Wednesday, June 1, 2016

None so blind as those who will not read my studies,

 

Buy MY BOOK! photo frontcover-v3a_zps9ebf811c.jpg Order from Amazon
Ground breaking research that boosts religious arguemnts for God to a much stronger level. It makes experience arguments some of the most formidable.Empirical scientific studies demonstrate belief in God is rational, good for you, not the result of emotional instability. Ready answer for anyone who claims that belief in God is psychologically bad for you.
Order from Amazon


 
 
 
That same great heavy hitting one man atheist think tank "im skeptical" who tried to teach Hannam how to do history is now taking on my studies in the I spent even years writing, The book I bot the major researcher in the field to help me with,. He has no challenging ideas about the literature far from it! He can't even force himself to read a single page of anything. In fact he can't count how many studies are listed on a page. After I went through the mill with the bully boy CARM atheists this wanna be Donald Trump is focusing on such major issues as did I link to a page with two articles or seven? But then he wont read even the two.. Meanwhile I did also link to my list of 100 studies. he can't accept that they are studies despite the titles and publications they are in. Like something in he Journal of Religious studies about 2 factor analysis is not going to be a laundry ,list. Let's look at the banality he's inflected.
 
 
 
Meta

Can't you follow a simple sentence? you said there was nothing about it except my stuff. so I', showing you how stupid that is,. here is a thing about it. it does say widely used and most effective. If they found a problem it doesn't say it's a piece of shit.


IMS

-

You don't understand what I'm telling you. All you did was find something on the internet that has a sentence claiming the M scale is widely used. But that article was a abstract for an article that has nothing to do with your thesis, as far as I can tell. So you spent the whole day searching the internet for sentences like that, when what I want to know is what does it do, how does it do it, and how does it fit into mainstream science? You completely ignore the questions I have, because (as I'm increasingly convinced) you have no answers to them.

 Meta

I quoted five different people saying it's good,. One said it shaped the field one said it changed everty8ing, they are not saying it's effective must to waste time. that does mean they acknowledge that it works. I told you it's the most corroborated study of it's kind. In the book I list the studies I won't now because you would not read them if I put them in your hand. Saying the article is a stupid excuse. you are too unread to know it's an article built you have to pay to see it. very common practice. Grad students usually have passes to get in such places.





IMS
I read it. It was just an abstract. I've asked you over and over to show mw something more than that, so I can understand it better.

Meta

if  you actually read the stuff I linked to you would know the context. you know absolutory nothing about this topic because you refuse to read anything


look you don't know shit from shinola about academic publishing


IMS
- I read a whole interview of Ammons. He revealed a lot about his publication business, including how much he charges per page. I would suggest that you don't know the difference between mainstream and "alternative" science publications.


Meta

He is not one of my sources he has nothing to do with it,. maybe he's associated withy an article  I liked to your are just desperate to dredge up any excuse. In fact I don't know who he is or why you are talking about him.

you didn't look at the link Donald.


IMS
-
I don't know about Donald, but I certainly looked. Not only that, but I looked at everything that came up in the first page of the search. That's why I can say that there were only two studies. But you think it's a whole lot more than that, because YOU didn't bother looking
.

Meta

Obviously you didn't because I see whole page of stuff while say only two easy way to settle it.

Here's the stuff that was on the page.



The Hood Mysticism Scale: does the presence of a neutral ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11351868

1. Psychol Rep. 2001 Apr;88(2):335-8. The Hood Mysticism Scale: does the presence of a neutral response-item affect response style. Mercer C(1), Durham TW.


www.jstor.org

www.jstor.org/stable/1387407

Title: The Structure of Hood's Mysticism Scale: A Factor-Analytic Study Created Date: 20160330213258Z


Theories, Concepts, and Measurements | Mysticism Scale

wiki.thearda.com/tcm/measures/mysticism

Hood (1975) developed a series of questions based on Stace (1960) that were designed to tap into experiences perceived as transcending cultural and temporal ...


www.jstor.org

www.jstor.org/stable/1387178

Title: Hood's Mysticism Scale Revisited: A Factor-Analytic Replication Created Date: 20160330004148Z


Content Pages of the Encyclopedia of Religion and Social ...

hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/mysticism.htm

Encyclopedia of Religion and Society ... Surveys of Mystical Experience. Hood's ... His Mysticism Scale, Research Form D ...


Hood Mysticism Scale: Good Friday Experiment, Religion ...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qeLfh7E9mA

Hood Mysticism Scale: Good Friday Experiment, Religion, and the Mystical Experience from Psilocybin ... Ralph Hood, PhD Talks About His Mysticism Scale…


THE HOOD MYSTICISM SCALE: DOES THE PRESENCE OF A NEUTRAL ...

www.amsciepub.com/…dfplus/10.2466/pr0.2001.88.2.335

HOOD MYSTICISM SCALE METHOD Participants included 48 students who were enrolled in one of two sec- tions of a senior undergraduate psychology course in Tests ...


I put up a link with 100 studies that I use in my book ,he didn't say anything. he did't read it.



I see at least 8 article listed


I put up a link with 100 studies that I use in my book ,he didn't say anything. he did't read it.


He also didm't look on Google scholar, a whole page fuil of stuff about it there.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ralph+Hood+Mysticism+Scale&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjiiqv-voXNAhXEz4MKHYK_ACgQgQMIHTAA



IMS

- I don't think there are 100 studies on this. All you did was list your references, and the references of others. Those aren't all scientific studies, and I know you haven't read all of that material. There's plenty there that apparently has little or nothing to do with your thesis.
Meta

 
there's an easy way to prove that too.
 
 

 
Joe Hinman
 
IMS said...
I don't think there are 100 studies on this. All you did was list your references, and the references of others. Those aren't all scientific studies, and I know you haven't read all of that material. There's plenty there that apparently has little or nothing to do with your thesis.


you have such respect for science that you can't even look at the evidence it's so unthinkable to you that some evidence might really disprove your view. you can't bring yourself to examine it. O yea you really have such a great love of learning and thinking! you can't even risk knowing you might be wrong.

Here is an article, it's not a study it's an article but it explains about several of the studies and it proves they eixst and that they are good studies.



Krishna K. Mohan, “Spirituality and Wellbeing: an Overview.” An Article based upon a Presentation made during the Second International Conference on Integral Psychology, held at Pondicherry India 4-7 January 2001, published in hard copy, Cornelissen, Matthijs (Ed.) (2001) Consciousness and Its Transformation. Pondicherry: SAICE.On line copy website of the India Psychology Institute. Site visited 9/3/12. URL:http://www.ipi.org.in/texts/ip2/ip2-4.5-.php Accessed 2/7/2016

http://www.ipi.org.in/texts/ip2/ip2-4.5-.php

1 comment:

Joe Hinman said...

we are losing sight of the point of the debate. two fold:

I. religion is good thing. It's not evil it's not something to avoid or outgrow. it makes your life better in dramatic ways and it' a positive force. That doesn't mean any particular church is good but in general religion is positive.

I.then I have two God arguments, that is argument that belief in God is rationally warranted.

(1) we can trust this type of religious experience (Stace's mystical) because it conforms to the criteria we use to determine reality.

(2) Religious symbols and ideas are cultural they are not genetic. thus the universality of experience among those who have mystical experience implies that there is an objective reality they are experiencing.