Thursday, August 9, 2012

Atheists Lauch Effective Scam Against Atheistwatch

this site is being attacked by an organized effort of atheist to drive it out of business. This is made known to me by a poster on the other blog, Dave.


This site now has a very low rating on the WOT (Web of Trust) browser ad on. Those who have the add-on are warned that it is rated as untrustworthy and asked if they still want to visit. Link
Looking up "wot" they have mostly stuff on detecting mal ware but they do some ratings on content. I also find most the way ratings are given is through members of their thing who vote on sites or report sites. So if we want a good rating, we organize a bunch of apologists to going wot and send in good ratings then we get the rating up.

There's no way to know if they actually go to the site and say "this is not good." Or do they just take their members word? did they actually look up the research I presented in the articles? there's no way to know. We know that atheist organize attacks. they organize to give books on Amazon low marks even thought hey didn't read them. They organize to have hundreds of roles on "read it' say "my site is stupid even they have no idea what they are talking about.

So they had a bunch of member join wot and give the site low ratings. Does that prove anything?

It prove atheists can organize and that they are vicious. It's nothing than a high class form of intimidation.

here's their page where they get the link to look at Atheist watch and see the rating on WOT.

they have their guys join WOT then give AW a low rating. wow that's a scame of their own. there's no way to know they are actually checking the research.

Join WOT and give it a good rating.

the rating for something called "vendor reliability." what does that mean? It means atheists organized a bunch of trolls to lie and say that I don't' know nothing.

here's an example o their extortion. they have a part where the site own cancer the 'charge' they are a bunch of vigilantes. but you have to join to say something to them. It's just a way to force people to join their group.

the organized atheist hate group are a gang of thugs they will stop at nothing.


WOt may be a fine thing but it looks like it's something a group could orchastrate. you can effect your site's rating when you join.

Your website's reputation rating is based on ratings from the WOT community, which tells you how much other users trust your site. A website's technical safety is an important factor when determining its trustworthiness. However, it is also a valid reason to rate a site poorly if you do not trust the content or organization behind a website. We provide our users rating guidelines, but in the end it is up to every person to decide what they consider trustworthy.

If you disagree with the rating or comments, we encourage you to do the following things:

  • Rate the site and write your own comment on the scorecard. Explain that you are the owner or employee of the company and why your service is trustworthy.
  • You can also ask your friends and customers to rate the site. In order to rate sites you need the WOT add-on. To comment on scorecards and post on our forum, registration is required.
  • Contact community members through their boards on the profile page and ask them to review or explain their comment and rating. You have to be logged in to do this.
  • Open a forum thread and ask our active members to review the site too. The more ratings your site has, the more accurate the reputation rating will be.
  • To be sure nothing is wrong, check if your website has been blacklisted by Google with a free scan from StopTheHacker



they claim this:


"WOT reputations are calculated based on a sophisticated algorithm that effectively detects manipulation. Keep in mind that reputations cannot be bought, they have to be earned! If you suspect unusual activity, please report it.

Note: Comments are purely informational and have no effect on the reputation. We do not remove comments unless they contain spam, profanities or clearly illegal material."

they also say it's up the to the individual to determine what they trust so what are they really rating? the rating is given based upon members so if they have a group of five atheists as members they can just rate the sight badly and it will have that rating.

then if that's true why do they give tips?

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

M Scale Proved by My Own Test

The M scale (mysticism scale) is a method for determining weather or not one has had a personified mystical experience. It was invented by Dr. Ralph Hood Jr. of University of Tennessee Chattanooga. That's a secular university and Hood is a psychologist not a Christian and not a minister. The M scales gives us validty for religous experience because it enables us to know if one has really had one or is just "wool gathering." This means we now have a control for the experience so we can study it's effects. The M scale was developed in the early 70s and was re-developed in the 80s with what is called "the three part solution. " It's been used since that time and has become one of the standard procedures. Hood is a big name in his field.



Dale Caird
originally in journal for the Scientific study of religion 1988, 27 (1) 122-126

Research into mystical experience has been greatly facilitated over the last decade by Hood (1975). Utilizing the conceptual framework of Stace (1960) he devised a 32 item questionnaire tapping eight categories of mysticism. This questionnaire the M scale was shown by Hood to have respectable internal consistency and reasonable construct validity.


Michael E. Nielsen, Ph.D.
Georgia Southern University
feb 2000


Ralph Hood (1998), a major figure in American psychology of religion, suggests six psychological schools of thought regarding religion. The psychoanalytical schools draw from the work of Freud, and attempt to reveal unconscious motives for religious belief. Although Freud reduced religious belief to a natural, if ultimately flawed, attempt to cope with life's stresses, contemporary psychoanalytic interpretations are not necessarily hostile to religious faith. Analytical schools find their inspiration in Jung's description of spiritual life. Most psychologists, however, consider such descriptions to be undemonstrated by scientific research, and therefore it plays a limited role in psychology. Object relations schools also draw from psychoanalysis, but focus their efforts on maternal influences on the child. Each of these three schools rely on clinical case studies and other descriptive methods based on small samples, which runs counter to the prevailing practice of psychology in America.

Modern social scientific evidence does not refute the possibility that some mystical experiences are associated with scientifically unknown processes. Parapsychologists have accumulated a body of evidence supporting belief in paranormal phenomena (Broughton 1992). Even though their evidence has been criticized, the existence of universal features within collections of mystical experience accounts supports the argument that some forms of these perceptions are not fully cultural products but have important impacts on religious belief (Hufford 1982, McClenon 1994)


nevertheless this doesn't stop the carm atheists from slandering him.


Originally Posted by MFFJM2 View Post
The M-scale is a joke that purports to measure and determine the validity of transcendental experiences.

Deist: "the M scale is a joke, it's childish and laughable.
Of course these are people who have never read a single word about it.

One of the major issues has been weather or not a study done by surveying respondents can be valid. I quote sources to show that most social scinece research is done this way.

1) the no 1 major research mechanism in social science is written answers to pre conceived questions on a survey, studies, survey questions asked of respondents. that's how it's done! that's the 99% most used way of doing it. it's accepted ti's scientific there's unscientific about it.

http://www.gesis.org/veranstaltungen...summer-school/

GESIS-Summer School Survey Methodology
9-25 August 2012, Cologne, Germany
Objectives

Surveys are the main method of systematic data collection in the Social Sciences. Surveys provide empirical data for researchers to analyse, and are an important source of information for business, charities and policy makers. There are numerous types of surveys suited for different purposes. Given the variety and complexity of survey research, designing and conducting a survey that effectively and efficiently serves a specific purpose requires specialised expertise and skill (as well as a good team). The GESIS Summer School offers high quality training in state of the art techniques and methods of survey research. It aims to equip participants with essential skills in the design, planning, execution, documentation and quality assurance of surveys of households, individuals or organisations




writing guide Colorado State U.

http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/research/survey/

Surveys represent one of the most common types of quantitative, social science research. In survey research, the researcher selects a sample of respondents from a population and administers a standardized questionnaire to them. The questionnaire, or survey, can be a written document that is completed by the person being surveyed, an online questionnaire, a face-to-face interview, or a telephone interview. Using surveys, it is possible to collect data from large or small populations" (sometimes referred to as the universe of a study).



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey_sampling

Statistical survey is a method used to collect in a systematic way, information from a sample of individuals. Although most people are familiar with public opinion surveys that are reported in the press, most surveys are not public opinion polls (such as political polling), but are used for scientific purposes. Surveys provide important information for all kinds of research fields, e.g., marketing research, psychology, health professionals and sociology.[1] A survey may focus on different topics such as preferences (e.g., for a presidential candidate), behavior (smoking and drinking behavior), or factual information (e.g., income), depending on its purpose. Since survey research is always based on a sample of the population, the success of the research is dependent on the representativeness of the population of concern (see also sampling (statistics) and survey sampling).

There is no way they could lie the M scale into validating the words of Stace. What they would have to do to do that is to have read Stace, to know that Hood's scale is about validating Stace, they would have to want to give the wrong information to validate Stace in a bogus fashion, and enough of them would have to want this to do it, in other words an organized movement. The studies were duplicated in Japan, Iran, India, Sweden and other such places. Since Stace has never been translated into those languages and the peasants in Iran for example would have never heard of him (Christian philosopher form UK) why would hey do that. Stace's theory is too complex to just accidentally validate by lying.

To prove this I made up my own survey. My sruve was much more simple than Hoods. It was a one factor analysis. I had 10 questions. six of them were white rabbits and four were about real mystical experience as Underhill discusses it. The object was to validate Underhill. If anyone got the right four questions and these were obviously about mystical experience, anyone with a brain could know which four to answer if they were even thinking about it, would be scored to validate. The misleading questions were designed to make them think I was seeking to validate Pentecostalism. It worked brilliantly. They call assumed that and one answers all four of the mystical questions, although some did get three of them. It's also obvious they were lying about their experiences becuase that was part of the test (they were instructed, lie your way into validating what I"m after).

Bigthinker (so called)
It makes the point that your questionnaire is nonsense. There is nothing objective about it. Your "correct" answers are arbitrary. Meta, its nonsense.
The most important thing is that "mystic" is a meaningless term. Basically, what you are saying is that a person who correctly answers the questions is a real mystic... So what? Outside of your belief system it is meaningless.


you just proved you don't understand any of it. you don't get what it's about at all.

The M scale is about verifying weather or not Stace was right. what did Stace say? He said that mystics are people who experience cert ian things. let's call them x,y,and Z. if you want to know if people have experienced this what do you do> do you tell them You experienced this. "No you have to ask them, see.

that' not self fulfilling they don't have to say it.

you say "did you experience x,y and z they don't have to say "yes I did." they can say "no." It' open ended. not self fulfilling.

but the problem is people suspect "O they are lying." The answer is they can't lie in the right way to validate Stace becasue to do that they would have to answer a series of things exactly right and the odds re vastly agaisnt it.

I proved that this works. I constructed a much much simpler version. the people taking my test have (a) heard me talk about mysticism for years (b) know they are suppose to try and guess in such a way as to validate Underhill and they they could not do it.

So that proves that you can't lie your way to validating Stace on the M scale, which is much more complex than my thing.


The highest possible score is 60. That's because certain questions have no value. There are some questions that if you get them in the right sequence you get 60 and if you only get some of them you don't the mathematical equivalent. in other words if you got all four you get 60 regardless of what else you said but individually they only amount to 10 each. I'll explain why in a minute.



If you get over 40 and up this means you are a real mystic. If get a certain question you are an advanced mystic.

the study used the theory of Evelyn Underhill about the nature of mysticism. I said up front I was going to use a different one than Stace.


so we can remember the questions:

(1) have you had an experience in which you felt yourself as one with all things?

(2) I have had an experience in which everything seemed to disappear from my mind until I was conscious only of a void.

(3) have you ever had dreams about God?

(4) have you ever had a dream in which you saw Jesus or an angel and he told you something?

(5) Do you speak in a language you didn't understand?

(6) Have you ever felt God was very far away and/or didn't exist, and life seemed black and hopeless, after a period of intense religious and spiritual progress in which things seemed revealed to you?

(7) Have you ever heard of voice speaking to you abut god when you were awake?

(8) I have experienced profound joy.

(9) I have experienced a sense of presence as though someone was looking at me, when no one was there, and a sense of being cleaned all over and loved.

(10) have never had an experience which I was unable to express adequately through language.

the answers atheists gave on my test


questions 3,4,5 and 7 are wroth 0. They were red herrings put there to create the wrong impression and get off so they wouldn't understand what I was doing.

Backup had the right general idea but he fell for the red herring becuase he though I'm a so stupid it would easy to guess. He said I was measuring Pentecostalism becuase I mentioned tongues. that's what I wanted him to think. Although I didn't make that with him in mind. I figured someone would grab on to that and think that's what I was doing.

These are dummy questions because they are not mystical experience at all. They are marked by the use of phrases that denote that they are not mystical. Mystical means beyond word, thought, or image. These questions all entail the five senses.

Deists original statement, the reason for all this, was that anyone who prays and goes to chruch and thinks he's spiritual would score high. I know if Deist had the guts to take hte test, which he didn't, he would have answered "yes" to those questions becuase he refuses to think about the meaning of the concepts. He thinks any old dream or whatever is "spiritual" and that's all mysticism is just fake ideas about things. So he would say yes to those and get 0.

question 6 was very special.

(6) Have you ever felt God was very far away and/or didn't exist, and life seemed black and hopeless, after a period of intense religious and spiritual progress in which things seemed revealed to you?

that is the dark night of the soul. Thea's a special thing that marks the path of an advanced mystic. The Dark night of the soul is described ST. John of the Cross as is taken to be a the mark of extreme advancement such as saints undergo. Underhill writes about it so I included it. The questions assumes you are already an advance mystic:"after a period of intense religious and spiritual progress in which things seemed revealed to you?" that describes a mystical career already advanced. There's nothing like that on the M scale. on my thing, I was feeling cocky I included this chance to win with one question but it doesn't prove anything.

if you said yes to 6 you get the 60 points automatically. no one did.

A couple of people got 3 of the four meaningful questions. no one got them all. because if anyone had said all four tether they would have been given the 60 points.

1,2,9,10 as well as 6 relate directly to mystical experience. the question. anyone getting all four of those is automatically in the mystical range. Then question 8 is wroth 10 points by itself and can add to the mystical score once you are in that range.

what all of this proves is that Deist could not do a serious test and value the questions seriously and score it correctly and make a high score by second guessing what the researcher is after.

he proved this by not trying.

the mocking the version that Backup made is not anymore than the little childish glee they feelings from mocking and ridicule. proves nothing.


Origninal statment that his mock test doesn't prove anything.

Posted by backup View Post
I think it does.
Of cousre you do. because you don't care about facts or logic.

Anyway, it is obvious not atheist would read beyond "(6) Have you ever felt God was..." before answering no.
Yes, but that proves atheists are stupid. they figure out this is research. It's not pinon it's not a debate it' a research project to determine hat percentage of anyone has had these exerciser. the issue was to determine the validity of Stace's ideas about mysticism not to give atheist a producer for mocking and bullying.

get your head out of the emotion of the moment try once to think analytically. if the questions are research then you can't contribute by making pronouncements about them. that doesn't' prove anything. the only thing that proves anything is the research findings.

All of this is bogus. Particularly calling someone a mystic if they have had a peak experience. So much of religious talk seems to be a disingenuous use of words. It seems like such an obvious trick to use words filled with so much baggage.
that's an ignorant opinion that's based upon not knowing anything about it. stop your ignorant tirade and answer logical. why is that so dumb to call someone a mystic if they fit the prediction of what mystics are like?

so puerile

here's Deist's argument when he finally showed up after his comrades did all the heavy lifting.


Originally Posted by Deist View Post
This wasn't the M Scale, unless you contend that it

Of course it wasn't! I told you that. It's must simpler. If you can't lie your way to acing this one you sure couldn't do it on the m scale.

qualifies because the person who made it up, Meta, has the same first initial as the scale, and it is is therefore the "M"eta scale. Who was the judge of what qualifies as being a mystic on your survey questions? You!? Does that mean I can make up a deist scale, and decide on my own who is a deist? How about an atheist scale? Perhaps a muslim scale.
what!??? good God!

The whole thing about the test in the first place is that it's a farce. There are humans who have nothing better to do that study religiosity (Do that get paid for that nonsense?), who make the rules and guidelines for what qualifies as mystic, and then give the survey to people across the globe, and are mystified that everyone that professes a belief in God answers many of the questions the same!!

what you are saying is you don't have to take the test to see if I can prove Im right because you already know in advance I can't be merely becuase it's religion and religion stinks. the evdience I offer proves that it doesn't but you don't have to look becuase it doesn't matter what the evidence says right?

so in other words you have to be right because you are you? you can't see how this is circular?

What a scoop!! Call the NY Times, the LA Times, CNN, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh. Stop the presses!!We have a big story coming up. A revelation so earth shattering that it will boggle your mind.
ahahahaahahahh it's so hilarious you don't understand you just proved my point further that don't know a circular argument form a logically valid one.


"PSST, hey kid, over here, Have I got a scoop for you. People in different parts of the country who believe in God give the same answers!!!! Can you imagine that!"

EXTRA!! EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT!! GOD BELIEVERS SAY THE SAME STUFF!! EXTRA!! EXTRA!!
ahahahahaahahaha this guy he loves to make a fool of himself! what do you say to guy who thinks he's scored a prefect victory by arguing in a circle?


answers on my my test

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Just a quick post because it's amusing: What's so Funny about Atheism?

from Nomail a Christian on CARM

Originally Posted by noemail001 View Post Where shall I start... hmmm... Maybe I could start with all the times on OTHER forums -- NOT CARM of course -- where I have observed stuff like revising reality. Take, for example, the hilarity I see when some of those atheists claim to hate hate-speech and then tell how much they hate religion, hate religious folks, hate customers of Chick-Fil-A, hate the Bible, hate believers in the Bible, hate churches, etc... I find that hilarious.

Oh, and then there are those funnies -- NOT on CARM of course -- who claim to love empirical evidence. Then they claim that everything was spontaneously created by nothing. I LOVE that fantastic joke of theirs.

I love this one too. They claim to be grounded in history. Hahahahahahaha! Then their most brilliant heroes twist and revise history and spontaneously create strawmen from their twistings and distortions!

One kind of joke similar to the others above is when they speak for their opposition. They claim lies and libels against the positions stated by their opponents and then pretend they pummeled that false position. On those other websites -- not CARM of course -- those happy revisionists, those lying & libelous atheists, those sodomite-and-child-pornography-&-pederast-promoters, are entitled to fantasize that their opposition agrees with them! How funny is that? Very funny.

I've got to run now

If I find time I'll post some more funnies from that other side of the tracks -- NOT CARM, of course.

In the meantime, just to let you peeps know, I put some jokesters on Ignore. Why? Because they are way too funny -- they crack way more jokes than I have time for.

Buh-bye.

Monday, August 6, 2012

Reflections upon Methodology and Science

Photobucket

I don't think atheists care about evidence. Evidence just means that one has something to reason from. What atheists demand is absolute proof, and at a level that can't be given for anything. I would bet that if for some reason atheists didn't like science, no amount of scientific "proof" wood suffice to prove to them that science works; because they would demand absolute proof, which can't be gotten.

In thinking about the two other threads I initiative over the last few days, and the atheist take on my arguments and their 'dicing' of my thought processes, and their refusal to acknowledge standard responses that I give all the time, I find the following state of affairs to be a good description of the current state of dialectic between atheists and theists on the boards:

(1) Theists have a vast array of knowledge and argumentation built up over 2000 years, which basically amounts to a ton evidence for the existence of God. It's not absolute proof, because true, sure enough, actual absolute proof is just damn hard to come by on anything--even most scientific things; which is why they invented inductive reasoning. Science accepts correlation's as signs of caudal relationships, it doesn't ever actually observe causality at work. But that kind of indicative relationship is not good for atheists when a God argument is involved. Then it must be absolute demonstration and direct observation.

(2) This double standard always works in favor of the atheist and never in favor of the theist. I suspect that's because Theists are trying to persuade atheists that a certain state of affairs is the case, and at the same time we are apt to be less critical of our own reasons for believing that. Atheists make a habit of denial and pride themselves on it.

Why is it a double standard? Because when it works to establish a unified system of naturalistic observation the atheist is only too happy to appeal to "we never see" "we always see" and "there is a strong correlation." We never see a man raised from the dead. We never see a severed limb restored. The correlation's between naturalistic cause and effect are rock solid and always work, so science gives us truth, and religion doesn't. But when those same kinds of correlation's are used to support a God argument, they are just no darn good. to wit: we never see anything pop out of absolute noting, we never even see absolute nothing, even QM particles seem to emerge from prior conditions such as Vacuum flux, so they are not really proof of something form nothing. But O tisg tosh, that doesn't prove anything and certainly QM proves that the universe could just pop up out of nothing!

(3) "laws of physics" are not real laws, they are only descriptions, aggregates of our observations. So they can't be used to argue for God in any way. But, when it comes to miraculous claims, the observations of such must always be discounted because they violate our standard norm for observation, and we must always assume they are wrong no matter how well documented or how inexplicable. We must always assume that only naturalistic events can happen, even though the whole concept of a naturalism can only be nothing more than an aggregate of our observations about the world; and surely they are anything but exhaustive. Thus one wood think that since our observations are not enough to establish immutable laws of the universe, they would not be enough to establish a metaphysics which says that only material realms exist and only materially caused events can happen! But guess again...!

(4) The Theistic panoply of argumentation is a going concern. Quentin Smith, the top atheist philosopher says that 80% of philosophers today are theists. But when one uses philosophy in a God argument, it's just some left over junk from the middle ages; even though my God arguments are based upon S 5 modal logic which didn't exist even before the 1960s and most of the major God arguers are still living.

(5) They pooh pooh philosophy because it doesn't' produce objective concrete results. But they can't produce any scientific evidence to answer the most basic philosophical questions, and the more adept atheists will admit that it isn't the job of science to answer those questions anyway. Scientific evidence cannot give us answers on the most basic philosophical questions, rather than seeing this as a failing in science (or better yet, evidence of differing magister) they rather just chalice it up to the failing of the question! The question is no good because our methods dot' answer it!

(6) What it appears to me is the case is this; some methods are better tailed for philosophy. Those methods are more likely to yield a God argument and even a rational warrant for belief, because God is a philosophical question and not a scientific one. God is a matter of faint, after all, and in matters of faith a rational warrant is the best one should even hope for. But that's not good enough for atheists, they disparage the whole idea of a philosophical question (at least the scientistic ones do--that's not all of them, but some) yet they want an open ended universe with no hard and fast truth and no hard and fast morality!

(7)So it seems that if one accepts certain methods one can prove God within the nature of that language game. now of course one can reject those language games and choose others that are not quite as cozy with the divine and that's OK too. Neither approach is indicative of one's intelligence or one's morality. But, it does mean that since it may be just as rational given the choice of axioms and methodologies, then what that taps out to is belief in God is rationally warranted--it may not be only rational conclusion but it is one rational conclusion Now I know some of the more intelligent atheists will say "hey I'm fine with that." But then when push comes to shove they will be back again insisting that the lack of absolute proof leaves the method that yields God arguments in doubt, rather than the other way around. I don't see why either should be privileged. Why can't we just say that one method is better suited for one kind of question, the other for the other?

and if one of them says 'why should I ask those questions?' I say 'why shouldn't we leave the choice of questions to the questioner?

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Atheist reactions to real research

I'm still thinking about the lunacy on CARM. how silly thier appraoch to all kinds of God-oriented thinking is. None more absurd than the 200 studies on religious expedience and the M sale. Remember the M scale is invented by Dr. Hood and it's rapidly becoming standard procedure becuase it has such great vaildation form other studies. Even so an atheist yesterday said "you have never shown any actual empirical proof of these studies. They are studies published in peer reviewed academic journals they are their own empirical proof. The M scale has been validated by a dozen or so other studies. they don't know the basics of social science research.

Here's another comment from Deist.

Originally Posted by Deist View Post
Hood is a kook. He even looks like a kook. Just because someone has a "D" at the end of his name doesn't mean anything. He's a religious zealot. He's not an unbiased researcher. He has an agenda, and he made a third grade test that any atheist here or in Iran would test the same on.
defense of M scale

two major researchers in the field:


Dale Caird
originally in journal for the Scientific study of religion 1988, 27 (1) 122-126

"Research into mystical experience has been greatly facilitated over the last decade by Hood (1975). Utilizing the conceptual framework of Stace (1960) he devised a 32 item questionnaire tapping eight categories of mysticism. This questionnaire the M scale was shown by Hood to have respectable internal consistency and reasonable construct validity.

Michael E. Nielsen, Ph.D.
Georgia Southern University
feb 2000

"Ralph Hood (1998), a major figure in American psychology of religion, suggests six psychological schools of thought regarding religion. The psychoanalytical schools draw from the work of Freud, and attempt to reveal unconscious motives for religious belief. Although Freud reduced religious belief to a natural, if ultimately flawed, attempt to cope with life's stresses, contemporary psychoanalytic interpretations are not necessarily hostile to religious faith. Analytical schools find their inspiration in Jung's description of spiritual life. Most psychologists, however, consider such descriptions to be undemonstrated by scientific research, and therefore it plays a limited role in psychology. Object relations schools also draw from psychoanalysis, but focus their efforts on maternal influences on the child. Each of these three schools rely on clinical case studies and other descriptive methods based on small samples, which runs counter to the prevailing practice of psychology in America." \\

"Modern social scientific evidence does not refute the possibility that some mystical experiences are associated with scientifically unknown processes. Parapsychologists have accumulated a body of evidence supporting belief in paranormal phenomena (Broughton 1992). Even though their evidence has been criticized, the existence of universal features within collections of mystical experience accounts supports the argument that some forms of these perceptions are not fully cultural products but have important impacts on religious belief (Hufford 1982, McClenon 1994)"





post 30
backup, I did read that. Meta doesn't understand that meditation alone, which is done by non believers, will bring about states of heightened awareness, oneness, peace, calm, etc., and that hypnosis can do the same thing. My wife was a hypnotist. The mind can do many things, and religious zealots want to use what the mind does as some sort of evidence for the existence of their imagined personal type God.
This is a silly argument. Meditation can be done by anyone of cousre, but it began as a religious practice. that also evokes mystical experience, (it's a trigger not a cause) is not proof that mystical is not connected to God, it merely proves that pathways can be open if you evoke the triggers.

That someone would suggest God believers in different countries report similar experiences as evidence of anything other than that a generic God is the same the world over tells me that humans, even those with PHDs are either stupid, liars, or at a minimum, dis ingenuous. I mean, what ELSE would a belief in a god mean? Are these idiots saying a Christian God isn't similar to a belief in a muslim God? This is beyond ridiculous. It's inafantile.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Religous people have higher self esteem, is it only in religous countries?

Photobucket
Jochen Gebauer


This argument has been noised about on message boards of late: religious people only have high self esteem in countries where religion is valued. So then of course the cause is only due to the value of religion in that culture, they feel good about themselves because religion in valued.

Huffington Post's Athiest propaganda page
July 30, 2012

Are religious people happier? Studies have shown that God-fearing folks tend to have higher self-esteem than nonbelievers, but new research published in the January issue of Psychological Science adds some nuance. It shows that religious belief is linked to high self-esteem only in countries that emphasize religious belief.

Researchers at three European universities looked at the religious beliefs and self-esteem of users of an online dating service across 11 countries, from the devoutly Catholic Poland to the
world's least religious country, Sweden.

The analysis showed that in religious countries, self-esteem was higher among believers than nonbelievers. That was consistent with previous research. But in countries where religion is not central to the culture, the self-esteem of religious people was lower than that of nonbelievers.

The researchers offered a possible explanation for their finding: Religious people feel better about themselves in religious countries not because they're religious, but simply because they fit in with the crowd.

"We think you only pat yourself on the back for being religious if you live in a social system that values religiosity," Jochen Gebauer, Research Associate at Humboldt University of Berlin, said in a written statement. "The same might be true when you compare different states in the U.S. or different cities. Probably you could mimic the same result in Germany, if you compare Bavaria where many people are religious and Berlin where very few people are religious."

The original research
Psychological Science

Religiosity, Social Self-Esteem, and Psychological Adjustment

On the Cross-Cultural Specificity of the Psychological Benefits of Religiosity

  1. Wiebke Neberich3

Studies have found that religious believers have higher social self-esteem (Aydin, Fischer, & Frey, 2010; Rivadeneyra, Ward, & Gordon, 2007) and are better psychologically adjusted (Koenig, McCullough, & Larson, 2001; Smith, McCullough, & Poll, 2003) than nonbelievers. Is this relation true across cultures—which would attest to the robustness of religiosity as a wellspring of psychological benefits—or is it found only in specific cultures—which would attest to the relativism of religiosity and its embeddedness within a larger cultural framework? The religiosity-as-social-value hypothesis sides with the latter possibility.

The religiosity-as-social-value hypothesis posits that religiosity receives high social valuation in most societies (Sedikides, 2010) and that, consequently, religious believers are highly valued members of most societies (Sedikides & Gebauer, 2010). Being socially valued is associated with psychological benefits (e.g., social self-esteem, psychological adjustment; Rokeach, 1973; Sedikides & Strube, 1997). The hypothesis predicts, then, that believers will enjoy more psychological benefits in cultures that tend to value religiosity more; alternatively, the less a culture values religiosity, the more likely it is that believers and nonbelievers will enjoy equivalent psychological benefits. Here, we report a study in which we tested this hypothesis.


here's their methodology:

(47% female, 53% male; mean age = 37.49 years, SD = 12.22) included in the eDarling data set (Gebauer & Neberich, 2011). They completed the measures discussed here while setting up profiles at the eDarling online-dating site. Respondents were from 11 European countries, and sample sizes were similar across countries.

Personal religiosity

Our measure of personal religiosity was the response to a single item: “My personal religious beliefs are important to me” (1 = not at all, 7 = very much). Single-item religiosity measures are common (Norenzayan & Hansen, 2006). An online validation study (N = 347) showed …


That's just left up to the person to answer. Now when the atheists on CARM find that the M scale asks people if they had a given experience and use that as an index to mystical experience, well go agpe. they say the people are lying. they say all the people saying that they have good experiences are just making it up. you can't trust surveys you can't trust people. Yet this study is based upon surveys and people just saying it so they must be lying.

In fact if we examine their data it seems there is no representative sample reflected. We are given no basis in understanding how representative these people are of their general culture. Their religious orientation is self selected and self described. That's very different from "I had this experience." There's a big difference in saying "this happened to me" and "Yes I am religious." If they are so affected as to equate being religious being good they might tend to say "I am religious" when what they really means Is "I'm a good person." Since we don't have a measurement of the norm for that culture we don't have anything to compare to. The data also comes form dating sites. How representative of a culture is its dating sites? What exactly is being measured?

Moreover, we are not given a good basis in what was used to measure self esteem. They don't use standard self esteem models or measurement techniques just a few questions about depression. edarling the dating site related to eHarmony uses slight measurements of self esteem and religiosity, but these are people putting on their best face to attract the opposite sex. It's not detailed and it's not based upon deep heavy psychological data.

It also might be true, and I'm sure this will encourage atheists if you go out of your way to make people feel bad about being religious it coutner balances the positive effects to some extent, but is that really a fair test?

Counter evidence:

They use Sweden as the standard of "non religio
Linkus." The Jagodzinski and Greely study shows that Sweden is not all that non religious.

The Demand for Religion
"hard core Atheism and Supply Side Theory"

Wolfgang Jagodzinkski (University of Cologne)
Andrew Greeley


This paper examines the conflict between the "secularization" theory of religious decline and the economic model of religion which assumes a fairly constant need for religion and attributes variation in devotion to variation in the supply of religious services. First the analysis reveals that the number of "hard core" atheists (those who firmly reject the existence of God and the possibility of life after death) in seventeen countries are a relatively small proportion of the population. Then it turns to Norway to determines that one can hardly describe that country as "unreligious." Next it discovers that there is a higher level of Catholic religious practice in the competitive environment of Northern Ireland. Finally it considers the one thoroughly secularized country – East Germany – and concludes that the "demand" for religion can be diminished considerably if a ruthless government takes control of the process of religious socialization.

According to the study
  1. The proportion of Hard Core atheists is relatively small in all the countries except East Germany (42.7%)
  2. The proportion is above 10% only in former socialist countries (12.4% in Russia, 13.9% in Slovenia, and 11.3% in Hungary) and in the Netherlands (11.4%) and in Israel (12.1%).
  3. In the other eleven countries, the highest rates of Hard Core atheism are in Norway (6.7%) and Britain (6.3%). Thus if latent demand for religion is excluded only from the Hard Core atheists, there is still the possibility of a large clientele for those firms which might venture into the religious market place in such supposedly "secularized" countries as Norway and Britain.
  4. There are not all that many Hard Core atheists in the countries studied, nor indeed all that many soft core atheists either.
  5. The "Softest Core" Atheists are less than a third of the population in every country except East Germany. They are more than a fifth of the population only in four former Socialist countries – East German Russia, Hungary and Slovenia. With the exception than of East Germany more than two thirds of the population of the countries studied are willing to admit the existence in some fashion of God and the likelihood of life after death. Devout many of them may not be but on the two central issues they are more religious than not. They then may be considered as part of the religious market place if not always enthusiastic consumers.
East Germany is the only country where the spread of socialism meant a saturation of hard core atheism in the general population. Sweden is more religious than it is usually assumed.

Welfare and Values in Europe:
Transitions related to Religion, Minorities and Gender
(WaVE)
Sweden:
Overview of the national situation
by Ninna Edgardh Beckman
Page 2

Based on its very low figures of religious attendance and traditional religious faith, Sweden has a reputation of being one of the most secularised countries in the world. True as this might be, what the image conceals is the strong and complicated role that religion still plays in Sweden, not least through history and culture. The modern history of Sweden has its foundation in national homogeneity, grounded in the principle of one people and one faith. This principle is closely connected to the Lutheran majority church, to which nearly 80% of the Swedish population still belongs, even though formally state and church were separated in 2000. The recent presence of other world religions and official policies tending towards multiculturalism adds new religious aspects to Swedish culture. Religion thus continues to play an interesting role in Sweden, behind the seemingly straightforward image of a country on its way towards complete secularisation

The Swedish welfare state was built after the Second World War, based on the idea of ‘the home of the people’ (folkhemsidén). The basic principle of the model is that the state and local authorities guarantee the basic needs of all citizens. This principle is based on strong values of solidarity and shared responsibility. Decades of success for the system have since the 1990s been replaced by growing problems with keeping up the high level of benefits and services, a development, which is increasingly questioning also the values underpinning the whole welfare structure. Immigration is one factor, among many, challenging the system and immigrants have also been among those most affected by emerging new forms of poverty

The study is overestimating the depth of secularism in Sweden and that forms the basis of its comparison for self esteem.

Loftus Is Projecting Again

Below in no particular order are what I consider the ten marks (or characteristics) of a deluded person. I think even some Christians will agree with some of them. You might want to consider from this checklist how many of them apply to you. To the degree that more of them apply then the more likely you are deluded by your faith. Now it's quite possible than Christians can be deluded and yet their faith is true, in the same sense that a person might be brainwashed or indoctrinated into believing the truth. But the point is that if you're deluded then you have no reason to believe.

A deluded person is more likely than not one who...

1) Was born and raised into his or her religious faith. Just taking the odds at face value this is non-controversial and undeniable given the number of religions propagated around the globe and adhered to with utter and complete confidence as the one true faith.
By that logic someone who is born into a particular culture is more likely to be deluded than one born outside of any culture. That's practically no one. Religion is basically cluture. Why would someone raised in a partuclar view point be anymore deluded than coming to it form anther view point. Sure the outsider would have criticism the insider doesn't see but he would also have biases form his own culture and his own view point.

What assumptions is Loftus making bout religion anyway? He's assuming htat it's delusion to begin with. That's his given.

2) As an adult never adopts nor cultivates the adult attitude of doubt. All adults must revisit the religious faith taught to them by their parents, since #1 above is undeniably true. That means they must doubt. Doubt is the adult attitude.
Atheist love to laud their childish doubt. they think this "an adult trait" it's nothing more than cynicism. The form of doubt atheists imbibe is not true doubt. Atheist nourishes all negativism and cynical hate of hope. Real dobut is a shadow that vanishes in sunlight. The adult thing is to be well adjusted in one's cluture and to understand it's short commings while at the same time knwoing the strengths it offers and how to come to peace with it's problems. That's the only way to rotationally seek solutions.

Atheist do no allow a rational seeking of solutions becuase they demand hatred of religion. They want allow an answer to be fond answers are delusions and must be resisted. Because atheists must nurture doubt they can't allow solutions and answers to work. They can't allow answers to suggest themselves. Above all else doubt but be preserved and feed and nurtured as a primary value.

Joseph Campbell said "cynicism appears as insight to the cowardly mind." This is a profound observation that I have seen with the atheist a million times. They must preserve doubt and keep it growing they must deny answers. Cynicism seeks to snuff out answers. The cowardly mind fears risk. Thus the coward sees cynicism as insight becuase it gives him an excuse not to try.

3) Never reads widely or is exposed to other points of view in the media. I'm talking about non-fiction works about the sciences, different cultures, different faiths, and those written by skeptics or non-believers. To escape from being deluded believers should read books that are written by people within different cultures and faith communities, and watch programs on the History Channel, National Geographic Channel, Discovery Channel, PBS, 60 Minutes, Dateline, and yes, YouTube.

Atheists on message boards are the most illiterate and badly read band of know nothings I've ever seen. How many times have I documented atheist saying "I don't need to read theology because i know it's stupid?" Bigoted anti-intellectual don't confuse me with the facts. Look at the cowardly and stupid way they deal with the M scale. they jsut refuse to accept that it's good scinece even in the face of quote from experts in the field saying "Hood revolutionized the field" they still just mock and ridicule as though it's total crap.

4) Does not travel widely including travel into different cultures. A deluded person only experiences a small slice of the pie. One must experience the world to see how others live. The more the better.

I've been to Nicaragua. I bet Loftus hasn't been there.


5) Stays within the social confines of like-minded religious people. The Amish are the extreme examples of this. Many believers only have believing friends. Even if believers cannot travel the world they can still step outside their social grouping to meet other people who think differently. Most believers do not trust people of different faiths or non-believers. Seek them out. Attend a freethinker's group meeting. Get to know them. Become friends with them.

how many atheists seek out dialogue with theists? most of them seek to ridicule religious people that's not dialogue.


6) Never studies deeply into the nature of his or her adopted faith. The more you know the less you believe, the less confident you become, the more you doubt.

why "adopted?" atheist will never have room to talk as long as the anthropoids on carm treat the evidence like shit. AS long as they respond to the studies with mocking and ridicule they have no room to talk. Look their attitude to evidence about Lourdes.


7) Preaches to people who think differently rather than rationally engaging them. I am constantly amazed, bewildered, frustrated, and bored with the kind of responses I see from believers who comment here at DC. They come here preaching. They pontificate. They quote mine from the Bible. They even say we're going to hell with glee. Many of them merely mouth the words of the creeds and affirm what they believe rather than actually engaging us with a rational discussion about the basis for believing in the first place. They come here preaching to us from an ancient superstitious set of texts we don't believe rather than showing us why we should believe it.

Think of all the minor idiotic "bible contradictions" they come up with and how steadfastly they refuse to learn about JDEP or textual criticism. they can't understand when I use textual criticism to the benefit of the faith it just throws them for a loop.


8) Claims he or she does not need evidence to believe. Take notice Alvin Plantinga and Bill Craig! This is utterly delusional thinking especially when we consider all of the things they must take as properly basic beliefs coming from the witness of the Holy Spirit. Anyone who claims their faith does not need evidence, even if true, ought to take a reality check.

He misunderstands the concept of proper basically. It was not invented by Plantinga. What's really rich all the talk he does above about being well read and being willing to consider your presuppositions and critique your own culture, then they act like their atheism is inviolable and its' a given there's no questioning it. He acts like this stuff he doesn't understand and hasn't studied is just some stupid pile of mush. He's clearly not willing to consider his own words and put in the time for study.

What's wrong with the concept?It's not proof. It's not put over as proof, it's warranting basis for a belief. It fits Toulmins theory of warrant. Atheists don't have the concept of warrant becuase their ideology wrongly applies scinece in such a way that enables them to assume their ideology i facts and pre given. Meaning they are just begging the question.


9) Must be convinced that his or her faith is impossible before seeing it as improbable. Time after time believers will claim I have not proved that their faith is impossible, and so lacking this kind of proof they still claim to have a reason to believe. However, we're always talking about probabilities, so even if it's still possible to believe in light of a number of problems for faith it's still an improbable faith.

This is more hypocrisy becuase I see atheist constantly assuming in the face of God arguments that if they suggest an alternative that's possible then they can assume it's a given that that must be it no matter how improbable. I think he's making an unwarranted assumption to think that Christians deamd that faith be proved impossible. The contradiction he sees between impossible/improbable is a conditional either/or and he doesn't understand that. Atheitss do that all the time as well.


10) Must denigrate the sciences in order to have faith. This is what I see time after time. Believers denigrate the sciences is a number of ways in order to believe. That's because faith demands it. Some believers don't even know what I'm talking about. That's what I think. Since science tells us prayer doesn't work then it doesn't work. It tells us the universe is 13.7 billion years old. It tells us we evolved. It tells us there was no Israelite Exodus from Egypt. It tells us the Nativity stories in the Gospels could not be true. It tells us virgins do not have babies. It tells us that dead people do not bodily rise from the grave. Christians must denigrate science in order to believe. Science or Faith? Science has a track record. Faith flies planes into buildings. Science all the way, hands down. End of story.

That is utter bullshit after the way the atheists on carm have shamefully ridiculed the great Hood who had revolutionized reserach in psychology of religion those ignorant children refuse to even consider the explains I give. I go into elaborate detail about how the research works and they refuse to even consider and revert to mocking every time. No atheist will ever have a justification to say what he said because of the way those carm ideologues have routinely mocked and ridiculed real scinece which they don't understand.

Loftus's assertion that scinece has disproved prayer is juvenile and nothing short of a lie. He can't possibly understand the actual research if he thinks that. He doesn't get the distinction between a particular study that control for outside prayer and actual disproof. There can't be any disproof if there can't be controls. There can't be controls on outside prayer. Empirical study of payer is better; that is demonstrated at Lourdes.

so here we have an ideological linty of excuses where the atheist tries to blame the theist for what he is guilty of himself.