapplied because that does not mean that anything I say it automatically unproved. Secondly, becuase it's not true except the rare circumstanced that I claim to be able to prove something. The burden of proof for any argument is always with the person who asserts the argument. A lot of atheists think the believer in God always has the burden to prove God exists before rationality can attributed to that person as a whole. That's errant nonsense. It applies if you say "I can prove God exits."

If you say "God does not exist" you have the burden to prove he does not exist. He who asserts an argument must prove that argument!

Atheist: "there is nothing beyond the materiel realm. There are no proof of the SN, No evidence for God, no nothing.

Believer--Here's some, here's a whole pile facts from which one might deduce the existence of God.

Atheist: "those can't be evidence for SN or for God." <--this is the change. The question is then, what pile of fact do you have. Show them to me.

Your base has a structural fallacy and you know it.
nope that is the way the conversation had developed on message boards over and over again. I've done it hundreds of times. I've been arguing with atheits on boards since 1998 and I've had conversation at least several hundred times.

I do find it hilarious as you sit there on your computer (which science has given you)
this is anther stupid little bromide atheists use. ti's meaningless but they think it's cleaver. that in itself should prove they are intellectually inferior to Christians. why should I be grateful to science as though it's some kind of god or deity giving me a blessing of the computer? If the atheist world view is true, there's no deity called "science" to be grateful too, and there's no deity of fortune that conspired to make computers. There's only human intelligence that figured it out. There's more to that statement. their basic reason for making it that they think it backs the fortress of facts. They are saying "hey this is proof that we have the scientific facts on our side becasue we can prove science works, since we have this gadget and ou can't prove God works becuase God believers didn't make computers. (which is an assertion they can't prove).

The basic assumption here is (1) science gives them a fortress of facts, works for them and not for believers.

(2) that the fortress of facts proves they have all the facts on their side.

(3) science is somehow atheist.

All of these concepts are fallacious. Science is not a fortress of facts, it's not intrinsically atheist it's not anti-religious and it doesn't' prove anything about the atheist world view that computers work.

If we want to be grateful for scinece let's be grateful to God who gave us brains so we can invent scinece and discover his creation.

Here's a statement me makes that's going to confirm my assertions about his statements above.

and knock the validity of it. Is science the only truth? Perhaps not for there are no absolute truths. But for practical reasons, yes science is the only truth that can be validated and tested. Your belief in jeebus cannot be. Atheism is not a belief, religion or ideology.
where is your proof that there are no absolute truths? He who makes an argument prove it. So where is the proof? "Science is the only truth that can be validated and tested." This is a total misunderstanding of the nature of scinece. We validate scientific concepts through verification and falsification because we can't prove them. That's what Popper says about scientific proof, all we can really do is disprove we can't actually prove anything. Science is not a big fortress of facts. The fortress of facts concept is selective. It excludes facts and scientific work that disproves atheist concepts. When you find something like the 300 studies that prove religious participation is good for you they dismiss them compelled without investigation.

but the whole argument I originally made about circular reasoning of naturalism also proves this. They are not disproving miracles, they aren't proving that miracles don't happen, they are dismissing miracle claims dogmatically because they don't jibe with their ideology of naturalism. He does nothing at all to disprove this. All he's doing is diverting our attention form the original issue by inserting the stand athist propaganda slogans about being grateful to scinece.

then to prove how cleaver he is he profanes the name of his savior which is in emulation of Homer Simpson. That's a fitting comparison, this guy who doesn't understand the issues he's playing into is so proud to bel ike Homer Simpson.

The fact that you state an atheist agenda is purely absurd. Let me ask you this. Scientist have been looking for the answers for centuries now. As it is not a perfect system, yes findings are changed and reevaluated on the facts and evidence that are in existence. Science is fluid in its pursuit of knowledge, not static.
This bull shit betrays a total ignorance of scinece. The idea that scinece is looking for some batch of propaganda called "the answers" implies that there's some single set of truths that open up the universe for us and explain everything. He's already ruled that out by saying there's no absolute truth. When blessed by the scientific quest this conglomeration of non absolute turth somehow becomes 'the answers!" what does this mean but that they have an ideology!

That is not scinece. Science has not board of elders that set's out a unified quest for "the answers." That is ideology. Convoluted, historically tainted, derivative of 1939 world's fair reasoning.

If any evidence was good enough to be viewed as life changing, where are the peer review papers, the journals etc.
In the journal articles that I site obviously. You might try reading the evidence for a change. It's in a little thing I like to "old no 7." No 7 on my God argument list, argument co-determinate.

Research Summary

From Council on Spiritual Practices Website

"States of Univtive Consciousness"

Also called Transcendent Experiences, Ego-Transcendence, Intense Religious Experience, Peak Experiences, Mystical Experiences, Cosmic Consciousness. Sources:

Wuthnow, Robert (1978). "Peak Experiences: Some Empirical Tests." Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 18 (3), 59-75.

Noble, Kathleen D. (1987). ``Psychological Health and the Experience of Transcendence.'' The Counseling Psychologist, 15 (4), 601-614.
Lukoff, David & Francis G. Lu (1988). ``Transpersonal psychology research review: Topic: Mystical experiences.'' Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 20 (2), 161-184.

Roger Walsh (1980). The consciousness disciplines and the behavioral sciences: Questions of comparison and assessment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137(6), 663-673.

Lester Grinspoon and James Bakalar (1983). ``Psychedelic Drugs in Psychiatry'' in Psychedelic Drugs Reconsidered, New York: Basic Books.

Furthermore, Greeley found no evidence to support the orthodox belief that frequent mystic experiences or psychic experiences stem from deprivation or psychopathology. His ''mystics'' were generally better educated, more successful economically, and less racist, and they were rated substantially happier on measures of psychological well-being. (Charles T. Tart, Psi: Scientific Studies of the Psychic Realm, p. 19.)

Long-Term Effects


*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


*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

I don't mean papers written here and there by creationists (which I understand that you claim you are not), but the articles and studies done by main stream science?
None of them are creationists junior. I am not a creationist. you have to learn to think so stop pretending like your enemies are all the same villain. All you need to do is label someone and you win the argument. that's doesn't work when you come up against a real scholar. so you have to actually do some reading here. All the studies I site are done by psychologists, not creationists, real actual social scientists and they are all published in valid academic journals, all 200 of them.

Scientists would be winning Nobel prizes for showing the existence of god or any deity for that matter.
That shows total ignorance of the way science works. You know scinece only through atheist slogans. Many nobel winners are Christans or other believers in God but no one does scietnific work to prove the existence of God because Go dis not in scietnifc domaon, that's understanding flat out. If you knew anything about science you would know about domains. God is in philosophy domain not scinece. God is the basis upon wihc reality coheres that means he's too be to be empirical. God is not a thing in creation he's not naturalistic so he can't be an object of empirical research.

Religion has never had a leg to stand on by itself. It attaches itself to social and political venues to make itself seem correct. Alone, it falls apart.

that's the atheist propaganda ideology that you are reciting. you don't know what it means but it's a slogan derived form the ideology of scinece. It's based upon the fortress of facts misconception it's just total bull shit.It has no facts to support it because all the alleged facts of the fortress are merely propaganda slogans.

The kicker is you are saying that is just an example fo the same kind of circular reasoning I was talking about to begin with. You are merely asserting on the basis of past dismissal that nothing had been established. that's the becasue the evidence was ignored in the first place. It's just circular reasoning.

No comments: