Best of AW

Saturday, January 11, 2014

Prelimenaries for debate: The atehist tread mill and 200 studies.

 This is all going to be important because it forms the background to my 1x1 debate with Occam. Occam is an atheist (stole a Christian name) on CARM. He was until recently one of the few atheists for whom I had great respect. I still respect him enough to debate him one on one. The see saw arguments bewteen them and me over the 200 Studies on religious experience have been bane of my life on the net. They are the fuel that keeps the fire going for my time on CARM. They will figure into the 1x1 debate. I will keep my readership posted about this 1x1 debate. I'll more about that on Monday.

I have provided them with the sources of all 200 studies I have bib on Religious A prori that lists all thew sources. They will not look one up. It's crazy. No debater in the country is asked carry ever original of every quote he uses he would have to tote a library with him. They really talk like they are helpless in a library when I suggest they actually go look up the studies.

Priceless, they go through the same ideological fire drill over and over again: This is a summary of the collective argument made by the CARM atheists on the 200 studies of religoius experience that I talk about, and have been talking about for years.

Atheists: you can't show us the studies.

I can't show most of them becasue they are not on the net. a good many of them were in articles in journals in the 70s, 80s, 90s, when most of that materiel was not on the net. Most journals weren't putting their articles on the net in teh 90s and the net wasn't goign good enough in 70s and 80s. I'm not sure there was a net in the 70s. I think it was in Bill Gates's garage or something.

I show a study that says "half the shrinks have had mystical experience the other half mostly think it's ok" I say "this shows that shrink don't think mystical experince is bad for you." they go "that doesn't say what you want it to.

it says "shrinks don't hate mystical and that's what I said it says. they are totally convinced "it doesn't say what you want it to." They can't get it out of their heads that I don't want it say "official finding God exists." That's their conception of the possible use a study could have in relation to God arguments. They can't concieve of building an argument from smaller arguments or using data from different studies to document a constructed idea. They are such intellectual giants they don't know how arguments work. That's always the hallmark of intellectually superior people they don't know how to argue. They can't get it out of their heads that what they want me to say and what I said are two different things.

Bottom line they would rather whine about how the studies aren't on the net and I can't show them all 200 then go look one up. This way they get to make it sound like I'm lying. They other why, if they look them up, they have to find out I'm right.So they are too helpless to work a library, they wont answer the arguments I give and they wont read the material I provide.

The chapter 11 in Hood's book, has everythihng you need to know to know the studies and how they are done and how the m scale works. I put it up 149 times (I've put it up twice more since the last count) not one of them has read it. But they still want you to think I'm not providing the information. They still talk as though I'm not willing provide anything.

it's back on Google books so you could read a condensed version of it now if you will.


I have a bibliography that shows most of the studies about 150 the other 50 are on Hood's CV. They wont look one of them up. It's up here on the board many many times, they just wont get them.




Hood's chapter in the McNamara book where he documents the stats on the universality argument.
this has been up time and time again they will not read it. You need to scroll to page 119 or use the link in the index.


They wont read any of this. the one's they read are the ones that I told them are not important and tangential but they use them becuase they find thing to twist out of shape and try to make into counter arguments. then they ignore what I aid about "these are not the good ones" and say stuff like 'see his best sutdis are no good." or "the good one's must be bad too."


Deist says seven studies have been seen here (put up on carm, but actually links to them) and don't say what I want them to. He wont name them.

(1) a study that was not part of the 200 but confirmed a study in the 200 the 200. The study that it confirmed was by Dale Caird. It says it confirms Hood's M scale. of course he's pretending that it doesn't confirm it but it did (and it wasn't one of the 200 anyway).

(2) Spanos and Moretti which Royce brought up and we argued about so long, through about 10 threads. None of them even reemmber why I used Spanos. It doesn't say God is real or anything and I never said it does. I used it because it answers the hypnotizablity argument and its says there's no pathology among people who have postive msytical expreinces. The sutdy does say that and those are the two reasons I use them.

He goes on telling the untruth that they don't say waht I said they say.

(3) Allman study says half the shrinks have had not of them think it's good for you and that's exactly what I said they say and they ay it.

he cant' name the other four.

It's just a big dumb game. These 200 studies blow away whole atheist world. if you take them seriously there need not be any atheists. they have to destroy them because they whole game is at steak.

No comments: