Atheists Have Problems With God Beyond Our Understanding

Poster on CARM Mary Jane argues that the mystical tradition and it's claim that God is beyond our understanding is contradictory. I said something about her assumptions...

CARM Ath/agnostic board
no.9 ...4/28/11

Originally Posted by MaryJane

What meaning did I give it? What did I assume? I said it seemed contradictory to me.

Meta
saying that God is beyond our understanding has a long hsitory going back to the roots of the Bible. It indulges all the major mystics and philosophers. Instead of reaching about that you just assume it means total absolutely any single thing. we cant' one single thing about God in any way.

then you assert If you claim to know anything at all then you are contradicting yourself. But no,it's not a contradiction it's just part of the tradition.

MJ

And then I asked questions. Feel free to answer them. Explain to me what the non-literal understanding is. Explain how 'God is beyond our understading' can be understood in any other way than it was presented.

Meta
Understanding doesn't mean to have a reasonable hypothesis it means to control, to know completely and exhaustively. So to say "God is beyond our understanding" means we can't deconstruct God, we can't reduce the concept of God to something else, we can't explain the physics of God, we can't know what he's made of or if he snores, but most of all it means we can't know his reasons for what he does.

It means we can't control God, we can't know him the way we seek to know physics and nature.

it does NOT mean we can't know anything about god and doesn't mean we can't formulate reasonable ideas about God.

of you are also ignoring the whole of point of the tradition, which is that we cant' understanding anything about God exhaustively, but also we can't know it in a rational or discursive way--in words. It DOES NOT MEAN that we can't know God through experience.

The whole idea is to have experiential knowledge of God. We can't pass that kind of knowledge on in words to others without giving them the experience. So we speak in metaphors and try to draw people into seeking the expediences themselves.


Mary Jane

I'll adjust it to your interpretation: How can you say God is beyond our understanding and then claim to know that he is 'ground of being'? How can you possibly know this if he's beyond your understanding?

Meta

Again, if you are taking the phrase in a litterateur fashion, you can make a metaphorical connection based upon correlations because experience and theory. In this case I'm including doctrine as "theory."

We know about the ground of being through logic and through our own participation in being. The link from Ground to God is through our experience of the ground of being in relation to the divine.

That's what the argument I had up there was about.

More Orwellian Atheist Lanaguge: The Brave New WORLD of ATHEISM

CARM
no 9 4/28/11
with MFFJM2


Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
your assertion here is "there's only one kind of understanding and anything that doesn't allow me to control is not real because I exclude it."

MFF

Using quotation marks for a quote that you made up is disingenuous.

I've argued that before against atheist who did that. I should have thought to use italics.

Truth is I think that's a petty issue, it depends upon the context, but i don't want to argue about it.

MFF

I made no such assertion. I asked what this other realm of knowledge might be, and for all your asserted education and experience you have yet to actually answer that questions.

Here he is responding to my statment above in yellow and basically admitts he believes the only form of knowledge is scitnfiic knowledge.

By "other realm" of knowledge we are talking about as opposed to scientific knowledge. So he's basically agreeing that there is only one from of knowledge and that's the kind of knowledge his ideology claims to control.

Meta:

Do you have a problem seeing words on the screen? What part of "phenomenology" do you not get? why do you think I put up three links if I didn't answer it?

MFF

What might constitute another form of knowledge which can provide facts, include testable hypotheses, and which is also falsifiable. So how about answering that question instead of one you made up..?

Meta

(1) tell me why it has to be testable in the same way? If it's a question that doesn't' lend itself to that kind of testing wouldn't it better to find another way to get answers answers rather than just saying "If I can't control it I don't want it?"

(2) the reason you are willing to think there's only one kind of knowledge is because you only allow knowing to be something you control. That's why you have to have i testable so you can absolutely be sure about it, and be in control. Not all questions lends themselves to that kind of answer.

(3) Textual criticism is testable and can be falsified and verified.

(4) Phenomenology can falsified and verified.

(5) formal logic can be falsified and verified. Not empirical because it's not empirical but it can be controlled because we know the rules of logic.

Meta:(before)

that's what ideology is! that's not scinece it's ideology.

MFF

I bow to your superior knowledge of what constitutes ideology, because you seem to have nothing to offer but ideology.

Meta

that's a silly come back. I just demonstrated that your view is ideology, you have no reason to think mine is. Mine is the opposite of ideology because I'm not arguign one idea fits all questions.

That's like the charge of reverse racism, if it weer made by the Klan against MLK. Not that I'm on a par with him. Yet what is really tells us is that he's not following the issues.

Meta (before)

Look at what you said. you essentially said this: If there's another way to achieve exactly the same results in the same way and validate my world view then tell me."

MFF

No, I used the standard definition of knowledge.

The standard? "what I'm good at is knowledge, you are good at is not."

Meta:

No, you used one standard that is designed to make sure that only the knowledge want to exist can fit the bill. If you were willing to accept global knowledge you would change the criteria for what constitutes valid knowledge. You keep the criteria such that only one thing can fit it becasue that allows control. that's what ideology is about, controlling minds and dominating people.

scientism is actually fascism.

Are you now asserting that knowledge is something other than facts which provide testable hypotheses, are confirmable, provide predictive power, and are falsifiable..?

there's what he thinks is his standard of knowledge, testable, predictive, in other words. science. science is the only form of knowledge because atheists think they have a "scientific" view point which they don't. He just associates the word "knowledge" with science. If you gave him a sensence like "you have no knowledge of French" would he say "French is not scinece so there's no knowledge connected to knowing French? I'll think I'll ask him that and report back.

Meta

of course! use your head for minute. Are all questions the kind of question? can't you ask questions about things that can't be tested empirically? what if you just accidentally happen to think about "gee I wonder if there's a meaning to life?" you test can't test that in the way you would a air bag. Are you really willing to write off the possibility of meaning just because you can't control the answers th way you would with a scientific test?

MFF

You seem to have a strange concept of knowledge, so maybe you can define it for us. In philosophy, knowledge is certain understanding, as opposed to opinion. So what makes your different realm of knowledge different from your opinion..?

Meta

because my knowledge is open to truth whatever it may be, I'm not willing to write off trusts just because I control their outcome they way scientific testing allows one to do.
why would you ever think that Plato's concept of the one is not knowledge? what ni the hell would keep it from being knowledge? If you read Plato don't you then have knowledge of what he said? is not knowledge? only what you like can be knowledge because it supports your view. don't you get it? you are selfish, you trying to control what people believe so you can rationalize getting what you want. don't you see that? you cut off all reality that doesn't fit in with your little system becuase it doesn't give you what you want.

I don't mean to say that you personally are selfish of course, but it's a system. It's an ideology that's the way they work. One thought fits all questions and all other outlooks are banned.

what if there is a form of knowledge that doesn't' employ the same kind of tests?

MFF

Then what makes it certain..?

Meta

why does it have to be certain? ever look up the word knowledge in the dictionary? w Nothing about certainty.the reason is so that your ideology can claim it has truth. that' the only reason you have self deceiving ridiculous criterion that can't really be met. that's like saying it has to be "objective."

MFF

How can it be understood as certain if there is no way to verify it, to test it, or to falsify it..? What makes it knowledge...? Because you assert it is..?

He's clearly not thinking of knowledge as a body of ideas that you know about, but as certainty, knowledge is only that which is certain. That's part of the Orwellian nature of his scientific atheist ideology because certainty is about control.

Meta

It's knowledge if you know it. Knowing something makes it knowledge. If you don't have certainty you can know about it as an idea. you don't have know only facts. facts are misleading because they are usually facts, they are usually political stances disguised as facts.

but you can still come to a reasonable understanding of it's reality?

MFF

How..?

Meta

global knowledge.

MFF

If you can't verify it, validate it, certify it, use it to predict, or falsify it, then how can it be knowledge, which is certain understanding..? How do you arrive at certainty, without the tests mentioned..? Try answering the above questions, and thrill me with your acumen.

are you actually admitting to thinking that scinece is the only kneed of knowledge? then why are did not you read the stuff I linked to on phenomenology?

Meta

how do you know there aren't other ways to validate and verify things? you have accept the idea that only one kind of certainty matters. and the reason for it is to control your mind.


you are not thinknig about what I said. you don't want truth you want preteens. atheism is brain washing. you are brain washed. you are brain washed into thinkg there' one kind of truth. this is the most sick and disgusting thing Anaheim has done to people. that is fascism.

you would still exclude it becasue you can't control it. that's ideology.

MFF

I don't care in the slightest about control. I do care about someone trying to pass off their opinion as knowledge, based solely on their say so. Ideology is claiming there is another form of knowledge and then insisting it can't be tested for accuracy.

Meta

O come off it! you made that up. you just sat right and made a definition no one else uses merely to say "No no my deal isn't that yours is." that's so dishonest!

He says he doesn't care about control but what is ruled out a prori if you limit knowledge on to "certainty?" God of course. They cant' disprove god, they can't beat God arguments by logic so they have to cheat by eliminating the concept through narrowing the focus of scinece to only "established certain knowledge." That also eliminates further work in scinece. Not only would that take out a bunch of things like string theory but it also means no new work could be done because just speculating would mean allowing unestablished ideas in as knowledge.

That's the Orwellian aspect. Change the meaning of words to fit only our project.


Just for grins here's how Webster defines Knowledge:

Definition of KNOWLEDGE

1

obsolete : cognizance

2

a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something (2) : the range of one's information or understanding knowledge> c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned knowledge>

3

archaic : sexual intercourse

4

a : the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind b archaic : a branch of learning

See knowledge defined for English-language learners »

Examples of KNOWLEDGE

1. She has little knowledge of fashion.
2. He has devoted himself to the pursuit of knowledge.
3. She gained a thorough knowledge of local customs.
4. Did you have any knowledge of her intentions?
5. At that time the word science had not been narrowed down to one kind of knowledge; it meant whatever was known, and men of learning were still able to possess most of it. —Jacques Barzun, From Dawn to Decadence, 2000
6. With their aid, he should be able to adapt himself selectively to his culture, rejecting its evils, stupidities and irrelevances, gratefully accepting all its treasures of accumulated knowledge … and practical wisdom. —Aldous Huxley, “Culture and the … ,” in Artificial Paradises,Mike Jay editor, 1999
7. The knowledge of the godawful way people act (their greed, their vicarious or direct violence), and of the youth and helplessness of those who died, leads to shame … —Harold Brodkey, New Yorker, 30 Jan. 1995
8. [+]more[-]hide

Origin of KNOWLEDGE

Middle English knowlege, from knowlechen to acknowledge, irregular from knowen

First Known Use: 14th century

How Brave Are Atheists Really When it Comes to Science?

A coward is dishonest. Stories of war "heroes" and people who acted in ways we call "brave," say they were afraid. They say it's not cowardly to fear. What is cowardly is not facing fears.

Intellectually the greatest fear is to have your arguments disproved.
I have been discussing studies about religious experience for years. I've posted massive amounts of info on the subject and on the studies on this board on my blogs and on the boards, not to mention my website.

Yet these studies are met with cowardice and fear on the part of atheists. they mock and slander having never read a single study! maybe someone looked up one (It think he actually read it).

Maybe 2 atheists have actual looked a bit of the primary material and commented but those comments were not anywhere near as negative as the bs ridiculous little slander of people have haven't come close to even reading a single study.

It is cowardice. I call you all cowards. None of you have my respect as thinkers because you slander things you don't know about, wont go any trouble at all to learn about it, I wrote a whole book then someone said "You wont 30 pages" like thats' some little things. Have you typed 30 pages, copying them form a text? why should I do that then the response will be not valid methodological criticism but the kind of pathetic half baked little nagging you have been doing.

*they once argued the studies are no good becuase they appear in a bibliography with a source by depok Choppra (and they had no idea why the source quoted Choppra).
* similar cirticisms based upon association with those who quote from the studies.
*because the studies mostly use surveys.
*one person read one article that summarized a bunch of the studies, and for no reason at all announced that "this is not a summary of independent studies. these sources are not studies" (I got several of them and read them and they were studies).
*lying about the peer reviewed nature of certain publications
*confusing arguments with the way I use the data vs with study methodology (I use it wrong therefore it's a bad study).


These are just a few of the myriad ridiculous knit picking irrelevant garbage argumetns it's on the basis of these that they have come to recite the slogans like mantra "every knows your studies are not good." no one has read a single study all the way through, most have not even seen one.

The only thing that comes close to real scholar arguments are these:

*Hermit kept pushing a study that showed serotonin levels correlated with religious experience. I looked up his study and found they didn't use a valid measurement to determine mystical experience. he did quote a study I use that is not against RE and does use the M scale and links the experience to serotonin. The author of that study says his study does not disprove the divine in mystical experiences. The author of that study in fact is a best friend of the inverter of the M scale (that was the Johns Hopkins study by Grifiths).

*one atheist found a study on the net that he claimed disproved the m scale, after reading it and finding it supports the m scale I pointed out the first pages says it supports it.
* one guy actually read a bit of the chapter I link to and said "here's a study that is disproved, this shows tha these studies are no good." It was disproved alright, it was an example of Hood showing why his M scale was needed and how its' much better than studies done previously, that was the previous study done before the M scale that had the problems. He's just taking it out of context to make my studies look bad.

These are the kinds of piddling dumbo stuff that is the basis of the mantra "everyone had read your studies and says they are not good." The very best attacks are out of context or actually support my view.

Then there re the cowards who will not look up a study, they wont click on a link but keep slandering the studies and talking everyone disproved.

that's just typical atheism anyway because that's all atheists ever do is ignore answers that theists give and go on saying the same things all the time.

I think the refuse to look up the marital is cowardly. They are afraid that God will be proved by the scientific work, that will cause their entire world view and self esteem to crash, they have to deny that at all costs. they would rather risk being dishonest cowards than to be disproved.

Atheists can't stand the assault of empircal miracles.

The atheist on CARM are wrestles, they keep bring up old therads on miracles. I deiced to oblige. Most of the old threads are just gushing propaganda pieces where one atheist after declares that miracles don't happen. But confront them with the evidence and all they do is supptter incredulity or quibble.

There are sources that show empirical scientific evidence that suggest healing by God happens.

the following caveats have to be observed:

I. There will be an epistemological gap: verisimilitude is the standard!

In any question of knowledge or truth there will always be an epistemological gap. the empiricists fallacy or epistemological dilemma cannot be resolved with out and out empirical means. You have to have a gap it will always be. Given that we can have virtual certainty or verisimilitude.

Just as rational warrant is the thing in God arguments so verisimilitude is the thing in miracle evidence.

II. We can't obtain the actual sources.

you have to use the printed material we can get as a jumping off place to start seeking and researching. It should be enough, however, to make the point that you don't have room to argue for no evdience.

example: theoretically we one is able to by the original x-rays form Lourdes, but that system is not as good as it was. I haven't done much follow up. some of the sources that talk about are not scholarly sources. The scholarship is there. The documentation is there.

Having said that the rules laid out for miracle study for the committee to follow are strong.

MODERN MIRACLES HAVE STRICT RULES

BY DAVID VAN BIEMA

independent journalist with international reputation
The paradox of human miracle assessment is that the only way to discern whether a phenomenon is supernatural is by having trained rationalists testify that it outstrips their training. Since most wonders admitted by the modern church are medical cures, it consults with doctors. Di Ruberto has access to a pool of 60 - "We've got all the medical branches covered," says his colleague, Dr. Ennio Ensoli - and assigns each purported miracle to two specialists on the vanquished ailment.

They apply criteria established in the 1700s by Pope Benedict XIV: among them, that the disease was serious; that there was objective proof of its existence; that other treatments failed; and that the cure was rapid and lasting. Any one can be a stumbling block. Pain, explains Ensoli, means little: "Someone might say he feels bad, but how do you measure that?" Leukemia remissions are not considered until they have lasted a decade. A cure attributable to human effort, however prayed for, is insufficient. "Sometimes we have cases that you could call exceptional, but that's not enough." says Ensoli. "Exceptional doesn't mean inexplicable."

"Inexplicable," or inspiegabile, is the happy label that Di Ruberto, the doctors and several other clerics in the Vatican's "medical conference" give to a case if it survives their scrutiny. It then passes to a panel of theologians, who must determine whether the inexplicable resulted from prayer. If so, the miracle is usually approved by a caucus of Cardinals and the Pope.

Some find the process all too rigorous. Says Father Paolino Rossi, whose job, in effect, is lobbying for would-be saints from his own Capuchin order: "It's pretty disappointing when you work for years and years and then see the miracle get rejected." But others suggest it could be stricter still.

There is another major miracle-validating body in the Catholic world: the International Medical Committee for the shrine at Lourdes. Since miracles at Lourdes are all ascribed to the intercession of the Virgin Mary, it is not caught up in the saint-making process, which some believe the Pope has running overtime. Roger Pilon, the head of Lourdes' committee, notes that he and his colleagues have not approved a miracle since 1989, while the Vatican recommended 12 in 1994 alone. "Are we too severe?" he wonders out loud. "Are they really using the same criteria?"

The Marian Library Newsletter

No. 38 (New Series)
Summer, 1999

Since the apparitions at Lourdes in 1858, a procedure has gradually developed for verifying the cures and healings which occur there. Today, Lourdes is recognized as the Church's foremost center for investigating healings. There, medical personnel from all the world are invited to investigate the evidence for reported healings. Included among the medical examiners are those who allow and those who exclude the possibility of miraculous healings. The procedure also attempts to respects the dignity of the person who has been cured. John Paul II reminded the medical personnel of Lourdes that the verification of miraculous cures is Lourdes' "special responsibility and mission" (Nov. 17, 1988).


Marian Library (Ibid.)

"In the last one hundred years, over 6,500 individuals have reported cures to the Medical Bureau. Of these, at least 2,500 cases are considered truly remarkable, but they lack some requirement needed to allow them to advance to the next stage--witnesses, evidence, lack of agreement on the nature of the ailment. In the last twenty years, there have been reports of about twenty cases of extraordinary cures or healings, about one a year. Mr. B�ly's healing is the 66th cure occurring at Lourdes which has been officially recognized by ecclesiastical authorities. The recognition by church authorities has been a feature of Lourdes for a total of sixty- three years of its history."

just a few examples

Lourdes cures

http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/stb06001.htm

Colonel Paul Pellegrin
3 October 1950
age 52; Toulon, France Post-operative fistula following a liver abscess in 1948. By the time of his pilgrimage in 1950, the condition had degenerated to an open wound that required multiple dressing changes each day, and showed no sign of healing. On emerging from his second bath in the waters, the wound had completely closed, and the condition never bothered him again. Recognized by the diocese of Fr�jus-Toulon, France on 8 December 1953.

Brother Schwager L�o
30 April 1952
age 28; Fribourg, Switzerland multiple sclerosis for five years; recognized by the diocese of Fribourg, Switzerland on 18 December 1960

Alice Couteault, born Alice Gourdon
15 May 1952
age 34; Bouille-Loretz, France multiple sclerosis for three years; recognized by the diocese of Poitiers, France on 16 July 1956

Marie Bigot
8 October 1953 and 10 October 1954
age 31 and 32; La Richardais, France arachnoiditis of posterior fossa (blindness, deafness, hemiplegia); recognized by the diocese of Rennes, France 15 August 1956

Ginette Nouvel, born Ginette Fabre
21 September 1954
age 26; Carmaux, France Budd-Chiari disease (supra-hepatic venous thrombosis); recognized by the diocese of Albi on 31 May 1963

Elisa Aloi, later Elisa Varcalli
5 June 1958
age 27; Patti, Italy tuberculous osteo-arthritis with fistulae at multiple sites in the right lower limb; recognized by the diocese of Messine, Italy on 26 May 1965

Juliette Tamburini
17 July 1959
age 22; Marseilles, France femoral osteoperiostitis with fistulae, epistaxis, for ten years; recognized by the diocese of Marseille, France on 11 May 1965

Vittorio Micheli
1 June 1963
age 23; Scurelle, Italy Sarcoma (cancer) of pelvis; tumor so large that his left thigh became loose from the socket, leaving his left leg limp and paralyzed. After taking the waters, he was free of pain, and could walk. By February 1964 the tumor was gone, the hip joint had recalcified, and he returned to a normal life. Recognized by the diocese of Trento, Italy on 26 May 1976.

Serge Perrin
1 May 1970
age 41; Lion D'Angers, France Recurrent right hemiplegia, with ocular lesions, due to bilateral carotid artery disorders. Symptoms, which included headache, impaired speech and vision, and partial right-side paralysis began without warning in February 1964. During the next six years he became wheelchair-confined, and nearly blind. While on pilgrimage to Lourdes in April 1970, his symptoms became worse, and he was near death on 30 April. Wheeled to the Basilica for the Ceremony the next morning, he felt a sudden warmth from head to toe, his vision returned, and he was able to walk unaided. First person cured during the Ceremony of the Anointing of the Sick. Recognized by the diocese of Angers, France on 17 June 1978.

Delizia Cirolli, later Delizia Costa
24 December 1976
age 12; Paterno, Italy Ewing's Sarcoma of right knee; recgonized by the diocese of Catania, Italy on 28 June 1989

Jean-Pierre B�ly
9 October 1987
age 51; French multiple sclerosis; recognized by the diocese of Angoul�me on 9 February 1999


all the official Lourdes miracles:

CARM
Diest says:

In all of these studies, what is ignored is all those who died and go unreported. All those who prayed just as hard, just as long, and died. The only cases that are reported on and remembered are those where something unexplainable (as yet to modern science) happened. There are NO miracles; only temporarily unexplained events.

Meta, this is one area where I think you and others are WAY off base, and create much harm in thinking that a god creates healing in some, while others don't have such fortune. To suggest that god hears the prayers of one person, and not another, is exremely bad for society. Should you, like others, contend he heard the prayer of the one who died, and allowed that to happen means that you can't change the will of god, anyway.

What you and other preayer believers think you are doing is changing God's will. I have discussed this topic for decades now. When all is said and done regrading prayer, the bible does not say prayer will be answered, but you must pray for God's WILL to be done, and to understand that. To believe some god will spare the life of someone because of a few choicely placed words is like believing a volcano god will stop a volcano just because some primitives held hands in a circle around the mountain.

Instead of people living a right life, not over eating, not over drinking, exercising, working, studying, doing what it takes, those who believe in prayer think a thrid party (God) will bail them out. This is not right, Meta, and you should know it. It is illogical, and unfair for a god to do this. It suggests a petty God; a wanton God, an egotistical God to believe in prayer.

He's got it reduced to doubt and earning God's favor. Notice he doesn't counter anything. He doesn't deal with the evidence I give nor does he deal with anything else. He doesn't have any evidence of his own. He's merely a wet blanket, "you can't trust, God, God wont help us." You have to earn God's favor but there's no favor to earn.

My father was dead then he was alive again. So these people tell I can't believe in something I've already seen work several times.

teagabsalad

OK...so a handful of ill people out of the six billion people on this planet got better possibly in ways we cannot explain. This is simply nothing more than a "God of Gaps" argument.

Misdiagnosis and false positives are more than enough to explain these "miracles".

the name of the thread, they can't handle the evidence. this is merely an assumption not in evidence. Its' also obvouisly wrong to think that the cases are in material sighted. It's obviously going to be a tip of the iceberg. Then he continues with a counter miracle.

I started to suffer from stomach pains after I ate cheese (or other fatty foods). I went to my doctor who ran some tests and his initial thoughts were that I probably had a stomach infection of some description. Rather than giving me antibiotics straight away he made me keep a track of my diet for 2 weeks to better identify what was going on.

10 days or so into this I had an episode where the pain was so bad that I couldn't sleep and was in agony for around 12 hours before it subsided. I returned to my doctor he sent me straight to hospital to have a scan as he now felt (based on what I had eaten that day) that I could have issues with my Gall Bladder. The scan didn't show anything unusual - no Gall Stones, no obvious swelling.

I was then put on to a very low fat diet to see if this helped with the problem - it appear to. This pointed the finger at my Gall Bladder based on the dietary changes and blood test results. Another series of scans sometime later revealed that I did in fact have gall stones but very small ones that shouldn't be causing me a problem.

After consulting a specialist it was decided that I should have my gall bladder removed. The day before my operation I had another scan - no Gall stones!? How did that happen?

Since then I have been fine, no episodes, no pain and I can eat cheese again. Both my doctor and the specialist were confused and surprised by this and could not really offer an explanation as to what happened?

Was it a miracle? Was it just a complex condition that wasn't properly understood by the doctors and that my immune system was able to deal with once I had removed as much fat as possible from my diet?

has he proved something here? I happen to know that his mother is a Christian and probably prayed for him. So all he's telling us is that he can doubt and rationalize.


Bust Nak

I see you have dropped the scientific tag and is using empircal instead.

this is scientific data.

here's what the alled scientist says:
Originally Posted by Mat Hunt

No, experical just means a curve fit, you can't tell anything from curve fits.

experimental? Well EMperical has a lot more to it than that. Its' really philosophy and scinece stole the term and trucked the concept to fit it's own method. so really it's a gimmick used by reductionism to lose phenomena.

which is all you are doing here.


Originally Posted by Hez

Are you familiar with the argument from ignorance?

"This event is inexplicable, therefore it must be the supernatural"

If you apply that sort of logic then you will shut down all scinece. The only way scinece can make a conclusion is through extrapolating form data. If everything we make an assumption that extrapolations are merely argumemt from ignorance then we can't ever make any extrapolations so we can't use empirical methods n scinece anymore.

these guys are not doing this in a vacuum. they have scientific knowledge of diseases and hit rates for cures and so forth. They are using this stuff not in a pool of ignorance but in conjugation with medical scinece.

Are you familiar with what a false dichotomy is?

"Science hasn't got an explanation for this, therefore the supernatural does"

Are you familiar with what an argument from personal incredulity is?

not the case because everything else is nailed down. the only thing that can't be accounted for is the prayer. that's the one elements that's different.

again with your logic you can't do science. how would you prove smoking causes cancer without someone using your thing here?

"The theologian personally didn't know how the event could have occured, he therefore deemed it a miracle"

theolgoians are not on the medical committee. theologians don't do the research. they use medical researchers, the best in Europe. theologians don't see the cases until after the people are selected by the doctors.

Besides all that, I'm wondering:
Can you define the supernatural without invoking a negative ontology?
Oh, and no; invoking a supernatural entity to answer the question (i.e., god) won't help you.

Yes.You have no concept of what supernatural means. Your are arguing in a circle because you assert that can't appeal to God because God can't be the answer before you even examine the argument.

read this:

http://www.doxa.ws/meta_crock/Supernature.html

Now Hunt is quibbling about the meaning of the term "empirical." what they are not doing is analyzing the evidence or presenting counter evidence.

Atheist Special Pleading

On CARM over the week end I had this huge knock down drag out fight on a board with HRG and Mat Hunt on CARM. The issue that arose was the Big bang. They contend that Tegmark and others reinvent cosmology, the big bang no longer accepted, there's' no beginning of time, energy of the universe is eternal. See Metacrock's Blog this morning for a discussion about why this is not a big disaster for the apologist. It means a paradigm shift which undermines the atheist ideology of scinece as the fortress of facts.

Before this happens, however, I argued that Big Bang is backed by empirical data. None of the theories they are discussing are so backed. That means they are willing to take pure theory over empirical fact because they like what the theory says. I don't know how many times I've heard atheists say that there's no empirical proof for God. The atheist ideology as reflected on CARM has always been that they have piles of facts proved by empirical observation and we not one single empirical fact about God. Now it seems they are equally arrogant about a position that has no empirical backing.

This is a disaster for them and they don't even have the basic smarts to see that. This is becuase it not only undermines their ideology and disproves their garbage having this big fortress of facts and we don't have any, it not only means they are special pleading but it also backs the basic theory of Thomas Kuhn which says that scinece does not work by progress derived from a pile of facts but by a paradigm shift (see Metacrock's blog. AT the very least, however ,it is special pleading. Its' saying that everything else requires empirical observation but not the one thing that backs our view of things.

I also find a poster called Hooks who refused to read my links or look at any documentation I used on the grounds that "'It's by Christians, and Christians are stupid." This is another from of special pleading. Christian prove what they claim (remember the thread I discussed "Christians can't handle evidence") then when push comes to shove they don't want evidence. While not all atheists did this way the fact that many have (I've seen them do this before lots of times--refuse to read evdience on the grounds that it can't be true) that just closes off discussion with those individuals. It also means something more, it means the atheist community as a whole is involved in argument from incredulity as their basic and only real argument. Even the scientists are arguing from incredulity. They are saying "I don't care what the facts are, I want my theory at any cost, even the cost of truth."

More Orwellian Atheist Lanaguge

I have noted the Orwellian nature of atheist language. For atheists reading this, Orwell (George Orwell) was a great writer who specialized political language. One of his greatest achievements was to write an essay which one of the best ever written on the use of language in political ideology: "Politics and the English Language," written in 146. In that great work he reminds us that:

Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

Never was this so true than in dealing with atheists. In the way atheist are beginning to use speech we can see all tricks Orwell talked about. Of course most of these internet atheists have not read Animal Farm or 1984 so they have no idea. But in their use of certain words they disguise totalitarian leanings one would never suspect. The totalitarian regimes of the Soviet Union refereed to their political dissidents as "mentally ill" and kept putting in mental institutions becuase they felt rejecting the worker's paradise must surely be a form of mental illness.

I've already written about how the atheists use term "delusion." They actually don't use it to mean mental illness. They use the term to merely mean "a wrong idea." But in using a term that everyone knows means a false construct which results from mental illness they are actually calling religious people mentally ill without having to admit that they are doing it. It's like if they said religious people are stupid. The religious person objects but they said "it's a special form of the word that doesn't mean really not bright," bu then they keep saying it. We would get the idea. It's like insulting people who plausible deniable. why use a special term such as this just to mean "this is idea is wrong?" obviously it's mean Otto carry a connotation. Now consider the dangers of labeling as mentally ill any hone who happens to disagree with your point of view. Atheism as a whole is become more totalitarian all the time and they can't see it because they are so addicted to the charge they get from feeling superior.

Here's the latest example of the Orwellian tendencies. They Dawkies use the term "cult" in relation to all religious belief and groups. Of course they have no knowledge of the true sociological meaning of the term. They think all cults are imposing their will upon brain washed lackies whose live they take over and ruin. An example is the posting by a CARM Dawkie named "Toast"



The title of the therad:" a few questions about cults" so he's just equating religion with cults.

If no one ever told you about your god you would still believe?

if so, would your belief mirror the one you have been indoctrinated into?

if you still would believe even if know one told you these things to
believe would you not just be making things up?

He's trying to say that because you can't come to the same conclusions you do as a Christain on your own with no Bible and no church to guide you then it must be a cult because it's others imposing their will.


another post by Toast:

sorry but everything...a religion is a cult

This is also the same tendency. Everything the other guys value we disvalue so every term they use we must re-think impose our own terms. We can't allow them to name their own things, such as "chruch" we must name them and stick them whit the connotations of our own interpretation. So thus Churches become cults. The irony meter is gong to blaring in a moment.

The really alarming tendency is the almost blatant admittion that ideas which don't stack up the atheist ideology are "dangerous" and must be controlled. This statement was made on CARM sept 21 2009 by "Mountaineer Elf.

Because some ideas can be dangerous. Not all ideas deserve to be heard if they are dangerous.

Trying to usurp science and reality to stick in your deity is dangerous.

The context he's speaking of is an argument for the existence of God. The idea that a new concept or some concept that he doesn't agree with is "usurping scinece" is quite alarming. What's worse is he's not content for scinece to stay in its own domain it must conquer all and control all reality. Science when is arguemnts for God usurping scinece? That can only be the case if he thinks that science proper domain is dictating to use that we can't believe in God. It's even worse that equates science with reality. His view is so totalizing that it must control all, there can be nothing in existence that is not controlled by his view point.

In defending this other atheoids literally said "O he didn't mean it that way and you know it." How do we know it? How could he mean it in any other way? In what way could God arguments userp scinece and reality without the idea that science is all reality?

Here's the Orwellian rub. In animal farm the Pigs control the farm. There's a revolution the animals have overthrown the farmer and changed the name of the Farm to "animal farm" they are in charge. The pigs are the leaders, they keep putting up posters with slogans telling the other animals what it's all about. But they keep changing the messages until they come around to mean the exact opposite of what they did at first This is the way totalitarians use language, according to Orwell.

(for a synopsis of the book go here)

Atheist used to call themselves "free thinkers." They wanted us to believe that they were just sticking for the rights of us all to think anything we think and believe anything we believe. Now they begin to define believing things that contradict their ideology ad "delusion" and "usurping reality." When I pointed this out Mountaineer Elf redefined the nature of free thinking:


then:

True free thinkers are those that can speak and think with accuracy and honesty. As a scientist, I pride myself on being able to read and understand the natural world and everything it has to offer. Not all of it is 100% right, but I consider the 95% to be good enough.

This is so Orwellian everyone need to see this. He's narrowed the definitive of free thinking to the point where it includes his ideology and nothing more. So free thinkers are people who agree with me. Scientists. The true free thinkers agree with me and nothing more.

But wait he's not done. It get's worse. he goes one better:

The rest of your anti-free thought rant snipped - not worth responding to insults. If you want a discussion, I'm more than willing to discuss. If you want to hurl insults, I can just go back to the Evolution/ID forum and have Creationists assume that I'm stupid for not buying into talking snakes, magic trees, and global floods.

now he defines opposing his form of totalitarianism is "anti-free thinking." This is just like the communists. If you are dissident you are mentally ill and sanity is defined as obeying the state. If you point out that he's against free thought hen you are anti-free thought because free thought has now been reduced to nothing more than agreement with him. To disagree with him is opposes free thought. So the person who thinks we should all have the right to think for ourselves is now anti-free thought and one who thinks we have to control everything that is not in agreement with the ideology is now the free thinker! Black and just become white, as Orwell said. That is exactly what Orwell said political language does. read it again:



"Political Language...is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.."

Then his cohorts carry it a step further and if you dissent from this truth regeime of the atheists then you are a danger to humanity:


May brick

So Metacrock would be happy for children to be taught that HIV is spread through vaccines and that condoms offer no protection?

You can't get more Orwellian than this. This is exactly right out of 1984 where the state has the right to imposes that dissents must must accept their view of reality even by forcing them to admit something such as 2 + 2 = 5. In forcing them to accept something categorically and fundamentally believe to be totally wrong they are eliminating their ability to ever think independently. That is exactly what's happened to many of these atheists and what they are trying to do to religious people.

In brow beating, intimidating, by mocking and ridiculing people they force them to de-convert and in so doing they force them to alter their most based and cherished beliefs and the fundamental understanding they have of who they are and what reality is. there is nothing more hinus one can do to another person. that is on a par with murder and If thought like they do I should start calling them murderers.

I'm sure they will come back and say they can't force anyone to deconvert against their will, that doesn't stop them from trying and it means they are shutting down reason and thought in discourse, they shut down reasoned discussion and reduce the whole situation to a political escapade. Perhaps this means they are not quite as bad as I think, but only becuase they aren't successful enough in what they are trying to do.

Orwellian Atheism

Now that we understand that the hate group has evolved from mere hate group to Orwellian nightmare we can analyze it more effectively. So far here are the indications:

Use of terms:these are all found in past posts on this blog so you can just go down the page and find them.

Imaginary: indicating the status of belief in God

Delusion: Also used of alleged fictional status of God belief.

Cult: used as synonym for all religious groups even the most popular

Description of the making of God arguments:

Trying to usurp science and reality to stick in your deity is dangerous.

superstition: used defined as Christianity and other religious belief.

Definition of Superstition

I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature ...
www.brainyquote.com/words/su/superstition226408.html - 14k - Cached - Similar pages -

The same kind of recursive and circular statement I just got through exposing. What makes it superstitious? Because it's religion. What makes religion superstition? Because it' superstition.

Defining "Fre Thinkers" As those who agree with atheist ideology:

True free thinkers are those that can speak and think with accuracy and honesty. As a scientist, I pride myself on being able to read and understand the natural world and everything it has to offer. Not all of it is 100% right, but I consider the 95% to be good enough.

Defining opposition to Atheist control as "anti-free thinking."


Freedom becomes slavery and slavery becomes freedom. Now that we know this is the true nature of atheism, reductionism and all the other isms such as scientism that go hand in hand with the hate group, we can understand the danger is no just to Christianity, not just to religions, but to all people who want to think for themselves.

Atheism constitutes a clear and present danger.


This time from T WEb. An atheist makes the statement that God is "only imaginary." I put up a great argument that belief in God is rationally warranted and that is certainly strong enough to be thought of as more than "Imaginary." The he tries to soft peddle the insulting implications, which I find is an Orwellian use of language.\

Me: that's more than imaginary, remember the title of the thread?"

him: Only if there happens to actually be a God.

My argument is that we have strong reasons to bleieve there's a God. He wants to be able to continue the insulting connotations while denying that he means them. But when I claim that string theory is imaginary too what does he say?


Im originally posted by JimL

Neutrino's are detectable and are known to exist, there is nothing imaginary about them,

Meta:

atheists just really have a problem with understanding what is said don't you? God is real and can be detected. What the person I was responding to said about the meaning of imaginary would apply to anything that is not directly and unarguably proved. Neutrinos are not directly demonstrated. they are not directly observed. You can detect them but only by their effect upon other particles. There still remains no direct picture of one. They cannot be directly observed.

We can detect God by his effects upon people, that's what RE is. It's God's effect, the trace of God.


Jim L

and string theory is just that, a theory, based on the physics of the natural world, whereas God is merely an unscientific concept that gives to us an imaginary explanation as to the meaning of it all.

Again, Science is not the only form of knowledge. Understand? science is not the only form of knowledge. that means it doesn't have to be science to be true. That means bad mouthing God by saying "that's not scinece is not an argument! understand now? that's not a point in your favor. it's meaningless.

it does not make God imaginary. Just because something is not science doesn't mean it's imaginary. Logic is not science, logic is not imaginary. Phenomenology is not science, phenomenology is not imaginary. Understand now?

You are trying to privilege your position with words.



Meta

you are special pleading. You are trying to say that science is the only form of knowledge so therefore anything that is scientific is automatically redeemed from not having direct proof. But an idea that is not a scientific idea, if not proved directly must be imaginary. That's crap.

You do not have the right to privilege our position such that anything you say is exempt form direct proof but anything I say direct proof is automatically required.


Neutrinos and string theory cannot be proved directly no one thinks that makes them imaginary. God can be known by his effects and by one's understanding of being, so God is not imaginary.




Meta

Yes I sure and I have.(verify SN) See the threads I put down on how atheists have the wrong idea of the supernatural. The religious experience studies and the effects of navigation in the world are supernatural, a prori. they fit exactly what the original concept was about.Its' a Christian theological concept atheists do not have the right to define it!




Jim L

and so you are left with nothing but the imagination with which to construe an ultimate reality or God. Whether God exists or not you can only imagine.

you are doing it again, give me some proof that anything that is not science is imaginary? why do you think you get to pronounce that? Science doesn't say that. Show me the scientific data that proves that?

Moreover, My argument is based upon 300 scientific studies and you don't have any. I can verify the SN by science because the first argument is the supernatural. Supernatural refers to God's power to transform lives, that's exactly how the word was first. That's what it means that's what these 300 studies prove. you don't have any studies. you have no studies.

score, 300 to 0.

Theists = 300 studies proving our position

ahteist= 0 studies proving your position.






Meta

I am left with 300 empirical studies which show that the experiences that led to the creation of religion are real, they are experiences of something, they fit the criteria we use to determine reality so we have every right to think of them the effects of something real; they are about god we should assume God is that "something" that is real.


Jim L

not direct proof but more than imagination!

Meta
they don't have to be direct proof. you have offered no data or any sort of argument to prove that these are the only choices, either imaginary or totally proved directly. That's a silly idea. That's not science and it's not logical it's stupid. do you hear me its' stupid. got it? it's a dumb idea.

you are making extremely statements and you can't back them up.


I have studies showing an innate concept of God in the mind of humans. That means God had to put it there because evolution can't.

[not direct proof but more than imagination!

did you read the op? do you ever read anything? The point in the op is it doesn't have to be direct proof because it rationally warranted. do you understand that phrase?

I said in the first post that my point is not that God is directly proved but that it's rational to believe. So you come along and say "not direct proof" so what does that do to the argument? It agrees with it so it must no effect it at all do you see that?




I never defined imaginary thus. It merely means the construction of concepts in the mind with no definite reality.

So now it comes out that you don't understand what is meant by "connotations?" Atheists are indeed ignorant. It's a connotation of ignorance and stupidty and childishness if not why are you not willing to say that string theory is imaginary?

Hawkings numbers are imaginary how does that make you feel?





Jim l

You can't prove it directly because whether true or not for you, like it or not, God is only a concept in your own mind.

Meta
what did I say about proving things directly? when are you going to start addressing the arguments?

Our Ability to Know Waht's "out there:" Discussion With John Lofuts

this was posted back in 09, Metacrock's blog.
On the comment section to Victor Report's blog John Loftus lays downt he argument:

Victor, without first defining the type of Christianity you defend here, Christian people can read this post and agree totally, thinking you defens their specific view. But you don't, and you know it.

Which Christianity are you defending? Get specific. Liberal, moderate, or conservative? Calvinist? Catholic? "Cultic"? Snake Handlers? KKK? Fred Phelps? You see, until you flesh out the details you are not defending a generalized Christianity at all, but a localized one. And if you think a generalized Christianity is good enough then that also takes a position with regard to a more inclusivistic faith, which other believers reject

The Old atheist divide and conquer strategy. There are so many traditions and beliefs they must cancel each other out. He also argues that religion is taught by culture. That is some kind of big problem for him. To that I respond:

I really have no idea why atheits think that's some kind of big disproof.

why do I like Ingmar Bergman? Because my brother and my best friend "turned me on" (that's an old way we used to speak it means they taught me) that he was the best filmmaker. So that he's not right? Because if you are taught soemthing then it must be false.

My father taught me algebra, so that must be wrong I guess? But unfortunately I was not the most apt student for him to teach.

If things are wrong because they are taught then maybe the valid reason for believing something is becasue you experince it? (I know Craig has had religous experinces). But no atheists don't accept that eitehr.

I guess the only valid reason is if it squares with logic. The problem there is everytime I show an atheist that it squares with logic he starts telling me I'm stupid and that it can't possibly square and that logic doesn't tell us anthing.


So really what I think it all comes down to is that atheists have no actual of epistemic justification and they just move form one methodology to another depending upon what methodology a theist evokes.

Loftus:

I disagree. You and he do not share the same kind of Christianity. I mean really, do you want to say that you are all Muslims because you share a common belief that a God exists who created the universe? I think not.

We'd have to flesh out what is essential of course, but what do you do with people who disagree on the essentials, like the King James only crowd? Write them off? Discount them? What about "baptism (immersion) is essential" folks? They do not recognize anyone else as Christians and will not associate with others who aren't baptized. Do you also write them off?

Meta:

I think you have a misconception about what it means to be in a religious tradition. You seem to think that all Christian belief cancels all Muslim belief so there can't be an continuity between the two. That's false. Why can't there be coincidental truths that overlap two or more traditions?

If Muslims beileve that 2 + 2 = 4 and I believe that too (in base 10 ok) does that mean we have created a third religion?

We'd have to flesh out what is essential of course, but what do you do with people who disagree on the essentials, like the King James only crowd? Write them off?

see the problem is you want a big king's X. you want this to be the big negating principle that wipes out the possibility of all religious truth, and it's based upon the concept that there can't be any overlaps between traditions and that's just silly.

two huge mistakes in logic here. Treating religious traditions like they demarcate separate worlds and membership in a tradition as though it's equivalent to knowing all truth. You don't have to believe that possess all truth to be a Christian.

the second one is you want to make all religious beliefs mutually exclusive even between Christian denominations, as though Baptists and Methodists are not just two types of Christians but totally separate religions that don't share any kind of communality.


Loftus:Discount them? What about "baptism (immersion) is essential" folks? They do not recognize anyone else as Christians and will not associate with others who aren't baptized. Do you also write them off?


Meta: Rupert's argument did not involve any specific doctrines that would demarcate any specific religious tradition, accept Christian belief in general.

Loftus:

No Joe, it's much worse than that. It's not that such beliefs are false. It's that, well, if you or Victor were raised in different homes and had different experiences and read different books, and studied under different professors, and got teaching appointments in different places then you could both be atheist philosophers and/or theologians right now.

That's how bad it is when it comes to anyone who claims to know the truth, and that's how bad it is when it comes to the claim that we as human beings can think outside the box and reason correctly, objectively and dispassionately without prejudices or preconceived notions. We can't, or at least, if we can, the only thing we can and should trust is the empirical sciences. That's our only hope. Science is the best we've got, and even science has it's problems.

Meta:

No Joe, it's much worse than that. It's not that such beliefs are false. It's that, well, if you or Victor were raised in different homes and had different experiences and read different books, and studied under different professors, and got teaching appointments in different places then you could both be atheist philosophers and/or theologians right now.


and If I had a different brother I would not know why Ingmar Bergman is. I would think it was Ingrid Bergman. But doesn't that cancel out Bergman as a great director?

Loftus: "That's how bad it is when it comes to anyone who claims to know the truth, and that's how bad it is when it comes to the claim that we as human beings can think outside the box and reason correctly, objectively and dispassionately without prejudices or preconceived notions. We can't, or at least, if we can, the only thing we can and should trust is the empirical sciences. That's our only hope. Science is the best we've got, and even science has it's problems."


Meta:that's a totally illogical position John.

(1) anyone with half a brain who has been college for a semester or two can come up with a position more sophisticated than "I know the truth." I mean come on, we not in highschool. YOu can't have to just shuck your belief system to come up with a way of describing that leave room for thought and for other view points than "I know the truth and you have to accept it."

that's the problem wtih atheism you love to feel supiror to religious people so you never give any any credit for any kind of brains.

(2) your argument is just deadly to your own position. If taken to extremes (do logical absurd ism thing on it) cancels any kind of thought.

(3) my own positon which I have elaborated concerns oter faiths is both logical and progressive and meets the concerns of the NT without doing any sort of violence to other groups, or excluding themf form the right to think.

if you want to know what it is read my book... when it comes out.

(4) what you say about our inablityt to speakt he truth about 'waht's out there' is a good cogent ponit. unforutnatley you miss boat in overlooking the fact that my theology is a mystical theology. The basic crux of it is that we cant' understand God. God is beyond our understanding. what we need is not philosphy or science or more udnersanding, because we can't understand it. what we need is experince.

nothing you say cancels out the fact that in mystical union we can approach the truth "out there" just becasue we can't describe it doesn't mean we don't know it when we hear that ideas that pertain to to it.

I think the atheists in this discussion are just attempting a bad argumentation strategy, divide and conquer. It may be a good strategy for some things, but it doesn't apply in terms of religious belief.

To pull this off you have to assume that all religious belief is predicated upon a Church of Chrsit or fundamentalist sort of position that requires the dotting of all "i's" and the crossing of all "t's" and in the exact prescribed fashion.

But this is just putting you in the box. You can't look up and see the broader truths or the more progressive positions because you are only on the look out for fund-like things that you can attack.

(I've edited a lot of material from the discussion but I think I represented it faithfully)