This is an old conflict I've had with atheist "Mary Jane" who doesn't know the difference in a study and an article. "She" (?) made comments about the so called study (Mohad study on religious experience) but she was really talking about the article. She didn't realize they were two different things. Now an atheist called Phoenix jumps in trying to show that she's right. This is all coming out of a concerted effort the carm atheists have been making for a couple of years now to create the myth that I"m a lousy scholar and I'm dishonest about sources.
Here is Phoenix trying to prove that I'm dishonest with sources. he claims that I'm being dishonest when I say the Mohan article is not the Mohan study. It's obviously not:
(1) if you read it you see it's not a study, it's summary of other studies.
(2) in that summary he talks about his own study
(3) he lists his study in the bib and it's different form the article being read, different title, different venue, the talks about methodology he doesn't use in the article. It's clearly and obviously a different source.
here is phoenix's accusations of my work:
I couldn't copy the whole list (it is available if you click the link above), but that looks like more than 50 and the reference highlighted in red is a religious text. Once again, you are misteinterpreting other peoples' work by claiming that
a) Mohan's article is a study
b) his bibliography is a list of empirical studies
It's the highest form of dishonesty in academics to misinterpret other people's work in this manner. And you continue to do it with with Mohan, Wuthnow, Noble and now with the studies only you think prove that atheists have low self-esteem. Stop and reasses, Meta, before you embarass yourself with that book you're writing. I say that with the best intentions.
----END MaryJane's Post-- (NOTE: The link to the Mohan article on Meta's blog didn't work, so I fixed that and converted the link to Meta's blog to url that can be copied and pasted)
Do note that it is YOU actually referred to the Mohan article as "STUDY" on your very own blog (forgot that did you?) and MaryJane QUOTED you EXACTLY (posted your words from your blog). You are actually accusing MaryJane of calling the article a "study" when she did no such thing, so who's the one lying here, Meta?
I refereed to the Mohan study at one point the article at another. here's the proof there are two different works.
this is the article refereed to in the index on the Indian Psychology website:
Mohan, K. Krishna (2001) -- Spirituality and well-being: an overview**
"This paper shows the close relationship between spirituality and well-being by presenting research based evidence that spirituality or a spiritual way of life has a bearing on well-being. In addition, it shows that ideas or concepts drawn from spirituality can be effectively applied to counselling and psychotherapy."
listing in bib in the article just cited:
Krishna Mohan, K. (1999). Spirituality and Well-being: Effects of spiritual experiences and spiritually based life style change programme on psychological well-being . Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam.
It has a similar title but it's form 1999, if you look at the other article it says it's based upon a presentation and it says it's an overview. this one says it's his dissertation it's not called overview and it's not form the same year. So obviously the article is a summary of his findings and not the study itself.
It's also listed with his first name first so maybe they alphabetize funny over there but it's under K rather than M.
paragraph in the article where he mentions the study:
speaks of himself in the 3d person but he's clearly taking about himself and his study:
"Another recent study by Krishna Mohan (1999) looked into the effects of the spiritual experiences of 200 respondents aged 20-70 years, belonging to 13 various spiritual organizations based on Hindu Philosophy. The subjects were administered the Life Experience Questionnaire (LEQ), Index of Changes Resulting from Experience (ICRE) and Checklist of Effects of Experiences (CEE). The findings revealed that after the spiritual experiences they were generally happy, cheerful and at peace most of the time, and rarely downhearted or depressed. Among the values and motivations which give them meaning in life, they reported that the need to achieve personal growth and maintaining close relationships with loved ones who are important gave them a purpose in life. The majorities of the respondents reported having excellent health, and were satisfied with the meaning and purpose they found in their lives. A significant number of respondents said that the spiritual experiences they had were valuable or beneficial to them. It was also found that most of the experiences contained references to the spiritual leader, God and a “Higher power”. Further they have reported an increase in areas reflecting humanistic and spiritual concerns, and a decrease in negative feelings and beliefs."
If the article is the study what is this? It's in the article? How could he be talking about a work in the work he's writing and the study he's talking about isn't' there? Its' obviously a different work.
now Mabye I'm not always clear and maybe they can't keep up with the things I say because it's over their heads, or mabye since htey are so convened the article is the study they just don't even think about it when they run into it, but it's obvious there two different things. when I have I have spoken in the past of the Mohan study they assumed I was speaking of the article and I was not.
no more petty BS. I have proved I ran an academic journal. I'm not gonna to put up with this busy work make trouble bull any more.
The first ingenius response comes form Muffins:
What academic journal did you run..? Let's see the evidence of this claim. Someone who can't spell, and lacks even a semblance of grammar and syntax, I'll need to see the ocular proof of this assertion. Or is this academic journal like your and Tillich's deity, and just the ground of being a journal but not really a journal..?
notice how with deft strudel he sides steps the issue of the OP and moves to something irrelevant but something he can use to make people think "yes, this guy can't be a scholar."
Originally Posted by BlackLight
Interesting. I almost cannot believe that the person who wrote articles for that journal is the same person who posts in these forums.you get the feeling they are avoiding something?
Originally Posted by bigthinker
#3 Meta fails to produce evidence for or otherwise convince on the only point we see as being important -that being whether God actually exists.
I have 52 proofs that are unanswered. so you are wrong. i have prove it 52 times.
Meta does a great job of providing evidence of belief and his arguments that people have reason to believe are valid(ish) but he utterly fails to demonstrate the actual existence of God outside of his imagination -which is the only thing most of us atheists really care about.
you totally ignore my argument which shows actually poof is not a valid thing to require. so we should us what I call "level 2" which my God arguments provide. you just kind of side stepped that.
I've proved that Mary Jane was talking about the article and never read the study. the fact you are all avoiding this completely proves I hit the nail on the head.Now you can't show any place in the Journal where I mispell or use bad grammar.
My grammar is good yours is so so. my grammar is better than yours, you don't know what grammar is.
In an attempt to save face Mar Jane says:
this is the first refrence to the op after 45 posts:
Everybody knows that, Meta. Especially those of us who read the article and saw that you stole your reference list from the article and not the study.That's a laugh. First of all, what in the hell makes this illiterate think that using the sources in a bib is stealing? Secondly I combined it with with sources from other bibs to make a huge master bib, there is no rule of any kind anywhere that ays that's wromg. MOreover the only way she knows I did is because I said I did. Meaning I didnt "steal it' I knowldged where I got the sources.
this is another lame attempt to change the subject and shed blame back on me and distract from the issue that I proved her wrong.
btw this is going to be on fine on my site so you might well be on notice if you bring this up again I will show the proof again.