There is no Athiest Ideology: It's just that Atheist Ideas Explain Everything and they are Always Right

 


Get a load of this. I put up a thread about the resurrection. it's me against at least ten atheists at once. Only one Christian has the guts to come down and say "you are doing really well." Usually they don't even do that. This one atheist, because he claims to be an M.D. is just so sure he's right he's getting angry becuase I best him on every issue. Look for the long string of exchanges with the idiot Arnold Chiari II. It will be apparent why I call him that.


He decides that Jesus couldn't raise form the dead because people jsut don't ever do that. I gave him the 400 cases from the Vatican archives we are supposed to just assume they are true becuase they violate what we want to believe about what we observe.

He also argues that I have no corroborating evidence. I said the original report form the communities that makes up the Gospels is the claim of the eye witnesses all the other evidence that backs their claim is corroboration; the Apostolic fathers showing how they knew Apostles and other disciples who saw Jesus and were privy to the words of the original witnesses. He began stomping his little foot and insisting that is not corroboration. What is it? It's just stories. In fact all my evidence is just stories. Then it comes out that my evidence has to be wrong becuase it violates what we  know about about nature and it's based upon belief. So say that's just ideology,t hat is ideological. you are saying we have to believe your ideology, rather than deny that he starts doing it more.

He also argued that Mark made up the empty tomb. I said Mark was not the first source of the story. The story was circulating in writing mid century that pre dates Mark. He continues to argue that Mark was the original source of the story even though he says "I know Mark was not the original source." then he says things like "but Mark made up blah blah." Then he specifies Mark did not make up the story but he made up the empty tomb. I quoted Koester, Crosson and Denker all saying that the empty tomb was part of the original stuff circulating at mid century.

Having lost all of that on the issues about the evidence he starts insisting that i have to be wrong. What I'm saying violates the accepted norm in the modern world, which is materialism. That's what I said his view was. So to prove that he's not just an ideologue he says basically, in short--you must believe my ideology, but it's not an ideology we are just right.

Leading up to the frank admission that it's ideology (without isuing the I word) he had argued that if we accept that Jesus rose form the dead we have to assume people will raise all the time. I said that would counter to the assumption about Jesus that it's a miracle. we aer not arguing Jesus' res is a product of nature but that it's a special work of God. then says I'm begging the qeustion. that's not begging the question is' explaining why his slippery slope fallacy is wrong.

 Originally Posted by Arnold Chiari II

I know what YOU think is corroborating evidence. I think it isn't. You need to deal with the idea of evidence that I am using.

Meta:

yes of course it is. It's corroborating the thesis. that's what corroborating means.It's backint it up. Corroborating doesn't mean absolute proof.

I have explained before that I always argue to a standard of warranted belief not proof.

Arnold Chiari II

There are many PUTATIVE observations of resurrections. A story is just a story. That's the point.

Meta:

that's neither here nor there. the story is a report of people who saw it happen. The things that back it up such as Apostolic father's testimony obviously is corroboration.

I named about eight things you are so unable to argue in a valid way you can't even deal with any of them.

you are just getting testy because you know lost. your little ideology says you can't lose to a Christian because Chrsitians are stupid. but you did.

Arnold Chiari II

Question begging, special pleading.... 

Meta:

no it's not prove how it is. you are just using labels you don't even understand.

Of course it's not special pleading, he's just asserting that belief if special pleading. I didn't say it's right becuase I believe it I said the nature of the beleif prevents the slippery slope reasoning of his argument form being a valid concern.



Arnold Chiari II

And if someone was going to claim that it happened, you should have more than just a story to corroborate that it DID happen. But you don't.

Meta:

ARE YOU REALLY THAT OBTUSE!??? A EYE WITNESSES TESTIMONY is NOT JUST A STORY GENIUS, iT'S AN ACTUAL TO FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE, EINSTEIN.

your little atheist handlers have brain washed you to believe that eye witnesses are no good. No historian anywhere, no historian anywhere agrees!

I was getting a bit testy with him.


Arnold Chiari II

No, that's an ad hom. My assumed motives are irrelevant to the argument.

It's not about your motives, Newton, it's your logic. or lack of it.

Really I guess it is.


Arnold Chiari II

I'm telling you why anything you have said it isn't corroborating evidence. I'll try to make this clear to you: I'm an MD. The determination that someone is dead is not infrequently error prone.

MD's are not trained in history or logic. I'm not impressed that you are an MD. I'm a historian.

That does not make what I'm saying special pleading.





Arnold Chiari II

Many mistakes are made, by MDs, every year. There's a literature on this. Any account of a resurrection must conclusively rule out a diagnostic error, and this is not sometimes not simple or easy, or even, to my satisfaction, ever done. Autopsies have been started on people thought to be dead (and rapidly abandoned) . These are facts. 

Meta: these are facts! that really proves it because they are facts! It's also a fact that the the resurrection of Jesus is not a product of nature but supposedly a miracle of God so you can't judge it's realism by the products of nature. To even true is stupid. then I show the possibility of 400 resurrections becasue those claims are made in the Vatican archives. That doesn't mean they are true, I didn't aruge they are proved, I said they are possible. The point being Jesus's is not the only case where God supposedly raised someone. Even though we can't a rule of nature and say "this proves people raise from the dead" but it also is not the only time it was ever claimed.

Meta

that's just totality unimportant. If NJOM started refuse articles on the basis that doctors are wrong a lot they would no longer be takne seriously as a journal.

you can't just whip out the assertion that doctors can be wrong so anytime something disagrees with my ideology it has to be that this is one of those times.

can't you get it through your head that trying to argue that Jesus' case is opposed to nature is not going to work because that's the point! It' wouldn't be a miracle if it was in line what happens. It has to go against the norm or it's not improtant.

It's a work of God not a work of nature. the only we know it's a work of God is that it goes against nature.

Death itself is an irreversible, system wide failure of cellular respiration, and it invariably leads to a disruption of the patterned electrochemical cycles that are necessary for cardiac and brain function.

that's for suckers who don't believe in God. that's if you go by nata. We not going by Nata. we going by Gawd. Can't you get through your Yankee head?

Arnold Chiari II

That's what death is: the cessation of the capacity of the tissues to generate the electrochemical gradients necessary for cellular activity. Once they are gone (ie the person is actually dead) then there is no way to restart them. It doesn't happen, and it happening again would be as great a suspension of physical law as the sun rising in the west. Mistakes about death? happen. Mistakes by experts? They happen. Resurrection? No evidence, just stories. 

Do you see the bait and switch he's pulling? He says it's not what we find in nature therefore the evidence must wrong. then he turns around and says the evidence doesn't matter.  He's not arguing evidence he's just saying this contraray to our understanding of things so it must be wrong. If the evidence shows otherwise then the evidence is wrong. Conclusion: Atheists do not care about evidence..


Meta:

that whole argument merely boils down to I don't care about evidence, my ideology has to be right, nothing that contradicts my ideology can be true.

tha'ts not an argument it doesn't prove nothing.

back home in Texas we call being a *****. believe me in Texas we are experts on being ******.

The rest of your post is just BS about why I say what I say. It is ignorant. You don't know what you are talking about.

I beat you. you cannot argue. you can't undersatnd logic. you don't get the basic issues. you are just ideologue who cant reason.

I must be right cause I'm a doctor. (sure you are).

then maybrick sticks his nose in to second the ideological assumptions.




Originally Posted by maybrick

This has been gone over with Meta till we are all to bored to respond to it again.

If it hasn't already, get ready for Lourdes to be bought up. And the elite team of Vatican miracle provers. And that meta himself has spoken to the Dr's on the Lourdes Prove a Miracle Panel.

They have actual evidence of cancerous lungs becoming healthy! X-Rays!


I wish you more luck than any of us who have gone before have had.

Unsinkable rubber ducks....

Meta:

ahahahahaahahahah

we keep this guy he has to be wrong becuase our ideology says. he just keeps inditing non going over the facts. we tell him the facts don't matter we tell him facts are not important.t he just wont shup up.

He still bleieve in that old fashions stuff about proving arguments.

but there's no atheist ideology. It's just we have the facts and we are always right. but we wont care about the facts, and facts that disagree with our facts are not good facts.

we don't have an ideology it's just that we think is always right.


AC II says:

 Originally Posted by Arnold Chiari II

He doesn't seem well versed in the natural sciences.

In other words, you only know scinece if you agree with my ideology.


 this has been aded since I posted and it's so obvious I must include it.


Originally Posted by Arnold Chiari II

No, I mean I have read your stuff and you don't seen to grasp natural science very well.

that's wrong and it's BS you are saying it to save face, but that doesn't matter. It's also irrelevant becuase it has nothing to do with the evidence for the res

You look at t the way most historians do. If you did understand it you would go after my idea of evidence, and apply it to a real example, and demonstrate how it does not work, but you can't, because you don't study nature: all you do is you read other people's ideas of how people study nature. 

 Notice he never did that himself within in the discussion. He only argued that it doesn't work, his only example of Mark which he agreed was not the original source of the resurrection and which I proved was not the source of the empty tomb.

that's an ideological statement if ever there was one: IF you really understood you would agree with me.

meta

I can extend on that: not if you are wrong big man herr Docktor

Arnold Chiari II

As to Popper and Kuhn, let's agree for the purpose of argument that I have neither read them, nor even heard of them. Show me that it makes a difference here.

Meta:

show how my ideas of science make a difference? you are implying that anyone who knows about science would agree that God didn't work a miracle on Jesus, that is BS it's not true it's empirically disproved as there are scientists who believe in the res.

you are using knowledge of scinece as membership in the club. If you dont' accept the ideology you can't be in he club. acceptance of ideology is defend as good knowledge of scinece.

 

Atheist move: Truth by Snubbing

This is a small part of a running battle I've been having on Theology Web with a guy called "Tassman." He's making the standard diatribe about natural vs. supernatural. I am arguing that that dichotomy is imposed by modern science not Christian theology. After several such exchanges I knocked him down about six times he kept coming back in just the same way.



Originally Posted by metacrock

sorry I disagree.

(1) God is not non natural. That's a late concept that comes from modern era mainly the enlightenment. There was already a couple of thousand years of talk about God before anyone suggested that God is opposed to nature. God created nature no reason to thin He's opposed.

You’re assuming without substantive evidence that God exists.

(2) there is no reason to think forces of fate in superstition are not natural

There is no good reason to think that anything is not natural.

(3) "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. " God is not "superhuman." That's a magnification of man but God is the basis of reality. you used Oxford Dictionary and that is about popular usage you need Westminster theological dictionary.

‘Bald Assertion’ fallacy.

(4) your link from God to SN is bogus. "excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural" that does not make the basis for the link explicit.
sN was talked about hundreds of years before the idea of God being opposed to nature. SN is not supposed to nature..
SN is not superstition.

I’ll stick with the commonly accepted definition of ‘supernatural’: 1.(Of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature:a supernatural being. (Oxford Dictionary)

please read my essay on true Christian concept of the supernatural

Part 1

Part 2


Part 3

Tassman

No thanks. I’ll forgo your ‘Proofs by Verbosity’.

Originally Posted by Tassman

You’re assuming without substantive evidence that God exists.

Meta 

wrong on2 counts

(1) I have substantive evidence I just don't have a good venue to display it.

(2) you asserted God is SN does that mean you assume God exists? Obviously I'm talking about the concept of SN

 Tassman     

There is no good reason to think that anything is not natural.

    

Meta: that's what I just said

I said: (3) "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. " God is not "superhuman." That's a magnification of man but God is the basis of reality. you used Oxford Dictionary and that is about popular usage you need Westminster theological dictionary.

you say:
‘

Bald Assertion’ fallacy.

 

    

there is no such thing as a bald assertion fallacy but you are simply wrong what I said is neither a bald assertion or a fallacy.
again we are talking about the concept the assumption of God's reality has to be made to made to discuss the concept.

 Tassman     

I’ll stick with the commonly accepted definition of ‘supernatural’: 1.(Of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature:a supernatural being. (Oxford Dictionary)     

 

Meta
I've already proved it's wrong. read the link you are just saying "I'll stick with the popular misconception." just like an atheist love to be wrong.

(see the three links above)

 

Tassman

No thanks. I’ll forgo your ‘Proofs by Verbosity’     

(broken record--for those remember records)


Meta

ok class what kind of person makes bold aggressive comments and you prove him wrong refuses to read the evidence in front of his face? Um a Trump supporter?

 skip several more go-rounds

Originally Posted by Tassman

The concept of the supernatural was indeed different before the advent of modern science. Now it’s irrelevant.

 

Meta:

of course it's relevant what the Christian idea is because that's what you are arguing is the untruth of Christian ideas. you are making straw man argument

Tass

Links please!

 

    

Meta: to the studies? http://www.amazon.com/dp/0982408714/



Tass

The seeming experience of the mystical is purely brain activity. It’s based upon wish fulfilment, auto-suggestion and is purely subjective.

Meta:
 there's a whole chapter [in my book] disproving that in the book. essentially the studies showing mystical experience is good for you and valid are controlled. Study instrument called "the M scale" proves a true mystical experience fro, a false one. The studies that reduce the experience to brain chemistry are not controlled and don't use the M scale. Thus they can't probe they are dealing with real mystical experience.

Tass

It can also be induced by certain types of epilepsy or hallucinogens,

 

    

Meta:
false. Drugs facilitate but do not cause. there are numerous differences. there's a large portion of a chapter in the trace of God about that too.

Tass

which reinforces the purely material nature of the phenomenon. It exists only in the minds of the delusional.

Meta:
wrong, the studies show measurable results. the effects are real
(what he is saying here is like Bob Dylan's joke psychiatrist tells him "those old dreams are only in your head.")

Tass

What book?

 

Meta: it finals dawns on him

 

    

the one with the studies in it. not paying attention? I linked to it above.

The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman, on amazon

Tass

Nope. You asserted it, you haven’t shown it.

 

    

Meta
yup I did show it. that's what the studies are about, studies are in the book, I keep talking about the book.

Tass

Sigh!

you should be frustrated because your whole smug anti-religious nonsense is just hot air. that is proved by the stuff I've linked to.

[at this point I made an analogy to air bags wh9ich I somehow don't see here]

Tass

Air-bags exist, the supernatural does not.

 

    

Meta:
obviously it does exist because the studies prove it. you are just reciting a mantra

Tass

Any claim, any explanation of an event, falls within the scope of science because science is a method of investigation. That’s Coyne’s argument.

 

 

    

Meta:

that's nonsense. It's clearly double talk because when religious people state beliefs they are talking metaphysics and that's unproved so untrue. when you state your dogma it's "science " and science is always true. Science is not the understanding of reality. It's about one narrow aspect of reality. empirical data about the workings of the physical world.

Tass

Nope. Merely questioning your unsubstantiated claims.

Meta:
that's nonsense. you are doing circular reasoning that's obvious. you have not read a single study but you assert their untruth then use that to assert the untruth of the 52 arguments. You had no valid argument to begin with.

your arguments are all undergirded by dogma rather than facts

Tass

Enough already!

 

    

Meta:
yes, I've cleaned your clock about five times now. why don't you send Old Jery Cyote over here. I would love to debate him.



I saw this statement on Dangerous Idea blog today. It has not6hing to do with Tassman but it describes him perfectly:

March 29, 2016 8:04 AM

B. Prokop said...

Of course, there is always this:

Even after the plain truth has been thoroughly demonstrated, so far as a person is capable of doing, the confirmed skeptic will insist on maintaining belief in his own irrational notions. This is due to either a great blindness, which renders him incapable of seeing what is plainly set before him, or on account of an opinionative obstinacy, which prevents him from acknowledging the truth of what he does see. Thence arises the woeful necessity of going to ridiculous lengths to expound yet more fully on what we have already made perfectly clear, in hopes that we might get through to those who close their minds to reason.

And yet how shall we ever profit from our discussions, or what bounds can be set to our discourse, if we forever fall to the temptation of replying to those who reply to us? We must acknowledge that those who are so hardened by the habit of contradiction will never yield, but would rather reply out of stubbornness, even when they recognize their own error.
(Saint Augustine, The City of God)

 

Atheist Woodstock: "Reason Rally" 2016, Orwellian picnick

This is not from a "reason rally" but it's pretty good picture of what the
"reason rally" is about. Rather the forces it unleashes. This picture has
as much to do with reasoning as does the "reason rally."
\


Here we go again. The one in 2012 was so reasonable. Those people speaking up for reasoming being called to mock and ridicule thi8ngs with which they do not believe yes very reasonable. 24,2016 a small crowd of atheists will descend upon the nation's capital hoping to ignite a movement like the civil rights movement. But the civil rights movement was a just cause about the freedom of a people. The unreasoning rally is about fomenting hatred and ridiculing religious people. The sings are totally hateful. The crowd is, if the one in 12 is to measure it by, there to vent their anger and work up their hatred against God and his people.

The ureteric of it clearly hateful and manipulative. It is designed to do two thing's: (1) to work up anger and hatred against God, religion in general, and people who worship God, along with  a sense of  vindication for such feelings, (2) to create an identification with the deeply held political values such that one is identified with the other. That I do not believe is something Democrats planed on. Politicians know there['s more to be gained by laying on religion beliefs rather than starting at the bottom and working against the tide to change them, No this the theist con game to take the opportunity afforded by the elections' to identify their cause with that of social justice.

One website features a set of statements which are rather mysterious. They seem to be religious beliefs with which they disagree but then depart from that theme and go into things that have nothing to do with religion.

http://reasonrally.org/

Speak Up for Reason! 

Ironic title sense nothing they show or talk about has anything to do with reasoning. Remember atheists are Orwellian, words are codes and mean other things. By :reason" they don't mean a deliberative prices based upon logic and wisdom they mean spouting slogans and brainwashing their adherents more deeply in to the cult.

 

Look at some of the posts from AW under the tab "Orwellian:" to see past atheist Orwellian language. One example is the term "delusional." An atheist admits when they say religious people are delusional they really don't mean clinically diagnosed as mentally ill they just mean looking things stupidly. in other words they create the impression of some real pathology because you don[t tow the party line.

 

 

If you know that you can be a good person without believing in a god …

If you think public policy should be based on scientific evidence, not religious beliefs …

If you support the separation of church and state …

… then join us on June 4, 2016, at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC, for the biggest gathering of nonreligious people in history! Fantastic speakers, comedians, musicians, and tens of thousands of supporters will rejoice together in the growing power of nonreligious voters.

 

Here are some of the slogans, each one is framed by "some people say" and "what do you think." This supplies the impression of deliberation and implies religious people think this.

Big sign says "Bible says stone the gays"

Does it? One would think those loading reason as a lifestyle would actually use some. No one is stoning gays so we must have done some reasoning about it and decided there's a reason not to, This does not bode well for the reasoning folk at the unreasoning rally,

"U.S. Constitution says blacks count as 3/5 of a person."

I realize there are racists in some churches the vast majority of Christians, however, are not pushing any kind of  movement toward reducing the rights of blacks. Not to mention the fact that a .ot of black people are religious. Just why are they saying this?

 

"women don't need the same rights as men"

Those who wish to silence women in the church, to which I am totally opposed, don't really say  they need it but it's God's command. There are count4er voices. The Council on Biblical Equality.

"Some say cheating is ok If everyone does it"

Some

Do they think there's a big Christian movement to cheat?

"Some people say the world is flat"

some people say if you wear a tin foil hat they Martians can't talk to you. We all know there is no Christian movement of flat earthers and the Bible does not say it.

corporations are people

 

No they are not. Tons of Christians oppose that idea. Sure the church has a problem begging over by the right wing but not all Christians have forgotten the Gospel.

We beli

• Public policy should be based on facts, not faith.

• Medical research should be based on scientific rigor, not corporate or ideological influence.

• Being patriotic has nothing to do with believing in a god.

• Religious litmus tests for candidates are wrong.

• Rational thought is important in personal and public life.

• Democracy works best when everyone’s voice is heard.

   These are not matters of theology. No Christian is bound by theologh to make public plicu on faith,.

Join the Reason Rally Voting Bloc Party at Reason Rally 2016!

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-best-signs-at-the-reason-rally#.kfe4RVG9N

Best sings at old reason rally:

Religion is like a penis can't whip it out in public

where is my fucking pony?

Obama Isn't Trying to Destroy Religion I am."

 The whole spectacle of stupidity arrayed in favor of "reason."

Maybe God knows you were too stupid to care for a Pony

 

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.

Atheists Try to Cover Hate and Incredulity.

 Originally Posted by MarkUK

And to read it unaided, i.e. without somebody standing being you constantly interjecting "now, what this means is...". Just read the thing.

If Yahweh inspired a book that couldn't be read without Cliff Notes - living or otherwise - to ensure the "correct" interpretation, that's his own daft fault.

Meta:
right so you see it in the worst possible light. I would also urge you not to seek answer because that is just an excuse to believe. don't to reason or use your mind that's not free thinking. free thinking is when you offer your mind as a slave to reductionist ideology.

recap

*read bible in worse possible light

*don't see answers or try to redeem the Bible.

*a surface level understanding is fine if it leads to hating religion

*avoid people who try to answer the issues because that's just an
excuse to seek truth.

*dont' think or use your mind, submit to leadership of group.

Then we have an exchange with Pixie.

Originally Posted by The Pixie View Post

No, you have missed the point.

If the Bible is nonsense (at least it part) it is not divinely inspired
If the Bible is not divinely inspired, Christianity is wrong

Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
bad mouthing it doesn't prove it's not inspired.

Before you prove it's not inspired you have to know what inspired means.

your only concept of inspired is fundamentalist inerrancy. That is not the only model.

there are others models so your arguments are in vain. they do nothing but tell us the obviuos: be liberal Christian.


PIXIE

http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...=1#post5634791

It does not matter to the argument what you mean by inspired.

Either the content of the Bible has come from God or not. The Bible contains such wisdom as beating your slave to death is okay if he takes more than a few days to die. Such a sentiment cannot possibly originate from a perfect good God, and a perfectly good God who was all powerful would not allow such a sentiment in his book.

the original issue I was responding to was this:

Meta

In other words he's trying to doge the obvious. If fundie inerrancy is the problem it's not necessary. then he say that's not relevant. there are other alternatives, but not for skeptics. the form of Christianity there can ever be is fundamentalism if your form of Christianity doesn't' fit it doesn't matter because we insist that it must be so anyway.

The reason it seems like all there is in the bible is because that's all atheists want to focus upon. Of course they don't spend their time looking at good stuff.

I also pointed out that they only read the bible selectiely. they only talk about passages that trouble us becuase all they care about is working up hatred toward the bible. the don't ever focus on the good stuff like love your neibhor becuase tehy don't want to us to see the good stuff in the Bible. I will link to posts I made just unloading a bunch of the positive verses. Love the enemy, love your neighbor, help people.


 Originally Posted by rossum

The Bible contains both good and evil.

Good: "You shall not kill."

Evil: "You shall not allow a witch to live."

The first is good, the second is not. It has caused, and is causing, many deaths.

rossum

Meta:

I think the witch to live passage is really using the term for "poisoner."

Yes sure that's my point, there are passages that are hard to accept becuase they are foreign to our time and culture. they have to be understand in their context. Then to say "O that's a cout out just read it if makes you feel bad then it's bad" is just a big rationalization and it really just mean "O this foreign stuff makes me feel alienated." That's just a shallow appraisal.

 God’s Heart for the Poor
Deuteronomy 26:6-9

“But the Egyptians mistreated us and made us suffer, putting us to hard labor. Then we cried out to the LORD, the God of our fathers, and the LORD heard our voice and saw our misery, toil and oppression. So the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, with great terror and with miraculous signs and wonders. He brought us to this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey.”
Job 5:8-16

“But if it were I, I would appeal to God; I would lay my cause before him. He performs wonders that cannot be fathomed, miracles that cannot be counted. He bestows rain on the earth; he sends water upon the countryside. The lowly he sets on high, and those who mourn are lifted to safety. He thwarts the plans of the crafty, so that their hands achieve no success. He catches the wise in their craftiness, and the schemes of the wily are swept away. Darkness comes upon them in the daytime; at noon they grope as in the night. He saves the needy from the sword in their mouth; he saves them from the clutches of the powerful. So the poor have hope, and injustice shuts its mouth.”
Job 34:17-19

“Can he who hates justice govern? Will you condemn the just and mighty One? Is he not the One who says to kings, ‘You are worthless,’ and to nobles, ‘You are wicked,’ who shows no partiality to princes and does not favor the rich over the poor, for they are all the work of his hands?”
Psalm 10:14

“But you, O God, do see trouble and grief; you consider it to take it in hand. The victim commits himself to you; you are the helper of the fatherless.”
Psalm 12:5

“‘Because of the oppression of the weak and the groaning of the needy, I will now arise,’ says the LORD. I will protect them from those who malign them.”
Psalm 140:12

“I know that the LORD secures justice for the poor and upholds the cause of the needy.”
Isaiah 25:4

“You have been a refuge for the poor, a refuge for the needy in his distress, a shelter from the storm and a shade from the heat. For the breath of the ruthless is like a storm driving against a wall.”
Isaiah 41:17

“The poor and needy search for water, but there is none; tongues are parched with thirst. But I the LORD will answer them; I, the God of Israel, will not forsake them.”
Jeremiah 9:23-24

“This is what the LORD says: ‘Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight,’ declares the LORD.”
Amos 5:24

“But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!”
Luke 1:52-53

“He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble. He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty.”
Luke 4:16-21

“He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: ‘The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.’ Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, and he began by saying to them, ‘Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.’”
Luke 6:20-21

“Blessed are you who are poor, for yours in the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh.”

Luke 7:22

“So he replied to the messengers, ‘Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor.’”

James 2:5

“Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him?”


Love your enemies

Help others part 1

help others part 2

help others part 3

There are Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics: then There's Atheist Empire Statistics

the very adherence.com pie chart
used by the site under discussion.


One of the stupider atheist tricks that I've seen. Atheists are always trying to inflate their numbers and make it look like there are more of them then there are. That's because they really do bleieve in appeal to popularity, might makes right, but they can't accept that they are only at 3% (that fact remains true). I've seen individual athesits try this on boards, I guess this is where they are getting it. Here is Atheist Empire's list [1]of various reliiogus and non religoius populations:

Major Religions of the World
Ranked by Number of Adherents (2002)

Christianity: 2 billion Islam: 1.3 billion Hinduism: 900 million Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 850 million Buddhism: 360 million Chinese traditional religion: 225 million primal-indigenous: 150 million African Traditional & Diasporic: 95 million Sikhism: 23 million Juche: 19 million Spiritism: 14 million Judaism: 14 million Baha'i: 6 million Jainism: 4 million Shinto: 4 million Cao Dai: 3 million Tenrikyo: 2.4 million Neo-Paganism: 1 million Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand Rastafarianism: 700 thousand Scientology: 600 thousand Zoroastrianism: 150 thousand Source

Wait the stupid is yet to come! Not only all this but they also use as their source the big Pie chart from adherents.com. they link it at the bottom of the list.This is exceptionally stupid becasue written on that chart it says "non religious includes agnostic atheist secular humanist 16% but it also says half of these believe in God!  That means 8% (of non-religous") don't but remember half of those are agnostic (don't know) meaning 4% are atheists! The other 8% of the non-religious do believe in God (theists). That also means the other 8% might also include some who have non theistic views of God such as Panentheism, pantheism, process theology or the like.

Here's what they want to do with their misreading of statistics. On another page (http://atheistempire.com/) they say "850,000,000 people around the world are Atheist, Agnostic or Non-Religious. That's more than 1 out of 10 people, making up the 4th largest belief group." That makes them feel much less like a fringe element. The problem is it's contradicted by the very pie chart they use to prove the stats. They are counting the whole category in that slot (secular, non religous agnostic, atheist--the "nones") as atheists. Clearly they are not the pie chart says they are not. It says half of them believe in God. Yet they are trying to count it as the fourth largest religoius group.

They also assert that "Statistics have shown that the more educated an individual, the less likely they are to be religious or believe in a god. 72% of the National Academy of Sciences members have a 'personal disbelief in god' and another 20% claim 'doubt or agnosticism'" I've dealt with this kind of propaganda on the the Religious  a prori the section devoted to bogus atheist social scinece. I demonstrate study that says professors in American mirror the general population in religious belief (see pie chart on this page the study here) The NAS is self selecting so it's atheist choosing atheists. I also have gallop poll data indicating that if you use liberal definitions of God they  are less atheist.

Latter at the bottom of that first page they also do the prison population scam. I've proved conclusively that the atheist propaganda on that one is a total lie.
Are Christians More Likely to Go To Prison?
Some atheists argue Christians are 40x more likley but
I have proved their stats are fabricated. Page 2
page 3 A discussion about the question "did Swift fabricate
the Data. (Christians more likely to go to Prison)

Switching faiths in Prison is common according to Pew Sutdy

 The orignial statistics were botched. I strongly suspect that the atheist who first put them up fabricated them. Be that as it may Pew study shows people switch religions in prison a lot. No study screens religious belief at intake so they have no way to prove how many were Chrsitians going in. So it could well be that so many become Chrsitians while in prison for various reasons. Some have suggested such a reason is to get parole I've eliminated that. However this is not the only possibility. The Pew study indicates the reason for switching is protection form the group. The original atheist arguemnt was that Christians go to prison in overwhelming numbers so Christianity doesn't help you to be good. While atheists go in such small numbers atheism must help you be good. Now we know they can't prove people are Chrsitians when they go to prison. Atheism is not helping them be good but atheists at least used to be associated with educated people. We are dealing with only 3% of the population any way.





[1] Atheist Empire, "population Statistics: Religions, Atheists and Non Believers." website:
 http://www.atheistempire.com/reference/stats/main.html
 accessed 5/10/14.

Athiet movement reject logic and argument

 


Nothing could be more damning of atheism than it's rejection of logic and argument. they are so tired of losing God arguments they actually are starting to reject the concept of arguing. They already shut down logic as a from of knowledge (science being the only for of knowledge in their minds--scinece requires logic to work).

Originally Posted by Metacrock

you can't answer them.[God arguments] you dont' know enough to answer them. you know you can't that's why you wont. If you had an answer you use it. if you could make an arguemnt that beat it you would make. Look how all of you go after fine Tuning. that's soemthing you can sink your teeth into It's about scinece, it's tangible, no deep thought required. you try to argue it. if you had an argument you would make it.

Bigthinker

They are arguments so they don't really matter; you can make up an argument about whatever you want -that doesn't mean something exists.
Arguments are philosophical, not scientific.
Science deals with evidence and reality, arguments deal with ideas.
You use arguments because you lack the evidence but you believe anyways.

Meta

we have played this game so many times, why long are going to keep putting off God to play your little games?

Bigthinker

As long as you keep putting off presenting evidence of God (and stop wasting your time with mere arguments).

 He disassociates arguemnt from evidence. any argument for God he automatically claims is not evidence becuase it's an argument if you have to answer it it's not proof. He wants DNA samples and fingerprints.you can't separate argument form proof.arguments are means of demonstrating proofs. If you present the kind of evdience you want, absolute becasue a doubt such as DNA samples one could still argue about it. It's still to distinguish that way that arguments are false.


 Steve Chase starts a thread:Argumentum ad Blusterdom

That's a nerd speak phrase meaning "I don't understand your big words." that's a means of turning off arguement. It's used when the other starts making an argument and says stuff you don't understand. This is all extremely anti-intellectual and really shows the intellectual bankruptcy of the atheist movement.

 Here's this weirdness by Royce. I talked about my own idea which I call "Theistic Proto Pan Psychism" that is the idea that reality is a thought in the mind of God. So Royce quicly tries to defalte that by showing it's nothing more than just Panpsychism which is not really about God. He tries to calim that Chalmer's defends what he calls "pan proto psychism." I told him my phrase was proto pan pschism. but he continues to say Chalmers talks about it but he will not use my phrase. he has t say pan proto becuase his way but he just refuses to say my order of the wrods, which allows me to claim that he's not talking about the same thing.


 Originally Posted by Royce

You just confused panprotopsychism with monistic idealism. The two aren't the same, as philosophers such as Galen Strawson and David Chalmers take pains to emphasize.

Meta

No I did not. you don't know what It is I'm talking bout. You have not read the Kore book so you don't know what Newton said bout action at a distance. you are just hopping that something you know of fits but it doesn't. My view is only monistic by default and in a significant sense. Just becuase it is monistic in a way does not mean it excludes creator/cretor distinction, or Trinitiaian thinking.

 Originally Posted by Royce

Chalmers discusses panprotopsychism at length, which you'd know if you'd read either of his books.

Meta

No he dose not because I made it up. It's based upon Berkeley, Gaswami, Newton, More, Libentiz, Melabranch, Bently and others.

get it through your head. Chalmer's does not talk about my idea. look at you said , where did you put the Proto!? I put it in red to show you.

you have the proto in the middle. the idea I'm talking about has the proto at the first. it's a different idea.

I bet Chalmer's doesn't use the "proto" at all.

 Originally Posted by Royce

Chalmers discusses panprotopsychism and thus uses "proto".
Will you continue to deny this?

Meta

I knew if I put up a term that similar to one you knew you would pretend to know all about it. Now you are not even acknowledged the difference in the terms, even though you write it your way ever time. It would kill to write it my way. you are pretending there's no difference.clearly not the same concept. just grow up.you are so predictable. Show me the page number where Chalmers says it?

 Royce

 I already did months ago: http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...28#post4358728.

Congratulations on once again showing you don't read posts and don't read what you're linked to. You'll probably move the goalposts again, as usual

 showing I dont' read posts? He can't even see the difference bewteen proto pan and pan proto. I thought I was the dyslexic. I did get the last word, which I guess on the troll scale means I won.

This is funny,


 Originally Posted by Metacrock

that's just a bait ans switch. proto phenomenal proteirs has nothing to do with with proto pan psychism

get it through your head. I know you are doing to ruin the thread. but you are not becasue edit

you are not even cognizant of the meaning of the terms.

PROTO Pan PROTO PAN PROTO Pan get it through your head.

PROTO Pan PROTO PAN PROTO Pan get it through your head.

PROTO Pan PROTO PAN PROTO Pan get it through your head.

PROTO Pan PROTO PAN PROTO Pan get it through your head.

PROTO Pan PROTO PAN PROTO Pan get it through your head.

PROTO Pan PROTO PAN PROTO Pan get it through your head.

PROTO Pan PROTO PAN PROTO Pan get it through your head.

First, you did claim Chalmers did not discuss panprotopsychism.
Since he does discuss it, you were wrong on that.





 Royce

Second, Chalmers discussed protophenomenal properties and panprotopsychism. So the "proto" is not original to you.

After all that he can't see it? surely he knows by this time the distinction between proto pan and pan proto he's just refusing to do ti my way. which is hilarious. I can still say "not talking about the same thing" he's not for a very simiple reason. the phrase I sued began with THEISTIC!  that's why it'sTPPP. He never noticed or acknowledged. it. Chamler's did nto defned Theistic anything.


Royce

Denying what I've shown to be the case is quite sad.
You can declare victory, as usual, while still not correcting your mistakes. At this point, no one familiar with your posting history would be surprised by your doing that.

 what's even more ironic is that he didn't show anything. He never did quote Chalmers or give a page number.

Atheists Rally around their own, even when hate filled and Fascistic

This morning see my Easter essay (New and original) "Did Mark Invent the Empty tomb?"
On Metacrock's Blog!


I confronted Deist with his support of Hogbosian and his agreement that he would persecute Christians if he could. He says:


Originally Posted by Deist

Wrong, I would allow Christians to babble about talking snakes, God plopping down a fully formed human, even him offing an entire human race in a do over, but if Christians threatened others with hell, damnation and tried to convince they were worthless sinners, I would toss them in the pokey with mandatory decompression and brain cell reordering. I would leave it to the doctors to determine if a lobotomy was needed.

exactly, you would be on a par with Hitler. you are an oppressor. also a hypocrite. It's ludicrously silly to control belief even if you find it repugnant. That just proves you are a dictator.

Even the white citizen's councils of the deep American south didn't try to make wanting integration illegal.


 Originally Posted by Radio1ogy

Sorry Meta you have no evidence that your God has any more validity than the oft-abused flying spaghetti monster. We have evidence to support the claims we make. You do not. That is the simple fact here, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. As usual, I'll ignore the insults.

Meta:

obviously I do. 200 studies from peer reivewed journal done by shrinks, that's good evidence.

nip it in the bud, he's got to nip in the bud they can't afford to have people know that there is such overwhelming evidence.

 Originally Posted by Radio1ogy

As already established, your 200 studies either don't exist or don't support your thesis. Sorry.

 Meta:

aahhahahaahahaha you are uninformed. you made a muck of debunking one study. that's the only one you've seen.. I told you it was not an important one I specif d the fine tiny little minor things I use it t document and they weren't major parts of my thesis. based upon that one work, which you do not understand becasue you underrate it as a study. you colluding "tis' been established that they are all bad!

Here the cretins go at it again. "they either don't exist or don't support the ideas. If they don't exist how can you read them to know they don't support the ideas? I've proved they exist by quoting them in other published sources. That's absolute proof. I also give all of their sources.

thank you for once again proving that atheism is about being ignorant, not thinking, refusing to consider the facts, and supporting ideological brain washing.

the handlers say you must oppose those studies. don't need to thread them, the atheist masters say they are bad.


One study, "it has been established." by your wishful thinking.





 Originally Posted by Deist

One of the central themes of Christians has to do with "experiences". I put it in parenthesis because the word is defined by those claiming to have had them. I think THE most important thing one can do is to examine their beliefs critically and then determine why it is they hold those beliefs, and if they are worth holding onto. Often, we go through life just accepting what others have to say without challenge or scrutiny.

Meta:
Ignorance stikes again! the guy who know nothing about hte subjec ti jsut convienced he doesn't need to read a think. He can tell jus sniffing the air around it that it's no good. He doesn't need to read Maslow, he's convened Maslow is a Chrsitain, anyone who believes the tiniest little bit that realign is ok is a Chrsitain, but at the same time Deist believes there is no standard Christianity. Thus is failure to know hat Maslow is one of the most important, accomplished, famous and greatest anthropologist/sociologists of all time, and is well known not be a christian, makes his little outburst as just that.



Deist

Let us examine this definition, which is one that Meta touts as the central theme and reason he believes there is a generic type God. I say generic because this is also what most Christians do as well. They MEAN the Christian God, but almost all the time the God they refer to is a generic one that could be anything...even the God of Islam, or just a ground of being, which also is left undefined. 

Meta

Of that's BS. Most Chrsitians (especially the fundie kind--here in Texas we have them in abundance) think Allah is evil and is satan. They think Buddha is a competing God, they the toa is a competing God. They think Nomai yo ho ringe quo is a competing God.



Deist

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

Meta

of course he doesn't document Malow saying this. That's because it's totally unscientific. Maslow never said any such thing. he's just reducing the concept to "happy" which is their constant tatic. they can never honestly deal with a concept on it's own terms. they always have to reduce it something else, otherwise it's off script. they can't deal something their atheist handlers have not brain washed them on.



Deist

If YOU wanted to be in the group, wouldn't it be advantageous for you to CLAIM a "peak experience"? Who could challenge you, right? Perhaps many of the group have claimed that THEY have had one, and yet they never really explain what the experience was. So, you realize YOU can do the same thing, be considered important, and be a card carrying member of the group. If I were to use the above definition, even I have had more than one "peak experience". Since I would never be called upon by the group to explain my alleged "peak experience" (because they don't want to have to explain theirs, either), I get to be perceived as special and important, perhaps even chosen by the number one entity that the group claims they worship. I'm "in" like flint with no further discussion. 

 Meta

He's spouting this drivel about this stuff that he has never experienced for himself. He's talking about it as though it' so stupid you just don't need to confront it when you are awake. Go take a nap and see what's wrong with it. he's deeply insightful he doesn't have to read books to know everything.

Blythely unaware that it's scientific. Of course he doesn't read anything so how could he know it is? Because he keeps himself unaware so wont have to confront how wrong he is and really study about it. They don't have 200 studies (plus) for nothing. It's because it is a complex subset that has been scientifically a great deal. There's a huge body of empirical work about it.


Deist

Conversely, if I never had a "peak experience", I may be considered less than the others; an outsider, perhaps unworthy, uneducated, need to read the bible more, not devoted. Thus, one MUST have had a "peak experience" to be in the clique, and there is no downside to claiming one, because claims are a dime a dozen and go unchallenged by the group. 

Meta

His silliness leads him to assume that having such an experience is some kind of mark of spiritual acumen in the chruch. He has no concept how what churches ar4e like. If you that I invent to go to first Baptist in Dallas and tell them you had a peak experience and see who salutes you. Totally rampant ignorance.

Deist

I assert I've had MANY "peak experiences". I don't believe in your Christian God, or ANY God that is personal or imparts anything to me or in me. I, and I alone give myself my feelings. 

Meta

Perhaps you have had a peak experience, but the fact is that people who do have them are not disrespect mocking creep who deal honesty with other people's experiences. They studies show that people have them are more open to others, more understanding, intuitively compassionate, caring, willing to accept others, no silly know it alls who refuse to learn. They are better educated, more successful and tend to grow a social conscience. I find it highly unlikely that you have had such an experience. The fruits are not there.

I do see some green eyes looking longingly at what I have and what Christians have and some sour grapes.


_______________

 A note on defintion
 where Deist got his definition:

http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/relexp...w_maslow01.htm

this guy starts off with an anecdotal quoteefined as “moments of highest happiness and fulfillment,” not only does he then write a whole article about it but Malow himself wrote a whole book about it. So we find can a more sceitnfic and exacting definition if we cared to. In that book Maslow does link to religious experience and mystical experience. I've documented that before in answering Backup's charge that Peak is not mystical and not religious.











 "Abraham Maslow, Religions, Values and Peak Experiences."
by  Tim Knepper, 2001. accessed today.

http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/relexp/reviews/review_maslow01.htm

in that artilce Maslow's defintion is summarized:

And, in Maslowian-speak, peak-experiences are identified as temporary moments of self-actualization; the peak-experiencer “becomes in these episodes most truly himself, more perfectly actualizes his potentials, closer to the core of his Being, more fully human” (TBP, 106). It should also be noted that Maslow recognizes a new type of “peak” experience in RVPE – the plateau-experience. Unlike peak-experiences, plateau-experiences are serene and clam, always possess a noetic and cognitive element and – as the name indicates – are temporally distended.

As for the relationship between peak-experiences and organized religion, Maslow believes that the origin, core and essence of every known “high religion” is “the private, lonely, personal illumination, revelation, or ecstasy of some acutely sensitive prophet or seer” (RVPE, 19). “That is to say,” continues Maslow, “it is very likely, indeed almost certain, that these older reports, phrased in terms of supernatural revelation, were, in fact, perfectly natural, human peak-experiences” (RVPE, 20). Nevertheless, world religions tend towards polarization, with the privately religious “peakers” on one side and the institutionally religious “non-peakers” on the other. Maslow goes so far as to call peakers and non-peakers “the [two] religions of mankind” (RVPE, 28). Moreover, public organized religion is not only secondary but also harmful to private peak-experiences (RVPE, 28).

Finally, Maslow is of the opinion that all peak-experiences are essentially the same: “To the extent that all mystical or peak-experiences are the same in their essence and have always been the same, all religions are the same in their essence and have always been the same. They [religious practitioners] should, therefore, come to agree in principle on teaching that which is common to all of them, i.e., whatever it is that peak-experiences teach in common (whatever is different about these illuminations can fairly be taken to be localisms both in time and space, and are, peripheral, expendable, not essential). This something common, this something which is left over after we peel away all the localisms, all the accidents of particular languages or particular philosophies, all the ethno-centric phrasings, all those elements which are not common, we may call the ‘core-religious experience’ or the ‘transcendent experience’” (RVPE, 20). Where descriptions of peak experiences differ, Maslow pays “no attention to these localisms since they cancel one another out,” “taking the generalized peak-experience to be that which is common to all places and times” (RVPE, 73). Moreover, Maslow believes the data from peak-experiences may one day offer a solution to the problem of cultural relativity insofar as the “B-values [the values inherent in Being-itself] derived from peak-experiences, as well as from other sources, may supply us with a perfectly naturalistic variety of ‘certainty,’ of unity, of eternality, of universality” (RVPE, 95). “B-values may well turn out to be defining characteristics of humanness in its essence, i.e., the sine qua non aspects of the concept ‘human’” (RVPE, 95).

Deist wants to turn him into a Christian but he is well known as an atheist and close to being a Buddhist.