When atheists are science deniers

 


This is on carm today 

The "200" refer to the 200 studies I talk about on religious experience.

Originally Posted by Deist

As I see it, the case is closed on the "200". There are no 200 and the ones ferreted out after molar extractions don't say what you allege they say. This has been gone over in numerous threads and posts time and time again. You have nothing with the alleged "200".

 Meta

you can't answer them, they disprove your little comfy world where you get to be king, so you just pretend they don't exist. you haven't read them, you don't know anything about them, you know nothing about social scinece research but you are so sure of everything you decal ire they are not there.

they are there. you can't stop them,. they are scinece you are disobeying science.

you are a science denier!

 Deist is one of the most fun hooligans on CARM. He's one of the most narrow minded and he's right wing. He are some of his previous exploits, also dealing with the studies on religious experience:


Originally Posted by Deist

As is usual with your posts, it is far too long to respond to everything.

 Meta

no you don't read so you wont be proved wrong. why should I waste my time talking to someone who wont play fair?

why should message board posting be speed chess? It should be discussion. who cares if it goes slow?


Deist:

Hood is a well-known Christian, 

(Dr.Ralph Hood, Ph.D.,professor of psychology at University of Tennessee Chattanooga).

Meta

No he's not, Einstein! he's not a Christian at all. He didn't even grow up in a Christian background.

you are mixed up you just made that up. you have no information on that you even claim he's "well known" so you are spreading mendacity.

Hood is a friend of mine. He's not a Christian. It's just a convenient way for him to dismiss Hood. Hood is the inventor of the M scale that makes the study of religious experience scientific. If it supposedly proved it was bogus and silly he would be all for it. Instead it helps to show that RE is good for you so he has to deny its validity. Typical of atheists their view are not based upon the facts but their facts are gathered in relation to their need to support their views.

Deist:

I don't know the people that he interviewed, as the people are anonymous, and I think the man is lying. 

Meta

takes one to know one I guess. you put yourself in that position didn't you? Making up BS about this guy that you have no knowledge about. He was a hippie. The closest he got to Christian was Unitarian, that was just growing up. he's not well known as a Christian he' snot well known at all outside of psychology of religion.

you don't know anything about him you are making it up.

Deist:

How is anyone to check whether or not the respondents were atheist if they are anonymous?

Meta

you didn't even read it. who did I say was atheist? how did I say he knows about atheist? go back and read what you did not read. I did not say it was the anonymous respondents. what did I say?


Deist:

We're supposed to just believe that? The Christians here go on and on about someone who commits a serious crime as not being a Christian. Therefore, I am only using the Christian way of doing things by contending that even though someone may have said they were in atheist, doesn't mean they actually were. I would like to interview that person who claimed he was an atheist when he had this alleged experience, to determine just when he was an atheist, and what his family background is. I am quite sure that we would find that his family was Catholic or Christian, that the people he hung around with were Christian. 

Meta

you could believe the studies that's why they are documented. that's why we give sources and that's why they peer review.

Now class what Have I said about atheist arguments? They are usually based upon either begging the question or incredulity. This is an appeal to incredulity. The evidence proves him wrong, he can't refute it, so he just refuses to believe it's real. These guys are not atheists.

Deist:

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I submit that anyone who says they were an atheist when they had this alleged mystical experience was never a true atheist.

Meta

It's NOT all gravy you know. at least I'm using real studies and not slandering people.

btw thanks for the amo for atheist watch.

 How can one argue rationally with someone who just refuses to accept counter evidence?