Institutionalizing hate: Is it really International balsphemy day?

 
 Shall we Celibrate these guy's right to
blaspheme?

Originally Posted by leyman

September 30 is International Blasphemy Day, where those of us Blasphemers celebrate our human right to blaspheme any and all God(s) without fear.

So, CARMites, in honor of this day, feel free to blaspheme away to your heart's content in this thread here!

On Wickepeida

Blasphemy Rights Day International is a holiday in which individuals and groups are encouraged to openly express their criticism of, or even disdain for, religion. It was founded in 2009 by the Center for Inquiry.^[1] A student contacted the Center for Inquiry in Amherst, New York to present the idea, which CFI put its support behind. Ronald Lindsay, president and CEO of the Center for Inquiry said regarding Blasphemy Day, "We think religious beliefs should be subject to examination and criticism just as political beliefs are, but we have a taboo on religion," in an interview with CNN.^[2] The day was set on September 30, to coincide with the anniversary of the publication of satirical drawings of Muhammad in one of Denmark's newspapers, resulting in the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.
According to USA Today's interview with Justin Trottier, a Toronto coordinator of Blasphemy Day, "We're not seeking to offend, but if in the course of dialogue and debate, people become offended, that's not an issue for us. There is no human right not to be offended."^[3]
Events worldwide on the first annual Blasphemy Day in 2009 included an art exhibit in Washington, DC and a free speech festival in Los Angeles.^[4] Blasphemy Day was also widely discussed across the web and covered by several media outlets.^[5][6][7]

 It's linked to center for Inquiry which we have already seen is a major part of the atheist propaganda machine.

facebook"

International Blasphemy Rights Day, held each year on September 30, is administered by the Center for Inquiry as part of its Campaign for Free Expression.

International Blasphemy Rights Day, held each year on September 30, is administered by the Center for Inquiry as part of its Campaign for Free Expression.

Mission

International Blasphemy Rights Day, held each year on September 30, is a day to promote the rights to freedom of belief and expression and stand up in a show of solidarity for the liberty to challenge reigning religious beliefs without fear of murder, litigation, or reprisal. The event is administered by the Center for Inquiry as part of its Campaign for Free Expression.

Description

Free speech is the foundation on which all other liberties rest. Without having the right to express our opinions, however unpopular, those willing to use political clout, violence, and threats will stifle dissent -- and we will all suffer the consequences of this.

International Blasphemy Rights Day takes place September 30 to commemorate the publishing of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons. ...See More

The stuff I talk about in this regard is all off the top of my head and without much attention to research. If I really dug into it with a private detericive I bet I could uncover a real conspiracy.

Webster's Online

plural blas·phe·mies

Definition of BLASPHEMY

1

a d : the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God

b : the act of claiming the attributes of deity

2

: irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable

See blasphemy defined for English-language learners »

See blasphemy defined for kids »

Examples of BLASPHEMY

1. She was condemned by the church for uttering blasphemies.
2. blasphemies

>

First Known Use of BLASPHEMY

13th century

 These guys are trying to institutionalize their hatred. they are trying to make hate for God seem like a fun pleasant time and one that is expected each year and accepted. Its' a means of squeezing atheism into the society as an accepted part of the pluralism. It should not be accepted. Expressing hate for the beliefs of others is a means of expressing hatred for the people who hold the beliefs. Atheists are 3% they a frenge gruop and their is a hate group element among them. Atheists do not have to blaspheme or inslult or emote hatred toward God to be included in the community as valid participants. these are trying to get their hate accepted too.

this is the work of the atheist propaganda machine it's linked to more than just some fringe group on face book. It's a major enterprise with lots of money. Means there is an atheist conspiracy. there is a movement and an organization aimed at wedging atheist hate into society as an accept elements. The hate group aspect has big money.

Notice, I am all for including atheists in society as a valid element with all right as respect due any group but not their hate wing, not their hate elements, not their blaspheming. those are not necessary to their expression of free speech any more than burning crosses in people's yard would be. Let's be clear now I'm not saying that all atheists believe in blaspheming.

The point of it would seem to raise the issue of free speech. Is it really free speech to insight hatred and vent anger and ridulce toward one's opponents? Is burning a cross in your neighbor's yard free speech?

Atehists Reject Liberal Theology by Resorting to Fundamentalism

 

Atheist criticism of modern liberal theology is to theology as Fancis Shaffer's criticism of art is to art.

Recently I find more and more atheists on CARM going on the offensive against liberal theology. Yet since they refuse to read any they don't know anything about it. They base thier understanding of it on Spinoza becuase that's all know about. this refusal to learn about the things they critize is giong to a mainia. On CARM Magritte says:

Since at least Spinoza and the Enlightenment when it became safer (relatively speaking) to directly criticize the Bible and theism, apologetics has been waging a war of redefinition and redrawing of boundaries. Modern "liberal" Christianity now has boundaries that are practically fractal in their infinite detail. Whenever a threat emerges, apologetics swiftly whisks God to safety with rationalization. Boundaries are redrawn, words redefined.

Spinoza is not very important to modern liberal theology. They just think that because he's the only alternative view of God they understand. They think primarily that Spinoza is a pantheist which they are willing to tolerate because they see it as a step toward atheism. This guys sees liberal theology as some kind of refuge that fundamentalism takes when it can't stand up to atheism. That is totally ignorant on many levels:

(1) Spinoza has very little to do with modern theology,t hey are ignorant enough to think if it's not the big man in the sky it must be Spinozian deified nature (Spinoza did not deify nature but they don't bother to learn what he really thought).

(2) Liberal theology is much older than fundamentalism. It definately existed about 300 years before inerrency (19th century). Way before any modern athiesm so trying to see ita s a refuage of failed apologetic is just sheer ignorance.

(3) Fundamentalists hate liberal theology. Liberal theologians are not fundamentalists hiding from atheism they are rarely former fundiese. Most fundies see liberal theology as satan infiltrating the faith to steal away the faithful. Most of them wont go near it. Most liberals see fundamentalism and apologetic is country corn pone hick's ville and they wont go near it!

(3) Calling liberal theology a renationalisation is total stupidity. This complety ignores the rich intelletual tradion that is traced back to Erasmus and the Northern Renaissance.

This atheist assault interprets everything it doesn't understand as "rationalization." Here is his answer to one argument I made.

This sometimes gives a strong whiff of desperation and post hoc thinking. I'll give an example: I was asking Metacrock a while back about why God did not heal amputees. His reply was that limb regrowth would be such a strong indication of God's presence that it would take away our free will as to whether or not to believe. How is one to argue with an opponent who pulls such things out of his keister on the spur of the moment?

This is totally taken out of context. Fist of all that's not even my answer. It's only a small part of my answer and it's argued hypothetically anyway. For a more full understanding of my answer on the amputee thing see my essay God and Amputees and also why wont God heal stupidity? The answer he's talking about is based upon a larger argument that is my answer to theodicy: Soteriolgocal Drama. That's my answer. It's unique to me. He's asserting that it's some srot of arche type for all liberal theology when in reality no liberal theologians even know about it and if they did they probalby wouldn't embrace it. That is idea is unique to me. But then CARM atheists are so ignorant of theology they tend to assume that I'm the only liberal. I went I went to seminary with other people. I'm just sure there were other students in those classes. Someone took those degrees on graduation. I doubt if they canceled commencement just becuase i didn't go. I graudated I just didn't feel like doing the cap and gown thing.

I invite other atheists, deists and agnostics to submit their own examples of this sort of thing. It's been going on for many generations and we should at least do it the dignity of understanding it.

He speaks giving it the dignity of understanding which is ironic becuase he has not giving it that himself. He read any theologians. When one mentioned reading them they say "they just make stuff up." This is stupid, it's just lapin stupid anti-intellectual grab age. If they had the gumption to actually read some they would find out its not just making stuff up but they can't even take the obvious step of doing some basic study. The older example was to charge that liberal theology 'enables' fundamentalism. I don't what these people think they are saing. Do they ever think at all? That's like saying socialists are enabling capitalism. How? By opposing it? That logic suggests that atheism is enabling Christianity. They might as well argue that modern art enables old fashioned realism in art.

In that CARM thread I have to hand it to Humble thinker. He usually blocks with atheists even though he claims to be a Christian, but this time he has a cogent comment:

But I think the question is this: is the "strongest possible case" in question merely post hoc rationalizations in an attempt to make the case stronger or is it a prior held belief that, upon questioning, is presented without the intention of artificially making the case stronger? Hopefully that sentence didn't get too convoluted.

"Lance" another atheist poster reiterates and magnifies the original theme. In so doing illustrates more ignorance:

Doesn't it seem strange to you that as our philosophies and sciences have become more and more sophisticated, he concept of God has been shrinking back and becoming more and more abstract? God's become more and more unfalsifiable, more and more difficult to clearly define and theistic language seems to have become more and more obscure when speaking about him. Did not people used to believe that God wanted all people to have a personal relationship with him, to the point of him preforming miracles in front of crowds of people? God used to make a splash. Now modern theologians have changed his nature such that he's hiding from us, not letting us have any very solid reason for believing he's even there because he doesn't want to make his existence obvious.

He asserts that the concept of God is "shrinking back becoming more abstract" because he defines teh true and proper understanding as the big man in the sky. He does this because he privileges fundamentalist as the truth Christianity even though liberalism is must older. Also becuase like a true fundie he's reading the Bible literally so the metaphor of king and father he sees a literal instruction about the nature of God.Atheist are really fundies. The think the reason they are atheists is because they take the Bible super literally and can't think their way through it. They see any problematic nature as contradiction becuase they can't think, they see answering problems as some form of "giving up." He says God has "become more unfalsifiable." When was God ever falsifiable? That's becuase he has to understand problematic nature of God as grounds to see contradiction and give up the faith. that's what makes him an atheist. So he's really privileging atheism and in the final analysis the whining because they can't reduce liberal theology to their frontal of finding trivial contradictions in the bible.

The question of God's falsifiability is a complex one and deserves a lot more attention then these guys are willing to give it. I've written on the question of God's falsifiability on this blog in the 2007, and also more recently in 2011. Modern theologians have changed it so that God is now hiding form us. This is just sheer ignorance of a group of ideologues who refuse to study their opponents views but reduce them to a set of slogans. Modern liberal theologians deny that God is hidden. When they give answers atheists do not listen. I've repeated Hartshorne's answer many times:

quoting myself from my Thomas Reid argument (no 8 on the god arguemnt list--see page 2)

According to Hartshorne, "[o]nly God can be so universally important that no subject can ever wholly fail or ever have failed to be aware of him (in however dim or unreflective fashion)." Now the issue of why God doesn't hold a "press conference" has do do with the fact that God does not communicate by violating normal causal principles. In process terms, the "communication" of God must be understood as the prehension of God by human beings. A "prehension" is the response of an occasion to the entire past world (both the contiguous past and the remote past.) As God is in every occasion's past actual world, every occasion must "prehend" or take account of God.

It should be noted that "prehension" is a generic mode of perception that does not necessarily entail consciousness or sensory experience. Impervious postings I explained that there a two modes of pure perception --"perception in the mode of causal efficacy" and "perception in the mode of presentational immediacy." If God is present to us, then it is in the presensory perceptual mode of causal efficacy as opposed to the sensory and conscious perceptual mode of presentational immediacy. That is why God is "invisible", i.e. invisible to sense perception. The foundation for experience of God lies in the nonsesnory non-conscious mode of prehension. So now, there is the further question: Why is there variability in our experience of God?. Or, why are some of us atheists, pantheists, theists, etc.? Every prehension has an initial datum derived from God, yet there are a multiplicity of ways in which this datum is prehended from diverse perspectives.

I agreed with Hume that sense perception tells us nothing about efficient causation (or final causation for that matter). Hume was actually presupposing causal efficacy in his attempt to deny it (i.e., in his relating of sense impressions to awareness). Causation could be described as an element of experience, but as Whitehead explains, this experience is not sensory experience. From Hume's own analysis Whitehead derives at least two forms of nonsensory perception: the perception of our own body and the nonsensory perception of one's past.

I will make it more simple than that. Being is hidden. A basic reading of Heidegger will tell us this. God is being itself, the basic hiddenness of being is the hiddenness of God. But being is not hidden it's mere ready-to-hand. This phrase refers to the nature of being that is so familiar we take it for granted and don't notice it. It's like a carpenter who so familiar with his tools that usin them is such second nature he doesn't even have to think about it. Saint Augustine says God is nearer than my inmost being. I used to use a whimsical example: suppose a fish could be scientist and a fishy committee assigns him to find this substance humans talk about, water. He studies every aspect of the world around him and never finds water becuase it never occurs to him he's looking through it.

Atheist Movment and It's Orgnaization

It's so amusing! I tell atheists "you are in a movement." They react like I've said "you are child molesters." O we are not either no no no not a movement O ononononn! never!

they steadfast everyone every single time recite that party line, it's just the absence of a belief. It doesn't dawn on them:

(1) you are angry because I say it's a movement.

the anger is palpable. Why should it make them angry that I say they have a movement? I say I have a movement. I've been in movements all my life. i was in the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement (2 different wars--two different movements) and many others. I don't care. it doesn't make me angry to say I am in a movement. i don't even are if they say Christianity is a movement. I as in a movement and it had an ideology (communism) I was a commie!

I know what movements look like. I know what ideology looks like. I have trianed all my life to spo this. I've been in movements, been a communist, (the paradigm of all movements and father of all ideologies) and I'm a historian of ideas. I was also an atheist. I nkow a movment when I see one. I also know that' it's not normal for people to become angry when you say they are in a movement. Why would they ? Atheists ract as though I've said theya re drugs adicts or soemthing.


(2) they all give the same answer

they all answer in exactly the same way. they never very there's no individuality. Its' always "the absence of any god or gods." There's never any individualist variation as though they have all read the same thing and all been told to say this phrase. I know they have probalby been told to say the phrase, but somehow in the way they process the information when they convence themselves to follow this movement they just learn it by wrote like the phrase really matters.

I am still looking fo all this individuality they claim to have. I can't find it. I see them saying the same things and marching in lock step. last week I had a hesitation where atheists would not admit that appeal to popularity was wrong. some of them even warned to say it wasn't wrong unless was in favor of Christianity. One of them argued form populaity saying that I could not right becuase I'm a member of a tiny minority (the minority being people with my exact outlook thus confessing the idea of group membership with the opinion one holds).



Isn't a dead give away, think about it. They actually believe that if you hold single idea differently from the group you are in a different group. Then on what basis can they claim that atheist are all different and that they have individualist opinions? As if that isn't frighting enough, they would not bring themselves to dennounce argument from popularity, but then actualy tried to say that I had argued that! They tried to attribute their comrade's statement to me! Now is that for confused?

I've demonstrate that its' a movement and only an idiot could fail to see it. I've shown that they have a concerted effort for court cases involving 30 major law suits (which would cost millions, who is paying for it)? They have a vast propaganda machine. They work on the destruction of Christian academic credibility at the expense of academic learning. They have a vast propaganda organziation in the form of several publications, think tanks and a scam pretending to be a convocations of schoalrs who are actually just Jesus mythers with no real academic standing.


Freedom From Religion Foundation:

• Won the first federal lawsuit challenging direct funding by the government of a faith-based agency
• Overturned a state Good Friday holiday
• Won a lawsuit barring direct taxpayer subsidy of religious schools
• Removed Ten Commandments monuments from public lands
• Ended bible instruction in public schools after 51 year practice
• Halted prayer at public institutions
• Stopped direct subsidy to religious schools
• Ended commencement prayers at a Top Ten University after 122 years of practice
• Ended distribution of Gideon bibles in public schools.
• Brought nearly 30 First Amendment lawsuits since 1977, and keeps several Establishment law challenges in the courts at all times.

<http://www.ffrf.org/legal> (18 Feb. 2007).

Approach Used to Spread Agenda

• Files lawsuits!
• Publishes Freethought Today
• Sponsors annual high school and college atheist based essay competitions with cash awards
• Conducts, annual national conventions, honoring the "Freethinker of the Year" for state/church activism, a "Freethought Heroine" and student activists
• Bestows "The Emperor Has No Clothes" Award to public figures for their criticism of religion
• Promotes freedom from religion with educational products, bumperstickers, music CDs, winter solstice greeting cards and literature
• Publishes useful atheist books
• Provides speakers for events and debates
• Established a freethought book collection at the University of Wisconsin Memorial Library as well as a 2,000-volume office collection

OTHER SUCCESSES

- University Graduation Invocations Ended at Top Ten University
- Prayers Stopped at Public Institutions
- Public Sponsorship of Nativity Pageant Halted
- Crosses Downed from Public Land
- Abuse by Preacher Exposed
- City Sponsorship of Knights of Columbus Signs Ended
- Ethics Probe Called for Preaching Governor
- Proselytizing Crossing Guard Fired
- Post Office/Catholic Entanglement Ended
- De Facto Sports Chaplaincy Stopped
- School Boy Scout Subsidy Stopped
- Bible Proclamation Rescinded
- Illegal Public Help Halted for "Our Lady of the Rockies"
- Creationism Removed from City Zoo
- Discount for Catholics Ended
- Red Rocks Easter Service Subsidy Ended
- Nativity Scene Moved Off Government Land
- Ten Commandments Monuments Moved from Public Property
- Religion Removed at Playground

Who has time to work on this? All of these struggle take big money and big legal talent. These are not things pulled off by a diverse group who share nothing more than the lack of a belief. This is clearly a vast political organization it has to be.

Analogy between DC's Bizarro world and CARM Atheist's understanding of Social Sciences

 
 Yes Bizarros do it backwards.This is an apt analogy for
the way most CARM atheists understand social scinece research
methods.

The shameful example of guilt by association and the other fallacies in the previous post are compounded by the bizarro world fire drill* the atheists use to cover up their lousy logic. Backup tried to find stats to prove the a lot of children die from prayer and neglect by parents who believe God will heal them.

Originally Posted by backup

Check out some of these shocking stats:

Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia have religious exemptions in their civil codes on child abuse or neglect

Seventeen states have religious defenses to felony crimes against children

Maryland exemptes believers in spiritual healing from all civil and criminal charges regardless of the harm to the child

Pediatrician Seth Asser and CHILD president Rita Swan have published a study of 172 deaths of children when medical care was withheld on religious grounds. They found that 140 of the children would have had at least a 90% likelihood of survival with medical care.

Between 1973 and 1990, 65 Faith Assembly children are known to have died of treatable illnesses without medical care.

he Oregonian reported that 78 children died between 1955 and 1998 in the Followers of Christ Church in Oregon City, a church opposed to medical care.

Sects claiming a religious exemption from immunizations have had outbreaks of polio, measles, whooping cough, and diphtheria. In 1991 there were 492 measles cases in Philadelphia among children associated with Faith Tabernacle and First Century Gospel Church, which refuse immunizations. Six children died.

Oregon and Pennsylvania have religious exemptions from bicycle helmets.

http://childrenshealthcare.org/?page_id=24

 DL put up hysterical thread drawing sweeping conclusions form one episode. Backup tries to support her by supposedly documenting that Christian bleief "causes" child endangerment on a regular basis.

Let me say first of all that there are problems and they are more than one example. They are not the norm, they not often produced by mainstream Christianity even using that term in a broad sense. they are usually associated with small extremist groups and if we total them they are not even 1% of the whole. they are much less than 0.1%.

Here is Backup's big proof.

Originally Posted by backup View Post
Check out some of these shocking stats:

Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia have religious exemptions in their civil codes on child abuse or neglect 

Meta:

(1) those are made for the extremists groups to they don't quash religious freedom they are not made to accommodate the mainstream.

(2) they are not proof the problem is more than a handful of kids. granted too many not to write them off but it's not indicative of Christianity as a whole.


Backup

Seventeen states have religious defenses to felony crimes against children 

 Meta:

(1) same deal, not proof they didn't make the law to accommodate a small group of extremists.

(2) not proof the problem is widespread.


Backup

Maryland exemptes believers in spiritual healing from all civil and criminal charges regardless of the harm to the child

Meta:
Of cousre that is not proof it's wide spread and it's not proof that they don't have loop holes. I bet you he hasn't examined them.

Backup

Pediatrician Seth Asser and CHILD president Rita Swan have published a study of 172 deaths of children when medical care was withheld on religious grounds. They found that 140 of the children would have had at least a 90% likelihood of survival with medical care.

90% sounds like a lot but it's of 140 children. So while that's bad it's a tiny drop in the bucket compared to how many children are in Christian education, Christan ay care orphans home live with Christian parents and so on. only a tiny tiny segment come to harm those are probalby connected to fringe groups. 80% of the country is Christian. 80% of the country is not be charged with child endangerment.

Between 1973 and 1990, 65 Faith Assembly children are known to have died of treatable illnesses without medical care. 

 Meta

(1) what do they mean by faith assembly? Is that a certain group or are trying to say "religious people in general?" It sounds to me like a frenge group like the one in the original example.

(2) that's almost a 20 year period. 65 deaths in 20 years is pathetically small. not to write off the children's lives. as an inducement of all religion it's pathetic.

(3) it doesn't' say where/ are these one state the whole country? makes a huge difference.

can you imagine a protest saying "stop the Vietnam war, 65 people have died over the last 20 years."


Backup

The Oregonian reported that 78 children died between 1955 and 1998 in the Followers of Christ Church in Oregon City, a church opposed to medical care.

 Meta:

(1) Even a broader time period and not many more deaths.

(2) they could include the 65 mentioned above.

(3) even assuming state by state a comparable number from every state is not enough to prove that Christianity as a general rule causes abuse.

Backup

Sects claiming a religious exemption from immunizations have had outbreaks of polio, measles, whooping cough, and diphtheria. In 1991 there were 492 measles cases in Philadelphia among children associated with Faith Tabernacle and First Century Gospel Church, which refuse immunizations. Six children died.

 Meta:

"sects!" usually a group is not called a "sect" by the media unless it's a small fringe group. So this is talking about extremists not the main stream. the allowances they get are to prevent squashing freedom not because the main stream of Christianity is regularity hurting kids.

How many states? what is the rate per state?

Backup

Oregon and Pennsylvania have religious exemptions from bicycle helmets.

http://childrenshealthcare.org/?page_id=24

Meta:
 

(1) that could be based upon 2 people. They passed the law because 2 people died.

(2) may have been passed by secular legislators who just used that as a loop hole.

(3) how many religious sects have taboos against wearing helmets?

"ney brother, Mercury and the original flash wore helmets therefore we dare not wear one!"

If we total all the deaths sites over 20 year period it's hardly 300 people. If we even grant 65 per state per year it's not enough to conclude that religion as whole is to blame.


Now Steve wants to connect this to the belief in healing. how many Christians in America believe God heals today? the stats on harm do not keep pace with stats on belief.



this is a quote from an article: AARP had poll done

http://www.aarp.org/personal-growth/...racles_08.html

"The purpose of this study was to understand what Americans age 45 and older think about miracles and miraculous events, including what they believe about divine healings, guardian angels, the circumstances under which someone may receive a miracle, and how miraculous events have changed their outlook on life. The information was gathered to inform articles for AARP The Magazine and AARP Viva.


The July 2008 telephone survey included a Hispanic oversample. Key findings include:

Four in five survey respondents (80%) say they believe that miracles occur today as in ancient times, while 67% say they believe that illnesses and injuries can be divinely healed.
Respondents age 45-54 were more likely to believe in miracles (85%) than those age 55 and older (77%).
Over a third (37%) say they have witnessed a miracle, 29% have witnessed a divine healing, and 11% have seen an angel.
When asked what makes someone worthy of receiving a miracle, having faith (73%), prayer (67%), and strength of desire (55%) are seen by the majority to be determining factors.
Unsurprisingly, God (84%) and Jesus (75%) were the two figures respondents rated highest in bestowing miracles. Only 47% thought angels bestowed miracles.
A strong majority of Hispanics report believing in miracles (86%), spirits and angels (86%), and divine healings (82%), significantly more than white non-Hispanics.
Hispanics are just as likely as white non-Hispanics to say they are religious or spiritual. However, when asked about the frequency in which they engage in religious activities, Hispanics are more likely to say they pray, share their faith with others, and watch or listen to religious programming on a weekly basis than white non-Hispanics.



Questions were included on an omnibus survey on July 17-21, 2008, a weekly national telephone survey of U.S. households, conducted by Opinion Research Corporation (ORC). The survey was conducted with 1,315 respondents age 45 and older. In addition to the general population survey, ORC conducted a Hispanic oversample July 16-23, 2008, with 251 respondents age 45 and older. (47 pages)

way more people believe in healing than ever come to harm. We are talking about mass numbers of people in the millions and only about 300 harmed in 20 year period.

 Originally Posted by leyman

Regardless of the numbers, it's the cause, Meta, the cause.

Yes, religious conversion results in positive outcomes in certain individuals, such as yourself.

In other individuals it results in the needless deaths of innocent children.

Without religion you probably would have worked through your own issues in time all on your own.

And those dead children would not have been killed for the sake of their parent's faith in their religion.

Meta:

this is a crime against reason. you cannot pretend to think scientifically then throw out the evidence and act emotion. you hate religion so you are willing to believe it' bad most of them. the numbers prove you are wrong but you make an arbitrary dogmatic appeal to throw them out. 

*that source may not actually explain how the bizarros do fire drills they may never have had one but it's obvious they would run back into the burning building, or perhaps even add fuel to the fire. Thee joke of the Bizarro world (which I was never that amused by) was that they do everything backwards. See and read an actual bizzaro story.

Shameful Display of Athiest Emotional Blackmail and Fallacous Reasoning

 



Here's a great example from CARM of how the atheist ideology and brain washing function to produce seamless team work in using fallacious reasoning and emotional blackmail. Notice how the atheist arguemnt fit together they say the same stuff without having to explain to each other the nature of a battle plan. This is second naturer to them becuase they've learned to think this way thorugh those long windeed sessions of agreeing with mocking and rieicle.

The objective they are going for here is to further the stereotype that people who believe God will heal people are insane nut cases who always wind up hurting people. In order to make this point they are going to use one example, that's all they ever document. they will assert that it represents many cases and they will not actually say it but they strongly imply this is the logical conclusion that results from prayer.

A certain poster on CARM (DARKLADY) who every single day of the world comes out with some tear jerking horror story about how evil God is, how cruel the God fo the bible the Bible is a big pile of crap. I finally faced them down with liberal theology to stop the hysteria over the OT so she shifts to modern examples. The title is "So pray for the sick and this is what happens" as though it happens all the time. This is always the result. It's documented in NY "the Daily News.Thursday, September 20, 2012. A boy in Oregon died in agony because his parents didn't believe in modern medicine. The couple were part of a group called General Assembly and Church of the First Born, This group may be a Pentecostal offshoot it's clearly considered a cult. There are sites warning about it.. It's a little over 100 churches in 20 states. Yet Darklady wants us to think this is the typical result of belief in prayer. She quotes several passages from the NT claiming that God will answer prayer:

Mark 9:29 And he said to them, “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer.”

Mark 11:24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

John 14:13-14 Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it





 then adds petulantly:

"the bible lies"

The implication is clearly that if you bleieve the Bible this is what will happen to you. her atheist comrades don't mis a beat in taking up the call:

Mark UK:

My first question: did the family abandon their faith as a result of this? Or did they go with "god must have had a purpose, and he's in heaven now, anyway" and dig themselves even deeper?

They should be prosecuted - he's a minor, and they're idiots (which isn't illegal, I know, but it bloody well should be).

Boneso:

Disgusting, absolutely disgusting! Having a son myself i dont know how anyone in this day and age can see their own child in agony and not seek professional medical care.

If they have not abandoned their faith after this then they should not be allowed to have anymore children!

Those sentiments of reproach are to be expected, even seconded. Then they don't waste any time getting to the point:

Boneso:

Even more disturbing to me is what is also in the article:

"In Oregon, faith-based healing isn’t a defense against manslaughter charges. The District Attorney’s office is working with churches to explain the law."

This tells me that there are states or regions in America where faith-based healing IS a defense against manslaughter, WTF?

now Christians are all Criminals using faith healing to commit crimes.

MarkUK

I searched for "USA faith-healing defense" and came up with an article titled "Oregon Senate votes to end faith healing murder defense", and many more on that theme. That means the defence must have been valid at some point. Appalling. If it's not a valid defence for first degree murder (in cases of human sacrifice), why does the parents' stupidity and credulity get them off the hook?

 Wait for it they start implying that this happens a lot.


 MFFJM2

 It is in fact the theists, especially Christians like the boy's parents, who must take the position thhat God has a plan, and that the boy's death though unfortunate is according to God's plan. The problem from a humanitarian perspective, regardless of your faith or lack of it, is that children need to be protected from parents that would harm them, even if the harm caused is due to fringe religious beliefs.

by the end of the thread Darklady has it worked out to a little formulation:

 Originally Posted by darklady

faith in the bible / faith in god / faith in prayer = dead child

the bible lies

as though  it's not a rarity it happens every  time.

 Diest:

 These people take the bible literally. They really are the honest ones. We see the result of believing the bible. 99.9% of Christians don't really believe the bible, and as Howard Homes said (where is he) are liars. They don't believe the bible because they take their dying and sick to hospitals and hope that HUMANS will heal them. Then, they have the unmitigated gall to say God worked through the doctor to cure their loved one, while the guy in the bed next to them had a prayer vigil and died a young man. Sick, sick thinking and humans are infected with this mental virus that I want wiped off the planet. That's why I post here.

 my emphasis. That's quite an endorsement for his objectivity hu? But atheists aren't a movement or anything. they are not a hate group now. they just want to wipe Christianity off the planet becuase they equate it with disease. That's at least that one guy (he's not the sharpest tool they have I'll grant you that I'm sure he doesn't speak for them all).



Originally Posted by JRT

So hold true to your faith and pray but hedge your bets with the best medical care available. Perhaps that is the way God will work her miracle. Instead of probationthey should have been sentence to be hospital volunteers for a year or two. The jails are two crowded.

 Notice how he tries to work up cognitive dissonance. To produce a sense of shame. "why do you use medicine if you believe in prayer?" Why do they want us to stop praying? I Gee I wonder!


 Such shotty reasoning. First of all he has no evidence of any kind that 99% don't believe the Bible. he's assuming so becuase he makes the idiotic assumption that if they believed the bible they would avoid modern medicine. of cousre there is no passage that says don't use medicine. No indications that most Christians understand the bible that way. No indication Luke gave up being a physician.

Look how seamlessly they take up the innuendo and imply the guilt by association without having to say to each other "let's do it this way." they just know becuase it's the natural outgrowth of the ideology then have indoctrinated with.

 A ridiculous and shameful display of the ind of pandering and emotional blackmail and fallacious reasoning that I associate with the right wing and the kkk .

The argument that God will guide the surgeon's skill or help the medicine work is a valid concept. That is not a matter of doubting the bible.

all of this is the result of the atheist straw man. We see at work here the atheist straw man to insist upon the most extreme most absurd cultist understanding o the most strident undies as quintessential Christianity.

emotional blackmail
argument from sign
guilt by association
straw man arguments.

The Dawkamentalist mentality shows itself.

There's an atheist on CARM, his real name is Steve Smith. His screen names have been parallax, Blondie, and Backup. Every time he get's banned he blames me and sends me hate mail. Sometimes he sends to the blog and sometimes to the email. He was banned recently. Oddly enough I had nothing to do with it but he assume I did. why? because he said a bunch of things that he deserves to be banned for about me so he assumes I'm the one. Here's his lattest sent ot my email.

Pussy tattletale strikes again.

I swear you are seriously retarded. No wonder you are so hung up on you parents. You should have discovered girls like everyone else when you were a teenager.

asshole

first of all, I took care of my parents as they died for the last three years of their lives. That must be what he means by "being hung up on your parents." If you are care for your parents you are some kind of freak. when he was banned as Parallax he said my mother was a whore and I was born a heroin addict. What dose this mean but he's projecting? He resents me because I had a good relationship with my parents he didn't have one with his? Who cares? That's his problem and he needs to keep his indecent little gutter mind silent. He has no right to mention my parents at all period.

Secondly this is the mentality of a criminal. He did sometime wrong not me. I have to fear for getting the rule to work on my side when he violates them because like most criminals he doesn't care about anything but himself. He has no compunction about lying. When he was proved to lie he say "so what Chrsitians like all the time." He's just using extortion to try to get what he wants regardless he deserves it, and he tries to make decent people who follow the rules fear to follow the rules. The reporting system is there to be used. The rules are there to protect us and I should not have to fear to evoke them. I don't. I'm not afraid of this punk.

Thirdly, he's a childish criminal. He has a big mouth but he's a little child. "tattle?" really? like a school yard bully.

He's done this to himself before. he sent hate mail which I made public he kept getting more an angry and sending more hate mail which I also made public so each new attempt at extortion just made feel more like a fool.

Here's another one that is revealing:

Originally Posted by MFFJM2

No, you don't have an obligation to thank your parents. They have a social, legal, and ethical obligation to provide for you, their children, because they brought you into this world, not of your choosing. You should love and honor your parents for their sacrifices, if indeed they made sacrifices, but thank them for doing what they're supposed to do as parents..? I think not.

I think this ranks as one of the most ridiculous selfish things I've ever seen anyone say. he's saying "if is an evil burden God thrust upon me without asking and he'd better pay up and make it up to me. that makes me entitled to everything.''

Monstrously selfish and stupid. Totally ungrateful.

The Couriter's Reply and the Fool's Gambit.

I was off line for a week due to loss of A/C . Too hot to get on. Coming back I found a bit of hate mail in the comment box. It was an atheist atheist idiot who can't understand the problem with moronic gimmick known as the "courtier's reply." This is otherwise known as "bully and brow beating." It's a fools gambit, the attempt to force the other person into acquiesce by merely demanding something must be the case and any anyone who doesn't agree is an idiot. This allows the Dawkametnalists who say anything they wish to say about theology, and dodge the bullet of ignorance because they have not read any. So evoking the gimmick know as the courtier's replay is about the stupidest thing one can do.

this little hate monger was loaded with insult. I'm so stupid. i am the "stupidest" person ever, why? becasue his little ideology says anyone who disagrees with the ideology must be "stupid." They way they sling epithets about and refuse to learn anything is proof in and of itself that their "movement" which they can't even admit is a movement is about the stupidest thing no earth.

Atheists are always coming up with little gimmicks. Anytime you trump them with real knowledge they get up set and find a gimmick. The Jesus myth theory was such a gimmick. Jesus was such a compelling figure and there is some decent evidence he rose from the dead, so to counter that they just pretend he never existed, and give it a little name and make up some pseudo intelligent sounding crap pertaining to it. The "default" and the "extraordinary evidence credo" these are all gimmicks atheists made up and they are passed off as pseudo official sounding quasi logical tactics that in actuality mean nothing.


The latest is the Courtier's reply. This is it:

I recently referred to the "Courtier's Reply", a term invented by PZ Myers to rebut the claims of believers who insist that their superstitious beliefs are ever so much more sophisticated than the simple version that Dawkins attacks.


PZ's response deserves much more publicity because it goes to the heart of the debate between rationalism and supersition. I'm going to post his original Courtier's Reply below (without permission, but I'm sure he'll understand) but before doing so I need to remind everyone about the original fairy tale [The Emperor's New Clothes].

This is a statement by a reductionist scientism king Larry Moran is a Professor in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto. He's on a blog called Sand Walk.

So what this courtier's reply is saying is that if the skeptic says stupid things about theology and demonstrates that he knows nothing about it and the theist says "O your criticism is invalid because you don't understand what you are criticizing" then all the atheist has to do is say "that's the courtiers reply" and the theist is supposed to go "O my God, I've violated a law of logic!" and give up and stop believing in God. But in realty it's not a log of logic, I never heard it in a logic class.It's not in a lgoic text book, and the meaning of it is silly. It's just saying 'You can't point out my ignorance of theology because I will not allow theology to have any kind of validity or importance and religious people may not not any sort of human dignity." That's all it's saying. It's nothing more than anti-intellectual stupidity.


Here is Myers statement about it:


The Courtier's Reply
by PZ Myers

I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.


Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.


Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.


Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.

In other words, knowledge of theological subjects is just plain bull shit and it doesn't matter if Dawkins doesn't understand it because it's not worth understanding. So it's not valid criticism of him to say that. Except the problem is, if he understood theology he would see that his criticisms are wrong. The criticisms he makes are almost always about fundamentalists views. Since he refuses to accept that there are other non fundamentalist types of theology, when you point it out he just says O that's ridiculous because all theology is crap so it doesn't matter--but if he knew that he might not make the criticisms becasue they don't apply. But it's not worth knowing that. he's just reasoning in a circle.

Here's his logic:

Him: religion is evil superstition because fundies believe X

Liberal: we don't believe x

him: that doesn't matter becasue religion is all crap no matter what. so even if you don't believe the thing I say is crap you still your own crap that must be stupid because you are religious. I know it's stupid because religion is stupid. Of course that's based on the stuff that you don't believe but that doesn't matter.

Narrow minded anti-intellectual brinkmanship in a most unsophisticated manner.

A very emotionally immature atheist tried this on me recently. Here's how it went.

Brent: All religious people believe in big man in the sky.

Me: process theology doesn't believe in big man in the sky

Brent: that's nonsense all religious people do so they must.

Me; you clearly don't know enough about theology to say that

Brent: Courtiers reply! Courtiers' replay!

Like some magic king's X that's supposed to mean something. Clearly it's stupid because they are only trying to dodge the fact that their criticisms are based upon things they don't understand and that don't apply. Its' an attempt to hide their ignorance. They are committing an informal fallacy with the use of this gimmick. It's called "ipsie dixit." It means "truth by stipulation." They are saying in effect "I simply stipulate that I will not allow you to have knowledge. AT this point on your knowledge is now void becasue I declare to be so, since it's religion and religion is stupid."

Again their reasoning is quite circular since the reasons they would give for reducing religion to superstition don't' apply to modern sophisticated theology, but the fact that it can be labeled "theology" and they don't even know what that means, they stipulate that it must be stupid. So even though their reasons don't apply they just demand that they must do so any way.

Again they are merely stipulating truth and insisting they are right without any just reasons. It's idiotic to try and criticize a whole field you know nothing about. To make up for appalling ignorance they imply a third rate gimmick that is actually made up of two informal fallacies: ipsie dixit and circular reasoning.

A true exampe of a riducle Gaultlet: Atheists extrot aquiestence on Prision stat issue

The little character assassination squad keeps on going with the fourth thread on CARM about the prison stats. Still trying to argue that I did the fabricating! I found those tables existing on the websites year ago and copied them and responded to them now they are trying to claim that I made them up and adherents.com copied mine! That's absurdly stupid it can be proved their version existed long before mind did. This began with my pages on Doxa where it seemed I had proven that Rod Swift (I called him "Boyd" back then) fabricated the data, altering a table by adherents.com. I also wrote an addendum to the original mapping out the issues that are largely the ones being bandied about here.

The two major issues are:

(1) 20% category for "none, no answer, no religion" was put into the table of adherents.com but no in Swift's table. That was the thing that made me think Swift fabricated it. Yet he uses that statistic he just doesn't list it on the table.

The assert that since I've said 3% of U.S. Pop is atheist then I'm inconsistent to assume that larger proton of the 20% could be atheist. Is aid that's because the Prison population doesn't mirror the general population. For example about 7% of prisoners are Muslim while only 3% in the general population if that many are Muslim. I show that this also true for age, sex, education, and other such factors. I found about eight differences.

They are talking like this makes me utter scum. They talk like this is just an obvious lie. actually they haven't even acknowledged that gave an answer. They act like my refusal to just give and admit the 20% can't be atheists is an utter and proves that I'm totally dishonest.

(2) A new issue has emerged in this latest where they are demanding that I take the arguemnt down and accept that Christianity causes crime and that most prisons are Chaitin and Christians are immoral. If I don't do that I'm being so totally dishonest and this proves I can't be trust with stats.

There is a whole body of other arguments that have nothing to do with Swift's table they have never answered them. For example, I said most of the prisoners could be claiming Christianity to get parole. Sure enough there's a Pew study that indicates that persons change affliction with religion all the time to jockey for greater protection or get parole or anything. They don't even acknowledge that I said this, they have no attempt to answer it. They just demand that I take the argument down and if I don't that proves I'm totally dishonest.


This is what I have termed "ridicule gauntlet." Like the gauntlet native Americans made Daniel Boone run on the old tv show. They line up and two sides and hit the guy who runs by until he falls to the ground they beat him until he dies. Atheist will descend upon an goalpost keep saying silly, stupid mocking ridiculing things until they blows up and goes away. This is what they are doing to me to avoid the facts of the case.



Backup quotes this:

Originally Posted by Metacrock

no get this through your head. I will not take it down because

then says this
Back up:..you don't care about honesty.

notice he sticks in the "because" but cuts off what the "because" is. The full quote said I wont take it down (the whole page) the overall argument is wrong. I did add a disclaimer saying I can't prove that Swift fabricated the stats. The specific nature of that Backup totally ignores becuase here's a chance to claim that I'm dishonest. They wanted me to take down the whole page and give up the entire argument just because I can't prove they fabricated their table. That doesn't grant them the whole argument.


Phoenix 702

Your red herrings won't distract us from your misrepresentation of the Swift data...

Originally Posted by Metacrock

no get this through your head. I will not take it down because
(1) you are wrong about the issue. nothing proves Christian as a whole 60x more likely that's a foolish silly thing to say.

The ONLY person making the claim that Christians are "60x more likely" to be in prison is YOU. Here's your comment below (and repeated on your thread):

Originally Posted by DaDevil

yes you grasp of the english language is not in question(at the moment) but you grasp of arithmetic and survey methodology is. The entire point is it is dishonest to say that no-response = atheist.

Of course what I really said was that since it's not representative you can't assume its' going to trnafur. GP has 2% atheist that doesn't mean the PP will have only 2% atheists. That's proved because I showed all the other ways it' snot representative. More Muslims than the GP, more elderly than the GP, fewer women than the GP, more uneducated than the GP and so on.

Maybrick quotes me
Originally Posted by Metacrock

so typical of the word twisters and people who don't care about truth. they are trying brown beat and intimidate me into taking down the page they know I have destroyed their argument. they try to push it as me being dishonest when in reality they are dishonest.

If you think that is the case I feel sorry for you.

Maybrick

A reasonable person might have realized their mistake and sorted out the errors.

No one is browbeating you with anything...other than the very obvious fact that the adherants site is wrong on this and that you are refusing to accept this issue.

....Can you explain how this is relevent to you using dodgy data to prove an ideological point, when said dodgy data is in fact, dodgy?

The reference to Doggy data is really absurd becuase no one in the whole four threads has claimed that the data itself is bad. I'm using the same data the atheist Swift used, and it's fromt he bureau of prisons. No one even hinted that the data is bad. It's all a matter of how it's interpreted.

Originally Posted by maybrick

Have you been following this thread at all?

None is not the same as unknown.

yes it is. there's no pre set break down guaranteed for the 20%. We have to examine them to see what they believe.

It is really very simple.

yes it is. that's why it amazes me that you don't understand. that shows you are not reading.

maybrick:

Frankly this is quite embarassing, if I were you I would either let this thread die (although be prepared for us to use it against you whenever you are being less than honest and refuse to admit it) or accept you are in the wrong here and do the various things that have been suggested.

Meta:that's a real bold kind of statement that sounds real cool and tough but it just shows that you don't know the issues there. you are not reading it you are just blabbing to help the atheists.

Maybrick

An apology to Skylurker would seem to be appropriate also.

Meta:no it would not there was good reason at the time to thin he did fabricated. I'm still not sure. since you are all lying about me what else are you lying about?
I might actually have considered that if they had not started this lying frenzy and trying to destroy my reputation and ignoring my answers.

Maybrick

I am not psychic...but I suspect you will ignore my/our advice and keep up with the humiliation.

Meta:
I am not humiliated because I understated the issues, I know they are lying so since I do they are lying about me I know they are lying about the other stuff too.


talking tough becuase you don't know the facts.

how many hundreds of times have I stood alone against the atheist on CARM and faced them down against their ridicule gauntlets? Too many to count. But I'm going to do it again.

Debate Lesson for both Atheists and Apologests: Presmption and Bukrden of Proof

Actual debaters at a Tournament but I don't know
who or what tournament.


I put up a piece on this blog on Jan 22, 2007 and this very day that piece drew fire from an atheist commenter. Before getting to the comment, I first explain the context. The reader can see the entire piece on Atheistwatch today as I put it up there under a different title; "Atheists Con fussed About the Nature of Presumption and Scientific World View."

here's an except from the article:

The problem is this kind of atheist fundi fools himself into thinking that eh as some real verification and objective demonstration of his world view, but he's only being fooled by a self induced con job. It works like this. First he imposes a self privileging ideology upon the world. He priveledges doubt, so in his mind doubt comes to equal truth. Then he orients his world view around a value of accepting "only empirical evidence." He cons himself into thinking that he only accept ideas that are proven with empirical scientific evidence. Then attaches such importance to this concept that he is able to make a leap of faith and pretend that somehow valuing induction proves the materialist conclusions that he leaps to. So he thinks just because he wants all of his positions to be proven with empirical evidence, they must really be so. And of course he convinces himself that the task of science is to protect form religion and then science becomes his get out of hell free card. Let's review these steps.

(1)Impose ideology privileging doubt
(2)accepts value of empirical data only
(3)leap of faith from value of empirical data to assumption of empirically based conclusions
(3) sanctions with the aura of science.

Of course he has no such data. There is no data that God doesn't' exist or that there is nothing beyond the material world.He has no of proving this at all. But that's OK he says because it's having a scientific way of life that counts. At least his over all view is supported by his love of "objectivity" so that sanctions his conclusions even if logic doesn't' sanction them.

The truth is he has no such proofs and his bold scientific way of life is a sham because he has many assumptions upon which his world view is predicated, the basis of which cannot be supported by science. I've made lists like this before, they include all the basic epistemic assumptions:

here's the comment

comment:

Anonymous said...

Atheists are not supposed to provide evidence for the existence of god. You can't argue on negatives. Proof has to be offered by the person who makes the clam. Atheists make no claims. I can't give you evidence for a giant teapot at the other side of the universe and you can't ask evidence for that. It is the same thing. the burden of proof lies on theists.

This comment illustrates a great deal of confusion that atheists are inflicted with quite a bit. Many, not all of cousre, but many, think that their world view is guaranteed some kind of magic lionization or privilege just because they wish it was based upon scinece. What they are really getting at in real debate (by "real" debate I have reference to the rules of National Forensic League--high school Debate in the United States, and NDT, "College Debate" or the major arm of college debate in U.S.). There are other organizations* for debate now days and other rules but all of them basically assume the concept "presumption."

Presumption in debate is similar to the legal concept of being innocent until proved guilty. Its' the assumption that the status quo is right until it is proved wrong. It's the basic concept that one is innocent until proved guilty. In debate the concept is that the status quo is assumed to be fine until proved otherwise. To prove that there should be a change the Affirmative team has to present a prima facie (PF) case. Prma facie means "on face value" that says the case as presented before there's any refutation appears to all reason and logic to be a valid case. When a team meets he PF burden presumption is overturned.

Extrapolating to God arguemnts, I take this partly from Toulmin who talked about rational warrant for an argument, setting forth a logically valid reason to believe a concept would be rational warrant, which meets the PF burden. At that point presumption turns over, it then becomes the negative team's burden to show that the Affirmative has not made a PF case. Now the original argument this guy responded to is not about what happens when one presents a God argument. It was talk about the original presumption of atheist belief. Atheists don't get presumption merely becuase they want to dub their views "scientific." They may wish they were taking their ques form science, but they have no more privilege to assume their view of doubt is proved by scinece than a Christian does to assume that God is proved by science.

"Proof" is for mathematics. Just in terms of world views atheism is not the status quo. Atheism would actually be making the change thus they must prove that a change is warranted by demonstrating that belief in God is not warranted. The thing that gives atheists their idea that there's some reason why they should have a privilege, they thing about which they are right, is that when one ties to prove the existence of God the burden of proof is on the one who would prove. In that case the atheist assumption has presumption, becasue then, and only then, is it the status quo (in other words, he who asserts an argument must prove it and the doubter is not trying to prove the argument). Aside from the case in which a believer has made a positive God argument atheism as no basic presumption just because it's a lack of belief.

In this case it really matters what the claim is. If one says "God is proved becasue..." he has a burden to prove the argument. If one says "my personal conviction is that God exits" that person has no burden of proof becasue he's only discussing his habit (his belief--not trying to prove anything). The atheist has no privilege to assume that scinece offers presumptions against belief in God. That is purely a matter of personal conviction and all personal convictions have neutral and equal status in terms of privilege until the argument is made. Because while we are debating (theoretically) we are not dealing with government policy but with personal belief.

Some atheists are even more confused becasue they think that all beliefs are wrong and they mange to talk themselves into thinking that if atheism is the absence of a belief then scinece guarantees a factual world views so not believing is not a belief and thus is sanctioned by science. That is true only to the extent that one doesn't' try to gain privilege for it over other views. The reason is because absence of a belief functions as a belief in comparison to other convictions. The atheist is still working on conviction and a conviction is a belief. The belief is the belief that there's not enough proof to be compelled to believe that's still a belief.

Recently on my boards one of the most confused atheists I've seen (on carm) came over to Doxa forums and tried to contend that he had no beliefs. The discussion was sort of like, "so you believe you have no beliefs?"
"right."
"Isn't that a belief?"
"no it's a fact"
"Isn't it a fact that I believe in God"
"yes, and that 'tupid cause no proof"
"you believe that?"
"yes"
"then you have a belief."
"no that's a fact"
"it's it a fact that I believe in God?"
"yes"
"so my belief is a fact"

Yes, I know it's just a whimsical trick. His position is no less ridiculous obviously the notion that there's no God is a belief in comparison to the reality that there's no proof there's no God. then the unwary atheist will fall back upon the bromide "I don't need proof I have no belief." They are just confusing the two different senses of the word belief. That whole mess can be fixed up by just understanding the nature of presumption. One does not have presumption for one's doubt of another person's belief until and unless the other person is trying to prove something. In the neutral public square when one is merely deciding what to believe (or yes what not to bleieve) there is o privileged "scientific" views. Presumption only comes into play when proof in argument emerges from discussion.

I've seen atheists try really dumb things like saying "I assert that Christians are all insane, you have to prove they are not becuase you have the burden of proof." That's just making an assertion with no support couched as a negative (in a not very cleaver way--rather transparently) merely to play off of the misunderstanding about presumption.

No view has presumption unless one if trying to prove something. Religion has presumption in society in the fact of anti-religious attacks because it's the status quo. Atheists take on the burden of proof when one of two conditions are the case: (1) when the seek state assertively and positivity "there is no God" (2) when the God argument meets prima facie burden of it's own.

The orignial comment was not speaking about the status of presumption in a God argument but the position of doubt and belief before the argument when one is making a Dickson about one's convictions. Thus the criticism of the comment dose not apply. The point is atheist do have proving to do before the can assert privilege for their views.







________________
*Debate Organization

The oldest organization for college debate in America is the debate fratenity Pai Kappa Delta. The older high school organization is National Forensic League. Before those (1920s) debate in U.S. schools war organized by states. The highest championship one could win up to 1948 was the state championship, although they had national topics since the 1920s.

National Debate Tournament began in 1848 and created national championship for college debate although before that there was Pi Kap but you had to be in the fraternity. In 1980s CEDA was created as another form of cross examination debate for both high school and college. Parliamentary debate always exist but in the last few decades it has gotten popular, In my day (70s) it was not on the radar for most debaters. In all of these forms the rule is that the negative has presumption in defending the status quo. I don't know how they do it "Parli" as it's called. The form of debate I participated in and am discussing is called "policy" debate, or "poly." There is also the National Urban League and the YMCA that have debate organizations but they are not nearly as popular as NFL and NDT. There is a debate organization for homeschools.

The issue of Rod Swift and Christians more likely to go to prison

This came as a result of accusations on CARM that I use statistics unfairly and dishonestly. They have no demonstrated any dishonest use. As it turns out what they calling 'dishonest' is my failure to accept their words for things. This is a test case that I proposed because I think I had a pretty clear case. I had accused this Rod Swift who runs the "Holy Smoke" site (which I have written about on AW in other connections) of fabricating evidence to support his absurd argument that Christians are "60x more likely" to go to prison than other people in America. The presentation of his statistics (which come from Bureau of prisons) and were related to him differ from that presented by adhernts.com. Adherents is a respected website I thought I would be more likely that Swift (who runs this biased anti-Christian website) would do the fabricating. They atheists on carm immediately began insisting that it's the respected site that did the fabricating. First they tried to say I did it, but that is disproved because the two different versions of the data are on the Swift's site and Adherents.com neither of which I can control.

after all it is Swift who is making the ridiculous allegation that Christians are sixty times more likely (!) to go to prison. If that were true every Christian you know should be in jail. Of course what he really means to say is that prison statistics mirror the those of the general population. It's wondered in such a way as to get attention or make an absurd accusation. the very premise is silly. If we could trust that the statistics for prison pop mirror the general pop then why even survey their religious affiliations?

this is a post I put up after a huge thread to clarify the result in my mind of the "discussion."

this is to clarify the result of the discussion in the huge thread and how it has changed my thinking, and in what respects i have not changed my original view.

My original view: Rod Swift claims Christians more likely to go to prison (absurdly that they are 60x ore likely!). I previously held that Swift fabricated the statistics because his table has a difference form that of adherents.com. I assumed that a major site that is well respected would not fudge the data.

How my view has changed:

I now realize that both groups, Swift and Adherents have the data that says there's a category called "unknown/none" made up of people who did not answer the question "what is your religious preference or identification?"

Both had the same figures. One table has the figures integrated into it (adherents.com) and the other table omits it but has it at the bottom (Swift). So it may well be that adherents actually changed the table. Since we are not told if the original data was sent in the form of a table or not we don't know. There is a possibility that adherents added it to the table.

adherence data from their table:

None/Atheist/Unknown 18,537 19.908%

Swift's data below table:

unkown/No Answer 18381

not exactly the same and no percentile is given.

interesting that the numbers are different.

Where my view has not changed:

Adding the category to the table is not dishonest. it may be unwise because it changes the table (of course we don't know if the data was sent in the form of a table). it's not dishonest because its' the same data. The numbers just recorded in a different venue.

Let's assume Swift didn't take them out and Adherents put them in. they are not being dishonest because they didn't change the actual numbers.

Swift wants to create the impression that there are only a tiny handful of atheist in prison instead of a larger number that's 20%. therefore taking them out could be construed as dishonest. While putting them in is not. I can't prove he took them out.

either way my original page was not dishonest either because I really thought I had proved that Swift changed the table. It may be that my assumptions were wrong.

If we assume all informed are honest Swift has not proved his argument. But he's not necessarily a dishonest person and it was probably jumping the gun to say that. At least he does reflect the data below the table. That does help the impression he wanted to create I really don't know if he took them off and put them below or if adherents took them from below and put them on the table.

The accusations I made, while they may have been wrong, were based upon the way I saw it. I didn't' do anything dishonest. My views are not wrong. I am right in saying that he has not proved his argument. there's a lot more there to be said on that score (about the argument itself).

for those who can't get enough tedious reading:

Swift's page:

http://holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

my page

http://www.doxa.ws/social/Prison1.html

adherents.com page

http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html#altformat

you have to scroll to the top to see the adherent's page this link opens to Swift's table on the adherents site.

Here are comments and exchanges that followed:


Originally Posted by Metacrock

Adding the category to the table is not dishonest. it may be unwise because it changes the table (of course we don't know if the data was sent in the form of a table). it's not distention because its' the same data. The numbers just recorded in a different venue.

Let's assume Swift didn't take them out and Adherent put them in. they are not being dishonest because they didn't change the actual numbers.

Swift wants to create the impression that there are only a tiny handful of atheist in prison instead of a larger number that's 20%. therefore taking them out could be construed as dishonest. While putting them in is not. I can't prove he took them out.

Sky Lurker:

Swift did not "create the impression" he provided the transmitted data via the Federal Bureau of Prisons. It was Adherents.com that wanted to "create the impression" and manipulated the data. Suddenly if Adherents.com did manipulation it is "unwise" when you thought Swift did it you crowed all over the place on how he fabricated and misrepresented data.

Meta: Comments like that cause me to suspect that skylurker is Swift. He would otherwise have no way of knowing in form the data came to Swift. Be that as it may saying he doesn't want to create an impression is belied by the fact that he sells it as "Christians are sixty times more likley to go to prison." If that's not an impression nothing is.

an atheist:

Humorously you make comments like

"Sociologists would laugh themselves silly over the simplistic nature of Swift's thinking" - Metacrock

In the end it was you and Adherents.com that were the perpetrator of simplistic thinking.

Originally Posted by Metacrock

either way my original page was not dishonest either because I really thought I had proved that Swift changed the table. It may be that my assumptions were wrong.

Atheist:

On your doxa website you make simplistic and underhanded claims such as:

"Of course he's [Swift] distorting these figures too because it's not 8% certianly not 16%. He's including people who believe in God but don't like organized religion as well as agnostics as atheists. He's also dealing with his flase figures. The actual figure is 20% atheists in prison and 3% in society. So what does this tell us? Atheist are a lot less well behaved." - Metacrock

You don't want to include people who don't like organized religion when you want the number of atheists to be small as in the general population BUT have no problems with them being lumped in when the want the number of atheists to be large in prison. The figure is NOT 20% in prison you can't take "Unknown" for example and claim they are "Atheist" that is just wrong.

Some people just don't have a good sense of what is intellectually and academically dishonest. For example, it is dishonest that once you know your data is wrong, your accusations misplaced to not retract or fix or apologize for your published mistakes.

You called me a liar just how many time in the last thread?

Originally Posted by Metacrock

NO SOCIOLOGIST WOULD EXPECT THE Prison POPULATION TO MIRROR SOCIETY PERFECTLY BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE DON'T' GO TO PRISON.

Atheist:

Yes, I bet Christian juries are biased and give fellow Christians breaks.

So Now he's an expert on the Criminal justice system. It's it amazing that no Christian I know has gone to prison (that's hundreds of people) yet are all 60x more likely too. So 86% of the population is 60 times more likely to go t prison than the rest, yet no on ever seems to go. That's hysterically stupid. If we could assume that the prison population is going to be perfect mirror of society then we don't to do reserach on their religious preferences. Obviulsy they are not going to prefectly represent society and we know that parishioners are disappointingly poor and uneducated. why would they not be disproportionate represented religiously?

He also doesn't deal the parole argument. They are saying they are Christians to get parole. No record kept on their religious views when they are first arrested. No attempt made to distinguish bewteen true adherents and adherents in name only. these are elementary thing anyone with a brain ought to know.

Be that as it may, notice his basic assumption of my honesty is "since you don't agree with my premise that proves you are dishonest." If that's the break I gave Swift then I should make a disclaimer and say I can't prove he's dishonest. Yet he's clealry wrong about the argument.