What happens when you stand your gruond against atheists?

On CARM

When you stand your ground and offer empirical evidence, which they claim to seek, they just go apge and refuse to accept that it's empirical.

This thread went on for 40 posts with me answering all the arguments and demonstrating that they had no basis in criticizing them. Most of those early exchanges involved nice exchange with no temper, and me answering calmly. the issue is my studies on religious experience.I have 200 studies published in academic peer reviewed journals of psychology. They all show that those with religious experience do better across the board. that's a huge body of work documenting my arguments I've been talking about it with them for years. They never read them they've made all manner of stupid argument but never actually got a study to see what it ways and never actually made a criticism based upon what it says.

Exchange, example 1:

bigthinker

The studies are SURVEYS. Whether people agree simply means that people agree; nothing more.

Incredulity is not falsifiability. Just because you don't understand the problem of treating a survey as empirical evidence doesn't mean your studies prove what you think they prove.
Obviously I know what I'm talking about.

did you not read my answers?

(1) 91% of social scinece research is surveys--most accepted method in social scineces.
(2) they have scientific basis for them
(3) it's the only wya to know how people feel
(4) not all of them use surveys.

you did not answer answer these.


Example 2

bigthinker;

The studies are SURVEYS. Whether people agree simply means that people agree; nothing more.

Incredulity is not falsifiability. Just because you don't understand the problem of treating a survey as empirical evidence doesn't mean your studies prove what you think they prove.
Obviously I know what I'm talking about.

Meta:

did you not read my answers?

(1) 91% of social scinece research is surveys
(2) they have scientific basis for them
(3) it's the only wya to know how people feel
(4) not all of them use surveys.

you did not answer answer these.

I made a point of how in years of discussing these studies they have never read a single one. They have never made an actual methodological attack based upon any study.

exampel 3:
BT tried to claim that he has read one:
Meta:

which studies have you looked at? I remember one from the chapter in the textbook you put forth as flawed I showed that it was Hoods' exampel of a flawed study it wasn't one of the 200.

when it comes to proving that you have read them you can't name them, you can't show which ones.

the whole thread was going like this. I was giving clam friendly answers and even more detailed. than this.

example 4:

Originally Posted by bigthinker

For Meta, the closest he can get to a detectable, measurable, independently verifiable effect is long term positive effects associated with what he calls "religious experience".

Meta:

here we have another example of trying to argument from analogy. "I can show that X is wrong, and I can draw a link between X and Y, therefore Y must be wrong as well." That's fallacious becuase the links don't prove causality. Similarities are often surface appearances.

that's all we need because we are not trying to prove God exists, only that belief in God is warranted. That's the best we can do in getting at the foundation of reality. As the foundation it's too basic, as infinitive it's too big, so we cant' get empirical knowledge of such basic things.

Science is very limited in this way. We can prove the co-determinate that's all we need, and that's the same logic that scinece uses for things it can't get at directly.

bigthinker

Unfortunately religious experiences are poorly and circularly defined; typically distinguished from other experiences as an experience that produces long term changes -according to self reports. Now that's pretty vague compared to the effect of something like gravity.

Meta:
BzzzzZZZZZzzzz staw man alert! He just made up his down definition that I don't use and Hood doesn't use. He wants to forge the value of the M scale which is proved by a dozen studies in six different coteries. The definition Hood uses is that of W.T. Stace, and the M scale corroborates Stace's theory and thus proves his definition. Maslows definition and Jame's definitions are also related.That whole body of literature revolves around certain thnkers, such as William James, Abraham Maslow, Evelyn Underhill and W.T. Stace.

When the believer can produce objective, independently verifiable evidence of the existence of God that does not rely on personal belief, then the believer will have made positive progress.

Of course he's totally ignoring the fact hat I have document over and over again, that we have this. I offered the link to the text book chapter 149 times no one ever read it exact BT read a few pages and couldn't understand them.

He knows full well I've published material documenting these facts over and over again and he never comments and never acknowledges that it exists.

It's so long I'm putting it in the next post. look at part to answer to BT

all stuff he's never acknowledged exists and it's been up many times.


after about 40 posts I was doing well they started getting surly. They really began to lose it. It started with Hermit. Of course this is a tactic that I have identified many times; they cant' answer the argument so make the opponent the issue not the issues themselves. Detract from the message by making the other guy angry.

exampel of atheist incredulity:

example 1:

Originally Posted by Metacrock

*watching Bill Moyers the other day he says studies show that when people are confronted with facts and proof disproving their pet positions they just refuse to believe it. This is just a stadnards response people refuse to believe evidence.

Hermit:

Actually that pretty well describes YOUR reaction to honest, thoughtful critiques of your "200 studies" schtick.

I answer
Meta:

are you nuts? there haven't been any. come on get your head out and think. the one criticism that had potential was your finding the Borg study. that was good but I shot that down because I've prove that her scale that she used was biased and wasn't designed to do what she claimed it did. I presented evidence by the guy who invented her study he said it is not a means of determining the vanity of mystical expression. I also showed other evidence to her biases.

Now aside from that I offered the link to Hood's chapter in his text book that's the text book explanation of the studies and the M scale. only one personally actually read it and he said he couldn't understand it. I put it up 149 times one person looked.

the arguments made have been severely stupid. they range form "O tha'ts on a bibliography with something by Depock Chopra so it must be a bad study" to "that's just a survy they ask the people themselves if they were better off." That's not an argument it's not valid since most social science research is done that way.

none of the attacks have been nothing like thoughtful they have stupid, they have been clutching at straws, they've been unfair and unkind.

what about the one where the girl kept inditing she read one of the studies? it turns otu she read an article by a guy who did a study so he assumed that was the study?

get real this still should be enshrined and the shrine should be called "atheists hall of shame."

Then it starts getting ugly. Their tones began t be more and more shrill and hysterical.

Hermit:

What I have is a long history of experience with your bullshit. There's no point in trying to have a rational conversation with you about this because any interpretation of those studies which doesn't conform to your dogma will be angrily dismissed as "hateful" and "ideological" any contrary studies will be similarly dismissed or ignored and even my own personal experiences will be ignored, degraded or deemed inadequate in some way.

All of this will be accompanied by personal insults, ad hominem attacks and paranoid rants about how persecuted you are.

I made statements about the lack of methodological criticism no counter studies and so on. they began to answer that they have these things but they are not going to use them.

Electric skeptic

Why? You'll just say it's stupid, and whoever made it (and me, for thinking it's valid) are uneducated, ignorant, and stupid. That's how you roll.

he's totally ignoring the fact that most of my answer are never jsut to say "you are stupid" I always talk about the lack of methodological attack. or I answer what little methodology they talk about. Notice my answers above. They continued to answer that they have good arguments I just don't deserve to hear them.

Originally Posted by Electric Skeptic

Nobody's hiding anything. We're just stating facts.

Meta

No you are ignoring the facts. you have said no facts. your whole approach here is insinuate that some killer diller arguemnt is lurking out there but yu wont give it. that's not a fact. that's hidden facts or not having any. personally I'm betting on the latter.

Electric Skeptic

We're not going to bother making arguments that have already been made, because the only result they will have is you insulting, attacking and abusing us because we don't agree with you. That's what happens whenever anyone disagrees with you. Hermit's right.

the truth is nothing they said in this thread was anything I had not heard before. they made no new argument, documented nothing, discussed no facts but asserted their opinions with no backing. None of it was new, that's all they did do was make arguments they've already made and one's I've killed dead a hundred times.

Meta:

I'm not going to bother giving answers I've already given. I've Bearnard every BS stupid ignorant challenge and the facts are:

(1) you have not read a single study

(2) you have no methodological attacks

(3) you have no coutner studies.

those are the facts you can't challenge them. using this third rate corn ball old fashioned hype to hide your lack of evidence is not impressive.

Then they get really Really nasty:


Originally Posted by reverenddg

oh and your posturing isn't childish and conceded meta? come now.

look who is posturing. I've spent this whole threading waiting for a single valid attack it never never comes. no one will read the studies, no one here understanding social scinece research. their arguments are lame. Lame! it's stupid to say "those are just surveys." that is not a valid scientific attack it's stupid becuase 90% of social science research is surveys. the surveys not market research it's science. It's been developed. its' stupid to think that. That was back in 175 that I took social research methods and it's more true now.

please meta, the way you try to label arguments as fallacies doesn't support your claim in any way shape or form.

I must conclude you know nothing of logic. these guys most of the time argue by bad analgoy and guilt by association if you don't see that you don't know anything.

your latest site claims that atheists commit "special pleading" by accepting theoretical physic theories and not god,

No dodo I never said that. never said anything like it. learn to read. the problem is you are not bright and you don't get what you are reading because your understating is lame. you are not well educated and you really have no right to try and criticize studies you haven't read.

but the only way you can do that is by committing to fallacious arguments, and making up straw-men about peoples positions. also you seem to think that math isn't support for theoretical physics, you handwave away it by fiat even though you have no logical reason to do so.

how can they be straw men when I'm quoting actual argument with atheists form this and other boards. ignorant!

do you know what straw man is? It's not just a week argent. Its an argument you make up and attribute to your opponent. like the lie you told about the special pleading argument.

also i'm getting really tired of your asinine generalizing about atheists it is getting gratuitously sad, no, i don't accept your idiotic straw-men of atheists, i need more than math to support MV theory or string theory, because it isn't enough to me. it is still proof, but i need something more.

O brother what a hypocrite!!! atheists never never never never never never quality their assign sciildh dubm *** little attacks on Christians. Never.

blah blah blah, stop trying to mindread people meta, no one seriously thinks you can read minds, stop it, it makes you look narcissistic.

are you really so puerile that you can't figure out that when yu stay stuff it has logical consequences. that is just plain stupid. i you cay "Christians are fools" one gets the idea you don't like them.

I don't think that's too hard to figure out. Don't need to be a mind reader for that one.

I can also tell you have you never Read the the lgoic of Scientific Discovery. gee how do I do it?

if you did read it were asleep you sure didn't get it.


hey look at your reaction. just step back and look at the reaction. I spend 45 posts saying "hey I have not yet seen a lings eon of you who has read the studies and has a valid methodological argument."

to that you just go ape. I 'm so bad. I'm so mean I can't argue I'm so ignorant. I'm so stupid , ect ect. you are flaying off the handle because I sideshow you up. I'm documented what our ltitel cut of brainwashed idiots is made of> it' sobriquets. I'm Demosthenes it and you can't handle it.

your little phony world of brain washed hatred is now exposed as the bankruptcy that it is,t he intellectual bankruptcy and your mad as hell because I've exploded the myth that you sold your soul for.




this post is about electric skeptic and Hermit they way they are claiming to have good arguments that beat the studies but they are not going to make them because I'm so bad it wouldn't be worth it.



The Tide:

You should be getting angry, angry that your position has been refuted...angry that you maintain your position, even after being shown how fallacious it is.

by what? your really super into wishful thinking: since none of you has made a real methodological arguemnt, and none has read a study you have not answered any of the answers I have given above, this claim appears to be pure BS.

that' obvious you are saying that to feel better, your ideology has been exposed. your propaganda has been disproved. my arguments are based upon 200 empirical studies in scientific journals you have not one single valid argument against them.

Atheist (?):

You have 42 arguments, and 200 studies that indicate how personal religious opinions make some people feel good.

that's based upon you interpreting the facts the way you wont them to be. so obviously you are wallowing in self indulgent crap rather than making valid arguemnts. It's obvious not true since I didn't do the studies. they re pubilshed in peer reviewed journal so they have the academic stamp of validity





Atheist:

I have observed over 1,000 times that peoples claims about God are nothing more than wishful thinking.
There are, I'm sure, 100's of studies that show drugs affect the brain similar to religious experience.
I have observed 15,000+ people at a rock concert having mystical experiences.

ahahaahahahaahahah get a grip man. I really have researched theses studies. I've the bib up. the book will be in a couple of moths. It's real. I've talked to the researchers. this is the real thing. that stuff you name is just you going "I hate God I hate religion this guy is not good i hate you I'm going to pretend that I have all the stuff like he has."

well you don't.

same unknown atheist

it's not published it' snot peer viewed it's not academia. it's bs and you know it!

That's just a lie. they are all, 200 studies, peer reviewed journals

Atheists Deny the Norm of Truth: Tillich's Impied OA

Paul Tillich



Originally Posted by Metacrock

Empirical knowledge is not the only from of Knowledge.

I. Argument: knowledge is more than just empirical observation, there is a norm of truth.

Duane Olsen's argument that Tillich has an implied ontolgocal argument in the ground of being and the norm of truth.




(quote)

The indubitability of the norm of truth is shown by a reductio argument regarding the process of knowing. In different places and in different ways Tillich points out that denial and doubt in knowing presuppose the norm of truth.[xvii] I want to systematize Tillich’s reductio argument at this point to show that all major theoretical postures presuppose this norm.

We can imagine four major postures taken by a subject to any theoretical judgment. One could affirm the judgment, claiming it corresponds with reality; one could deny the judgment, claiming it does not correspond; one could doubt, question, and debate the judgment; or one could claim a decision cannot be made about the judgment. All of the options presuppose the subject’s ability to apply a correspondence-norm, or norm of truth. Certainly one must apply a norm to affirm a judgment. One must also apply a norm, however, to deny a judgment. Any negative judgment presupposes and lives from the positive bearing of a norm of truth by the subject. One cannot deny that a judgment corresponds to reality without presupposing the subject’s ability to make judgments about reality. Doubting, questioning, or debating a judgment presuppose a norm of truth as well. One could not debate the veracity of a judgment without presupposing the capacity in the debaters to determine that veracity. Doubting or questioning a judgment is only meaningful under the presupposition of a norm that gives validity to that questioning and doubting. Finally, the claim that one cannot know whether a judgment is true presupposes the bearing of a norm to determine how or why a decision cannot be made.

It is important to note that the argument for a correspondence-norm, or norm of truth, is on a different level than arguments about the specific nature of the correspondence between subject and object. The correspondence itself may be conceived in terms of naïve realism, idealism, or a multitude of positions in between. Every theory about the nature of the correspondence, however, relies on the presupposition of a correspondence-norm that would make it possible to formulate, and affirm, deny, debate, or declare uncertain that theory. Put differently, the theory of the specific nature of the correspondence between subject and object is another field of knowledge that is subject to the ultimate criterion of knowledge, which is what is disclosed in the idea of a correspondence-norm.

To claim that the capacity to apply a norm is indubitable is the same thing as saying the subject bears an indubitable awareness of truth. In other words, when one analyzes the major postures toward judgments and shows how a norm of truth is presupposed as something borne by the subject in every posture, one is pointing out an awareness of truth the subject has, though it is something the subject may overlook, especially in doubting or denying particular truths. Through the reductio argument, one focuses attention on the fact that the subject bears a norm of truth, thus raising it to conscious awareness. I speak more below about the character of this awareness, but for now I simply affirm something Tillich presupposes, which is the identity between the affirmation that the subject bears a norm of truth and the subject’s awareness of this norm.[v](closed quote)

NONAME

Duane Olsen teaches at a private Christian college. I see that a a strike against him. No more or less reputable than this guy:
(website as follows) mormonhistoricsitesfoundation.org/about/baugh.htm

Because he can compare Olsen to Joseph Smith that proves he's no good? Even though the two have nothing to do with each other. Olsen's knowledge of philosophy is excellent, professional and graduate level and Smith's was non-existent, we are still supposed to put Olsen on the level of Smith, why? because the all knowing anti-intellectual says to.

argument from analogy, and a bad one.

this is obviously going to far and I have to say this in the strongest terms. This is nothing more than bigotry and a refusal to think masked as some sort of religious indignation but at beast it's nothing more than incredulity at work. I've seen this atheist gimmick at work before: shut down any sort of evidence that that counts against one's position on some made up grounds such as "this perosn i the person that he is so that disqualifies him becasue he disagrees with me."

Look, you are here to argue with religion. So instead of arraign with a regions person, who knows his philosophy, you just go "this guy is religious and religious is bad so therefore I'm excused form listing he's wrong a priori tart's all there is. amen.

where's the proof. the proof is he's not agreeing with me. then when I say "you are an ideologue he gets angry and says "O how dare, I've told you before there is o atheist ideology. Dismissing arguments because they are by your opponents is nothing more than ideolgoical move! scream until you are blue that you don't have an ideology then you make moves likes an ideologue. There is no difference in saying "I am NOT going to listen to him because he's a religious person" and saying "I'm not going to listen to him because he's on the other side. which is just saying I"m not going to think.

I wont listen to him because he's a Jew, or the a communist, or he's black, or he's white, she's a feminist. If these rub you the wrong way, that's just what you are doing, you are not doing it against a group you hate, so you think it's cool. This what ideologues do! that's ideology!!!!

The really puerile thing about it is if you actually read the article and if you understood what it says you would see that he knows his stuff. So an argument that being form a small private Christian college means he doesn't know what he's talking about is just wrong headed, he does. The fact of the matter is if the fundies at his school took what he says seriously they would have to take a giant step away form fundamentalism.

Understanding Tillich is liberating form fundamentalism a prori. If to disagree with it is one thing, but even if you disagree just to undersatnd it requires a level of education such that one is less of a fundie than before. It's quite self defeating for atheists dismiss religoius thinkers a prori just for being religious. That's what's wrong with the accommodation argument.




Noname Again:

"Basically the quote from Olsen in just word salad that could be used to rationalize anything. I see this as an argument against rather than for Christianity simply because this level of mental gymnastics needs to be resorted to. Past experience tells me that if the word salad was put in plain language it would appear silly and Christians would get upset."

This is a self contradictory statement. this statement tells us two things. It tell us that he doesn't understand the Olsen article, and that his reaction to ti is mere knee jerk becasue he doesn't undersatnd it.

He calls it mental gymnastics but that just proves he doesn't understand it because it's quite cogent and if he really understood it he would see that. I see it, others whose opinions I respect and who have graduate level knowledge have read it and this so too.

Obviously he doesn't understand it. Then to say "word salad" all that means is he can't follow an arguemnt that's made at an academic level.

these guys who are so anti-knowledge and anti-intellectual who hate big words and think up insulting epithets for knowledge and erudition, (like "word salad" using big word whut I doesn't know) they are decrying their ignorance but we mustn't make them feel that they don't know anything becuase that's insulting. never mind how insulting it is that he refuses to consider an opponent just becuase he is on the other side, or that he refuses to learn or the follow the issues.

We must cater to the anti-intellectual becuase the school system has raised them to believe they are exempt form having to learn anything and their sense of entitlement is through the roof.

Metacrock's version is much clearer:

Originally Posted by Metacrock

1) Tillich understand’s God to be the unconditioned, eternal, transcendent, ground of all being;

That is fine I think it is an unfortunate use of the word God

Originally Posted by Metacrock

(2) Truth is an unconditioned norm based upon the correspondence theory; truth is correspondence between subject and object.

Truth is not unconditional. Is the man handsome?

noname

Yes, truth is correspondence between subject and object. That is all it is. Very simple, yet often subjective. Truth is fuzzy.

Originally Posted by Metacrock

(3) The norm of truth is self verifying sense; truth as a concept cannot be untrue unless the concept of truth is affirmed in contrast to the possibility of untruth. Any particular truth can be doubted but not the concept of truth itself.

Noname

I disagree. Truth, as you stated above is a correspondence between subject and object. It can still be subjective. Is that car expensive? For me yes for you no. Is that math problem difficult?

The argument doesn't say there's never a question about particular facts. It's talking about the concept of truth itself. To say truth is relative requires a concept of the larger notion of truth to compare to. Otherwise you don't have a sense of contradiction.

Originally Posted by Metacrock

(4) Due to this unconditioned, necessary, and indubitable nature the norm of truth is understood to be transcendent of subject and object, and transcendent of any particulars of nature.

Noname

Your argument has fallen apart at this point. Even if you could provide an example of some indubitable and necessary nature of truth it could quickly be exposed as dependent on human language and that is a whole other can of worms.

He just supplied me with that knowledge. He's saying my concept of subject object is wrong. That means there has to be a clear universal concept of truth in order to argue that some notion is false. Otherwise there's nothing co compare to. Truth and falsehood can only be compared amide a background that acknowledges the possibility of truth and error. If all truth is realtive you can't say one idea is false and another true.

Originally Posted by Metacrock

(5) The transcendent unconditioned is equated with God in Tillich's understanding of being itself (from 1); the existence of such a norm is demonstrated in the nature of the norm of truth.

Noname

That is fine but ultimately unconvincing.

If you are not concentrating.

Atheists Can Be Peranoid

The hate group aspect of atheism is obvious. All we have to do is look at how they treat people. Here they accuse me of maknig hate speech statements because I say they have no data for their anecdotal attack on Christian Character.

Originally Posted by Metacrock

atheists accuse me of hate speech.

N manning says:

http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...-their-actions

Is this hate speech:

(Meta)"That's why I don't bother with God arguments anymore. I went on the kick about realization. That wasn't concrete enough to shut them up. I think atheists have a hugely irrational standard of what they would accept as proof. they don't want proof and they are not going to accept the facts."


I think so.

when I say that the assertion that Chrsitians evade responsibility for their actions has no data to back it up they allege this is hate speech.

Decypher says:

"Must be more hate speech!! And from a Christian!! Even the Christians hate the Christians now... Wow! Metacrock, things are even worse than you think!"

So far this is not very reasonable. they are talking ordinary arguments as hate speech for no real reason other than that I said them. Here's definitions of hate speech.

Definitions of hate speech

U.S. Legal.com

http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-speech/

"Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women."

"Legal Definitions are provided for public use and knowledge. If you don't find a definition you need, please request it.

US Legal, Inc Provides legal information in the form of Question & Answers, Definitions, Articles, Blogs and Reporting on various subjects in the United States legal field. You can also find an attorney or buy legal forms for Pro Se representation. US Legal seeks to simplify and break down the barriers to legal information."


Dcionary:

hate speech
n.
Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group.



religion is specifically included in the targets for hate. hate speech can be dieted at religious people about their religion.

what is the point of saying that the whole Christian religion is based upon avoiding responsibility?

Decypher:

But do Christians have a whole religion based around them avoiding responsibility? Don't Christians want to "use Jesus" to get out of responsibility for their actions?

he doesn't use any stats, he doesn't have an data to base it on. It's his pinon based upon anecdotes, and he thinks this is not going to incite anger?

I find it extremely offensive an insulting it's a damned lie. Atheists have contracted an elaborate set of moral excuses to keep themselves from having to admit they are guilty of anything.

this is just an observation based upon looking at atheist arguments. every single one of them tries to deny the basis of sin or hurting someone or being wrong or having to make up for a wrong.

does any atheist on this board ever propose an ethical system where one must be sorry for what one has done and try to make up for it?

nothing is more bigoted than saying "all of this group is like this" despite having no evidence to back it up.

I added:

what we need to do is stop stereotyping each other and use research to valid constructive criticisms.

they went on to define this as more hate speech!

Javaman:

Drop the back-handed 'compliment' schtick along with the childish and uncalled-for false accusations, and you may be onto something.

what backhanded complement? to have a backhanded complement one must make the appearance of a complement. I sure can't see where I did that.

Discourse with athests on the Nature of Knowledge.

This is from an exchange on carm some time back. It begins with a discussion about phenomenology. they are still too lazy to read the Stanford article I keep linking to. When I mention it as an alternative to scinece as the only form of knowledge they begin treating it as though it's auditioning to replace science as a new kind of scinece as though there can only be one kind of knowledge and any other would have to be a copy of scinece.



Originally Posted by TeabagSalad View Post

So it is science but not science, having been trained and worked in science I have a fairly clear idea of what science actually is. Would you care to explain how it differs from science?
did you read the article form Standford? That should explain exactly what phenomenology is.

Here is the first paragraph (since you wont read it) it says exactly what Phenomenology is:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

"Phenomenology is the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view. The central structure of an experience is its intentionality, its being directed toward something, as it is an experience of or about some object. An experience is directed toward an object by virtue of its content or meaning (which represents the object) together with appropriate enabling conditions."

You can do that as a philosopher or a scientist. you can do it in a systemic way using scientific methods or you can do it as a philosopher. But the major difference in Heideggarian phenomenology (which is different from Husserl's) would be to allow the sense data to dictate the categories into which you group phenomena.

You can't do that in scinece because scinece is the preconceived selection of categories.

So that's one major difference in phenom as philosophy and Phenom as science.

Science provides us with an understanding of the universe because it is based in and supported by evidence. From my perspective any form of philosophy provides us with ideas, nothing more.
But your evdience is selective. you use the method to include what backs your ideology and you use reductionism to exclude what you don't want. That's why you don't accept religious experience studies because you "I can't have that being scinece that would mess up my ideology of fact-based anti-Godism." why can't you see these words on the screen? why do you ignore what I'm saying? I've these words 100,000 times and you are still saying the same slogans without thinking about what they mean!

You are not allowing the sense data to shape the categories you are forcing them into categories you want it to be in.

Teabag

Until a philosophical idea is supported by evidence it can be dismissed without evidence just as easily.

That's an ideolgoical answer. It what the ideologue says when he's doing damage control.


There are all kinds of philosophical evidence. I've given of it over and over again.

A cannot be non A same place/time

A is contradicted by not A

therefore, not A is not the answer

that's evdience. it can be, depends upon the situation.
you don't want it be evidence because it proves what you want proved. So you just pretend it's not evidence.e you screen out the evidence you don't like and pretend you are doing scinece. It's called 'reductionism.'

make up all sorts bs to cover it and pretend like it's a valid method. its' called "losing the phenomena."

anything can be philosophical evidence. You can use physical evidence in philosophical argument. you can use logic. you can use emotion, anything can be evidence it depends upon the case, and the rules. The rules can be discussed they are not just anything you wish you have to think them through.

Teabag

Once however it is supported by structured evidence it becomes knowledge - but also, by virtue of the fact that it is supported by evidence it also becomes part of the scientific understanding and this science.

Knowledge is anything you know! anything given in sense data is Knowledge. science doesn't control sense data.

That is fascism! It's only knowledge if it fits my method. It's only knowledge if it backs my ideology and my views--can't you see how incredibly fascist and controlling that is? do you not see what you are doing? my God all your doing is trying to control minds. You are saying 'you may not view the world as you view it you can only accept the world as I say it's true."



Look, anything I read think or say is knowledge. My mother loved me that's knowledge I have knowledge of what love is, that is knowledge. you cant' tell me it's not knowledge just because it doesn't come through your little jaundiced method that set up in advance to bless your ideology and God hated to screen out my values and what I want.



there is a yellow flower in my back yard, it makes me feel good to see it. that is knowledge. It may not be major knowledge, it may not be important knowledge but it is knowledge none the less. Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger and "My kinsmen Major Molenoux" by National Hawthorne are both American irritation myths. that is knowledge. I don't care if you exclude it from your reading list, you can't make it not be knowledge just because it doesn't come from your silly little ideological deceit.

the literary concept of initiation myth, or any other literary knowledge, is knowledge! "The heart" is a metaphor for the center of desires, is knowledge!

Teabag

Erm...I have lived and worked in Europe and as far as I can tell there is little or no difference between the way in which European philosophers thing about science. It's still hypothesis, experiment and theory.

I don't see much evidence that you know jack about philosophy. Do you even know there is a difference between Brit/American and Continental philosophy? That's just fundamental. If you don't know that you don't know anything.

Teabag

I am not sure what you are trying to say here as that is not a proper sentence (can you see now why taking care of what you write is important?). I am fairly well versed in physics what with having a degree in it and having worked in a University physics department.
you have a degree in verifying what you want verified and excluded what you want to exclude. You have a degree in trying to control other people's ability to apprehend reality.

Originally Posted by TeabagSalad View Post

I was going to write a long and detailed answer that addressed all of your points but the further I got into you post the more offensive you became and the less inclined I was to want to continue the discussion.

That's how you deal with arguments you can't answer and passion for truth that you can't match.


Teabag

I read the article you posted from Stanford and it was very enlightening and interesting. After that you just became more and more offensive. Until you got to the point where you were just being rude.

why? Because I don't like being told everything I've read is non-knowledge and only someone that had your education and your beliefs and criteria knows anything worth calling "knowledge?" that's not insulating at all is it. When I say it to you it is, you have say to me it's rational hu?

Teabag

I will address one point. You make the comment that I reject the studies on religious experience because you say that I think it would mess with my ideology. This is not the case, I do not reject the studies but I reject the way in which you interpret them.

now explain why it is the the major researcher who wrote the M scale and several other major figure in the feild say my interpretation is right? I have at least three major researchers who did major studies in that 200 and they all say I got it right.

you haven't read one so how can you even know?

The studies quite clearly show that for the most part "religious experience" can be beneficial to the well being of a human. You go on to use these to promote the idea that there must be something "supernatural" granting this benefit.

Now teabag here is one of your major misunderstandings. I do not say that the studies prove supernatural. I don't say the experiences are supernatural. I say the experience are exactly what the term supernatural was originally about. The experiences are the supernatural! What you understand he supernatural to be is not the supernatural! see? you have the wrong concept. you don't use the right concept. What I say about the studies meaning is totally different than what you think I'm saying because you have hte wrong idea about that SN is.

This is a massive assumption and dismisses the possibility that the benefit is purely psychological.
No it's not. That might be the case if what you think SN means was what I'm saying the studies mean. Since that's not the Case then your point is moot.

why do you think I quote one of the researchers, Abraham Masclow in my signature? read what he says there.

"Anyone who cannot perceive the sacred, the eternal, the symbolic, is simply blind to an aspect of reality, as I think I have amply demonstrated elsewhere (54), and in Appendix I, fromPeak Experience"

--Abrham Maslow

(sacred, eternal, symbolic=SN)


He was an atheist. he' snot speaking of ESP and Remote viewing when he says if you can't see the SN you are blind. He's saying the Experiences themselves are the SN.

That means the existence of the experience proves the SN a prori, but not in the form you think it takes.

As an atheist one of the most difficult and stressful things to deal with is the fact that when you die that is it, quite a few of us worry about that quite a lot and it can be very depressing.
Most atheists deny that. I've always known its true because I was an atheist. I suspect it's also true that most atheists are scared to death about hell. But atheists deny this.

Religion on the other hand often promises eternal life or reincarnation (etc) thus removing that worry thus making people happier. People are amazing things and all they need to do great things is to put their mind to it, there doesn't need to be a supernatural power to make it happen just removal so self doubt - something religion is quite good at.
you are contradicting yourself. Obviously. Since belief in SN is motivating the experiences they are what lead to life transformation and remove that fear of death (the studies show it does) then obviously you do need it! that's just prove a prori all you are really saying is "I refuse to accept this.

since the experiences constitute exactly what the original mystics said the supernatural is, they do prove a priori. Even if it's just chemicals in your head it would still be superatnural beacuse they orignally said the SN is!


As for the rest of your post....well if you had been polite I might have bothered to respond to it at length. However I'll just post this link as I think it illustrates my point quite well:

http://www.xkcd.com/808/
But you are not being fair because you trying "politely" to control the theater of argument that to the text that I don't know anything because things I study aren't knowledge. No who has spent a life time of learning is going to sit still for that.


Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post To HRG

I am really amazed that an adult, presumably who went to college doesn't know about the metahpr the heart in relation to feelilngs and inner life of the mind. It's silly.How could this be. How did you go through not knowing about this concept?

HRG!

I know very well about the metaphor. That does not mean that it should be used for vague phrases like "inner life of the mind".

Isn't it time that we stopped referring to the views of people who lived 2000 years ago and thought that the brain is just a cooling device ?

So telling, the atheist thinks the inner life of the mind is a veg phrase that hold no meaning for him. That's because they don't think. They just spout slogans form the template. The attitude toward timeless truth< "they didn't nkow some obscre fact about scinece so they can't know anything. But he's just as wrong about the brain becuase he totally ignores the top down causation evidence that proves the brain/mind distinction.

A Lesson in Arguing with ATheist "Greasie Debaters"

Here's an exchange that is instructive. Blondie is continuing his character assignation/disinformation camp again against me. This consists of treating everything I say as though it was a doge of his previous answers, when in reality he has not answered the previous argument that I made.

posts 4, then 9-11

Originally Posted by blondie View Post

#4 is an argument against your position. There are lots of different gods and some religions have no gods at all.

Actually all of the examples are bogus. No one cane agree on what the Bible says, I have shown you dozens of times that "mystical" experiences are in no way limited to religion and deductive reasoning leads to atheism.

my answer to these which has gone unanswered:


your arguments are silly and ignorant as usual.

(1) no 4 is not agaisnt my position. you refuse to listen and you can't understand it anyway. This is my position not yours. you are working from stereotypes you think in stereotypes rather than actual reasoning.

It's the basis for Anthropocentric universalism. It's based upon the universal nature of mystical experience, the common core thesis. Take the names and references to doctrines out and just describe the experiences they are all describing the same thing.

(2) The assertion that one can agree no the bible that applies to all form of knowledge and every book and all ideas. pointing that out is useless. that's like saying "the lights are on in this room." So what? That's just par for the course.

then he comes on talking like I didn't answer what he just said: This is the very next post.

Originally Posted by blondie

I've corrected you on these issues time and time again.

Meta
Notice no mention of what I said abobve labled (1) and (2). no mention of studies no mention of what I said at all. He starts speaking as though what I said was evasive and didn't respond in reality if you look above I answered exactly both his comments which he doesn't respond to at all!
(still speaking to him:)

You never defend them or address the objections. You just restate your bogus assertions again.

you are full fo it. all you ever do is make groundless remakes with nothing to back them up and when I site source you say "your sources are always bad and must never taken seriously" hen you don't say why you just dispense the truth from on high. you never have counter evidence and you never deal with methodology.

I just answered your crap on issue 4 you have not responded, this is not a response.

your comments are misleading becasue they imply that I somehow didn't respond when in fact you did not respond.

Just the way they do it. forget the facts. Just pretend I didn't answer at all and forge ahead speaking as though your correcting something in reality it's you are didn't respond. "Forge" is a good term (forge ahead) because this the action of someone who doesn't care for truth is not concerned with learning.

This is what you must do to handle these guys. you have to coutner-assert and constantly sum up what's been said so far. cut and paste previous responses to show they have not answered it.

The way atheists think about God is alarming: this is the worst of hard after 13 years of posting

CARM (where else?)post no 20 by Hunble thinker

the original issue was that God's moral judgment is in a better position than ours to know right and wrong. Right and wrong are based upon God's very nature. The atheist argues that is special pleading. That seemed wired and they didn't explain it. after pressing I find it's because they are claiming that to assert that God is not subject to the same limitations of humanity is special pleading. This is not really Germaine because special pleading innovates violation of a rule of logic or some rule of man made origin not merely the recognition that some aspect of reality is more improtant, smarter, more enduring, more powerful, or more "right" than another.

Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
that's utterly silly. to say that believing that God is more powerful than a man and more intelligent than make is special pleading is is idiotic. that's like saying belief that white dwarfs are hotter than red giants is special pleading.

HT:

Not it's not. Stars classified as white dwarfs have been evidenced to be hotter than red giants. No such thing can be claimed about God

Meta:
That doesn't mean there aren't other ways to understand that God is more popwerful than humans. That's a foundatoinal assumption in the concept of God. That's the whole point of belief; being "more powerful" is not the issue but being the basis of reality is. So if we can't say that the basis of reality is more infinite, smarter, more enduring, more power, better equipt to understand things, then we can't say anything. It's as though they have never heard of the idea of God before. They are so skeptical of everything they even challenge the most foundational assumptions like up and down.

Of course my example of stars was meant to be sarcastic. That stars are the objects of empirical observation and God is not does not defeat the analogy because it's still an example of some known being ignored. If we can't know that God is in a better position to know morality than we are then we can't know anything.

I had already posted documentation form logicians to show that special pleading invovles violation of a rule. Special pleading is about violating a rule that one expects to apply in all other cases and then pleading that "but my thing is a special case."

The Nizkor Project:
"The Fallacy of Special Pleading"

Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
2. Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
3. Therefore A is exempt from S.

The person committing Special Pleading is claiming that he is exempt from certain principles or standards yet he provides no good reason for his exemption. That this sort of reasoning is fallacious is shown by the following extreme example:

1. Barbara accepts that all murderers should be punished for their crimes.
2. Although she murdered Bill, Barbara claims she is an exception because she really would not like going to prison.
3. Therefore, the standard of punishing murderers should not be applied to her.

This is obviously a blatant case of special pleading. Since no one likes going to prison, this cannot justify the claim that Barbara alone should be exempt from punishment.

From a philosophic standpoint, the fallacy of Special Pleading is violating a well accepted principle, namely the Principle of Relevant Difference. According to this principle, two people can be treated differently if and only if there is a relevant difference between them. This principle is a reasonable one. After all, it would not be particularly rational to treat two people differently when there is no relevant difference between them. As an extreme case, it would be very odd for a parent to insist on making one child wear size 5 shoes and the other wear size 7 shoes when the children are both size 5.

It should be noted that the Principle of Relevant Difference does allow people to be treated differently. For example, if one employee was a slacker and the other was a very prodictive worker the boss would be justified in giving only the productive worker a raise. This is because the productive of each is a relevant difference between them. Since it can be reasonable to treat people differently, there will be cases in which some people will be exempt from the usual standards. For example, if it is Bill's turn to cook dinner and Bill is very ill, it would not be a case of Special Pleading if Bill asked to be excused from making dinner (this, of course, assumes that Bill does not accept a standard that requires people to cook dinner regardless of the circumstances). In this case Bill is offering a good reason as to why he should be exempt and, most importantly, it would be a good reason for anyone who was ill and not just Bill.

These atheists think belief in God is special pleading becasue God doesn't obey the rules. that' why I used the example of stars. Stars fit the descriptions of the laws of physics and yet some are different than others. The real point is that physical objects don't conform to man made rules such as ethical norms. Thus God's understanding of ethical norms would have to be transcendent of man and his extra human abilities are not violations of any rule.

HT:

There's no rule that says He isn't. (on a par with humans)

Meta:

Yes, there is. It's the rule of what the term God means.

HT:

People claim that without warrant to conveniently support their argument. One could just as easily claim that He is simply treated as a super man, but a man nonetheless, but you obviously would not accept that. This is the "upshot" you are talking about. Why don't you understand that?

Meta:
Essentially he's saying that I made up the idea that God is better than humans in order to avoid the encouragements of atheist argument. This is what is so increeduably stupid, and diabolical because it completely obscures the origin of religious belief the reason for understanding a concept of God in the first place. Its' also excessively ignorant because the concept of God goes back to a point sometime bewteen the stone age and the bronze age. So sometime before 3000BC people started talking about "God." That's just what we know from writing. For all we really know Neanderthal may have been talking about "the great spirit." Does he really imagine that people in 3000bc had to worry about athiest arguments of special pleading? It's a pretty safe assumption they did not. This sort of obfuscation and ignorance is just priceless. not to know this is so alarming.

we could debate the reasons why people came up with the idea of God, whatever the reason, to explain nature or the sense of he numinous, is sure as hell was not because they thought they could do more than God. It sure as hell was not to answer some atheist argument.

whatever else it had to do with it basically had to do with feeling the presence of something grater than themselves. obviously. People come to believe in God because they come to believe that there is something greater than themselves. It's foundational to the whole concept. Just th notion that God is eternal and created the universe has to put him ahead of man. Can this "humble thinker" create a universe? If we put it in the crass terms. Never mind all that foundation of reality jazz, can you create a universe? are you eternal? Not just creating but from scratch no less.

This is such an affront to reason and a transgression against the foundational concepts of Western thought one might just think of it as "satanic."

Atheism is Ant-Intellectual

Originally Posted by Metacrock

I did clarify them.
I defined all of it. some of it is in the op. why can't you just read the OP better? how many times do I have to keep defining it?

depth of being

being is more than just the surface issue of the existence of a particular object. In other words it's an ontological category. Being= existence in relation to the big picture and "depth" refers to both psychological and existential diversity and its relationship to the big picture.

...
Graham

I've said all of this before. what about these idea do you not get?

This is exactly what bothers us. When you give definitions like this, it gives the awful impression that you prefer to confuse people. You apparently get a feeling of intellectual superiority whenever you craft a definition that's incomprehensible. But these definitions are textbook examples of obscurantism - they are designed to sound deep without having much content. Also, you shouldn't pretend that the only reason that you're the only one who understands yourself is because everybody else is unread and uneducated. (My degrees are in philosophy and mathematics, in case you were planning on claiming that i'm not well-read enough to understand you) There are plenty of people on this site who are well-read in philosophy, so why is it that you're the only one using such nebulous language? Anyway, let's see how well you understand yourself:

atheists seem to be totally anti-intellectual. I could make the very same criticism about al the stuff they aer into. you science texts don't' read like obscurantism? that's obviously a case of a discipline that's guarded by it's own little secret code.

it is stupidly stupid to expect an academic discipline not to develop its own parlance., and more stupidly stupid to expect a student of some disciplined not to speak in that way.

I admit that my terminology in that kind of arguemnt is very specialized but that's to be expected if they know they dealing an academic. HRG (Hans Reginold Grum the mathematician) just uses math tmers and drops the names of obscrure mathematicians all the time and they swoon and think he's so wonderful ad make him their guru.

They are totalitarian, they only think what the group thinks. They are anti-intellectual because they have to stop independent thought. The joke the absurd joke of the "free thinker."

I understand that the terms I'm using are obscure. I did define some of them and will if asked. The thing is he didn't say just "I don't know those terms." he said "big words = plot to confuse." that's just not the way an intellectual thinks.

Answering Brap on Software analogy

Meta said:"I think in the computer world there is a useful distinction between soft ware and hard ware. The program is not the monitor."

Our friendly neighborhood space alien* visiting earth has commented on the software analogy I used in answering brain mind issue:

BRAP

I agree that the distinction between hardware and software is very useful. But it's useful because it would be impractical, not impossible, to have that distinction. It would obviously be very difficult andy cumbersome to describe the arrangement of those magnetic bits or those surface imperfections in terms of their physical properties ("hardware") instead of in terms of what they do ("software"). But it could be done, so it seems to me like software reduces to something physical. The word "software" is a shorthand way of describing something physical.

I can't believe you are harping on this. the original idea is some phenomena (ie consciousness) is thought to originate as a side effect of brain chemistry. This is like thinking the math problem we might see displayed on the screen of a monitor originate in the monitor and are just soemthing monitor does on its own until you hit it with a bat and break it. In reality the math is part of a word processing program lie a word doc that's written by someone who did not make the monitor and it can be saved on a disk and used on another computer if he do bash the monitor. It relay in fact has nothing to do with the monitor accept the monitor enable us to access it. That's the real point here is access and how we can be fooled about the role of the brain in accessing consciousness. The point of course is that the simplsitic athist answer "If you hit someone in the head it changes their consciousness" is not proof that consciousness is reduce able to brain function.

For you to go off on this tangent is not useful.


Brap:

The word "book" is a shorthand way of describing a physical object that consists of mostly paper and ink (before ebooks, anyway). I believe words like "mind" and "consciousness" are shorthand ways of describing what the brain does.

that's begging the question. to make hat assumption you have to accept a prior assumption not in evidence, ie the issue being debated, thus making it a question begging.

Brap:

Since I have four or five books about the mind, consciousness, and the brain sitting on my table right now, patiently waiting for my eyes to focus on the ink between their covers which will then lead to a series of events resulting in physical changes within my brain, there's no point in my getting too much deeper into this topic. I hope my current knowledge on this subject will seem infantile to me in the near future.

This is not your usual quality of reasoning. Are you trying to insinuate that becuase being expose to a text will change your consciousness then there's no distinction between brain and mind? That doesn't follow.

Brap

For now, I think the hardware/software analogy holds, although the brain/mind relationship is orders of magnitude more complicated. But there was a time in history when people thought it would never be possible to describe how the stars got in the sky, or how the earth was formed, or how humans could have evolved from other species. History seems to indicate there may not be anything that is impossible to know.

Argument from analogy. that doesn't back up reductionism. The answer about the stars doesn't lend credence to reductionism.


________________

*Brap is a sometime regular commenter on Metacrock's blog was his original story, the he was a space alien visiting earth and asking questions. it allowed him to use the anthropological technique called "playing the stranger" which means asking "stupid" questions that everyone "knows" the answer to to make us realize we don't know all the answers we think we do. He's kind of dropped that over the years but it was a great come on in the beginning.

"Blondie" Lies about My Honesty With Evidence.

ON CARM in an exchange on the moral argument:

Originally Posted by Metacrock

you don't understand the moral argument. I'm not surprised. this is the kind of third rate attempt we get when we are content to stop with the surface of level of ideolgoical sloganizing.

I understand the moral argument.

Blondie:

I doubt you do because you have never been able to defend any position.

I still remember when you pulled a quote from some quy off the Internet and actually went in and changed a word to make is sounded like he supported your point. When I caught you you said I was stupid and that you we're modifying it or something and I was too dumb to know what that meant. I have never seen anyone do anything so nakedly dishonest and shameful on one of these forums.

when challenged he can't come across with the skinny.

Originally Posted by ferengi

Evidence please.

Even if it were true - you cannot say what he did was wrong - because your feelings are not a basis for a moral law - objective or otherwise.

Blondie:

In you subjective opinion because, like so many Christians, you have a broken moral compass.

Like I said. People that believe in objective morality often end up justifying things we all believe to be wrong. Atheists just end up getting tongue tied or saying human happiness or something is the foundation for morality.

several things to notice:

(1) I have repeated remakes that I don't argue for objective ethics I think that is not a valid concern of major ethicist such as Kant, ect. so I don't use it.

(2) the fact that tries to stick me with it shows (a) he has never actually paid attention to any of my arguments. (b) I've denied over and over that I"m into objective ethics (c) he clearly doesn't care about truth, he thinks in stereotypes the real facts of a situation are secondary to him.

(3) the real issue is his bid to assassinate my charter. This twister little guy is a street fighter. He goes for the jugular. he knows my work as a scholar is improtant to me so tha'ts what he tries to destroy from day one. He began attacking my scholarship and my reserach ability (which are so clearly better than since he used 100 year old articles in documentation about Lourdes) That's what he's out to destroy is the understanding that I'm a scholar and that's what I'm good at. He's lied in many ways to try and destroy that reputation.

(4) I don't care that most atheist her hate my guts, I don't care if you think you have a valid reason, which you don't. I don't give a damn. I understand why I fight back against your bullying I understand why can't admit that you bully.

I will now allow this aspect of it to be destroyed without taking the character assassin down with me.


(5) please notice how totally unfair this is to make this kind charge and not have any evidence. He could be totally making this up. I'm willing to think he's just not a very good researcher so he doesn't understand something, or it was typo and it's too good to pass up.

a mistake that plays so into his hands is too good for him to not use somehow.

think of the unfair nature of it to say that and not have proof. It's just destructive he could lie about it so easily. If no one cares that it's just and someone is being hurt unfairly then its so easy to do. what are you going to do when someone does to you?


If there was any reality to it he would at least have a name. he doesn't offer any kind of info. We don't know when it happened, what the issue was no idea.

I's so obviously just propaganda.

when someone demands that he makes good he just plays off of stereotypes and general hatred for Chrsitians.