the great thoughts of brilliant athesits

these geniuses are on theology web and there's a sample of the devastating arguments they make agianst my fine tuning argument. This really killer stuff showing the true intellectual depth of atheists.

Sea sancuary

In reply to this post by Metacrock




I followed a weblink to copious amounts of copy and paste. Ug.

As with all my arguments it's a rational warrant for belief, not proof of God's existence.

Mind if I just skip ahead and grant that? Since we don't know everything about the formation of the universe, there is room for a divine possibility and therefore it is rationally justifiable to hold such a view.

Of course I maintain there is also plenty of room for a non-divine possibility to it is rationally justifiable to hold that view as well.

SS again:


Originally posted by Metacrock
ahahahahaa you are so ignoorant! you bee to school? what grade are you IN ? you are in highschool right? man you need to learn a thing or two.

the things you saw on that page were written by me. that is what we call "research." it's was in debate is known as 'evidence." it' s documentation. that means we prove our opinion by quoting experts and studies and people who know. we show where we got the quotea so you can look up and know tis' not a lie. this is what one is supposed to do in dabet. it' not cuttin and apsting little child it is actually donig waht accacmeics do, its' documenting.

If your writing is academic scholarship, I must confess my unfamiliarity.




Lao Tsu

Spellchecker's are free.


Lao again:


Originally posted by TheologicalDisc
It's funny how I said atheism is inherently immature and it is even more funny how both atheists Amen'd the guys post that acts like he doesn't know what that sentence means.

Freaking clueless, thy name is Metacrock, and TD is thy prophet.

Lao Tsu again:

Excuse me for putting your post through a spellchecker. It's a built-in feature on Firefox and those red underlines were a bit much to read through. You really should try it sometime. Even LilPix does it now. As it is, you're forcing your readers to repeatedly stop short in order to translate your posts before moving on. I'm not sure what to recommend to make your grammar more parsable.

again


Originally posted by Metacrock
I am not doubting that he's a Ph.D. student.

Originally posted by Metacrock
The people who claimed they were Ph.D. students ...

Originally posted by Metacrock
so typical.

Unwitting irony award winner.

lao Tsu again


In response to the question, "What part of 'unwitting irony' does Metacrock not understand?" we observe the answer is "both." That's a useful summary of this thread. Certainly, most of the comments you've received in this thread have been somewhat oblique, but that's a fairly natural reaction when engaged with one who doesn't appear to be firing on all cylinders.

You do realize your blog post is unintelligible, don't you? Even stepping in lightly one finds you've created a quagmire. The outline is garbled (A, B, C, D, IV, 1, 2, 3 ...). Quotes are chopped off — what did Polyakov say? How much of A was quoted from Davies? Why is Koons cited "again"? References are footnoted out of order when they're footnoted at all.

again"

You've got Davies characterized as a "believer." You don't seem to realize the "Mind of God" derives from a description of the long-sought "Theory of Everything" by another well-known atheist physicist, Stephen Hawking. This derivation is incomplete as well, as Hawking was merely rephrasing Einstein. Yes, physicists use religious language. It doesn't make them religious adherents.

I did nto say Davies was a Chrsiain, I never said that. He is a believer, he's a theist. He's been one since the wrote the mind of God. try research next time..

to that bit of mindless bs philosophical pop sycle says:

Game. Set. Match

o yea, what an astrounding aray of brilliant arguments. O that just showed me didn't it? you have' all the old saws and popular truisms on your side, no need to do any thinking is there? you don't need tought when you are cool, Doooooooode!

Philosophickle

In reply to this post by Metacrock

who could match wits with those guys?

Educate yourself: Hug a Dyslexic Today

Im getting tired of dealing with stupid people who think that spelling is intelligence. I'm tired of every time I make a good criticism of atheists they come back with personal attacks on my dyslexia, as though attacking disabilities is ok as long as the person isn't in a wheel chair. Here's a thing I wrote back when I had patience for dealing with ignorant fools. "Hug a Dyslexic today" from Metacrock's Blog.


Dyslexia is not the result of low intelligence. An unexpected gap exists between learning aptitude and achievement in school. The problem is not behavioral, psychological, motivational, or social. People with dyslexia also do not “see backwards.”

Neartheast Tarrent country Dyslexia Council

People are odd. They are always confusing emotional reason with logical ones. One poster sends in a comment, which I did not publish because I will not publish comments that are attacks on personalities. This all knowing commentator deems to know that event hough I'm Dyslexic I still "just being lazy," when bad spellings appear in this blog. Let me clue you in on something, a person who does not have to look up every word he uses has no right to speak of Lazy to dyslexic. No dyslexic could get as far as I got in school and be lazy, because to get that far without spell check means I did a hell of a lot of looking up. I did not have a computer until I was in doctoral work. that means I got my Masters degree while typing on a typewriter and looking up ever word in the dictionary or paying someone to proof the papers.

This poster wasn't there in class with me as a child in the 1960s when no one knew what dyslexia was, and when teachers humiliated me for being lazy. I got my little butt whacked with a board because I was lazy. I was lazy because I looked at the words on the paper I could not see the same thing thing the teacher saw. Just imagine you are wearing special glasses that scramble the words you look at. you can't take them off they are somehow attacked to you. So what good would it do to look up words when the definition will have mistakes in it? This commentator, the all knowing one, was not there when the teacher would call on me to read and I was in a six grade class and only read on a second grade level. Why is she calling on me anyway? Then making some snide comment about "this is how not to be." Everyone was laughing their little heads off. But I'm lazy. I'm just so lazy I just love to be humiliated in class. Hearing classmates whispering "he must be really stupid." It was so fun being hauled down to the principle's office and told i was bad, and I lazy I was no good and then having my butt whacked with a big board for some reason I could not phathum.

This was before anyone got any special treatment for being "challenged." No one with a problem was "challenged" in those days, they did not have that concept. If you could not walk you were crippled. If you had a problem they did not understand you weren't trying hard enough. This all knowing commentator who deems to decide that I am lazy was not there when a fine loving mother driven to despair because her two little twin boys has some strange problem no one could understand, would jump up an down literally thrashing the table with her belt (she never hit us with it) and banging her head on the fridge cried "maybe you are lazy!." I would think, as the horror that he one person who still believed in me didn't anymore, and I would whine "I'm sorry I'm bad mommy!" But the all knowing one knows all about this I"m sure. He must know because I didn't. I had no idea what they were talking about because when I looked at the words they didn't say the same things. "Saw" was "was" and Elise was Elsie, and 29 was 92 and so on.The authorities of the school board had a talk with my parents. They already had it worked out, either we were restarted or we were lazy. they sent us to a testing place, certain that the test would show our IQ's were lower than average. The testing people had a nice little chat with us. I remember they were really friendly and I liked what we were talking about. So I got into it and chatted amiably. My mother would keep saying "I they are smart. I know they are."

They kept dragging other researchers in and saying things like "tell him what you think about Daniel Boone," or "explain to Dr. so and so why oil floats on water." I knew the answer because my father told me. My Dad was a tool design engineer in air craft. He loved to give long winded technical explanations. My eyes would glaze over and I would think "I'm sorry I asked." But tried really hard to remember what he said. The funny testing people said we were "geniuses." They said there was no way we could be restarted. They told my mother our IQ's but she wouldn't tell us at first. They were real high. Then the people back at the school decided to work on plan B. If we weren't stupid we had to be lazy. My parents worked really hard in all kinds of wasy to get us to learn. They thought lazy meant we needed to be spanked, but they also tried more intellectual activities. When nothing worked they became frustrated and started beating the table as though we would feel the pain through the table and shape up. I know it caused them a great deal an anguish. I made me feel that I must be just bad because they said I was bad (lazy = bad right?).

I remember we first heard of dyslexia because our family doctor had it. He had stories of how hard he had to struggle in the 30's to become a doctor when he could not spell. Through him I guess we found Scottish Rite Children's Hospital in Dallas their "language lab." Back then I think it was called "Hospital for Crippled children" But they can't use that word today. Going to a hospital to have my spelling worked on made me feel that I must be crippled in my head. I was marked out as a special wounded freak from early childhood. I will never forget Luke Waites. He was the great guy. He discovered dyslexia. He wore a while lab coat and ran the "language lab" (which today is named after him). He was my friend he worked at treating every kid in the program like his friend.In those days that was the only program in the country, and it just happened to be where we lived or we would not have gotten to go. When I went to college he wrote a letter to my professors saying I was smart but couldn't spell and that there were scientific reasons why I could not spell. They didn't meet with the Scottish Rite guys once, the had a million meetings. Those guys had to deprogram them of years and years of having it pounded into their heads that something was wrong with us we must be stupid or bad. It was the major thing in my life for a long time in childhood.

I will never forget how happy and relieved my parents were to learn about dyslexia. I will always hear my mother's voice telling everyone she knew over and over "there aren't lazy, they aren't stupid, there's a reason why they can't learn to spell." Even though it was like finding a miracle cure (although one cannot ever get over dyslexia--the language lab just taught us tricks like phonetic spelling)it still made me feel like a wounded special helpless freak. But my parents were so relived. Then began a life long journey of looking up words. This all knowing poster, who must know all of this, even though he was not there, has the nerve to tell me I'm lazy. The one word I would use for that part of my childhood is "anguish."

The little brown shirt atheist thugs on message boards quickly discovered that spelling is a weapon to use against me. "your spelling is horrible." After a 25 post thread in which I've batted down all their arguments, here comes the stuff about spelling, like clock work. That's all they have to say so they use that like a weapon. Even after I got firefox they still say it even when there are no mistakes. I know mistakes get through but clearly its' better. But they still feel called upon to point it out. I even put up a thread saying "isn't my spelling better?" they all agreed they could tell a difference. btw I used to hypothesize when I was a child that someday they would invent a technological device like spell check that would spell for you. I was elated when I first heard of spell check.

When I first got saved I prayed that I would see Mrs. Messenger, my old Scottish Rite Language Lab teacher, so I could tell her "thanks." I'll be damned if I didn't see her in an air port just a few weeks latter! What are the odds? She lived in another part of the country by then, the odds are I would never see her again. I did thank her and told her about the prayer thing. She was really happy.

So this is why I will not post comments telling me "your spelling is horrible."


Here is a link to the best dyslexia site I've found. The NTDC If you think your child might have learning problem I urge you to read this site.

Page by Scottish Rite

Get the best possible rate on your mortgage

Anti-Intellectual Tendencies in Atheism

Adolf Von Harnack, 1851-1930
Major liberal Bible scholar


This is a statement by a troll on a Message board:

In reply to this post by jimbo
Last edited by Metacrock : Today at 03:06 PM .




Fact is, "exegesis" was developed and honed just to thwart such attacks as mine. They are just specious explanations that ARE NOT BIBLICAL! THAT IS NOT WHAT IT SAYS, FOLKS! It is what it says and not just when it is convenient for your position! I don't fall for that "commentary" BS! I now well how to read and interpret things for myself, including the Bible! What we have here is the phenonenon described in the book WHEN PROPHCY FAILS. Read it!

I realize that this guy does not represent all atheists. But I have seen many other atheists reflect this same idea. In fact the whole concept of the "Courtier's reply"


Atheists are always coming up with little gimmicks. Anytime you trump them with real knowledge they get up set and find a gimmick. The Jesus myth theory was such a gimmick. Jesus was such a compelling figure and there is some decent evidence he rose from the dead, so to counter that they just pretend he never existed, and give it a little name and make up some pseudo intelligent sounding crap pertaining to it. The "default" and the "extraordinary evidence credo" these are all gimmicks atheists made up and they are passed off as pseudo official sounding quasi logical tactics that in actuality mean nothing.

The latest is the Courtier's reply. This is it:

I recently referred to the "Courtier's Reply", a term invented by PZ Myers to rebut the claims of believers who insist that their superstitious beliefs are ever so much more sophisticated than the simple version that Dawkins attacks.

PZ's response deserves much more publicity because it goes to the heart of the debate between rationalism and supersition. I'm going to post his original Courtier's Reply below (without permission, but I'm sure he'll understand) but before doing so I need to remind everyone about the original fairy tale [The Emperor's New Clothes]

This is a statement by a reductionist scientism king. Larry Moran is a Professor in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto. He's on a blog called Sand Walk.


So What this courtier's reply is saying is that if the skeptic says stupid things about theology and demonstrates that he knows nothing about it and the theist says "O your criticism is invalid because you don't understand what you are criticizing" then all the atheist has to do is say "that's the courtiers reply" and the theist is supposed to go "O my God, I've violated a law of logic!" and give up and stop believing in God. But in realty it's into a log of logic, I never heard it in a logic class.It's not in a logic text book, and the meaning of it is silly. I'ts just saying 'You can't point out my ignorance of theology because I will not allow theology to have any kind of validity or importance and religious people may not not any sort of human dignity." That's all it's saying. It's nothing more than anti-intellectual stupidity.


Sanders lauds PZ Myers's version of the tactic,Here is Myers statement about it:


The Courtier's Reply
by PZ Myers

I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.

Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.

In other words, knowledge of theological subjects is just plain bull shit and it doesn't matter if Dawkins doesn't understand it because it's not worth understanding. So it's not valid criticism of him to say that. Except the problem is, if he understood theology he would see that his criticisms are wrong. The criticisms he makes are almost always about fundamentalists views. Since he refuses to accept that there are other non fundamentalist types of theology, when you point it out he just says O that's ridiculous because all theology is crap so it doesn't matter--but if he knew that he might not make the criticisms becasue they don't apply. But it's not worthing knowing that. he's just reasoning in a cirlce.

Here's his logic:

Him: religion is evil superstiion because fundies believe X

Liberal: we don't beileve x

him: that doesn't matter becasue religion is all crap no matter what. so even if you don't believe the thing I say is crap you still your own crap that must be stupid because you are religious. I know it's stupid because religion is stupid. Of course that's based on the stuff that you don't believe but that doesn't matter.

Narrow minded anti-intellectual brinkman ship in a most unsophisticated manner.

A very emotionally immature atheist tried this on me recently. Here's how it went.

Brent: All religious people believe in big man in the sky.

Me: process theology doesn't believe in big man in the sky

Brent: that's nonsesne all religous people do so they mustt.

Me; you clearly don't know enoguh about theology to say that

Brent: Courteiers reply! Courtiers' replay!

Like some magic king'x X that's suppossed to mean something. Clearly it's stupid because they are only trying to dodge the fact that their criticisms are based upon things they don't understand and that don't apply. Its' an attempt to hide their ignorance. They are committing an informal fallacy with the use of this gimmick. It's called "ipsie dixit." It means "truth by stipulation." They are saying in effect "I simply stipulate that I will not allow you to have knowledge. AT this point on your knowledge is now void becasue I declare to be so, since it's religion and religion is stupid."

Again their reasoning is quite circular since the reasons they would give for reducing religion to superstition don't' apply to modern sophisticated theology, but the fact that it can be labeled "theology" and they don't even know what that means, they stipulate that it must be stupid. So even though their reasons don't apply they just demand that they must do so any way.

Again they are merely stipulating truth and insisting they are right without any just reasons. It's idiotic to try and criticize a whole field you know nothing about. To make up for appalling ignorance they imply a third rate gimmick that is actually made up of two informal fallacies: ipsie dixit and circular reasoning.


This anti-intellectual tendency is not confined to this one tactic. The new tactick, which I have noticed for a few years now, is to deny any sort of discipline of scholarship that has developed within the theological community. So any self defense that a believer could make is automatically suspect and wrong merely becasue it is theological. But then one wonders how the skeptics knowledge that theology is all bull shit could ever have developed in the first place? When we consider the history of Biblical scholarship it becomes clear that the atheists are merely arguing in a circle.

The history of scholarship shows us that it was not invented in answer to pressing atheist attacks on the bible. There was no body of talented intelligent atheists pressing for a logical reading of the bible in the days before modern Biblical scholarship. Modern scholarship grew out of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment in answer to the re-birth of classical learning and the advancement of scientific knowledge. One of the first modern textual critics was Erasmus. Erasmus, who live din Rotterdam in the Northern Renaissance, never had a body of atheists to contend with. The major scholars who created modern Biblical scholarship in the 19th century were arch liberals and practically skeptics themselves, such as Von Harnack. So clearly scholarship is a trick to protect the bible from the "brilliant, Penetrating analysis" of these arrogant know nothing who are too lazy to read a couple of books.

This tendency in atheism, the revenge of the trolls shows the true intellectual bankruptcy of Dawkamentalism. They are actually spitting on their own roots when they say since, since modern skepticism and modern Biblical scholarship both grew out of Renaissance humanism. Clearly so when they don't even know that just ten years ago their predecessors on atheist boards (secular web for example) lauded liberal Bible scholars such as John Dominick Crosson. They will quote the Jesus seminary guys without even know these are Bible scholars, this is the product of Biblical scholarship.

Loftus closes Debucking Christianity to Outside Opinion

He made this move last week or so. The reasoning is what he describes as growing hotility and personal attacks. In his own words (see April 20):

I’ve been online arguing for about five years or so. When I first got online in some forums and on some Blogs I was personally attacked and mocked because I revealed a lot of damaging information about myself in my previously self-published book, which was picked up by Prometheus Books, and is getting some astounding reviews. I was also impersonated as saying horrible things, which I never said. I was repeatedly lied about and personally maligned. So I felt compelled to defend myself and attacked back. It's an interesting phenomenon really. I post under my real name. So when personally attacked I can and did attack back. When I did so other readers thought to themselves what childish behavior of me, not considering how they would feel or respond to these personal attacks if they were to post in their real name. Some of the relationships I had with people who attacked me has degenerated to the point where all I do any more is blast them for their idiocy and deceit. I really do not care at all about some of these idiots.

These personal attacks are getting stronger and more and more desperate with each passing week, probably because I'm making a difference. And the Christians doing so are increasingly becoming frustrated because I will not link to them or mention their names, since they want to be noticed. A few of them have come out of the sewer of a particular forum to post comments here that are disrespectful and slanderous in order to disrupt the decent, civil discussion I have always wanted between believer and non-believer. They think that atheists are angry and malicious people. But I appear to be decent and civil, until personally attacked, and I am. Unlike other atheists who just don’t give a damn, I do. I suppose that galls these ignorant Christians to no end. This can’t be, that an atheist cares about a civil, reasonable, and respectful discussion of the ideas that separate us. But I do. I have only wanted this. For this very reason I have gained the respect of many intelligent, educated Christians who would much rather deal with my kind of atheism following the likes of Bertrand Russell, J.I. Mackie, and former atheist Anthony Flew, than with the so-called new atheists, especially the many younger ones, who dismiss all religions out-of-hand along with all of the people who believe them to be completely stupid and ignorant. I don’t think believers are stupid nor ignorant, although some of them are, as are some skeptics, and I admit this. I even link to several Christian apologetics sites in our sidebar, which can provide some answers to our arguments, at least from a Christian perspective. You don’t see other skeptical sites do that, and you most emphatically don’t see Christian sites do that in most all cases.

I emailed him and told him I can appreciate his frustration. I'm sure some readers of Atheist Watch are expecting m to mock John for this move, or at least to chide him. While I don't think it's a good move, I can deinately empathize with his feelings. I think the net takes a tool. There's a vast over suppoly of stupid people on the net, and neither side, atheist or Christian has a monopoly on being stupid.

I'm sorry John has closed the site to comments becasue it will greatly lessen the abilitiy to contact them with links to counter articles. They may never know I've countered something they said, (which I certainly intend to continue doing). But on the other hand, I can still email John and tell him.

while I have thought many times about just killing my blogs and not doing this anymore because of the constant negative materail people are always putting on here. On the other hand I htink critics are good. It's good to have critics. I am sorry John feels this frustration and I not putting him down for it. I hope he will change his mind soon. But for examle I think Hermit contributed something good to this blog in keeping me from just running wild with my sense of anger. I hope Jhon will re consider.

Ninteeth century Features in Atheist Thinking

discussion on tweb Me vs Psychic Missile. Noteworthy because this person is arguing like a 19th century structural functioanist. It's indicative of a lot of atheist thinking..

Originally posted by Psychic Missile Why don't all religious people have this experience? they probably do to some extent. But the benefits are probably in proportion to the extent of the experince. Some estimates are as high as one in four have some version of it. But the one's who get the benefits are more open to it. Are more religious people more likely to get it than less religious people? Many times it results in conversion. So a large portion or not religious when they have it then become so. The percentage of atheists who have this kind of experience is very small. We are talking like 3% of RE people remain atheists. Larger percentage are atheists when they have it and then find God as a result. Does on religion have more followers who have had this experience? I don't expect you to answer these questions (if you can that'd be great) just think about what their answers could be. all of those are answerable in the data. I haven't seen a break down of which tradition has the most mystics, but it would be possible to do the research. they all have them. All religious traditions have some. I thought researchers were well aware that you can't depend upon your subject telling the whole truth. not the same thing, they can control for margin of error. In fact I think this is known by all statisticians When I say they're self-reported, I meant done by survey or questionaire. Nobody followed these people around to see if the claims were true or the people just thought they were but they weren't or people want others to think it's true, etc. In some they follow them around in a sense, they didn't' really but they did it under controlled conditions and watched. How do you think it would be possible to observe if someone senses the numinous? that's a silly idea. why would people lie about it, and how would they know to make their lies conform to the M scale? how many people are going to research the M scale and then get in a study so they can fake it? You misunderstand, I mean the feelings could be felt by a person recovering from mental illness, not that that's an explanation for the study. but the characteristics of experiences don't match those of the mentally lill. Several studies have addressed this and all of them conclude mystical experince is not mental illness. there are not a bunch of instances where people get over mental illness and then get their lives on tack and are transformed. Mental illness is debilitating not transformative. It's not all that common that people over it at all. No surprise there, mental illnesses tend to take up a lot of a person's time. mental illness makes up people's teeth? what? But there's no evidence of the divine being involved rather than it being purely psychological. Noooooo, try listening. There evidence that it invovles the divine. (1) the content is about the divine (2) the effects are what we expect from the divine (3) this kind of thing is why religion exists to begin with, thsi is how they got the idea of religion (4) the experince is real. since its real and the content is about God we should assume God is in it. Just as if I wake up with memories of a car wreck and the car is wrecked that's a good indication that i had a car wreck. Did the studies conclude that the source of the feeling is divine? Not their job as shrinks to do that. privately some of them do feel that way. I've had extensive email correspondence with some of the major researchers. they believe it does prove God. I fully accept that religion can make people feel a sense of belonging, purpose, etc. and that religion can give people some sort of really happy feeling or whatever you claim it is, but there is no evidence that it's based in the divine. Psychology is a hobby of mine, and anyone who has studied it knows what amazing feats it's capable of. Religious experience is no more evidence of God than sleep paralysis is evidence of ghosts or succubi. No, you can't show me another example with studies where people get self actualized from must one experince. again, how many times? (1) content o the experince involves God (2) the reason religion exists in the first place is becasue of this kind of experience (3) the experince is real so it's logical to assume the cause relates to the content. that is a logical assumption. [red]that was my only claim, that it is logical to assume based upon the effects of the experince. It conforms to the basic criteria by which we make epistemic judgements. that means we can and should trust it.[/color] If you think I'm wrong and you do care about facts and stuff then kindly start listening and take account of what i say. Originally posted by Metacrock I made it pretty clear that these are studies of people who have had certain kinds of experinces, not just any old believer! Why don't all religious people have this experience? Are more religious people more likely to get it than less religious people? Does on religion have more followers who have had this experience? I don't expect you to answer these questions (if you can that'd be great) just think about what their answers could be. NO! they are not self reported. why don't you try reading it? they the resut of many many studies, so they have lots of different kinds of methodologies. But taking a survey or answering a questionaire is a standard social practice and its' considered a valid research tool. why don't you go read smoething about how social science is done? I thought researchers were well aware that you can't depend upon your subject telling the whole truth. In fact I think this is known by all statisticians When I say they're self-reported, I meant done by survey or questionaire. Nobody followed these people around to see if the claims were true or the people just thought they were but they weren't or people want others to think it's true, etc. They compare the eperiences of those who have experienced with those who have not. they show that those who have don't have mental illness, or that its not a prevalent among them. You misunderstand, I mean the feelings could be felt by a person recovering from mental illness, not that that's an explanation for the study. they did study that. they did check that. you are wrong you are totally wrong. they found a much smaller incidence of mental illness among religious believers. No surprise there, mental illnesses tend to take up a lot of a person's time. hu? The argument is that it is rational to assume its divine because nothing else in life has this kind of effect. the content is about the divine, the experince is real. so no reason to assume it. when we find that content is real and experinces are real we usually decide the content is true. If I have a memory of a car wreck and my wark is banged up I can assume I did have a car wreck. But there's no evidence of the divine being involved rather than it being purely psychological. NO the specificity point of the studies is compare the two groups, the RE people come out ahead, 350 studies to 0. Did the studies conclude that the source of the feeling is divine? You are merely playing a game: gainsay the evidence. that is not a proper debate procedure. you cannot merely decide to doubt the evidence because you don't like it. I documented my clamis. you are just out gunned and you can't accept it. I fully accept that religion can make people feel a sense of belonging, purpose, etc. and that religion can give people some sort of really happy feeling or whatever you claim it is, but there is no evidence that it's based in the divine. Psychology is a hobby of mine, and anyone who has studied it knows what amazing feats it's capable of. Religious experience is no more evidence of God than sleep paralysis is evidence of ghosts or succubi. It's not the job of shrinks to say if it is of God. But the argument is that God can be inferred by the content of the experinces and the consequences of having the experience.

Dave Ellis Begining to Look like an Idiot.

David B. Ellis said...

You're free to believe that.

Have you ever tried to get one of these essays published in any sort of philosophy journal?

I suspect that anyone reviewing your work for publication in any journal of philosophy of even modest standards would have much the same reaction I have.
April 10, 2009 1:17 PM
J.L. Hinman said...

see this journal?

Negations

wh0 is the publisher?


Editorial Staff

J.L. Hinman — Publisher

Tim Wood — Managing Editor

Ray Hinman — Poetry Editor

Jim Bratone — Special Editor

Lantz Miller — Book review Editor

Fran Carris — Copy Editor

Patricia Miklos — Copy Editor

Roger Thompson — Proofing


why would academics associate with a publication like that I'm such an idiot and my articles are so stupid?

here's the editorial board. you can see this on the website but just to make sure you look at it.

Editorial Board

Alex Argyros — Literary Studies, University of Texas at Dallas

William S. Babcock — Director, Graduate Program in Religious Studies, Southern Methodist University

Charles R. Bombach — History of Ideas, University of Texas at Dallas

David Channell — History of Ideas and — Philosophy of Science, University of Texas at Dallas

William Gibson — Sociology, University of California at Santa Barbara

Susan Heckman — Dean of Graduate Program in Humanities, University of Texas at Arlington

Frederick Hotz — Philosophy, Collin County Community College

Lorraine Kahn — Formerly Visiting Scholar in Film, Institute of Industrial Relations, The University of California at Berkeley

Barry Katz — Formerly Professor of Philosophy, Stanford University

Marcia Landy — Department of English, University of Pittsburgh

Kevin Mattson — Ohio University; formerly, Rutgers University

Greg Miller — Communications, San Diego State University

James O’Connor — Professor of Economics, The University of California at Santa Cruz

Jim Perkinson — Historical Theology, University of Detroit

Brian Spitzberg — Communication, San Diego State University

Trudy Struenegle — Kent State University

Theodore Walker — Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University

Victor Worsfold — Ethics, University of Texas at Dallas



You will find articles by me in there. Now that's not big deal since I"m the publisher. Even though it was blind submitted and they actually did turn me down on one and I didn't publish it. I don't expect you to believe that.

but ask yourself, why would they risk ruining their careers by publishing in a journal ran be me if I 'm so stupid and no one likes my stuff? why would they do that?

I'm sure that you don't a big name from a hole in the ground but several of those people were big names in their fields.


Now what do academics think of my book? Ralph Hood the major guy who researchers religious experinces, has read the book, the book is about the personal experience studies and thinks said "It's good." He said "I will help you find a publisher." Why would he say that if the thinks I"m stupid?

why would he stick around and help through all the chapters if thought it was stupid?

Alex Argyrox who studied wtih Derrida once said that one of my papers was "the finest paper I've ever seen." I told him the TS argument he said it was brilliant.

why is it so hard for you little ego to come to terms with the fact that you are not smart not well educated. you don't as much as me and your not amazingly brilliant like you think you are and you are real narrow minded?
April 10, 2009 1:41 PM
David B. Ellis said...

LOL

Let me get this straight. I ask you if any credible philosophy journal would publish any of these shoddily written, rambling essays on arguments for theism and, instead, you point me to the fact that the only way for you to get anything published in a journal is to create your own?

That's supposed to establish your credibility?

Again, I invite you to submit one of your theistic argument essays to a credible philosophy journal.

I think we both know it would be rejected.
April 13, 2009 9:21 AM



I think you are asshole. First of all, you totally ignore the fact that I was fucking publisher and these other academics singed on and published in it and were assocaited with it. that tells me you don't know from shinola about acadmeic anything. You don't know what hard it is to get published because you are a little coward and never tried. You are a little uneducated coward who has never been to college and didn't try.

show me me the journals you got published little genus when you did you win your nobel prize?

Whining little cry baby has been exposed as the ignorant know nothing that he is. He can' stand it so now it's time to turn to mocking an insults. why don't you email some of those guys I named on there and ask them if they think I'm an idiot. why don't you dod that coward. Cowardly custard.

for Loren: None so Blind

March 19, 2009 2:38 PM
Delete
Blogger Loren said...

Metacrock, as to "hate groups", you ought to think of why you were banned from IIDB (now FRDB). It was because of your behavior, not because of any doctrinal grounds.

April 12, 2009 3:14 AM
Delete
Blogger J.L. Hinman said...

No sweetie pie that is what they want you to think but they lied. It's because I converted someone.

It happened on the same the person said he was convinced. I had been rude before. they never even came close to doing that. Then they lied about what I said, they lied about what they said, they started an organized campaign to destroy my reputation.

atheists are liars. they never understand what they do. they can insult you with any name they wan to call you. they can say "you are a stupid piece of shit" and they never never never admit they were rude or at fault. If you fight back you are a terrible horrible person.

they will gang up on you 20 people to one, and call you all kinds of names and say the stupidest things and the most outrageous things if you fight back you are just horrible.

It's obvious what they are doing. open your eyes and look at it.

Loren, why don't you take me up on my challenge. Go to an atheist message board, pretend you are a Chieftain and see how they treat you!

i've been making that challenge for years and no one has ever done it.