Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Loftus Is Projecting Again

Below in no particular order are what I consider the ten marks (or characteristics) of a deluded person. I think even some Christians will agree with some of them. You might want to consider from this checklist how many of them apply to you. To the degree that more of them apply then the more likely you are deluded by your faith. Now it's quite possible than Christians can be deluded and yet their faith is true, in the same sense that a person might be brainwashed or indoctrinated into believing the truth. But the point is that if you're deluded then you have no reason to believe.

A deluded person is more likely than not one who...

1) Was born and raised into his or her religious faith. Just taking the odds at face value this is non-controversial and undeniable given the number of religions propagated around the globe and adhered to with utter and complete confidence as the one true faith.
By that logic someone who is born into a particular culture is more likely to be deluded than one born outside of any culture. That's practically no one. Religion is basically cluture. Why would someone raised in a partuclar view point be anymore deluded than coming to it form anther view point. Sure the outsider would have criticism the insider doesn't see but he would also have biases form his own culture and his own view point.

What assumptions is Loftus making bout religion anyway? He's assuming htat it's delusion to begin with. That's his given.

2) As an adult never adopts nor cultivates the adult attitude of doubt. All adults must revisit the religious faith taught to them by their parents, since #1 above is undeniably true. That means they must doubt. Doubt is the adult attitude.
Atheist love to laud their childish doubt. they think this "an adult trait" it's nothing more than cynicism. The form of doubt atheists imbibe is not true doubt. Atheist nourishes all negativism and cynical hate of hope. Real dobut is a shadow that vanishes in sunlight. The adult thing is to be well adjusted in one's cluture and to understand it's short commings while at the same time knwoing the strengths it offers and how to come to peace with it's problems. That's the only way to rotationally seek solutions.

Atheist do no allow a rational seeking of solutions becuase they demand hatred of religion. They want allow an answer to be fond answers are delusions and must be resisted. Because atheists must nurture doubt they can't allow solutions and answers to work. They can't allow answers to suggest themselves. Above all else doubt but be preserved and feed and nurtured as a primary value.

Joseph Campbell said "cynicism appears as insight to the cowardly mind." This is a profound observation that I have seen with the atheist a million times. They must preserve doubt and keep it growing they must deny answers. Cynicism seeks to snuff out answers. The cowardly mind fears risk. Thus the coward sees cynicism as insight becuase it gives him an excuse not to try.

3) Never reads widely or is exposed to other points of view in the media. I'm talking about non-fiction works about the sciences, different cultures, different faiths, and those written by skeptics or non-believers. To escape from being deluded believers should read books that are written by people within different cultures and faith communities, and watch programs on the History Channel, National Geographic Channel, Discovery Channel, PBS, 60 Minutes, Dateline, and yes, YouTube.

Atheists on message boards are the most illiterate and badly read band of know nothings I've ever seen. How many times have I documented atheist saying "I don't need to read theology because i know it's stupid?" Bigoted anti-intellectual don't confuse me with the facts. Look at the cowardly and stupid way they deal with the M scale. they jsut refuse to accept that it's good scinece even in the face of quote from experts in the field saying "Hood revolutionized the field" they still just mock and ridicule as though it's total crap.

4) Does not travel widely including travel into different cultures. A deluded person only experiences a small slice of the pie. One must experience the world to see how others live. The more the better.

I've been to Nicaragua. I bet Loftus hasn't been there.

5) Stays within the social confines of like-minded religious people. The Amish are the extreme examples of this. Many believers only have believing friends. Even if believers cannot travel the world they can still step outside their social grouping to meet other people who think differently. Most believers do not trust people of different faiths or non-believers. Seek them out. Attend a freethinker's group meeting. Get to know them. Become friends with them.

how many atheists seek out dialogue with theists? most of them seek to ridicule religious people that's not dialogue.

6) Never studies deeply into the nature of his or her adopted faith. The more you know the less you believe, the less confident you become, the more you doubt.

why "adopted?" atheist will never have room to talk as long as the anthropoids on carm treat the evidence like shit. AS long as they respond to the studies with mocking and ridicule they have no room to talk. Look their attitude to evidence about Lourdes.

7) Preaches to people who think differently rather than rationally engaging them. I am constantly amazed, bewildered, frustrated, and bored with the kind of responses I see from believers who comment here at DC. They come here preaching. They pontificate. They quote mine from the Bible. They even say we're going to hell with glee. Many of them merely mouth the words of the creeds and affirm what they believe rather than actually engaging us with a rational discussion about the basis for believing in the first place. They come here preaching to us from an ancient superstitious set of texts we don't believe rather than showing us why we should believe it.

Think of all the minor idiotic "bible contradictions" they come up with and how steadfastly they refuse to learn about JDEP or textual criticism. they can't understand when I use textual criticism to the benefit of the faith it just throws them for a loop.

8) Claims he or she does not need evidence to believe. Take notice Alvin Plantinga and Bill Craig! This is utterly delusional thinking especially when we consider all of the things they must take as properly basic beliefs coming from the witness of the Holy Spirit. Anyone who claims their faith does not need evidence, even if true, ought to take a reality check.

He misunderstands the concept of proper basically. It was not invented by Plantinga. What's really rich all the talk he does above about being well read and being willing to consider your presuppositions and critique your own culture, then they act like their atheism is inviolable and its' a given there's no questioning it. He acts like this stuff he doesn't understand and hasn't studied is just some stupid pile of mush. He's clearly not willing to consider his own words and put in the time for study.

What's wrong with the concept?It's not proof. It's not put over as proof, it's warranting basis for a belief. It fits Toulmins theory of warrant. Atheists don't have the concept of warrant becuase their ideology wrongly applies scinece in such a way that enables them to assume their ideology i facts and pre given. Meaning they are just begging the question.

9) Must be convinced that his or her faith is impossible before seeing it as improbable. Time after time believers will claim I have not proved that their faith is impossible, and so lacking this kind of proof they still claim to have a reason to believe. However, we're always talking about probabilities, so even if it's still possible to believe in light of a number of problems for faith it's still an improbable faith.

This is more hypocrisy becuase I see atheist constantly assuming in the face of God arguments that if they suggest an alternative that's possible then they can assume it's a given that that must be it no matter how improbable. I think he's making an unwarranted assumption to think that Christians deamd that faith be proved impossible. The contradiction he sees between impossible/improbable is a conditional either/or and he doesn't understand that. Atheitss do that all the time as well.

10) Must denigrate the sciences in order to have faith. This is what I see time after time. Believers denigrate the sciences is a number of ways in order to believe. That's because faith demands it. Some believers don't even know what I'm talking about. That's what I think. Since science tells us prayer doesn't work then it doesn't work. It tells us the universe is 13.7 billion years old. It tells us we evolved. It tells us there was no Israelite Exodus from Egypt. It tells us the Nativity stories in the Gospels could not be true. It tells us virgins do not have babies. It tells us that dead people do not bodily rise from the grave. Christians must denigrate science in order to believe. Science or Faith? Science has a track record. Faith flies planes into buildings. Science all the way, hands down. End of story.

That is utter bullshit after the way the atheists on carm have shamefully ridiculed the great Hood who had revolutionized reserach in psychology of religion those ignorant children refuse to even consider the explains I give. I go into elaborate detail about how the research works and they refuse to even consider and revert to mocking every time. No atheist will ever have a justification to say what he said because of the way those carm ideologues have routinely mocked and ridiculed real scinece which they don't understand.

Loftus's assertion that scinece has disproved prayer is juvenile and nothing short of a lie. He can't possibly understand the actual research if he thinks that. He doesn't get the distinction between a particular study that control for outside prayer and actual disproof. There can't be any disproof if there can't be controls. There can't be controls on outside prayer. Empirical study of payer is better; that is demonstrated at Lourdes.

so here we have an ideological linty of excuses where the atheist tries to blame the theist for what he is guilty of himself.


JBsptfn said...

1. When Loftus used the term "freethinker" for those clubs, that is so ironic. Those groups don't encourage free thinking unless it is about Atheism. If me and you went to a group like that and told them how we thought, we would get ridiculed.

2. He talks about people watching Nat Geo. Here is a post from Moi's blog about skeptics and documentaries where someone in the comments section mentions the Nat Geo channel in a negative light:

3. Science has disproved that a virgin can't have a baby? Really? Has Loftus ever heard of artificial insemination? That ol' Atheist Fortress of Facts shows up again. His "Christians ignore science" bit has been played, and it is tiring.

Meta, you should patent that term, by the way(lol).

Metacrock said...

Patent the term "fortress of facts?" I am using it in my book that I'm writing. So when it comes out hopefully it will catch on.

Yes they ironically call themselves "free thinkers" because they are anything but. they are scared to death to depart from the party line.

JBsptfn said...

I don't know why Loftus turned from Christianity, but I have come to the conclusion, after reading this post, that Atheism isn't doing too much for this guy.

Metacrock said...

I don't know either, I don't judge his motives. I think he's got a following for his books. I'm not saying that's his motive. He would probably have a following if he stayed a Christan. He's a bright guy.