No Place in Atheist Thought for Thinking

 


The other day the CARM atheists surpassed themselves in stupidity. Given a prefectly good God argument, a valid reason to believe in God, they reufussed to answer it saying it was not a real argument it's not about tangible things. The argument was an all purpose disproof of anti-God argued based upon possible worlds. It was based upon Theistic proto pan psychism (the idea that our reality is a thought in a mind, the mind we call "God"). That defeats any possible world because it means that there is no possible world that is not a product of God's imagination. The argument was based upon two other arguments I make all the time. the first was the argument that God is the ground of being, And the Transcendental Signifier argument. I found a way to make them both fit the "thought in the mind of God" argument.

(1) God is the depth of being, all being has depth (god is being itself, same thing). Any world must contain being and any form of being in indicative that God is present.

(2) TS signifier argument shows that the organizing Principe is necessary to any organized world. thus god must be in all organized worlds. This might be bridged with the the notion of the world in the mind of god.

The person I put it up for never got to it until it was full of trash talk and stupid pissing contests. The others did a ridicule gauntlet thing and just mocked it and said stupid useless things for well over 46 posts.

Radiology:

I truly enjoy arguments like this. "God is great and perfect and wonderful because I say so and don't question me!"

Meta, you seem like a fairly intelligent person. If someone knocks on your door and tells you to buy this oil because it'll fix all your health problems and make your .. 'male member'.. grow to epic proportions --- Do you buy it? I assume you don't. Your God arguments are nothing more than snake oil. You can exclaim all of the reasons why your God must exist. Why? Because you invented him and you invented the reasons, too.

Maybrick:

Snake oil generously applied to those fine new robes being worn by that emperor.

Originally Posted by Metacrock

you didn't' read it! you trying to tell all about them and you didn't read them!

Radiology

I did - the first line of your argument. Don't play dumb.

Yes, don't play dumb. I can't answer arguements because I can't think logically so I quite reading after the first line because it's too hard for me, but you are playing dumb."

My answer: at least I have to  play. like reading the first line really counts as reading the argument.

Originally Posted by Metacrock

since you have 0 knowledge of theology, you don't know beans about Christianity (evidenced by the fact that you think theology is done by taking the OT literally) you don't have a right to talk about it. you are spouting Pi pi kaka which you know not of.

HillyBilly

Existing isn't a thing that can love or forgive. To say it is is to make a category mistake. As is confusing something with the ground of that thing. So, you've got double category mistake. None of this has anything at all to do with the OT. So, try again. And, psst, read up on theology yourself if you don't think maximal goodness is a property of God.

This is an extremely moronic answer because it means he has no idea what Tillich's notion of being itself is about. Rather than learn about it he just uses his usual literalism, he knows "existence can't be a person" so he's not going to wonder about it any further. He does know that God is supposed to have some sort of human like qualities that stem from consciousness and in his literalistic thinking existence is not a person so it can't have those qualities. Never mind what Tillich actually meant by the term, which I did explain. Even when they are kind of smart they are really stupid.

The idiot Radiology can't just leave it hanging that he is stupid stupid to read more than one line so  he tries to invent a reason why he could see at a glance my argument is no good. Of course this has to be after he went back and read more becuase I shamed him into it.

Originally Posted by Radio1ogy

I already explained why it isn't an argument - because for you to make the argument you were forced to invent terminology that defines your God as untestable. Get past this and we will have something to talk about. Until then your arguments are just jibberjabber.

He's insisting that I made up the term "being itself" no one ever used it before I did. So if I made it up it must be stupid he doesn't have to answer it.

Meta

I did not invent any terms for any of htat. every bit of that came form established thinkers who aware called great one was an atheist.

if you were educated you would know that. Tillich and Derrdia are not that obscure. you don't know stuff and you refuse to admit it you should just stay out of areas you don't know.

I dont' try to tell Hans about math.

Dneh:

I'd politely point out that science actually works. I might even go as far as to say that some aspects of philosophy have helped that.

Science "works" that is it's covering subject matter that is given in sense data so we can empirical observations about it. Does that mean that it always favors atheism over beilef in God? No of course not. Does it mean that philosophy and logic can't offer valid reasons to believe in God? NO, why would it? All it really means is the most immediately trivial aspects of life are more amenable to scinece.

Here we have that stupidity again, where the atheist says "scinece works." that proves its veracity so working is indicative of truth. But religious works too, the religious experience studies show that religion makes good on it's claims to transform our lives and make them better. That's working stops being indicative of truth. Just because it's an advantage doesn't mean it's true. In the world logic we call this "a double standard," or "special pleading" or "contradiction." But that's not scinece, science would all of those fallacies.


Originally Posted by Metacrock

you don't know anything about philosophy. of cousre I'm the last person because I showed you up.

Dneh 

I know enough about philosophy to know its pretty much a worthless subject, at least for me.

In part of the exchange he says I'm angry as that's supposed to prove I'm wrong. only wrong people get angry.

Meta

O think I'm angry hu. right in front of your face they treat me like **** and you think I'm angry what a genius. 

Dneh

Oh poor Meta!

O poor meta, O poor asshole. it goes on this way post after post all down the page. nothing in that whole thread that's even worth reading. I think this is all pretty hateful. That's evidence of hate group as well as shallow thinking and stupidity. they didn't even try to answer the arguments. they saw immediately they are not even willing to hold a civilized discussion. They are there to mock, period.

why would anyone want to be in a movement based upon being stupid? This exhibits the aspect of atheist ideology that is the most dangerous the reduction of thinking and all knowledge to scientism. Scientism is the obsessive love of science to the point of making it the all pervasive ideology and replacing all other forms of thought. That's what they have done here. Logic has no place in thinking now it's all scinece. Scinece works but it only works as long as it's in agreement wiht atheist ideology.

I just got through posting 2 essays on the tendency of atheism to reduce all knowledge to scinece.

A Typical Atheist Hate minute

this is the only way they can deal with the facts when they disprove their world view. The issue is Lourdes. They are demanding that miracles can't happen. Present evidence of Lorudes of course they have to crush that immediately. They begin demanding that it has to be bad evidence and pretending that it's all Vatican sources when in reality it's fro reporters.

this is with Steve Smith the idiot I debated who publishes the rag Berminham Free Press and who has written so many hate males to my blog. He's now going under "Blondie" because he was banned, but he also put up a page on me calling my mother a whore. He's really such a brilliant mature adult thinker.

CARM, today, no 11

Meta:

Here is my description of what's going to happen:

here's the little mocking ridicule. instead of examining the facts and argument logically.

first they insist it has to be wrong because otherwise they would be wrong so that cant' be true. then they start ridiculing the opponent he's so stupid that he can't see that have to be right.

the meantime the opponent who they ridicule for being so stupid has presented a huge amount of data proving his point and they just laugh at it and call it names and then they tell themselves this makes them thinkers!

so now what do we see:


Originally Posted by Metacrock

guy's dying. his lung's ravaged by TB. he's prayed for , his lungs grow back over night. That's totally inexplicable by any natural means.

Bull Shitter Smith

explain it then if you disagree.

I would love to get some evidence for this. The same kind of evidence one would expect from any extraordinary claim. Not some conspiracy theory about how the medical community is hiding all this evidence of miracles like the government is hiding all the UFO evidence.

Just some regular proof.

he says he wants "regular proof" so what does he do when he get's it:

Meta:

just to prove that I didn't make up the existence of the case there was documentation for it. it's not on the site anymoer but if you really wont to prove it you an get the way back machine and prove it.

Society for the Little Flower (Website) FAQ (visited 6/3/01)
St. Theresse of Lisieux

http://www.littleflower.org/therese/faq.html#4

"Regarding St. Therese, in 1923 the Church approved of two spontaneous cures unexplained by medical treatment. Sister Louise of St. Germain was cured of the stomach ulcers she had between 1913 and 1916. The second cure involved Charles Anne, a 23 year old seminarian who was dying from advanced pulmonary tuberculosis. The night he thought he was dying, Charles prayed to Therese. Afterward, the examining doctor testified, "The destroyed and ravaged lungs had been replaced by new lungs, carrying out their normal functions and about to revive the entire organism. A slight emaciation persists, which will disappear within a few days under a regularly assimilated diet." These two miracles resulted in Therese becoming beatified."

"Once she was declared Blessed, it took only two years for the necessary next two miracles to be approved. In 1925, two cures had been investigated and judged to be supernatural, through the intercession of St. Therese. The first involved Gabrielle Trimusi from Parma, Italy. Gabrielle had suffered from arthritis of the knee and tubercular lesions on the vertebrae. The final cure involved Maria Pellemans of Schaerbeck, Belgium. Maria suffered from pulmonary tuberculosis which had spread, as Therese's illness had, to the intestines. The diagnosis of pulmonary and intestinal tuberculosis was made by a Dr. Vandensteene, who also examined Maria after she came back from visiting Therese's grave. The doctor testified, "I found Miss Pellemans literally transformed. This young woman, out of breath from the least movement, moves about without fatigue; she eats everything given to her, with a very good appetite. The abdomen presents no tender point, when formerly the least pressure produced severe pain. All symptoms of tubercular ulceration of the intestine have disappeared." In reports predating Maria's return to health, two other physicians confirmed Dr. Vandensteen's diagnosis of pulmonary and intestinal tuberculosis. On May 17, 1925, Therese was officially declared a Saint by Pope Pius XI."


I know that's not as good as having the X-Ray. The next best thing is that I spoke with someone who has seen it and knows it's true.

MODERN MIRACLES HAVE STRICT RULES

BY DAVID VAN BIEMA


"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?"

try to follow an issue for more than a few sentences. this quote says that the medical guys are good and they follow the rules, which are good.

Leadership

Franco Balzaretti

Vice Presidente Nazionale -
Associazione Medici Cattolici Italiani (AMCI)
Membre du Comité Médical International de Lourdes (CMIL)

http://www.leadershipmedica.com/scie...10balzaing.htm

"And therefore, in this case it will be possible to close the medical report supporting a “certain and medically unexplainable” recovery, only when:

1) The diagnostics and authenticity of the disease has been preliminarily and perfectly assessed;

2) The prognosis provides for an impending or short-term fatal outcome;

3) The recovery is sudden, without convalesce, and absolutely complete and final;

4) The prescribed treatment cannot be deemed to have resulted in a recovery or in any case could have been propitiatory for the purposes of recovery itself. These criteria are still in use nowadays, in view of their highly logical, accurate and pertinent nature.

They undoubtedly and straightforwardly set out the standard features of an unexpected recovery and have actually made it impossible to put forward any objection to any form of lack of scientific exactitude on the part of the medical practitioners belonging to the Bureau and to the LIMC. The rigour of the Lourdes medical practitioners, whose scrupulousness throughout the years has been centering on the suddenness of recoveries, on the relative effectiveness of the therapies administered, on the objective evidence of the disease found, or on the shorter or longer length of the monitoring period (depending on the disease), has always been exemplary and appreciated by all the Diocesan Canonical Committees that have been called to express their opinion.

Compliance to such criteria has corroborated the seriousness and objectivity of the former Bureau des Constatations and, today, it continues to guide the Comité Médical International de Lourdes, whose conclusions have always represented an indispensable expert’s piece of evidence generating and motivating any further canonical judgements required to acknowledge the real Miracles amongst the thousands of recoveries ascribed to the intercession of Our Lady of Lourdes."

Bull Shitter Smith:

Do you have any idea what qualifies as an objective source?

he linked to some ridiculous page about shape shiting Lizzards. Does he show why source is Bad of course not. He assumes it's Vatican but it's not. Van Beama is not. He's assuming anyone supporting my position has to be wrong. It's a reporter and a major guy on the medical committee. He also ignores the fact that the medical committee is independent of the Vatican and that they have skeptics on the committee. He's just arguign from incredulity.


Originally Posted by blondie For one thing I didn't ask about Lourdes. Secondly, do you

have any idea what even qualifies as evidence?

I have stated many times as an example, the most widely documented miracle in the history of the world is the Hindu Milk Miracle.

that's stupid to say he didn't ask about Lourdes. that's my evidence. he asked for evidence. Hindu Milk miracle is fallacy of guilt by association. there's no basis for thinking that becasue one thing is a fraud that all things like it are. this is the typical sort of piss poor logic they use.


then the little bugger says:

Originally Posted by blondie

Where is this evidence of the guy growing his lung back overnight?

up at the top stupid. that's proof they don't read the material. I put it up but of course they don't need to read it because whatever it says they are just going to deny it.

atheists can't think they are argue from incredulity and that's all they do. who the hell would want to be part of that dumb person's convention?

Rex Responds With More Idiological Banter

 Here is Rex's comment in all it's glory:

There are so many logical leaps in this post that I could spend many many paragraphs on them, but since I don't have much time for your nonsense, I will just pick on this one:

God = being itself. that means God is not a being but the basis upon which all be is. "Eternal Necessary Being itself" means this: God is not an individual being but the basis upon which all beings cohere. Does not need cause since "eternal" means no beginning and no end.

Wow! Deep! And totally unfalsifiable! Typical!

So let me get this straight, the reality based thinkers go back only so far toward the big bang, and then they run into a wall with physics and mathematics and theories of how it worked, and you have a problem with that. That is understandable for someone who is frightened of an open ended question. Your answer is the crazy, superstitious mumbo jumbo highlighted above? And you think it makes more sense to believe in your story than to accept the scientific observations and theories that are honest enough to clearly show where we don't yet understand.

I guess it is more important for you to have the definitive indisputable answers now rather than wait for the correct ones, when we, or if, finally get them.

Again, I am sorry for you that you can't accept a view of reality without supernatural causes.

Go ahead and keep your security blanket of god if that is what it takes for you to be able to sleep at night.

I prefer to see the universe as it really is, not as I would necessarily like to see it. I prefer reality even if it means we have unanswered questions and that we have no one to back us up but ourselves.

Meta:let's break it down
 Rex:

There are so many logical leaps in this post that I could spend many many paragraphs on them, but since I don't have much time for your nonsense, I will just pick on this one:

Meta: You have already demosntated that you don't know logic.



(what Meta said before:)

God = being itself. that means God is not a being but the basis upon which all be is. "Eternal Necessary Being itself" means this: God is not an individual being but the basis upon which all beings cohere. Does not need cause since "eternal" means no beginning and no end.

Rex's answer:

Wow! Deep! And totally unfalsifiable! Typical!

Meta: First of all you don't even understand the nature of falsifiability or why or when it should be used. If you did you would know that it's limited to empirical concepts. Being is empirical in the philosophical sense, it's given in sense data and through first had observation, but we don't need the kind of falsifiability used in scinece in order to understand the truth of it becasue since nothing can be outside of being it can't be falsified. It's empirical in one sense but also a priori in another. In that it doesn't require falsification because the truth if it is a priori. Unless on speaks in a specialized sense nothing can be outside of being. The concept of being itself is clear and distinct and logically necessary.

Rex:

So let me get this straight, the reality based thinkers go back only so far toward the big bang, and then they run into a wall with physics and mathematics and theories of how it worked, and you have a problem with that.

I think he's referring to reductionists and empiricists all those who hover on the surface of real thought "reality based" because they can muster tangible proof for those few aspects they limit reality to, and he's not well read enough or learned enough to understand their tricks of the consequences of following their jaundice debauched ideas of the trucked mess they define as "reality." That school tries to reduce everything that they can't control to a level that must be doubted a prori, so that reality shrinks to the limit of what they do control. They do that so their concepts define truth and all that is beyond control (God, truth, morality, decency, goodness, love, friendship, social justice) they just defend as "emotional, subjective, unimportant, cant' be proved empirically (by our methods). 

The naive unread atheists like trust lambs march to slaughter and give all that makes them human because they don't want to think they want to be accepted by the cult and feel powerful. The basic tricks of reductionism revolve around re-describing/labeling, reducing to nothing that which they can't control, re-defining reality to the limit of their control. In re-describing and labeling they actually reduce reality to a level that concists only of things they control; reduce emotions to supertion, so that one can't sense the falsehood in their deceptions, redefine "the real" as only that which can be proved so therefore, only their control is real. They extend each of these tricks to a point that they never have to face the illogical of their view because any hint that their views are wrong is automatically taken out in the supposition that anything contrary is unreal.

Even when confronted with these diabolical and dishonest tricks, the naive little atheist can't see that this is the way con men argue  because they are so desirous of power and so longing to be accepted by the "in" group that they will accept any outrage against humanity and call withering of the human spirit as "humanism" becuase they need so deeply to feel good about themselves, but refuse so steadfastly to obtain that properly form their source of being (clinging to their pet sins).

Rex:

That is understandable for someone who is frightened of an open ended question. Your answer is the crazy, superstitious mumbo jumbo highlighted above? And you think it makes more sense to believe in your story than to accept the scientific observations and theories that are honest enough to clearly show where we don't yet understand.

Here Rex is spouting the propaganda that he's been brain washed into by the cult. He's so entrenched in it that he can't think in a line. We see in this outburst of sloganeering all the basic tricks I've laid bare. First he slanders the motives of real thinkers. Anyone who believes ideas contrary to his world view must be afraid and superstitious. It can't be that they are just taking a different view because they have a  different view and thus see the world differently. It has to be that something is wrong with the way they think and in so saying he is actually saying all philosophy, all application of logic to reality, the whole idea that there's more to truth are reality than studying wrote from scinece is all brain washed superstitious lie and all that could be real is the garbage of delusion that the reductionist tell him to think. The reason that's true is because the point he's making is that if I don't see it his way then I'm just afraid and crouching in superstition (which is what being itself is, to him, that means to him any product of philosophical thinking is superstitious) atheists can only accept one form of  knowledge and that is their jaundiced reading of science. That doesn't' mean that I think the true reading of scinece is  creationist. I am not a creationist! I don't think Rex even knows that. But atheists think the only alternative t their mutilation of scinece is creationism; atheists are as messed up about scinece as creationists are.

Here's where we see that he actaully this say:

And you think it makes more sense to believe in your story than to accept the scientific observations and theories

When he says that he's actually saying that unless you agree with his view (if you take philosophy seriously) then you are at odds with scinece. So not only is there only one from of knowledge that is scinece, but it has to be the atheist bull shit science that seeks to eliminate all other forms of thought.






he says:

that are honest enough to clearly show where we don't yet understand.

Of course I've already demonstrated that empirical knowledge is limited and can't answer the questions raised by religious belief or faith, it can't answer the question of being or the question of God so other types of knowledge are mandated a priori,. Of cousre he's condemning types of thought recognized around the world as major aspect of human knowledge and valued in every major universities  in the world, but his intellectual is much greater becasue he is he's doing so without having read any of the major works in those vast sweeping forms of thought that are as diverse and established as philosophy, literature, art, music, religion, and even the study of logic  as a discipline.

He claims that the reductionists (science to him) is "honest enough to show where we don't understand" but it's not clearly it's not. Dawkins is trying to reduce God to a level that scinece can eliminate. Rather than be honest to admit that scinece cant' deal with the questions of the major concern to humanity, he tries to reduce the level of concern to one that the atheist cult can control; the atheist ideology is primarily about control. It is the philosophers, apologies, and theologians who are honest enough to admit the limits of their inquiry..



Rex

I guess it is more important for you to have the definitive indisputable answers now rather than wait for the correct ones, when we, or if, finally get them.

The issues of falsifiability and a prori reasoning are way over his head.

Rex

Again, I am sorry for you that you can't accept a view of reality without supernatural causes.

Meta:Of course he's begging the question because he has not the sliest idea what supernatural means. I've demonstrated this time and time again. I've also demonstrated 12 areas where we have empirical evidence of the supernatural.. 

That is not a matter of empirical limit since there's overlap and we can have some empirical evidence of super nature proper. Of cousre he doesn't understand what that means because he's never willing to read the material the many times I've presented it. You see more of the data here.

Even the atheist Abraham Maslow undestood that sueprnatural is not supersticious and that it is empirically demonsrable:

Now that may be taken as a frank admission of a naturalistic psychological origin, except that it invovles a universal symbology which is not explicable through merely naturalistic means. How is it that all humans come to hold these same archetypal symbols?  The "prematives" viewed and understood a sense of transformation which gave them an integration into the universe. This is crucial for human development. They sensed a power in the numinous, that is the origin of religion."

"In Appendix I and elsewhere in this essay, I have spoken of unitive perception, i.e., fusion of the B-realm with the D-realm, fusion of the eternal with the temporal, the sacred with the profane, etc. Someone has called this "the measureless gap between the poetic perception of reality and prosaic, unreal commonsense." Anyone who cannot perceive the sacred, the eternal, the symbolic, is simply blind to an aspect of reality, as I think I have amply demonstrated elsewhere (54), and in Appendix I, from Peak Experience

--Abrham Maslow

Go ahead and keep your security blanket of god if that is what it takes for you to be able to sleep at night.

I prefer to see the universe as it really is, not as I would necessarily like to see it. I prefer reality even if it means we have unanswered questions and that we have no one to back us up but ourselves.

What is really hilarious is that you don't want to see it. Your eyes shut your head is in the sand. You wont even read the link.Ive devastated 200 studies prove my point about the supernatural and religious expedience you wont even go to the trouble to look at the one page and find out the distinction between the wrong idea and the right idea, much less examine the evidence. Not only will he not read a single source that I point to for proof of my view, but he has not one single study to back his view! He would rather just believe what his atheist handlers and brain washers tell him to think then to seek truth for himself!

I have 200 studies.

He has 0 studies

He's quaking about me being afraid to think about the other views (I was an atheist) he wont even read a single page I link to)! you decide.

The Great Intellectuals of DC blog

In my last blog spot I talked about the major intellectuals on DC that mock and ridicle those shoddy no good thinkers like Hartshorne, Plantinga, Aquinas. Here's more banter by these major intellects. I posted in response to "Russ" a few quotes by historians talking about how the social democracy of Scandinavia was actually put together by Christians (he brought it up doing one of those little Atheist canned arguments where they jump totally off point and resort to their canned list of what's wrong with religion becuase you are beating their brains out on the real topic). Notice how no one has anything to say other than just calling that material names. For some major intellects these guys really drop the ball.

somehow copying this out of the other blog makes it real hard to correct. It's hard to read because it wont post the way I sperate the words. But the bold parts and the white font in blue boxes are my interjections. The bold is what I said on their blog in response to them and the blue boxes are what I'm saying here to interject retrospective.

Metacrock said...

Through Europe the role of religion in the rise of modern secular liberal states is coming to be re-evaluated. Many historians are finding now that religion always played a more vital role than previously thought. Here'sa quote from a new ground breaking book: Religion, Class Coalitions, and Welfare States Series: Cambridge Studies in Social Theory, Religion and Politics Edited by Kees van Kersbergen Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam Philip Manow Universität Konstanz, Germany

This book radically revises established knowledge in comparative welfare state studies and introduces a new perspective on how religion shaped modern social protection systems. The interplay of societal cleavage structures and electoral rules produced the different political class coalitions sustaining the three welfare regimes of the Western world. In countries with proportional electoral systems the absence or presence of state–church conflicts decided whether class remained the dominant source of coalition building or whether a political logic not exclusively based on socio-economic interests (e.g. religion) was introduced into politics, particularly social policy. The political class-coalitions in countries with majoritarian systems, on the other hand, allowed only for the residual-liberal welfare state to emerge, as in the US or the UK. This book also reconsiders the role of Protestantism. Reformed Protestantism substantially delayed and restricted modern social policy. The Lutheran state churches positively contributed to the introduction of social protection programs.

• Radical revision of established knowledge in comparative welfare state studies based on a combination of country case studies and comparative accounts • Introduces a new perspective on why and how religion shaped modern social protection systems and gives a new comparative account of the formation of different welfare state regimes • Systematic inquiry into the role of the state–church conflict for social policy in advanced industrial societies Contents 1. Religion and the Western welfare state: the theoretical context Philip Manow and Kees van Kersbergen; 2. Western European party systems and the religious cleavage Thomas Ertman; 3. The religious foundations of work-family policies in Western Europe Kimberly J. Morgan; 4. Italy: a Christian democratic or clientist welfare state? Julia Lynch; 5. Religion and the welfare state in the Netherlands Kees van Kersbergen; 6. A conservative welfare state regime without Christian Democracy? The French Etat-providence, 1880–1960 Philip Manow and Bruno Palier; 7. Religion and the consolidation of the Swiss welfare state, 1848–1945 Herbert Obinger; 8. The church as nation? The role of religion in the development of the Swedish welfare state Karen M. Anderson; 9. The religious factor in US welfare state politics Jill Quadagno and Deanna Rohlinger; 10. Religious social doctrines and poor relief: a different causal pathway Sigrun Kahl. Contributors (contributors include:Philip Manow, Kees van Kersbergen, Thomas Ertman, Kimberly J. Morgan, Julia Lynch, Bruno Palier, Herbert Obinger, Karen M. Anderson, Jill Quadagno, Deanna Rohlinger, Sigrun Kahl).

9:46 PM, February 24, 2010

Anthony said...

Metacrock, first, most of what you've written here is a "crock!" Secondly, the topic of the blog is natural theology, how has anything you have written related? Can we get back to the subject at hand? On a side note (but related) I just got a copy of Alister McGrath's book "A Fine-Turned Universe" and will be adding it to my collection of books on natural theology. I hope to get around to reading it sometime this year.

10:18 PM, February 24, 2010

Gandolf said...

Metacrock said... "Wouldn't someone out there think "gee, are you a dentist?" Look out Metacrock you`ll go getting yourself so worked up, your dentures will fall out and then you`ll be left trying to gum all us nasty non believers into shape. Naturally someone might have good reason! to wonder if somebodys actually a dentist,dentists tend to mostly all follow some (common scientific teachings) with regards to research done into the practice of dentistry.They follow procedures that have been proved to work. It makes a very big difference if a dentist is actually qualified. This has not got much in common with matters of faith though.Faith is not scientific.Somebodies guess is about as good as anybody elses guess.A qualified theologian, is just somebody thats been taught to become skilled in reciting a certain type of dogma. There is no reason to have any trust of the faithful,their attempt at "faith science" shows its kinda useless.They all end up willy nilly with all manner of ideas,and yet nothing much that can ever be shown as being conclusive. Meaning there is far much more very valid reasons to double question and not trust the ideas of faithful folks,than one would ever likely have reason to question or not trust many qualified dentist.

4:29 AM, February 25, 2010

Russ said...

J.L. Hinman, Joe, JL, Metacrock, You obviously have some sort of cognitive defect. You would be better understood if you use a spell checker. You say, (Meta) I know faar more than you do and moer than you ever will I am much muc much more hintellectual than you ever thought of bieng. Today's intellectuals can and do use spell checkers. Cognitively or perceptually handicapped intellectuals employ such tools as a matter of course to decrease the likelihood that they might be misunderstood. Clearly, you don't care if you communicate well. Meat: That's all they do when you back them to the wall and they can't answer your argument bring out the spelling issue! If these guys were really intelligent, if they really had the great intellectual capacity they loved kid themselves into thinking they do they would know that spelling is not about intelligence! but they are quite stupid, so they  think it is about intelligence. You're an apologist for your version of a Christian god, but make no effort to make your message clear. You are fortunate that your god does not exist, since you are an appallingly bad emissary. Just general bad mouthing, doesn't even make logical sense. Undoubtedly, many of the heroes from your Bible's hit parade shared your lack of concern concerning being understood. For example, your version of a Christian god simply commands Believe in me or burn forever! Like you, your version of a god fails to communicate adequately, yet, like you, it insists on being respected. Like you it screams and throws tantrums and threatens, rather than facilitating communication through evidence. That your god does not exist becomes obvious when we consider that it has no action in the world and those who represent it, you for instance, are little more than buffoons and jesters, falling and screeching over one another to proclaim to us all what their version god told them in private. The rest of us don't get to hear what they say their god told them, yet we're supposed to accept that it applies to each of us, even when what they say is observably wrong. No extant god wanting its message to be brought to the world would choose you to make it happen. But, because gods don't exist, even someone like you who can't give his words the respect of a spell check can do the hawking. Are you perhaps transliterating your own speaking in tongues? I don't understand why you aren't more careful, more considerate of the words you write, since you claim to believe that those words can impart beliefs. Those beliefs become emblazoned on a soul. You further believe that your god performs a post mortem inspection of that soul looking for defects in those beliefs to decide if its owner gets shipped off to hell. Joe, if the words you write could be the difference between heaven and hell for some of your readers, they deserve more respect, more care, more love from you. If you know you have a cognitive impairment, deal with it. Don't create strings of words like "you hate God because he let you screw period," or strings of letters like "abaotleyl" and "intelelectual." To gain respect as an "intelelectual" you must act like an "intelelectual," which in part means dealing with your cognitive defects so that the language constructs you employ can be understood. Religious language is obviously human created and plenty stupid on its own without you creating an even more impenetrable drivel by fabricating random lexical and grammatical constructions. Since you clearly don't know this, let me tell you, in Real-Honest-To-God Christianity, only one species of sinner goes to hell: he whose language constructs interferes with other's understanding. Beware!

11:10 AM, February 25, 2010

the only things he had to say there were bad mouthing. no actual refutaion of the facts I brought out at the top.

goprairie said...

Metacrock: No one will debate you because your points have all been refuted and you still think you won. You are not debatable because you don't follow the rules. I would not play Scrabble with you either, because you would redefine the rules, make up new words with wacky definitions, declare foul if I rejected your non words, and when I had more points in the end, you would declare that I did not play fairly and declare yourself the winner. When you then asked someone else to play you, the self-declared champ, and they declined, you would be on here telling us no one will play Scrabble with you because of your superior Scrabble prowess. No one will debate you, true, but it is not for the reasons you claim. The reasons are obvious to everyone but you. You keep coming back with the same delusions and errors. Why?

11:18 AM, February 25, 2010  more bad mouthing, any facts there? no.

Anthony said...

Goprairie: You keep coming back with the same delusions and errors. Why? Not only does he keep coming back with the same erors, but with the same nasty attitude. People talk about the angry atheist, Joe exemplifies the angry theist.

11:25 AM, February 25, 2010

These guys are saying that the great thinkrs such as Plantinga are stupid and shit and they are more intellectual, yet they can't follow a simple line of reasoning and they make no attempt to refute facts with other facts but they are smart one's we are the stupid one's! I have the bad attitude!

goprairie said...

Breckmin: New genes: Obviously you don't know how genes and genetics work. There are not unique genes for every characteristic, rather, there are 4basic kinds of genetic material. They are linked together to mean different things depending on how their order and lenghth. Words are made of letters. There are 26 letters. How many words are there. What does it take to make a new word? NOT new letters, just existing letters combined in a novel sequence. By using some existing stuff, letters, in a new combination, it is easy to make up a new words with new meanings. The new word did not require new material arising from scratch, merely that existing material be combined in a slightly new way. Some combinations work as words and many do not. For example, I can add ge from genetics to turf from landscaping and get gerf and it makes no sense. It won't enter common usage. Or I can take gen from genetics and combine it with idiot and call people like you who make up objections to evolution based on crappy understanding of the basics of genetics a 'genidiot' and if the audience here finds it to their liking and uses it a few times, it has become a new word. No new letters appeared out of nowhere but a new word came into being. Take your genidiocy somewhere where gullible people live.

11:32 AM, February 25, 2010

goprairie said...

Breckmin: You seem to take a position that dogs and chimps and rats have similar biology because God like the design and reused it. Except if that were true, why did he include wacky stuff like the route of certain essentials of the male repoductive system where things loop around in ridiculous routes. The route makes sense if seen as a result of the ancestral animal switching from standing on four legs to two, causing the routes to get stretched out to work in this circuitous way. God would just use a direct route, you'd think. I.e., not reuse the parts that could be done more efficiently and effectively? So also for the routes of nerves in the human neck that make sense only as seen in the context of the horzontal spine becoming vertical. God would reroute those too, eh? If he was smart? Read "Why Evolution is True" before you trot out ideas like design reuse to explain animal body similarities. Evolution fits with how things are. God as an explanation requires us to accept ridiculous claims about God, like that he would think those things were good design.

11:43 AM, February 25, 2010

Metacrock said...

Metacrock, first, most of what you've written here is a "crock!"   Meta:that's not an argument. calling it names doesn't make it go away. I used several academic source, I am an academic historian. If you look at what John said about jme he says "this guy is the real deal." he called my school and he knows that I was a Ph.D. candidate nnwo you tell me my that's crock? hu? because just saying that is not an argument. you are not an intellectual. Secondly, the topic of the blog is natural theology, how has anything you have written related?   Meta:Russ alluded to The Sucker-man study you tell me! ask Russ, I was just answering him. can't you guys even follow argument? you want to propagate this myth that Christians are stupid and you are so Superior and you can't even follow a simple line of reasoning! Can we get back to the subject at hand? you never got to it to begin with. Natural theology is not about science and not about who is intellectual and it about Sweden having a better from of government. On a side note (but related) I just got a copy of Alister McGrath's book "A Fine-Turned Universe" and will be adding it to my collection of books on natural theology. I hope to get around to reading it sometime this year.   Meta:you are the one who wanted to get back to the topic! what does that have to do with it?

11:58 AM, February 25, 2010

Metacrock said...

J.L. Hinman, Joe, JL, Metacrock, You obviously have some sort of cognitive defect. You would be better understood if you use a spell checker. You say,   Meta:you have a cognitive defect yourself. Mine is called dyslexia. yours is called being stupid. you would be better understood if you a had a brain.

12:00 PM, February 25, 2010

Metacrock said...

Goprairie: You keep coming back with the same delusions and errors. Why? Not only does he keep coming back with the same erors, but with the same nasty attitude. People talk about the angry atheist, Joe exemplifies the angry theist.   aahahah what a pack of fools. you sit over patting each other on the back acting liek you are supuiror and you jus ta bunch of know nothings who never went to gradute school ridiculing great thinkers whose sandels you are not fit to clean, whose words you can never complrehend bu ti hav ethe attutide. Look at this, not one of you has managed to make a single substantive arguer about the subject matter. in this whole chlorophy of stupidity there are massive statements of how stupid theology is not but one single intellectual response to the empirical evidence taht I posted. you cannot respond to an augment intelligently. you even have to attack my dyslexia because that's the level of your stupidity. Plantinga is an idiot, you are the great intellectuals, not one of you can make a single substantive argument against what I said. I bet you can't even remember the original point that I made. Yea yea Plantinga and Harsshorne what idiots the why who spells stuff right he's the real intellectual.

12:05 PM, February 25, 2010