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