Atheist "Ridicule Artists" Slander Real Scholar

Fora about five years now I've been trying to these illiterate anti-intellectual atheists to notice the huge body of scientific empirical work on religious experience. The major figure in that field is Ralph Hood, professor of psychology at University of Tennessee in Chattanooga. Hood invented a research tool called "The M scale" (mysticism scale) that enables one to determine if a real mystical experience has been had or not. That's real important if you want to study religous experince beuase you have to know if you have the real deal or not.The illiterate mocking atheist trolls have been incensed about the concept of Hood all this time. They can't accept the fact that a "real scientist" wouldn't' be like Dawkins and make fun of religious people but would actually study them objectively.

Their logic is impeccable

atheism is againt realign

scinece is against religion (it's not)

so atheism is science.

so any "real scientist" will mock and ridicule religious people instead of study them.


post 18

[QUOTE=Marty Hamrick;3109634]Of course not, Meta, this isn't a library or a theology class. You need to be more concise.[/quote]

no you need to be more intelligent. if you deem to mock and ridicule other people's faith you have a responsibility to be through and to consider the answers carefully.you are damning other people.atheism is based on selfish monstrosities. so you are influencing others to go to hell and spend eternity without god just so you can ease your fear a bit for a while. that is mysteriously selfish you owe them the attention to truth and honesty that you are not willing to give.


[QUOTE]No one here is going to read and entire book and do a dissertation.[/QUOTE]

I read 200 studies. if you want to say blanket like you do "these are all bad,they a re horrible they suck they are not good" you certainly owe to it the people you are deceiving to learn the facts!

another troll helping the atheist brain wash people. this proves you are not serious.


what a silly fallacious excuse. It's too long. getting the answers is too much trouble.


post 20

Deist;3109945]If he had it, he'd give it. All this dancing and prancing around and feigned upset is to mask the fact that he has nothing. A childish third grade type M Scale, and "200" articles by obscure nobodies.

of course you want to say such things knowing absolutely nothing at all about it. you wont even read a single comment of anyone I quote saying it's good. you want to whine about how stupid but you have no way knowing anything about it when I put the evidence in front of your illiterate face you refuse to read and see that you are wrong.

MFFJM2;3110396]The "M-scale" is a joke. Asking these kinds of leading and ambiguous questions, failing to explain the terms involved, using only agree/disagree instead of a scale (always, usually, sometimes, seldom, never) will always provide a worthless set of data points. Any researcher worth his salt would instantly recognize this so called "test" as just a blatant attempt to provide emipirical evidence using confirmation bias.

"I have never had an experience in which I felt myself to be absorbed as one with all things."

If reading these questions didn't get you smiling, you lack a sense of humor or have been drinking the kool-aide.

those are feelings that mystics have. those are testaments mystics have made. so how can you know if had a mystical experience if you got ask "have you ever had this?" How desne can you possibility be?
Michael E. Neilsen
Georgia Southern University
Feb, 2000
Psychology of Religion in USA

"Ralph Hood (1998), a major figure in American psychology of religion, suggests six psychological schools of thought regarding religion. The psychoanalytical schools draw from the work of Freud, and attempt to reveal unconscious motives for religious belief."


Not only have I explained explained several times why that's wrong, but I show you a whole chapter on why it' that way you refuse to read it because you don't assures. it front of your face to know why you are wrong you refuse to even consider looking. that's a true know nothing. I put quotes form experts right on th board saying "the M scale is not a Joke its a really great thing" you don't even read them. That's just true troll behavior.


you are a know nothing you know you are a know nothing.\


They really out do themselves on this one. See them actually Slander Hood. this guy acutally attacks the way he dresses. Forget that he's recognized as the great scholar of his field. he dresses funny.


Originally Posted by Metacrock

you are just admitting that you are a troll. All you are saying is that you are not able to objectively evaluate the evidence. yu don't care about the studies. you just have it in for anyone religious.

until you make a real substantive post talking about the issue it will be apparent you are a troll I will not talk to you.

You are expecting your bigotry and hatred of religion to be taken as the valid position to start from. that's begging the question. you have not proved anything about religion you just demand that we all hate it with you.

until you make a reason argument I will not talk to trolls

From an article online by Andrea Perkins,

Originally Posted by Deist

I did my homework and found out that the country’s leading researcher and court appointed expert on serpent-handling sects lives in Chattanooga, where he teaches at the University of Tennessee. Dr. Ralph Hood is originally from California, though with his long white beard and predilection for denim, he says he always gets mistaken for a hillbilly.
"There is little or no difference between a fundamentalist in Bali and one in Tennessee," he said one morning from a green leather arm chair that looked like a toad stool that had sprouted up among the piles of books and papers in his cluttered office.

"One just happens to take up snakes?" I said.

"Serpents," he corrected. "They prefer the term serpents, because snakes are not poisonous. Serpents are."

When someone does dies of snake bite, it means that he or she must not have been "anointed" by the spirit to do so. Handlers don’t believe that you should just go around picking up poisonous snakes any old time. Only when the spirit "moves on you" should you express and rejoice in your faith in this way.

Hood likes to film serpent-handling meetings. He has amassed a sizable library of such tapes, including old super 8 footage of services in the fifties. Hood said the serpent handlers liked and trusted him because he didn’t patronize them, or treat them like precious oddities. For him, they were no stranger then anyone else who decides to take something literally. In fact, he seemed to admire their gumption.

"You’ve got to be awed by that kind of faith," he said. "That kind of commitment to faith. For them, there is only the supremacy of The Word. And The Word is law. These people would sacrifice their lives for the word of god. The thing that people don’t understand is that it is completely rational. These people are far from crazy. They operate by a kind of logic."

So what’s logical about picking up a copperhead and waving it around your head?

"What’s rational about communion?" asks Dr. Ralph Hood. "Why doesn’t it seem odd to us that people ingest the blood and body of Jesus Christ? Because it’s familiar. Strangeness comes from distance."

Meta, the above article is about your famous Ralph Hood. I think everyone here will agree that he is, in fact, a religious whacko with only half a brain. I care less about his alleged degree. He's a loon. You can call me a troll all you want to avoid seeing the truth, Meta. You need to trash this silly M Scale stuff. It isn't helping you at all.

The guy not only LOOKS like a hillbilly. He's dumber than one.

He's studying the people who handle snakes. He's not there to ridiculing them. I know this is a conceptual challenge to ability o understand, that study means objectively look at it not trying to make them feel bad about who they are.

part of his ridicule is based upon the fact that Hood's a good researcher and can be objective. that's what he's ridiculing him for.

He say "I did my homework." that's what the calls "homework" finding finding reasons to ridicule someone who is a giant in his field.


who else but a troll would consider "homework" to be gather material for mocking someone?


How utterly stupid is that? because Hood is not mocking snake handle he must be "a religious nutzo" (he called him before in the thread. the idea of objective study is totally foreign to him.

here's the article he linked to

city travel reporter. No ta schoolyard article at all. on web site about having fun in the bay area.

Atheists Justify Brown Shirt Tactics

After chasing off a guy called Paul by ganging up on him, say ridiculous things and mocking and ridiculing his ideas without listening, they then turn around justify what they did. Basically they are admitting that they are brown shirts, bullies and refuse to think.

Originally Posted by Haven

Paul said this in the "Christians: why Christianity?" thread:

I don't exactly understand how omnipotence requires a trinity (in fact, I hold that a trinity is logically impossible, but that's a discussion for another time), or even how omnipotence and triunity are related. Could Paul, or someone else who holds this view, explain their argument for this?

Meta:

you guys chased Paul off so he's not going to come and explain it. I would like to hear it.

Polyb:

Yes-a grown man was "ganged up on" over an internet forum, and hence had to leave

Humble Thinker (alledges himself to be
a "christian" always blocks with atheists)

The Internet is serious business, ya know? Disembodied words that one voluntarily reads can have that effect on a person.

Back Up

It is a bizarre and common practice of Christian forums to censor anything even vaguely disrespectful of their specific dogma.

Telling people it is a good thing that they and their family are going to burn in hell for all eternity for not joining a particular group is still considered polite conversation.

Skylurker

PaulO was pretty good at giving as good as he gets.

Everyone has a different excuse but they all have excuses for bullying, ridiculing and not listening. So they basically admit they are not there to think. If you are an adult it doesn't matter how you are treated. So obviously they making excuses to justify their behavior and their brown shirt thuggish behavior is base upon the need to feel important by bullying others (low atheist self esteem) and the fervor that comes with ideolgoical brain washing. Atheists in general are brained washed lacky of a hate group.

Of course when one fights back they get anger and so "you are so meaning and insulting." they don't laugh that off with the same kind of excuses.

Atheism is Ant-Intellectual

Originally Posted by Metacrock

I did clarify them.
I defined all of it. some of it is in the op. why can't you just read the OP better? how many times do I have to keep defining it?

depth of being

being is more than just the surface issue of the existence of a particular object. In other words it's an ontological category. Being= existence in relation to the big picture and "depth" refers to both psychological and existential diversity and its relationship to the big picture.

...
Graham

I've said all of this before. what about these idea do you not get?

This is exactly what bothers us. When you give definitions like this, it gives the awful impression that you prefer to confuse people. You apparently get a feeling of intellectual superiority whenever you craft a definition that's incomprehensible. But these definitions are textbook examples of obscurantism - they are designed to sound deep without having much content. Also, you shouldn't pretend that the only reason that you're the only one who understands yourself is because everybody else is unread and uneducated. (My degrees are in philosophy and mathematics, in case you were planning on claiming that i'm not well-read enough to understand you) There are plenty of people on this site who are well-read in philosophy, so why is it that you're the only one using such nebulous language? Anyway, let's see how well you understand yourself:

atheists seem to be totally anti-intellectual. I could make the very same criticism about al the stuff they aer into. you science texts don't' read like obscurantism? that's obviously a case of a discipline that's guarded by it's own little secret code.

it is stupidly stupid to expect an academic discipline not to develop its own parlance., and more stupidly stupid to expect a student of some disciplined not to speak in that way.

I admit that my terminology in that kind of arguemnt is very specialized but that's to be expected if they know they dealing an academic. HRG (Hans Reginold Grum the mathematician) just uses math tmers and drops the names of obscrure mathematicians all the time and they swoon and think he's so wonderful ad make him their guru.

They are totalitarian, they only think what the group thinks. They are anti-intellectual because they have to stop independent thought. The joke the absurd joke of the "free thinker."

I understand that the terms I'm using are obscure. I did define some of them and will if asked. The thing is he didn't say just "I don't know those terms." he said "big words = plot to confuse." that's just not the way an intellectual thinks.

atheist have no honor and no morlaity: Mat Hunt attacks me when I banned so I can't defend myself.

While I'm banned from CARM that's the time to say a bunch of stuff about me so I can't fight back. That's exactly what the little cowards have done.

Mat Hunt says:

As you may be aware, metacrock and I have been to-ing and fro-ing about his argument about fire in the equations, which essentially states: The laws of physics remain constant and don't change therefore god basically. I answered all his objections despite his bogus claims that I didn't answer any of them, he changed his argument and I answered that one as well and I think that the people on this board understood what was going on and agreed that Meta had indeed lost the challenge to show that his fire in the equations argument works. I still have unreplied to posts explaining why the laws of physics don't change.

However Meta will still crow that although he is a theologian, his knowledge of science is superior to mine, a working scientist. So I don't think much of his argument and I personally don't think he's honest at all in his arguments.

This statement is so full of lies.I can't understand how it is that a Ph.D. candidate and grown man can't read what people say and reflect it accurately or honestly. The things he's claiming I have said I have denied saying many time. He's dogmatically pretending like he got it right and he's full lying. I've always observed that have very reading compression, this is really basically lying.

(1) My argument has never been "the laws of phsyics remain stable therefore God" that is a totally dishonest and stupid lie. the reason he says that is because he's basically not capable intellectually of understanding the real argument. It's totally different.

nowhere have I never stupid enough to say "laws of phsyics therefore God." I also have backed off the original position stating that perhaps Mat does know more about it than I do. that's not good enough for him or maybe he just doesn't get what it means. The original position was that laws of phsyics determine what happens, not that they change. Assuming that laws of physics are necessary to make things happen, then I ask where are the laws of phsyics? What makes them work, where are they kept. they can't be laws floating about apart form any structure and theorized that's a good reason (I didn't claim it as a proof) to think that a mind houses the laws as ideas in a mind.

Hunt is such a poor thinker that the transmutes that into "physical laws therefore God." I also admitted that my understanding of the laws of phsyics was not as good as his since he studies in Graduate and perhaps I overstated the extent to which they are laws. I reformulated the argument with a totally different focus, which something else he conveniently leaves out.

(2) "I answered that one as well and I think that the people on this board understood what was going on and agreed that Meta had indeed lost the challenge to show that his fire in the equations argument works."

O yea I lost that so bad. here's what really happened:

..........(a) he never listed to my arugment, he couldn't understand what it was about. he said a bunc h of things that didn't apply. He got everyone on his side (the majority of hte board) to back him up and say "O he's winning' He kicking Meta's ass" even though hone of them could say what the major issues were. When asked to recite what issues beat my argument none of hem had any answer! Like hte typical little liars they are they can't face truth.

mmm(b) I quoted several physicist who backed up exact what I was saying. Mat never quoted any authority or source. all he said was things like "I'm a scientist you must believe me" that constituted about 90% of the arguments he made.

..........(c) the rest of the argument he made said things like "the laws are in the sub atomic particles that's why they act like they do." which is not an answer of any kind becuase it just asserts a meaningless statement, what do you mean to "the laws are in the particles?" again what's makes them laws, how did they get into the particles? he could never say.

...........(d) I quote Martian Rees who he admitted he admires, and I quoted him saying exactly hwat I was saying. I quoted it about five times. every time mat refused to admit that I quoted it and he never answered. O yea they beat it so soundly!

,,,,,,,,,,,,,(e) he never mentions the fact hat I re-wrote the argument. What did he say to the re-write? he said "I'm a scientist you must believe me."

(3) "However Meta will still crow that although he is a theologian, his knowledge of science is superior to mine, a working scientist."

This is another distortion, I think probably becuase he doesn't understand my response. I never said my knowledge of science is supirior to his. This is after many times that he kept saying "I know more about science than you do so you must believe me" and that as substitute for real argument. I said I understand the history and philsophy of science better than he does. and I do. I will stick by it and prove it.


here's where one can find my re-booted argument "fire in the equations."

here's the new abstract to the re-boot version:

There's a contradiction in the framework scinece takes to physical law as purely descriptive, the fact that the description is our perceptions, and the order and regularity we see in nature. Obviously the description is that of something ordered and organized at a certain level, but also something that contains elements of random event and uncertainty. That suggests an ordering principle but one that is of a mind.

That's ok, I still stand behind every statement. The problem is it's always met by atheist claims that laws of physics are no longer seen as perspective, they don't 'make thing happen. They are just descriptive so they are not even laws at all in any way they are just descriptions.

That's really the reason I said "organizing principle" instead "laws f phsyics." I knew that but I didn't realize how fastidious they would be in insisting on their terminology and their way of framing things. you can't say organizing principle beuase it's not scientific. We don't dare use our minds if scinece doesn't tell us we can then only in exactly the way it says to.

I have been arguing that there had to be some kind of structure or soemthing to make the regularity that brought the universe into being. But no it's just popped up for no reason, its' all just pure description and anything can happen,. there's no regularity, no reason for it. It's just what we observe. So I then I would go the other way. If it's just observation then your observation can be incomplete, there could be miracles, nothing to stop them. O no they never happen because "we" don't see it. I say "I do." they say "no I don't' so that means 'we ' don't."

In the final analysis they are just arguing form authority. Science says "you didn't say 'science may I' so you can't believe this." This is why I feel the need present the argument in a new way.

Atheist is in a dilemma.

Either:

I. The has to be a principle of ordering or organizing to account for the regularity we observe in the universe.

A. Can't exist apart from universe it describes

B. where is it located? Mind is the best candidate

or, if we accept that laws are only descriptive

II. The field is wide open, anything can happen, they open the door to God in scinece:

A. Change naturalistic paradigm

The paradigm of natural was based upon the idea of perspective laws of phsyics that told everything in the universe how to behave, and thus replaced God as the major explanations for the way things are.

(1). Materialism based upon cause and effect

Dictionary of Philosophy Anthony Flew, article on "Materialism"

"...the belief that everything that exists is either matter or entirely dependent upon matter for its existence." Center For Theology and the Natural Sciences Contributed by: Dr. Christopher Southgate: God, Humanity and the Cosmos (T&T Clark, 1999) http://www.ctns.org/Information/information.html Is the Big Bang a Moment of Creation?(this source is already linked above)

"...Beyond the Christian community there was even greater unease. One of the fundamental assumptions of modern science is that every physical event can be sufficiently explained solely in terms of preceding physical causes. Quite apart from its possible status as the moment of creation, the Big Bang singularity is an offense to this basic assumption. Thus some philosophers of science have opposed the very idea of the Big Bang as irrational and untestable."

quick glance at carm

Here's an honest appeal I made on carm to the atheists to actually discuss ideas rather than try to insult personal wounds on individuals. How will these "free thinkers" respond? First I pointed out a local contradiction. Then I though in an appeal to reason.

Meta:

I see a thread that says "God is losing on CARM" the idea behind it is that the arguments the atheists have are better they win the arguments.

Several people in worming out of debating me have said "debate is no good, it doesn't prove anything."

the kind of argument we have that the first comment refers to is not as systemic or rule governed thus not as orderly or valid as a formal debate. So if winning those arguments means that atheism is winning that would mean that debate would be an even better way to know truth.

debate is better because you have to be a gentleman and not insult and not get off on tangents.


If the first statement is true (atheists winning) then the second statement (debate is no good) can't be true. this is a contradiction.


In reality it's my feeling that it's sophomoric to worry about who is "winning." We should not be seeking to show "i am smarter" but merely to find truth.

I am truly not seeking to just beat up on people to show how smart I am. Yes it's a habit I've gotten into through the need to defend myself. Yet it's a bad habit and one I'm trying to break.

I would rather discuss and learn than to "win." I suggest that worrying about who wins is sophomoric.

I want discussion not competition. I assume I can learn form anyone.


If one is really intelligent one will learn form any and all encounters with other humans.

Madmax:

Your persecution complex is far beyond ridiculous.

Assuiedave

Debate WITH accompanying evidence is how we decide court rulings. It is good enough for our justice system, it is good enough for us all.

Gentlemen don't repeatedly infer that the other person is silly either.


As I stated above, debate with accompanying evidence is sufficient. So if the debate your debaters were referring to in your op was lacking in said evidence, then that debate was likely "no good".

You are only average in intelligence Meta - you are just experienced at your form of debate, giving you the self-delusion of above average intelligence.

Meta:

gentle don't' deflect the augment form reaosn to belittle individuals every chance they get. Gentlemen don't pu up websites saying "people who agree with me have IQ's than those who don't." Gentlemen don't mock and ridicule the sacred beliefs of others just because they disagree with them.

gentlemen don't substitute lies and innuendo for study methodology. they don't pretend to know all about a whole body of academic work when they have no read a single study in that body of work.

Not a single one of you has ever made a single ethological analysis of any study.

My IQ is 142. that's not average. You have no knowledge of me. you dot' know who I am or who my family is. you have no knowledge of my history. you are totally wrong about that. your judgment is based entirely upon your need to bleieve that you are smarter than religious people because you hate yourself and you hate god for making you as you are.

why you would think that my op which open and honest an invitation to friendship and discussion needs to met with ridicule and abasement and putting down is just so telling. you are the epitome everything I'm denouncing aren't' you?

you don't want discussion you don't want friendship you need desperately to prove that you are smarter than religious people.

Keith

Imagine how many case of carpel tunnel syndrome the Christian God could prevent by coming down from the sky once a year to visit his earthling children so that atheists and Christians would not have to type for hours on end debating his existence. The Christian God obviously does not care about carpel tunnel syndrome which proves he does not love us.

what does this tell us students? they immediately go for the jugular and attack the person rather than answering the contraction.

they have this grappling contradiction there but instead of answering it they go "you are not good. yo ear a no goodnkci,k you are bad, we don't like you." that's not an answer is it?

they can't answer it.

being an atheist is not about thinking or reasoning it's about hate.

Christians, please help boycot the ridicule artists.

I've been trying for years to start a serious boycott of atheists on message boards. we should just totally refuse to talk to them as long as they play their little stupid games of mocking and ridicule.

Look at this little game they play. They ask a serious question, then you try to answer it they just mocking. Of course the carm admins have to bear a huge load of the guilt becuase they wont stop it. I stopped all such behavior on my boards. No one my boards ever asks that way. That's becuase I said in the very beginning "I will not allow this." Of cosrue the price I pay for that is that I have very few active members. Yet most of them highly intelligent so we have great discussions and no pissing contexts.

On carm thread:
"why is God good."

It has just occurred to me that when arguing for the existence of God, his moral perfection is just kind of assumed. The standard god arguments give you a bare theistic god, which could be completely benevolent, malevolent, or some where in between like us. I would say it appears the latter is true.

So I am interested, what arguments or evidence do Christians have for a maximally good god?

Occam tried a brilliant answer about eternal values being simpler, but it needs his defense badly because I don't understand what he's thinking, it sounds like he has some thought behind it. He's not around to defend it. So I made my own answers:


Meta:

Lance, one doesn't have to extract all of one's beliefs about god from whatever argument one uses to argue for the existence of God. It's not like that argument becomes the whole religious tradition in itself. it's just a beach head for belief its meant to replace beliefs. I think that assumption may come from the assumption that philosophy is like a scientific experiment and it's done to determine how things turn out. Of course that's a false assumption.

philosophical arguments are just arguments. We assume God is good in Christian tradition as part of revelatory truth about the nature of God. then we do our own correlation bewteen the argument and the God of the tradition.

the philosophical argument is just a attempt to give the non believer some sort of stepping stone through which he/she can grasp the belief. What we already got through phenomenological means.

Immediately the hate Metacrock squad begins their little antics.

Accelerator:

That makes sense to me. I use philosophical arguments to help a-Leprechaunists to understand my relationship with the Great Leprechaun who lives on the moon.

I resort to shame:
Meta:

Of course you are think you really made a big clever point but all I see is when you are confronting with thinking you fold up and start insulting because you can't really unction on an intellectual level can you?


this guy ask a question. I tried to answer it. so that make really really stupid because I believe something Soyuz don't' believe hu?

that's an excuse to mock if you are real stupid and you can't think about the issues.

stupid people resort to mocking ideas they can't comprehend.


you want this level of animosity don't you? You don't want meaning and understanding because you know that atheism can't compete intellectually with real ideas.

he continues:
Accelerator

If you had the Great Leprechaun in your life you wouldn't be so hateful. I know you don't believe me, but that's because you haven't had the same phenomenological experiences that I have had.

then we are off to the races, it's becoming a rieicule gauntlet, meaning a feeding frenzy of similar stupidity.

Deist
(who is no deist)

Has anyopne ever proved that you didn't have a Great Leprechaun in your life? How can they say he doesn't exist iof they can't disprove him. A certain Chaplain here using that reasoning, and if he can use it, I don't see why you can't. Mormonism was started with just one guy, whom "god" chose to reveal himself to. Now, Mormons, who fall under the protective Christian umbrella, number in the millions. Their apologists make a very compelling case, too. The Great Leprechaun? Is he as mean as the Christian God?

He's just continuing the taunt and no mention of the serious attempts to answer the question.
Of course this is because they can't answer it. They can't deal with ideas. The atheist movement doesn't exist to answer questions and find turth, it exists to give the members a feeling of power when they bully the targeted hated group (Chrsitians).

We are only giving them the opportunity to play their little games when we try to engage them in real discussion.

there's this one called "phizzel" who just spits back song lyrics at me as it fo say "you are usless you can't think you are not worth a real response."

phizzal

If God exists and is omnipotent then he sets the moral standard. To question his moral perfection would imply that there were a set of moral guidelines that he had to follow himself and that would mean that he wasn't God. If God were to, say, decide that it was morally justified to eat tacos made of babies then eating tacos made of babies would be morally justified.

One of the most compelling reasons against the Christian God, IMHO, is Christian mistreatment of homosexuals. In our modern society there is absolutely no practical reason that homosexuals should not be allowed to do as they please but God abhors them so to even condone what they do makes you a Godless heathen who will burn in hell since you are disagreeing with God.

in response I said this, which I meant as a totally serious comment:

Christianity is a hospital. The patients in this hospital sometimes, when they start getting better become cocky and start thinking they are superior to all the people who have not gotten treatment yet. So that's a human mistake because the hospital treats humans, so the patients getting are still human.

That doesn't make the hospital bad or the treatment unnecessary.

God doesn't set the moral standard arbitrarily. It's based upon his character of love.

in my foolish little foolish thinking that is being magnanimous to admit that we are sick. Not enough for little selfish monster who has to have it all his own way.

he says:

Drunk driving is no joke
It is no accident
Drunk driving can get you into a collision
It can also get you killed for the gravedigger

-Wesley Willis

that's the only response he makes to me. To me that just says he is not looking for answers he' just a little game playing monster who can't think. We should be boycotting these guys becuase we need to cut off their supply endorfins. they get high from bullying Christians. so let's stop giving them Chritians to bully.

Atheists Think Ignorance is a Badge of Honor

What if I came up to you and said "everything you say it stupid." you said "such as" I said "I don't know, I don't' bother to listen to what you say because I know it's going to be stupid."

that's real impressive hu?

candidates are gathered to debate for the Presidency. One gets up and makes a fine speech about the state of the country the other sticks his fingers in his ears and goes "lalalalaalalal" real loud while his opponent is talking.

When he get's up and says "I didn't prepare becuase I know my opponent is stupid I don't have to listen to him. I didn't listen to him and I never have. I don't know anything he says and I will not debase myself by listening to him. I know everything he says is stupid. vote for me."

would you be impressed with that candidate? the press asks him "if you don't know anything he say how do you know it's stupid?" he says It's the kind of thing that would be stupid. you gonna vote for this guy?

this is the little gimmick that atheists are using on ever single message board. They get it from their moronic guru Dawkins who himself is an idiot.

They don't bother with logic, they violate logical norms in every argument they make then worm out by saying "logic doesn't tell us nothing about the world." It's beginning to look like the new atheist movement is based upon being stupid.

One of the worst, this atheist once asked me to tell him about my concept of God. "what god do you worship" he says. So put up a link, "these are my pages on my site where I describe my views." he said "I don't have to read that I know it will be stupid."

he asked man! he has me! the link is just a better way of answering. so he didn't' want an answer to begin with did he? they do this all the time. It's dumb.

by their fruits you shall know them. Jesus said. Their fruits are ignorance and laziness.

Then that atheist goes "I read your stuff it's so standard it's the same old stuff they always say." It's not. I have a Masters degree from a major seminary I know what is standard. How many times do you find the average Christian apologist on a message board saying God is being itself? In 13 years of doing apologetic on the net the only one's ever seen talk about it are those who were influenced by me.

the allegation that my stuff is like all the others is obvious bunk. The refusal of atheists to read the martial presented is becoming epidemic. They don't even read more than two lines of a post. They wont read the arguments being arrayed against them and yet they pretend to know all it. It's ridiculously intolerable. They should be banned from every message board. I urge Christians to boycott. Have nothing to do with atheists. Don't talk to them on message boards.

If Atheism is not an organized movment, why do they have a world conference?

Myers at world Atheist conferience

PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
He writes about the conference on his blog:

I've been bad. I've been busy. I'm at this conference, and the combination of bad wifi (I can't get connected in my room at all) and constant distractions means I haven't been keeping you updated here. Fortunately, Rorschach is here and has been blogging away while I can't, so I can just cheat and link to him.

The Muslims have invaded. They don't have much stamina. They were there for Richard Dawkins' session yesterday, asked a stupid question, and since have retired to a table outside, where they peddle bad literature that looks like clones of Christian creationist nonsense.

A curious thing, a non movement that is nothing more than the absence of a belief, with no organization, but the hold a big conference in Dublin. They have a big conference Atmosphere. What's really puzzeling is they even have a evangelism course called "communicating atheism." Myer writes: "The communicating atheism discussion was fun. Aron Ra was impressive, Rebecca Watson was fabulously indignant and persuasive about the specific problems women atheist speakers face." That discussion had a panel with Richard Dawkins, Rebecca Watson, Aron Ra and Tom Melchiorre. On the Fourious Purpose Blog: "Rebecca told about the sexist and abusive emails she gets – from atheists, and challenged the conclusions of the earlier panel on female atheist activism."

Do you see the problem there? It's not a movement, it's not an organized thing, yet they speak of "activism." I'm sorry but what we are looking at here is obviously a moment work furiously to perpetuate itself. Every time I've pointed this out atheists have spoken vehemently of how wrong it is to think there is any kind of movement, when obviously it's in front of our faces.

Is the hate part of the organization? Well there's a very telling statement here the last one in the article on the Furious Purpose Blog. "Dawkins had 2 points he wanted to make, one, that ridicule and sarcasm are useful tools in confronting religious people, and second, that we have to raise consciousness about atheism." Let's look at that again:

Dawkins had 2 points he wanted to make, one, =That reducible and sarcasm are useful tools in confronting religious people, and second, that we have to raise consciousness about atheism.

What does this tell us but that Dawkins supports the hate group atheism, the bullying, the brow beating, he does not advocate reasoning with people but wants his lackeys to assault their self esteem. It tells us that one of the major tools the leaders of their movement organize their people to use is mocking and ridicule. So the mocking and ridicule are not merely top down they are being organized into the proceedings form the top down.

Atheist Ireland sports a website advertising the event. Here's a list of speakers and topics.

• 
  

• Richard Dawkins (evolutionary biologist)
• Lone Frank (neurobiologist, science writer, Denmark)
• Michael Nugent (chairperson Atheist Ireland)
• Paula Kirby (secular consultant, activist UK)
• PZ Myers (author science blog Pharyngula, USA)
• Jane Donnelly (Education officer Atheist Ireland)
• Dan Barker (Freedom from Religion Foundation, USA)
• Rebecca Watson (Skepchick blogger, podcaster)
• David Nash (professor, expert on blasphemy, UK)
• Aroup Chatterjee (author, IN)
• Ivana Bacik (Irish Senator in 30th Oireachtas)
• Mpagi Michael Kirumira (Atheist Association of Uganda)
• Annie Laurie Gaylor USA (Freedom from Religion Foundation)
• Mark Embleton UK (President Atheism UK)
• Thomas Prosser (Trinity College, Dublin)
• Nick Lee (Freethinkers Association of Central Texas)
• Tanya Smith (Atheist Alliance International)
• Bobbie Kirkhart (Author and Activist, USA)
• Tom Melchiorre (Editor, Secular World, USA)
• Phillipe Besson (ILCAF, France)
• Richard Green (Atheism UK)
• Rene Hartmann (Int. League of Non-religious & Atheists, Germany)
• Maryam Namazie (British Council of Ex-Muslims)
• Roger Lepeix (ILCAF, France)
• Aron-Ra (vlogger for science education, co-host Magic Sandwich Show)
• D.P.R. Jones (vlogger on religion, science and philosophy, host of The Magic Sandwich)

Topics will include

• Weird science versus weird religion
• Communicating Atheism
• Secular education: teach, don’t preach
• Women Atheist Activists
• Speaking out against blasphemy laws
• Religion: accommodate or confront?
• Building Secular Coalitions
• Dublin Declaration on Religion in Public Life
• Launch of new Atheist Alliance International

Delegate participation

As well as listening to speakers, this Convention will be an active one for delegates who want to participate. We will be debating and voting on the Dublin Declaration on Religion in Public Life, and some panel discussions will include audience members on the panels alongside our listed speakers. Click through to the Conference Program.

Look at those, not going to accommodate but confront. It's designed to be feisty. It's designed to be communicated, and it seeks to build coalitions to grow into a huge movement. All of this smacks of an organized movement. Yet atheists on message boards act like it's just horror or horrors to imply that there is a movement.

The Circular nature of atheist ideology

Atheism want to pass itself off as "scientific." So they cling to the scienistic idea that science is the only form of knowledge. They truncate the nature of truth to that which can be produced by their own methods. Anything else they reduce until they lose the phenomena. So at that point atheism can't have truth all it can have is circular reasoning.


atheist: "there is nothing beyond the materiel realm. There are no proof of the SN, No evidence for God, no nothing.

Believer--Here's some, here's a whole pile facts from which one might deduce the existence of God.

Atheist: "those can't be evidence for SN or for God."

Believer--why not?

Atheist: Because there can't be any such evidence.

Believer--how do you know that?

Atheist: because there aren't any


Beleiver--what about the stuff I just presented.

Atheist: I disproved that, it can't be evidence because there isn't any.



(1) Atheists selective rule out as 'fact' anything that doesn't match the ideology.

(2) Atheists reduce to a point of losing the phenomena any phenomena that stands against the ideology.

(3) Atheists use mockery and ridicule to shut down any discussion that is not in line with the ideology.

(4) Atheists exclude from reality any form of knowledge would give results contrary to the ideology.

(5) Atheists construct a false paradigm of knowledge based upon scientistic (not scientific but scientistic) assumptions.

(6) All thinking must be filtered through the ideology of atheistic sceintism.
__________________


Here's the rational, logical, factually oriented rebuttal of an atheist on CARM

NWRT- not worth responding to. And nothing you've written here changes that. I'll start taking you more seriously as an intellectual once you start addressing our actual arguments.

Go back and look over what you just wrote- now apply it to yourself. You do nothing but post ridiculous arguments (like your little "co-determinate" joke), insult people when they present legitimate disagreement, and present strawman versions of atheist's positions. Why on earth would anyone be interested in trying to have a genuine, serious discussion with you?

I asked him what's ridiculous about it:

I've explained it to you a million times- strong belief is not controlled for. And, true to form, you've only answered your strawman version of my argument.

Holy Irony Batman, doesn't this actually prove what I was saying? I have 300 studies he has 0. He decides this 'strong belief' which he can't define without a single study to back it up. Isn't this really a case of declaring my fact to be "no facts" because they differ form the ideology?

Another Example of Athist thugism: Brent Rasmussen Sight

Brent Rasmussen is so brilliant he knows theology si stupid, so stupid he doesn't have to know anything about it to know that it's stupid. How does he know that? Because it's about stuff he doesn't like so it can't have anything going to for. It's too smart to to read nay of the great thinkers in the theology tradition becuase they believed stuff he doesn't like so they are stupid. He's much smarter than Newton or Descartes or any of the major thinkers throughout history. Because he can wear a straw a hat. That makes him cool. Being cool is much better than having a brain. He discovered my sight a couple of years go (Metacrock's Blog) and he said a bunch of bunch of stupid things about it. When I called him on it and prove that he was wrong, he became so angry he stamped his little fist and got his little illiterate friends to com come to his site and say "I don't like that guy because he says stuff what I don't know.
Here is his childish article.
Go look at the page and see how brainless their comments are. I can just imagine them getting drunk and saying little things like this while they talk about my blog and mind rape all the idea they have not the slightest idea about, mock and ridicule all things to good for them.
The Childish Theology Of J.L. Hinman

Submitted by Brent Rasmussen on August 12, 2008 - 4:57pm.
he looks like the guy on the old Hawaiian punch commericials who went around going "do you want a Hawaiian punch?"

I left a comment on J.L. Hinman's blog Metacrock a few days ago complementing him on his predictable use of The Courtier's Reply when responding to an atheist. I then went on about my life and promptly forgot all about it.

Well, I stumbled back onto his blog today and noticed that he replied to my comment.

Three times. In a row. Each time becoming more incoherent than the last.

Fun!

what makes it incoherent? Because I say stuff he doesn't undersatnd because he's an idiot. Anyone who is smarter than him is stupid because he's cool and it's more important to be cool than smart.

The so called "courtier's replay" is sheer stupidity. It's nothing more than a pseudo eloquent appeal to ignorance and censorship deigned to forbid the use of the intellect in the defense of Christianity. Anyone who can't see that is a true idiot.

The original post that I replied to is here. My original reply is a few comments down.

My latest reply to his nonsense is below the fold.

[J.L. Hinman] wrong sorry. you don't know anything about christianity. you only know about fundamentalism which is a small part of Christianity.

Ah, I see. So, it is your contention that only this "fundamentalism" has a magical god-thing?

This is Stupid thing no 1. dumbo figures that any belief in God regardless of how well thought out the evidence is, it is stupid because his atheist master based the self image they dictate to him on the idea that hating Christianity is the basis of worth.So he has to believe that any form of God Belief is automatically stupid because he's too dense to read theology and find out the differences. He therefore translates what I said from "I am not a fundametnalist and the fundamentalists are the stupid ones" into "only the fundies believe in God" becuase he's too shallow and stupid to the learn the difference. It's real clear that I made the point that fundies don' thave the sophistication of liberals. noly a fool would not understand that i said that.

That's why he said:

Because I am fairly positive that ALL Christian-flavored theology sees their god-thing as an invisible magical man who lives in the sky.

Meta: Process theology sees God as bipolar, consequent pole that changes with creation, a potential pole and is never chaning.

Nicely played. Complete and utter nonsense, of course, but nicely played all the same. When you are on defense from an accusation of The Courtier's Reply, always resort to an even stronger version of The Courtier's Reply, then completely fail to see the point.

Bravo!

Metacrock:Tillich saw God as Being itself.

Schweitzer saw God as the life force.

Augustine saw God as a mind that continaed the realm of the forms of Plato.

Christian mystics see God as indescribable mystery beyond our understanding.

That's just off the top of my head. There are many many more. My own view is a synthesis of Tillich and the mystics.

Stupid thing no 2: dumbo doesn't understand the unified nature of religious traditions. He is so unread in theology he thinks it's just a matter of personalities fighting each other rather than traditions that seek to understand the reality beyond or behind reality.

Dumbo says:

How very nice for you. Now, replace the word "God" with "Zeus" or "Mithra", and the names of the philosophers with "Goofy", "Dumbo", and "Binky The Magic Space Clown" - and you have the exact same semantic content as before.

That is to say, none.

[Brent Rasmussen] C'mon, c'mon - try and deny it. You can't. You may take issue with the names I have given to your sacred mythological concepts, but it is an accurate - if irreverent - representation of the core beliefs of most religions.

Metacrock your ignorance is showing.

I argued that there are other parts of the Christian theological tradition that don't see God as a big man in the sky, it's not just a matter of one big man in the sky vs. another. There' a single reality behind all religious traditions and plenty of thinkers and movements that back this up. I mention Tillich and process theology.

of cousre this is all way over this idiot's head. He's so dense he has no concept of ideas of God, intellectual life, the notion of thought, or the history of ideas, or what it means to have a religious tradition. That's all just junck to him he's a party boy. Give him a straw hat and a beer an tell him what a cool guy he is that's all he's capable of.

He's so stupid he thinks it's just a matter of saying a bunch of names. He's so dense what do you yu expect from an illiterate? he says:

Is it? I told you right up front that you would probably take issue with the names that I would assign to your silly religious concepts - and you did. Where then is my alleged "ignorance"?

Metacrock Ok put up your duke dumb dub. let's debate. I'll tear you apart. you are ignorant, unread unlearned foolish and unwilling to learn. you don't know anything about it.

It was a big mistake expecting him to fight fair. Gutter scum like this know only one thing, someone is in your way knock them out of the way. Lazy, indolent, stupid, scum who can't reason look for short cuts and thy steal ideas they refuse to learn when someone is in their way do whatever evil little garbage they can to get them out of the way. That is no battle for a scholar

It's why atheism is anti-intellectuals and has nothing to do with learning. Its no longer for learning people or thinking people it's gone form a club for intellectuals in the universe who want to be modern, to lumpen prolongation who want leach off the working class. They are brown shirts. They are getting rewarded for being the storm troopers for the atheist movement.

Ah. And here we finally encounter the reaction that most theists do so well - threats of violence. Great job there, sparky. Why don't you just start pounding your chest and flinging your feces at me as well?

Dumbo thinks I threatened him, why? Because he himself knows violence. That is all he is capable of knowing.

[J.L. Hinman] have you ever read a single page written by any major theologians?

Yes.

[J.L. Hinman] can you even name a theologian?

Yes.

[J.L. Hinman] you probably think Jerrry Fallwell is one right?

No. I do not think that Jerry Falwell is a theologian.

[J.L. Hinman] put up your dukes know it all! put your money where your ignorant mouth is. just tell me the name of one theologian you know about.

Here's three: Anselm of Canterbury, Hypatia, Pliny the Elder.

What do I win? Candy? Cool![J.L. Hinman] you need an iq transplant

Here we see the stupidity of this cretin;. He's so unread and dense he thinks these medieval figures are major theologians today. He's not read any modern (if he had he would have named them). Don't get me wrong. I don't for minute bleieve that this intellectual cripple has Anselm, if he did he wouldn't undersatnd it. He probably looked at it for a minute or two.

He actually says that I'm laying about process theology having an impersonal view of God. This is the kind of illiterate stupidity upon which the atheist rape of Western culture depends. The only they can appeal to the masses is to carter to the ignorant and create the lie that ignorance most of Western thought, which si God oriented.. They have to ignore the major parts of modern theological thinking because otherwise they could never convened anyone with a brain that belief in God is stupid. It's only by making the real Christian thought off limits and giving it such a negative rap that on one will think about it that they can succeed in chaining the greatest thinkers in human history into people stupider than they are.

Sir you have wounded me deeply with your brilliant debating tactic. I fear that I may not be able to go on.

[Brent Rasmussen] I respect your right to hold silly, irrational beliefs. However, that also means that I have the right to call them silly.

[J.L. Hinman] you do not.

Yes, yes I do. Here, I'll demonstrate:

this is his little mocking slander of real thinking. He says that I lie about process theology it doesn't posit an impersonal God, (becuase he's too stupid to read about it) then he goes on with the pissing contest. He actually thinks acting like a eight grader is cleaver.

Dumbo says:

Your beliefs are silly and irrational. You are a foolish child for believing in them without evidence. See how that works?

I see that you are too stupid to read anything so you don't know what my beliefs are. you have a straw man argument made for you by atheists and you are convinced that's what Christianity is and you get angry and think we are lying to you when we try to tell you that you misrepresent our views. You are refuse to think and you don't know anything to begin with so you are not really a judge of what stupid is. you are censure of stupid not a judge of it.See how that works?

You have no right to say that there' no evidence because I have 42 God arguments and you are stupid to understand one of htem. Notice he wont debate me becuase I knows I would fly him.

[J.L. Hinman] .don't be a phony.

I am most certainly not a "phony". I don't even pretend to know what you mean by that comment.

you are a phony, not only that but a dumb shit as well.

Dumbo:

Has anyone ever told you that you are very difficult to understand sometimes? Maybe it's the wild-eyed looks and the froth coming out of the side of your mouth. *shrug* In any case, you should probably slow down and take a deep breath and get a hold of yourself before attempting to reply this time.

O that's so brilliant isn't it? that makes dumbo so cleaver, he's the brilliant guy in the eighth grade. I bet he has a come back for the one about sticks and stones!

Oh, and lay off the sauce before typing. It makes spelling, punctuation, and spaces between sentences so much easier, trust me.

[J.L. Hinman] you don't respect a God damn thing. You obviously don't respect knowledge.

That really proves he's right because he accuse of being what he is. He thought of that becuase he' s drunk all the time himself.

I respect quite a few things - knowledge is one of them. However, I do not automatically respect every nutball's wacky religious proclamations just because he or she says so. My respect must be earned. You have not earned my respect at this point in time.

Get used to it.

[J.L. Hinman] You don't have the slighest ideas what theology is about. you are willing to judge it knwong absoltuely nothing about it..

He can punctuate his mindless drivel with little catch phrase like "get used to it" that really proves. He's probably so drunck now he's not even cognizant of what this was about. He can call names, he can say "he's a nutball" O that's so brilliant.

How can intelligent people like Hermit alley themselves with gutter scum like this? These are the shock troops that destroyed the reasoned discourse and cleared the way for tea party tactics against religion that brought hte drinking crowd into message broad apologetic.

I appeal to the few atheists with a brains left out there. how can none thinking person be part of a movement that employs such brown shirt tactics?