Here is a typical example. It's one I get all the time. this is just a particular version but it's quite common for them to say this kind of thing. I backed this guy into a corner by getting him to see that the major modern liberal theologians don't accept hell as eternal conscious torment. so what's his response? Is it that "well maybe Christianity is not so bad?" NO it's that I'm the only one who thinks that.
Originally Posted by Metacrock
Afraid of what?
I don't care about proving it.
Proving what? My supposed fear of something that you have yet to indicate or describe?Let's observe he already done the op on how stupid it is to believe in hell so turning around here and saying "you haven't proved that I am afriad of something" is kind of silly. Granted I haven't proved it but it's obviously I'm implying that his protestations about hos stupid it is is a cover for his fear.
Meta:if you are not then fine but I don't see you arguing about the ideas of Bonhoeffer or Tillich. I see you picking on the notions of a literal hell. Which is the easy target.
Easy target indeed. Which you also, IIRC, do not believe in, Meta.
Most of the Christians in these forums do not consider you among their select elite group destined for Heaven, in case you hadn't noticed, Meta.
I can give you a reading list of need one btw.
I'll pass for the time being, thanks. I have your websites bookmarked if I ever feel a need to educate myself as to your intellectual influences.In other words, don't confuse me with the facts.
Have a great evening, Sir.
It's even more insane when you realize I've already said all these great theologians don't believe in hell so he concludes I'm the only one who doesn't!
on a related note atheists think they alter truth by laughing at it.
Liberation Sarah post 4
Meta's 200 "studies" are based on the mysticism scale, which was laughed off the table here a few weeks ago. Not only are the answers subjective and self reported, the questions are also incredibly vague. See for yourself: http://www.nvcc.edu/home/lshulman/MScale.htmlThese are the 200 studies that I"ve documented incentatly are good and accepted in the field. The M scale is accepted as the standard of proof in the field. So she thiniks you can alter truth just by mocking it.
Putting aside these problems, at best what metacrock can show is that people have funny feelings in their head, and these funny feelings combined with religious practice can make them feel happy (again, subjective and self-reported). Ok, so what? How does survey data showing that members of religions are happier demonstrate that an invisible, immaterial creature exists who uses telepathic powers to cause funny feelings in people's heads which makes them happy? Does meta provide a mechanism for us to examine? Does he offer any conceivable means of connecting the dots from these self-reported surveys to the immaterial creature with magic powers he claims causes the feelings? Does he rule out non-magical factors that might be at play in causing religious people to report being happier? Nope. It's a complete fail..and yet (sadly) seems to be the best that he has.
again here's what the qualified experts say about the M scale.
Michael E. Neilsen
Georgia Southern University
Psychology of Religion in USA
Ralph Hood (1998), a major figure in American psychology of religion, suggests six psychological schools of thought regarding religion. The psychoanalytical schools draw from the work of Freud, and attempt to reveal unconscious motives for religious belief.
originally in journal for the Scientific study of religion 1988, 27 (1) 122-126
"Research into mystical experience has been greatly facilitated over the last decade by Hood (1975). Utilizing the conceptual framework of Stace (1960) he devised a 32 item questionnaire tapping eight categories of mysticism. This questionnaire the M scale was shown by Hood to have respectable internal consistency and reasonable construct validity.
Michael E. Nielsen, Ph.D.
Georgia Southern University
"Ralph Hood (1998), a major figure in American psychology of religion, suggests six psychological schools of thought regarding religion. The psychoanalytical schools draw from the work of Freud, and attempt to reveal unconscious motives for religious belief. Although Freud reduced religious belief to a natural, if ultimately flawed, attempt to cope with life's stresses, contemporary psychoanalytic interpretations are not necessarily hostile to religious faith. Analytical schools find their inspiration in Jung's description of spiritual life. Most psychologists, however, consider such descriptions to be undemonstrated by scientific research, and therefore it plays a limited role in psychology. Object relations schools also draw from psychoanalysis, but focus their efforts on maternal influences on the child. Each of these three schools rely on clinical case studies and other descriptive methods based on small samples, which runs counter to the prevailing practice of psychology in America." \\
"Modern social scientific evidence does not refute the possibility that some mystical experiences are associated with scientifically unknown processes. Parapsychologists have accumulated a body of evidence supporting belief in paranormal phenomena (Broughton 1992). Even though their evidence has been criticized, the existence of universal features within collections of mystical experience accounts supports the argument that some forms of these perceptions are not fully cultural products but have important impacts on religious belief (Hufford 1982, McClenon 1994)"[/quote]