Atheists Rally around their own, even when hate filled and Fascistic

This morning see my Easter essay (New and original) "Did Mark Invent the Empty tomb?"
On Metacrock's Blog!


I confronted Deist with his support of Hogbosian and his agreement that he would persecute Christians if he could. He says:


Originally Posted by Deist

Wrong, I would allow Christians to babble about talking snakes, God plopping down a fully formed human, even him offing an entire human race in a do over, but if Christians threatened others with hell, damnation and tried to convince they were worthless sinners, I would toss them in the pokey with mandatory decompression and brain cell reordering. I would leave it to the doctors to determine if a lobotomy was needed.

exactly, you would be on a par with Hitler. you are an oppressor. also a hypocrite. It's ludicrously silly to control belief even if you find it repugnant. That just proves you are a dictator.

Even the white citizen's councils of the deep American south didn't try to make wanting integration illegal.


 Originally Posted by Radio1ogy

Sorry Meta you have no evidence that your God has any more validity than the oft-abused flying spaghetti monster. We have evidence to support the claims we make. You do not. That is the simple fact here, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. As usual, I'll ignore the insults.

Meta:

obviously I do. 200 studies from peer reivewed journal done by shrinks, that's good evidence.

nip it in the bud, he's got to nip in the bud they can't afford to have people know that there is such overwhelming evidence.

 Originally Posted by Radio1ogy

As already established, your 200 studies either don't exist or don't support your thesis. Sorry.

 Meta:

aahhahahaahahaha you are uninformed. you made a muck of debunking one study. that's the only one you've seen.. I told you it was not an important one I specif d the fine tiny little minor things I use it t document and they weren't major parts of my thesis. based upon that one work, which you do not understand becasue you underrate it as a study. you colluding "tis' been established that they are all bad!

Here the cretins go at it again. "they either don't exist or don't support the ideas. If they don't exist how can you read them to know they don't support the ideas? I've proved they exist by quoting them in other published sources. That's absolute proof. I also give all of their sources.

thank you for once again proving that atheism is about being ignorant, not thinking, refusing to consider the facts, and supporting ideological brain washing.

the handlers say you must oppose those studies. don't need to thread them, the atheist masters say they are bad.


One study, "it has been established." by your wishful thinking.





 Originally Posted by Deist

One of the central themes of Christians has to do with "experiences". I put it in parenthesis because the word is defined by those claiming to have had them. I think THE most important thing one can do is to examine their beliefs critically and then determine why it is they hold those beliefs, and if they are worth holding onto. Often, we go through life just accepting what others have to say without challenge or scrutiny.

Meta:
Ignorance stikes again! the guy who know nothing about hte subjec ti jsut convienced he doesn't need to read a think. He can tell jus sniffing the air around it that it's no good. He doesn't need to read Maslow, he's convened Maslow is a Chrsitain, anyone who believes the tiniest little bit that realign is ok is a Chrsitain, but at the same time Deist believes there is no standard Christianity. Thus is failure to know hat Maslow is one of the most important, accomplished, famous and greatest anthropologist/sociologists of all time, and is well known not be a christian, makes his little outburst as just that.



Deist

Let us examine this definition, which is one that Meta touts as the central theme and reason he believes there is a generic type God. I say generic because this is also what most Christians do as well. They MEAN the Christian God, but almost all the time the God they refer to is a generic one that could be anything...even the God of Islam, or just a ground of being, which also is left undefined. 

Meta

Of that's BS. Most Chrsitians (especially the fundie kind--here in Texas we have them in abundance) think Allah is evil and is satan. They think Buddha is a competing God, they the toa is a competing God. They think Nomai yo ho ringe quo is a competing God.



Deist

Peak experience defined by Abraham Maslow (1962) as the most wonderful experience or experiences of your life, happiest moments, ecstatic moments, moments of rapture

Meta

of course he doesn't document Malow saying this. That's because it's totally unscientific. Maslow never said any such thing. he's just reducing the concept to "happy" which is their constant tatic. they can never honestly deal with a concept on it's own terms. they always have to reduce it something else, otherwise it's off script. they can't deal something their atheist handlers have not brain washed them on.



Deist

If YOU wanted to be in the group, wouldn't it be advantageous for you to CLAIM a "peak experience"? Who could challenge you, right? Perhaps many of the group have claimed that THEY have had one, and yet they never really explain what the experience was. So, you realize YOU can do the same thing, be considered important, and be a card carrying member of the group. If I were to use the above definition, even I have had more than one "peak experience". Since I would never be called upon by the group to explain my alleged "peak experience" (because they don't want to have to explain theirs, either), I get to be perceived as special and important, perhaps even chosen by the number one entity that the group claims they worship. I'm "in" like flint with no further discussion. 

 Meta

He's spouting this drivel about this stuff that he has never experienced for himself. He's talking about it as though it' so stupid you just don't need to confront it when you are awake. Go take a nap and see what's wrong with it. he's deeply insightful he doesn't have to read books to know everything.

Blythely unaware that it's scientific. Of course he doesn't read anything so how could he know it is? Because he keeps himself unaware so wont have to confront how wrong he is and really study about it. They don't have 200 studies (plus) for nothing. It's because it is a complex subset that has been scientifically a great deal. There's a huge body of empirical work about it.


Deist

Conversely, if I never had a "peak experience", I may be considered less than the others; an outsider, perhaps unworthy, uneducated, need to read the bible more, not devoted. Thus, one MUST have had a "peak experience" to be in the clique, and there is no downside to claiming one, because claims are a dime a dozen and go unchallenged by the group. 

Meta

His silliness leads him to assume that having such an experience is some kind of mark of spiritual acumen in the chruch. He has no concept how what churches ar4e like. If you that I invent to go to first Baptist in Dallas and tell them you had a peak experience and see who salutes you. Totally rampant ignorance.

Deist

I assert I've had MANY "peak experiences". I don't believe in your Christian God, or ANY God that is personal or imparts anything to me or in me. I, and I alone give myself my feelings. 

Meta

Perhaps you have had a peak experience, but the fact is that people who do have them are not disrespect mocking creep who deal honesty with other people's experiences. They studies show that people have them are more open to others, more understanding, intuitively compassionate, caring, willing to accept others, no silly know it alls who refuse to learn. They are better educated, more successful and tend to grow a social conscience. I find it highly unlikely that you have had such an experience. The fruits are not there.

I do see some green eyes looking longingly at what I have and what Christians have and some sour grapes.


_______________

 A note on defintion
 where Deist got his definition:

http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/relexp...w_maslow01.htm

this guy starts off with an anecdotal quoteefined as “moments of highest happiness and fulfillment,” not only does he then write a whole article about it but Malow himself wrote a whole book about it. So we find can a more sceitnfic and exacting definition if we cared to. In that book Maslow does link to religious experience and mystical experience. I've documented that before in answering Backup's charge that Peak is not mystical and not religious.











 "Abraham Maslow, Religions, Values and Peak Experiences."
by  Tim Knepper, 2001. accessed today.

http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/relexp/reviews/review_maslow01.htm

in that artilce Maslow's defintion is summarized:

And, in Maslowian-speak, peak-experiences are identified as temporary moments of self-actualization; the peak-experiencer “becomes in these episodes most truly himself, more perfectly actualizes his potentials, closer to the core of his Being, more fully human” (TBP, 106). It should also be noted that Maslow recognizes a new type of “peak” experience in RVPE – the plateau-experience. Unlike peak-experiences, plateau-experiences are serene and clam, always possess a noetic and cognitive element and – as the name indicates – are temporally distended.

As for the relationship between peak-experiences and organized religion, Maslow believes that the origin, core and essence of every known “high religion” is “the private, lonely, personal illumination, revelation, or ecstasy of some acutely sensitive prophet or seer” (RVPE, 19). “That is to say,” continues Maslow, “it is very likely, indeed almost certain, that these older reports, phrased in terms of supernatural revelation, were, in fact, perfectly natural, human peak-experiences” (RVPE, 20). Nevertheless, world religions tend towards polarization, with the privately religious “peakers” on one side and the institutionally religious “non-peakers” on the other. Maslow goes so far as to call peakers and non-peakers “the [two] religions of mankind” (RVPE, 28). Moreover, public organized religion is not only secondary but also harmful to private peak-experiences (RVPE, 28).

Finally, Maslow is of the opinion that all peak-experiences are essentially the same: “To the extent that all mystical or peak-experiences are the same in their essence and have always been the same, all religions are the same in their essence and have always been the same. They [religious practitioners] should, therefore, come to agree in principle on teaching that which is common to all of them, i.e., whatever it is that peak-experiences teach in common (whatever is different about these illuminations can fairly be taken to be localisms both in time and space, and are, peripheral, expendable, not essential). This something common, this something which is left over after we peel away all the localisms, all the accidents of particular languages or particular philosophies, all the ethno-centric phrasings, all those elements which are not common, we may call the ‘core-religious experience’ or the ‘transcendent experience’” (RVPE, 20). Where descriptions of peak experiences differ, Maslow pays “no attention to these localisms since they cancel one another out,” “taking the generalized peak-experience to be that which is common to all places and times” (RVPE, 73). Moreover, Maslow believes the data from peak-experiences may one day offer a solution to the problem of cultural relativity insofar as the “B-values [the values inherent in Being-itself] derived from peak-experiences, as well as from other sources, may supply us with a perfectly naturalistic variety of ‘certainty,’ of unity, of eternality, of universality” (RVPE, 95). “B-values may well turn out to be defining characteristics of humanness in its essence, i.e., the sine qua non aspects of the concept ‘human’” (RVPE, 95).

Deist wants to turn him into a Christian but he is well known as an atheist and close to being a Buddhist.