Attack on the Soul"More Atheist Propaganda from Psychology Today

We have met Psychology Today before. This was the little group of racist atheists who specialize in bogus IQ studies (Nyborg, Kanazawa, Hamilton).. The article I used as the example (see link) is by Stoshi Kanazawa.[1] That was a blog hosted by the magazine not the magazine itself There's a new example one is more closely connected with the magazine. While it's not as outrageous s the former blog I daubed "Psychology Today scam" it is nonetheless blatant, ideological, and propagandistic: by David Kyle Johnson [2] This article is "Do Souls Exist." It lays out the basic argument that science hasn't proven a soul so there must not be one. This article is basically Q and A from a talk with students at the  Berkhamsted School (middle and high school). This talk must have been for the middle school

Question 1: You place a great deal of store on neuro-science and physics, yet we have just read an article by Raymond Tallis, based on his ‘Aping Humanity’, that raises doubts about this. Why are you so confident in science?

He goes on to state that Talis is an atheist and fried and they work together and he doesn't believe in the soul he just thinks they go a too far sometimes with claims of Neuroscience. That's important because he's glossing over some very damaging stuff or the scientism crowd.[3] Before we get into that It's important to take note of his answers to this question: he basically says if you don't accept that science disproves the soul then you are a hopeless science denier, and even though we have no  data to prove it we must all work at believing it, since it has science's authority to back up belief. That belief is failsafe though its provision of comfort and technological know how the illusion of technique.Of course my critics are saying "he doesn't say that you are just reading that is."

He says:

 Now others do make this argument; when presented with scientific evidence against a view they cherish (like their belief in the existence of the soul), they will question science's ability to tell us about the thing in question (or anything for that matter) – or the objector will claim that I am putting "faith" in science (instead of whatever the objector has chosen to place faith in). But there are multiple things wrong with this line of reasoning.

We must never question science in it's ability to make any pronouncement or to know all things. That's not propaganda? Is that what scientists really say about the level of knowledge?

He goes on: "First of all, science is not based on faith; the primary assumption in science is that one should not take anything on faith but instead should base one’s beliefs on evidence and argument—which is the opposite of taking something on faith." So because science doesn't take things on faith then one is not taking science on faith even when it can't prove or disprove a particular hypothesis?  Does that mean any pronouncement made in the name of science must be right? He realizes there's hole in hi logic he goes on to try and plug it up but in so doing makes an even more damaging admission:

Of course, one might suggest that scientists have to take this “primary assumption” on faith—but even if that is true, doing so is a completely different kind of faith than the objector has in mind. It is certainly not the kind of faith required by the belief systems of those who posit this objection. In other words, believing “by faith” that it is good to proportion one’s belief to the evidence is completely different than believing the soul by faith. [For more on this, see the 17^th chapter of my book Inception and Philosophy: Because It's Never Just a Dream (link is external)entitled “Taking a Leap of Faith: A How-to Guide”. (You can download it for free here (link is external).)]

So he's aware that he is expressing faith in science. But that's ok because when it's about science it's a special kind of faith that's really ok. Where I come from we call that "special pleading." Still a fallacy. The reason science faith is ok(even though it doesn't count as faith0 is because religion faith is so very stupid and science faith employs smart stuff like math and factual ideas. He implies all the standard atheist Straw man hokum about religion faith that Dawkins made up. Faith is believing stuff without reason ect ect. [4]

Then, as if he knows he's skating on the edge of fallacious argument, he retrenches in a rousing statement of confidence in the ability of science to guides is reliably into all knowledge: "Second of all, science has proven to be the most reliable guide to truth—most certainly, the most reliable guide to discovering the way the world is—that humankind has ever conceived."  That's a pretty tall claim if we think about it. Because he's saying there is no kind of knowledge, no field or area where science is not the guide. There's nothing science can't tell us. Of course he cant make good on it then to appear to make good on it we just pretend like other fields don't exist or they are totally unreliable. So science can tell us right from wrong, if life is meaningful and how, if your mother loves you, and that there is no God or soul. Then the ultimate pay off is used to ground it all the hard facts of science works. "The evidence for this, of course, is all around you in every piece of technology that makes your life so much easier than it otherwise would be; almost all of it was made possible only because science successfully discovered the way the world is and works." That's an interesting rhetorical appeal because again he reports to another --even so there's still another point behind it--kind of logic. The very bottom line that proves it all is technological devices and the comfort they brought us. so science is right and can do all and tells all because it gives us video games and air conditioning, Come on America sell your soul, air conditioning feels so good. Faith in gadgetry, the illusion of technique, the ultimate guarantor of faith in science.

After retrenching into what amounts to a pep rally for science he attempts to blunt the effects of critics such as Ray Tallis. He does this by assuring us that Tallis is an  atheist and sees things as he does except  in one little area.

Tallis is actually an atheist who, like me, objects to the soul hypothesis. What I have used the neuroscience for is to show that the primary assumption of the soul hypothesis – that mental activity is separate and separable from the brain (i.e., that mental activity is not dependent upon the brain)—is false. Instead, neuroscience shows us that the existence of the mental is dependent upon the existence of the brain; without the brain, the mental cannot exist. This is something that Tallis agrees with, so in no way would Tallis object to my argument against the soul hypothesis.What Tallis is objecting to is a separate suggestion made by some neuroscientists, and some philosophers of mind that: “the brain is numerically identical to the mind.” Numerical identity expresses the strictest form of identity. X is numerically identical to Y means that X and Y are the same object. Clark Kent is numerically identical to Superman; John Smith is numerically identical to “The Doctor.” In claiming that the brain is numerically identical to the mind, one is claiming that the brain and mind literally are the same object – one in the same thing.[5]

Let's see what Tallis really says: Raymond Tallis was a professor of Geriatric medicine at University of Manchester, and researcher, who retired in 2006 to devote himself to philosophy and writing. Tallis denounces what he calls “neurohype,” “the claims made on behalf of neuroscience in areas outside those in which it has any kind of explanatory power….” [6]

The fundamental assumption is that we are our brains and this, I will argue presently, is not true. But this is not the only reason why neuroscience does not tell us what human beings “really” are: it does not even tell us how the brain works, how bits of the brain work, or (even if you accept the dubious assumption that human living could be parcelled up into a number of discrete functions) which bit of the brain is responsible for which function. The rationale for thinking of the kind – “This bit of the brain houses that bit of us...” – is mind-numbingly simplistic.[7]

    

Specifically Tallis has refernce to experiments where the brain is scanned while the subject does some activity and the differences are attributed to some structure in that part of the brain. Tallis is highly skeptical of this method.

Why is this fallacious? First, when it is stated that a particular part of the brain lights up in response to a particular stimulus, this is not the whole story. Much more of the brain is already active or lit up; all that can be observed is the additional activity associated with the stimulus. Minor changes noted diffusely are also overlooked. Secondly, the additional activity can be identified only by a process of averaging the results of subtractions after the stimulus has been given repeatedly: variations in the response to successive stimuli are ironed out. Finally, and most importantly, the experiments look at the response to very simple stimuli – for example, a picture of the face of a loved one compared with that of the face of one who is not loved. But, as I have pointed out elsewhere (for the benefit of Martians), romantic love is not like a response to a stimulus. It is not even a single enduring state, like being cold. It encompasses many things, including not feeling in love at that moment; hunger, indifference, delight; wanting to be kind, wanting to impress; worrying over the logistics of meetings; lust, awe, surprise; imagining conversations, events; speculating what the loved one is doing when one is not there; and so on. (The most sophisticated neural imaging, by the way, cannot even distinguish between physical pain and the pain of social rejection: they seem to “light up” the same areas!) [8]
    

Hal Pashler’s study, University of California, San Diego is discussed in an  editorial in New Scientist, he is quoted as saying “In most of the studies that linked brain regions to feelings including social rejection, neuroticism and jealousy, researchers … used a method that inflates the strength of the link between a brain region and the emotion of behaviour.”[9]


There re profound implications here. First, the arrogance of science worshiping atheists to speak as though mere scientific facts somehow disprove God just by being facts is exposed for the hokum that it is. Besides the fact that this science worshiper (Johnson) argues fallaciously and distorts dishonestly (he's basically covering up how devastating Tallis's position is to his own reductionism) we can also see the fallacy of according to science an all knowning position.






Sources


[1] Joseph Hinman, "Atheism's Psychology Today Scam," Atheistwatch, Wednesday, May 11, 2011, URL: http://atheistwatch.blogspot.com/2011/05/atheisms-psychology-today-scam.html accessed 4/24/2016

[2] David Kyle Johnson, "Do Souls Exist?" Psychology Today, (oct. 6, 2014) on line URL:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/logical-take/201410/do-souls-exist accessed 4/23/16 all quotes of Johnson from this article.

[3] The issues

[4] Atheist straw man on faith vs real theological explanation.

[5] Johnson, op cit.

[6] Raymond Tallis New Haumanist.org.uk Ideas for Godless People (blog—online researche) volume 124 Issue 6 (Nov/Dec 2009) URL: http://newhumanist.org.uk/2172/neurotrash visited 5/9/12

[7] Ibid.

[7] ibid

[8] ibid

[9] quoted by Tallis, ibid.


 

UP To their old Tricks agian: Atheist Refuse Evidence

Atheists are in such a good position if they don't care about truth. They can always just deny any evidence and demand more then make a big thing out of the fact that no evidence convinces them. What they never admit but is obvious is that no evidence ever could convinced them because their position as atheists is to refuse all evidence. They use a kind of circular reasoning that says "I refuse to believe, therefore it can't be true." Then assume that since they have not been convinced the arguments don't pan out.

On CARM, Skylurker makes the point that religion is a cultural artifact. I said yes it is but so what? That doesn't mean it can't also be true. We have to use cultural constructs to communicate the experiences of God through. That means they are going to colored by the culture. That doesn't' render them false. Of course the unspoken assumption is they want it to be true. so they have to admit it could be. Of course will say "I never said it couldn't be." But they also don't accept it might be.

Originally Posted by MarkUK

There's no valid reason to deny that a guy did miracles and came back to life based on two-thousand-year-old hearsay written forty years after the "fact"?

Meta

not if you know the historical facts.
the idea that miracles are not possible is not a valid position for you anymore. Atheists have given up that ground a long time ago. you gave up prescriptive laws of nature so you dont' get to there's a close naturalistic system. you say laws of physical are description of the universe works, then miracles are part of that.

 That sets off an argument about the possibility of miracles. My argument was about the philosophical justification for closing naturalistic process to naturalistic events only. I said they forfeit that in a couple of ways. I said, "of course there is 7000 remarkable cases is a good enough reasons. 400 resurrections since the middle ages is a good reason." We had a thing about burden of proof.

Originally Posted by Metacrock

you don't have an argument. you little quips are BS.

MarkUK

It's not my job to disprove miracles.

I'm not trying to get you to stop believing. To all who read this:

I've decided that you owe me a million dollars. However, I wrote myself a cheque to cover each and every one of you.

 Originally Posted by Metacrock

If you can't disprove my claim to a prima facie warrant then I win. simple.

In other words, if you call yourself the winner, you win.

MarkUK

Miracles do not get prima facie; if they did, you'd believe every single miracle claim ever made, and you don't.

I did point out that doesn't know what Prima facie is. Anything is prima facie if you meet the PF burden, which include evidence. But I did that or have done so in the past, we were sort of comparing general overall proofs of each side.


Meta

the only way to prove it prove it does not is to prove more is needed for the claim. 

 I'm speaking about meeting the Prmia facie burden.

MarkUK

If you don't think more is needed to support "a Nazarene carpenter was Yahweh incarnate and came back from the dead" than "a bloke wrote two thousand years ago that some anonymous people saw it", I don't know what to say to you.

Note: argument from incredulity. why should it be any more improbable that a carpenter would come back to life than a Rabbi? It's important to mention that he's talking about Jesus becuase then it has the atheist stamp of incredulity on it.


Meta

you don't have to disprove the existence of God you have to disprove my argument. 

Mark

Since you claimed prima facie in the opening, you have effectively declared yourself the winner of the game without bothering to play it.

 That's not true, he must show that I haven't met the burden. I can show I have.


Meta

you do not know the word pima facie means. you don't know what it is or how to achieve it. you have no basis for the silly claim that miracles can't be pria facie.

MarkUK

Besides I didn't make an argument based upon miracles. you can't engage with the arguments long enough to remember what I argued.

I didn't either remember? My argument was based upon the framework which they have abandoned in favor of QM theory and descriptive laws of physic those open the door to wild and crazy things like miracles. The reference to docs for 7000 miracles (healings) and 400 resurrections (middle ages to now) were just additional evidence to boost the gain.


btw prima facies means "on face value." It's different for philosophers than for debaters. I tend to use the debate concept. Even though it's made for policy debate, that is the idea that the opening speech must present the basics that are needed to prove the case (the case being belief in God is warrated).
I did't do that in that thread but since the debate referst to the general state of evidence prestned by both sides over time I refer to my God argument pages, and perferomances in 1x1 debates.


MarkUK

If you don't think more is needed to support "a Nazarene carpenter was Yahweh incarnate and came back from the dead" than "a bloke wrote two thousand years ago that some anonymous people saw it", I don't know what to say to you. 

Meta

I've supplied what is needed to support it. you have not answered my arguments.

here's an overview to my Resurrection arguments. read that and argue down the overall point.


Now here is where he really shows his refusal to accept any kind of evidence.

MarkUK

Why can't the resurrection be a fiction that has been transmitted faithfully since its beginning?

Do you really think "transmitted faithfully" contributes to plausibility? There may be 100% accurate copies of the Harry Potter novels two thousand years from now...

 I am the one who made the label. I said transmitted faithfully form the beginning. He's acting like i copied it form something. "Do you really think this means..." Yes I do becuase I said it.

 Meta

 of course it does. this is proof for me that you do not accept any evidence of any kind. If you refuse to accept any evidence then you are not arguing wit. you are seeking answers. If every peice of evidence you get you reject as evidence by some trick of words, you are not seeking answers you don't care about truth.

what was passed on faithfully was the eye witness that they saw him alive again. that you refuse to believe it no matter what is not proof that it's not true.

 MarkUK

 You seem to think that "not transmitted faithfully => incorrect" means "transmitted faithfully => correct". This is the "affirming the consequent" fallacy.

Faithful transmission is necessary for plausibility, not sufficient.

 Meta

 you seem to think that as long as you refuse to receive the evidence as true then it can't be true. I have beaten you because you don't have an arguemnt. just saying "I dont' bleieve it, it could still be false" is not an argument. that's refusing to take part in the next part of the debate.

there is no point in debating someone who doesn't care bout facts.

 MarkUK

 Now you've gone past faithful transmission to the original record - why should we believe the original record is correct? why should be believe anything we don't want to believe. that's why there are still flat earth people. they don't want to believe the fact so they don't.

because it's being passed on faithfully stupid. don't you see whatever I can give back to the original claims they must be wrong, if there's no utterly compelling that that wont let you doubt at all then they must be doubted. that's what these guys think is "reasoning."  But it means no evidence could ever suffice.

Meta

it doesn't matter what reason I give because like the flat earth guys you don't care what the facts are.

you think its a done deal because we went up in space and orbited the earth? no they have answers to that, because they refuse to believe.

 With that kind of thinking all facts can always be doubted so there's no basis in proof. thing can ever prove anything to someone who doesn't want to believe i badly enough. tha'ts why we still have flat earth guys.


 Originally Posted by MarkUK

If a guy tells me he saw a pig fly, I am under no obligation to disabuse him of that notion; I can say "I don't believe it happened", and walk away.

that's just the point! anything you don't like you don't want to believe you put in the category of pig flying. I have evidence. you do not. you have no way to refute my evidence except to say "I refuse to believe it." that's you have. you are acting that is some magic disproof. It's not. it's just a refusal to believe the facts.


Originally Posted by MarkUK

If a guy tells me he saw a pig fly, I am under no obligation to disabuse him of that notion; I can say "I don't believe it happened", and walk away.

 

Meta

that's just the point! anything you don't like you don't want to believe you put in the category of pig flying. I have evidence. you do not. you have no way to refute my evidence except to say "I refuse to believe it." that's you have. you are acting that is some magic disproof. It's not. it's just a refusal to believe the facts.

MarkUK

As to the rest of it, you seem to have staked out your position that I reject Christianity because I "don't want to believe it", a trite and tedious response that comes right out of the Bible.

Meta

duh, pretty obviuos.

 Here's the real kicker form another thread by another atheist.


 Occum opens a thread
Theists: What good reasons can you offer an atheist to believe that God exists?

 Originally Posted by Occam I would probably be easier to persuade that God exists than many of the atheists on this forum. I think that the mind is immaterial, that we have libertarian free will, that morality is objective, and that philosophical arguments are a valid source of knowledge. Clearly, I am not the sort of atheist who reflexively rejects claims just because religious people accept them.

Nevertheless, I require some sort of reason to believe that God exists before I become a theist, and in the absence of such a reason I am obligated to believe that God does not exist. I see theism - especially the versions that include an afterlife - as similar to the emails you get from someone who claims to be a Nigerian prince who needs your help. He might be telling the truth, but for the moment you are obligated to believe that his story is false.

 I put up a thread listing all my God arguments. he says:

Occum

Metacrock, I would rather not rehash my reasons for rejecting your argument from religious experience again. Let our debate in the Debates section stand as a sufficient presentation of our respective positions.

 read the 1x1 debate I had with him and see why. reading it again I can see hey did't want to revisit it.


 Originally Posted by Metacrock

sure, you have all these big reasons you start a thread on the subject but would rather not share those reasons? that's fine but then go around acting like there are no reasons. You can't handle the reasons.

now Occie how would it be if I said to the op in this thread "I have my reasons I don't want to talk about them here." what do you think guys like Diest and Skylurker would say to that? Not to mention MarkUK.

Occum

This is a dishonest interpretation of what I said. I said that we shouldn't discuss it against because we've already discussed it on the Debates forum, not just because I don't feel like discussing it.
 Meta

sure what I said that and begged off debate on arguments with any number of atheist on this board would I eve hear the end of it?

On the other hand I like Occum and I don't him to think I'm putting him down. I do think if you put up a thread and call for discussion on some topic you should be willing to discuss it.


Overall what we see here is that facts and evidence don't mean much to these guys. As long as they can doubt they will doubt what they don't want to believe. they will continue to rationize it by pretending that the evidence is just no good becuase they will always be in a position to turn it down.

Atheist Hate Speech and Mental Disorder

 
 Peter Boghossian


Philosopher Randal Rauser acuses Peter Boghossian (see AW last Friday) of hate speech. He quotes Boghossian from his book where he urges that the DSM (bible of psychiatric therapy) include religious "delusions" as mental illness.

“We must recognize religion as brainwashing. We must recognize the (hyper) religious as mentally damaged.” - See more at: http://chrisstedman.religionnews.com/2014/02/24/5-reasons-atheists-shouldnt-call-religion-mental-illness/#sthash.CWLIWIW8.dpuf

“There is perhaps no greater contribution one could make to contain and perhaps even cure faith than removing the exemption that prohibits classifying religious delusions as mental illness. The removal of religious exemptions from the DSM would enable academicians and clinicians to bring considerable resources to bear on the problem of treating faith, as well as on the ethical issues surrounding faith-based interventions. In the long term, once these treatments and this body of research is refined, results could then be used to inform public health policies designed to contain and ultimately eradicate faith.” Peter Boghossian A Manual for Creating Atheists (Kindle Locations 3551-3555).[1]

Does this mean that all religious believers would be open to the charge of mental illness. It seems so. Rauser finds this to be hate speech. The end goal of bringing rleigious people under the label of mental illness is to "eradicate faith from society altogether."[2] Rauser points out that this qualifies as hate speech under the Canadian Criminal code:

“We must recognize religion as brainwashing. We must recognize the (hyper) religious as mentally damaged.” - See more at: http://chrisstedman.religionnews.com/2014/02/24/5-reasons-atheists-shouldnt-call-religion-mental-illness/#sthash.CWLIWIW8.dpuf

Marginal note: Advocating genocide

• 318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
• Marginal note:Definition of “genocide”
  (2) In this section, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,
  • (a) killing members of the group; or
  • (b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.
• Marginal note:Consent
  (3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.
• Definition of “identifiable group”
  (4) In this section, “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

• R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 318;
• 2004, c. 14, s. 1.

Marginal note:Public incitement of hatred

• 319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
  • (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
  • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
• Marginal note:Wilful promotion of hatred
  (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
  • (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
  • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.[3]

Boghossian is not the only one to say this. American Atheist President David silverman said “We must recognize religion as brainwashing. We must recognize the (hyper) religious as mentally damaged.”[4]

“We must recognize religion as brainwashing. We must recognize the (hyper) religious as mentally damaged.” - See more at: http://chrisstedman.religionnews.com/2014/02/24/5-reasons-atheists-shouldnt-call-religion-mental-illness/#sthash.CWLIWIW8.dpuf“We must recognize religion as brainwashing. We must recognize the (hyper) religious as mentally damaged.”

Bill Maher called religion a neurological disorder. Sam Harris wrote “it is difficult to imagine a set of beliefs more suggestive of mental illness than those that lie at the heart of many of our religious traditions.” Face book groups claiming religion is mental disorder, according to Steadman "boast hundreds of members."[5] Not all atheists go along with the trend. Steadman himself, Humanist Chaplin at Harvard, calls for understanding.[6] He presents five reasons why one should not use this approach or call religious thinking mental illness. He had previously called for Christians and theists not to say that atheists are immoral. He calls for meeting each other on common ground.[7]

Steadman recognizes that a body of academic and scientific research links religions with well being, not with mental illness. Steadman writes:

In fact, empirical evidence sometimes points to the opposite conclusion,” Yaden [researcher at the university of Pennsylvania's positive policy research center] said, citing the work of Dr. Ken Pargament. “When it comes to facilitating mental health, empirical data demonstrates that religious people have more positive emotion, more meaning in life, more life satisfaction, cope better with trauma, are more physically healthy, are more altruistic and socially connected, and are not diagnosed with mental illness more than other people.”[8]

I have also quote heavily from sources making mention of these things.

[Noble, Kathleen D. (1987). ``Psychological Health and the Experience of Transcendence.'' The Counseling Psychologist, 15 (4), 601-614.]

Transpersonal Childhood Experiences of Higher States of Consciousness: Literature Review and Theoretical Integration (unpublished paper 1992) http://www.sawka.com/spiritwatch/cehsc/ipure.htm
Jayne Gackenback

"Scientific interest in the mystical experience was broadened with the research on psychoactive drugs. The popular belief was that such drugs mimicked either mystical states and/or schizophrenic ones (reviewed in Lukoff, Zanger & Lu, 1990). Although there is likely some physiological similarity as well as phenomenological recent work has shown clear differences. For instance, Oxman, Rosenberg, Schnurr, Tucker and Gala (1988) analyzed 66 autobiographical accounts of schizophrenia, hallucinogenic drug experiences, and mystical ecstasy as well as 28 control accounts of important personal experiences. They concluded that the: "subjective experiences of schizophrenia, hallucinogenic drug-induced states, and mystical ecstasy are more different from one another than alike" (p. 401).

(Ibid) "Relatedly, Caird (1987) found no relationship between reported mystical experience and neuroticism, psychoticism and lying while Spanos and Moretti (1988) found no relationship between a measure of mystical experience and psychopathology."

a. Trend toward positive view among psychologists.

Spiriutal Emergency

MYSTICAL OR UNITIVE EXPERIENCE

"Offsetting the clinical literature that views mystical experiences as pathological, many theorists (Bucke, 1961; Hood, 1974, 1976; James, 1961; Jung, 1973; Laski, 1968; Maslow, 1962, 1971; Stace, 1960; Underhill, 1955) have viewed mystical experiences as a sign of health and a powerful agent of transformation."

b. Most clinicians and clinical studies see postive.
(Ibid)

"Results of a recent survey (Allman, et al,. 1992) suggest that most clinicians do not view mystical experiences as pathological. Also, studies by several researchers have found that people reporting mystical experiences scored lower on psychopathology scales and higher on measures of psychological well-being than controls (Caird, 1987; Hood, 1976, 1977, 1979; Spanos and Moretti, 1988)".

c. Incidence rate suggests no pathology.

"Numerous studies assessing the incidence of mystical experience (Back and Bourque, 1970; Greeley, 1974, 1987; Hay and Morisy, 1978; Hood, 1974, 1975, 1977; Thomas and Cooper, 1980) all support the conclusion that 30-40% of the population do have such experiences, suggesting that they are normal rather than pathological phenomena. In addition, a recent survey (Allman et al., 1992) has demonstrated that the number of patients who bring mystical experiences into treatment is not insignificant. Psychologists in full-time practice were asked to estimate the percentage of their clients over the past 12 months who had reported a mystical experience. The 285 respondents indicated that of the 20,670 clients seen during the past year, the incidence of mystical experience was 4.5%. This clearly challenges the GAP report on Mysticism, which claims that "mystical experiences are rarely observed in psychotherapeutic practice" (Group for Advancement of Psychiatry, 1976, p. 799).

2) Not the restult of deprivation or fantasy; mystics tend to be successful people.

Council on Spiritual Practices

State of Unitive Consciousness http://www.csp.org/experience/docs/unitive_consciousness.html
"Furthermore, Greeley found no evidence to support the orthodox belief that frequent mystic experiences or psychic experiences stem from deprivation or psychopathology. His ''mystics'' were generally better educated, more successful economically, and less racist, and they were rated substantially happier on measures of psychological well-being. "

3) Mystisicm offers therapeutic insights.

"...Within the Western model we recognize and define psychosis as a suboptimal state of consciousness that views reality in a distorted way and does not recognize that distortion. It is therefore important to note that from the mystical perspective our usual state fits all the criteria of psychosis, being suboptimal, having a distorted view of reality, yet not recognizing that distortion. Indeed from the ultimate mystical perspective, psychosis can be defined as being trapped in, or attached to, any one state of consciousness, each of which by itself is necessarily limited and only relatively real.'' [-- page 665 ) [Roger Walsh (1980). The consciousness disciplines and the behavioral sciences: Questions of comparison and assessment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137(6), 663-673.

See Also: Lukoff, David & Francis G. Lu (1988). ``Transpersonal psychology research review: Topic: Mystical experiences.'' Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 20 (2), 161-184. Charles T. Tart, Psi: Scientific Studies of the Psychic Realm, p. 19.[9]

I have seen over a dozen studies showing that religious experience is not mental illness.

We can see the hate speech is growing. Rauser quotes Boghossian as saying: “we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible, or that the planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children’s teeth out or lock them in a dungeon.” That's pretty chilling. People are advocating banning the teaching of religion from children, that's a major quashing of civil liberties. I don't think we would have much trouble linking that to hate speech.


Sources

[1] Boghossian quoted in Randal Rauser, "Is Peter Boghossian guilty of Hate Speech?" Randal Rauser, 1/22/14 (blog) on line http://randalrauser.com/2014/01/is-peter-boghossian-guilty-of-hate-speech/
accessed March 30, 2014.
Rauser is a systematic theologian of the Evangelical camp. He earned his Ph.D. in theology for King's College, London. Associate professor of historical theology at Edmonton.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Chris Steadman, "Five Reasons Atheists should't call religion Mental Illness," Religious News Service. Feb 24, 2014. online http://chrisstedman.religionnews.com/2014/02/24/5-reasons-atheists-shouldnt-call-religion-mental-illness/ accessed March 30, 2014.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] ___________, "In 2014 let's stop saying 'atheists are immoral,' and 'believers are stupid.'" Religious News Service, Jan 08, 2014. http://chrisstedman.religionnews.com/2014/01/08/hopes-2014-end-atheists-immoral-believers-stupid/ accessed March 30, 2014.

[8] Steadman "five Reasons," Op cit.

[9] this is an amalgam of a lot of studies. It can all be referenced on my website Doxa.

The Expanding Mission of Atheist Watch

I had seen this comment before (July 16,2012) about Atheist watch, comment Section on Danerous Idea blog where atheists were lambasting Reppert (Victor) for linking to AW and being interesting in the mission of following the hate group.

Victor Reppert said...

I linked to the blog because I think that it makes a point that I agree with in general and have made here, namely, that, under the leadership of people like Dawkins and Myers, have indulged a willingness to engage in hateful rhetoric.

 They get hung on the most petty issue:

Jeffery Jay Lowder said... Victor -- I just looked at the site. Despite its stated purpose (to "sound the alarm against" the bullying of hateful rhetoric from atheists), the scope of the site seems to go beyond that. For example, right now, the latest post is "Prayer Studies and the Echo Chamber." I didn't read anything in that blog post which alleges anything to do with hateful rhetoric by atheists. Rather, this post seems to be a run-of-the-mill response to certain atheist critiques of claims about the power of prayer. I found several other examples of articles on the site which appear to have zero to do with hateful rhetoric, but seem to be standard critiques of certain atheistic arguments.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I just want to point how extremely selective the author appears to be--based on my 3 minutes of skimming the site--in terms of interacting with atheist arguments. My impression is that he spends most or all of his time interacting with the weakest arguments for atheism, but spends little or none of his time interacting with the strong arguments for atheism.

 He's criticizing me for not spewing over the hateful statements when in facts other criticize me for doing just that. Which do the want? The fact is my concept of what Atheist Watch is and what it's about has changed a lot in the few years I've been doing it. The mission has expanded from "keeping tabs on hate group atheism" to understanding atheism as a full fleedged ideology and charting the course of its true Regieme.

The step away form the old mission was in finding the psychological nature of the hate group mentality. This I did through various studies by Leslie Francis and others. This was a two part issue that can be found on the stand alone pages "best of AW." I identified and surmised by instinct, what I latter confirmed with studies. The atheist need to mock and ridicule religious belief is about their own hatred of themselves and their own rejections. Those who maintain a negative image of God are merely extending their hatred of God as an outgrowth of their self hatred. It's like "why did you make me the way I am? I hate myself, why would you make me this way? You must be bad yourself to do this."

 Those who mock and ridicule Chrsitians and who thrive in insulting religious people are in need of a ego boost that they get from the "bully rush:" the feelings  of power and importance that come from pushing others around.

Once having realized this I then began seeking to understand the ideological nature of their views. I had already began writing about the atheist propaganda machine, which I discovered form following Richard Carrier's connections in his attempt to build a new Jesus Seminar type group. One key boost to my view was the discovery of a site on my side bar, "militant atheism exposed." Even though it's a fundamentalist site they brought out some very interesting facts about the atheist propaganda machine, their legal victories which require a lot of money, and things of this nature. I had spotted for years on message boards they way they all say the the same things. I never thought it would be an organized effort do socialize them into that I thought it was just the natural result of studying the same things.

Some extraneous tid bits filled in gaps. such the world wide nature of the bill boards and the bus signs, the anti-Christmas campaign. I love Christmas anyone who messes with Christmas in in deep trouble with me. It's obvious those all tie in as money eaters and require organization. It's obvious they are drawing upon mutual support. All of that calls for organization. I began to look for connections and saw that they had a world wide propaganda machine that incorporates books publishes, magazine publishers, major legal talent, world wide organizing. In fact I had to retrain myself so as not to sound like a conspiracy. I began joking with myself about finding imprints of drawings of Thrushes on atheist books.

 All of this came together over a couple of years. I got tried of bathing in animosity and acrimony and wanted to get away from digging up negative stuff all the time. A year ago I made a decision to put up best of AW because I was finding so much good stuff I didn't want to just be lost amide the thousand other post. I have almost more posts on AW then I do on Metacrock's Blog. This blog has been been going about four years and Metacrock's blog since 2005. For a long time I would post here every day. The theory then was there are no studies of hate group atheism. I ask some hate group watch groups to cover atheism they refused. They said "when you find burned atomic symbols on your yard we'll care."

They might have a point. maybe blowing off steam on the net works as a safety value. Although it's not true that there have been no atheist attacks on chruches. There was one a couple of years ago in Dallas and an attack the other day of spray painting but I have not yet learned if it's connected to atheism. The point is the hate group aspect seems to be in a holding pattern. It may be transiting into action but if so its doing it very slowly.

I decided a year ago to put up more intellectual content and less of the usual "O look at the idiots on carm." My reason for doing that was not only to bare my soul as to the acrimony I felt from dealing with them but also because there are no studies of them. So I felt I have to document by lots of anecdotal examples.

Now the mission has changed. It's about demonstrating the contributed nature of the truth regime and the development of the ideology as it unfolds. Just the idea that they have an ideology, while practically admitted in a sense is still met with interruptions of anger at times and with incredulity always. They used to pride themselves on never admitting they had a movement. When the big split in Atheist + came down the pike every article on both sides began talking about 'the movement." It got to be pretty silly when they would say "It's not a movement" I would quote about 10 guys talking about "the movement."


They still refuse to admit it's an ideology. I'm betting that will be forced upon them too. Once you are a movement you have an ideology. A movement without an ideology is like a car without gas. So I will cahnge the mast head and yes. athiest watch is about more than just how some atheiests are hateful.

Read the rest of those comments on dangerous idea. they very telling.

Aron Ra Strikes back

///A couple of days ago I put up a criticism of a blog by AronRa, "the Atheist Preacher man." My analysis was that he was in the mold of the fundamentalist preacher. He took this as a personal insult and responded in kind. I suppose to an ideologue there can be no greater insult than saying that he is just like his ideological antithesis. Like telling an anti-communist that he's Stalinist. Yet it was not my intention to issue a personal insult. It's just that his views are very strident and words his opinions in such a way as to make absolute, no holds barred, blanket statements. Of course his groupies chimed in for the real nasty stuff down in the trenches, demonstrating the sort of hatred and personal animosity that caused me to start Atheist watch thus proving my thesis that a certain segment of the atheist community can only deal in  hate. I can't really blame Ra for feeling attacked. AW has been labeled by the atheists "a atheist hating site" (which it's not) and it's been said to be cheap attack dog stuff which it's not. What is unforgivable (well so to speak--we Christians like to forgive) is that such ideologues can't be honest about the oppostion. To them all Chrsitains are fundies and they assume as a matter of course that I'm a cerationist even though I made it pretty clear I'm not. I did sort of give him a left handed compliment about his knowledge of scinece. You would think he could accept that in a lefthandedly gracious sort of way. The reaction of his groupies is really confirmation that I'm on target with the hate group analysis.
....The first sign that his response is not going to be critical in the intellectual sense but ad hominem, is  the title, "here come the loonies." I say he unwittingly puts himself in the mold of a fundamentalist preacher, he says I'm "Loony." Is that really commensurate criticism? He includes AW in a little list of fundie sites that say stuff about him. So that creates the impression "AW must be fundie and creationist because he's being listed with them." Guilt by association (still a fallacy btw)."So I find it ironic,"  he says, "that AtheistWatch calls me a “completely opinionated, hate-group bully.” Why ironic? because set down along side these other guys and I'm criticizing him too, so therefore I must be one of them. Thus i must be a hate group bully as Ken Ham and the creationists he talks about are (according to him). I may or may not have been unfair to call him a bully but I didn't try to lump him in with a group that he's clearly opposed to. This is obviously guilt by association and nothing more. But then atheists play that game all the time. They are always trying to lump Chrsitians in with Nazis and so forth. He also complains that i got it wrong that he lives in Denton. Well I can't remember where I saw that but I did see it on some internet thing that was talking about him. So it may be a mistake but not mine. It's no crime to come from Denton so it's not an accusation. He says he doesn't know the Kryptonite quote, but it was on Wiki page. Of course those things are changed all the time by anyone or his dog.
....He says:

My favorite of the criticisms against me on AtheismWatch is this one:

“the standard that he uses to hold the bible to sees the Bible as cliaming on behalf of God:“I know everything I’ve always been there here’s what hapepned in the past.” That’s a log of hog wash. It’s not true God knows all that is knowable but the bible never makes such a claim for itself. It never presets itself as an accurate history book such that it says ‘here’s what happened in the past.” That kind of blanket statement is the all or nothing bunck that atheists thrive on.”

It wasn’t me who recited that ‘log of hogwash’; it was the Young Earth Creationist, Ken Ham who described the Bible exactly that way. I was merely quoting his ‘bunck’. But it is nice to see how venomous believers can be when one of their own people says something wrong, -but they think I’m the one who said it.

Of cousre I meant "load of hog wash." Since atheists can't deal with substance they have to rag on superficial mistakes like spelling. Ok so he was quoting someone but he did it as though he's assuming that's "the Christian stance." So he's reducing the diversity of the faith to just the fudines and pretending the rest of it doesn't exist. So the rest of it get's the criticism and the guilt by association but no credit for avoiding the stupidity of fundamentalism. But why should he care? I'm sure he's willing to lump Bultmann and Crosson and Tillich all the liberal theologians in with Ken Ham and Kent Hovind the fundies. I once saw an atheist who called Thomas Kuhn a "fundie creationst hack." It's that kid of slip shod pseudo scholarship and lack of attention to truth that I'm criticizing him for. That's what makes him preacher man-like. He's more considered with getting the propaganda line out than with getting it right. After all I never say "all atheist are like X, all atheists are a hate group." I have always been careful to make clear that I don't include all atheists in the criticisms of the new atheists that I make or even all atheists. I call the segment of the atheist world that I criticize "Dawkamentalism." Maybe I should change the name of the blog to "Dawkmentalist watch." I don't think anyone would read it.
////He closes with "I wonder what the next paranoid tabloid sensationalist opposite-accusation of me will be." The criticisms I made of him were pretty accurate. Its' obvious I wasn't doing paranoid tabloid thing because I talked about ideas and the way he handles them. That is not sensationalism nor is it tabloid. I also notice he doesn't defend them or try to argue against what I said. Notice none of these guys argue ideas. Like most atheists on message boards they are totally focused on the people. Their number one come back to disagreement is "You don't don't conform to my ideology so you must be stupid."

Now let's see what his groupies had to say:

Monocle Smile

June 9, 2013 at 1:48 am (UTC 0)

Reply

About halfway through I was expecting something about six heads and breath of fire.
This is not meant to be insulting in the least, but you’ll have a hard time convincing me that at least some of these bottom-feeding cretins aren’t mentally unsound.

O that's not hate motivated at all is it? I criticized the impression he gives about the bible and his reader says "they bottom feeding cretins." that's real fair.

John Nugent

June 9, 2013 at 2:25 am (UTC 0)

Reply

I just made an attempt at reading the Atheistwatch article…
I know, the spelling and grammar of an argument, has no bearing on the argument. However, if I have to work to figure out, just what is being said, then it does spread doubt on, whether or not, the poster should be taken seriously. Anyone too lazy to make a coherent argument, is probably going to be too lazy to research said argument.
But anyway, I kept on through it.
I do like the comparison of Aronra’s style to that of preachers, and quite frankly, I think this attempted insult, should be taken as complimentary. Fighting fire and brimstone with fire and brimstone! Hallelujah, brother, and amen! In other words, Aronra, keep it up.
But being a subscriber to Aronra’s channel, and now, to this blog, I cannot say, I agree with the other things, the poster wrote.
On the other hand, I still cannot make out, half the things, the poster wrote….

I always know they are desperate and clutching at straws when they go after the spelling. He admits he can't make out half the things I wrote, while my spell check says there are no mistakes. What is then that people are trying to encourage me to do when they say "use the spell checker?"  Maybe the reason the can't understand half of what I say has more to do with him and not me. Whey do they relate the preacher man thing to insult? Because they hate preachers. they assume i must hate them too. I don't hate them. It wasn't an insult per sue but I'm sure they take it as such because they are loaded with hatred against preachers.

It is a criticism there are problems with preachers, but not an insult. His little statement about "fighting fire and brimstone with fire and brimstone" really speaks volumes. First of all if they bothered to find out anything about me they would find that I don't believe in hell. But they are probably too  stupid to even understand why that means I'm not a fundie. Then it also shows that they are into an eye for an eye, fight fire with fire. So they perceive fudnies as hating them, they hate fundies so fight hate with hate. it's a frank admission that they are full of hate and are ready to unleash it.

Lord Narf

June 9, 2013 at 4:35 am (UTC 0)

Reply

He’s very dyslexic, which would explain a lot … except EVERYTHING has a spellchecker built into it, nowadays. I give a lot of room for issues like that, but it just seems lazy to post things to a blog with errors that a simple web-browser interface would catch. I don’t know what to think of the guy.

See, I got them on the ropes. they know they have no valid point to make.

Jingle Dela Torre

June 9, 2013 at 3:32 am (UTC 0)

Reply

AtheistWatch says he was an atheist before there was an internet and reason led him to god. LMAO.

One of the more amusing aspects of the Dawkies their "you are not a true unbeliever" mentality. they are truly the mirror version of the TULIP Chrsitians. Of cousre this guy probably has no memory of the world without the net. So the idea  that atheism was different then is water off a duck's back. The reductionist/materialist types have destroyed their own intellectual heritage and they are too stupid to ever know what they've done.

here'a real moron:

michaelbusch

June 9, 2013 at 5:37 am (UTC 0)

Reply

Do we know what fraction of evangelical US Christians claim to once have been atheists?
_
A little bit of demography says that less than 5% of American Christians can possibly have been atheists at some point in the past, and we might expect the fraction to be lower still in fundamentalist Christian groups. If we had the number that claim to once have been atheists, we could figure out how many are likely telling the truth.

His argument is "this guy couldn't be a real atheist becasue duh, there aren't enough Chrsitains who become Christians,.duh." I couldn't be in the 5% that's impossible. they have to deny it at all costs so their brain washed lackies wont hear that they can be forgiven and find God. Got to keep them in the dark. the determinists among them have to think that it's so impossible to change because that disproves little pet ideology. Now how do I conform to his assumptions for the prior when I was a Christian and a communist at the same time? how many people do that? I'm already breaking most molds.

Monocle Smile

June 9, 2013 at 4:15 am (UTC 0)

Reply

AtheistWatch is strange. He’s wrong about the Bible in the opposite way fundamentalists are. Also, based on his Blogger user profile, he seems like a supremely boring person.
I stumbled through links onto this gem, which IMO demonstrates how so many of our counter-arguments just sail over the heads of these types.

there into such intellectual points. I seem boring to him. Shall I tell him him what he seems like to me? this is pure hate nothing but personal insults from people who don't know me. this is what made message boards the bottom of the barrel in the intellectual world. the are guys are screaming "hello I enjoy being stupid!"

That's enough. the hate group is alive and well. The mission of Atheist Watch is still fresh and needed.

It just gets worse and worse

 Remember last time I talked about how the idiots on carm said I was stupid for liking theology. Like a fool I fed the trolls and angered by their ridicule I informed them that m y IQ is 142. Unfortunate my finger don't move as fast as my big mouth so I typed "42." Of cousre you can imagine what they have done with that. I tried to slouph it off at firt by using the hitcher hikers guide joke about 42. this is too good for them to let go. Then i got angry and said I wanted to give them a number they could count to. then they began saying things like this:

 Pablopiccante

Hmm, did you read the post that held the quote in the OP? It appears that metacock was trying to boast about his intelligence, whilst insulting frikki and his intelligence. Tell me, do you consider metacrock to be a jackhole too? If not, why not? where's the difference in behaviours?

 The other guys says "you are stupid for liking theology" but I'm boasting because I say I'm not stupid?


Originally Posted by Metacrock

that's ridiculously silly. IN this day and age to know nothing at all about dyslexia is stupid. to know about it and still write it off as laziness is inexcusable.

who is being lazy now? not to know anything about such a widely used concept.

 

Drugstar:

 

shut your face. my sister has it. she struggles with it too. however, she takes her time and you cannot even tell. what is your excuse? the only reason i'm calling you out on this is that you boast so much about how much better you are than everyone else - when in fact, you're just an angry, lazy slob. you have such low self esteem that you spend your days here talking down to people, picking fights and playing the victim. wow, what a life you've created for yourself. No job, no kids, no wife ... where is the transformation in your life? if you're an example of what RE/ME can achieve, color me underwhelmed.

Meta:

 "shut your face?" taking the high road of reason I see.

here's the problem genius, I made a typo and left out the 1 in 142. they were implying that I'm stupid to like theology so I did the logical thing. I showed that I'm proved not to be stupid by the official way what intelligence is detriment in our modern society. like it or not that's the way it is.

anyone who thinks that a typo is a reliable guide to ether intelligence or industry is an absolute fool. Just as anyone who think knowing theology is a sign of being stupid is a jackass.

 Sylar:

 There's an automatic spell checker in every major browser. So, yeah, it does come down to lazy or stupid.

Its' numbers! the typo was 42 rather than 140. you have a spell check that would know to score that? what a stupid thing to say.

Drug star

he gives a link to the following:

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.^[1]
Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. David Dunning and Justin Kruger conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others".^[2]

It says "unskilled." This form of problem strikes those who are "unskilled." I have a feeling this guy wrote that himself (it's on wiki) and  he really means "undegreed" but it says unskilled. It's so ironic he doesn't even consider that it might be that he's the unskilled and I"m the competent one that has upset him. so Listed a few of my skills:



french
Greek
Ph.D. level work in history of ideas
Masters in theology
type 40 words a minute
play recorder (flute not tape)
draw real well and illustrated children's book
I can read
published academic journal
I know study methodology really well
I've written 3 books
debated in NFL and college (won 70%)
in youth played defensive tackle


It keeps on this way. I made a foolish typo and they treat it like a federal crime. Maybe they are all suffering form that deal.

Atheists are Slave thinkers

On CARM we have a thread about something from nothing. This guy rued why why not? the Universe just popped into existence out of nothing and that's just as good as anything. He has a huge post and actually uses a bunch of references which is quite rare.

 For time-dependent processes with H(t) ≡ H0 + V (t) the scattering operator ˆ S has the form ˆ S = C0 : ˆ S0 eS :
where C0 is a normalization constant, eS describes creation and annihilation of particle–antiparticle pairs and their
scattering, and the exceptional part ˆ S0 describes creation and annihilation of single particles.

.......That is a sample.All it really means is he's trying to claim vacuum flux as proof of something from nothing. Atheists have been arguing this since before the late 90s when I came on the internet apologetic scene.I think they are starting to take my chiding seriously that I always doucment and they don't. None of the stuff quotes really supply any rel proof becuase there is none. I point this out.  I post a longer essay which is found on this blog about the Krauss book The Universe form Nothing and how it was debunked by David Albert. He proves that when physicists say "nothing" they don't mean real actual nothing they mean vacuum flux. That's like syaing the particles come out of more particles. So it' snot really noting the prior particles still require explanation (how did they come to be?). So really it's not proving much of anything. Then guy who did the original post starts to argue that this is something physicists say so you have to believe it. He didn't say that but he might as well have.


Originally Posted by boneso

Says you Meta, how many physics doctorates do you have? How many physics papers have you published which have been well received by the scientific community?

 Meta

 

David Albert has one. He ahs a doctorate in theoretical physics.

whether or not physicists believe in it is not the issue. there are physicists who believe in God some of them won the noble prize.



Boneso:

Of course you know better than everyone, after all you know better than Hawking, one of the most intelligent people on earth, all christians know better than all of the high IQ scientists, its weird how that works isn't it!

Meta:He's been discredited on that point, other physicists just as renown as he is believed in God.When I say he's been discredited I mean his book the Grand Design didn't take off it was exposed immediately for the publishers hype that it was. Hawking tried to argue it all comes down to gravity so we don't need God that did  not go over becasue two things became apparently:


(1) he didnt' say it the publisher did


(2) who made the gravity? or how'd it get here?

no physicists has the authority to tell you weahter or not God exits. they are not philosophers. they are not theologians they don't know the ultimate truth. you are just seeking authority figure to hide behind.

that proves you are not a free thinker. you are a slave and minion.

 Wait, wait  for it, you ant seen nothing yet!

Boneso
 I appreciate your input but your views seem to be based on other peoples opinions on the matter, in this case David Albert. 

 Holy irony BATMAN! This is the guy who was just saying that I have to have physicists to back up my opinion[. which by the way I do. that's who is the 18 foot notes I use. so when I have the docs tthen I'm taking my opinion for other people. he on the other hand is original and an independent thinker even though he talks like we can't believe something if physicists don't give us permission. he also had a bunch of foot notes to the Op so the change that I take my views from others because I have 18 foot notes can be made against him too.

Boneso

I am struggling to take it seriously now as i am worried that you have taken what David Albert has published as factual information. The mans publications are extremely vague and worded particularly casually. He fails to go into any depth in the hope that his writings can be read and understood by the layman, exact details are not something he feels neseccary to include in his work. He has even been known to have contradicting viewpoints from one publication to the next. Im sorry but if you have obtained your knowledge on this subject from David Albert, i cannot take it seriously. Try Matt Strassler or Hamlet Karo Avetissian.

 Of course he doesn't document any of this drivel. I doubt taht he knows who David Albert is. He teaches philosophy at Columbia, has a Ph.D. in theoretical phsyics, and trashed Krausse's book and was hailed by bloggers across the net as the victor. more more than one  blogger said "Albert own Krauss."

Look up any writer you will find people trashing him. Anyone who publishes much as a lot of jealous trolls saying stupid things about him. This guy of cousre doesn't bother to document any of the accusations.  Typical of the atheist slander machine to reach for the slander when he's backed in a corner.

 The brain washed lackies of the hate group just dont' know how to think. they are seeking God figure to hide behind who will give them permission to hold their beliefs and make them feel safe but they can't use the real God because they set themselves against him. Just in case some readers are tempted to think "O but if Christianity was valid there would be some physicists who believe it" there are many. Here are statements by some major physicists.

Fritz Shafer, nominated for Nobel Prize in Chemistry, University of Georgia, himself a Christian:	"it is very rare that a physical scientists is truly an atheist."
Martin Rees at Cambridge:	"The possibility of life as we know it depends upon a few basic values which are constants. And it is in some aspect remarkably sensitive to their heir numerical values. Nature does exhibit remarkable coincidences."
Arthur Schewhow, Nobel prize winner from Stanford, identifies himself as a Christian.	"We are fortunate to have the Bible which tells us so much about God in widely accessible terms."
Charlie Towns Nobel prize winner:	"The question of science seems to be unanswered if we explore from science alone. Thus I believe there is a need for some metaphysical or religious explanation. I believe in the concept of God an in his existence."
John Pokingham, theoretical physicist at Cambridge, left physics to become a minister.	"I believe that God exists and has made himself known in Jesus Christ."
Allan Sandage, The world's greatest observational cosmologist , Caregie observatories won a prize given by Swedish parliament equivalent to Nobel prize (there is no Nobel prize for cosmology) became a Christian after being a scientist,	"The nature of God is not found in any part of science, for that we must turn to the scriptures."

Extraordianrily Narrow Minded Attitudes Require Extraorinary Baiting

Animal Farm

More evidence of the narrow minded refusal to think that atheist display. it's a typical day on carm so there are about a hundred examples to choose from. In this one I got a thing about whether or not ECREE is an exact rendition of the Bayes's theorem. I keep saying the thrum i sfine it's the idea that ECREE is exactly derived from it that I'm protesting. they keep saying "that's so backward no to accept Bayes. or "what do you have Bayes?"

Originally Posted by Metacrock

It['ECREE']'s a dumb idea. It's not logical and it's just an excuse to raise the bar for religious ideas.

 

Sylar post no 1

'ECREE' is merely an English statement of Bayes's Theorem. A claim with a low prior probability needs a higher likelihood than a claim with a high prior in order to have the same posterior. You are not only wrong, but incompetently wrong. That's it; that's ALL 'ECREE' is saying. This is a mathematical fact. You can even see a very simple proof here.

And, contrary to what Meta claims, it is use all the fracking time. For example, let's look at drug tests. Last year, an estimated 0.5% of the general US population used cocaine. Let's assume that we have a 99% accurate test for cocaine. People like Meta will try to tell you that this means that anyone who tests positive on a random drug test has a 99% chance of having actually done cocaine. The reality, however, is that if we plug the numbers into Bayes's Theorem, we see that there's nearly a 66% chance of it being a false positive.

'ECREE' is why we never do just one test for cancer. Extraordinary claims do in fact require extraordinary evidence; this is mathematical fact.

I'm not allowed to use the image tags, but here is a good cartoon about 'ECREE': http://xkcd.com/1132/

I said:

Meta:

you know you are taking what I said out of context. you are doing this on purpose becuase you can't stand the fact I just beat your previous little fortress of facts.

you have no facts. atheism is not a fact. It's junk it's a house of cards. I just blew the house apart.

You are taking it out of context because you said Bayes is a fact. I said its not a fact that it apply to all god arguments. that's nto a fact. I proved it's not a fact. you are saying the theorem is a fact, I didn't dispute that. I said it doesn't apply to everything. It doesn't it as a very limited application. I dont' know that it applies to any god arguments.

what I originally said

post 37

It's not a fact that your mathematical fact has application to my God augments. nothing in Bayes theory says "all God arguments are subject tot his argument."

that's just an example of the fortress of facts fallacy.*


*Yes I coined the term it's not an official fallacy but it is a real one.

Most of my God arguemnts are not probabilistic. that only apply to indicative arguments. most of mine are not. Doesn't apply at all to any kind of phenomenology or existentialism of deductive reasoning. .

so in other words it doesn't apply because the theory is only about probability.

But they can't stop and read the truth. They have to keep up the mockery. It's clear from the things they say they are not even reading my answers. The incredilby illogcial assertion he's making that ECREE is Bayse's theorum just put into English, therefore, since Bayse's theorem is a fact then ECREE is a fact.

Sylor

It is a mathematical fact (see the proof linked in the OP) that claims with low priors need higher likelihoods than those with high priors to have the same posterior. That is ALL 'ECREE' is. It's merely a fashionable expression of Bayes's Theorem. Extraordinary claims (i.e., unlikely claims) require extraordinary evidence (i.e. greater than normal amount/quality of evidence).

The only goalposts that have been moved are by those who want to deny mathematical fact so that they can believe in magic.

Lance:

No ECREE is a proven fact. By Bayes theorem Pr(H|E) = Pr(E|H) * Pr(H) / Pr(E). Therefore; Pr(H|E) ≤ Pr(H) / Pr(E)

If someone means anything other than Pr(H|E) ≤ Pr(H) / Pr(E) when they talk about ECREE, then sure maybe it's a vague subjective slogan. But this is certainly true and obviously very clear.

Let's suppose that some evidence E makes hypothesis H more likely than not. Thus;

0.5 < Pr(H|E) ≤ Pr(H) / Pr(E)
0.5 < Pr(H) / Pr(E)
Pr(H) > 0.5 * Pr(E)

They are reading it as ECREE = Bayes when in fact it's only derived from it. Bayes saying nothing about extraordinary claims for example. I question the possibly of "translating" math into english as though math is the kind of language English is. I've always been by friends in the sciences that it can't be more than rough approximation. when it is their little ideology they want to think it's 1x1, right on the money exact. I know form translating Greek and French there's no such thing as a "literal translation." All translations are approximate or interpretive or derivative. The Genius Sylor says "it's mathematically precise" meaning ECREE is periscope. that's just not possible even translating form English to French. ECREE is not mathematics. It's only partially derived from a mathematical formula. Lance is extolling the praises of the mathematical formula that doesn't prove the linguistic derivative shares the exactitude of the formula.

Then they try arguing that probability applies to miracles and can rule them out.

 Darth Pringle

 

 

And I still can't see how mathematical probability doesn't apply to miracles (eg, the resurrection). If the number of people not coming back from death by miraculous means exceeds those who do then the prior probability of a "back from death miracle" claim actually having a natural cause (and thus, being mistaken) is going to be high ... even without knowing the exact numbers.

Meta:

 take off the blinders and think for a change? your assumption is that it has to be automatic. Yes you are assuring so. Otherwise probability would have nothing to do with it. you have to assume that it works like a drug or medicine you get the prayer you have to be healing doesn't' work.Let's say hypothetically God does hate amputees. that's a reason why he doesn't work automatically on command to heal them. So now if you say "that means 0 probability of being healed by God for amputation tha'ts true, but that doesn't' meant that he can't do it. what he does in one case? you can't rule out that case as a miracle merely because you had a probability.

Probability doesn't' apply to certainty. going case by case we find many examples of miracles. but they have o probability. because taking it case by case there's no expectation.

you dogmatically refuse to read anything I write. read this one thing you will learn a lot.

See my essay on Doxa "Causality in Miracle hunting.Originally Posted by Lance

Originally Posted by Lance

The argument for Jesus' resurrection is a probabilistic argument.

 

 Meta:

no it's not. that's impossible because you can't deal with it as though it were something that has to happen on a regular basis. No reason to look for other resurrections, there though there have been some., bit's supposed to be imposable that is what a miracle is. there' only one incarnate logos who died on cross who is going to raise form the dead. Never going to happen again so there's nothing to establish a probability by.

you can't establish a probability with a one time thing.

I challenged Lance to read my article on ECREE, in two parts.


All he says is;

Bayes Theorem entails Pr(H|E) ≤ Pr(H) / Pr(E). There is nothing you can do about this. When we say extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, we mean that Pr(H|E) ≤ Pr(H) / Pr(E).

So he's not the least big willing to read the article.

Meta:

notice friends, this is his way of saying I refuse to read the essay. So he's admitting yes he is too narrow minded to consider ideas off template he atheist template is the only thing he can think he doesn't' dare think ideas nt on it. that's just what ideology is.

Didn't take long for him to fail that test.

then he tries to argue it out:

Originally Posted by Lance

Of course I can tell you what it means. It means that the probability of hypothesis H on evidence E is at most the prior probability of H divided by the prior probability of E.

An extraordinary claim or evidence is one which has a very low prior probability. If H is very unlikely then E is going to have to be very unlikely too, to balance it out. A small value divided by a big value is a very small value.

ahahahaha that's recursive! that's circular reasoning. think about it:

BelieverWhat is extraordinary?

Atheistit's one which has a low probability

Believer:how do we know it it has a low probability?

Atheistbecause it's extraordinary!
The whole point of saying extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof is predated on knowing what's extraordinary. that has to be known in advance it can't just be hacked in by opinion. If calculating probability for an argument is impossible ten obviously the theorem can't apply.


Originally Posted by Lntz

"Atheist watch - Watching Atheist Hate Group" - this is the reason i'm not responding to the essay.

The title website shows that this is going to be a horribly biased piece of work, written for people who actually want to read nonsense about Atheists being Hateful.

Atheism = not believing in God

Being hateful is something else, and is not reliant on your belief in God.

Try presenting a more neutral piece of work, and i'm sure you'll get a better response.

so the logic ECREE is proved right because you don't like atheist watch. you still wont me to think you are not an ideologue?