Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Atheists attack dyslexia

 We are off to the races early, soon after Christmas even before  new years. A moody atheist who can't answer any arguments finds the one obvious personal flaw to attack. This is right after I show that a little band of atheists were willing to frame we with lying accusations.


"CARM atheists resort to charges of violance against me to shut me up"

3 Comments - Show Original Post Collapse comments

1 – 3 of 3
Blogger Metacrock said...
they have really shown their true colors on that one.
December 17, 2012 11:15 AM
Blogger Morrison said...
All you spelling mistakes destroy your credibility.

You could use spell check, but you continue to use disability as an cousin has a disability but does not whine about it.

December 25, 2012 11:26 PM
Blogger Metacrock said...
no they don't. complaining it destroys your credibility. that's what atheist say when they can't answer my arguments. The last guy to say that had more spelling mistake than I did.

I use spell check every time i type because I use fire fox.
December 26, 2012 7:31 AM
"all you spelling mistakes" see above. He makes mistakes to. It should be "all your spelling mistakes." should I be merciful? I'm sure he would say "O but that's just a typo." Like that's ok when he makes them. He could edit.

so they are going to frame me with lying accusations and this guy thinks it's on a par to point out that i make spelling errors. This is shows the weak, flimsy, and morally bankrupt nature of atheism. They really do start in on the dyslexia when they have nothing to say about the issues. It can predict like clock work. I have really seen atheist wailing on me for my spelling when I spell check their statements they have more errors than I do. Not so with this guy but then he has no arguemnt to make either. Nothing shows their morally repugnant way of thinking better than this. It always reminds me of the skit on Monty Python where the guy is shouting at a man lying on the ground having fallen down form his chair becuase he has no legs and the guy standing above him, at the starting point of an Olympic footrace "run damn you!" "You lazy bastard!"

Because that guy doesn't have my prove he just it's so easy to never make a mistake. He does't have the courage he pretends to have or the erudition by putting his ideas to the test.

Sunday, December 16, 2012

CARM atheists resort to charges of violance against me to shut me up

It finally hapepned. They are reaching for the big guns to get me off of CARM. They are accusing me of making violent threats against a woman.

I askthis guy what NWRT meant. he said "No worth responding to" I joking said "well all you to do was say it you don't have to tell me I'm not worth responding to." God only knows who deep psychological wound that triggered then says:

 leyman said:


Quote Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
well gee if you don't want to tall me just say so. You don't have to say it's not worth it to respond to me! (it's a joke) ( I am kidding! ;-)

Were you joking and kidding when you were apparently seriously threatening to physically assault an 18 year-old girl in here, Meta?

Originally Posted by BlackLight View Post
Is there a link to this, by any chance?
The CARM moderators wisely deleted all of the offensive threatening posts shortly after I notified them of them and right before they gave Metacrock a suspension as a result.
We may have a new Davis Mabus in the making here.

 he said that. that's a big lie I never did any such thing. this guys is nothing but a lying sack of shit. nothing like that ever happened.

 here's that guy, this is the guy they are comparing me to. so they have arbitrarily decide that I'm a puissant violent scum back troll who can't think why? they cant' beat my argumetns. every single discussion I have with them I come awa beating stuipud little empty heads in rhtorically.

here's the guy they are comparing me to:

I see you’ve all met our little troll, David Mabus. “Mabus” (his real name is Dennis Markuze, and he used to sell used computers in Montreal, Canada) has been flooding my mailbox for about the last month — he has a list of about 70 skeptics and atheists, and just about every day he fires off his little angry rant about how James Randi owes him a million dollars right now, based on prophecies from Nostradamus or some such nonsense. You can get a feel for his insanity from this series of posts he made to the Center for Inquiry forum. It’s hard to avoid coming to the conclusion that he really is mentally ill; if any of you know this fellow personally, you might want to get him some help, fast.
I do have his phone number and address. He has been escalating his attacks lately, and if they get any worse, I’ll be contacting the authorities myself. This is one of those cases where I’ve been targeted by someone with a severe mental disorder, and I think he can be a real risk — but of course I’m only one among many targets, and I think the person who ought to be most concerned is James Randi.
 what's the ratinale for doing it? Because he can make up something. something that jut conviently was taken down by the mds so he can't really prove it but we have his word for it! that's so comforting.

what simliariy is there between me and this guy? none. but he says it's the same. this is telling me if I dont' watch my step they will ruin my reputation. but they are not Nazis or anything. O don't think that of cousre they  only use black mail, character assignation. lying, and any other unfair tatick.

now the chickens are coming how to rust now we see what atheism is made of.

what that Mabus guy is doing sounds stupid, but then they want to harass him on the phone. that's even stupider and it's illegal. They are storm troopers, they are Nazis they are brown shirts.

first he asked if I was joking. then after I deny it several times he get's a real tough guy thing going:

Ohh, and BTW, Meta, if you ever threaten Tyrael with physical violence again expect legal action to take place against you. I have both the financial and legal means and tools available to make life most uncomfortable for you if you persist with these threats.

Tyrael is family to me and I do not take threats of physical violence to my family lightly, Sir.

You need to not only cease and desist with your threats of physical violence against Tyrael but need to apologize for the ones you have already threatened her with.

If you do not you are the lowest and most despicable piece of human excrement that ever walked the Earth, Sir. Does it make you feel good as a grown and supposedly adult man to threaten and intimidate an 18 year old girl? Bravo, Sir. Well done. You sicken me.

Remember why you got banned and the mods deleted all the threats in your sub-threads, Sir?

Be a man and just apologize, Meta.

Hang on to the miniscule shred of whatever dignity you have left.
Real big he man. Here are the facts:

(1) I don't remember much about it. I do remember being shocked some time ago that they took something innocent that Is said as a thread. I know It was not a threat and I denied that it was one.

(2) they claim I said "I'm going to knock your block off." I think from the nature of terms it's obvious that it's nota  big threat. That's not how you threaten someone? Are we living in a peanuts cartoon? Am I Charlie Brown and this is Lucy I'm threatening. "knock your block off?"

(3) I'm pretty sure it was either a joke or a metaphor for wining a debate. "I'm going to knock your block off in debate." that's what Lucy says to Linus.

(4) I do know for certain i was not threatening anyone because I never have done that and I never would.

They are trying to destroy the positive way people think of me so they can shut me up because they can't beat my arguments. The stuff he says to me above is a lot more vicious than "I'm going to knock your block off."

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Stupid Atheist Trick of the day: Help meet

Arguing about Genesis as "sexist" an atheist on CARM (Dark Lady) said that by assigning woman to be "helper" he was creating her to be second place. I pointed out that this word is used of God several hunkered times in the OT so it can't be mean side kick or subordinate. It imply a stinger figure to whom a weaker figure looks.

Help Meet

Some try to use the phrase "help meet" as the basis for female submission. There is nothing about this term that implies submission: the term is "ezer" and it baiscally means "succor" "aid" "help" "to strengthen." From an on line version of Driver and Briggs as well as Vines Hebrew lexicon we see that this word is used of God in the psalms, and in other ensconces where the "ezer" was greater or more important or stronger than the one being helped.

Translated word: Ezer; help, soccer, support

Pslams20:2 "Send thee help from the sanctuary, and strengthen thee out of Zion;"

Ps 33:20 "Our soul waiteth for the LORD: he is our help and our shield."

Ps 70:5 "But I am poor and needy: make haste unto me, O God: thou art my help and my deliverer; O LORD, make no tarrying."

Ps 89:19 "Then Thu spikiest in vision to thy holy one, and saidst, I have laid help upon one that is mighty; I have exalted one chosen out of the people."

Ps 115:9 "O Israel, trust thou in the LORD: he is their help and their shield."

Ps 115:10 "O house of Aaron, trust in the LORD: he is their help and their shield."

Ps 115:11 "Ye that fear the LORD, trust in the LORD: he is their help and their shield."

Ps 121:1 "I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help.

Ps 121:2 "My help cometh from the LORD, which made heaven and earth."

Ps 124:8 "Our help is in the name of the LORD, who made heaven and earth."

Ps 146:5 "Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the LORD his God."

In all of these verses God is the help.This is the very same word translated "help meet" in Gensis the second chapter. One can see that it is nota word which denotes any sort of submissive or subservient position. The only other major claim is that submission was the consequence of the fall, a curse put upon woman for sinning and eating the fruit. Let's examine that idea on page 2.

In their cunning enginuity, never give up dought if there is breath left in the body. they found a way to try and continue the line of doubt:

Originally Posted by nmanning View Post
The phrase "help meet" shows up 4 times in the KJV of the bible.

Yet nowhere is this odd phrase defined.


Were the bible writers ignorant of what it meant? Were they trying to hide something?

Was it just made up?

It seems that an "help meet" was a pretty important thing - Yahweh made the animals and then paraded them before the man made of dirt for him to choose from, yet nowhere is "help meet" defined.

Something seems fishy...

 It's totally odd the things these people come up with. why didn't they define a word that was part of their language and they knew the meaning/ doesn't kind of assume they knew about us reading their words 3000 years latter?

that would have to assume they knew about English and understood how "help" would throw us off.
How often do we define every term we use?

Monday, December 10, 2012

Atheist Farm


I have noted the Orwellian nature of atheist language. For atheists reading this, George Orwell was a great writer who specialized in political language. One of his greatest achievements was to write an essay which one of the best ever written on the use of language in political ideology: "Politics and the English Language," written in 1946. In that great work he reminds us that:

Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

Never was this so true than in dealing with atheists. In the way atheist are beginning to use speech we can see all tricks Orwell talked about. Of course most of these internet atheists have not read Animal Farm or 1984 so they have no idea. But in their use of certain words they disguise totalitarian leanings one would never suspect. The totalitarian regimes of the Soviet Union refereed to their political dissidents as "mentally ill" and kept putting in mental institutions becuase they felt rejecting the worker's paradise must surely be a form of mental illness.

I've already written about how the atheists use term "delusion." They actually don't use it to mean mental illness. They use the term to merely mean "a wrong idea." But in using a term that everyone knows means a false construct which results from mental illness they are actually calling religious people mentally ill without having to admit that they are doing it. It's like if they said religious people are stupid. The religious person objects but they said "it's a special form of the word that doesn't mean really not bright," but then they keep saying it. We would get the idea. It's like insulting people in ways that are plausibly deniable. why use a special term such as this just to mean "this is idea is wrong?" obviously it's meant to carry a connotation. Now consider the dangers of labeling as mentally ill any one who happens to disagree with your point of view. Atheism as a whole is become more totalitarian all the time and they can't see it because they are so addicted to the charge they get from feeling superior.

Here's the latest example of the Orwellian tendencies. They Dawkies use the term "cult" in relation to all religious belief and groups. Of course they have no knowledge of the true sociological meaning of the term. They think all cults are imposing their will upon brain washed lackies whose live they take over and ruin. An example is the posting by a CARM Dawkie named "Toast"

The title of the therad:" a few questions about cults" so he's just equating religion with cults.

If no one ever told you about your god you would still believe?

if so, would your belief mirror the one you have been indoctrinated into?

if you still would believe even if know one told you these things to
believe would you not just be making things up?

He's trying to say that because you can't come to the same conclusions you do as a Christian on your own with no Bible and no church to guide you then it must be a cult because it's others imposing their will.

another post by Toast:

sorry but everything...a religion is a cult

This is also the same tendency. Everything the other guys value we disvalue so every term they use we must re-think impose our own terms. We can't allow them to name their own things, such as "church" we must name them and stick them with the connotations of our own interpretation. So thus Churches become cults. The irony meter is gong to blaring in a moment.

The really alarming tendency is the almost blatant admittion that ideas which don't stack up to the atheist ideology are "dangerous" and must be controlled. This statement was made on CARM sept 21 2009 by "Mountaineer Elf.

Because some ideas can be dangerous. Not all ideas deserve to be heard if they are dangerous.

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

The context he's speaking of is an argument for the existence of God. The idea that a new concept or some concept that he doesn't agree with is "usurping scinece" is quite alarming. What's worse is he's not content for scinece to stay in its own domain it must conquer all and control all reality. Science when are arguemnts for God usurping scinece? That can only be the case if he thinks that science's proper domain is dictating  that we can't believe in God. It's even worse than that, their ideology equates science with reality. His view is so totalizing that it must control all, there can be nothing in existence that is not controlled by his view point.

In defending this other atheoids literally said "O he didn't mean it that way and you know it." How do we know it? How could he mean it in any other way? In what way could God arguments userp scinece and reality without the idea that science is all reality?

Here's the Orwellian rub. In animal farm the Pigs control the farm. There's a revolution the animals have overthrown the farmer and changed the name of the Farm to "animal farm" they are in charge. The pigs are the leaders, they keep putting up posters with slogans telling the other animals what it's all about. But they keep changing the messages until they come around to mean the exact opposite of what they did at first. This is the way totalitarians use language, according to Orwell.

(for a synopsis of the book go here)

Atheist used to call themselves "free thinkers." They wanted us to believe that they were just sticking for the rights of us all to think anything we think and believe anything we believe. Now they begin to define believing things that contradict their ideology add "delusion" and "usurping reality." When I pointed this out Mountaineer Elf redefined the nature of free thinking:


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

This is so Orwellian everyone need to see this. He's narrowed the definitive of free thinking to the point where it includes his ideology and nothing more. So free thinkers are people who agree with me. Those are the one's we call "Scientists." The true free thinkers agree with me and nothing more.

But wait he's not done. It get's worse. he goes one better:

The rest of your anti-free thought rant snipped - not worth responding to insults. If you want a discussion, I'm more than willing to discuss. If you want to hurl insults, I can just go back to the Evolution/ID forum and have Creationists assume that I'm stupid for not buying into talking snakes, magic trees, and global floods.

Now he defines opposing his form of totalitarianism is "anti-free thinking." This is just like the communists. If you are dissident you are mentally ill and sanity is defined as obeying the state. If you point out that he's against free thought hense you are anti-free thought because free thought has now been reduced to nothing more than agreement with him. To disagree with him is opposes free thought. So the person who thinks we should all have the right to think for ourselves is now anti-free thought and one who thinks we have to control everything that is not in agreement with the ideology is now the free thinker! Black and just become white, as Orwell said. That is exactly what Orwell said political language does. read it again:

"Political designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.."

Then his cohorts carry it a step further and if you dissent from this truth regeime of the atheists then you are a danger to humanity:

May brick

So Metacrock would be happy for children to be taught that HIV is spread through vaccines and that condoms offer no protection?

You can't get more Orwellian than this. This is exactly right out of 1984 where the state has the right to imposes that dissenters must  accept their view of reality even by forcing them to admit something such as 2 + 2 = 5. In forcing them to accept something they categorically and fundamentally believe to be totally wrong they are eliminating their ability to ever think independently. That is exactly what's happened to many of these atheists and what they are trying to do to religious people.

In brow beating, intimidating, by mocking and ridiculing people they force them to de-convert and in so doing they force them to alter their most basic and cherished beliefs and the fundamental understanding they have of who they are and what reality is. there is nothing more hinus one can do to another person. that is on a par with murder and If thought like they do I should start calling them murderers.

I'm sure they will come back and say they can't force anyone to deconvert against their will, that doesn't stop them from trying and it means they are shutting down reason and thought in discourse, they shut down reasoned discussion and reduce the whole situation to a political escapade. Perhaps this means they are not quite as bad as I think, but only becuase they aren't successful enough in what they are trying to do.

I know they are not all like this. There are may smart freedom loving atheists who don't do this way. There are plenty who do. I just hope it's becuase they don't really understand how what they say implies totalitarian mentality.

Saturday, December 8, 2012

Who says there's perfect circle? Atheist reasoning is a perfect circle

 Atheist cartoon illustrating what they think is circular reasoning.

This began on CARM when an atheist began demanding "actual data" that would prove the existence of God. It's' clear what he really meant was he emended that God be a tangible physical thing in creation before he could believe. He expressed that as "actual data." He's blurring the distinction between data that would point toward God's existence vs. God being an actual psychosocial property that he could touch and handle and see. I offered two sets of "actual data" (empirical scientific data) both of which point to God, the M scale based studies on mystical experience, and evidence for fine  tuning of the universe's anthropic principle. Of cousre neither of these satisfied him becuase he didn't' want mere data he wanted God to be something that requires no faith to believe in. In the process he exemplifies circular reasoning at it's most convoluted.

Originally Posted by Whatsisface View Post
The so called fine tuning argument is not so much about scientific data, its more about a particular interpretation of scientific data.
you can say that about anything. all science is interpretation of data. Multiverse has no data. why do you need actual data anyway?

The M scale is a subjective questionnaire, and as such can show nothing concrete.
no it's not. it's objective and it's empirical. It's time you learned about it.
This is just another example of how the same people don't listen to the answers even when they are presented over and over again. I put up the link to the chapter in the text book by the guy who invented the M scale, Dr. Ralph Hood Jr. ( U. Tennessee Chattanooga) I put it up 147 times, those are the the one' s I counted. Probably more like 300 times. Two atheist looked at it one said he didn't understand it. The other said little more. This guy saw the link numerous times, he never looked at it. Now here he is regurgitating the same ignorance they all do becuase they refuse to read the material I offer.

I am baffled as to why if you think your opinions matter, you express them so vaguely. 
 Vaguely! I showed me a whole chapter in a science text book explaining the study methodology, real vague. who else on that board has gone to the lengths I have to explain his views? no one.

that's ludicrous. I'm not only one on this board who research and gives any kind of empirical evidence to back up his claims. most of your answers are just arguemnt form incredulity.
The multiverse is a speculative answer to a speculative question. What we lack here is knowledge. Just because we lack knowledge doesn't mean you can legitimately say God did it.
They never seem to understand the concept of a justification argument. Nor do they understand of elemination. They can't offer any other solution, this is the one that works. So why not say it? Because it's the one they hate. Here's what I said on the board:

thatch' why it doesn't work as an answer. the argument of FT is the very thing you asked fort this just proves that you dont' want truth. you didn't want the stuff you ask for becuase when you get it all picky about it. It's not God DNA sample. You are just saying "I dont' care. unless I have a mug shot of God on trial I wont believe."
where do you actually draw the line? do you have to stand before God on judgement day or would you actually refuse to believe then?
Here I'm pointing out to them that the multivariate (the usual answer to fine tuning) has no empirical data to back it. He demands empirical data of God's existence but the answer to God's existence he will accept without data.
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
you can say that about anything. all science is interpretation of data. Multiverse has no data.

why do you need actual data anyway?

there's another jump here to another post there he's saying I don't need data becuase i have the M scale (never mind that it is the metholgocial procedure that resutls in the data).

So you can say it about the Mscale then. All you think you can show from it and your studies is an interpretation of data. Why do you need data anyway?
same reason men climb mountains. why do you reject the data you ask for when you get it?
Actually The point he's making is illogical becuase he goes from "that's just interpreting data" to why do you need data, with no justification, becuase I never intimated that I don't need data. I did ask him why he does. that's a question of what one decides is data. The atheists would not accept anyting as data pointing toward God, nothing short of actual finger prints or DNA samples. Even then they would doubt it. In my view experience of Gdo's presence is data. the M scales makes it possible to pin down exactly what is an actual mystical experience, that enables us to compress the effects of having mystical experience to not having it. that enables us to show that it makes a huge difference in people's lives, that proves religion works in that it does the thing sit claims to do. Then there is also the universal element of religious experience which is a good indication that it is an experience of soemthing beyond the human mind.

He asserts it's not objective


no it's not. it's objective and it's empirical. It's time you learned about it.

See above.

He just says "see above meaning his statement that the M scale is not objective.


man you guys just cannot stay away from the circular reasoning can you? when I say atheist hate logic you get all up set but obviously you do becuase just think in circles. I just disproved what's above, you can't answer. so instead of trying you say "see above." then I guess when I point this out you'll say "see below."

thatch' why it doesn't work as an answer. the argument of FT is the very thing you asked for this just proves that you dont' want truth. you didn't want the stuff you ask for becuase when you get it all picky about it. It's not God DNA sample I dont' care. unless I have a mug shot of God on trial I wont believe.

I don't use the multiverse as an answer to anything. You brought up fine tuning, my response was to say that you don't know whether the universe is the only way it could be or not, you ignored this point.
He tries to worm out of the multiverse problem by using a different answer. That answer illustrates why the multiverse argument is the atheist answer of choice, because this answer sux.

I quoted Davies (who was the darling of atheists when he wrote God and the New Physics but now they hate him because he turned Deist and wrote the Mind of God). He says the universe did not have to be the way it is. Not just any old universe will do but it must be the way it is to fine life. Meaning it had be purposely fine tanned becuase the odds of it stacking up that way are so extremely remote. that's an indication the game is fixed.


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

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

same principle. you are doing what I said you would with the FN only in terms of any other argument. you wanted data, you got data, you are want the data after all.

where do you actually draw the line? do you have to stand before God on judgement day or would you actually refuse to believe then?


I don't disbelieve for the sake of it. Theism hasn't met it's evidential burden.



 I might not blow my stack like this if I hadn't put up a link to the M scale stuff 147 times and they all refuse to read it. Then claim the very stuff the chapter linked to would have dispelled but they refuse to look at it. So what they really want is not data but to pretend that they have no been given data. When you do give it they refuse to accept or even read about it.

the Circular bit is that we get through this torturous process of denial then he just asserts all the positions I just got though bashing as I didn't say anything.

The cartoon at the begining is circular reasoning. There are Christians who argue that way, they need to stop. they need ot learn some basic logic. The atheists are no better then need to learn some basic logic too. We can make a cartoon like this:

Atheist: there is no scientific data to prove God exits.

believer: here's some

Atheist: I refuse to recognie this

Believer: why it meets all the criteria?

Atheist: see above.

Thursday, December 6, 2012

Why Atheists Have No Ears


"he who has ears to hear, let him hear."

Apologetics is not for unbelievers. It's not exactly for convincing oneself either. But it is definitely not for atheists. Its' pointless trying to convince someone of something that is contrary to their paradigm. Paradigms control all. People cannot and are not capable of seeing into a different world. They live in the world they are in, the world of the paradigm. Paradigm shifts only when there are too many anomalies to be absorbed by the old paradigm. Until that happens there's no convincing someone his paradigm is wrong. Now you might think this means that means we should go about the task of trying pile up anomalies. The problem with that is atheists are able to absorb vast amounts of anomalies into their paradigm and they employ a verity of methods to do so. Kuhn says this is what happens, the ruling paradigm can adsorb a certain degree of anomalies and until you get so many that can't deal with them any more and the paradigm starts to shift, they are just all absorbed and don't' seem to matter.

Now i think little by little the paradigm is shifting, it will eventually turn over. It will probably never be non materialists or "spiritualist." But it is clear that the old paradigm has given way in several areas and ideas that would once have been considered totally loony are not part of the new paradigm. The problem is the new paradigm is packaged as a continuation of the old; in other words, the old materialist paradigm has now given way to the new physicalist. The difference being that under the old paradigm (materialist)only materiel things were possible. Reality was thought of as the "material" realm. Then it was realized that energy is another form of matter, so it's not mater itself and thus more than just mater is possible.So the new paradigm (phsyicalist) says that only what is physical is possible. Spirit still ruled out (except it can come in the back door in the form of energy) but it is recognized that there are two media for existence, rather than just the material there is also energy (which is another form of matter).

Meanwhile, there are many areas through which the evil idealism has seeped into the new paradigm: healing in medicine, the idea of mind over matter, realms beyond that of nature (which is what string membranes are) but they have to be packed as "physical." As long as it all part of "the physical" (which is idealist enough as it goes, then it can have a place. So ideas which never have been considered fifty years ago are now front and center. But the only proviso is we can't acknowledge it. We have to keep up the charade that idealism/spiritualism is beaten and materialism (in the form of physicalism which allows for energy) prevails. But in prevailing it makes room for other realms beyond that of nature (space/time) mind over matter, healing in medicine, archetypes, here's a complete list:

(1) Quantum Theory (no need for cause/effect)

(2) Big bang Cosmology (realm beyond the natrual)

(3) Medicine (healing)

(4) Consciousness (invites concept of dualism)

(6) Maslow's Archetypes (universal ideas)

(7) Miracles (empirical evidence)

(8) Near Death Experiences (scientific evidence)

(9) Esp Research (the fact that they do it)

(10) Validity of religious experince (Shrinks no longer assume pathology)

(11) Mind over matter (pleacebo effect).

For this reason I am willing to think that the paradigm will eventually shift. It probably wont ever allow for "supernatural," but it will contain supernatural like ideas masquerading as materialist/physicialist. We already see it now in the mind over matter of the placebo effect.

Nevertheless, despite this movement, the materialist/physicalist paradigm can absorb an almost infinite amount anomalous of behavior simply because "energy" covers a multitude of idealist propositions. Anything not material can always be sold as "energy." Pure idea can be sold as brain chemistry because it has to be transmitted that way. Thus Dawkins insists there cant' be a mind without a brain. But what's really being said there is that any form of ideal or idea or "mind" or anything not material can always be coopted as "energy" and thus it can never be anomalous under a physicalist paradigm. But there's another reason as well why it will take a long time for a big paradigm shift. There is no end of atheist incredulity. The physicalist paradigm lends itself to incredulity because we know it works. We don't know the range of its limitations because we can't produce evidence under the same paradigm of things beyond the paradigm, so of course we can exclude any hit of actual anomaly. Of course we can't expect evidence under the paradigm that would legitimate anomalies of that same paradigm, then they wouldn't be anomalies. The incredulity factor always allows one to put it in the magic pressure cooker and (whish wish) it's gone!

Here's an example of what I mean. Here's an example of a Saint making miracle from my miracles page. It's no longer found on the URL it once was, so the link doesn't work. But it was there:

Society for the Little Flower (Website) FAQ (visited 6/3/01) St. Theresse of Lisieux

"Regarding St. Therese, in 1923 the Church approved of two spontaneous cures unexplained by medical treatment. Sister Louise of St. Germain was cured of the stomach ulcers she had between 1913 and 1916. The second cure involved Charles Anne, a 23 year old seminarian who was dying from advanced pulmonary tuberculosis. The night he thought he was dying, Charles prayed to Therese. Afterward, the examining doctor testified, "The destroyed and ravaged lungs had been replaced by new lungs, carrying out their normal functions and about to revive the entire organism. A slight emaciation persists, which will disappear within a few days under a regularly assimilated diet." These two miracles resulted in Therese becoming beatified."

The atheists on carm treated this with total incredulity. It has to be a lie. First they said I made it up. then I lined to the site and they could see it was their and howled with laughter. How stupid could I be? It's a religious site dedicated to that saint to of course it's a lie! I gave all the evidence on miracles pages about the rules of miracles in RCC and showed that they use medical evdience, there x-rays of the lungs and so on. But they insisted this is not good because its not in a medical journal. So I emailed a member of the committee, a medical expert who does research for the medical committee, and he vouched for its authenticity. That's no good, he' on that committee so he's lying. I brought up the x-rays, well I don't have the x-rays so its' still lie. I would have to have the x-rays in my hot little hand before it could actually be accepted. If i actually get the xrays from the Vatican, which were taken in the early part of the 20th century, (like that's a fair requirement that I some little guy in Texas, a prot, with no official connections could get these xrays), if I did have them don't you think they would still say its a lie? x-rays can be fabricated. So it's an anomaly and it will always be an anomaly because one may always doubt.

I recently had a discussion on my message boards about my mystical experience arguments (The Trace of God). I was as clear as anyone could be, and i worked several times to meet the evidential burden required by the atheist dialogue "partner." But this guy just played dense. He refused to get it. But I think a Chrsitain poster named "Wordgazer" really summed it up best:

FWIW, I didn't have any trouble following or understanding Metacrock's reasoning, and I do think he addressed each of Marxiavelli's concerns. What it looked like to me was that Marxiavelli was looking at things through his scientific materialist worldview, and was either unable or unwilling to shift to a different perspective. For example, he seemed to think Metacrock was using the religious experience argument to prove one particular set of religious beliefs, and because they didn't do this, Marxiavelli appeared to think that this trumped all rational warrant for a belief in anything non-material at all. But Metacrock was not arguing for Christianity; he was arguing for the interaction between humans and something Divine that was undefined. What I was seeing was something that I myself have experienced-- the challenge by an atheist to prove theism, but only within the atheism box. Invitations to climb out of the box and look further, were apparently misunderstood as not answering the questions. There were a few times that Metacrock got frustrated, but I really don't think he was being "extremely and unnecessarily aggressive."

We live in different worlds. The world of the atheist is not the world of the theist and they don't want to see into my world. They want to reassure themselves that it's ok to deny my world is valid and to secure their own world. One can hide a lot of anomalies that way. As Wordgazer said it's really just a matter of who wants to see what. Of course they would impune my motives for wanting to see the validity of my world, but pat themselves on the back and rationalize their biases as "hard nosed critical thinking." Hard nosed critical thinking that does not want to see.

This is why the realizing God (existential phenomenological who ha) is really the only tenable approach. Until one is willing make a realization, or until one does make such a realization, the anomalies will always be absorbed into he paradigm. "Realizing God" is nothing more than a change in the ground, a shift in consciousness, a paradigm shift. The materialist paradigm is front end loaded with built-in incredulity as a defense mechanism against shifts.

But all of this really biols down to is good old fashioned sin. "5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." (John 1:5). No amount of evdience will ever shit them and no amount of logic will ever read them.

Now this doesn't mean that I wont continue the friendships I've made. I have made freinds with some atheists, and some who are good people who I really like. I will continue those friendships and we can discuss anything. But I wont discuss God with them or God arguments. There's no point. The literal reading of the "great commission" (the Bible doesn't call it that) says "where ever you happen to be going, tell them the truth." I did tell them. They didn't want to get it.

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

No Pew Study Says Atheits Know Bible Better than Christians.


My Actual Score
(that block thing at the right
is my score, it's off scale) 

 I found this floating around the Google engine again and being bounced about on CARM
so I figured it was time put it back up and get it high in the search engines.

Last week the net was abuzz with talk of a Pew study that said atheists know the Bible better than Christians do. I found about 14 blogs referring to it and it was on message boards all over. The Actual study is available on the Pew site it's called "U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey." The press began saying the study shows "atheists know more about religion." what it really says is that atheists know more about religion other than Christianity, than do Christians. That's not so unreasonable given the exclusivity most Christians believe their faith has over others. The media turned it into "atheists know more about religion" us as the Los Angels Times, (Tuesday Oct, 19th)"Atheists, Agnostics most knowledgeable about religion surveys say."

"Religious IQ: Why do Atheist Outscore Christians?" The Week "A significant number of Christians don't know the basics about their own professed faith or other major religions, according to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey, while atheists and agnostics have the highest "Religious IQ,"

The study doesn't say anything about an IQ, but it's plots the answers on a bell curve. The Pew Site offers a short version of half the questions (the original is 32 the short version is 15).  I took the short version (see my score above I'm the only one got every question right and went off scale). The site "debating Christianity and religion"  says "Atheists know more about the Bible" than do Christians.

The point is of the 15 questions11 were not about the Bible or Christianity. So the test was biased in the beginning to screen out Christians. I suggest it was a put up a job, designed to give other than Christians a higher score. Why would Pew want to do this? Pew is a respected polling organization but is ran by an private family that is very Evangelical and the Pew Evangelical trust gives a lot of evangelistic enterprises. They want to do that because they are the tough kind of Christians. They want to shame the chruch into learning more about the bible and about religion in general.

"The United States is a nation of religious illiterates," says Boston University professor Stephen Prothero, whose research on Americans' spiritual ignorance inspired a new study that has religion teachers and ministers aghast,"(from the Week)

 Here's what the study actually says:

Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons are among the highest-scoring groups on a new survey of religious knowledge, outperforming evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics on questions about the core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions.

So it's up front about world religion and the media turns into religion as a whole and atheists sites turn into "know more about the bible." The actual study doesn't say that. The 15 question version 11 questions were about subject not in the Bible and off those about 3 were Christian history. Most the study is about world religion (I got them all right anyway). The study results say and the site reflects with a table and big capital letters that atheists know more about world religion But Mormons and Evangelicals know More about Christianity. That would seem to contradict the whole mocking point upon which most atheists are gleefully claiming that they know about "the Bible" than do Christians. On Bible White Evangelicals score 7.3, Mormons 7.9 whle Atheists score 6.7.

from the Pew study site:

Previous surveys by the Pew Research Center have shown that America is among the most religious of the world’s developed nations. Nearly six-in-ten U.S. adults say that religion is “very important” in their lives, and roughly four-in-ten say they attend worship services at least once a week. But the U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey shows that large numbers of Americans are uninformed about the tenets, practices, history and leading figures of major faith traditions – including their own. Many people also think the constitutional restrictions on religion in public schools are stricter than they really are.
religious-knowledge-03 10-09-28More than four-in-ten Catholics in the United States (45%) do not know that their church teaches that the bread and wine used in Communion do not merely symbolize but actually become the body and blood of Christ. About half of Protestants (53%) cannot correctly identify Martin Luther as the person whose writings and actions inspired the Protestant Reformation, which made their religion a separate branch of Christianity. Roughly four-in-ten Jews (43%) do not recognize that Maimonides, one of the most venerated rabbis in history, was Jewish.
In addition, fewer than half of Americans (47%) know that the Dalai Lama is Buddhist. Fewer than four-in-ten (38%) correctly associate Vishnu and Shiva with Hinduism. And only about a quarter of all Americans (27%) correctly answer that most people in Indonesia – the country with the world’s largest Muslim
The survey should shame Christians, however, because it shows some shocking ignorance. Catholics have had a tradition of placing Church authority over Bible, but half of these guys don't even know their own church's stand on transubstantiation. Come on that's the one doctrine that is more uniquely Catholic!

There is a crying need for Christians take more of an interest in learning. Its also apparent that we need to branch out from just the bible and learn about religion as a whole.

It is not shocking once you look at the questions why atheists would do better than Christians on those questions where they scored higher. Most of those are world religion questions  such as "which of the following is an Islamic Holiday, 'Ramadan, Duwali or Christmas.' I got this one right too. Most Christians don't learn enough about Hinduism to even know their major holiday. BTW Duwali is the festival of lights. The celebration of rebirth and triumph of good over evil, they celibate with lots of little candles and lanterns and lights, they have parities. I think it should be a point with Christians to learn about festivals of re-birth.

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Great Excuses Hit Parade


 Last time On AW  I talked about propaganda merchants and showed that an atheist who sited an article that said there had been a huge increase in atheism in America was wrong because neither the author nor the atheist bothered to research the source of the data.

Now let's look at the excuses used by atheists to dismiss this observation. See what outrageous things they say to keep from admitting they were wrong about something.

Sylor: post 3

It looks like we've found yet another thing Meta doesn't understand-research. Here's a study from this year (check out page 8 for a chart showing how ridiculously huge the gap in growth is), although more recent numbers show that this is already outdated and nonreligious is growing even faster. Page 46 shows the religion questions and answer breakdowns. It turns out that From 14 to 24% of millennial are atheists and agnostics.

So, are you dishonest, or do you just fail at even the most basic of research methods?

So because I dug to the bottom of the citation circle and found it's origin in an article the author the article sited didn't understand, and it contradicts his point, I don't know about research? Interesting. The chart he links to is the one used as a graphic in my own article form last time on Atheist watch. Apparently if I'm no good at research I'm better at reading pie charts than old Sylor becuase the chart shows the original assertion of atheism risign is wrong.

Sylor again

Oh, and by the way, since Meta found the 2007 pew study, he should have definitely found the ones they've done every single year since then which consistently show atheism is on the rise.
I did show that the 2009 survey is using the 2007 data, and there are not others that update the 2007 on the same scale. Pew does things all the time but they have no done any major landmark religious topography studies like the one in 2007 since that time. The studies that speak of the level of atheism in America go by the same 2007 data. Notice he links to something; that is a Pew study that says "none category is rising." The problem there is he's confusing "none" with atheist. the atheists are only 1.6% of American that's 19% of the 5% in the none category. People in that category believe in God.

The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace. One-fifth of the U.S. public – and a third of adults under 30 – are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling.
In the last five years alone, the unaffiliated have increased from just over 15% to just under 20% of all U.S. adults. Their ranks now include more than 13 million self-described atheists and agnostics (nearly 6% of the U.S. public), as well as nearly 33 million people who say they have no particular religious affiliation (14%).3
That is the 15% if he had looked at the page he linked us to he would see the whole page is designed like a chart with "15% marked off by the level of gray background demarcating the line. the chart shows none is up 50 20% but what he totally misses is the dark space at the bottom demarcating the line showing the level of atheism they are still back at about 2%.

i know so little about research at least I can read a flipping graph.

I thought this thread was going to be a discussion of the nature of propaganda. Instead, it turned out to be one of Meta's "Someone is wrong on the Internet!" screeds.

Sad face.
something is wrong on the net is about propaganda. He dismisses the falsehood and the propaganda as just internet hi jinx.

Originally Posted by Deist View Post
In other threads, Meta insists popularity of a belief doesn't make those beliefs true. Now, he contends that atheism is a small percentage of the population, and therefore must not be true, since the god believing group is larger.

CHRISTIANITY is what is receding. A belief in insane things like the OT God is no longer being adopted by the younger, more intelligent humans.
trying to turn around the argument by making it an attack on my views as appeal to popularity. It's strait  refutation of their assertion and an insight into the mistaken in their facts. I said noting about popularity or that being popular makes anything right. I didn't say atheism is wrong becuase tehy are a pathetically small group of losers, I mean because they are not popular '-)

Sylar adds one work post: *educated*

I'm so stupid and evacuate to believe in God. how could anything person bleieve in God tha'ts proved because the can lie about statistics. I see how it works now, if you lie about statics and use the wrong fact you all all about research that makes makes you educated. Or is it that being an atheist is so smart it makes everything you say right even when it's a lie? I guess I'm too stupid to figure that one out.

Originally Posted by maybrick View Post
You seem to be saying that the stats that you like are correct and the stats that you dislike are wrong.

It would seem to me that Pew represents a trustworthy source or an untrustworthy source. Either way picking and choosing the data you like is not really going to convince anybody, except perhaps yourself.
this guy can't seem to get it through his head they are same stats.

Originally Posted by MFFJM2 View Post Even more interesting is that the PEW research of church attnedance has it much higher than pastors and ministers admit in their congregations, suggesting that religious types lie about how often they attend church, perhaps out of guilt. According to PEW 37% of American adults state they attend church weekly, but...

This is "muffins" as I call him, a veteran of the hate meta club and one of the major members of the "God haters" club. That's just what I call them, those aren't real groups. He has the champion comment because this s the real honest to goodness tactic of the "read herring." Like the practice of dragging a fish over the track of escaping people to cover the smell so the dogs can't track them. He's trying to divert the reader form the fact that they lied, or at least quoted inadequate statistics in an article that was not well researched.

This is the champion comment because its so classically fallacious. It goes back to the garden. Adam says "O you know the woman, the one YOU GAVE ME" it's really your fault God. I screwed up becuase you gave me the woman. So they are saying hey it's really the fault of Christians that we quote this badly researched Clarice because they lie all the time.

I point out hte diversionary nature of the comment then Whatshisface says

Originally Posted by Whatsisface View Post
So your not interested in figures all of a sudden?
He's trying to reinforce the diversionary tactic.

their atheist guru weighs in

Originally Posted by HRG View Post
"Truth" is not a synonym for "those propositions that Metacrock wants to be true". Atheists on this board do care about truth; they differ from you about what is true.

 they care so much that when you point out their bad research arhter than owning up to it they make every classic excuse in the book form "you are one too," to "you just don't know how to reserach" but not one of them said "Ok we made a mistake it's not that big a deal." had they said that I would have to agree.

I kept classifying it all "propaganda" which it clearly is, they are trying manipulate info to persuade. A person whose positon I am sure of weahter atheis or something else or Christian i do not know, said this:

Originally Posted by EnochP View Post
"Propaganda" originally meant propagation of an idea, ideology, thought or meme. It did not carry the modern sense of necessarily having the intent to mislead or deceive. However, an evolutionary perspective on communication does carry the sense of intent to influence or control. One of the most ignorant utterances I have ever seen on the subject came from Diane in that rabid, insane CARM SEP forum, to the effect that there is no such thing as right-wing (misleading) propaganda. Martin Bormann is the patron saint of it.

I think a lot of atheists are good people who have good beliefs, such as Hans. I agree with Han's politics. But they don't realize the are feeding into a totalitarianism. they are. modern "new" atheism is one of the chilling totalitarian moments I've ever researched.

As I pointed out already, had they just said "Ok this was a mistake, I took the article at face value when I should have researched it more" I would have said "Ok no big deal and left it in the other thread. They just can't admit they are wrong about anything. Look at the idiotic lengths to which they go just avlid saying "I was wrong" one single time.

Monday, November 26, 2012

The Atheist Propagadna Merchant: Always Inflating the Numbers

The propaganda merchant doesn't care what's true. the Propagandist cares only what impression he leaves in your head. Oliver North said i best, "there is no reality there is only appearance." The sick cynical findings of an ultra right wing activist are echoes by atheists in the New Atheist mentality.

there are a lot examples but one that pertains to this board is the way the joke about atheism rising is continually rebuffed yet they keep trying tp pass to off as hot news flash. When dig below the surface to see where the figures come form they all come orm the 2007 pew study which found 1.6% of the country is atheist.

here are the results of the digging.


yet despite the fact that I've shown the same stuff on this board a number of times where Jag tell the same story over and over again.

the lie atheism is increasing 19%. It is not at 19%, that's 19% of 5% that 5% is not atheism they are people who don't believe God but don't only 19% of them call themselves atheist. In all the time I've been doing this message board apologetic stuff atheism hasn't gone up a single point.

yet here is Jag still telling people the same old story. I'm not saying he's lying, but he's telling a falsehood which is based on a lie even through he may unwilling to believe it is.

post 19

Originally Posted by NewJagella View Post post no 18
Let's look at the numbers. According to The Huffington Post:

(Emphasis Mine)

I'd say that proves my point.

Where did you get your own data?

Jagella--Former Christian 
It's also not true that percentage of "religious Americans" dropped to 60%. no way. 90% still say they believe in God. Christianity is still in high 70s if not 80s that's from Pew. Same source that his figures ultimately come from.
he says it a second time in the same thread.

Jag post 13 same thread
You may wish to visit my Atheism is growing in America! thread to answer your questions. You may also wish to check out a recent article about the effect rising secularism is having on American culture. I reproduce part of that article here for my emphasis and your convenience.

both sources he names, Huffington and the other one are based upon the same article that ultimately lead back to the Pew study.

Saturday, November 24, 2012

Atheists ratinoalizations and blaming the victim


 this started about them taking exception to my findings (from Francis studies) that atheism is correlated with low self esteem. they were saying hwo can tell as though the study isn't as good their mature musings. they moved from taht to how bad I am then to how it's justfied to curch self esteem of victims because they are losers.

Bonoso is saying that I'm so arrogant.

Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
people with low self esteem always think those with healthy self esteem are egotistical. they think just the idea of loving yourself is egomaniac.

lol i love the way you keep suggesting i have low self esteem because of the same reasons that you portray yourself. What was it you thought i was again? Arrogant? That a sign of low self esteem isnt it?

hmmm... arrogance and low self esteem dont really go hand in hand do they? You are constantly contradicting yourself and looking like a fool. I genuinely believe that you believe your own BS so its not really your fault as such but, to be a good liar you need to have a good memory and a strong grasp of logic, and you meta are showing no signs of either...

yea they do actually. it's compensation


He was never a "true atheist", just one of those who claimed the mantle of atheism because he thought it made him an intellectual. When he writes about being an atheist, it's quite clear he had no real understanding of what that means, just that he liked the title. Then when things got dire for someone in his family, he turned to the only thing he knew for answers, God. As it turned out he had nothing to worry about, because modern science was on the scene, and his family member recovered. However, out of resentment, fear and self-loathing he discovered that he really wasn't an atheist after all, and had discovered his true-calling...being annoying on multiple websites.
They think they know all about me. they know all my family my problems and all my motivations and stuff. Of cousre I deserved all the problems I had. "He was never a true atheist" that really gets me. We are all born atheists not this guy he was screwed up and had some belief in there.

Meta was just going through his rebellious teen stage where he was mad that God didn't do stuff for him.

Please stop comparing your voluntary participation on a discussion board to being brutalized physically/sexually. It's offensive and creepy.
you don't feel what you feel. We will assign the feelings we accept that you can have.

Originally Posted by MarkUK View Post
It can only reduce a person who has had their hopes built up - telling me I'm not a millionaire doesn't hurt the slightest bit if I don't already think I am one.

I don't see why "you evolved and the universe doesn't care about you" could possibly be a bad thing unless you want or expect the universe (or its boss) to care about you.
what a rationalization. you are actually it's the victim's fault for being criticized.

we have seen proof over and over again of what unconscionable rationalizing blighters atheists are. they have no scrouips and no sense of decency. Those who are willing to stop to ridicule artistry that is. some don't ever do it. But those who do have no qualms about lying, pretense, blame the victim total bullies.

you are literally saying it's your fault if you are bullied, it's your fault if you are criticized you must really deserve it.

 Then go in for some accuzation against people with good self esteem.


Thinking you're loved by an all-powerful being must be such an ego trip.

 good self esteem needs to be punished so it's justified we hurt you becuase you deserve it.

 Darth Moron
 And needing to think you're loved by an all powerful being before being able to accept yourself is certainly a sign of low self esteem.
 If you find your self esteem in Christ that's a sing you are really bad, you severed to be punished because why you have self esteem when they don't? The benefit of self love is turned into a sin becuase they don't have it. It's just a weak psychological need. Real mean bottle up their feelings and hate themselves. But they would still deny having low self esteem. Can't we see how the idea of low self esteem would self love into a sin?

 they try turn their weaknesses into lies of supriroity


 You pulled you out of them. You just believe an unseen imaginary entity did it for you. Belief is the key. All one need do is believe that he or she is healed, out of the dark place, no longer an addict, and it is done. The next steps are up to you. Some need the psychological and imaginary god crutch because they like denying their own powers.

 They are rationalizing their character assassination. They are trying to turn self esteem into a crime and their self hatred into a virtue. No doubt this is fueling their hatred of Chrsitians. they are basically all too little zombies of hate.

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

atheist lie in action

 Throwup no 20

"I think I remember a quote from Hood where he said Christian apologists try to use his sober work in psychology to promote their magic and mumbo-jumbo. I can't remember the exact phrase, but I do..."

wow this is scary I didn't mean to post this yet. O well, I know for a fact it's not true because I asked Hood.

Monday, November 19, 2012

One of the very frew Chrsitians to have the guts to speak up

Highrigger is just about the first Chrsitain to speak up for me on CARM since the CADRE people left back in 2004. he backs me statments about ECREP.

Highrigger post 20
I am trained in mathmatics and I agre with Bayes Theorem as far as it goes. But it does not go so far as to be applied to spritual issues. How does Mathmatics have anything to do with love or faith, passions of the heart?

Metacrock is right. It is a dumb idea. The Theorem is totally misapplied.

I think I must have discovered some kind of atheist liturgy or something. They are acting like I murdered someone. It's  a major sin to say ECREE is not true. On my boards atheist oppent (but a friend) Quantum Troll actually takes me side on this one. He's a scientist. He's a Ph.D. candidate in nuero biology at a major university in Europe.

e: Bayes' Theorem

Postby QuantumTroll on Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:08 am
I'm going to start by taking Metacrock's side here, for once. As a working numerical scientist, I feel like I have a bit of weight to throw around on this subject, too ;)

I think Metacrock is right in that the claim "ECREE" with regards to the existence of God has little or nothing to do with Bayes' Theorem. The reason for this is actually clear when you look at the examples in this thread, cocaine use and cancer. If you give a random US citizen a cocaine test, the low incidence of cocaine use means that you'll get a lot of false positives. Cocaine use is an extraordinary claim, and you need a very accurate test (or several tests) in order to convincingly show cocaine use. If you go to a crackhouse, you'll probably be able to tell pretty reliably who is high at the moment without any drug test. Similarly, any particular cancer diagnosis is a rare and extraordinary claim, and the tests have limited power. But if one test is positive, you're in a cancer crackhouse, and more testing will be much more reliable. Bottom line: You need to know the prior odds of an outcome to know the reliability of a test.

We don't know the prior odds of the existence of God. We cannot apply Bayes' Theorem on this question, because we don't have any data about the existence of God, period. I think this is the heart of Metacrock's point, and in this he is correct.

A caveat: I think the existence of God is an extraordinary claim, and my intuition says that such claims require extra convincing evidence. I agree with ECREE with regards to the existence of God, but will not use Bayes' Theorem as support for this opinion.

Finally, there's the whole miracles issue, too. Here, we do know the prior odds of spontaneous recovery from various illnesses, or we can at least calculate a reliable estimate. Therefore, when someone prays and is healed, we can apply Bayes' Theorem and we do have a mathematical basis for ECREE in this context. Every argument for miracles (at Lourdes or elsewhere) that I've seen has failed to address this fundamental problem. Can Metacrock dig up a counterexample?
my response:

Re: Bayes' Theorem

Postby Metacrock on Tue Nov 20, 2012 6:33 am
I appreciate your comments a great deal man. That's super and actually talking my side, wow, mark n the wall! :D

I agree with what you say. The only thing I would add is that many atheists, not you of cousre, or Fleet, but those who are less well immersed in scinece make it seem as though belief in god is extraordinary in the sense of being cray, way out, they leave the impression that "extraordinary" means "freaky and silly and way out."

Obviously it doesn't mean that. It means different the average. soemthing like that. yet the average in terms of belief for humans is to believe in some form of deity or God.

Extraordianrily Narrow Minded Attitudes Require Extraorinary Baiting

Animal Farm

More evidence of the narrow minded refusal to think that atheist display. it's a typical day on carm so there are about a hundred examples to choose from. In this one I got a thing about whether or not ECREE is an exact rendition of the Bayes's theorem. I keep saying the thrum i sfine it's the idea that ECREE is exactly derived from it that I'm protesting. they keep saying "that's so backward no to accept Bayes. or "what do you have Bayes?"

Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
It['ECREE']'s a dumb idea. It's not logical and it's just an excuse to raise the bar for religious ideas.
'ECREE' is merely an English statement of Bayes's Theorem. A claim with a low prior probability needs a higher likelihood than a claim with a high prior in order to have the same posterior. You are not only wrong, but incompetently wrong. That's it; that's ALL 'ECREE' is saying. This is a mathematical fact. You can even see a very simple proof here.

And, contrary to what Meta claims, it is use all the fracking time. For example, let's look at drug tests. Last year, an estimated 0.5% of the general US population used cocaine. Let's assume that we have a 99% accurate test for cocaine. People like Meta will try to tell you that this means that anyone who tests positive on a random drug test has a 99% chance of having actually done cocaine. The reality, however, is that if we plug the numbers into Bayes's Theorem, we see that there's nearly a 66% chance of it being a false positive.

'ECREE' is why we never do just one test for cancer. Extraordinary claims do in fact require extraordinary evidence; this is mathematical fact.

I'm not allowed to use the image tags, but here is a good cartoon about 'ECREE':
I said:


you know you are taking what I said out of context. you are doing this on purpose becuase you can't stand the fact I just beat your previous little fortress of facts.

you have no facts. atheism is not a fact. It's junk it's a house of cards. I just blew the house apart.

You are taking it out of context because you said Bayes is a fact. I said its not a fact that it apply to all god arguments. that's nto a fact. I proved it's not a fact. you are saying the theorem is a fact, I didn't dispute that. I said it doesn't apply to everything. It doesn't it as a very limited application. I dont' know that it applies to any god arguments.
what I originally said

post 37

It's not a fact that your mathematical fact has application to my God augments. nothing in Bayes theory says "all God arguments are subject tot his argument."

that's just an example of the fortress of facts fallacy.*

*Yes I coined the term it's not an official fallacy but it is a real one.
Most of my God arguemnts are not probabilistic. that only apply to indicative arguments. most of mine are not. Doesn't apply at all to any kind of phenomenology or existentialism of deductive reasoning. .
so in other words it doesn't apply because the theory is only about probability.

But they can't stop and read the truth. They have to keep up the mockery. It's clear from the things they say they are not even reading my answers. The incredilby illogcial assertion he's making that ECREE is Bayse's theorum just put into English, therefore, since Bayse's theorem is a fact then ECREE is a fact.

It is a mathematical fact (see the proof linked in the OP) that claims with low priors need higher likelihoods than those with high priors to have the same posterior. That is ALL 'ECREE' is. It's merely a fashionable expression of Bayes's Theorem. Extraordinary claims (i.e., unlikely claims) require extraordinary evidence (i.e. greater than normal amount/quality of evidence).

The only goalposts that have been moved are by those who want to deny mathematical fact so that they can believe in magic.

No ECREE is a proven fact. By Bayes theorem Pr(H|E) = Pr(E|H) * Pr(H) / Pr(E). Therefore; Pr(H|E) ≤ Pr(H) / Pr(E)

If someone means anything other than Pr(H|E) ≤ Pr(H) / Pr(E) when they talk about ECREE, then sure maybe it's a vague subjective slogan. But this is certainly true and obviously very clear.

Let's suppose that some evidence E makes hypothesis H more likely than not. Thus;

0.5 < Pr(H|E) ≤ Pr(H) / Pr(E)
0.5 < Pr(H) / Pr(E)
Pr(H) > 0.5 * Pr(E)

They are reading it as ECREE = Bayes when in fact it's only derived from it. Bayes saying nothing about extraordinary claims for example. I question the possibly of "translating" math into english as though math is the kind of language English is. I've always been by friends in the sciences that it can't be more than rough approximation. when it is their little ideology they want to think it's 1x1, right on the money exact. I know form translating Greek and French there's no such thing as a "literal translation." All translations are approximate or interpretive or derivative. The Genius Sylor says "it's mathematically precise" meaning ECREE is periscope. that's just not possible even translating form English to French. ECREE is not mathematics. It's only partially derived from a mathematical formula. Lance is extolling the praises of the mathematical formula that doesn't prove the linguistic derivative shares the exactitude of the formula.

Then they try arguing that probability applies to miracles and can rule them out.

 Darth Pringle View Post
And I still can't see how mathematical probability doesn't apply to miracles (eg, the resurrection). If the number of people not coming back from death by miraculous means exceeds those who do then the prior probability of a "back from death miracle" claim actually having a natural cause (and thus, being mistaken) is going to be high ... even without knowing the exact numbers.

 take off the blinders and think for a change? your assumption is that it has to be automatic. Yes you are assuring so. Otherwise probability would have nothing to do with it. you have to assume that it works like a drug or medicine you get the prayer you have to be healing doesn't' work.Let's say hypothetically God does hate amputees. that's a reason why he doesn't work automatically on command to heal them. So now if you say "that means 0 probability of being healed by God for amputation tha'ts true, but that doesn't' meant that he can't do it. what he does in one case? you can't rule out that case as a miracle merely because you had a probability.

Probability doesn't' apply to certainty. going case by case we find many examples of miracles. but they have o probability. because taking it case by case there's no expectation.

you dogmatically refuse to read anything I write. read this one thing you will learn a lot.
See my essay on Doxa "Causality in Miracle hunting.Originally Posted by Lance View Post

Originally Posted by Lance View Post
The argument for Jesus' resurrection is a probabilistic argument.
no it's not. that's impossible because you can't deal with it as though it were something that has to happen on a regular basis. No reason to look for other resurrections, there though there have been some., bit's supposed to be imposable that is what a miracle is. there' only one incarnate logos who died on cross who is going to raise form the dead. Never going to happen again so there's nothing to establish a probability by.

you can't establish a probability with a one time thing.

I challenged Lance to read my article on ECREE, in two parts.

All he says is;

Bayes Theorem entails Pr(H|E) ≤ Pr(H) / Pr(E). There is nothing you can do about this. When we say extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, we mean that Pr(H|E) ≤ Pr(H) / Pr(E).
So he's not the least big willing to read the article.

notice friends, this is his way of saying I refuse to read the essay. So he's admitting yes he is too narrow minded to consider ideas off template he atheist template is the only thing he can think he doesn't' dare think ideas nt on it. that's just what ideology is.

Didn't take long for him to fail that test.
then he tries to argue it out:

Originally Posted by Lance View Post
Of course I can tell you what it means. It means that the probability of hypothesis H on evidence E is at most the prior probability of H divided by the prior probability of E.
An extraordinary claim or evidence is one which has a very low prior probability. If H is very unlikely then E is going to have to be very unlikely too, to balance it out. A small value divided by a big value is a very small value.
ahahahaha that's recursive! that's circular reasoning. think about it:

BelieverWhat is extraordinary?

Atheistit's one which has a low probability

Believer:how do we know it it has a low probability?

Atheistbecause it's extraordinary!
The whole point of saying extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof is predated on knowing what's extraordinary. that has to be known in advance it can't just be hacked in by opinion. If calculating probability for an argument is impossible ten obviously the theorem can't apply.

Originally Posted by Lntz View Post
"Atheist watch - Watching Atheist Hate Group" - this is the reason i'm not responding to the essay.

The title website shows that this is going to be a horribly biased piece of work, written for people who actually want to read nonsense about Atheists being Hateful.

Atheism = not believing in God

Being hateful is something else, and is not reliant on your belief in God.

Try presenting a more neutral piece of work, and i'm sure you'll get a better response.

so the logic ECREE is proved right because you don't like atheist watch. you still wont me to think you are not an ideologue?