Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Atheists attack dyslexia

 We are off to the races early, soon after Christmas even before  new years. A moody atheist who can't answer any arguments finds the one obvious personal flaw to attack. This is right after I show that a little band of atheists were willing to frame we with lying accusations.


"CARM atheists resort to charges of violance against me to shut me up"

3 Comments - Show Original Post Collapse comments

1 – 3 of 3
Blogger Metacrock said...
they have really shown their true colors on that one.
December 17, 2012 11:15 AM
Blogger Morrison said...
All you spelling mistakes destroy your credibility.

You could use spell check, but you continue to use disability as an cousin has a disability but does not whine about it.

December 25, 2012 11:26 PM
Blogger Metacrock said...
no they don't. complaining it destroys your credibility. that's what atheist say when they can't answer my arguments. The last guy to say that had more spelling mistake than I did.

I use spell check every time i type because I use fire fox.
December 26, 2012 7:31 AM
"all you spelling mistakes" see above. He makes mistakes to. It should be "all your spelling mistakes." should I be merciful? I'm sure he would say "O but that's just a typo." Like that's ok when he makes them. He could edit.

so they are going to frame me with lying accusations and this guy thinks it's on a par to point out that i make spelling errors. This is shows the weak, flimsy, and morally bankrupt nature of atheism. They really do start in on the dyslexia when they have nothing to say about the issues. It can predict like clock work. I have really seen atheist wailing on me for my spelling when I spell check their statements they have more errors than I do. Not so with this guy but then he has no arguemnt to make either. Nothing shows their morally repugnant way of thinking better than this. It always reminds me of the skit on Monty Python where the guy is shouting at a man lying on the ground having fallen down form his chair becuase he has no legs and the guy standing above him, at the starting point of an Olympic footrace "run damn you!" "You lazy bastard!"

Because that guy doesn't have my prove he just it's so easy to never make a mistake. He does't have the courage he pretends to have or the erudition by putting his ideas to the test.

Sunday, December 16, 2012

CARM atheists resort to charges of violance against me to shut me up

It finally hapepned. They are reaching for the big guns to get me off of CARM. They are accusing me of making violent threats against a woman.

I askthis guy what NWRT meant. he said "No worth responding to" I joking said "well all you to do was say it you don't have to tell me I'm not worth responding to." God only knows who deep psychological wound that triggered then says:

 leyman said:


Quote Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
well gee if you don't want to tall me just say so. You don't have to say it's not worth it to respond to me! (it's a joke) ( I am kidding! ;-)

Were you joking and kidding when you were apparently seriously threatening to physically assault an 18 year-old girl in here, Meta?

Originally Posted by BlackLight View Post
Is there a link to this, by any chance?
The CARM moderators wisely deleted all of the offensive threatening posts shortly after I notified them of them and right before they gave Metacrock a suspension as a result.
We may have a new Davis Mabus in the making here.

 he said that. that's a big lie I never did any such thing. this guys is nothing but a lying sack of shit. nothing like that ever happened.

 here's that guy, this is the guy they are comparing me to. so they have arbitrarily decide that I'm a puissant violent scum back troll who can't think why? they cant' beat my argumetns. every single discussion I have with them I come awa beating stuipud little empty heads in rhtorically.

here's the guy they are comparing me to:

I see you’ve all met our little troll, David Mabus. “Mabus” (his real name is Dennis Markuze, and he used to sell used computers in Montreal, Canada) has been flooding my mailbox for about the last month — he has a list of about 70 skeptics and atheists, and just about every day he fires off his little angry rant about how James Randi owes him a million dollars right now, based on prophecies from Nostradamus or some such nonsense. You can get a feel for his insanity from this series of posts he made to the Center for Inquiry forum. It’s hard to avoid coming to the conclusion that he really is mentally ill; if any of you know this fellow personally, you might want to get him some help, fast.
I do have his phone number and address. He has been escalating his attacks lately, and if they get any worse, I’ll be contacting the authorities myself. This is one of those cases where I’ve been targeted by someone with a severe mental disorder, and I think he can be a real risk — but of course I’m only one among many targets, and I think the person who ought to be most concerned is James Randi.
 what's the ratinale for doing it? Because he can make up something. something that jut conviently was taken down by the mds so he can't really prove it but we have his word for it! that's so comforting.

what simliariy is there between me and this guy? none. but he says it's the same. this is telling me if I dont' watch my step they will ruin my reputation. but they are not Nazis or anything. O don't think that of cousre they  only use black mail, character assignation. lying, and any other unfair tatick.

now the chickens are coming how to rust now we see what atheism is made of.

what that Mabus guy is doing sounds stupid, but then they want to harass him on the phone. that's even stupider and it's illegal. They are storm troopers, they are Nazis they are brown shirts.

first he asked if I was joking. then after I deny it several times he get's a real tough guy thing going:

Ohh, and BTW, Meta, if you ever threaten Tyrael with physical violence again expect legal action to take place against you. I have both the financial and legal means and tools available to make life most uncomfortable for you if you persist with these threats.

Tyrael is family to me and I do not take threats of physical violence to my family lightly, Sir.

You need to not only cease and desist with your threats of physical violence against Tyrael but need to apologize for the ones you have already threatened her with.

If you do not you are the lowest and most despicable piece of human excrement that ever walked the Earth, Sir. Does it make you feel good as a grown and supposedly adult man to threaten and intimidate an 18 year old girl? Bravo, Sir. Well done. You sicken me.

Remember why you got banned and the mods deleted all the threats in your sub-threads, Sir?

Be a man and just apologize, Meta.

Hang on to the miniscule shred of whatever dignity you have left.
Real big he man. Here are the facts:

(1) I don't remember much about it. I do remember being shocked some time ago that they took something innocent that Is said as a thread. I know It was not a threat and I denied that it was one.

(2) they claim I said "I'm going to knock your block off." I think from the nature of terms it's obvious that it's nota  big threat. That's not how you threaten someone? Are we living in a peanuts cartoon? Am I Charlie Brown and this is Lucy I'm threatening. "knock your block off?"

(3) I'm pretty sure it was either a joke or a metaphor for wining a debate. "I'm going to knock your block off in debate." that's what Lucy says to Linus.

(4) I do know for certain i was not threatening anyone because I never have done that and I never would.

They are trying to destroy the positive way people think of me so they can shut me up because they can't beat my arguments. The stuff he says to me above is a lot more vicious than "I'm going to knock your block off."

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Stupid Atheist Trick of the day: Help meet

Arguing about Genesis as "sexist" an atheist on CARM (Dark Lady) said that by assigning woman to be "helper" he was creating her to be second place. I pointed out that this word is used of God several hunkered times in the OT so it can't be mean side kick or subordinate. It imply a stinger figure to whom a weaker figure looks.

Help Meet

Some try to use the phrase "help meet" as the basis for female submission. There is nothing about this term that implies submission: the term is "ezer" and it baiscally means "succor" "aid" "help" "to strengthen." From an on line version of Driver and Briggs as well as Vines Hebrew lexicon we see that this word is used of God in the psalms, and in other ensconces where the "ezer" was greater or more important or stronger than the one being helped.

Translated word: Ezer; help, soccer, support

Pslams20:2 "Send thee help from the sanctuary, and strengthen thee out of Zion;"

Ps 33:20 "Our soul waiteth for the LORD: he is our help and our shield."

Ps 70:5 "But I am poor and needy: make haste unto me, O God: thou art my help and my deliverer; O LORD, make no tarrying."

Ps 89:19 "Then Thu spikiest in vision to thy holy one, and saidst, I have laid help upon one that is mighty; I have exalted one chosen out of the people."

Ps 115:9 "O Israel, trust thou in the LORD: he is their help and their shield."

Ps 115:10 "O house of Aaron, trust in the LORD: he is their help and their shield."

Ps 115:11 "Ye that fear the LORD, trust in the LORD: he is their help and their shield."

Ps 121:1 "I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help.

Ps 121:2 "My help cometh from the LORD, which made heaven and earth."

Ps 124:8 "Our help is in the name of the LORD, who made heaven and earth."

Ps 146:5 "Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the LORD his God."

In all of these verses God is the help.This is the very same word translated "help meet" in Gensis the second chapter. One can see that it is nota word which denotes any sort of submissive or subservient position. The only other major claim is that submission was the consequence of the fall, a curse put upon woman for sinning and eating the fruit. Let's examine that idea on page 2.

In their cunning enginuity, never give up dought if there is breath left in the body. they found a way to try and continue the line of doubt:

Originally Posted by nmanning View Post
The phrase "help meet" shows up 4 times in the KJV of the bible.

Yet nowhere is this odd phrase defined.


Were the bible writers ignorant of what it meant? Were they trying to hide something?

Was it just made up?

It seems that an "help meet" was a pretty important thing - Yahweh made the animals and then paraded them before the man made of dirt for him to choose from, yet nowhere is "help meet" defined.

Something seems fishy...

 It's totally odd the things these people come up with. why didn't they define a word that was part of their language and they knew the meaning/ doesn't kind of assume they knew about us reading their words 3000 years latter?

that would have to assume they knew about English and understood how "help" would throw us off.
How often do we define every term we use?

Monday, December 10, 2012

Atheist Farm


I have noted the Orwellian nature of atheist language. For atheists reading this, George Orwell was a great writer who specialized in political language. One of his greatest achievements was to write an essay which one of the best ever written on the use of language in political ideology: "Politics and the English Language," written in 1946. In that great work he reminds us that:

Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

Never was this so true than in dealing with atheists. In the way atheist are beginning to use speech we can see all tricks Orwell talked about. Of course most of these internet atheists have not read Animal Farm or 1984 so they have no idea. But in their use of certain words they disguise totalitarian leanings one would never suspect. The totalitarian regimes of the Soviet Union refereed to their political dissidents as "mentally ill" and kept putting in mental institutions becuase they felt rejecting the worker's paradise must surely be a form of mental illness.

I've already written about how the atheists use term "delusion." They actually don't use it to mean mental illness. They use the term to merely mean "a wrong idea." But in using a term that everyone knows means a false construct which results from mental illness they are actually calling religious people mentally ill without having to admit that they are doing it. It's like if they said religious people are stupid. The religious person objects but they said "it's a special form of the word that doesn't mean really not bright," but then they keep saying it. We would get the idea. It's like insulting people in ways that are plausibly deniable. why use a special term such as this just to mean "this is idea is wrong?" obviously it's meant to carry a connotation. Now consider the dangers of labeling as mentally ill any one who happens to disagree with your point of view. Atheism as a whole is become more totalitarian all the time and they can't see it because they are so addicted to the charge they get from feeling superior.

Here's the latest example of the Orwellian tendencies. They Dawkies use the term "cult" in relation to all religious belief and groups. Of course they have no knowledge of the true sociological meaning of the term. They think all cults are imposing their will upon brain washed lackies whose live they take over and ruin. An example is the posting by a CARM Dawkie named "Toast"

The title of the therad:" a few questions about cults" so he's just equating religion with cults.

If no one ever told you about your god you would still believe?

if so, would your belief mirror the one you have been indoctrinated into?

if you still would believe even if know one told you these things to
believe would you not just be making things up?

He's trying to say that because you can't come to the same conclusions you do as a Christian on your own with no Bible and no church to guide you then it must be a cult because it's others imposing their will.

another post by Toast:

sorry but everything...a religion is a cult

This is also the same tendency. Everything the other guys value we disvalue so every term they use we must re-think impose our own terms. We can't allow them to name their own things, such as "church" we must name them and stick them with the connotations of our own interpretation. So thus Churches become cults. The irony meter is gong to blaring in a moment.

The really alarming tendency is the almost blatant admittion that ideas which don't stack up to the atheist ideology are "dangerous" and must be controlled. This statement was made on CARM sept 21 2009 by "Mountaineer Elf.

Because some ideas can be dangerous. Not all ideas deserve to be heard if they are dangerous.

Trying to usurp science and reality to stick in your deity is dangerous.

The context he's speaking of is an argument for the existence of God. The idea that a new concept or some concept that he doesn't agree with is "usurping scinece" is quite alarming. What's worse is he's not content for scinece to stay in its own domain it must conquer all and control all reality. Science when are arguemnts for God usurping scinece? That can only be the case if he thinks that science's proper domain is dictating  that we can't believe in God. It's even worse than that, their ideology equates science with reality. His view is so totalizing that it must control all, there can be nothing in existence that is not controlled by his view point.

In defending this other atheoids literally said "O he didn't mean it that way and you know it." How do we know it? How could he mean it in any other way? In what way could God arguments userp scinece and reality without the idea that science is all reality?

Here's the Orwellian rub. In animal farm the Pigs control the farm. There's a revolution the animals have overthrown the farmer and changed the name of the Farm to "animal farm" they are in charge. The pigs are the leaders, they keep putting up posters with slogans telling the other animals what it's all about. But they keep changing the messages until they come around to mean the exact opposite of what they did at first. This is the way totalitarians use language, according to Orwell.

(for a synopsis of the book go here)

Atheist used to call themselves "free thinkers." They wanted us to believe that they were just sticking for the rights of us all to think anything we think and believe anything we believe. Now they begin to define believing things that contradict their ideology add "delusion" and "usurping reality." When I pointed this out Mountaineer Elf redefined the nature of free thinking:


True free thinkers are those that can speak and think with accuracy and honesty. As a scientist, I pride myself on being able to read and understand the natural world and everything it has to offer. Not all of it is 100% right, but I consider the 95% to be good enough.

This is so Orwellian everyone need to see this. He's narrowed the definitive of free thinking to the point where it includes his ideology and nothing more. So free thinkers are people who agree with me. Those are the one's we call "Scientists." The true free thinkers agree with me and nothing more.

But wait he's not done. It get's worse. he goes one better:

The rest of your anti-free thought rant snipped - not worth responding to insults. If you want a discussion, I'm more than willing to discuss. If you want to hurl insults, I can just go back to the Evolution/ID forum and have Creationists assume that I'm stupid for not buying into talking snakes, magic trees, and global floods.

Now he defines opposing his form of totalitarianism is "anti-free thinking." This is just like the communists. If you are dissident you are mentally ill and sanity is defined as obeying the state. If you point out that he's against free thought hense you are anti-free thought because free thought has now been reduced to nothing more than agreement with him. To disagree with him is opposes free thought. So the person who thinks we should all have the right to think for ourselves is now anti-free thought and one who thinks we have to control everything that is not in agreement with the ideology is now the free thinker! Black and just become white, as Orwell said. That is exactly what Orwell said political language does. read it again:

"Political designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.."

Then his cohorts carry it a step further and if you dissent from this truth regeime of the atheists then you are a danger to humanity:

May brick

So Metacrock would be happy for children to be taught that HIV is spread through vaccines and that condoms offer no protection?

You can't get more Orwellian than this. This is exactly right out of 1984 where the state has the right to imposes that dissenters must  accept their view of reality even by forcing them to admit something such as 2 + 2 = 5. In forcing them to accept something they categorically and fundamentally believe to be totally wrong they are eliminating their ability to ever think independently. That is exactly what's happened to many of these atheists and what they are trying to do to religious people.

In brow beating, intimidating, by mocking and ridiculing people they force them to de-convert and in so doing they force them to alter their most basic and cherished beliefs and the fundamental understanding they have of who they are and what reality is. there is nothing more hinus one can do to another person. that is on a par with murder and If thought like they do I should start calling them murderers.

I'm sure they will come back and say they can't force anyone to deconvert against their will, that doesn't stop them from trying and it means they are shutting down reason and thought in discourse, they shut down reasoned discussion and reduce the whole situation to a political escapade. Perhaps this means they are not quite as bad as I think, but only becuase they aren't successful enough in what they are trying to do.

I know they are not all like this. There are may smart freedom loving atheists who don't do this way. There are plenty who do. I just hope it's becuase they don't really understand how what they say implies totalitarian mentality.

Saturday, December 8, 2012

Who says there's perfect circle? Atheist reasoning is a perfect circle

 Atheist cartoon illustrating what they think is circular reasoning.

This began on CARM when an atheist began demanding "actual data" that would prove the existence of God. It's' clear what he really meant was he emended that God be a tangible physical thing in creation before he could believe. He expressed that as "actual data." He's blurring the distinction between data that would point toward God's existence vs. God being an actual psychosocial property that he could touch and handle and see. I offered two sets of "actual data" (empirical scientific data) both of which point to God, the M scale based studies on mystical experience, and evidence for fine  tuning of the universe's anthropic principle. Of cousre neither of these satisfied him becuase he didn't' want mere data he wanted God to be something that requires no faith to believe in. In the process he exemplifies circular reasoning at it's most convoluted.

Originally Posted by Whatsisface View Post
The so called fine tuning argument is not so much about scientific data, its more about a particular interpretation of scientific data.
you can say that about anything. all science is interpretation of data. Multiverse has no data. why do you need actual data anyway?

The M scale is a subjective questionnaire, and as such can show nothing concrete.
no it's not. it's objective and it's empirical. It's time you learned about it.
This is just another example of how the same people don't listen to the answers even when they are presented over and over again. I put up the link to the chapter in the text book by the guy who invented the M scale, Dr. Ralph Hood Jr. ( U. Tennessee Chattanooga) I put it up 147 times, those are the the one' s I counted. Probably more like 300 times. Two atheist looked at it one said he didn't understand it. The other said little more. This guy saw the link numerous times, he never looked at it. Now here he is regurgitating the same ignorance they all do becuase they refuse to read the material I offer.

I am baffled as to why if you think your opinions matter, you express them so vaguely. 
 Vaguely! I showed me a whole chapter in a science text book explaining the study methodology, real vague. who else on that board has gone to the lengths I have to explain his views? no one.

that's ludicrous. I'm not only one on this board who research and gives any kind of empirical evidence to back up his claims. most of your answers are just arguemnt form incredulity.
The multiverse is a speculative answer to a speculative question. What we lack here is knowledge. Just because we lack knowledge doesn't mean you can legitimately say God did it.
They never seem to understand the concept of a justification argument. Nor do they understand of elemination. They can't offer any other solution, this is the one that works. So why not say it? Because it's the one they hate. Here's what I said on the board:

thatch' why it doesn't work as an answer. the argument of FT is the very thing you asked fort this just proves that you dont' want truth. you didn't want the stuff you ask for becuase when you get it all picky about it. It's not God DNA sample. You are just saying "I dont' care. unless I have a mug shot of God on trial I wont believe."
where do you actually draw the line? do you have to stand before God on judgement day or would you actually refuse to believe then?
Here I'm pointing out to them that the multivariate (the usual answer to fine tuning) has no empirical data to back it. He demands empirical data of God's existence but the answer to God's existence he will accept without data.
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
you can say that about anything. all science is interpretation of data. Multiverse has no data.

why do you need actual data anyway?

there's another jump here to another post there he's saying I don't need data becuase i have the M scale (never mind that it is the metholgocial procedure that resutls in the data).

So you can say it about the Mscale then. All you think you can show from it and your studies is an interpretation of data. Why do you need data anyway?
same reason men climb mountains. why do you reject the data you ask for when you get it?
Actually The point he's making is illogical becuase he goes from "that's just interpreting data" to why do you need data, with no justification, becuase I never intimated that I don't need data. I did ask him why he does. that's a question of what one decides is data. The atheists would not accept anyting as data pointing toward God, nothing short of actual finger prints or DNA samples. Even then they would doubt it. In my view experience of Gdo's presence is data. the M scales makes it possible to pin down exactly what is an actual mystical experience, that enables us to compress the effects of having mystical experience to not having it. that enables us to show that it makes a huge difference in people's lives, that proves religion works in that it does the thing sit claims to do. Then there is also the universal element of religious experience which is a good indication that it is an experience of soemthing beyond the human mind.

He asserts it's not objective


no it's not. it's objective and it's empirical. It's time you learned about it.

See above.

He just says "see above meaning his statement that the M scale is not objective.


man you guys just cannot stay away from the circular reasoning can you? when I say atheist hate logic you get all up set but obviously you do becuase just think in circles. I just disproved what's above, you can't answer. so instead of trying you say "see above." then I guess when I point this out you'll say "see below."

thatch' why it doesn't work as an answer. the argument of FT is the very thing you asked for this just proves that you dont' want truth. you didn't want the stuff you ask for becuase when you get it all picky about it. It's not God DNA sample I dont' care. unless I have a mug shot of God on trial I wont believe.

I don't use the multiverse as an answer to anything. You brought up fine tuning, my response was to say that you don't know whether the universe is the only way it could be or not, you ignored this point.
He tries to worm out of the multiverse problem by using a different answer. That answer illustrates why the multiverse argument is the atheist answer of choice, because this answer sux.

I quoted Davies (who was the darling of atheists when he wrote God and the New Physics but now they hate him because he turned Deist and wrote the Mind of God). He says the universe did not have to be the way it is. Not just any old universe will do but it must be the way it is to fine life. Meaning it had be purposely fine tanned becuase the odds of it stacking up that way are so extremely remote. that's an indication the game is fixed.


"You might be tempted to suppose that any old rag-bag of laws would produce a complex universe of some sort, with attendant inhabitants convinced of their own specialness. Not so. It turns out that randomly selected laws lead almost inevitably either to unrelieved chaos or boring and uneventful simplicity. Our own universe is poised exquisitely between these unpalatable alternatives, offering a potent mix of freedom and discipline, a sort of restrained creativity. The laws do not tie down physical systems so rigidly that they can accomplish little, but neither are they a recipe for cosmic anarchy. Instead, they encourage matter and energy to develop along pathways of evolution that lead to novel variety-what Freeman Dyson has called the principle of maximum diversity: that in some sense we live in the most interesting possible universe."

"Some scientists have tried to argue that if only we knew enough about the laws of physics, if we were to discover a final theory that united all the fundamental forces and particles of nature into a single mathematical scheme, then we would find that this superlaw, or theory of everything, would describe the only logically consistent world. In other words, the nature of the physical world would be entirely a consequence of logical and mathematical necessity. There would be no choice about it. I think this is demonstrably wrong. There is not a shred of evidence that the universe is logically necessary. Indeed, as a theoretical physicist I find it rather easy to imagine alternative universes that are logically consiste
nt, and therefore equal contenders for reality." First Things: Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address (1999)

same principle. you are doing what I said you would with the FN only in terms of any other argument. you wanted data, you got data, you are want the data after all.

where do you actually draw the line? do you have to stand before God on judgement day or would you actually refuse to believe then?


I don't disbelieve for the sake of it. Theism hasn't met it's evidential burden.



 I might not blow my stack like this if I hadn't put up a link to the M scale stuff 147 times and they all refuse to read it. Then claim the very stuff the chapter linked to would have dispelled but they refuse to look at it. So what they really want is not data but to pretend that they have no been given data. When you do give it they refuse to accept or even read about it.

the Circular bit is that we get through this torturous process of denial then he just asserts all the positions I just got though bashing as I didn't say anything.

The cartoon at the begining is circular reasoning. There are Christians who argue that way, they need to stop. they need ot learn some basic logic. The atheists are no better then need to learn some basic logic too. We can make a cartoon like this:

Atheist: there is no scientific data to prove God exits.

believer: here's some

Atheist: I refuse to recognie this

Believer: why it meets all the criteria?

Atheist: see above.

Thursday, December 6, 2012

Why Atheists Have No Ears


"he who has ears to hear, let him hear."

Apologetics is not for unbelievers. It's not exactly for convincing oneself either. But it is definitely not for atheists. Its' pointless trying to convince someone of something that is contrary to their paradigm. Paradigms control all. People cannot and are not capable of seeing into a different world. They live in the world they are in, the world of the paradigm. Paradigm shifts only when there are too many anomalies to be absorbed by the old paradigm. Until that happens there's no convincing someone his paradigm is wrong. Now you might think this means that means we should go about the task of trying pile up anomalies. The problem with that is atheists are able to absorb vast amounts of anomalies into their paradigm and they employ a verity of methods to do so. Kuhn says this is what happens, the ruling paradigm can adsorb a certain degree of anomalies and until you get so many that can't deal with them any more and the paradigm starts to shift, they are just all absorbed and don't' seem to matter.

Now i think little by little the paradigm is shifting, it will eventually turn over. It will probably never be non materialists or "spiritualist." But it is clear that the old paradigm has given way in several areas and ideas that would once have been considered totally loony are not part of the new paradigm. The problem is the new paradigm is packaged as a continuation of the old; in other words, the old materialist paradigm has now given way to the new physicalist. The difference being that under the old paradigm (materialist)only materiel things were possible. Reality was thought of as the "material" realm. Then it was realized that energy is another form of matter, so it's not mater itself and thus more than just mater is possible.So the new paradigm (phsyicalist) says that only what is physical is possible. Spirit still ruled out (except it can come in the back door in the form of energy) but it is recognized that there are two media for existence, rather than just the material there is also energy (which is another form of matter).

Meanwhile, there are many areas through which the evil idealism has seeped into the new paradigm: healing in medicine, the idea of mind over matter, realms beyond that of nature (which is what string membranes are) but they have to be packed as "physical." As long as it all part of "the physical" (which is idealist enough as it goes, then it can have a place. So ideas which never have been considered fifty years ago are now front and center. But the only proviso is we can't acknowledge it. We have to keep up the charade that idealism/spiritualism is beaten and materialism (in the form of physicalism which allows for energy) prevails. But in prevailing it makes room for other realms beyond that of nature (space/time) mind over matter, healing in medicine, archetypes, here's a complete list:

(1) Quantum Theory (no need for cause/effect)

(2) Big bang Cosmology (realm beyond the natrual)

(3) Medicine (healing)

(4) Consciousness (invites concept of dualism)

(6) Maslow's Archetypes (universal ideas)

(7) Miracles (empirical evidence)

(8) Near Death Experiences (scientific evidence)

(9) Esp Research (the fact that they do it)

(10) Validity of religious experince (Shrinks no longer assume pathology)

(11) Mind over matter (pleacebo effect).

For this reason I am willing to think that the paradigm will eventually shift. It probably wont ever allow for "supernatural," but it will contain supernatural like ideas masquerading as materialist/physicialist. We already see it now in the mind over matter of the placebo effect.

Nevertheless, despite this movement, the materialist/physicalist paradigm can absorb an almost infinite amount anomalous of behavior simply because "energy" covers a multitude of idealist propositions. Anything not material can always be sold as "energy." Pure idea can be sold as brain chemistry because it has to be transmitted that way. Thus Dawkins insists there cant' be a mind without a brain. But what's really being said there is that any form of ideal or idea or "mind" or anything not material can always be coopted as "energy" and thus it can never be anomalous under a physicalist paradigm. But there's another reason as well why it will take a long time for a big paradigm shift. There is no end of atheist incredulity. The physicalist paradigm lends itself to incredulity because we know it works. We don't know the range of its limitations because we can't produce evidence under the same paradigm of things beyond the paradigm, so of course we can exclude any hit of actual anomaly. Of course we can't expect evidence under the paradigm that would legitimate anomalies of that same paradigm, then they wouldn't be anomalies. The incredulity factor always allows one to put it in the magic pressure cooker and (whish wish) it's gone!

Here's an example of what I mean. Here's an example of a Saint making miracle from my miracles page. It's no longer found on the URL it once was, so the link doesn't work. But it was there:

Society for the Little Flower (Website) FAQ (visited 6/3/01) St. Theresse of Lisieux

"Regarding St. Therese, in 1923 the Church approved of two spontaneous cures unexplained by medical treatment. Sister Louise of St. Germain was cured of the stomach ulcers she had between 1913 and 1916. The second cure involved Charles Anne, a 23 year old seminarian who was dying from advanced pulmonary tuberculosis. The night he thought he was dying, Charles prayed to Therese. Afterward, the examining doctor testified, "The destroyed and ravaged lungs had been replaced by new lungs, carrying out their normal functions and about to revive the entire organism. A slight emaciation persists, which will disappear within a few days under a regularly assimilated diet." These two miracles resulted in Therese becoming beatified."

The atheists on carm treated this with total incredulity. It has to be a lie. First they said I made it up. then I lined to the site and they could see it was their and howled with laughter. How stupid could I be? It's a religious site dedicated to that saint to of course it's a lie! I gave all the evidence on miracles pages about the rules of miracles in RCC and showed that they use medical evdience, there x-rays of the lungs and so on. But they insisted this is not good because its not in a medical journal. So I emailed a member of the committee, a medical expert who does research for the medical committee, and he vouched for its authenticity. That's no good, he' on that committee so he's lying. I brought up the x-rays, well I don't have the x-rays so its' still lie. I would have to have the x-rays in my hot little hand before it could actually be accepted. If i actually get the xrays from the Vatican, which were taken in the early part of the 20th century, (like that's a fair requirement that I some little guy in Texas, a prot, with no official connections could get these xrays), if I did have them don't you think they would still say its a lie? x-rays can be fabricated. So it's an anomaly and it will always be an anomaly because one may always doubt.

I recently had a discussion on my message boards about my mystical experience arguments (The Trace of God). I was as clear as anyone could be, and i worked several times to meet the evidential burden required by the atheist dialogue "partner." But this guy just played dense. He refused to get it. But I think a Chrsitain poster named "Wordgazer" really summed it up best:

FWIW, I didn't have any trouble following or understanding Metacrock's reasoning, and I do think he addressed each of Marxiavelli's concerns. What it looked like to me was that Marxiavelli was looking at things through his scientific materialist worldview, and was either unable or unwilling to shift to a different perspective. For example, he seemed to think Metacrock was using the religious experience argument to prove one particular set of religious beliefs, and because they didn't do this, Marxiavelli appeared to think that this trumped all rational warrant for a belief in anything non-material at all. But Metacrock was not arguing for Christianity; he was arguing for the interaction between humans and something Divine that was undefined. What I was seeing was something that I myself have experienced-- the challenge by an atheist to prove theism, but only within the atheism box. Invitations to climb out of the box and look further, were apparently misunderstood as not answering the questions. There were a few times that Metacrock got frustrated, but I really don't think he was being "extremely and unnecessarily aggressive."

We live in different worlds. The world of the atheist is not the world of the theist and they don't want to see into my world. They want to reassure themselves that it's ok to deny my world is valid and to secure their own world. One can hide a lot of anomalies that way. As Wordgazer said it's really just a matter of who wants to see what. Of course they would impune my motives for wanting to see the validity of my world, but pat themselves on the back and rationalize their biases as "hard nosed critical thinking." Hard nosed critical thinking that does not want to see.

This is why the realizing God (existential phenomenological who ha) is really the only tenable approach. Until one is willing make a realization, or until one does make such a realization, the anomalies will always be absorbed into he paradigm. "Realizing God" is nothing more than a change in the ground, a shift in consciousness, a paradigm shift. The materialist paradigm is front end loaded with built-in incredulity as a defense mechanism against shifts.

But all of this really biols down to is good old fashioned sin. "5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." (John 1:5). No amount of evdience will ever shit them and no amount of logic will ever read them.

Now this doesn't mean that I wont continue the friendships I've made. I have made freinds with some atheists, and some who are good people who I really like. I will continue those friendships and we can discuss anything. But I wont discuss God with them or God arguments. There's no point. The literal reading of the "great commission" (the Bible doesn't call it that) says "where ever you happen to be going, tell them the truth." I did tell them. They didn't want to get it.