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.

Debate with Loren on God arguments: Religious Instinct

Loren is one of the faithful opposition, the friendly enemies who post regular. I am glad for her participation as it keeps me having to answer good objections to my ranting. Now we are arguing (from comments further down) about the innate sense of God.

I we are going to debate I might as well give her the full argument. This is from my Argument for religious instinct which No 5 on the list.


The full list of reasons for the argument includes more than just the God part f the brain:

The argument actually says that the fact of a religious species is far too coincidental to be merely the product of random chance. Why why would it be that we are fit to be religious, that it is our isitinct and our way of life? That would indicate that an object of religious devotion desinged religiosity into humans. In summation the following factors indicate that religiosity is part of human nature:

a) Historical Tendency:

The vast Majority of Humans have been religious as far back as we have evidence of humanity (50,000 years) [see above A. 3]

b) Believers have always been vast numerical majority

That is not appeal to popularity, it's an argument about behavior which indicates an innate condition. Almost 90% currently of world population are religious believers in some sense.

c) Trans cultural

When anthropologists see a behavior that transcends culture they assume it is innate. There has never been a culture that was atheistic. Every culture we have ever seen or found traces of on earth going back as far as we can has been religious in some way.

d) Even in cultures such as China where the government attempted irradiation of religious belief there are still 51% religious and many more undecided but not "anti-"religious

e) Physical fitness for religion

Our bodies work better when we are religious, it is the major factor in health and far more of a motivator than any other trigger of the Placibo effect [see above C.3]

f) Archetypes Universal

Archetypes are natural part of the human psyche (see the next argument). Also see Jesus Christ and Mythology page II. Archetypes are psychological symbols which point to transcendent ideal beyond the material realm. Studies show that they are natural to all people and emerge under a broad variety of psychological techniques.Maslow says that they are found among all people using ever technqiue of psychoanalysis. [above B.3]

g) Psychologically fit for religion

Psychological factors, religious believers have far less depression and incidence of mental illness so the human mind works best when religious. [above C]

h) Transformative power

IF the appeal of the argument were merely popularity, it would not turn on things other than popularity. Obviously these reasons I'm giving here are not popularity. But, the transformative power of religious expeirnce is another aspect of the argument which proves that it' not merely an appeal to popularity. Religious expernce trasnforms lives, it gives people life affirming experinces which makes them better as people and makes life worth living. Not all psychological factors are capable of doing that. We are so contituted as a speices that we respond to these experiences in such a way that they do transform our lives. That proves that we are fit to be religious, and that is not an appeal to popularity.[see also point C above on psychological normality and self actualization]

i) brain wave patterns

Brain wave patterns are changed by religious experience. We go from Alpha waves to Beta and to other levels of Brain wave patterns when we have these experinces.

j) "God pod" (God moduel in the brain)

Scientists have identified a cluster of neurons in the brian which, when stemulated, produce feelings of extacy and thoughts about God and the trasncendent. This is too great a coincidence that nature would just produce this by random chance, expecially when taken together with all the other ways in which we are fit to be religious. It's an evidence of design, we are made to be a religious sepcies.

k) Sense of the Numenous universal

Lorens comments form the comment section to a previous post, concerning "God pod" or aka "God part of the Brain."

Meta:

We know now that we are born with innate concepts of God. Scietnific fact. see Newberg, see Ramachandrin

Loren:

Is this Vilayanur Ramachandran that you are talking about? He seems to think that mystical experiences are a kind of hallucination, rather than a perception of some supposed superbeing that rules the Universe.

That's his theory to explain the data, becuase he can't accept the explanation about God being real. But the data clearly shows that God is real, he does present the data. The data shows that every one has some sense in which their brains react positively to God talk more so than to any other form of speech. The way he explains it doesn't hold water, and Newberg explains that. Newberg does actually lean to the idea that it proves God.




Meta:

Not believing in God is a pathological state.

Loren:

No more than disbelieving in the efficacy of sorcery is. Aren't you afraid that someone will cast a hex on you?

Yes actually more than that. You are only saying that as a personal opinion, the fact which you cannot deny is that the data indites innate idea in our minds, innate ideas impossible so moer than evolution put it there.



Meta:

It contradicts the basic human experience of the vast majority of people. you don't get to privilege your position based upon nothing but a snide a attitude.

Loren

Metacrock, I have some bad news for you. The large majority of people have not believed in your god. Instead, they've believed in "big man in the sky" sorts of gods, and often more than one of them.

Again you make this mistake very singel time you post here. When will you actually start to remember my answers to thinks. I correct you on this every single time I talk to you. Write it down!

There is no such thing as "My God." I have proven that the attributes of God are mutually exclusive. So anything that has those attributes is uniquely God. If that's the Muslim concept of God then so be it. If it's Zeus, (which it's not) so be it. Whatever has those is God. And all people are experiencing God at some level. God is at work in all religions. God is beyond our understanding we experience him at a subliminal level, so we can't oppose one tradition to another and say "this is right." Jesus is the common denominator because he was a concrete guy in hsitory, so we can follow his example as the revelation. But as far as ideas of God go all religious traditions stand the same equal chance of understanding God, which is that we don't.

It is therefore foolish to speak of "your God." There is only each traditions misconceptions of God. The various concepts of each religion that represent god are just metaphors that point to the one reality behind all traditions.



Loren

(What evidence do you have that a deity or God exists?)

Meta:

42 arguments I've been working on for 10 years.

Loren

Metacrock, it's really hard for me to keep score. Are those proofs or warrants for belief in a god whose existence cannot be proved?

Follow the link an see what it says about that. One of the lies that brain washed atheists tell about me is that I switch back and forth from "proof" to "rational warrant." But I've explained that on carm numerous times, just lie what I said above it's one of those really simile explanations that atheists can't bother themselves to remember. When I say it's not proof I mean it's not actual absolute proof like empirical observation. When I say it is proof I mean in a practical sense as in "close enough for government work," its enough to justify belief.


Loren

And would you want me to link you to refutations of those arguments?

They are all crap. There's not a one that I have not answered and beaten. If you mean the joke kpage where he answers like 300 stupid jokes and includes mine, I've seen those. If you mean real serious attempts to answer my arguments, sure, I'll have more fodder for my blog. But if they are the jokes don't bother. Of course they are all jokes but if they the intentional jokes, don't bother.



Meta:

because God created consciousness so we could know him. He wants to us to know him.

Loren:

That alleged entity is not trying very hard with me, and you are implying that that alleged entity is something like a big man in the sky.

Of course you are doing so much to give him a chance aren't you? That's why you mock and ridicule religious people and label yourself in opposition to him and run around thinking pessimistically, nursing your anger and so on. Yea you are so open! Have you ever read the Bible when you weren't looking for examples to mock and ridicule?

Meta:

Because what you are really saying is that you don't have to live by God's rules.

Loren:

How did you figure that out? I find no such implication.

If the shoe fits



Meta:

What I"m saying is love is universal and God loves us and cares about us. You spit in his face and despise him for loving you.

Loren:

Do you hate Zeus or Odin or Brahma or all the other gods you don't believe in?

No I don't hate them. I also don't mock and ridicule them, I don't hang out on message boards getting a rush form mocking and ridiculing people who follow them. They are contingent so they can't really be God, but they are metaphors that point to the reality behind all religious traditions. The Greeks had the sense of the numinous that is a sense of the true God. Paul on Mars Hills even said they worshiped the true God they just didn't know his name.


Meta:

there is no evidence of an alternative to God. There is no proof the universe popped out of nothing,

Loren:

Why do you think that the only possible alternatives are (1) your god and (2) popping out of nothing?

That's a totally unfair way to frame the question. I've explained that I'm a Christian universalist. I believe that God is working in all cultures, that we can't understand God we can only experience him. But the one concrete example of God's character we do have is Jesus. That doesn't change the fact, as Paul tells us (Rom 2:6-15/Acts 17:21-29) God is working in all cultures and in all hearts. All people have an innate sense of God. So farming he question of my God vs everything else is clearly unfair and unwarranted.

The only rational choices that do exist are these:

(1) some version of God

(2) something form nothing

(3) infinite string of causal Regression (ICR)

Since the 2 and 3 can be disproved as irrational and unwarranted 1 is the only one left. So you show me an alternative. I just honestly can't think of a foruth one.

Loren:

I can think of oodles of alternatives, like our Universe being a lab experiment in a super-Universe, our Universe being eternal, and our Universe being a bubble in some multiverse.

But isn't that first one just the atheist idea of God? Is it very likely as a possibility? Why shouldn't probability be part of the equation?

Our universe being eternal is disproved.

(1) it's not a theory regarded by any major scientist. odenwald once said energy is created in the big ban and that's why most scientists believe.

(2) Universe is a closed sysetm, it will burn off it's finite order in heat death and can't re-coup.

(3) Given infinite chances it would have done this long ago. Thus there is no way it could be eternal Because if it were eternal it could not cease to be.

Bubble in multiverse does not solve any of these problems. All that option does is to move the problem back one step. But where did the mutliverse come from? That's an invitation to ICR and I have disproved ICR.



Meta:

this is self defense. you little brainwashed thugs are attacking us, we have to begin to take care of ourselves. no more little nice Christian door mat.

Loren:

Jesus Christ taught that we ought to love our enemies, not hate them.

Are you ignoring what I said in my previous post, or don't remember, or didn't read it? I said I choose not to hate them.

Just because I"m cataloging their faults and pointing out the dangers of their own hatred doesn't mean I hate them. I pity rather than hate.