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.Meta:
Obviously I know what I'm talking about.
did you not read my answers?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.
(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.
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.the whole thread was going like this. I was giving clam friendly answers and even more detailed. than this.
when it comes to proving that you have read them you can't name them, you can't show which ones.
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.
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.
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
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.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.
All of this will be accompanied by personal insults, ad hominem attacks and paranoid rants about how persecuted you are.
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
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
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.
your latest site claims that atheists commit "special pleading" by accepting theoretical physic theories and not god,
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.
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.
blah blah blah, stop trying to mindread people meta, no one seriously thinks you can read minds, stop it, it makes you look narcissistic.
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
No comments:
Post a Comment