Atheists show their true research ability

 This is from a series I'm doing on disproving the big block of BS that Royce uses against the M scale and my 200 studies. After regaling them with all this material which they could not answer, they began saying things like "you digging it deeper." be sure and read all of this then look at their reactions to follow.



IV. Criticism 4

this is no 4 in the big blog of Royce's propaganda he runs against Hood and the M scale. It's disproved empirically. all you have to do is read the study. If you read the study you see they do not agree with Katz but with Hood.

Francis Vincet Anthony, Carl Sterkins, Chris AM Hermans.

A comparative Study of Mystical Experience Among Christian, Muslim, and Hindu Students,

http://www.scribd.com/doc/79669550/A...mil-Nadu-India

"Our findings also point to the limitations of Hood’s Mysticism Scale (already foreseen by him) when it comes to comparing totally heterogeneous religions such as Semitic and Eastern religions (Hinduism and Buddhism). Finally, we think that the major theoretical problem with regard to mysticism still stands: Is there a core structure of mystical experience or does it imply diversity? In order to answer this fundamental question, we need more comparative research among members of different religions in different geographical contexts."
From page 107:

This statement is far from saying that the M scale is bad or that it doesn't' work. These guys do not think they have disproved the M scale, they think they have improved it.

[ (1) they are merely denying the common core--Hood proves otherwise. they also admit Hood is aware of the criticism.

(2) their position is not necessarily opposed to mystical experience]

"Hood developed a Mysticism Scale based on the theoretical work of Stace. The scale was tested by Hood and others in a comparative perspective. Using an abridged version of Hood’s Mysticism Scale, we join the debatewith a study of a much larger number of Christian, Muslim, and Hindu respondents (1,920 college students)living in Tamil Nadu, India. Our empirical analysis yields a moderately reliable model of mystical experience that permits comparison between the three religious traditions. We argue for the usefulness of a comparative model of vertical mysticism that combines with the complementary common characteristics of noetic quality and ineffability. Vertical mysticism has a revelatory, ineffable character and is comparable in the experience of adherents of the Christian, Islamic, and Hindu traditions."

(3) They use an abridged version

"Using an abridged version of Hood’s Mysticism Scale, we join the debate with a study of a much larger number of Christian, Muslim, and Hindu respondents (1,920 college students)living in Tamil Nadu, India. Our empirical analysis yields a moderately reliable model of mystical experience that permits comparison between the three religious traditions. We argue for the usefulness of a comparative model of vertical mysticism that combines with the complementary common characteristics of noetic quality and ineffability. Vertical mysticism has a revelatory, ineffable character and is comparable in the experience of adherents of the Christian, Islamic, and Hindu traditions."

they point out Hood's scale is proved empirically:

"The measurement instrument is based on Hood’s Mysticism Scale.This scale has been proven empirically to be acceptable in diverse cultural contexts and religious traditions (Hill and Hood1999; Holm 1982; Hood 1975; Hood et al. 2001)."

(4) they claim they better results with a bigger sample but not that M scale doesn't work

"We argue for the usefulness of a comparative model of vertical mysticism that combines with the complementary common characteristics of noetic qualityand ineffability. Vertical mysticism has a revelatory, ineffable character and is comparable in the experience of adherents of the Christian, Islamic, and Hindu tradition"

[that's essentially admitting that the M scale is useful]

(5) not only is their view not anti-M scale it's pro mystical and they have quibbles with the particulars of Stace and Hood from within the realm of msytical fandom.

"In our view this state of unity belongs to the realm of mystical consciousness and not so much to that of interpretation. Empirical research supports the claim that mystical consciousness and its interpretation can be relatively independent (cf. Hood and Williamson 2000)" note on that quote the use Hood to support their finding"

(6) their own instrument study is based upon the M scale and they say the M scale is proved to be acceptable:

"The measurement instrument is based on Hood’s Mysticism Scale.This scale has been proven empirically to be acceptable in diverse cultural contexts and religious traditions (Hill and Hood1999; Holm 1982; Hood 1975; Hood et al. 2001)."

then it lists other studies that come to that conclusion.

(7) The above statement was put over as "a devastating" criticism of the M scale but is actually in favor of it. The person quoting didn't know what he is reading.

The quote says two major things: (a) the major problem of mysticism is the core structure, the common thesis is what they mean. (b) "Limitations" they say with the M scale, not that it's totally wrong but that it's limited. in what? in "when it comes to comparing totally heterogeneous religions such as Semitic and Eastern religions (Hinduism and Buddhism)." In other words it limited in comparing two totally different kinds of cultures in two different languages with different religions. Gee really? Limited hu? The common core is a major issue. This would be like saying "weather or not god exists is still a major questoin." That's like saying a criticism of Hawking's work on time is that it doesn't solve the riddle of why we exist. This is big stuff, how much can we expet one study to do.



Hood has proved the common core thesis with empirical research. when they take the names out and the doctrines out and just look at the descriptions of the experience, they are the same. that is a common core. Hood documents this in his artilce that is in the McNamara book:

Ralph Hood Jr. “The Common Core Thesis in the Study of Mysticism.” In Where God and Science Meet: How Brain and Evolutionary Studies Alter Our Understanding of Religion. Patrick Mcnamara ed. West Port CT: Prager Publications, 2006, 119-235.

Google books on line version: URL http://books.google.com.cu/books?id=...epage&q&f=true visited 8/20/2012


I've put these studies up time and time again, no one every read them or looked at them:

The M scale developed by Hood has been validated by many studies in cross cultural context, while Greely’s Gallop Poll questions have been used both cross culturally and longitudinally.

The two major exceptions to the lack of shared instrumentation are the mysticism scale by Hood (1975) which has been used in quite a number of studies by Hood and others, and the repeated use of certain questions in survey research by Greeley and the Gallop Organization over a sixteen year period.

Holm (1982) “mysticism and intense experiences” demonstrates another level of cross-cultural validation.

Method: The author translated into Swedish several Hood scales designed to measure mystical experiences. The items describing religious experiences drawn from William James, on Hood’s (1970) Religious Episode Experience Measure (REEM) with narratives taken from Nordic anthologies. Eighteen teachers of religion and psychology each administered the scales to 6-9 persons.

Findings: The study replicated most of Hood’s findings with the same instruments. “The results of our empirical study of mysticism in a Finnish-Swedish environment largely coincide with Hood’s results in an American environment…The cross-cultural testing that some of Hood’s methods have received as a result of our research on another continuant and in another linguistic area means that the results have received a wider range of applications.


Holm (1982) presented a Swedish M scale administered to 122 Swedish “informants.” Factor I correlated best to non Christian profiles, while factor II worked best with those who had Christian assumptions. Holm accounts for a general mysticism factor and general religious factor. This parallels earlier research in Sweden (Solderblom—see Holm 82, 275-76) .
The M scale has been validated with Iranian Muslims.
In a mostly Christian American sample (N = 1,379), confirmatory factor analysis of Hood's (1975) Mysticism Scale verified the existence of Stace's (1960) introvertive and extrovertive dimensions of mystical phenomenology along with a separate interpretation factor. A second study confirmed the presence of these three factors in not only another group of Americans (N = 188), but also a sample of Iranian Muslims (N = 185). Relationships of the introvertive and extrovertive factors with the interpretation factor were essentially identical across these two cultures, but the Americans displayed a stronger association between the two phenomenology factors. In both samples, the interpretation factor correlated positively with an intrinsic and negatively with an extrinsic religious orientation, and the introvertive factor predicted psychological dysfunction. Associations of the interpretation factor with relative mental health appeared only in the Iranians. These data offered general support for Stace's phenomenology of mysticism, although the ineffability he linked with interpretation proved to be as much or even more a feature of the introvertive experience, as hypothesized by Hood.

The M Scale in Relation to other measurement scores.


The over all result demonstrates the superiority of Hood’s model (and Stace’s categories) over other models. “Thus empirically there is strong support to claim that as opporationalized from Stace’s criteria mystical experience is identical as measured across diverse samples, whether expressed in “neutral language” or with either “God” or “Christ” references.” M Scale has been correlated to scores on standardized personality measures in two studies. In 1985 Hood found that the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) “did not correlate with the M Scale. Different correlations of factors between factors I and II were compatible with non pathological interpretations of mysticism.” The score for the MMPI applies to people who are apt to lie or present themselves in a favorable light to their own advantage. But Hood argues that high scores on factor II (religious) may be due to the fact that traditional religious people are less likely to engage in deviant behavior. Thus the score doesn’t apply to them.
Spanos and Moretti (1988) directly correlated M scale scores with Tellegen and Atkinson absorption scale.


Ibid, 324
Ralph Hood Jr., W.P. Williamson. “An empirical test of the unity thesis: The structure of mystical descriptors in various faith samples.” Journal of Christianity and Psychology, 19, (2000) 222-244.
R.W. Hood, Jr., N.Ghorbani, P.J. Waston, et al “Dimensions of the Mysticism Scale: Confirming the Three Factor Structure in the United States and Iran.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40 (2001) 691-705.
R.K.C. Forman, Mysticism, Mind, Consciousness. Albany: State University of New York Press, (1999) 20-30.
F.S. Brainard, Reality and Mystical Experience, Unvisited Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. (2000). See also D.Loy, Nonduality: A Study in Comparative Philosophy. Amherst, New York: Humanities Press.
David Lukoff and Francis G. Lu. “Transpersonal Psychology Research Review Topic: Mystical Experience.” The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, vol. 20, no.2 (1988) 161
Ibid.
Spilka et al, 326
Dimensions of the Mysticism Scale: Confirming the Three-Factor Structure in the United States and Iran. Hood, Ralph W. Jr., Ghorbani, Nima, Watson, P.J., Ghramaleki, Ahad Framarz, Bing, Mark N., Davison, H. Kristl, Morris, Ronald J., and Williamson, W. Paul. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40:4 (2001) 691-705
Spilka and Hood, 324.


Anthony does not say that M scale fails to sort out a true mystical experience form a false one. that's the only thing my arguments claim about it.




 Atheist Reactions


 sinaftersin:

 Originally Posted by Metacrock

I'm going to add this study to the 200. Now I have 201.

sinafter sin says:
'the "200" number is made up anyways. whooopeeee.'

I counted them. why is it  made up? He's never bothered to look at the big which I've linked to time and time again. It is a conservative ball park figure.


Radiology:

 Meta, you continually ignore criticism of your point of view, and chug on as if the criticism wasn't even made. You make unsupported claims, and use references that in NO WAY support your claims, and continue to pretend that they do. You refuse to show your sources. You backpedal in the worst way.

You have zero standing whatsoever to accuse anyone of academic dishonesty - EVER.

 Unsupported claims. I have the studies. I looked up all the studies sin his block then research the stuff again them. Look at how many studies I have down there and he says "unsupported." I did the research for the 200 studies. Unsupported!


 on the same thread:

Teabagsalad

 Hey Meta,

D'ya wanna borrow that shovel again?

 another guy put me on ignore.


 Originally Posted by maybrick

I don't even need to read the thread you are talking about to know you have this backwards.

Don't confuse me with the facts. I don't need to read the material my mind is made up.


so I'm so totally dishonest becuase I have this huge body empirical studies that they refuse to read, but they know they are so bad.

my views are so flimsy becuase they unsupported. that means Royce doesn't' accept them. forge the 200 studies in academic journals they are no good becuase Royce says so.

Atheists sink to new record depth of Stupidity. film now

Hey this BT guy really is one of the stupidest people I've ever dealt with. I know that's uncharitable but given their bullying attitude, he has one too, I think it's called for to that say so. Now he's actually admitting he doesn't' know what begging the question means, but he's still convinced I'm doing it!


here's where he finally admits he doesn't know what ciruclar reasoning is:

first of all begging the question is a form of circular reasoning. If he is begging the question he's reasonnig in a circle. You are begging the question when you assert the position you are defending as a means of proving thta popstion. So when he says "I know God doesnt' exist because God is imaginary" he's just saying I know there's no God becuase there's no God.


Originally Posted by bigthinker

What is the circle?
See if you can present my position accurately. It shouldn't be hard.

 

 It's quite a challenge but I'll tyr to bear up. I take this to be  frank admission that he doesn't' know what ciruclar reasoning is.

 

It only took like 30 posts to get you to even wonder what it is.

again, (I said it every single time I made the charge I've expalined it)

circular is when you put the conclusion in the place of the premise. you reason form your conclusion that means you don't try to prove it you just assert as though it's already proven.

In argument we reason from premise to conclusion. we say "My premise is X from this i learn Y."

for example premise "a loving god would not allow pain and evil."

that's the premise now we reason about it:

"yet we have evil int he world."

then we draw a conclusion

"thus the conclusion I draw from this is that there is not a loving God."

you are not doing that. you start with the last part "there is no loing God" you just assume it's the case you don't try to prove it or defend or show how you know it's true.

(1) how do you know there is no God?

(2) how do you know the stuff I've talked about is not proof?

all you so is say my stuff is circular but you know it's not. you didn't know what that was so it wasn't a real charge.

you have no valid argument against my views. you have not defended your own.

I can't believe he says this but he does. this is copying his words:




Originally Posted by bigthinker

Sure, my conclusion IS NOT there is no God. My conclusion is that your God is (must be based on your failure to demonstrate otherwise) imaginary.

Meta:
that's the same thing genius. the only reason God could possibly be imaginary is if he's not real. So saying that is just another way of saying "there is no God."

(sheeesh!)

Bigthinker:

Whatever "God talk" is, is question begging (for example). 

 

 Meta

whatever it is hu? You don't even know what it is but whatever it is it's gotta be question begging right? why? If you don't know what it is how do you know that?

(not knowing what God talk is just supreme stupidity--that's the phrase the use in philosophy proving he's never read any).





He's just miroring what I say aping it. that's proved in the next brilliant witticism he utters:



Bigthinker

Also, your arguments rely on your position that "God must exist". -Which is also question begging.

Meta

since you don't know what begging the question is how do you know that? you are just aping back things I"ve said without knowing what they mean.

 He doesn't know what it is but whatever it is I'm doing it.

Classic Exchange on Existence of God, "Big Thinker" Deserves Big Reality

 


Originally Posted by bigthinker

I don't think you understand what evidence is.

Meta:

I understand that the atheist brain washers have created a standard of evidence that's designed to make belief look bad and to make you feel that atheism = scinece, when in fact it's really anti-scientific. thus when you have 200 empirical studies form peer reviewed journals telling you something you just decide they are all bad without reading one of them--horribly unscientific!

you don't know what evidence is. You have reduced all forms of evidence to just the ones that help your view. that's the big atheist trick with evdience and facts.

bigthinker

You have not presented evidence of the existence of God

Meta:
yea I have. you have not answered any of it. I showed three issues.


I beat the fu out of you on the 200 studies on the Cosmological arguemnt. you are just calmed up as though you said "I refuse to accept that this is meaningful. I will not bleieve regardless of the evidence."





   
bigthinker

The 200 studies deal with belief, not the existence of God. No one is questioning if people believe in God.

They don't deal with Belief they deal with experience. the experience of God. Of course that's what the argument is about so I don't base my argument on that premise. I'm arguing for the validity of the statement. They data from the studies suggest its' right.

bigthinker

You say that because your God is imaginary.
Is expecting gravity to hold you on earth an absurd level of evidence for gravity? 

Meta

you have made up that god is imaginary I disproved that nonsense slogan on several occasions. you just refused to look at the logic. The concept of God is that of a reality. So the concept is not imaginary like Superman is imaginary. We have a dispute about reality like any such dispute, such as wave particle, or steady state vs. big bang and so on.

the scientists who supported steady state did not call big bang "imaginary" just becuase they thought it was unreal. you are just using that term to make it sound worse.

bigthinker

The difference between sub atomic particles and your God is that sub atomic particles are objectively detectable; their presence or absence can be factually determined. Your God cannot.

Meta
they are not actually. that's why we don't have direct pictures of them. they are only detectable by judging their effects upon other particles and that's exactly the case with God.


bigthinker

Because there is no evidence that God exists any other way. And all the evidence (your studies, for example) indicate that God is imaginary. 

Meta

that's obviously an exaggerated statement. nothing about the 200 studies that makes God seem imaginary. The 200 studies make God seem real. So that's obviously a false statement. Since that's not the case then I do have evidence:

*200 studies

*can't get soemthing form nothing

*effect of God talk on the brain

*temporal beginning argument.


you can't answer any of them.

Of course not, you are blinded by your bias.

bigthinker

I say you are imagining it. But it doesn't matter because you can't demonstrate that you aren't merely imagining it. 

Meta

Yes, even Andrew Newberg says that the God n the brain stuff proves there is soemthing, it's not just imagination. the 200 studies prove because the effects are real and they are measurable.

you are just begging the question again.


bigthinker

First of all, I have zero evidence that your life changed -personal claims are not evidence.

Meta
yes they are evidence they are well documented the 200 studies document them. most of the 200 have some form of documentation that backs that arguemnt.

bigthinker

Second, there is no evidence that the cause of your change was God.
This is circular. 

Meta

as much evdience smoking causes cancer and it's of the same nature.
[this means it's a correlation but a tight one.]


bigthinker

Talk about God -or imagining God talking to you is not the same as the existence of God. You are confusing the two. 

Meta

I never said anything about God talking to me. I said explicitly mystical experience is not about God talking to you.


bigthinker

Show me a timeless void. 

Meta

you guys will never learn. you have to support the timeless void. the only alternative to that is eternal necessary being and that's God. If you don't accept a timeless void you already accept the basic conditions that prove God must exist.

bigthinker

It would require a greater re-write of the rules for your God to exist. 

Meta

it wouldn't require any becuase God doesn't exist by rules. God makes the rules he's not the result rules.

there are physical laws at that point (beyond singularity) to say no this or that. It's no good trying to say God doesn't measure up to the rules he doesn't have to.

bigthinker

its imaginary. There is no evidence that your god is not imaginary.

Meta
I just gave you some
Holy Question begging Batman! that's exactly what the word means. Perfect example!


bigthinker

Those aren't even arguments for the existence of God...They are examples of question begging and circular reasoning. 

He says that right after his own question begging where he demands that God is imaginary and taht I've given no evdience right after I game some.

Meta

prove it. show me they are. your arguemnts are always question begging. you show me how this is question begging.


bigthinker

Meta, I'm not insulted by your incorrect assertions and interpretations of reality.

Meta
I'm not trying to insult you. I do actually like you.

bigthinker

Except that God IS imaginary. You imagine God. 

Meta

prove it. so far you have not answered a single argument. again you don't understated what begging the question is. you are asserting that all the stuff I point to as evdience has to be not evdience because you assert the begging of the question. you are making your conclusion into your premise. that's circular reasoning. Question begging is a from of circular reasoning.

bigthinker

And you have zero evidence that God is not imaginary, in fact, all of your studies and all your so-called arguments support my position.

Meta

I don't have to prove Go dis not imaginary. you made the claim you must prove he is. I have no reasons to think he is. I have reason to think he's real and you can't answer them.


bigthinker
existence is not determined by argument, existence is determined by evidence.

Meta 

argument discloses truth. Discovering subatomic particles didn't make the particles happen because they argued for them. the arguments helped them make the discovery.


 Originally Posted by bigthinker

On the contrary, you are the one who denies the reality of God while I embrace it. God is an idea that you have. There is no evidence to the contrary.

Meta

you dont' even know what the idea of God is. It's not that of an imaginary anything. Its' of a real thing.. that's just proof that you are begging you can't even admit that we actually believe soemthing that we do believe.

my idea of the old South land life building that used to Grace the Dallas sky line is not that of an imaginary building it's the idea of real building that used to exit. It may still but you can't see it from a distance anymore. My idea of Superman is that of a being that I know is fictional. It's the idea of real being of cousre, but I know it's factional so the overarching idea of it is not that of a real being but of a fictional being. The immediate suspended disbelief idea is of a real super powered hero but the uber idea is that of a fictional character.


bigthinker

Your 200 studies don't deal with God, they deal with what people think.
The soul is imaginary. It doesn't have a cost beyond your emotional attachment to the idea.

Meta

sure, that's the co determinate. that's like saying 'these so called fingerprint things are not the actual fingers of the criminal they only represent places where the criminal touched, therefore, there is no criminal."



 Originally Posted by bigthinker

I admit that you believe something. I admit that you have an idea of God. What you do not seem to have is the God itself. And you don't acknowledge the difference between the thing and the idea of the thing.

Meta

Of course I do. you are begging the question. I see that the presence I feel when I pray and the doing of the effect when my prayers are answered; the doer of the deeds I speak of in my arguments. there has to be one. you just say "that can't be God because he's not real." that's begging the question.

bigthinker

You have a memory of something that actually existed. Your memory is the idea. The thing (the building) no longer exists -although it once existed. The existence of the building was not contingent upon your idea of it, it existed independently from your imagination and was objectively detectable by others -even by others who could not see it, didn't have an idea of it etc.

Meta

God is not contingent upon my idea of him. If he was I could not have been saved because I had no idea of God. I was an atheist.
see how he's begging the question? He's asserting that point that he defends in order to use it as evidence in its own defense. He assumes the idea of God is contingent upon my imagining it without even having a way to know that. Irony of ironies look what he says next!


bigthinker

How is that different from me knowing that your God is fictional?


Meta

you don't know it you are begging the question. I know God is real because I see the co-determinate.
(Duh!)

bigthinker

Superman is an idea, just as god is an idea. The building you remember may have actually existed -or perhaps it still does. The building existed as more than just an idea -whereas Superman and God exist only as ideas.

Meta

this obviously question begging. you dogmatically assert that God si in the category with superman. for me he's not. YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE THAT GOD IS JUST AN IDEA. YOU HAVE NO WAY TO KNOW THAT. YOU ASSUME IT, THAT'S QUESTION BEGGING! THAT'S WHAT QUESTION BEGGING IS!!!!
I couldn't make this more obvious if I invented it myself.


bigthinker

The difference is that fingerprints actually exist -they are (actual) evidence of a person. You are using imaginary evidence to support your belief in an imaginary character.


Meta

the effects of God exits. the effects of having the experiences, the experiences themselves. the temporal conditions in the temperate arguemnt all of hat stuff exits. the presence I feel exists it's real. It's something I feel.

bigthinker

Try to find real evidence -something other people can objectively investigate.

Meta

The God on the brain thing is objective. In Sagons movie why didn't they say "well there's a mathematical code in DNA that tells us how to open a worm hole but it cant' be alisen it's a coincidence?" Same deal. we have a signal written into our DNA when we hear God talk about brains light up. When we sense God's presence our lives are fixed up.

that' real it's objective. with the ability to distinguish between fake and real mystical experience the M scales gives us an objectivity in studying the effects of God.

As Night Follow Day: When you think Athesits can't get any stupider

 
We had to destroy the Village to save it

When I was a kid back in the 60s we had a joke: Americans say they are happier than ever, man those guys don't know how miserable they are. That joke was all purpose it worked any time you were wrong about something, the group you wanted to save actually didn't need saving. Americans say they are happier than ever, they are miserable hey don't know how unhappy they really are.

Now the atheists on CARM are trying to argue that Chrsitans are addicted to feeling good! How's that for admitting that your way of life has failed? Write off cronic depression on the assumption that "happy people are stupid."


Originally Posted by Whateverman

On the face of it, it's a laughable idea that Christians are addicted to feeling good.

Still, when I see broadcasts by the mega churches or old-school Pentecostal sermons or gospel preaching in the black churches, I can't help but seeing people who appear to crave the feelings/emotions of such events. I can even see the desire for "feeling" in my sister's family (who are Baha'is).

As I thought about this idea (inspired by Tom Bailey's thread), I noticed that people in general also like to go see comedians (for example), and wondered if this was equivalent. I'm not sure it is, but perhaps I'm wrong.

So anyway, what's your opinion? Are theists "addicted" to the feelings religious worship brings? If so, is this similar to the way people crave laughter, or fear (ie. scary movies) or euphoria (ie. good live music)?

Stupid people don't realize that being happy makes you depressed! Or they don't know how miserable they are. He's just trying to write off the fact the Christian way of life works, Christians are less likely to be depressed or have mental problems.While atheists hate themselves.


they all go down the page "Yes I think you are right."

Their way of life does not make them happy and they can't admit it. Everyone has emotions and feelings and the mature thing is to recogize and control your feelings. Denying that you have them is not healthy.


Oddly enough on the same day Royce brings up an old controversy where I quoted an article by a psychiatrist saying that nonspiritual person is the sick soul.



Dr. Jorge W.F. Amaro, Ph.D., Head psychology dept. Sao Paulo

[ http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/amaro.html]

a) Unbeliever is the Sick Soul

"A non spiritualized person is a sick person, even if she doesn't show any symptom described by traditional medicine. The supernatural and the sacredness result from an elaboration on the function of omnipotence by the mind and can be found both in atheist and religious people. It is an existential function in humankind and the uses each one makes of it will be the measure for one's understanding."

pretty appropriate.

Quote:

Amaro--

"Nowadays there are many who do not agree with the notion that religious behavior a priori implies a neurotic state to be decoded and eliminated by analysis (exorcism). That reductionism based on the first works by Freud is currently under review. The psychotherapist should be limited to observing the uses their clients make of the representations of the image of God in their subjective world, that is, the uses of the function of omnipotence. Among the several authors that subscribe to this position are Odilon de Mello Franco (12), .... W. R. Bion (2), one of the most notable contemporary psychoanalysts, ..."

[sources sited by Amaro BION, W. R. Atenção e interpretação (Attention and interpretation). Rio de Janeiro: Imago, 1973.

MELLO FRANCO, O. de. Religious experience and psychoanalysis: from man-as-god to man-with-god. Int. J. of Psychoanalysis (1998) 79,]

c) This relationship is so strong it led to the creation of a whole discipline in psychology; transactionalism

Neilson on Maslow

Quote:

"One outgrowth of Maslow's work is what has become known as Transpersonal Psychology, in which the focus is on the spiritual well-being of individuals, and values are advocated steadfastly. Transpersonal psychologists seek to blend Eastern religion (Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.) or Western (Christian, Jewish or Moslem) mysticism with a form of modern psychology. Frequently, the transpersonal psychologist rejects psychology's adoption of various scientific methods used in the natural sciences."
"The influence of the transpersonal movement remains small, but there is evidence that it is growing. I suspect that most psychologists would agree with Maslow that much of psychology -- including the psychology of religion -- needs an improved theoretical foundation."

3) Religion is positive factor in physical health.

"Doctrors find Power of faith hard to ignore
By Usha Lee McFarling
Knight Ridder News Service
(Dec. 23, 1998)
Http://www.tennessean.com/health/stories/98/trends1223.htm

Quote:

"Some suspect that the benefits of faith and churchgoing largely boil down to having social support — a factor that, by itself, has been shown to improve health. But the health effects of religion can't wholly be explained by social support. If, for example, you compare people who aren't religious with people who gather regularly for more secular reasons, the religious group is healthier. In Israel, studies comparing religious with secular kibbutzim showed the religious communes were healthier."Is this all a social effect you could get from going to the bridge club? It doesn't seem that way," said Koenig, who directs Duke's Center for the Study of Religion/Spirituality and Health .Another popular explanation for the link between religion and health is sin avoidance."

"The religious might be healthier because they are less likely to smoke, drink and engage in risky sex and more likely to wear seat belts.But when studies control for those factors, say by comparing religious nonsmokers with nonreligious nonsmokers, the religious factors still stand out. Compare smokers who are religious with those who are not and the churchgoing smokers have blood pressure as low as nonsmokers. "If you're a smoker, make sure you get your butt in church," said Larson, who conducted the smoking study."

see also: he Faith Factor: An Annotated Bibliography of Systematic Reviews And Clinical Research on Spiritual Subjects Vol. II, David B. Larson M.D., Natiional Institute for Health Research Dec. 1993 For data on a many studies which support this conclusion.

4) Religion is the most powerful Factor in well being.

Poloma and Pendelton The Faith Factor: An Annotated Bibliography of Systematic Reviews And Clinical Research on Spiritual Subjects Vol. II, David B. Larson M.D., Natiional Institute for Health Research Dec. 1993, p. 3290.

Quote:

"The authors found that religious satisfaction was the most powerful predicter of existential well being. The degree to which an individual felt close to God was the most important factor in terms of existential well-being. While frequency of prayer contributed to general life satisfaction and personal happiness. As a result of their study the authors concluded that it would be important to look at a combindation of religious items, including prayer, religionship with God, and other measures of religious experince to begin to adequately clearlify the associations of religious committment with general well-being."

(5) Greater happiness


Religion and Happiness

by Michael E. Nielsen, PhD

Many people expect religion to bring them happiness. Does this actually seem to be the case? Are religious people happier than nonreligious people? And if so, why might this be?

Researchers have been intrigued by such questions. Most studies have simply asked people how happy they are, although studies also may use scales that try to measure happiness more subtly than that. In general, researchers who have a large sample of people in their study tend to limit their measurement of happiness to just one or two questions, and researchers who have fewer numbers of people use several items or scales to measure happiness.

What do they find? In a nutshell, they find that people who are involved in religion also report greater levels of happiness than do those who are not religious. For example, one study involved over 160,000 people in Europe. Among weekly churchgoers, 85% reported being "very satisfied" with life, but this number reduced to 77% among those who never went to church (Inglehart, 1990). This kind of pattern is typical -- religious involvement is associated with modest increases in happiness

Argyle, M., and Hills, P. (2000). Religious experiences and their relations with happiness and personality. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 10, 157-172.

Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Nielsen, M. E. (1998). An assessment of religious conflicts and their resolutions. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37, 181-190.

Nielsen again:

In the days before research boards reviewed research proposals before the studies were conducted, Pahnke devised an experiment to induce people to have a religious experience. On a Good Friday, when they were to meditate in a chapel for 2.5 hours, twenty theology students were given either psilocybin or a placebo. The students who were given the psilocybin reported intense religious experiences, as you might imagine. Their levels of happiness also were significantly greater than the control group reported. But what is especially interesting is that these effects remained 6 months after the experiment, as the psilocybin group reported more "persistent and positive changes" in their attitudes to life than did the placebo group.

Pahnke, W. H. (1966). Drugs and mysticism. International Journal of Parapsychology, 8, 295-314.

That reminds me of the kind of thinking saturized in Vietnam war by  a cartoon the caption of which was "we had to destroy the village to save it." We are keeping form being commies but they all had to die to stay free. The same kind of thinking becuase it's like saying "the cure is worse than the disease" but you do it anyway becuase you will be  free of the disease.

Stupid atheist tricks: Now I'v see it all, The super bowl of atheist tricks

 Hieronymus Bosch's great paiting "the ship of fools."




Some times there comes a message board event so stupid you just have to stop and say "this is the limit!"


Originally Posted by HillyBilly

Can verbs love? Can they know? Can they be jealous? Can they be morally perfect?

Yes our most horrible fears are realized, this idiot thinks that statements like "god is love" and "God is being itself" make God into a linguistic verb and nothing else. He insists its a direct quote from me but of cousre what's he's ignoring is the fac that I don't think loved reduces to a verb. Love is more than just the act of loving. Being itself is not a verb at all.It's a noun perhaps an adjectival noun.


Originally Posted by NotAnAtheist

Theology flies in the face of experience? Or rather, theology can fly in the face of experience?

I admit the knowledge generated by science does as well, so experience isn't the end-all-be-all of epistemology. Still, the problem I have with theology (as you've described it) is that there's no checks and balances. If something theological flies in the face of experience - who are you, puny mortal, to question it?

Meta;

first hand experience is what epistemology is. modern scientific induction has changed the meaning of the term to a ideological construct.

In exchange with silly Billy:

Meta
I never said verbs have minds or that they think. I did not say God is a verb.

you have misinterpreted me.(I'm mocking Royce because that's what he keeps saying)

Hilly  Billy

Nope, it's a direct quote unchanged. If you click on the blue box with the double arrows, you'll be directed to the post where you said that.

The problem is we his understanding of what direct quotes are. he claims he's making direct quote when he's intprriting what hey think I mean. I see this is the case because he tried to claim that it's the consquence of the logic of my satment. so in other word he doesn't know what  a direct quote is.


 Originally Posted by HillyBilly

Actually, you have both said that God is being itself and that being is a verb. By the transitive property of identity, you said God is a verb.

 Meta

 Nope I didn't say God is verb. that just shows you don't understand ideas. you can' pull that broken transitive BS that means nothing. all that means you can't argue fairly.

 Originally Posted by Metacrock

Nope I didn't say God is verb. that just shows you don't understand ideas. you can' pull that broken transitive BS that means nothing. all that means you can't argue fairly.

 

Hilly Billy?

Logic is unfair now?

Yea I really said logic is unfair. I also logic is an idiot. at least one of them is.

Originally Posted by Metacrock

direct quotes are nto made in vacuums they are made in contexts. you took this one out.

 
 Hilly Billy

I did no such thing.

I never said God is  verb.

he says:

Hilly Billy

 It is a fact of logic that identity is transitive.

that doesn't mean that I said God is a verb, dumb ass.



Now, believe it or not we come to the really stupid one. Hilly Billy makes an argument of supreme stupidity makes an obvious mistake on the middle of it and the can't see that he made it.


Hilly Billy

 Here is an argument. This argument is nothing but premises from Metacrock and certain moves in logic. This is playing off of an argument that we had a few days ago where he kept trying to trape me into admitting that God could zaup us into perfection so there need be no suffering.I was trying to show that we wouldn't learn anything so it wouldn't be as good. So he's goign to prove logically that God could do it. He also thinks that God is just amplified humanity, so if God is perfect then we can be perfect too.

1) If something is morally perfect, then it has free will. [from Metacrock]
2) God is morally perfect. [from Metacrock]
3) There exists at least one thing which is morally perfect. [existential instantiation]
4) Said thing has free will. [modus ponens 1, 3]
5) There exists at least one thing which is morally perfect and has free will. [conjunction 3, 4]
6) If something is the case, then it is possible that it is the case. [theorem of modal logic]
7) Beings with moral perfection and free will are possible. [modus ponens 5, 6]
8) If something is possible, God can create it. [from Metacrock]
9) Therefore, God can create morally perfect beings with free will. [modus ponens 7,8]

The only premises here are (1), (2), and (8). Those all come from Metacrock. The rest of the lines are just allowable moves in logic. Is this argument sound?

He dances around this for while maintaining that I'm so stupid I don't see but this absolute totally logical can't deny it. He's confused sound with vaid this is not what sound is.


Originally Posted by Metacrock

My answer to this is that free is necessary in order to have a moral universe. Moral universe is based upon love, therefore, since love requires growth through experience then moral perfection takes time.

Hilly Billy

So, now you claim God didn't start out loving?

 Hu?

 Originally Posted by Metacrock

what in the name of God would possess you to think that I said that?

 

Hilly Billy

You said being loving requires time. You can't just start that way. Hence, God couldn't have started that way. Unless, of course, you think God could have started that way, in which case, per a similar argument to the OP, God could have created humans so that they started out loving him.

 He thinks like God like man. So he totally ignores the fact that we are not divine and we can't be perfect as God is perfect. that was part of the previous discussion he ignores it completely.


Hilly Billy

 It's a conclusion, and it's not that humans must be that way, but that they could be that way. It follows from your premises exactly how I said it does.

 The problem is it does not follow from  my premises because he's re arranged them and taken them out of context so they don't mean the same thing.


Hilly Billy:

Actually, it's you who doesn't understand even the basics of Metaphysics. And even said "I do not understand a single position I took on any of those issues. but you have spent some time reading up on it I just barely remember what they were about".

 Meta


 Here is my exposition of his argument I'll show the basic mistake.


1) If something is morally perfect, then it has free will. [from Metacrock]

one thing

2) God is morally perfect. [from Metacrock]

one thing

3) There exists at least one thing which is morally perfect. [existential instantiation]

one thing!

4) Said thing has free will. [modus ponens 1, 3]

thing = 1. one thing.


5) There exists at least one thing which is morally perfect and has free will. [conjunction 3, 4]


one ever loving thing!

6) If something is the case, then it is possible that it is the case. [theorem of modal logic]

possible for ONE THING not all things.

7) Beings with moral perfection and free will are possible. [modus ponens 5, 6]

BzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZzzzz!

that's S = plural. more than one thing.

you only proved one thing. You can't assert that just because one thing is perfect and has free will that more than one thing would.


8) If something is possible, God can create it. [from Metacrock]

you did not prove the plurality is possible.


9) Therefore, God can create morally perfect beings with free will. [modus ponens 7,8]

NOPE doesn't follow

see the problem? He only proves that God can have free will and make moral decisions and be perfect not that we can. He's making an unfounded assumption that we can be like God. He never states that explicitly so it's a hidden premise.



 HillyBilly;5037949]Here is an argument. This argument is nothing but premises from Metacrock and certain moves in logic.

1) If something is morally perfect, then it has free will. [from Metacrock]

I never said that.I said moral decision making demands free will. that has nothing to do with perfection per se, it also apply to any kind of moral regardless of perfect or not.

2) God is morally perfect. [from Metacrock]

ok acceptable

3) There exists at least one thing which is morally perfect. [existential instantiation]

tautological: not deduced it's just repeated.

4) Said thing has free will. [modus ponens 1, 3]

in the moral decisions made, yes, ok.

5) There exists at least one thing which is morally perfect and has free will. [conjunction 3, 4]

yes one thing, God

6) If something is the case, then it is possible that it is the case. [theorem of modal logic]

tautology and thus unnecessary step

7) Beings with moral perfection and free will are possible. [modus ponens 5, 6]

no, doesn't follow. one thing is not a plurality.

8) If something is possible, God can create it. [from Metacrock]

yea ok, you have not proved that it's possible for humans to be morally perfect!

9) Therefore, God can create morally perfect beings with free will. [modus ponens 7,8]

you are just complete ignoring the issues that I prove when we had this nonsense before. you do not listen. you are not saying a word not a word about the arguemnt that made that day they totally destroyed this nonsense.

this is a silly argument, you don't half the steps you made. the concision doesn't follow from the preises and it's totally ignoring the issues that did make before.

The only premises here are (1), (2), and (8). Those all come from Metacrock. The rest of the lines are just allowable moves in logic. Is this argument sound?

the way you reason about it is illogical and your conclusions are totally illogical.

(1) you draw the conclusion that moral perfection is possible in a plurality when the premises you draw from only speak of "one thing."

(2) You have NOT proved that moral perfection is possible in humans. then you draw the conclusion that it is. then argue that God should be able to create it. you did nothing to prove that.

(3) your logic says "God can be morally perfect. therefore it's possible for something to so, that means humans can be so."

stop the machine it doesn't' mean that.


your arguments are really dishonest and unfair. you make things that I didn't say. you indulge in all sort of fallacious reasoning like affirming the consequent. The conclusions you arrive at dont' even follow logically.

I also think you confuse sound with valid. You seem to think what makes it sound is the way it's derived from previous assumptions. that is not the case. Actually the soundless of arguments is a lot harder to pin down.

here is how I dealt with it on my blog. This is taken form the discussion I had with him before. He ignores every bit of it including the part about we can't be perfect.

 A poster on CARM "HillyBilly" (aka SillyBilly) is trying to bring in standard atheist contradiction argument against moral perfection. His argument:

My reasoning is direct and simple enough that even a child could understand it.

1) If something is morally perfect, then it has free will. [from YOU]
2) God is morally perfect. [from YOU]
3) There exists at least one thing which is morally perfect. [existential instantiation]
4) Said thing has free will. [modus ponens 1, 3)
5) There exists at least one thing which is morally perfect and has free will. [conjunction 3, 4]
6) If something is the case, then it is possible that it is the case. [theorem of modal logic]
7) Beings with moral perfection and free will are possible. [modus ponens 5, 6]
8) If something is possible, God can create it. [from YOU]
9) Therefore, God can create morally perfect beings with free will. [modus ponens 7,8]

See? It's a deductive consequence of nothing but premises from you and from the rules of logic. If you deny it, you are contradicting yourself.

 In other words the point of it all is that since moral perfection and free will don't contradict then we could side step sin and just have moral perfection and free will but without sin and all the bad implications of it. My answer to this is that free is necessary in order to have a moral universe. Moral universe is based upon love, therefore, since love requires growth through experience then moral perfection takes time. Being a mature state of agape (love) moral perfection the development of moral perfection requires experience and pain. It's not something we can be "zapped" into. Yes, I believe that God is limited to logical necessity, he can't make square circles because square circles are a contradiction in terms. So is the idea of moral perfection without love and experience is a contradiction in terms. Thus being morally perfect, if we are granted it at all, takes time and experience in life.

I don't believe that we are meant to match God's moral perfection. Jesus says "be ye perfect as your father in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48). The problem is that "perfect" is a bad translation. The word in that passage is telos from tello meaning ""to set out for a definite point or goal." The word telos itself is defined as defined by Strong's:

5056 télos (a neuter noun) – properly, consummation (the end-goal, purpose), such as closure with all its results.

[This root (tel-) means "reaching the end (aim)." It is well-illustrated with the old pirate's telescope, unfolding (extending out) one stage at a time to function at full-strength (capacity effectiveness).][1]

So the end goal or purpose to which something is meant to move is the concept. Thus he's not saying "I command you to have the very save level of moral excellence that God has," but rather "be all that you are meant to be." Being all we are meant to be, in terms of moral perfection, would mean love. Love requires sacrifice, giving, compassion, forgiving, bearing with the pain of others. You can't do that in a vacuum without living among other people. Just to have the experience of that put into our heads without actually going through it and learning from it would defeat the process of learning and it would not be real love. Love requries that we actually love. To love because you are programed to love is not love.

It's much like the philosophical zombie argument. Without actually growing through the process of dealing with others in real life one would be a philosophical zombie; one would seem outwardly exactly like the end product and one might even have false memories of it but it wouldn't be real love. It wouldn't be real free will because then the agent would not have chosen to love but would just be carrying out the commands of a program. So the idea that God will just zap us into perfection is a pipe dream and would not work. That means to have a moral universe we just live in the real world and be put in situations to make real choices.

Thus it is necessary for a moral universe, that is a universe in which free will agents make moral decisions and willingly choose the good, one must risk the possibility of choosing wrongly. Free will is essential to love and moral perfection.

Then in the issue of perfection we are not required to be god-like. We are not going to be put on a level with God. We have our own telos that is the human telos; the goal or end point that we are meant to grow into, the level of love that is humanly possible.

The Christian free will defense says that God has to risk all the bad by giving us free will because love and moral decision making require free will. the atheist says we can side step the unpleasant choice of actually choosing wrongly just by God zapping us into perfection and we can still have free will. I say that is making philosophical zobmies who have not actually learned to love but merely carrying out programing.

There's a lot we can learn from this thinking even without the free will/Theodicy busienss. We can learn the difficulty of love and how hard it is to actually go through the process of learning to be what God meant us to be. In so dong we must learn that it's impossible without God's grace. That's part of the lesson, learning to rely on God.


 I swear they are getting stupider. They so desperate to win they don't read anything, they don't even read the answers in a given thread. They say any BS they think of and they assume their answers are so perfect and so brilliant they don't even need to extend.

Four Frankinstine's Deny Their Monster:Christiepher Hitches set up violent conflict and De-Humanized Chrsitians

It's so amusing how blind atheists are to their own mysterious course. The atheist leaders are truly clueless. Look at them conversing in a public setting, how unaware of what's going on among their rank and file they are. But what's even more so is the mixed signals they send and how unaware they are of sending them. This is on Richard Dawkins Foundation.

[CH] Christopher Hitchens
[DD] Daniel Dennett
[RD] Richard Dawkins
[SH] Sam Harris

[RD] One of the things we’ve all met is the accusation that we are strident or arrogant, or vitriolic, or shrill. What do we think about that?

[DD] Hah! Yeah, well I’m amused by it, because I went out of my way in my book to address reasonable religious people. And I test-flew the draft with groups of students who were deeply religious. And indeed, the first draft incurred some real anguish. And so I made adjustments and made adjustments. And it didn’t do any good in the end because I still got hammered for being for being rude and aggressive. And I came to realise that it’s a no-win situation. It’s a mug’s game. The religions have contrived to make it impossible to disagree with them critically without being rude.

[RD] Without being rude.

[DD] You know, they sort of play the hurt feelings card at every opportunity, and faced with a choice of, well, am I gonna be rude or am I going to articulate this criticism? I mean, am I going to articulate it, or am I just gonna button my lip?[1]

 Without being rude! They think they are being so fair not huring anyone. At the same time they giving off messages like that by Dawkins:


 "mock them, ridicule them! In public" (laughter form audience--applause)...."they need to be ridiculed in contempt."

I'm told that the context is to mock and ridicule people who are not stormily committed. I don't see how that makes it any better. They are still using coercion and extortion to force people into a position they don't want to be in. the seek to destroy the faith fo the fragile and the week and struggling to bleieve. They think that's fair game but of course if we went after the lonely isolated kids who are hovering on the edge of the atheist movement as a means social acceptance, they would say we are being unfair.

Take a wider look at the movement they started we see it running way off away from them. While they are isolated in their Ivory towers they don't understand what's going on we see the movement they spawned taking the message to reducible pretty literally. Just look back at my article on Boghossian's call to eradicate the Mind Virus. Which includes a complete plan for living that centers around making faith in God into a certifiable symptom of mental illness and a relentless "in your face" persecution of Chrsitians. "Stigmatize faith-based claims like racist claims. He argues we should deploy the models of the civil rights and the women's rights movements. Basically it should be politically incorrect to argue something based on faith. He aptly quotes Sam Harris here: "People who harbor strong convictions without evidence belong at the margins of society." [2] See my article "atheists use ridicule as brain Washing."

 Yesterday I talked about the perception that criticism and mockery is often considered going negative. Today I want to talk about the value of criticism and mockery. Quite simply, it is how we learn.
When presented with an idea (good or bad) we have to think about the idea. Sometimes we don’t do that or we don’t think deeply enough about the idea. This is where someone else comes along and points out why the idea is poor by criticizing the idea. Their criticism may or may not have merit, but at least now we can think about those criticisms.
Sometimes however, ideas become deeply held beliefs and regardless of how valid the criticism might be, we still reject that criticism and cling to the belief. We might even insist that the belief be taken seriously and believed by others on insufficient reasoning and/or evidence.
This is where mockery comes in. When people refuse to take our deeply held beliefs seriously, we might dig in deeper in trying to get people to take our beliefs seriously. The more people mock the belief, the more we are confronted with the criticisms of the belief and he more we must try to deal with those criticism if we still expect our beliefs to be taken seriously.
Mockery is withheld as a last form of criticism for those who refuse to have their ideas criticized. It is more dismissive of the idea and usually only comes in when the particular idea is really ridiculous and worth mockery. It is a message that, “hey, your idea has way too many criticisms and is just so ridiculous that is really isn’t worth taking seriously at all.”[3]

 Free-man's Perspective:

 Every time I write an article that mentions god – even if used as a descriptive reference to “the gods” – I get insulting and arrogant comments from atheists. And it’s not just me; you can see the same thing all over the Internet.
To put it simply, these people are bullies, striking unbidden with fast, hard blows. It’s not about truth; it’s about dominance.[4]

 There's no way to connect Radical actions to the ideas advocated by the gentry in the Ivory tower. The seed can be planted here and there who knows what waters it. When it springs into a poison plant who is to blame? Yet there has to be some connection with the movement that planted the seed.


 Self described militant atheist beat up a preacher recently in Ohio. The preacher asked his girl friend in front of him if he was abusing her. We can just write that off because the preacher did something to precipitate an incident that might have no connection with atheism. [5] That's a good way to rationalize it. Would he have done it if atheists had never been putting out the message that coercion is ok? Or the message that religious people are fair game for coercion?



Souces


[1]Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris Panel, "The Four Horsemen Transcript: Discussions with Richard Dawkins Episode one. Pubished by The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, on line resource: http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/fourhorsementranscript
 accessed 12/1/13.

[2] Boghossian's Manuel for Creating Atheists, quoted by John Loftus on Debunking Christianity Blog, "Boghossian is a crusader he's very serious and I like it." Nov, 14, (2013).
 http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.ca/2013/11/boghossian-is-very-serious-hes-crusader.html
 accessed 12/1/13

 [3] Metacrock, "Atheists Use Ridicule As Brain Washing." Atheist Watch March 15 (2011).
  http://atheistwatch.blogspot.com/2011/03/atheists-use-rieicule-as-brain-washing.html
 accessed 12/2/13.


 [4] Blog, "Have the Atheist Become the Gorillas?" Free-Man's Perspective, Nov 13, (2013).
http://www.freemansperspective.com/atheists-become-the-gorillas/
 accessed 12/2/13

 [5]Doyle Murphy, "Militant Atheist Beats Ohio Pastor After Church Service..." New York Daily News, Oct 23, 2013. On line version: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ohio-pastor-viciously-beaten-militant-atheist-cops-article-1.1493690
 accessed 12/2/13.

Schedule change

I have decided to do Metacrock's blog on MWF, and Atheist watch T,TH, and somtimes Saturday. Please go read Metacrock's blog today!

http://metacrock.blogspot.com/

Today: "Is God Necessary For Human's to Love?"