Come post with me

 

I have a great message board community, Doxa forums. It's a totally unique community becuase we no trolls, we have no BS yammering, no bickering. I just don't allow trolls. We do have free speech, we have good serious discussion. We are all friends. We have intelligent atheists (Yes! I told it was rare) and intelligent Christians.

Now input is welcome. It's gotten down the same few people and need new ideas and new voices. We will welcome atheists as well as Chrsitians or anyone else. Please come and see:

Doxa forums.

Atheist Propagadna and Religious Experience

 

Perhaps nothing scares atheists like feelings. They scared to death of religious experience arguments. Nothing raises their hatred like talking about religious experiences. Daren Brown is some sort of British stage magician who has a new stage act supposedly inducing religious experiences. Atheists waste no time in arguing that this is proof that such experiences are just accidents that mean nothing. He states "I examined the Placebo effect and proved just how powerful fear and faith can be." Of course he assumes that because there is a psychological process that produces faith that then there's no object of faith beyond that process that has any real bearing on life. This is really no different than the one's who claim to stimulate parts of the brain to induce religoius experiences.

In calling it "placebo" he's trying to set up the suggestion that it's unreal, it's unnecessary, God is the great cosmic sugar pill. Then he totally ignores the nature of real placebo. It's only for medicine, there's no evidence that such suggestive keys can manipulate us apart from expectation. All the things that he does in relation to evoking the psychological process are manipulative means of setting up the association. Yet most religious experience of the sort called "mystical" is not expected. In about half the time it's experienced in childhood, and much of the time mystical experiences contradict the doctrine of the experincer. If it was a real placebo it should confirm expectations. Placebo work by expectation. They don't work by challenging expectations. Calling it a placebo is wrong and improper and it's probably only done to evoke the concept and prepare the atheist to inoculated against emotion by making her suspicious of religious feelings.

He sets up several incidents before the main show (the phony atheist conversion) that are intended to get across the idea that suggestion works powerfully and most such feelings as one associates with the supernatural are also just manipulation. He makes people feel afraid by putting them in a room alone after reading to them some satanic right supposedly form the eleventh century. People are turned on by a sense of dark mysterious and ancient.  He gave people a fake drug which is no more than a sugar pill and by getting them to believe in it I got them to make dramatic changes in their lives. Of course he doesn't follow them in their lives or do a longitudinal study to determine if the changes are really transformational (dramatic, positive, and long term). He has no real control and no real way of determining if he's given anyone a real experience. Empirical study has demonstrated that religious experience is real, that's transformational, and that there is a way to determine real experiences from phony ones. No there is no proof direly that it's caused by God but this can be argued successfully by paying attention to what can be proved and using it with logic. It is the M scale that provides us with that means of verification for religious experience and it's been validated by a half dozen studies around the world.

His psychological explanation for the process is typically convoluted and not well throughout. He does an experiment that shows people in private when not watched lie about their mistakes. The idea is tp show that there's a presence in the room no one cheats. If people are given a idea of supernatural presence they act more moral. It is asserted that there are evolutionary reasons why we developed the idea of a supernatural presence. Don't want to be outcast form the tribe so we can reproduce. divine presence would ensure the sense of being cought out. God is made up to make us be moral. In other words like Foucault's take on the Panopticon the prisoners are learning to watch themselves. The problem here is he's convoluted several different reasons in to one.

First of all, if we feel a sense of presence that in itself is reason to assume we feel it. It doesn't have to be the result of needing a moral campus and inviting an invisible God. the illustration itself shows cave men ostracize a guy because he lied. So the fact of how people treated each other would be the reason for moral behavior and the fear of being rejected by the tribe and not being allowed to make would be enforcement enough, why make up an internal watch dog to do the job as well? If one has not felt experiences one doesn't know what they are. why invent a psychological process to evoke them then try to explain them. The fact that one has had such experience itself the reason to believe in the reality of such experiences, then the need to explain it comes out of having the need. The idea of ancient cave men trying to produce a sophisticated psychological technique for evoking some experience they haven't had is ridiculous and if they had it, it has its own reality.If they had it prior to producing the process of evoking it then it is real.

 Brown is certain that the experience explained by psychology. He asserts that these kinds of experiences come from big religious rallies with hyper suggestibility but there's no basis for that assumption. He's not using M scale studies to determine what percentage of religious experience is privately induced and percentage comes out of the big hyper rallies. Here's a clue, with half coming in childhood they are not coming form big rallies.

Then he goes through an elaborate production to produce a fake conversion in an atheist woman. He dose this indirectly without mentioning God. He uses several techniques such as tapping his fingers while they talk about her father to make her associate emotions the sound of the tapping with feelings of fatherly love. In several ways he evokes feelings of powerful father figure to bring atheist to believe. Establishes rapport. learns about her father. The woman is unconsciously processing, core religious belief evoked that God has plan for us and pulls strings to help us. No direct mention of God was made the woman made the connection to God herself through feelings of the father figure (tap tap tap). Brown says things that imply a grand plan, talk about things going wrong for a reason. sense of awe and wonder. Talks about the stars and space, evokes being cherished with awe. The woman describes her experience as "all the love in the world had been thrown at me. I pushed it away by not letting it into my life." Now she sees it's so stupid and she sees through it.

He says "I feel douty bound to make sure you understand that the postive stuff you got through this is not religious belief." This is what he tells her latter after they brought back befoer the audiecne. She's already been debriefed. He says explicitly "it certainly didn't come form God." The result of this elaborate dog and pony show is that we are supposed to come away with the grand feeling religion has been totally exposed and deconstructed and unraveled we see close up who fake it is there's no need for it. Of course the Brit media is opporating from the assumption that atheism is the standard, the grounding for society, the status quoe. The Audience is pre slected to reflect this idea. So one's going to challenge it.

It is a dog and pony show, he has no longitudinal study, no double blind, no control, he has no scale to measure the nature, depth, or effect of experience. He has no theory of religious experience to play it off of. That is all very crucial without that he's proved nothing. He can't guarantee that what she experienced is even a religious experience. One clue to that question is she says nothing about undifferentiated unity. she didn't say that she felt an all pervasive presence. She felt there's a plan and a purpose and she's cared for but that doesn't prove that it's the same religious experience that W.T. Stace talked about (see my link above on M scale).

The real problem is without a control there's no way to know if he isn't just evoking the we are given by God to be able to find him. The fact that he's evoking some of them doesn't prove that they are merely a matter of manipulation. There was no guy tapping when I got saved. Any associations that were evoked alone in my living room had to be coincidental or accidental rather than arranged. To say that there's a psychological process that enables to internalize the value of belief in God is hardly a denunciation of the reality of validity of that process. So there is a psychological process and we can manipulate it. I also had a need for a father figure, and guess what, I had a father. Saying that having a psychosocial need disproves the reality of the solution is just foolish.

That's like saying you have proved that love is just a psychological trick becuase when you when you do  things to make them think they are loved they respond emotionally. He's giving all the ques that God would give us to guide into a relationship with him, thus they respond becuase it's put in them to respond. The only real test of the validity of such feelings is the long term change and production of positive experiences and behaviors resulting from it. Plenty of studies establish that this is the case with mystical experience. It's not been proved that it is the case with phony evoked experiences.

 Essentially there is a psychological process to conversion. it make sense that there would be becuase if God wants us to have  a personal relationship with him then there must be affects which would draw us into a psychological state that is conducive to that relationship. Those affects are not hard to find because we all know  about them, the they things that motivate us and turn us on. So he merely found them and induced them in cleaver ways.

Jesus "Myther" Use of the Southern Cross

I came across a video on you tube[1] which was attempt to use the Acharya S thing about son to imply copy cat savior thing. pun on 'sun' and 'son.' Acharya S. She was a Jesus myther who believed that little gray aliens commissioned her to destroy Christianity. She is well known as a crap pot who says outrageious things. Consider her answer to a critic who calims Jesus myth theory was new:

Truth be known

"This thinking," i.e, that Jesus Christ is a mythical character, is not at all a "new fad." It has been around since the very beginning, because the intelligentsia of the ancient world knew that what the early Church fathers were palming off was mummified mythology. As Rev. Robert Taylor says:

And from the apostolic age downwards, in a never interrupted succession, but never so strongly and emphatically as in the most primitive times, was the existence of Christ as a man most strenously denied.

Indeed, the first and second epistles of John were written principally to combat such deniers of the historical Christ. (1 Jn. 4:2-3; 2 Jn. 7) The denial of "Christ come in the flesh" is an early "heresy" called "Docetism," whose proponents not only abounded during the first centuries of the Christian era but were the original "Christians," i.e., Gnostics.[2]

 Here she pulls a bait and switch talking about Jesus divine nature as something that had been argued for and therefore opposed, but not his existence in history. That's a constant game the mythers play to talk about the existence of the man as though it disproves the divine nature and the divine nature as though ti disproves the existence of the man. The original argument was the idea that Jesus did not exist as a man or any kind of entity in history (flesh and blood) is new. That she does not answer.

Quoting the gnostic is a trick becuase their assertion that Christ did not come in the flesh is not be understood as denial that was a man called Jesus of Nazareth. They claim he was illusory and not flesh and blood but to all appearances seemed to be a  man in history. They don't deny the place holder "Jesus of Nazareth" thought to be a flesh and blood man by those who saw him. They impose their doctrine on him they don't deny his existence. She would have believe that the "Christ come in the flesh" issue dines there was such a man which is highly dishonest. That's a sample of her dishonesty.

This video follows suit form her example which argues that designation of Jesus as "son" of God was either a ply on words or a degeneration from the worship of the sun in pagan culture. The problem is the Greek word for "son" and the English word for sun sound nothing alike. So the pun can't be name thus the connection is not there in history. Another dishonesty. Greek word for son is υἱός (hyiús, hyiós), while the Greek word for sun is Ἥλιος (Helios). They are pronounced in very different ways. "wee-os" vs Hel-i-os.

dying rising savior god stuff. new cast of characters.

I notice they have changed the characters (on the video) as to who the dying rising savior Gods' were. That's becuase we stomped all over their original set. NO pun (Egyptian god "Set").  First they talked about Horus, we kicked the crap out of that then they switched to Osiris. Then we kicked the crap out of that, now they use gods so obscure I've never heard of them. the proof is clear. when we look at the real myth books, real scholars writing about myth not trying to destroy Christianity we find the similarities all go away. See my Copy cat savior page on Doxa.
still have the anchor cross.

sacred day of worship for mithra was "sunday"

That BS again! they still haven't learned. There is no proof that anywhere. The fact about mithrism is we have no writings about the cult but what was said by chruch fathers. They were highly secretive. We can't know that Sunday was sacred to them. What if it was? It was probably sacred to a lot of groups that doesn't prove that Christians shifting to Sunday means Jesus was copied after pagan myth.

from the copy savior page: Almost no Textual evidence exists for Mithraism

Most of the texts that do exist are from outsiders who were speculating about the cult. We have no information form inside the cult.

Cosmic Mysteries of Mythras (website--visted July 1, 2006)

David Ulansey (the Major scholar of Mithraism in world)

Owing to the cult's secrecy, we possess almost no literary evidence about the beliefs of Mithraism. The few texts that do refer to the cult come not from Mithraic devotees themselves, but rather from outsiders such as early Church fathers, who mentioned Mithraism in order to attack it, and Platonic philosophers, who attempted to find support in Mithraic symbolism for their own philosophical ideas.

"At present our knowledge of both general and local cult practice in respect of rites of passage, ceremonial feats and even underlying ideology is based more on conjecture than fact." (Mithraic Studies: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies. Manchester U. Press, 1975. ,437)

And Cumont himself observed, in the 50s

"The sacred books which contain the prayers recited or chanted during the [Mithraic] survives, the ritual on the initiates, and the ceremonials of the feasts, have vanished and left scarce a trace behind...[we] know the esoteric disciplines of the Mysteries only from a few indiscretions." (Cumont, Franz. The Mysteries of Mithra. New York: Dover, 1950.152)
 

(b) Roman Cult began after Jesus life

Our earliest evidence for the Mithraic mysteries places their appearance in the middle of the first century B.C.: the historian Plutarch says that in 67 B.C. a large band of pirates based in Cilicia (a province on the southeastern coast of Asia Minor) were practicing "secret rites" of Mithras. The earliest physical remains of the cult date from around the end of the first century A.D., and Mithraism reached its height of popularity in the third century. (Ulansey, David. Cosmoic Mysteries of Mithras (website)

(c) No Continuity between Ancient Persian past and Roman Cult

Throughout most of the twentieth century Franz Cumont so influenced scholarship that the entire discipline followed in the wake of his assumption that the Roman cult was spread by the Persian cult. In the early 70's David Ulansey did for Mithric scholarship what Noan Chomsky did for linguistics, he totally redefined the coordinates by which the discipline moved. Ulansey showed that the Roman cult was not the continuance of the Persian cult, that there was no real evidence of a Persian cult. He showed that the killing of the great comic bull which latter became the major event in Mithraism, and the parallel from which Jesus Mythers get the shedding of blood and sacrifice, was not known in the Persian era. This was be like showing that the story of the Cross was not known to Christians in the first century. The major likeness to Christianity and the central point of the cult of Mithraism was not known in the time of Christ, in the time Paul, or for at least two centuries after:

"There were, however, a number of serious problems with Cumont's assumption that the Mithraic mysteries derived from ancient Iranian religion. Most significant among these is that there is no parallel in ancient Iran to the iconography which is the primary fact of the Roman Mithraic cult. For example, as already mentioned, by far the most important icon in the Roman cult was the tauroctony. This scene shows Mithras in the act of killing a bull, accompanied by a dog, a snake, a raven, and a scorpion; the scene is depicted as taking place inside a cave like the mithraeum itself. This icon was located in the most important place in every mithraeum, and therefore must have been an expression of the central myth of the Roman cult. Thus, if the god Mithras of the Roman religion was actually the Iranian god Mithra, we should expect to find in Iranian mythology a story in which Mithra kills a bull. However, the fact is that no such Iranian myth exists: in no known Iranian text does Mithra have anything to do with killing a bull." (David Ulansey Mithras Mysteries).[3]

(5) Mithraism Emerged in the west only after Jesus' day.
Mithraism could not have become an influence upon the origins of the first century, for the simple reason that Mithraism did not emerge from its pastoral setting in rural Persia until after the close of the New Testament canon. (Franz Cumont, The Mysteries of Mithra (Chicago: Open Court, 1903), 87ff.)

use the southern cross 

Come to the video the funniest thing about it is that they try to use the southern cross, constellation in the southern hemisphere, as proof that the Christian cross comes form pagan sources. They are tyring to say it was based upon astrological symbol. The problem is the souther cross, while visible form north wasn't seen as a cross and wasn't called cross until several centuries after Bible times when explorers when down the coast of Africa.



Universe Today
Southern Cross Constollation

The first recorded example of Crux’s discovery was around 1000 BC during the time of the Ancient Greeks. At the latitude of Athens, Crux was clearly visible, though low in the night sky. At the time, the Greeks identified it as being part of the constellation Centaurus. However, the precession of the equinoxes gradually lowered its stars below the European horizon, and they were eventually forgotten by the inhabitants of northern latitudes. Crux fell into anonymity for northerners until the Age of Discovery (from the early 15th to early 17th centuries) when it was rediscovered by Europeans. The first to do so were the Portuguese, who mapped it for navigation uses while rounding the southern tip of Africa. During this time, Crux was also separated from Centaurus, though it is not altogether clear who was responsible. Some attribute it to the French astronomer Augustin Royer who did it in 1679 while others believe it was Dutch astronomer PetrusPlancius who did the deed in 1613. Regardless, it is believed to have taken place in the 17th century, placing it within the context of European expansion and the revolution that was taking place in the sciences at the time.

 

Read more:  southern cross.


 That doesn't give me a lot of confidence in their research. Another aspect of their failed research is the use of the anchor Cross. It's an amulet of Orpheus who is tired to an anchor but it makes a cross. This has been exposed as a fake. James Hannam has has a detailed critique of it.[4] Richard Carrier tries to defend it. His major argument is that it's not a cross but just an anchor. If that's the case then it loses it's connection to Jesus.[5] The point of it is, as used by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy to imply that the cross comes to Christianity from pagan sources becuase there was no Jesus thus no Jesus' death on cross. To say it's just a picture or Orpheus tied to an anchor may save the mythers from the specter of forgery but at the price of losing their Jesus myth connection. These two articles are actually much more complex than surface report I'm giving. I urge the reader to look at both. It think this really underscores the untrustworthy nature of Jesus myth research. Most of it is rehashed bad research that's been debuncked in the past and they really depend upon the reader not to be conversant.




________________________
 Sources:

(1) Real Proof that Jesus was not Real: youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljRKhZ81aqY accessed 7/25/13

(2) Acharya S. Acharya S's Truth be Known, Website, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljRKhZ81aqY access 7/25/13

(3) David Ulansey, Mythrism The Cosmic Mysteries of Mythras, Website, http://www.mysterium.com/mithras.html accessed 7/25/13
 Visiting Professor of Religious Studies at U.C. Berkeley, and Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and Religion at the California Institute of Integral Studies. He is the leading scholar in the field of the study of Mirthrism.

(4) James Hannam, "The Orpheus Amulet From the Cover of the Jesus Mysteries."Bede's Library, On line source: http://www.bede.org.uk/orpheus.htm  Accessed 7/25/13
Hannam is a Cambridge Trained historian

(5) Richar Carrier, "Jesus myth on  CNN.com" Richard Carrier Blogs. blog. http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/889Accessed 7/25/13
Carrier has a Ph.D. in ancient history form Columbia University.

I have really been remiss in following developments in the atheist disintegration (civil war). The atheist community now is fragmented and having a falling out with itself runs along the lines politically correct types verses Old style New Atheist. So white males that just want to spew venom agaisnt religion vs those who hate Christianity but also want to be politically correct. Christian poster Damien on carm put up a link to a video that give us insight into this split. there's a movement called Atheism + that is the politically correct guys.



Posted by a Christian on carm (Damien)

Atheism is about family. A place where atheists who have become hateful and hostile to the rest of the world can feel welcome among their own. But how do atheists treat members of their own family? Let's look at an interesting example in the "Atheism Plus" community.

For those who don't know, Atheism Plus is an offshoot of atheism. They are the "good guys" who consider Atheism (atheism minus?) to be vile misogynists, sexists, racists, etc. (A great place to raise your family!)

So we have a sort of Atheistic caste system. Atheists Plus at the top. Atheists in the middle. And the rest of humanity- agnostics, deists and theists at the bottom. But let's look at the story of Anna Johnstone. How Atheism Plus treated her:

One atheis anssers: Blind Slamander

 It doesn't matter how you characterize atheists based on cherry picking incidents. There are people who don't believe in god or gods, and they are called atheists. We do not have any choice in the matter because the evidence for god or gods is too laughable to believe.

 How many times have I seen atheist posts deploring diversity in Christianity because we have so many denominations. When it's their faction fight it's fine.


play the video

Ignornace will Always previal

The Atheists on the internet are the height of Ignorance and stupidity. From the uniformed twaddle that they regularly bark about my 200 studies on religious experience, to the nature of theology in general, which they condemn as "stupid" every and which they refuse to ever study, they spew their ignorance over the net wasting our band width hardly knowing what of they speak. O don't get me wrong, there are many bright atheists. The ones who say the snide little crap about theology being stupid and emperor clothes the courtier's replay and yet refuse to learn a single page of the theology they dispose are just fools.

The irony is that they are on the  side of the things they despise. They hate fundamentalism but will condemn theological liberals and say that fundamentalism is the only true form of religion and the liberals are ruining it. How could they ruin something these same people already condemn as the worst blight ever visited on humanity? They are still totally dedicated to the fundamentalism they despise.

They are on the side of the lynch mob, the bully, the intolerant, all the while claiming to be free thinkers, striking a blow for human liberty and the right to thin for oneself. When confronted with attempt to think for oneself they regularity mock and ridicule such attempts unless they conform to their preconceived set of propaganda slogans.

They lynch mob can always win. the bullies always outnumber the thinkers. The thinker is always the rarity. even though the atheist are fringe of a fringe (3% world world population--maybe as high as 6% now) they think of themselves as the majority and seek to push around and harass the 90% who believe in God. They have all manner of silly tricks to convenience themselves they are in the majority after all. I've seen atheists try to claim Hindus are atheists. I've seen atheists try to claim that Christianity is 2 billion separate religions becuase every Chrsitain has a slightly different understanding so they all have their own gods. All these stupid little games to keep from having to admit they are in a true minority. Yet if they were thinkers they would know they are in a minority. I've always known that I'm in a small minority, a small fringe group that will never be anything but overlooked; because i enjoy using my mind and thinking.

Their attitudes of intellectual superiority, totally unjustified because they refuse to seek knowledge or learn anything that disagrees with their ideology,has to be related to their self esteem. Their reaction to Francis' studies on that matter are so irrational they clearly can't face the concept. Their desire to see themselves as smarter than Chrsitains is clearly related to their sense of inferiority.

Anyone not an atheist should just prepare to always have to deal with those  attitudes.

atheists beg the question: can't learn what question begging is, they read all the evidence, they still assert they know all

On CARM a number of atheists began to say that I didn't know what begging the question was. I found this was going on becuase I had inadvertently fallen into a habit of calling a certain behavior begging the question even though it wasn't very clear that's what it was. I still think it is the result of a question begging assumption, but I did get to free with using it. When they began asserting that I didn't know what it was I began showing that they didn't' know then it got interesting. The behavior that I found as begging the question was their assertion that their lack of belief in God can be taken as a fact and thus they an can any consequence of no God as though it's proven without having to prove it. That's begging the question because its ciruclar, it asserts the issue being argued as as a proof of their position on that issue, which is the thing asserted to prove itself. In other words they are in essence saying "my refusal to believe proves there's no God."

Of course they took immediate exception arguing that is not begging the question. Of cousre it never occurred to them that they think it's not becuase they assert it's truth based upon that that's what they believe.

My post:

Just to be sure we understand it, let's quote Nizkor saying what it is:


Nizkor project:

"Description of Begging the Question
"Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.
Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."

One way to be sure is this: it's a form of ciruclar reasoning. So if someone says that's begging the question just ask "is it circular reasoning?" That's the sure fire way to tell.


If you examine what the claims I said that is begging the question you see some of these guys who make these accusations about me don't get right what I said.

I say it's begging the question to assert that God doesn't exist as a proof that he doesn't, especially when that's the question being discussed. that is exactly what begging the question is. rather than admit that I'm right about t they try to make up their own idea about they think I said:


Originally Posted by skylurker View Post
Another example of you misusing begging the question (that is 3 times I know of today).

This statement by Wittgenstien

Believing the less probable thing over the more probable thing is called "being irrational".

Is NOT Begging the Question!

You are using this as a desperate all-purpose get out of reasoning card. For all objections, counter or undercutting arguments you just hit back with "your begging the question we can't know god he's beyond our estimation" and then slink back off and build these elaborate theories about how God is.
typical of your silly little nonsense. you didn't even read what I said. you are just trying to find stuff to twist.

"riginally Posted by Metacrock View Post
you decide the probable thing based upon your assertions about the world and God's lack of existing. you can't know reprobates about God because he's beyond our underestimation. so we can't apply them so you are assumptions are invalid. you assume your core assumptions (no god or indifferent God) that's begging the question.

you are asserting the position you argue for as proof of that postilion."

first of all that's the auto correct that screws me up again here' that said the way it should be:

"riginally Posted by Metacrock View Post
you decide the probable thing based upon your assertions about the world and God's lack of existing. you can't know exhaustivelyabout God because he's beyond our understanding. so we can't apply them so you are assumptions are invalid. you assume your core assumptions (no god or indifferent God) that's begging the question.

you are asserting the position you argue for as proof of that postilion."

above you claim that I said believing the less probable is begging the Quentin I never said anything like that.

the truth is you are making up stuff and attributing it to me. the kind of little unfair slander you do all the time. I sasid nothing like that.

what I said here was begging was when you use the assumption of no God as though it's a proof of no ;God. that is exactly begging the question!

Wittgenstein immediately proves he doesn't know:

Meta:

No Draper's arguemnt is a more valid than the 3 point BS you put up. You are arguing from begging the question.

of cousre if God doesn't exist Christianity is false. so what/ tha'ts almost a tautology. you don't do anything to prove God doesn't exist. you are trying to bully it though by asserting it. you have nothing to which up that assertion.

He says:

Now, how on Earth is that possibly begging the question?

In asking asking that he shows he doesn't know. To bully through the assumption without proving is based upon the deeper assumptino that it must be true because he believes it. In other worse "well there's God because I don't believe in his so i can just assume it's proved and ram by point in without proving it. In other words the basic assumption here is "God must not exist becuase I don't believe in him." I"m kind of extending a bunch of assumptions for them, that's because they cant' state their hidden primes openly. I also argued that even if I'm  wrong about it I have proved I know what question begging is, maybe I"m just reading it into their work but I don't think so.

Whaterverman says:

You can't provide a single quote of any skeptic in this forum begging the question.What's worse is that you know this, and that's why you're not even going to try.

In I did not provide a single one. I provided six examples.

example one:

example of Question begging of the type I mean:

some atheist (maybe skylurker?)
Quite false. A supreme intelligence - knowing all bits of Chaitin's Omega - is a priori arbitrarily improbable and would be an unimaginable coincidence.

Quote Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
that is your ignorant opinion based upon begging the question.

what you say there just proves my point that you are begging the question. you are asserting you lack of belief as a proof of the position you argue for which is based upon lack of belief.

atheist
"Dude, please learn what begging the question is! That above is not begging the question. The probability of a mind, infinity well ordered and perfectly omniscient is improbable to the extreme maximum. If there are going to be brute facts the likelihood of a supreme infinite mind is absurd."


yes it is clearly begging the question. He's asserting that a mind like God can't exist, why? because he asserts that it doesn't he doesn't believe in it? he has a fallacious excuse that sounds logical when you analyze it it's nothing more than just making the assumptino that God can't exist becuase he doesn't believe he can.

now little one put brain in and let's some questions ok?

why does he assert that there can't be such a mind?

does he have empirical evidence? no

does he know for a fact that there is no such mind? no

does he know for a fact that the order in the universe is not the result of mind?

he thinks he does what does it mean to think you know that? why would he think that when he has no evidence?

because he doesn't believe in God it's obvious there isn't one.

so what he is really saying is "because I don't believe in God I know the universe is not the product of God therefore there can't be such a mind." is that proof? no it's assertion based upon what he thinks the situation is

in other words he's really saying "I dont' believe and that proves it's not true."
that's question begging.

sure is.

what's he defending? the idea that there's no God, what's his proof? becuase he doesn't believe in God.

do you not see the circular?

Example two:


jag says:

"Talk about naive statements! Before your very eyes you have evidence that stars are created by the material universe, and you insert your god. I guess that's how religions get started."


do we see what makes stars? No we see only stars forming. Humes tells us we dont' see cuaslity at work. we don't. we don't think to think God has to mold stars with great big hands in order to create.

how does he nkow it's not God doing it?

It's it really just the assumption he makes becuase he densest' believe in God? so he's acutely saying "becasue I supposed know there's no God (believe there is no God) I assume this therefore it must be the case."

then he uses that to argue that there's no God. he's trying to use it as a poof that it's only material universe based entirely upon the assumption of a belief.

that is begging the question of creation totally.

Example three:

Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
BS! it's inherently a valid reason to believe in God. It may not be proof but it's certainly warrants believe. you have no valid explanation.

HRG:
"Quite the contrary. You have no valid explanation why an infinitely complex disembodied mind should exist."

?? not sure wh said this.
"any fine turning without God (a supreme intelligence purposely tuning it) would be coincidence and thus more improbable than the first.


HRG:
Quite false. A supreme intelligence - knowing all bits of Chaitin's Omega - is a priori arbitrarily improbable and would be an unimaginable coincidence."

He's begging the question becuase like Example 1 he just asserts with no evidence of any kind that because he doesn't have example of it then it can't exist. even though he knows his example are limited tot things that don't apply to God and he knows that the universe is very orderly that gives us a valid warrant for the assumption of a mind he just thinks something like "well scine God possibly exist anyway I can assert this is the ase because it must be." He's just assuming his way of looking at it is the universe way to look and hsi assuptins are valid.

he argues form the believe of no God to prove the assumption of no God.

Example four

Skylurker
"Dude, please learn what begging the question is! That above is not begging the question. The probability of a mind, infinity well ordered and perfectly omniscient is improbable to the extreme maximum. If there are going to be brute facts the likelihood of a supreme infinite mind is absurd. "

that is one of the most ridicuous statments anyone could ever make. he's begging the questin for the same reason as no 3, he sassume "since there's no God anyway it must be very improbable that there would be."

what else would account for the astounding statement that such a mind is improbable? Since the universe reflects order and seems to be a fixed job, owing to the extreme improbability and yet here it is, that obviously argues for such a mind. The only justification for the that such a mind is improbably is if you use non belief as a proof for no God.

he has absolute no evdience for the assertion he's making and he has to fly in the face of the argument on it's face in order to make it. the only way he could justify that would be assert that he knows in advance there's no God. Of course he doesn't know that with any kind of evidence so he has to be begging the question.

he's using doubt as though it were a proof of the thing he's using to to prove, that God doesn't' exist.

that is clearly and obviously circular.

Exampels 5-6 

are from an external source, a website of an atheist correcting atheist who beg the question:


Examples 5-6

these are by an atheist taking other atheist to task for ciruclar reasoning. I find these being done on carm often.

by Carson Weitnauer on March 21, 2013

in Atheism, Agnosticism, and the New Atheists

five: his 1
Example #1:

In conversations with atheists, here is a chain of thinking that I have often heard:

There is no God.
Miracles are the supernatural work of God.
Therefore, miracles are impossible.
The Bible contains reports of miracles.
Therefore, the Bible contains legendary material or historical misrepresentations.
Therefore, the Bible cannot be trusted.
Therefore, there is no evidence for God.
Therefore, there is no God.

This is a circular argument. (In addition to other flaws that the reader may notice).

Six, his 2.
Example #2:

God does not exist.
Therefore, God does not personally reveal His existence to people.
When people think they are having experiences of God, this experience can be fully explained in terms of naturalistic causation, using scientific terms (particularly through neurological studies).
Therefore, people do not have experiences of God.
Therefore, testimonies of God’s existence do not prove that God exists.
Therefore, God does not exist.

In both examples, instead of an open-minded consideration of the possible evidential value of miracles or religious testimony, the atheist assumes the truth of their worldview, uses that presumption to reject even the possibility that there is evidence which counts against their beliefs, and then concludes that the lack of evidence for another worldview is further evidence for their starting point.

If you study his examples they are so much like the things I use as examples. we see the kind of thinking he sees in his own comrade's arguments are pretty much what I see in the arguemnts of carm atheist. so therefore It think that shows I'm not just reading it in. Either that or this guys is confused in the same way I am. Since he's an atheist he's not just working out of prejudices.

Of cousre their defenses were totally lame. The first thing they did was try to find things to blame me for. One thing Whatever man made a big deal out of was that I forgot to the link the examples. then I went back and did it. Then he made a big deal out of the fact that I had done it since then. What's the deal? he blames for no doing it then when I do I'm to blame becuase I did it after he pointed it out. well did he want them linked or not? It's just part of that little atheist tactic of finding little lame things to blame the apologist for. He also went back and forth about weather saying I didn't have a single example was the same as saying no one says it. so the fact that I have six examples doesn't make up for not having any because he didn't say no one ever says it.

The arguments they made in response to the examples ere stupid. One of the most idiotic and lame responses I got was form the moron Royce. I said that they have no evidence of no mind controling the universe and they can't evidence of it because we can't see causality. His response (that's a idea of the philosopher Hume):

Pointing to Humean skepticism won't help you for a number of reasons. Here are a couple. First, if you were a Humean skeptic, then you would not claim to know that God exists. Second, Humean skepticism operates from an incorrect acount of knowledge. Third, if you really think we cannot infer causality, then please prepare to forfeit many scientific claims, includign claims such as "HIV causes AIDS". In science and everyday life we justifiably infer causal relationships regularly. We even have guidelines for doing this, such as Mills' methods. I've told you about these guidelines before, but apparently the point flew over your head.

Totally lame because most of it has nothing to do with the issue. It's just stuff to say to make it seem that he knows about Hume. Saying Hume's take on knowledge is wrong (he doesn't back up) does not invalidate the point that we don't see causes. That is still true nothing he says there invalidates that. the idiotic that Humen didn't believe in God so a Humean thinker wouldn't be arguing for God is totally beside the point of not seeing causes its' far being the came that only Hume could point that out. they guy is a dolt. Talk about HIV has no place in the arguent.

On Example 3 HRG says:

Gentle readers, Metacrock again doesn't read what others write, but what he thinks they should have written so that he can refute it. It is obvious that I didn't say that an entity as described cannot exist - only that it is arbitrarily improbable; and I supported this statement by reference to Chaitin's Omega. If Metacrock does not understand the reference, that is his problem, not mine.

Again it's calculated to look an answer but it's not. Who cares if he said that or not that has nothing to do with the question begging aspect.He was begging the question becasue he asserts his doubt in God's existence as a proof that there's no God. Does he deny that? NO he never actually deny that? He denies things around it. He's asserting that his doubt of God makes God improbable to impossible big deal. That's still using doubt a proof against my warrants. Begging the question becasue it asserts the position to defend the position.

After all this Skylurker came back and accused  one of my arguments of questoin begging. When  I asked him why it did he said "becuase you believe in God." Indicates that he never understood the basic issue to begin with. When you assert the position under dispute as a proof of itself then try to use that to argue for that position, you are begging the question. why is that hard to get?

See how pointless it is to go on message boards and argue with atheists.

Possilbe World Arguments Agaisnt the Existence of God

 



........I will not attempt to evaluate all that is goign on in modal logic these days vis a vi "possible worlds." It's a vast field and it's becoming a booming industry for philosophy majors. I will argue that for those who advocate a Tillich-Balthasar from of theology--God as being itself, super essential Godhead--there can be no possible worlds without God.  The point of possible worlds was initially to illustrate the notions of necessity and contingency. the concept of the possible world was used as far back as Libenitz (1646-1716) but their major use now seems to be in connection with necessity and contingency in modal logic.

The first is an Aristotelian approach that says a non-actual event is possible is to say that some actual substances could have initiated a causal chain that could lead up to the event in question.  However, it can be shown that some plausible global possibility claims can be made true on this account only if there is a necessarily existent first cause (or aggregate of first causes) capable of initiating very different universes.  On the other hand, Leibniz made possible worlds be ideas in the mind of an omniscient necessarily existent deity.  Leibniz fails to explain what it is that makes these possible worlds possible, but if we were willing to combine his story with the conclusion drawn from the Aristotelian one, we could get the following story: Possible worlds are ideas in the mind of an omniscient deity and what makes them possible is that this deity has the Aristotelian capability of initiating causal chains that can lead to them being actualized.[1]

.......I am only interested in them in so far as they are used by atheists to argue against the existence of God. The main way this works is to find some bogus reason to stipulate that God could not exist in such and such a world if certain conditions prevailed. Then they assert that if this is the case in a possible world than it must be the case in our world, because God would have to be in all possible worlds. If there is a possible world where there would be no God then there can't be one here. They can't assert that just imagining a world with no God proves no God in this world. Such an approach is merely cheating becuase it just begs the question outright. Yet I have seen many of them take this approach. One of the major things they do is to  assert based upon their unbelief in this world that they can imagine a possible world with no God. So since they can do that that must be a possible world, since they can imagine it being possible. That's clearly begging the question since they are just asserting that this really a world with no God. It's not good just saying "I can imagine such a world" that does not make it such a world. The point of the exorcize is to illustrate necessity and contingency not to dictate reality by imagination.
 ......Here is an argument by Darth Pringle (on CARM) that I think illustrates perfectly the problem with these atheist arguments, (yes he manged to be wrong perfectly).

P1. If something is God then its non-existence entails a contradiction.
P2. The non-existence of a first cause of this universe does not entail a contradiction.
C. Therefore, a first cause of this universe isn't God.

Yes it does actually, that is the non-existence of a first cause does entail a contradiction. The problem is he's confusing his assertions about the nature of the world with a possible world. He asserts that because he can imagine the world with no first cause then it doesn't need one. If a first cause exists then by definition it is necessary that it exists becuase the whole concept of a first cause is a necessity upon which the existence of the universe id penned. Notice that he's just trying to make God contingent upon the universe. God's existence being determined by  its relation to the universe. This comes out even more so in the support he offers for the premise:

P1. If the non-existence of something is logically possible then it could have not existed at some point in the past and it could fail to exist at some point in the future. Because an eternal being cannot have failed to have existed at any point in the past and could not fail to exist at any point in the future by definition, it's existence (if it exists) must be logically necessary, otherwise it is logically impossible.
P2. The non-existence of this universe does not entail a contradiction. If this universe didn't exist then a first cause of this universe wouldn't exist obviously. Consequently, that something is the first cause of this universe is logically contingent upon the existence of this universe (even if the universe is ontologically contingent upon its cause). If we use possible world semantics to make this point we can say that there is a possible world in which this universe doesn't exist and so there is a possible world in which a first cause of this universe does not exist (even if this universe needs one). This makes the non-existence of a first cause of this universe logically possible (even if one exists or existed).
C. Follows validly from P1 & P2 if they are both true via modus tollens.[2]

P2 is definitely trying to make God contingent upon the universe. I've argued this before on CARM but I think it eludes their understanding: the existence of creation is necessary for God to hold the title "creator." So in that sense God's status as creator is contingent upon the world. That is not the same as saying that the divine essence is contingent upon the world. The title of God as creator is just the way we think about God it has nothing to do with weather or not there actually is a reality to God.
......Now observe the rule of possible worlds in this argument. There is a possible world in which the cause of the universe does not exist. That's the same thing as saying there's a possible world in which the essence that created the world doesn't exist. It's only saying there is a world in which there in no first cause because there's no world there to create. That doesn't mean the thing that created it is not there. so that can't be an argument against the existence of God. The only thing is could possibly prove is that there is a circumstance under which God could exist without being the creator, that is there was no creation. If first causes exist at all they are necessary to existence of contingencies, so the only case in which there would be no first cause is if there is no world to cause. That does not rule out  God.
.......Edward Feser has a couple of helpful observations: It's common among people doing modal logic or using possible worlds argument about God to try and dictate the existence of God based upon the essence of thing as ascertain by the properties existent in a possible world.
.

A common procedure is to characterize the essence of a thing as the set of properties it has in every possible world, a necessary truth as one that is true in every possible world, and so forth. For A-T, this gets things backwards. It is the essence of a thing that determines what will be true of it in every possible world, not what is true of it in every world that determines its essence. In general, it is incoherent to define modal notions like necessity and possibility in terms of possible worlds, since the notion of a “possible” world itself presupposes modality.[3]

Properties do not determine essence, and they may vary from world to world without determining the existence or being of an essence. Feser points out the misleading nature of possible world arguments:

It is also often said that for God to be a necessary being is for Him to exist in every possible world. This too is at least very misleading. It leaves the impression that there are these things called “possible worlds” that have some kind of reality apart from God, and it turns out – what do you know! – that God happens to exist in every one of them, right alongside numbers, universals, and other necessarily existing abstract objects. To be sure, since possible worlds other than the actual one are themselves mere abstractions (unless you are David Lewis), they would not exist as concrete entities that God has not created. But the “possible worlds” account of God’s necessity nevertheless insinuates that that necessity is grounded in something other than God Himself – that what is possible or necessary in general is to be determined independently of God, with God’s own necessity in turn defined by reference to these independent criteria. For A-T, this is completely muddled. The reason God is necessary is that He is Pure Act or Subsistent Being Itself, not because He “exists in every possible world.” And since God just is Being Itself – rather than “a being” among other beings, existing in one possible world or in all – all possibilities and necessities whatsoever are themselves grounded in the divine nature, rather than in anything in any way independent of God.

They leave the impression that possible worlds are competing for existence and that God is deepnednet upon them. It creates the impression that possible worlds are possible apart fom God.
......This the raises what I think is the background misconception that all such atheist arguments make, that because they assume they are observing a possible world in which there is no God when they observe this one (which is also an actual world) then it is the case that there must be other possible worlds with no God. They are just borrowing doubt from this world to construct an argument which is question begging.  Another problem is the seem to think that possible worlds are any world they can imagine. So if they imagine a world with square circles that's a  possible world even though they don't actually imagine the square circles per se. But possible have to be logically possible. That's the whole point of calling it "possible" in the first place, it has to actually be possible. So if the God argument they seek to answer is the idea that God is not separable from being, since God is being itself, they can't claim a possible world in which there is being itself merely becuase they imagine they can do without the idea.
......I argue that since being has to be and God is being itself, all being is indicative of God. If a possible world contains any sort of being, even if it's just one subatomic particle there's a reason to assume God. This is so because being itself is the basis of what being is apart from any particular given instance of it. We can't assert contingencies without necessities and we can't assert a universe without a first cause if there is a first cause at all. We can't assert being without a ground of being since the beings are just contingencies that are hung upon eternal necessary being.

Sources

 [1] Alexander Robert Pruss, POSSIBLE WORLDS:WHAT THEY ARE GOOD FOR AND WHAT THEY ARE Ph.D. dissertation online copy URL: http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/ap85/papers/philthesis.html

[2] Darth Pringle on carm
URL: http://forums.carm.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-45426.html?s=4410c0ea94c5e2c8a36e5c8d66c5b047

[3] Edward Feser, "God and Possible Worlds," Edward Feser (a blog) url: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/06/god-and-possible-worlds.html

Lessons in Shutting Down Atheist Mocking:How to Beat an Atheist Riducle Gauntlet

 

I am putting this up again (from april) becuase a friend was attacked by one of these tactics today and it's important for us to understand this is a standard tactic they use all the time.

The gauntlet: Seen in this post on CARM, Atheists Murdering Logic.


That stems from the thread on CARM I discussed in last post on AW.

A "Ridicule gauntlet" (my term) is one of those feeding frenzies where twelve atheists will just take apart one Christian and no one will help him. They go down the line each one saying stupid little ridicule things to tear down his self esteem. Let's look at the first few in this one:

Their first impluse of course to go for the spelling since they know that's my weakness: I made a couple of typos so they went for that.

Square one (the guy I bested in the thread in question)

Whats an "athesit?"

Whatever Man:

Someone who always stands?

Someone who rejects the existence of thesis-es?

He's going for the big yucks. This tells them right away: "this is to be a gauntlet." That's not what they call it. I made up the term. But I'm sure that's a non verbal que that tells them "we are just gonna mock this guy.' Down the row they go one after another. 12 of them:

Reverendog:

i don't think i've ever read a thread where he ever really understood a single post by anyone who disagreed with him. everything is filtered through the "does this make me look smarter than everyone else?" algorithm.
after all, who has a website to argue against someone who doesn't read it?

Nonprofit (he was the nut case in the last one; go to the previous post and see:

Originally Posted by Nonprofit

This is NOT the first time Meta has started new threads on a false premise by misrepresenting what others said.

 Whatever Man:

I actually think that's his only form of argumentation.

So we know it's a gauntlett because we see these charactoristics:

(1) long string of mocking statements, most of them one liners that have no content on the issues just talk talk about how amazingly stupid, in-component, or generally bad one guy is.

(2) no holding back, he's the worst guy ever, everything he does is wrong

(3) They aim for the thins that will hurt him the most based what they know about him: foe me spelling and ridiculing my logic because they know i know more about than they do. I'm always harping on "you didn't answer the logic of the argument" so they try to imply I am not good at argument.

(4) Of course insistance that I never understand, I always do wrong, ect. ect.

It short it's 12 people trying to rake one over the coals, they have no substance and don't care what they say. I think I did a good job of holding my cool and not falling apart, and shutting them up, at least for a time. How do I know? becuase they are not posting, and because they haven't come back with any thing.

Keys to dealing with the gauntlet.










(1) the gauntlet derives it power form numbers. Each one of them can hide behind the others, you can't focus clearly on one guy. They are all saying it. Each one of them takes his cue form the others and derives strengths from the fact that he's just one of many. The gauntlet is like a shark's feeding frenzy it works by building up. They more then can get you to get up set the more will come in to take part becuase it makes them feel important and successful. They more you shut them up they more they will fall out.

(2) first step is deflate the power of many. Do this guy confronting each one on a personal basis. For one's you don't know are making one liners that aren't that easy to answer, just say something blow off. Just indicate you are blowing him off too. He below off your post so blow off his. Then if you have a history with him remind him of times when you have beaten him. Remind him he's never read theology as 99% of atheist have never read a page of the stuff. "how childish." "how old are you"  ect.

call out each one and make him conspicuous so that he no longer hides behind the numbers. He's out in front showing his importance. Take away their  strength in numbers. Go down the line responding to each one in that way as much as you can.

(3) unload the goods. For example here I put up a list of the exchange between Square one and I. after each one I said "this is exactly what i reported, how did I lie?" They can't deny he said it it, or whatever. prove you point. Lay it out.

(4) be as factual as possible. get experts to quote, list the facts the stats whatever. prove the point deliever the blow with as much authority as you can.

(5) continue to denude them on a personal basis. I don't mean say personal stuff to them but confront them 1x1 and say "you said this or that i the past, remember when I beawt you in the 1x1 debate" then force them to answer teh stats or the specific evidence. Keep harping on it.

(6) ridicule them for their ridicule. every time they say stuff say "you can't argue without putting people down personaly. you are not dealing with hte issues. then repeat the issues.

the major principles are: deliver powerful blow right away, remove the power of numbers by confronting them personally. Each one you call attention to you cut off form the power of numbers.

The Moral argument vs. Moral Realism

 The poster "Royce" on CARM is an arrogant know all who first showed up a year ago calling himself "somnambulant Joyce." He announced that his purpose there was to take me down, and began a barrage of insults toward me. He returned a few months as "Royce" and began defending moral realism. Specifically he argues that moral properies are real and emprical, they can be proved by science to prove that he has an argument about how these properties are supervened upon physical properities. The apologetic issue is that it supposedly beats the moral agument for God and proves we don't need religion to be moral. My argument is that he has no empirical evidence he's just labeling certain behaviors and he no basis in the claim they are the empirical. He has no proof of  anything behind the label.


 Meta:
that is exactly why we can't call moral stuff properties. the redness is a physical accept that is empirical. it can be seen and objectively agreed to. it's not really there as redness as such but it's an appearance. you don't even have that much as a moral property.

Now the great one (Royce) is angry. His expertise is being challenged. so he has to like I'm moron and make like he assumes I've never read a book. Although it's obvious I have read more than he has becuase I name books he's never heard of. He doesn't thin of that because it's not about him. Royce knows how to find the truth. you read phil papers and quote percentages of philosophers who think X. that is truth.


Royce:

False. It's like you don't know what a "non-natural property" or what a "non-physical property" is.

Meta: duh really? maybe more like they are not anything but an idea. since they are just ideas they don't really have any empirical force. We were promised empirical truth. you said it's obvious it's so bleeding obvious only idiot like me would jot fall down and worship moral realism right off the bat.
now, unable to come through on the empirical end he get angry and starts pretending like I've done something wrong. What I did wrong was to call him on his BS.



Royce:

Open a book, already! Pointing out that something is non-physical has no bearing on whether it's a property. 

 Meta:

yes it does. properties are eitehr physical or ideas. if they are ideas they are not objecive you promised objective morality. you said moral realism is so obvious it's proved by scinece it's real and the majority of people who read phil papers agree.


it come out if one realizes that you only good on one of those then you get angry and started talking like he's the worlds biggest idiot but who are covering for. you own idiocy because you support ideas that can't be proved.

it is a basic canon of atheism. it's a basic reason for not believing in god, to not accept anything that can't be proved empirically. they say it over and over again. I can show you tons of atheists saying that. here you are not proving this empirically and still arguing for it and getting angry when you are caught.



Royce:

Plato and Moore must be rolling in their graves! Furthermore, pointing out that something can be seen or agreed upon or is empirical, has no bearing on whether it's a property. You're again confusing epistemology with metaphysics. "Empirical" is an epistemic notion regarding how one comes to know something. That's distinct from the metaphysical question of what a thing is. 

Meta:

BS both of them are ashamed of your mountebank BS.

You can't get away with this bait switch crap. are you a materialist or not? If you are an atheist and you not a materialist (which is Possible i know) you are in a tiny ministry what do that do to your phil papers philosophy of truth? HU? what percentage of philosphers on phil papers accept non materialist atheism?

you can't make good on your calims you have no proof. way back you first came here as somnambuilist you said moral philosophy was objective it can proved by science. now you are couching it in terms of non empirical metaphysics.

cop out! COP OUT!


Royce:

To give you a thought experiment on this: suppose all of us were blind and we never saw or contacted particular organisms that instantiated the property "cat". Does that have any bearing on whether the term "cat" refers to a property or whether that property exists? No. You're knowing cats are there, seeing them, discovering them empirically, etc. has no bearing on whether they are there or whether they instantiate the property in question. Furthermore, take another case where, for whatever reason, only one human has the perceptual faculties for noticing a particular similarity between particular objects (ex: women who can see a bit of the UV spectrum), and they develop a term "V" for referring to this similarity. Unfortunately, they can't get other people to agree that this similarity is there, let alone notice it. Does this have any bearing on whether that feature (i.e. property) is there, or whether V refers to that property? No.

Meta:
that is not analogous. you are now in a position to switch over to metaphysics and non empirical ideas. any moral philosophy could do as well under those conditions.

you have no advantage over belief in God since you retreated from all the distinctive atheist fortress of facts stuff and trying to hind in God's country.


 

Orwellian Atheism

Now that we understand that the hate group has evolved from mere hate group to Orwellian nightmare we can analyze it more effectively. So far here are the indications:

Use of terms:these are all found in past posts on this blog so you can just go down the page and find them.

Imaginary: indicating the status of belief in God

Delusion: Also used of alleged fictional status of God belief.

Cult: used as synonym for all religious groups even the most popular

Description of the making of God arguments:

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

superstition: used defined as Christianity and other religious belief.

Definition of Superstition

I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature ...
www.brainyquote.com/words/su/superstition226408.html - 14k - Cached - Similar pages -

The same kind of recursive and circular statement I just got through exposing. What makes it superstitious? Because it's religion. What makes religion superstition? Because it' superstition.

Defining "Fre Thinkers" As those who agree with atheist ideology:

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.

Defining opposition to Atheist control as "anti-free thinking."


Freedom becomes slavery and slavery becomes freedom. Now that we know this is the true nature of atheism, reductionism and all the other isms such as scientism that go hand in hand with the hate group, we can understand the danger is no just to Christianity, not just to religions, but to all people who want to think for themselves.

Atheism constitutes a clear and present danger.


This time from T WEb. An atheist makes the statement that God is "only imaginary." I put up a great argument that belief in God is rationally warranted and that is certainly strong enough to be thought of as more than "Imaginary." The he tries to soft peddle the insulting implications, which I find is an Orwellian use of language.\

Me: that's more than imaginary, remember the title of the thread?"

him: Only if there happens to actually be a God.

My argument is that we have strong reasons to bleieve there's a God. He wants to be able to continue the insulting connotations while denying that he means them. But when I claim that string theory is imaginary too what does he say?


Im originally posted by JimL

Neutrino's are detectable and are known to exist, there is nothing imaginary about them,

Meta:

atheists just really have a problem with understanding what is said don't you? God is real and can be detected. What the person I was responding to said about the meaning of imaginary would apply to anything that is not directly and unarguably proved. Neutrinos are not directly demonstrated. they are not directly observed. You can detect them but only by their effect upon other particles. There still remains no direct picture of one. They cannot be directly observed.

We can detect God by his effects upon people, that's what RE is. It's God's effect, the trace of God.


Jim L

and string theory is just that, a theory, based on the physics of the natural world, whereas God is merely an unscientific concept that gives to us an imaginary explanation as to the meaning of it all.

Again, Science is not the only form of knowledge. Understand? science is not the only form of knowledge. that means it doesn't have to be science to be true. That means bad mouthing God by saying "that's not scinece is not an argument! understand now? that's not a point in your favor. it's meaningless.

it does not make God imaginary. Just because something is not science doesn't mean it's imaginary. Logic is not science, logic is not imaginary. Phenomenology is not science, phenomenology is not imaginary. Understand now?

You are trying to privilege your position with words.



Meta

you are special pleading. You are trying to say that science is the only form of knowledge so therefore anything that is scientific is automatically redeemed from not having direct proof. But an idea that is not a scientific idea, if not proved directly must be imaginary. That's crap.

You do not have the right to privilege our position such that anything you say is exempt form direct proof but anything I say direct proof is automatically required.


Neutrinos and string theory cannot be proved directly no one thinks that makes them imaginary. God can be known by his effects and by one's understanding of being, so God is not imaginary.




Meta

Yes I sure and I have.(verify SN) See the threads I put down on how atheists have the wrong idea of the supernatural. The religious experience studies and the effects of navigation in the world are supernatural, a prori. they fit exactly what the original concept was about.Its' a Christian theological concept atheists do not have the right to define it!




Jim L

and so you are left with nothing but the imagination with which to construe an ultimate reality or God. Whether God exists or not you can only imagine.

you are doing it again, give me some proof that anything that is not science is imaginary? why do you think you get to pronounce that? Science doesn't say that. Show me the scientific data that proves that?

Moreover, My argument is based upon 300 scientific studies and you don't have any. I can verify the SN by science because the first argument is the supernatural. Supernatural refers to God's power to transform lives, that's exactly how the word was first. That's what it means that's what these 300 studies prove. you don't have any studies. you have no studies.

score, 300 to 0.

Theists = 300 studies proving our position

ahteist= 0 studies proving your position.






Meta

I am left with 300 empirical studies which show that the experiences that led to the creation of religion are real, they are experiences of something, they fit the criteria we use to determine reality so we have every right to think of them the effects of something real; they are about god we should assume God is that "something" that is real.


Jim L

not direct proof but more than imagination!

Meta
they don't have to be direct proof. you have offered no data or any sort of argument to prove that these are the only choices, either imaginary or totally proved directly. That's a silly idea. That's not science and it's not logical it's stupid. do you hear me its' stupid. got it? it's a dumb idea.

you are making extremely statements and you can't back them up.


I have studies showing an innate concept of God in the mind of humans. That means God had to put it there because evolution can't.

[not direct proof but more than imagination!

did you read the op? do you ever read anything? The point in the op is it doesn't have to be direct proof because it rationally warranted. do you understand that phrase?

I said in the first post that my point is not that God is directly proved but that it's rational to believe. So you come along and say "not direct proof" so what does that do to the argument? It agrees with it so it must no effect it at all do you see that?




I never defined imaginary thus. It merely means the construction of concepts in the mind with no definite reality.

So now it comes out that you don't understand what is meant by "connotations?" Atheists are indeed ignorant. It's a connotation of ignorance and stupidty and childishness if not why are you not willing to say that string theory is imaginary?

Hawkings numbers are imaginary how does that make you feel?





Jim l

You can't prove it directly because whether true or not for you, like it or not, God is only a concept in your own mind.

Meta
what did I say about proving things directly? when are you going to start addressing the arguments?

The Atheist fear of Gardening

Recently I was posting on a message board and I made the remark that the search for God is in the heart. An atheist responded by saying "I don't make decisions based upon emotionalism." That response made me angry becasue it's so pretensions. The very same guy, Mr. Rational thought will turn right around and wail in the most emotional tirade about how deeply he hates the Bible and hates God for telling him what to do. The Audacity of this God person! Atheism has a strong tendency to reduce everything deep, complex, and richly textured to the most banal they can get. They constantly reduce "life transformation," the upshot my religious experience arguments to "gett'n happy." Once when going on about the empirical scientific studies from academic peer reviewed journals an atheist said this was ministers emailing their people and asking them to report on how they are "gett'n happy." This reminds me of how everything the atheists have going, their entire project is nothing more than an attempt to hide the phenomena and reduce everything to such a truncated view of reality that all one has left to turn to is their shallow and simplistic view.

They do this by mocking and ridiculing the concepts of depth, being, and faith that are required to believe. They do it by arguing that the only form of knowledge is science, the only valid scinece is empirical evidence, the only valid form of empirical evidence that which agree with their views (the religious experience studies are empiric and scientific but they mock and ridicule them as "ministers emailing their flock." It makes sense that they would think of "the heart" as "emotionalism." That's becuase their greatest fear is "the subjective." That is, feelings. they are terribly afraid of feelings. That's becuase if they allow themselves to feel they will be convicted of their sin. I've seen atheists actually deny the concept of "the heart." They have ridiculed it as "the heart pumps blood." So the whole idea of an inner life is abhorant to them. That's probably because if they dealt with the inner life they would have no choice but to be convicted and believe. It is entirely essential that the believer cultivate the inner life. Inner is what faith in God is all about. There is no real point in belief in God without the inner life. Before discussing the nature of inner life let me remove the charge of emotionalism.

First the concept of the heart is not ridiculous, not based upon magic, not difficult to prove. The idea of the "heart" is merely based upon the Greek term "cardia." The Greeks did not see the brain as the seat of the intellect they saw the chest as the place of the intellect. This is because when one feels emotions deeply one can feel a palpable constriction in the chest, the pulse races, the blood pumps faster and that gives the link between the blood pump in the chest, the Greek term "cardia" which we adopted to refer to the pump but the Greeks used to refer to the "inner being" as the seat of feelings and emotions. The Biblical term heart, which atheists confuse with spirit or soul and thus react to indignantly (as they react to everything) is just the will, the desire, the sense of conviction in deep seated ideas we care about. Secondly, this is not "emotionalism." There's a lot ore to "the inner life" than just being emotional. What most people mean when they say "emotionalism" is not an organized philosphy that says based decisions upon feelings. The term is a pejorative destined to mock and ridicule anyone whose decision making process is other than the atheist ideology. There is much more to the "inner life" than just emotion. Existentialism and the concepts of self authentication are included in "inner life." The intellect is part of the inner life. Going about the business of the intellectual life style, reading, thinking, mediating, this is all part of inner life.

No one actually bases decisions upon raw feelings, as an example of inner life. Immature people make rash decisions based upon raw feelings, but that's not the aim of Christian life. When we speak of "the heart" in connection with decision making, such as faith based decisions, we are talking about conviction. Conviction can be borne of deep intellectual analysis, logic, and deliberation as much as it can "feelings." Feelings per se are not necessarily 'emotionalism' either. One doesn't make decisions based upon "I hate X therefore I will not do X." Actually feelings can play different roles in decision making and belief but they must always be grounded in reason. The most important feeling in relation to faith is a sense of conviction that is beyond a mere physical sensation or emotion. Conviction is reducible to just emotion. Conviction stems from the deep seated assurance that a course is correct, that comes from reasoning it out as well as determining actual "feelings."

Atheists will try to mock and ridicule the notion of the inner life. This is because they mock and ridicule anything that doesn't stack up to their ideology about truncated reality. They must collapse reality to eliminate possibles, so one doesn't seek God.the way they do this is to prescribe only one aspect aspect of reality as real, that which is empirically derived from scientific observation. Now a good deal of empirical scientific data disproves atheism but of they can't allow that. Evidence which does not support their conclusions they reduce to their canon of prescribed reality by indicting it's scientific nature in all manner of bogus ways. They have to create the idea that only that which supports the ideology is valid. To do this they cling to the surface of reality. Things are only what can be gleaned form surface level facts of existence of physical objects and nothing else. There is no depth of being, they must create confusion about the very concept of being. They will call it abstraction and say it's pretend and so forth. Just as they label faith as "pretending" and what have you. Everything feeds back into the central thesis; reality is surface level only. That is the level of reality for them because that's what their knowledge controls. Anything deep requires thought, and thought is liberating. If one begins to think about reality and what depth means one begins to unravel the mythology that says only transcribe scientifically derived things can be in existence. To unravel that is to step onto the road to belief and they must avoid that at all costs.

For the believer the situation is just the opposite. Not that the believer needs to pretend, quite the contrary. Pretense in belief is deception. Faith is not about pretending it's about seeking truth. If we are not seeking the TRUTH with a capitals we are not living in faith. We are not cultivating the inner life if we ware not seeking truth. Even if that means digging up some deeply rooted and cherished misconceptions we still have to do it. That statement is not some radical prescription I got form Paul Tillich, it's a statement I got from very conservative A.W. Tozer in The Pursuit of God. The situation is the opposite of that described as "atheist tactics" above because it means expecting that there is more to reality than meets the eye and that finding it will entails a search based upon global knowledge, not just one method. My "global" in don't mean the occult I mean both science and philosophy as well as a phenomenological approach and mystical experience. The mystical is not someone one can control so that should come under the heading "phenomenology." A phenomenological approach would work best with mystical experience; allow the phenomena to suggest it's own categories.

The inner life requires cultivation. We can't just expect to stop with belief, nor can we imagine that constant argument and constant apologetic is spiritual nourishment. The ability to do a sustained apologetically debate requires a strong inner life, it not a source of inner life. That's not say that doing apologetic on a regular basis doesn't' help build the inner life. Yet it can't all be oriented around arguing about God's existence. The primary aspect of innerl ife that is the water for the roots of the plant of faith is prayer. I'm going to start mixing metaphors here but prayer is the nourishment of relationship with God and relationship with God is the foundation upon winch one is able to conduct a successful apologetically approach. We have to draw a line in the sand and ignore the atheists, forget the arguments, move away from that and go into your own space and deal with God. We have to do this every day. You don't have to get down on your knees and shut our eyes real tight. You don't have to speak in a stilted King James fashion, you don't have to even do discursive inner monologue, just focus on God.

I find that the thing that works best is the old fashioned prayer and praise. That may sound incongruous with all my high and mighty liberal theology, but the hold over from my old charismatic days is that prayer and praise works best to bring in the sense of God's presence and open one up to the possibilities of God. There's no formula, once might experiment and find what really excites one on an individual level. For me it's praise thing. It's very repetitious but singing works. The older hymns are more meaningful, they have more concepts in them. Repetition is good too though because it's like a mantra, enables focus. Meditating upon the presence of God is important. When you feel a sense of presence however slight, dwell on it, think about it, cultivate the contact with it. Study the Bible ever day and pray every day. Prayer is not a list of wants. There's a time in prayer for presenting petitions. First get into the spirit, praise God and mediate on God until you feel close to the divine and then present wants when you feel led to. We should all pray at lest two hours a day as a minimal effort. Do I do that? NO! Sometimes I do. It goes in phases. I went through a phase a couple of times when I prayed four hours in row every day. That's not even accomplishment there are people who pray much more than that.

It's a discipline, the firsrt time you try it will be hard to make five minutes. Do it at a regular time every day and increase by a few minutes every day. There are endless schemes for Bible study. Don't just look up answers to atheist attacks that's as bad as doing the atheist thing and only reading it to find problems. Read what speaks to you and dweel on it. Meditate on the ideas the thoughts. There are endless books on all manner of meditation. Meditation doesn't always mean eastern style with mantra. Discursive reasoning can be meditation. Cartesian style meditation is through development of ideas. Mark out a passage, look up every word, read a long way around before and after to get the context. Ask basic questions about context, what's the point of this? Why was it written? Who is it speaking to? There are tons of study guide things on the bible one can find. For internet message board people who are arguing with atheists one of the major hang up is going to be overcoming the doubt tape atheists have constantly tried to imprint on your brain. You are going to have to learn to respect the word of God all over again. I recommend that book Models of Revelation by Avery Dulles. That's not a sprituiaized study guide has nothing to do with bible study. It's on the nature of academic work about the nature of Biblical revelation. It's important because it will sharpen one's sense understanding about the nature of the Bible and enable one to endure the problems encounter in the Bible. One of the major helps it bestows is in understanding that it doesn't matter if there are problems in the Bible. Problems is not a reason to trash the Bible the way the atheist have attempted. The intellectual and philosophical approach si part of the inner life.

For the average person the spiritual aspects are going to be more accessible than the intellectual. One can educate oneself academically but there is no substitute for learning in a university environment. People guy reference books for bible study, works like Strong's Concorde. That stuff has gotten so popular it's much more available online than in hard copy. There's no substitute for taking Greek. Those references books are biased by doctrine and they are all written by conservatives and biased by their doctrines. Take some Greek classes and use the secular Greek Lexicon of Classical Greek (Lidell and Scott) along with Strong's. It's hard to give yourself a college education. It's a good idea to take of seminary classes if you are lucky enough to be in a town with a seminary. I really don't understand why atheists refuse to study. They would be more effective as atheists. That makes me think their real purpose is just emotional (ironically sense they are afraid of being emotional) they are just looking for a place to vent.

The perennial danger is always deception. The potential of making a mistake probably scares a lot of people off from spiritual life. One must stay grounded. Get grounded then stay grounded. We do that in three ways: fellowship, Bible study, prayer, in reverse order. "Fellowship" has huge drawbacks. Churches are rough. We are social creatures and social support is necessary. Just a small group can be a big help. Look for a place where they are not condmening or legalistic and where they treat people right and seeking God is their top priority. Don't fear mistakes so terribly because Grace covers a multitude of sins.

Don't let atheist destroy your faith. Don't allow mocking and ridiucle to discourse you from seeking God. There are intellectual answers to every intellectual issue. The real issues that kill faith are daily living issues for that we need to be strong in a daily living sort of way. That's what prayer strengthens us in. The intellectual life takes care of itself if you cultivate it, and the inner life includes the intellectual life. The spirit and the intellectual are not contradictions. The two can be integrated and working on the integration is a great project for the inner life. It's something we work on every day and it's a major focus of our lives. It gives us meaning and fulfillment. I am reminded of the phrase at the end Voltaire's Candide. He says several times, "we must tend our garden." The context is speaking of a literal garden where several aging and starving castaways have wound up living together and pulling for mutual survival after a life of carnage and hardship. The phrase is usually taken as a metaphor, mainly it's the last thing said in the book and repeated. The metaphor implies the cultivation of an inner life, or a life of the mind just as one tends and cultivates a garden. It must be tended and cultivated every day, this is what keeps up alive, as the physical garden kept Candide and his friends alive at the end. Don't let atheists stop you from tending your garden.